Are RNG's Truly Random? Not On your Life

[Salem Inglesi]

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

 

[Jono777]

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

 

[spoton]

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.

 

[incrediblestuff]

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.

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.

Salem Inglesi

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!

 

[rockycatt]

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

 

[Salem Inglesi]

Great Replies

Thanks to you for valuable replies.

Will respond later.

Salem

 

[spoton]

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

The RNG shouldn't have any relation to the house egde. The house egde comes from the payout table and any other rules.

 

[rockycatt]

The RNG shouldn't have any relation to the house egde. The house egde comes from the payout table and any other rules.

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

 

[elrudo]

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)

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?

 

[dunover]

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.

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...

 

[vinylweatherman]

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...

.... or just go empty the damn machine as a working proof of the concept

 

[dwa36]

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.

 

[paul7388]

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.

 

[GhostRidah]

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

 

[Matti]

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.

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.

 

[bigjohn]

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 View attachment 53272

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.

 

[mathsboy1975]

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.

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.

 

[dunover]

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?"

 

[Salem Inglesi]

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

 

[Jono777]

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.

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

 

[dunover]

The OP needs to replicate these results in 'fun play' to ascertain in his mind if there is any difference, as both real and fun mode are supposed to be identical. The only issue is, is that IF the real game was reacting to potential losses to the casino on any given RNG-pull, then the fun game would have to do the same. Of course, the paradox is the fun game has no consequence to the casino.

He states that WH quote that over millions of spins the number-spread is what you'd expect for each different number's frequency. I could believe that, but he does make the salient point that this does NOT carry data for how much was staked each time those particular numbers appeared. So, for example many of those numbers' appearances COULD be 'infill' appearances where the spread of real money chips meant that their showing resulted in minimal or no pay-outs for the game.

It is this which he is trying to prove.

The data sample is too small and refers to only HIS account and history of results. At present the OP is trying to scale Everest in a pair of shorts and sandals with no oxygen. This needs much more substantiation. And yes, Mr. Brears' replies to him are very arrogant and scornful, but we've seen that before on here, haven't we??

 

[Captain Chaos]

OP, I think your session samples are far, far too small to prove anything. Including the zero, there are 37 winning positions. A sample size of less than 100 per session is extremely small and does not realistically allow a reasonable, nor fair chance of all numbers getting hit. Of course it's possible that yours or any other number is seeing 0 hits with such a small number of spins. Given that one number can be hit several times in that sample, another number will have to compensate. For these results ti have any validity I would expect each session size to be at least 10 times what you have achieved. What you could be seeing could be a pure coincidence.

May I also ask why you haven't included all of your results and if you had, what effect this has on your conclusions? If you are so sure that this is happening, then surely you wouldn't need to exclude ANY sessions from your analysis, because these results will have been generated from the same RNG and the results should further back up your case.

In order for your results to have validity, all sessions have to count. Otherwise your analysis is just as biased as the RNG you are accusing.

 

[Salem Inglesi]

Responses

Dear All

1. The sessions of spins I have sent and referred to are merely microcosms of a bigger picture. I have over 200 thousand spins analysed which support my case.

2. I realise that what I am seeing on-screen are just clever graphics and that the numbers generated are predetermined. You are right, how the systems truly work is a mystery. But from the data analysed I would hazard a guess that the software recognises/records no-bet numbers and chooses these at strategic times (i.e.when the win total grows to big). THis is why there is a bias towards no-bet numbers doubling or trebling, or coming up more than 3 times within 20 spins (sometimes up to seven times). Thanks to you for this observation.

3.My legal case against the operators is not that they are committing fraud or indeed that their systems are not random (which as I have said, they clearly are not). My case is one of 'Fraudulent Misrepresentation', whether intentional or through incompetence. Ie.the systems do not perform as the operator say in writing that they do. Yo may say, what is the difference? Quite a lot really.

4. Note, again as I have said that the operators in Gibraltar do not come under UK gaming legislation. This is one reason they moved offshore, although they would deny this. The UK Gambling Commission is an independent body from government and funded from members' subs. Gibraltar's is a government body funded by a government who receives 25% of its tax revenue from the operators. Clearly there is 'conflict of interest here'.

5. I'd welcome being in touch with someone who can aid me in statistical analysis to check how statistically significant these results and findings are.

Many thanks for all the interest. Keep the thought coming and I will buy you all a drink on-line!

Salem

 

[Mnx42]

I once saw the 0 five times in a row on Joyland Casino's live table online (didnt know it was a rogue Casino)! My point being that anything can happen with "random" and surely this would be their defence..?

 

[Harry_BKK]

I am not a roulette player but do have a degree in maths (major in statistical analysis) and did a study on slots to see whether the RNG is really fair no matter what the betsize is as all casino operators are claiming. Here the report:

• Each session was started with a certain bet size, in total 30 sessions
• To make it broader I did them across a few casinos
• Slot: Thunderstruck II
• A. 10 sessions played with small bets (0.30 -3.00)
• B. 10 sessions played with small-medium bets (1.50 – 6.00)
• C. 10 sessions played with medium – high bets (6.00 –15.00)
• Each session for a minimum of 500 bets, up to 1200 spins. higher number of spins equally done on small, medium and high bets

Results for A

• Each session I ended in a winning position
• Highest amount of consecutive spins without pay: 9
• Average amount of spins between bonus rounds: 117 (highest: 259)
• Average payout in free spins: 53 x bet size

Results for B

• Out of the 10 sessions 4 ended in a winning position
• Highest amount of consecutive spins without pay: 23
• Average amount of spins between bonus rounds: 158 (highest: 313)
• Average payout in free spins: 42 x bet size

Results for C

• Out of the 10 sessions 1 ended in a winning position
• Highest amount of consecutive spins without pay: 47 (@ 9.00$/bet)
• Average amount of spins between bonus rounds: 206 (highest: 747)
• Average payout in free spins: 23 x bet size

The sample number seemed to small for me so i did a second one over a much longer period and a number of casinos on the slot CENTRE COURT where i do play very often with small bets when i am low on funds as it has stacked wilds in free spins and quite often pays >100x bet. Here the results:

Total amount of spins: 250,000, appr. equally shared on 3 bet sizes
Minimum amount of spins/session: 1,000
Small bets: 0.09 - 0.45$
Medium bets: 0.90 - 4.50$
High bets: 4.50 - 22.50$

Small bets:

• 78% of sessions ended in winning position
• 28% of free spins rounds paid more than 100x bet
• 134 spins - average amount of spins between bonus rounds

Medium bets:

• 54% of sessions ended in winning position
• 23% of free spin rounds paid more than 100x bet
• 176 spins - average amount of spins between bonus rounds

High bets:

• 17% of sessions ended in winning position
• 9% of free spin rounds paid more than 100x bet
• 218 spins - average amount of spins between bonus rounds

Conclusion

Exactly the same trends as on Thunderstruck 2. From a scientific point of view the results are clear and I have to conclude that the RNG outcome favors indeed small bets!!!


EDIT: Personally. i think that this is intended by the software providers and casino operators since the majority of the players bet small stakes on each spin/bet but are only contributing maybe 25% for their turnover. Favor these to keep a good player base and those who bet high are financing the system or providing that the casino stays profitable.

 

[Captain Chaos]

IIRC, MG use a centralized RNG? So these results should be easily replicated at any other MG casino? At one casino only it could be classed as a bad run. If you really wanted to prove that the RNG at MG in this case was not as they say then doing the same at other MG casinos would add significant weight to your results if they achieved broadly similar outcomes.

Do you still have the original data or spreadsheets by any chance?

 

[Harry_BKK]

IIRC, MG use a centralized RNG? So these results should be easily replicated at any other MG casino? At one casino only it could be classed as a bad run. If you really wanted to prove that the RNG at MG in this case was not as they say then doing the same at other MG casinos would add significant weight to your results if they achieved broadly similar outcomes.

Do you still have the original data or spreadsheets by any chance?

here from my previous post:

To make it broader I did them across a few casinos

i did a second one over a much longer period and a number of casinos

Trust me i did my scientific due diligence with regards to sample sizes, different times of the day, different casinos etc.

However, i have thought very long about posting this as i knew i would probably open a can of worms. Yes, i do still have the data recorded on a spreadsheet but sorry, i will not share nor publish it as i don't want to get involved in any kind of dispute. The results are clear to me.

We all have to remember that this is a piece of software written by people (MG, Netent etc) to make profit for an operator. Anything involving making a profit is rarely fair and square or completely random in the case of betting on a slot or roulette.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I have one more example which for me as a scientist starts the alarm bells ringing:

Mega Moolah - Progressive Jackpot slots.

If you click "View Payout" it says on the top of the first page: "The higher you bet the greater your chances of winning the progressive jackpot". Yet when I see the winners of the Mega Jackpot (which starts at 1Mio) it was won by an unusually high number of people betting 0.25 or 0.50 cents. Very rarely it was won by somebody playing max bets for these slots.

To me this is as well intended by the operators to encourage players to play high bets, hence getting the jackpot higher to attract more players and ultimately higher profits for the operators.

Yet higher bets do not seem to get the big jackpot pays more often then small bets as the above quoted sentence implies.

 

[dunover]

I have one more example which for me as a scientist starts the alarm bells ringing:

Mega Moolah - Progressive Jackpot slots.

If you click "View Payout" it says on the top of the first page: "The higher you bet the greater your chances of winning the progressive jackpot". Yet when I see the winners of the Mega Jackpot (which starts at 1Mio) it was won by an unusually high number of people betting 0.25 or 0.50 cents. Very rarely it was won by somebody playing max bets for these slots.

To me this is as well intended by the operators to encourage players to play high bets, hence getting the jackpot higher to attract more players and ultimately higher profits for the operators.

Yet higher bets do not seem to get the big jackpot pays more often then small bets as the above quoted sentence implies.

Because the majority of stakes are placed by small bettors.
These pooled jackpots work on a 'lottery' basis. One minimum 1c unit CAN win a prize, so betting 25c gives you 25 chances and so-on. Therefore as they say, betting bigger DOES improve your chance on any particular spin.
Given that at each moment the majority of play is on low stakes, overall the jackpot will target smaller bettors.

P.S. Your evidence suggests that the pool for the RNG must change in order to reduce the casino's liability as stakes as raised. This is similar to what the OP is suggesting on the roulette game.

 

[mathsboy1975]

here from my previous post:





Trust me i did my scientific due diligence with regards to sample sizes, different times of the day, different casinos etc.

However, i have thought very long about posting this as i knew i would probably open a can of worms. Yes, i do still have the data recorded on a spreadsheet but sorry, i will not share nor publish it as i don't want to get involved in any kind of dispute. The results are clear to me.

We all have to remember that this is a piece of software written by people (MG, Netent etc) to make profit for an operator. Anything involving making a profit is rarely fair and square or completely random in the case of betting on a slot or roulette.

What you are effectively claiming here is that for slot machines, the TRTP decreases as the stake increases but this should be fairly easy to test. I am not questioning your figures or analysis but I disagree with your conclusion.

If we adopt the conspiracy theory stance, then surely it makes more sense that the casinos encourage higher stake players, not penalize them with lower RTP. I am sorry but I just cannot see this happening. WHY would operators would do this when the system is in their favour already.

Having said all that it would be simple enough for anyone to access their playcheck logs, stratify their gaming history by stake value and analyse the RTP on a per stake per slot basis.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Because the majority of stakes are placed by small bettors.
These pooled jackpots work on a 'lottery' basis. One minimum 1c unit CAN win a prize, so betting 25c gives you 25 chances and so-on. Therefore as they say, betting bigger DOES improve your chance on any particular spin.
Given that at each moment the majority of play is on low stakes, overall the jackpot will target smaller bettors.

I understand that. So let's do some maths on the basis that every unit you bet higher will give you a better chance at winning the jackpot, e.g. 25 cents = 25 chances, 50 cents = 50 chances etc. and we have this case at one point across the network:

200 players betting @ 25 cents = 5,000 chances
10 players betting @ 625 cents = 6,250 chances

Statistically, one of the 10 players should win more often the mega jackpot than one of the 200 players, and this is by far not the case. You can follow the whole history of the MG Mega Moolah Jackpot winners ever since it was released more than a decade ago and will find that most were won with small bets, although statistically it should be different.

 

[mathsboy1975]

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?"

If we stick with roulette for now, then surely the only feasible way to implement the game is with a random number generator that produces an integer from 0 to 36 inclusive. It simply cannot operate like a slot machine (i.e. return 1.5 x stake profit for the next spin for example) as the win outcomes have fixed odds. Therefore the fairness can be determined only by the distribution of the spin outcomes. If you throw into the mix a weighting such that a bet placed that puts the house exposure over a threshold results in the probability of that outcome occurring being reduced then this surely HAS to be illegal? In fact surely any RNG that takes a players stake (or some function of the stake) as an INPUT should be illegal??? Furthermore, such manipulations would ultimately affect the TRTP in a measurable way such that higher stake players would see evidence of a lower TRTP??? This could be statistically measured.

It is very different in the situation in a real casino where the croupier can attempt (with some degree of success I am led to believe) to target a section of the wheel that is favourable to the house when the spread of bets across ALL players can result in a big house loss should the ball lands in a certain area.

When it comes to roulette, I simply do not understand why a casino operator would risk its reputation by trying to increase its edge when the game in its natural state is mathematically proven to make them money regardless!

With all of these conspiracy theories floating about, it makes me think it would be a good idea to start a company that produces open source slot machines so that everything is above board and players, operators and gambling regulators know exactly what is going on.

 

[Harry_BKK]

What you are effectively claiming here is that for slot machines, the TRTP decreases as the stake increases but this should be fairly easy to test. I am not questioning your figures or analysis but I disagree with your conclusion.

If we adopt the conspiracy theory stance, then surely it makes more sense that the casinos encourage higher stake players, not penalize them with lower RTP. I am sorry but I just cannot see this happening. WHY would operators would do this when the system is in their favour already.

Having said all that it would be simple enough for anyone to access their playcheck logs, stratify their gaming history by stake value and analyse the RTP on a per stake per slot basis.

I did not want to believe it either as i was a medium-to-high roller for years and was hardly ever able to make a withdrawal and always thought that i am just having bad luck.

Hence the reason why after the first test i did a second one with a much larger sample size at more MG casinos from different groups over a longer period of time. Although the results are not exactly the same, the trend shows clearly that the RTP decreases with higher bets.

For me as a scientist a truly random result from a limited number of available outcomes (millions on the newer slots) should average out over time with a large enough sample size, no matter what you bet. And this was never the case as my results are showing.

I might be completely wrong at this, just wanted to share my experience.

 

[mathsboy1975]

I understand that. So let's do some maths on the basis that every unit you bet higher will give you a better chance at winning the jackpot, e.g. 25 cents = 25 chances, 50 cents = 50 chances etc. and we have this case at one point across the network:

200 players betting @ 25 cents = 5,000 chances
10 players betting @ 625 cents = 6,250 chances

Statistically, one of the 10 players should win more often the mega jackpot than one of the 200 players, and this is by far not the case. You can follow the whole history of the MG Mega Moolah Jackpot winners ever since it was released more than a decade ago and will find that most were won with small bets, although statistically it should be different.

But the number of jackpot wins itself is actually a very small number compared to the amount of jackpot entries so it is hard to read too much into that. Compare the situation with playtech marvel jackpots. I have played playtech games for a long time as they are my favourite. In terms of turnover I have staked literally hundreds of thousands of pounds on these machines. Last week I hit the lowest marvel jackpot possible (£63) after a prolonged period of betting over £15 per spin (I had a good run and was up over £4k at one point so upped my stake considerably). So in terms of the marvel jackpot setup, my personal experience DOES match what you are proposing in your post.

Edit: Should mention that this was the ONLY time ever that I had a shot at the marvel jackpot

 

[dwa36]

All online RNG gaming isn't what it seems. I agree with the slot games biased towards lower stakes. I will say this if you play online roulette your numbers seem to go missing. But if you play £1 red/black just to see the results the numbers you would choose come in more regularly than when the chips on. The gaming companies online and in bookmakers are fully aware the games aren't honest same as the government but as long as the money comes in is all that matters to them. If you want to see how easy for the companies to cheat players go to a site virg....gami and watch online bingo with 75% of the players bots winning the prices. It is legalised robbery.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Seeing as from what I can remember, bingo sites automatically or at least have the option of automatically marking the numbers etc, I rather fail to see what a bingo bot could add? I thought most people went on their, paid, let the software do the work while they all chatted away in the chat box? I'm no online bingo expert admittedly. But that's how I thought it worked anyway. Why you would need a bot I've no idea!

 

[cncas123]

I am not a mathmetician, I am not an overly intelligent person, but what I do know is that in my experience of online roulette, at some stage of playing you will always hit a freezing cold run where no matter what numbers you are on they will not come in. And worse than that is that when you change your bet/stake, the numbers that previously carried the larger stakes but have had them removed, invariably fall in. Maybe its just that we notice this more on a losing streak, and we dont appreciate the randomness of the whole process, or maybe we just need the tinfoil hats, but it makes a myth of the randomness of a RNG on roulette, either online or in the bookies.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I can perhaps concur with the suspicion about bookie machines. I see the FOBTs as simply glorified fruit machines. I refuse to play them.

 

[RichieRespin]

Please remember that the source code for the game servers of the suppliers (MG, NetEnt, etc) are heavily checked and verified by several independent compliance agencies. The test houses do their own runs on the software, to check the correctness of the software, and the server software itself is heavily scrutinized.

As a software engineer, I can tell you how easy it would be to detect any type of foul play in these types of applications. And if a company like MG were to lose their license in one jurisdiction due to a systematic and conscious effort to cheat not just the players but the regulatory agencies, they would get kicked out of other jurisdictions very swiftly.

Why on earth would they risk getting booted out of this industry? To make a few extra bucks? They are already raking in cash and this kind of complete cheating makes no sense at all.

 

[spoton]

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.

The chance of not hitting one number over 276 rolls aint that small (37/38)^276=0.00064, vs for example the probability of hitting the same number twice in a row that would be (1/38)^2=0.00069 if I'm not thinking wrong. These things do happend, and if you are to proove something you need more than 5-15 such occurences.

 

[dunover]

Please remember that the source code for the game servers of the suppliers (MG, NetEnt, etc) are heavily checked and verified by several independent compliance agencies. The test houses do their own runs on the software, to check the correctness of the software, and the server software itself is heavily scrutinized.

As a software engineer, I can tell you how easy it would be to detect any type of foul play in these types of applications. And if a company like MG were to lose their license in one jurisdiction due to a systematic and conscious effort to cheat not just the players but the regulatory agencies, they would get kicked out of other jurisdictions very swiftly.

Why on earth would they risk getting booted out of this industry? To make a few extra bucks? They are already raking in cash and this kind of complete cheating makes no sense at all.

Are you aware by any chance of how these checks are conducted? Are the checks made of real-play or just a fun-mode basis? This could be important as the allegations are that firstly (and this HAS been proven in both the Spielo affair and on some iffy software mentioned in the rogue section) the game reacts differently to real-money play by being 'stake-sensitive' and secondly the real-play game differs from fun-play. Both are forbidden.

So, it's all very well testing a game's programming by pumping it for millions of results to establish there is a fair, reasonable and expected spread of outcomes, i.e. on BJ and roulette - that just means the basic RNG and overall TRTP function is being confirmed. But do these tests actually use random bet amounts/stakes and analyse if the RNG then produces a different result? This is where some people allege the disparity is - winning is being 'managed' somehow.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Please remember that the source code for the game servers of the suppliers (MG, NetEnt, etc) are heavily checked and verified by several independent compliance agencies. The test houses do their own runs on the software, to check the correctness of the software, and the server software itself is heavily scrutinized.

As a software engineer, I can tell you how easy it would be to detect any type of foul play in these types of applications. And if a company like MG were to lose their license in one jurisdiction due to a systematic and conscious effort to cheat not just the players but the regulatory agencies, they would get kicked out of other jurisdictions very swiftly.

Why on earth would they risk getting booted out of this industry? To make a few extra bucks? They are already raking in cash and this kind of complete cheating makes no sense at all.

That reads itself like something from dreamland Richie. Authorities, agencies that care about players, that would be something new to me.

Do you really think that these agencies & authorities, which are very often funded by casinos, are employing software geniuses who are able to detect complex software tweaks?

Did you know that for years RTG software operators could set an RTP themselves for every player!!! And the authorities, agencies etc were all OK with it because they were told that the RTP values could only be changed in a certain bandwidth.

"To make a few extra bucks?" - we are talking here possible 10's or even 100's of millions in extra profit every year, not just a few bucks. Always room for greed when these kind of money is involved.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Are you aware by any chance of how these checks are conducted? Are the checks made of real-play or just a fun-mode basis? This could be important as the allegations are that firstly (and this HAS been proven in both the Spielo affair and on some iffy software mentioned in the rogue section) the game reacts differently to real-money play by being 'stake-sensitive' and secondly the real-play game differs from fun-play. Both are forbidden.

So, it's all very well testing a game's programming by pumping it for millions of results to establish there is a fair, reasonable and expected spread of outcomes, i.e. on BJ and roulette - that just means the basic RNG and overall TRTP function is being confirmed. But do these tests actually use random bet amounts/stakes and analyse if the RNG then produces a different result? This is where some people allege the disparity is - winning is being 'managed' somehow.

If casino software is 'reactive' to the size of bets and/or betting strategy, then audits or 'checks' using flat-betting isn't going to reveal a rigged game.

 

[dunover]

If casino software is 'reactive' to the size of bets and/or betting strategy, then audits or 'checks' using flat-betting isn't going to reveal a rigged game.

Yes, that's what I was getting at - it's all HOW the testing of the software is done. Would it be possible to get this sort of reactive mechanism past the checking system?

 

[nisosbar]

....

 

[RichieRespin]

Are you aware by any chance of how these checks are conducted? Are the checks made of real-play or just a fun-mode basis? This could be important as the allegations are that firstly (and this HAS been proven in both the Spielo affair and on some iffy software mentioned in the rogue section) the game reacts differently to real-money play by being 'stake-sensitive' and secondly the real-play game differs from fun-play. Both are forbidden.

So, it's all very well testing a game's programming by pumping it for millions of results to establish there is a fair, reasonable and expected spread of outcomes, i.e. on BJ and roulette - that just means the basic RNG and overall TRTP function is being confirmed. But do these tests actually use random bet amounts/stakes and analyse if the RNG then produces a different result? This is where some people allege the disparity is - winning is being 'managed' somehow.

I don't know exactly how these tests are conducted, but I do know that the testing houses aren't fools, and that they examine the entire chain of the game round.

The most likely scenario is that the game result server, the server that spits out the gaming result, is not aware of the difference between a "for fun"-mode and a "real money" mode. It makes very little sense to have the same piece of software handle both the monetary transaction AND the RNG/reel-set win management code.

The way I think it is being set up is that one server handles the money (checking weather the the cost of the bet can be covered, stc), and then a request is sent over to the RNG-server that handles the actual game result.

The reason I believe this is the case is, not only from a code design point of view, but also from a "real world data" point of view: If you remember some issues that we have seen reported on here, players say "It runs fine in Free to Play mode, but it takes a looong time to get the spin results when playing for real". I've had that happen quite frequently, and I am pretty sure that there's been a number of threads talking about this delay.

In the free to play-scenario, the money-server doesn't have to do anything, so there is no delay, but in the "money"-scenario, the money server has to store play sessions into a database, keep track of all the play rounds, etc. (In "For Fun"-mode, the game history isn't available for the games, that only exists in "money"-mode, which means that a server does a lot more in the "Money"-mode. )

I may be wrong, naturally, but this is what makes the most sense to me, from observed delays during game play, and as a software engineer in general.

 

[RichieRespin]

If casino software is 'reactive' to the size of bets and/or betting strategy, then audits or 'checks' using flat-betting isn't going to reveal a rigged game.

A thorough check of the software will reveal this kind of cheating within minutes.

 

[RichieRespin]

That reads itself like something from dreamland Richie. Authorities, agencies that care about players, that would be something new to me.

Do you really think that these agencies & authorities, which are very often funded by casinos, are employing software geniuses who are able to detect complex software tweaks?

Did you know that for years RTG software operators could set an RTP themselves for every player!!! And the authorities, agencies etc were all OK with it because they were told that the RTP values could only be changed in a certain bandwidth.

"To make a few extra bucks?" - we are talking here possible 10's or even 100's of millions in extra profit every year, not just a few bucks. Always room for greed when these kind of money is involved.

I'm not going to stoop to "dreamland" insults. Have you _ever_ had your own software checked by any kind of authoritative testing house? I have. I know the rigor they use. And, no, it doesn't require a "software genius" to detect foul play in a slot game server, AND I think that if you have software auditors who check server implementations from a large number of software vendors, they *ARE* experts. No one else on the planet will have spent that much time looking at different types of server solutions as those guys.

I have had code vetted by testing houses, and I *know* that they are good.

Of course, rogue providers will have rogue solutions, but it is a vast step from a few historical anecdotes, to say that vendors like MG, IGT, WMS or NetEnt, who have been vetted by several test houses, by several authorities, in pretty harsh countries like Denmark and Italy, are cheating both the players, the test houses AND keeping all casinos in the dark about this.

 

[RichieRespin]

Yes, that's what I was getting at - it's all HOW the testing of the software is done. Would it be possible to get this sort of reactive mechanism past the checking system?

I sincerely doubt that. The source code of the software is being read. It is not just tested "black box"-style, the server code, most likely Java code, is being read by software engineers in testing houses. They would find these kind of tricks in minutes of reading the code.

EDIT: Sorry for spamming the thread with replies, maybe I should have put them all in one big post. My apologies.

 

[mathsboy1975]

I sincerely doubt that. The source code of the software is being read. It is not just tested "black box"-style, the server code, most likely Java code, is being read by software engineers in testing houses. They would find these kind of tricks in minutes of reading the code.

EDIT: Sorry for spamming the thread with replies, maybe I should have put them all in one big post. My apologies.

If every game provider has to submit their source code to an external agency for fairness monitoring then that is great - but is this actually a requirement before a gaming license can be granted??