1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Are RNG's Truly Random? Not On your Life

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by Salem Inglesi, Mar 6, 2015.

    Mar 6, 2015
  1. Salem Inglesi

    Salem Inglesi Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    Tunisia
    Hi to everyone

    I am new to this Forum after finding the site through a Google search.

    I am a mathematician at heart, as you will see by reading on.

    I have been playing roulette online for some years now, starting with Ladbrokes and William Hill. Both closed my account due to disputes over the random nature of their games. I am now playing with 888 Casino. Overall I have lost a considerable sum of money but can afford this and enjoy playing the games.

    I have no issues on the technical excellence of these online casino sites. They are very clever and generally impress me with their reliability. However, I challenge whether the systems they use are numerically random; in fact clearly they are not. As a result, to have any chance of winning at all,one needs to play 'cat and mouse'. I am happy to explain this if anyone is interested.

    I have recorded on Excel over 13,000 spins on 888 European Roulette. I have included on the spreadsheet the stakes I have played and the number of spins per session. I have then analysed the frequency of numbers that come up; those numbers that double and triple; and those numbers that come up at least 3 times within 20 spins.

    This analysis shows clearly that the systems are biased towards numbers with no bets or low bets and against numbers with high bets. The bias is so pronounced that something weird, erroneous or at worst fraudulent is going on. The casino operators have denied this vehemently whenever I have raised the issue despite submitting supporting data.

    (the spreadsheet results are available).

    I appreciate that the operators cannot be recording bets on a rolling basis and by doing so rigging the results. I am also sure that the staff are generally honest. So, what is going on? I have my own theories and would be happy to share them if any interest is shown in this post.

    Please be re-assured that I am not a disgruntled or bitter punter, nor can I be described as "You appear to be an unhappy loser who will not accept the facts about the game.” as put by the regulator of the Gibraltar Government Gambling Regulator (incidentally these offshore operators contribute 25% of Gibraltar's tax revenue and not a penny to the UK or any other country. This I am told is going to change).

    I intend later this year to go to Gibraltar and address this issue in person with the companies involved. Should I get no satisfactory response I will consider taking legal action through the Gibraltar courts.

    Anyone interested in joining me, if not in person, perhaps in spirit.

    Salem Inglesi
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Mar 6, 2015
  3. Jono777

    Jono777 Meister Member CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    Self- Employeed
    Location:
    Wolverhampton
    Not to get overly involved as I stopped playing Roulette ages ago and now only play slots, both online and land based.

    I do agree with some of your points and a lot of forum members may disagree with what I'm about to say, however it is merely my 'humble' but 'very well educated/experience based, that's all :)

    Online roulette, roulette games on the FOBT's (bookies machines) and any other 'computerised' roulette are glorified slots/fruit machines.

    They are designed to make money for the 'owner' - Now this point could be argued back and forth galore and you could probably write an encyclopedia on it, but just for me personally the point I raised will always be my opinion of the 'bottom line' of these games :)
     
  4. Mar 6, 2015
  5. spoton

    spoton Senior Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Right behind you
    Have you done any statistical tests on your results? My experience is that alot of table games works more as slots, rather than card games when it comes to online gambling. They might pay out the same, but it seems like they are designed to bait the players and to make the games go faster. An example is the number of straight and flush draws on can get in Caribbean stud without hitting the 5. card. But it might just be me ofcourse.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Mar 6, 2015
  7. incrediblestuff

    incrediblestuff SearchingForTheHolyGrail! CAG webmeister

    Occupation:
    Currently: Self employed, Previously: Manager
    Location:
    Mostly the Netherlands
    I for one, despite immediately stating that 13.000 spins is, i.m.o. by no means enough to establish any indication of a failing or "biased" RNG, would love to see you elaborate on both the "cat and mouse" analogy, and the theory on what is going on.

    I would also appreciate the spreadsheet posted here for our fellow mathematicians, of which some are sure to be at least slightly interested:)

    Let's go from there, and btw, welcome to the forums!
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Mar 6, 2015
  9. rockycatt

    rockycatt meistercatt

    Occupation:
    carpenter
    Location:
    Boston
    isn't the house edge built in first ,, then the R.N.G. spins the balance of the winning combinations

    in other words they build something like a altered deck and then spin the altered deck
     
  10. Mar 6, 2015
  11. Salem Inglesi

    Salem Inglesi Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    Tunisia
    Great Replies

    Thanks to you for valuable replies.

    Will respond later.

    Salem
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Mar 6, 2015
  13. spoton

    spoton Senior Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Right behind you
    The RNG shouldn't have any relation to the house egde. The house egde comes from the payout table and any other rules.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Mar 6, 2015
  15. rockycatt

    rockycatt meistercatt

    Occupation:
    carpenter
    Location:
    Boston
    well that's what im trying to say that another function pre determined is set to insure house edge

    that way the rng picks numbers or symbols regardless of there stature
     
  16. Mar 6, 2015
  17. elrudo

    elrudo Experienced Member

    Location:
    Netherlands
    You may be able to find out when the software must be compliant with licensing rules.

    I imagine that in the near future (May 2015?) gambling software that is licensed by UKGC, under the 'social responsibility' conditions, must:
    display the rules of each type of casino game available to be played and a player’s guide to the house edge, and means or medium by which the outcome of an event will be determined?

    Also: think I've read somewhere that in Nevada, gaming machine software that uses cards or a real casino game, must simulate that game.
    (i.e. no 'built-in house-edge' but the software must resemble a deck of cards, roulette wheel etc. )
    Clueless if similar licensing rules apply anywhere else (probably not) :p

    Don't know which roulette software is used at Ladbrokes, Will Hill or 888, and am by no means an expert on this subject btw.

    p.s. is 13,000 spins enough for the statistical analysis that you've done? That number seems low. Care to elaborate on this?
     
  18. Mar 6, 2015
  19. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    Right, I agree here and said a while back that online table games like BJ and roulette (especially BJ!) DO seem to have the same algorithm as online slots and I will not play them. Now, before the hats get thrown in my direction let me clarify that they do indeed pay the advertised TRTP over time etc. but the B&M BJ 'grinder' will notice how the pseudo dealers in online BJ seem to have sequences of cards that'd even have Nifty chucking something at his PC screen. In B&M BJ you will have short runs of winning hands and losing hands usually in 2's 3's and fours whereas online you get crazy sequences where the dealer wins whichever cards you have bar the A-picture (and even then he 'draws' with you while this run is ongoing!)
    Conversely when your luck is in, you beat the dealer in runs when you stick on anything from 14 upwards and he always seems to draw and bust. the runs just don't seem 'natural' in the computer version.

    Back to the OP - he is suggesting (and we've seen this mentioned around the web sometimes regarding 'random' FOBT pseudo-roulette games) that the game is picking a 'reactive' result after computing numbers weighted according to their total cost to the game in potential pay-outs. This would certainly be against the principles and rules concerning RNG selection, in fact it would make the game a hybrid of UK AWP-style compensated games and a pseudo-random roulette game. There have been cases of dodgy games (remember the Spielo affair a little while back?) before and in the rogue section here you have mentions of rigged software.

    if the OP is convinced, he can post his observations here and no doubt one of our resident number-crunchers can calculate the chances of those figures being random, or their deviation from expected results in a random game. If they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that outcomes are being slewed by the amounts staked, then this would be very inflammatory. Over to you...
     
    2 people like this.
  20. Mar 6, 2015
  21. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom

    .... or just go empty the damn machine as a working proof of the concept:p
     
    1 person likes this.
  22. Mar 7, 2015
  23. dwa36

    dwa36 Newbie member

    Occupation:
    shop assistant
    Location:
    uk
    Roulette in the bookies has a complex algorithm where the numbers chosen are predetermined. Once the bets have been staked the number is chosen like a payout reflex. If the number has too much on it will hit a number next door. When you watch players staking £100 a spin and can't get the machine to go over £400 you know something isn't right.
     
  24. Mar 7, 2015
  25. paul7388

    paul7388 Meister Member MM

    Occupation:
    not a lot
    Location:
    glasgow scotland
    Not going into how fair or random roulette is as I am no expert.

    What I do know for fact tho is in the machines in bookies it is not a random spin as such. As soon as you press spin the number it will land on is already known and I know that for fact.

    When the machines first came out in Ladbrokes you could work out where the ball would land from the starting position. Its still possible on one of the roulettes tho theres a shorter delay now after hitting spin,

    In no way could it help you win as you only know what number it will land on as soon as spin got pressed.

    For example if number 31 was at top as game started I was happy as knew it would land on 8. If the screen went black for a short delay after hitting spin you knew it was going to be either 22 or 30.

    I used to know the position of the numbers I bet like 0 8 1,2, 3, etc. but cant remember them all off hand as not played it in many years since they changed payout amounts etc. Do know that some people in bookies knew every single number that the ball would land in from the way wheel was positioned. And that's fact as it never landed on a different number if it started in certain position.

    Not saying in any way the games are rigged as once you hit spin it will generate a number to land on but the spinning wheel is the same as a slot in the result is predetermined and the spinning of wheel is just eye candy as winning number is decided as soon as you spin.

    Taking it online roulette would follow the same sort of pattern as the roulette on the shop machines.
     
  26. Mar 7, 2015
  27. GhostRidah

    GhostRidah Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Horse Trainer
    Location:
    Wellington , NZ .
    Random Number Generation is Subject to its creation to assume that its function is to generate random data is a basic rule of thumb
    though statistical analysis could prove otherwise as to what degree : would require a considerable amount data to make any conclusive
    deductions.

    I'm assuming that we are looking at a linear congruential generator using the recurrence formula Are RNG's Truly Random? Not On your Life: recurrence.png,Mar 7, 2015
     
  28. Mar 8, 2015
  29. Matti

    Matti Senior Member MM

    Occupation:
    Business Development Tech
    Location:
    Sweden
    I don't think it matters what game you play. As soon you've pressed Spin/Bet etc it is determined what the result will be. The rest is just graphics.
     
  30. Mar 8, 2015
  31. bigjohn

    bigjohn Meister Member MM PABnoaccred

    Occupation:
    Swimming Pool Serviceman
    Location:
    Northeast Coastal USA
    If there is a formula it is not random. As far as I know, no computer can create a truly random number. I think the odd results sometimes seen are because the RNG is telling the casino whether you win or not, as opposed to designating what number to land on.

    In roulette there are 37 (or 38) spots that the ball can land in but a single number bet only pays 36:1. That should be the only 'house edge' in the game and is enough to ensure that the casino wins in the long run.
     
  32. Mar 8, 2015
  33. mathsboy1975

    mathsboy1975 Senior Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    software engineer
    Location:
    UK London
    In general you are right if the generation is determined by an algorithm - this is often termed as pseudorandom number generation and involves the use of a "seed". In essence a sequence of such numbers can satisfy the statistical requirements of randomness (for example a large enough sample subject to a chi-square test would not show a significant difference between observed and expected values) but cannot be deemed to be truly random in the sense that a dice roll is random.

    That said, there exist hardware random number generators that utilise a physical process to generate the randomness. In this regard the process can be considered to be truly random.

    Now the bottom line is this - a sample of 13000 observations means very little. Yes if you publish your frequency counts of each number on the roulette wheel over the 13000 spins we could perform a chi-square test to ascertain the likelihood that your sample is not random. We could also perform tests to ascertain if there is significant correlation between observations. But what the OP is suggesting is that the generation algorithm is in some way biased to output a number that results in a low house deficit based on the staking pattern of the bettor.

    In my opinion trying to prove such a thing is similar to trying to grow a second p*nis. First off, IF the house uses a statistically fair random number generator then there is no need for them to attempt to try and bias the process as the house edge will ensure a profit. What I mean by that is that in the case of roulette/blackjack etc, provided that the random number generated consists of a random event then the game rules will ensure profit. This essentially means that if the random number generated is a realisation of a possible observation in a uniform distribution (ie the next number on a roulette wheel is 0-36 inclusive over the long term) then there is no NEED to try to fudge the numbers. The same applies to card generation - the house rules ensure the edge.

    It boils down to whether casino software providers use algorithms or hardware random number generation. I would guess that algorithms are used but that the algorithms used provide a satisfactorily random (in the statistical sense) sequence of numbers. Now there are a number of algorithms available for (pseudo) random number generation and I doubt that game providers will release the details of what they use.

    I used to be a professional mathematician but my field of research was not ever random number generation. In truth, unless a member signs up here is a researcher in this field, I doubt you will get an answer that satisfies your requirements. Even if they did, I think the more pertinent question should be "how are random number generators validated as being suitable for gaming purposes". Anyone can perform a basic test of (uncorrelated) randomness on a sequence of observed variables but this will not provide the answers you seek.

    If you were a conspiracy theorist, then yes it would be entirely possible to provide a statistically "random" sample over a given sample size, but that still biased results to favour the house over the player (ie, churn out the number that minimises house payout and then compensate later when stakes are more favourable). I do not believe for one minute that this is how casinos operate but I can't see how one could prove this one way or another.

    If the OP is truly interested in finding out what goes on under the bonnet (or hood for those over the pond) then I would perhaps direct the question at casino reps, or contact gaming regulatory bodies and ask how they validate random number generators. I would guess that specific algorithms are used that are deemed to be the best available by the random number generation research community.

    If you were really interested and gained no satisfactory answers from casinos/reps/software providers, you could even approach academics who are actively involved in random number generation algorithm research. Academics are usually very enthusiastic about their fields of expertise and most would respond to a politely worded enquiry. I guess it all depends on how much you want to try and get to the bottom of things.

    For what is is worth, I personally feel that slots will be based around a pseudo random number generation algorithm (no idea which one) and for me that is enough to establish that the outcomes long term will be statistically valid. In this sense I have no qualms about the RNG being biased, but I am perfectly aware that game rules ensure that I will not win long term in the same way that I will not win long term in a land based casino.
    It is important to realise that as the player, you are not meant to win long term - you play for entertainment. The bad days will outweigh the good and that is simply how the game is designed. RNG doesn't need to be biased as the game rules determine that the house will win in the end - this is all any casino needs to ensure profit.
     
    6 people like this.
  34. Mar 8, 2015
  35. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    Mathsboy - I think the OP is suggesting he's pretty sure that the results can be 'reactive' at any given time. In other words there is a dynamic function which ensures the house edge doesn't deviate over a certain point in favour of the bettors, ascertained by the stakes placed before each spin and circumventing the fact the house will have the edge in the long term anyway. How he thinks this is applied I don't know. The easiest way to do this would be to have a fluid pool of RNG outcomes which meant on a spin-by-spin basis numbers with minimal or zero stakes were weighted in the pool.
    This though would mean the software is illegal as I read it.
    So, his question could be reworded to:
    "Is there a lawful way the game could have built-in protection from excessive house-exposure and still be described as random?"
     
    2 people like this.
  36. Mar 8, 2015
  37. Salem Inglesi

    Salem Inglesi Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Writer
    Location:
    Tunisia
    Much More

    If the system is not truly random (numerically) then how staff state categorically in writing that it is. My case is based on the casino operators being guilty of 'fraudulent misrepresentation', whether intentional or through negligence.

    Here for interest is a submission I made to William Hill a couple of years ago.

    William Hill Submission Mon 15th Oct 2012

    This provides a summary of findings and conclusions from William Hill Vegas roulette sessions during September 2012. The analysis is over c. fifteen thousand spins.

    Explanatory Notes

    1. The data submitted is for September 2012. Further data is available going back the last 12 months. This is as yet not summarised but routinely repeats and confirms the findings reported here.

    2. Some data is missing due to timeouts and balance errors over the month. This loss is relatively minimal and does not affect the direction of the findings in any way.

    3. The amounts of money recorded on numbers are those at the end of the sessions. In many cases these amounts will grow as the session progresses, but relativity remains.

    4. The summary of sessions (001_WHillSpinanalysis.XLSX) excludes sessions of under 50 spins and those where the bets on numbers are very low (eg. £0.10 across the table).

    Background

    For months now I have been submitting data to William Hill customer services querying and then challenging the fairness of their Vegas roulette system. My argument has been that the data has shown a significant bias away from numbers with highest bets and towards those with lowest or no bets.

    William Hill has repeatedly failed to consider or respond specifically to this data. Instead they have told me that they run a sophisticated Random Number Generator (RNG) that is independent of any knowledge of present or past betting patterns. They have also told me that their Vegas roulette is based closely on casino executions in Las Vegas. Here are their statements as they emailed them to me.

    “Let me assure that our games are fair and honest, and there is a very good chance of winning. A very sophisticated Random Number Generator (RNG) determines a randomized outcome of all games. We use it to produce all the results for William Hill Vegas games.”

    “Whatever the customer bets on has absolutely no influence whatsoever on the result the random number generator arrives at. The systems are completely independent and are extensively tested and fully certified. As all draws are played by many consecutive customers it would be impossible for our system to control the game to our advantage.”

    In defending their position, they have claimed that the percentage of amount won versus amount wagered is within expected ranges. It would appear that they have only referred to this number in responses where it supports their case.

    I have never challenged this particular data and this is not my argument. I do see this way of reporting as misleading and will be bringing it up in court should we need to go that far. However, my case is against a system that is clearly biased in number delivery against a background of a company saying it is not.

    I have also complained formally to the Gibraltar Government department (Mr Paul Fox) that monitors and polices online gambling operations out of that country. They have supported William Hill’s position, quoted that hey have done analysis of their own but refused to provide me with the data.

    I have all this communication in writing via emails.

    Having continued not to receive satisfaction, I have advised the William Hill senior management that I will be taking legal action against the company unless I get an acceptable response together with a reasonable-compensation offer. I will be handling my own court case. My action will claim back the total amount have lost on the William Hill Vegas roulette system plus costs.

    One last point to add and one I have made to William Hill. I do not believe in or accept coincidences. Everything is subject to the law of cause and effect. Too many ‘coincidences’ (heavily biased) happen in these findings to ring true

    Findings

    1. To highlight the issue (probably the rest of the findings could be classed surplus to needs), on 8th September the following took place relating to the number 23.

    Time No Spins Amount on£ Frequency
    11.25 148 0.00 2
    16.02 97 0.60 1
    16.38 276 1.55* 0
    20.26 53 0.85 0**
    * By far largest bet on table; ** 23 came up at 54th spin

    So 23 came up once in 426 spins, and never in 276 when carrying £1.55. Over this same period, all the other numbers on the wheel came up at least once.
    There are numerous examples of this kind of gross bias to be seen within the data submitted.

    2. A latest session on 9th October starting at 06:36 (outside the analysis submitted) and covering 193 spins resulted in the following:
    Spins Number Bet£ Freq
    193 26 0.60 3
    0 0.00 13
    3 0,00 10
    So, the two numbers 0/3 adjacent to 26 on the wheel (no bet) came up an average of 11.5 times compared to 3 times for 26 (£o.60 bet)

    3. Overall, the analysis (001_WHillSpinanalysis.XLSX) shows that numbers with no bets or low bets came up significantly more frequently that those with highest bets. This finding is consistent over 15.000 spins in 90 sessions reported during September 2012. (only two sessions out of the 90 showed the highest bet number came up at the same frequency of the most frequent number. ie.the two were the same number).

    Some highlights are as follows:
    a) 26/09 06:06. 61 spins; 33 up 7 times. No bet. 4 highest bet numbers up1/2 times.

    a) 19/09 18:05. 3 numbers covered (8.1%); first 43 numbers, no win

    b) 17/09 04:50. At 05:01 won £18 on 26; then reduced bet considerably; over next 37 spins would have lost £41.60 if kept with the same bet.

    c) Same session; 10 numbers on (27%); first 20 spins, 3 numbers up (15%)

    d) 14/09 02:04. No 25 up in 262 spins despite highest or second highest bet. Over the same session every other number up between 1 and 10 times. Then 25 came up 8 times over 203 spins.

    e) Over same session starting 14/09 02:04, 11 came up once with 20p on and repeated 4 times with 10p on.

    f) 05/09 10:11. Over 254 spins the number 31 with a 40p bet on came up once. The numbers 9 and 14 alongside on the wheel came up 9 and 7 times (total 16/average 8) with no bet.

    g) 01/09 04:39. Number 20 came up 3 times in 69 spins with up to £1.50 on; then 9 times in the next session with no bet (05:00 114 spins).

    I challenge William Hill to present me with similar patterns of results for high bet numbers. I cannot see them

    4. An event took place on 28/29th September when I deposited £50 and managed to run 1130 spins before these funds were exhausted. I deposited another £100 and ran a further 600 spins before a balance of £150 was achieved, which I then banked. So over a total of 1730 spins I managed to retrieve total deposits of £150. This has never happened ever before in my experience at playing William Hill Vegas roulette. The system would have wiped out my deposit well before 1130/600 spins. This took place one day after my complaint to William Hill senior management was acknowledged.

    5. There is some evidence as well of bias with regard to numbers doubling or trebling and also in the first 20 spins of the sessions. But this is not conclusive as are the above results. These are being analysed further.

    Conclusions
    These findings provide clear and consistent evidence that the William Hill roulette system is heavily biased away from numbers with high bets and towards those with low or no bets. Results therefore contradict statements made about the fairness of the RNG by the company’s customer services representatives.

    This leads in my view to considering five possibilities:

    1. William Hill is knowingly perpetuating fraud on customers. Unlikely for such a high profile company, but if so a Fraud case is needed.

    2. William Hill senior management and their customer services representatives are unaware they have a flawed system. Possible since software can be manipulated very easily. No case, William Hill and I negotiate a settlement out of court. (note comparison with recent rail franchise debacle).

    3. William Hill management and services staff does not understand how their systems work. They are thus unknowingly misleading consumers in describing the nature of their systems. Possible since these systems are so ‘sophisticated’ as reported to me. Probably a court case based on negligence.

    4. William Hill customer services staff is going beyond the remit of how they are to describe the systems as instructed by their management. Possible; CS staff sometimes have a habit of inventing their own words.. Probably a court case based on Consumer Protection and the Trades Description Act.

    5. There is another way of looking at these numbers that I have overlooked. I know that William Hill will quote me returns versus bets percentages in defence of their position. The results for the September analysis are
    Bet£ Return £ Diff %
    24,319 22,344 1975 81

    This percentage is low but misses some sessions which may be winning ones. But this is not my issue as I described earlier. My feelings on this type of analysis are not good and I believe such a presentation is misleading by the spirit of the law. I will be raising the subject should we go to court.

    It is also likely that William Hill will quote results of millions of spins that test the fairness of their systems. If the company were to divulge these results we would likely see all 37 numbers on the table coming up at close to the same frequency. I do not accept this analysis since it does not take into account varying bets session to session. For example, the number 20 could come up 5 times in 500 spins where a bet of £2.00 was laid on the number. It could then come up 20 times in the next 500 spins where no bet was placed. An analysis of the 1000 spins would show a frequency of 25 times, or every 20 spins on a table with 37 numbers. This would appear very favourable but would not tell the full story.

    I await your response.

    Adrian Denning

    And this which was sent to the media
    21 September 2013
    PUBLIC CHEATED ONLINE BY OFFSHORE GAMING OPERATORS
    Ladbrokes and William Hill guilty of Fraudulent Misrepresentation. Companies running online Vegas roulette gaming that is fixed. Steve Buchanan head of Ladbrokes Gibraltar and Ralph Topping CEO William Hill decline to respond to accusations.
    Playtech supplies the gaming software, selecting the roulette numbers through a Random Number Generator (RNG). Both bookmakers claim the RNG is totally random and fair. Analysis of live number sequences shows this to be false.
    As a classic example of many, 349 spins carried biggest bets on the numbers 0, 20, 23 and 26. They came up 2, 5, 7, 5 times respectively. 15 numbers with no or low bets came between 11 and 19 times. I have sent this data to Steve Buchanan who chooses to ignore it.
    Operating offshore shields the companies from UK gambling legislation and taxation. Both claim that the Gibraltar Gaming Regulator monitors their operations. This is a farce. The regulatory body in question works directly for the Gibraltar government that collects substantial tax revenue from the industry (c.17% Gibraltar economy) and benefits from significant employment on the Rock; a clear and open case of ‘Conflict of Interest.’
    I have in the past complained formally to this Regulator and received back a whitewash. The current incumbent, Phill Brear has now written five somewhat obnoxious and amateur letters, and I quote from one:
    “…we will not tolerate deliberate and distorted versions of events being circulated. Like you, we are entitled to take redress against any party who knowingly or maliciously publishes defamatory or offensive remarks by electronic or other means, and this includes legal/police action.”

    Ask him and or companies why indeed they are not suing me for libel, slander or defamation as I post this article and others before this?
    Mr Brear goes on to say:

    “You appear to be an unhappy loser who will not accept the facts about the game.”

    I have replied that I am a perfectly happy person, the facts he refers to are his and not mine and I am acting out of a passion for championing consumer rights and protection.
    Mr Brear’s latest outburst suggests that I show signs of personality disorder and mental illness and only a few equally misguided people take any interest in me. I seem to remember that the same happened with Gallileo when he pronounced the world was round.
    “I am sorry that you see fit to make public personal attacks on my integrity and competence, you should be aware that these are the same tactics of a small number of people who display signs of personality disorders or mental illness when faced with irrefutable evidence that they are wrong, but go on to run ‘campaigns’ on the internet. We are used to such actions and know that all but very few equally misguided people take any interest in them.”
    Both Ladbrokes and William Hill have been given ample opportunity to answer these accusations themselves on a number of occasions. They refuse to consider the data provided and refute the claims of bias and fraud.
    IBAS the ‘independent’ organization in the UK offering resolution of unresolved betting disputes cannot help, Firstly, being funded by the bookmaking industry they can hardly be called independent. Second, they are unable to take on board disputes concerning the integrity of companies or their systems. They give the reason that they have insufficient funds to handle such complex cases. Of course, the level of funding provided by the industry ensures they do not.
    Anyone interested in seeing the data I hold can email or phone me at the address and number below. I also have a theory as to how the companies are cheating the public, which I would present data-supported in court given the chance.
    Ladbrokes have accused me of veiled threats and blackmail. I have merely advised the company in advance, and at the highest level, of my intention to post my findings. This is after failing to get any satisfaction from Ladbrokes’ complaints process and as the sole option left to me, bar going to Gibraltar and suing them through the Gibraltar courts (you cannot touch them through the English legal system at present). Anyone interested in funding such a trip?
    Incidantally, I have looked up Playtech as a company. On the Internet. As far as I can see, neither their website nor their downloadable brochure gives a scrap of contact information. This in itself says a great deal to me.
    Anyone thinking of playing online Vegas roulette with Ladbrokes or William Hill, I recommend you don’t!
    Adrian Denning

    And a letter to Mr Topping of William Hill

    21 September 2013
    PUBLIC CHEATED ONLINE BY OFFSHORE GAMING OPERATORS
    Ladbrokes and William Hill guilty of Fraudulent Misrepresentation. Companies running online Vegas roulette gaming that is fixed. Steve Buchanan head of Ladbrokes Gibraltar and Ralph Topping CEO William Hill decline to respond to accusations.
    Playtech supplies the gaming software, selecting the roulette numbers through a Random Number Generator (RNG). Both bookmakers claim the RNG is totally random and fair. Analysis of live number sequences shows this to be false.
    As a classic example of many, 349 spins carried biggest bets on the numbers 0, 20, 23 and 26. They came up 2, 5, 7, 5 times respectively. 15 numbers with no or low bets came between 11 and 19 times. I have sent this data to Steve Buchanan who chooses to ignore it.
    Operating offshore shields the companies from UK gambling legislation and taxation. Both claim that the Gibraltar Gaming Regulator monitors their operations. This is a farce. The regulatory body in question works directly for the Gibraltar government that collects substantial tax revenue from the industry (c.17% Gibraltar economy) and benefits from significant employment on the Rock; a clear and open case of ‘Conflict of Interest.’
    I have in the past complained formally to this Regulator and received back a whitewash. The current incumbent, Phill Brear has now written five somewhat obnoxious and amateur letters, and I quote from one:
    “…we will not tolerate deliberate and distorted versions of events being circulated. Like you, we are entitled to take redress against any party who knowingly or maliciously publishes defamatory or offensive remarks by electronic or other means, and this includes legal/police action.”

    Ask him and or companies why indeed they are not suing me for libel, slander or defamation as I post this article and others before this?
    Mr Brear goes on to say:

    “You appear to be an unhappy loser who will not accept the facts about the game.”

    I have replied that I am a perfectly happy person, the facts he refers to are his and not mine and I am acting out of a passion for championing consumer rights and protection.
    Mr Brear’s latest outburst suggests that I show signs of personality disorder and mental illness and only a few equally misguided people take any interest in me. I seem to remember that the same happened with Gallileo when he pronounced the world was round.
    “I am sorry that you see fit to make public personal attacks on my integrity and competence, you should be aware that these are the same tactics of a small number of people who display signs of personality disorders or mental illness when faced with irrefutable evidence that they are wrong, but go on to run ‘campaigns’ on the internet. We are used to such actions and know that all but very few equally misguided people take any interest in them.”
    Both Ladbrokes and William Hill have been given ample opportunity to answer these accusations themselves on a number of occasions. They refuse to consider the data provided and refute the claims of bias and fraud.
    IBAS the ‘independent’ organization in the UK offering resolution of unresolved betting disputes cannot help, Firstly, being funded by the bookmaking industry they can hardly be called independent. Second, they are unable to take on board disputes concerning the integrity of companies or their systems. They give the reason that they have insufficient funds to handle such complex cases. Of course, the level of funding provided by the industry ensures they do not.
    Anyone interested in seeing the data I hold can email or phone me at the address and number below. I also have a theory as to how the companies are cheating the public, which I would present data-supported in court given the chance.
    Ladbrokes have accused me of veiled threats and blackmail. I have merely advised the company in advance, and at the highest level, of my intention to post my findings. This is after failing to get any satisfaction from Ladbrokes’ complaints process and as the sole option left to me, bar going to Gibraltar and suing them through the Gibraltar courts (you cannot touch them through the English legal system at present). Anyone interested in funding such a trip?
    Incidantally, I have looked up Playtech as a company. On the Internet. As far as I can see, neither their website nor their downloadable brochure gives a scrap of contact information. This in itself says a great deal to me.
    Anyone thinking of playing online Vegas roulette with Ladbrokes or William Hill, I recommend you don’t!
    Adrian Denning
     
    2 people like this.
  38. Mar 8, 2015
  39. Jono777

    Jono777 Meister Member CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    Self- Employeed
    Location:
    Wolverhampton
    These machines are 'capped' at a max payout in an individual spin of £500GBP.

    This also kind of backs up my previous mention that they are 'glorified slots' as the JP on slots on FOBT's is also £500 and not random as a B&M roulette wheel is.

    Sure they are covered under the B3 category of gaming which dictates this rule
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page