BetVoyager online casino

[emsad01]

BetVoyager online casino is very good casino <snip>

 

[The Dude]

Hi emsad01,

Please don't post shill-like posts. Thank you.

 

[Jufo]

The post seemed to relate to this campaign where players get €1 for every forum post about Betvoyager

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[SlotMonster]

I'm disappointed They are just about to create tons of SPAM. Unethical practice IMO.

 

[Jufo]

I'm disappointed They are just about to create tons of SPAM. Unethical practice IMO.

Yes, and come on just one euro Who is so broke that they would start posting about them for one euro? I have made a lot of decent posts about Betvoyager and I think at least 25€ per post should be correct prize for me, taking into account the high quality of my posts

 

[KasinoKing]

Yes, and come on just one euro Who is so broke that they would start posting about them for one euro? I have made a lot of decent posts about Betvoyager and I think at least 25€ per post should be correct prize for me, taking into account the high quality of my posts

I guess they think it's cheaper than starting a proper affiliate program like most decent casinos have.
I am very saddened to see BetVoyager go down this road...

KK

 

[rainmaker]

.

Thanks for the link Jufo


This promotion from BetVoyager is really bad. Shame on you BetVoyager.

And the poor sod in this thread that so bravely tried to write some nice words about them....Well, I hope he at least gets his €1.

 

[SlotMonster]

Actually, BetVoyager is very good casino. I won more than 17k euro there and was always paid within 24 hours, no documents requested. They have Randomness Control and No House Edge games. But spamming forums for links is very unprofessional. At least they could have used the money to buy links and boost their SEO traffic. Or, like KK said, they could have built decent affiliate program and start earning a lot more than they are earning now. So sad

 

[luarod]

I agree with SlotMonster and KasinoKing, they could at least build decent affiliate program. This way is just unprofessional and kind of lazy.

 

[Tengil]

So the Wisenheimer guy posted a quite OT post in the FTP thread and started a no zero roulette thread claiming it was the first time he played it (obvious lie) just to earn a few dollars. Man thats really sad.

 

[emsad01]

for administrator

Why did you remove my post , it is not fair i have right to say something that I really mean , It is true that BetVoyager is good casino and I had good experience there so why would not say to other people - regards

 

[KotDaVinci]

"Actually, BetVoyager is very good casino. I won more than 17k euro there and was always paid within 24 hours, no documents requested. They have Randomness Control and No House Edge games."
- U Know, what U've just said is really impressive. (I simply hope U are not a shill). To pay 17K euro in less than 24 hours - I love that! I play big and the only reson that restrains me from gambling at this casino is reputation, which is not bad and not good either. Just absence of any. Has anyone else won there big and got away with it? Apart from the fact that these guys are pretty unknown, yes they r quite good due to mostly randomness control that makes U feel safe. It's just strange they have this "1 euro per post" promotion 4 microplayers, instead of going for highrollers with proper adds.

 

[Jufo]

"Actually, BetVoyager is very good casino. I won more than 17k euro there and was always paid within 24 hours, no documents requested. They have Randomness Control and No House Edge games."
- U Know, what U've just said is really impressive. (I simply hope U are not a shill). To pay 17K euro in less than 24 hours - I love that! I play big and the only reson that restrains me from gambling at this casino is reputation, which is not bad and not good either. Just absence of any. Has anyone else won there big and got away with it? Apart from the fact that these guys are pretty unknown, yes they r quite good due to mostly randomness control that makes U feel safe. It's just strange they have this "1 euro per post" promotion 4 microplayers, instead of going for highrollers with proper adds.

I think they now pay only a maximum of 5000€ per one day and the maximum the player can win per 24h period is 20,000€. I don't what would happen if the player won more in a single day But if those limits are okay to you then they are definitely good and I've been always paid promptly even larger sums.

 

[KotDaVinci]

I think they pay only a maximum of 5000€ per day and the maximum the player can win per 24h period is 20,000€. I don't what would happen if the player won more in a single day But if those limits are okay to you then they are definitely good and I've been always paid promptly even larger sums.

How much larger, mate? (If its not a secret?)

 

[Jufo]

How much larger, mate? (If its not a secret?)

Low five digits.

However, remember that if you win from zero house edge games they take 10% commission from your profit when u cashout. And the maximum bet in some games (blackjack etc.) is only 200€ per hand (can play four boxes at a time though).

 

[KotDaVinci]

Low five digits.

However, remember that if you win from zero house edge games they take 10% commission from your profit when u cashout. And the maximum bet in some games (blackjack etc.) is only 200€ per hand (can play four boxes at a time though).

10% comission does not frighten me away. And this is the key question: as long as the % of the win is a LOT less less less profitable for the house how do these characters contrive to make money? Just note! Before you withdraw your winnings they make nothing. If that is a kind of superpromotion it probably will not last 4ever. Too good to be truth. What d'u think?

 

[Jufo]

10% comission does not frighten me away. And this is the key question: as long as the % of the win is a LOT less less less profitable for the house how do these characters contrive to make money? Just note! Before you withdraw your winnings they make nothing. If that is a kind of superpromotion it probably will not last 4ever. To good to be truth. What d'u think?

It's not too good to be true. They make money from the 10% commission, but it's not much. Also not all players play perfect strategy to get 100% return in all games. So they are working with a low profit margin, which of couse is good for the player. I remember that in year 2009 and before that they didn't even have the 10% commission but you could play zero house edge games completely free and they would still have to pay for the fees arising from your deposits/withdrawals.

I am not sure how much money they are making or how well they are doing. I hope they are doing well because they are a generous place to play it. And no, I am not a shill

 

[SlotMonster]

"Actually, BetVoyager is very good casino. I won more than 17k euro there and was always paid within 24 hours, no documents requested. They have Randomness Control and No House Edge games."
- U Know, what U've just said is really impressive. (I simply hope U are not a shill). To pay 17K euro in less than 24 hours - I love that! I play big and the only reson that restrains me from gambling at this casino is reputation, which is not bad and not good either. Just absence of any. Has anyone else won there big and got away with it? Apart from the fact that these guys are pretty unknown, yes they r quite good due to mostly randomness control that makes U feel safe. It's just strange they have this "1 euro per post" promotion 4 microplayers, instead of going for highrollers with proper adds.

I won and withdrew that amount during about 1 year playing, not in one time.

 

[KotDaVinci]

It's not too good to be true. They make money from the 10% commission, but it's not much. Also not all players play perfect strategy to get 100% return in all games. So they are working with a low profit margin, which of couse is good for the player. I remember that in year 2009 and before that they didn't even have the 10% commission but you could play zero house edge games completely free and they would still have to pay for the fees arising from your deposits/withdrawals.

I am not sure how much money they are making or how well they are doing. I hope they are doing well because they are a generous place to play it. And no, I am not a shill

I know they r generious. My little niece wins 10-15 euros almost every day there playing poker tourneys (guaranteed pool with very few shitty players). She withdraws her 200-300 euros pocket money monthly no problem. I was questioning big sums.
You were actually right about players who play wrongly. But how about roulett or Punto Banco or slots where one can not misplay? U wanna say betvyoager purpously makes no money on these games?

 

[KotDaVinci]

I won and withdrew that amount during about 1 year playing, not in one time.

ok mate. That makes it clear. U keep playing there no probs?

 

[SlotMonster]

ok mate. That makes it clear. U keep playing there no probs?

From time to time. Usually I deposit 25-50 euro once a week or two.

 

[KotDaVinci]

Whats there support look like? Are they of any help?

 

[Jufo]

Whats there support look like? Are they of any help?

I have been using the internal messaging system to contact them and they have always replied withing a few hours or within 24 hrs. They also always seem to get it on the first time, unlike the supports at other casinos to whom you have to explain the issue five times before they understand what you are asking.

 

[KotDaVinci]

ok.
How does there randomness control work? I was looking thru some old threads. Came across with some interesting discussion about fairness of this SHA-256 algorythm. A Chris from Canada (software company representative) who supposed 2 be an expert in this stuff made a couple of awesome posts, where he says that betvoyager yet is able to change the sequence if they want to. He also humbly remarks that they necesseraly do it, but.. What is said, is said. As long as U sound like a PCman what is your opinion abuot that? And if U think in a similar manner please tell me how the fk does digital signature work with this algorythm or it can also be falsified?

 

[SlotMonster]

You can find more info at cgm.ru - russian casino and poker portal. BetVoyager uses the same software as Hibet.ru was using, and there were a lot of threads at cgm forum.

 

[binary128]

ok.
How does there randomness control work? I was looking thru some old threads. Came across with some interesting discussion about fairness of this SHA-256 algorythm. A Chris from Canada (software company representative) who supposed 2 be an expert in this stuff made a couple of awesome posts, where he says that betvoyager yet is able to change the sequence if they want to. He also humbly remarks that they necesseraly do it, but.. What is said, is said. As long as U sound like a PCman what is your opinion abuot that? And if U think in a similar manner please tell me how the fk does digital signature work with this algorythm or it can also be falsified?

KotDaVinci,

I'm guessing that I am the "Chris from Canada" to whom you refer.

I wanted to make sure that your comment "... where he says that betvoyager yet is able to change the sequence if they want to." is not taken the wrong way, by you or any other readers of this thread.

Below is an excerpt from The Full Post to which you refer:

I was aware of the FairDice project. I wasn't aware of the Randomness Control at BetVoyager Casino, so I went to have a look.

My first thought was "Wow, what a great idea". So, I had a look in greater detail, saw their Flash movies that detailed exactly how it worked for Roulette and Oasis Poker, thought about it some more, and like that.

After doing all of that, I concluded that it just won't work for a Casino application that is deployed entirely through Flash, like Galewind's product. (Anything that we deploy is easily "crack-able" on the Client, because those are "the rules of the game" when it comes to web site applications and browsers.)

I thought about it some more, and then said "Wow, maybe it is a great idea, but what a miserable way to play some rounds of Pontoon." If I had to do all of the copying and pasting and clicking and checking, I'd find myself asking "What the hell am I doing here, playing Pontoon, or running compliance audits of their game processing algorithms?"

Yes, I realize that I would only do this for a short time, until I had built up some trust (woops, there's that word again) in their games, and then maybe once in awhile after that. But still ...

I then put on the "Cynical Player Hat" for a bit, and tried to figure out how this system could still be bypassed by the Casino application. For example: "How do I know that the translator application for the checksum I received didn't first communicate with the game server and get the number (or cards, or what have you) that they actually sent me rather than what they said they sent me?"

So again, we find ourselves back to the issue of Trust. And again, the question becomes "How far do I have to jump?"

BTW - As with your chart on the 99.5% return curve, about which you stated "I wish to point out that I am not in way saying that something like this exists or is even likely to exist." - I'm also not saying that this is what is happening within the BetVoyager Casino application. I'm simply taking a Sunday drive along the "Cynic's Speculation Thruway" here.

I still think that their Randomness Control system is "a great idea". The words to which you refer were used in a context in which I announced that I was entering "Tin Foil Hat" territory. They were not meant to declare or suggest any actual misconduct.

When you use the words "What is said, is said." - I feel as though I had painted a picture of smoke on a wall, in full view of everyone there, after which I am then accused of setting fire to the room.

It is important to me that the differences between what you referred to and what I actually said are made clear to any and all forum readers. I try hard to be clear in anything that I post, so I'm sorry that you were ultimately confused by what I said there.

Chris

 

[Wisenheimer]

I guess they think it's cheaper than starting a proper affiliate program like most decent casinos have.
I am very saddened to see BetVoyager go down this road...

KK

Dude, i think they took your advice because they started a new affiliate program

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Wisenheimer]

I know they r generious. My little niece wins 10-15 euros almost every day there playing poker tourneys (guaranteed pool with very few shitty players). She withdraws her 200-300 euros pocket money monthly no problem. I was questioning big sums.
You were actually right about players who play wrongly. But how about roulett or Punto Banco or slots where one can not misplay? U wanna say betvyoager purpously makes no money on these games?

your little niece plays? I think that's illegal.

 

[KotDaVinci]

your little niece plays? I think that's illegal.

?? A bit confused, Wise. Why exactly do U think its illegal 4 my niece to play? Quite a few things r illegal in Belarus but deffinitely not gambling

 

[KotDaVinci]

You can find more info at cgm.ru - russian casino and poker portal. BetVoyager uses the same software as Hibet.ru was using, and there were a lot of threads at cgm forum.

Thank You

 

[KotDaVinci]

- " I try hard to be clear in anything that I post, so I'm sorry that you were ultimately confused by what I said there." -

Dear Chris,
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings what I think I did. I am sure you didnt mean to paint your competitors black, you just voiced a theoretical possibility to evade RC feature. Which is of a great interest to me. You know a thing or two about all the stuff we r talking about. So again, I am posing my question to an expert - is there a technical probability to cheat? Disregard betvoyager in question.

 

[Jufo]

I still think that their Randomness Control system is "a great idea". The words to which you refer were used in a context in which I announced that I was entering "Tin Foil Hat" territory. They were not meant to declare or suggest any actual misconduct.

Hi, I am glad this was brought up here, because this was something that I didn't get a chance to comment on in the "RTP Critiques requested thread" simply due to so many more actual topics in that thread.

Even though you stated entering a "tin foil hat" territory, your question still demands an answer. Because either the SHA-256 algorithm at Betvoyager quarantees player of fair results or it doesn't. If there is even a remote viewpoint suggesting a loophole in the system's trustability, then it makes the whole SHA-256 verification completely useless, and we would be back to the starting point where we would have to trust the casino's own words instead of it being quaranteed to us in the form of SHA-256 algorithm.

So to address the "tinfoil hat" question:

I then put on the "Cynical Player Hat" for a bit, and tried to figure out how this system could still be bypassed by the Casino application. For example: "How do I know that the translator application for the checksum I received didn't first communicate with the game server and get the number (or cards, or what have you) that they actually sent me rather than what they said they sent me?"

You know this because you can verify the checksum anytime using independent sources. In fact Betvoyager themselves advise you to do that:

The checksum is being computed with the help of the program used in our casino. Players can use other programs to compute the checksum for text information according to the SHA-256 algorithm. Players can find such programs on the following websites:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The SHA-256 is merely one of numerous algorithms that can be used to compute a checksum. We have chosen it to ensure randomness control in our casino because no modern sources of information have ever uncovered any insecurities or incorrectness connected with this algorithm.

--- --- --- --- ---

For the benefit of KotDaVinci and others, I thought I give a simple example of how I UNDERSTAND the randomness control system works. I may have understood something wrong so please chime in and correct me if that's the case.

For simplicity, I will play only one spin on no-zero roulette. In the randomness control menu at the top I will therefore choose a sequence of length 1 and I also shift the given number by one. I will do the shift because theoretically the casino software could have monitored my past playing habits and noticed that I am favouring even numbers over odd ones. So if the software was evil, it would be tempted to send me mostly odd numbers. But by shifting the outcome by one number, I can eliminate this possibility. Of course to protect myself even further I also change the shift value to something else after every few spins.

So this is what the top bar should look like before making the spin. Note that I have already received the outcome hash in encrypted form as well (the long string in the middle).



Ok, I will make the spin then. I bet on evens and the result is '3' (original number is '2' + 1 unit shift). So I lost (but I can only blame myself because I chose to shift it by one unit lol).

Now the burning question is: can I be certain that the result was fair?

Before I made the spin, I copied the outcome hash to buffer:
a335dfcd3090319fdc9d4aacbb7f619222f890d2516063566f9a89ab108475b0

Then after the spin I press the "V" button, which shows me the spin result in text format:

"spins : 2; server code word : 72f8800ed58fb220498e956292e35a9a"

You might wonder what the server code word string is and why it is needed. If it weren't there then I could go to

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

and enter strings "spins : 1", "spins : 2" and so on until I got the correct outcome hash above. There would be only 36 choices to try out until I got the right one. That way I would know, before even making the spin, what the number will be and I would be quaranteed to become rich. By adding a random sequence of characters to the string the casino protects themselves from that the player cannot go through all possible outcome strings to find the correct output hash.

So, I then go to

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

and type the string "spins : 2; server code word : 72f8800ed58fb220498e956292e35a9a" into their translator (remember to choose SHA-256 from list of options) and alas, the output is:

a335dfcd3090319fdc9d4aacbb7f619222f890d2516063566f9a89ab108475b0

Precisely the same that I was given before making the spin! Magic!

BUT, there is still something that causes me concern. Since the casino has their own sequence of characters included in the string, could they use that to give a different outcome leading to the same output hash? Imagine if the string above was actually:

"spins : 1; server code word : XYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXY"

where in place of XYXYXYXYXYXYXY there would be a sequence of characters that cause the string to give the same output hash as before. Meaning that my spin should have actually won!

However, I believe this is impossible because I understand (and right here someone with a higher expertise should come to correct me) that SHA-256 algorithm is an

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

which means that there are no two source strings that could lead to the same output hash, thus making us quaranteed that the string that Betvoyager gives as a result is indeed the only possible one.

I hope this clarified Randomness control for you KotDaVinci and hopefully to others as well!

 

[SlotMonster]

Jufo, your explanation perfectly describes how it works!

Yes, for SHA-256 it's impossible to find 2 strings with the same hash. Also do not forget, that these two strings should be of the same structure, i.e. "spins : <spins>; server code word : <server code word>". And casino would have to find it very quickly, while you are playing. As I said, it's impossible. And if you will be using shifting at the same time - well, it's even more impossible

That's why I trusted BetVoyager since they opened their doors.

P.S. I raised a question about Randomness Control and other casinos few times at Casinomeister forum, but with no much luck

 

[KotDaVinci]

Impressive explanation Jufo. Thanx a billion. Still wanna know Chris's point of view. Thats his profession. And if its true I guess he is the one to make "higher expertise". Just a straitforward answer - 'yes' or 'no'.

ok.
How does there randomness control work? I was looking thru some old threads. Came across with some interesting discussion about fairness of this SHA-256 algorythm. A Chris from Canada (software company representative) who supposed 2 be an expert in this stuff made a couple of awesome posts, where he says that betvoyager yet is able to change the sequence if they want to. He also humbly remarks that they necesseraly do it, but.. What is said, is said. As long as U sound like a PCman what is your opinion abuot that? And if U think in a similar manner please tell me how the fk does digital signature work with this algorythm or it can also be falsified?

Meant to be said 'He also humbly remarks they dont necessarily do it, but..'

Apologies

 

[binary128]

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings what I think I did.

No worries there. I'm too old, and too thick skinned, for that.

I did, however, want to make sure that the all-important context from which those words were extracted was included for clarification.

If I had made those statements without first announcing "Warning - Tin Foil Hat Area Ahead", then I think the thing to do would be to argue with (or agree with) my statements, ignore them, or tell me "Chris, whatever medication you're on, up the dosage."

But I did make that warning announcement, so I felt that extracting those words from their context and including them in a logical argument about BetVoyager was, well, hmm ... wrong.

Actually, I like that analogy of painted smoke. (As everyone knows - "Where there's smoke, there's fire.") It could be used as part of the screening process for new hires. Put them in a room, on a couch that faces a wall on which the picture of smoke has been painted. Anyone who, within 10 seconds, runs from the room yelling "Fire!" ... don't hire them.

So again, I am posing my question to an expert - is there a technical probability to cheat? Disregard betvoyager in question.

Have a look at The Following Post. Actually, the whole thread is a pretty good read.


@Jufo - Wow, what a post. Your last post on the thread you reference was September 30. You've been carrying all of this around inside your brain for a month and a half. I'm surprised your head didn't explode.

I'll respond to some of your comments in a bit, after I've had some time to organize my thoughts.

Chris

 

[Jufo]

@Jufo - Wow, what a post. Your last post on the thread you reference was September 30. You've been carrying all of this around inside your brain for a month and a half. I'm surprised your head didn't explode.

Haha, no my head wasn't about to explode. On the contrary it would probably explode if I wrote a lengthy response to every single topic point brought up here at CM, that's why this Betvoyager thingy was something I felt didn't need to be opened any further in the "RTP Critiques" thread and I forgot about until it re-surfaced here in Betvoyager's own thread, and it's probably better to discuss it here anyway.

 

[KotDaVinci]

- "Have a look at The Following Post. Actually, the whole thread is a pretty good read".

The thread is not pretty good. Its bloody excellent. I understand a lot more now, e.g. that Galewind is THE COMPANY.

- "I'll respond to some of your comments in a bit (Jufo), after I've had some time to organize my thoughts".

Chris[/QUOTE]

You have all the time in the world, Sir.
I guess I am the one who screams 'fire'. I do percieve a highly refined sarcasm of your example with hires. But I will keep yelling untill you, the man from inside of this nontransparent business, tell me that this is merely a bad picture on the wall.
Everyone considers himself of at least one cardinal virtues, and this is mine - I am a reserved, good tempered man with healthy nerves. And I stay like this even when I gamble, win or break even. What makes me furious is aloss. (Not in live casino thou where I, 4 instance, can check cards or change table in case I feel suspicious). And not the fact of a loss itself makes me nervous. Inner belief that some dirty characters on the other side of the screen simply took my money by cheeting does. That must be sick, I know (who also thinks it is send me a :nod: icon).
The figures I read in your post did not make me surprised. I always make records of my gaming sessions. Mystically live games figures r exactly what they should be, and my losses on internet are slightly bigger than they are expected to be. (Here, it will be fair to say that for an obvious reason my live games turnover is not very accurate). Another odd fact is that my loss is greater than it should be not just on all the games played overall, but also per every single game individually. I might admit, I could have made a couple mistakes on poker, but Punto Banco and AR - how could I misplay, thus having increased their house edge? And finaly, how could have I lost more than expected on Blackjack where I play better than basic strategy?
All of asudden I come across this godforsaken little betvoyager casino which introduces random control innovation. 1-st impulse - that's the right and the only place to play at (untill other sites implant the same or similar feature). Yet to make sure and to be on the safe side I decided to check some experts opinions on that issue. I spoke to 3 highly qualified programmers (Minsk, Kiev and London), friends of mine, but they do not know each other. All 3 of them said it works beyond dispute. Jufo expressed his judgment in understandable for people like me (non-technicians) manner. Now, Chris, metaphors and jokes aside (no more psychotherapeutic sessions with smoke, rooms, hires, etc., ok?) if you know as a man of the industry that its still possible to bypass the algorythm, please say it. If this is impossible, please say it too. Straightforward.

If I express my thoughts poorly, excuse me. Thats due to lack of practice in English. But I hope the whole idea is clear

 

[KasinoKing]

Dude, i think they took your advice because they started a new affiliate program

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Thanks for posting that info!
Like most other things about this casino - I see their affy program is totally unique - affiliates only make any money when the players WIN, and make nothing when they lose...
I can't honestly say that I think many other affys will take them up on those terms.

KK

 

[binary128]

Jufo,

You're right - that thread "Return to Player - Critiques Requested." wound up covering a lot of ground. At the end I felt it necessary to Create a Road Map of all of its twists and turns. The thread experienced the expected decay in activity, and began its gradual departure from the radar screen. Before crossing the event horizon, I gave it what I thought was a Proper Burial.

The issue being discussed at the point in the thread at which BetVoyager's Randomness Control was introduced was trust (the need for, and the lack thereof) in a Casino and/or in the software.

In order to frame a context, I'll start with the question - What does Galewind do to address this issue of trust? (I have a reason for doing this, which will become evident below.)

1. Our RNG and software algorithms have been fully tested and certified by iTech Labs and Certified Fair Gambling, and we have published these Certifications.

2. We have monthly RTP reports prepared by Certified Fair Gambling. This process includes the Comprehensive Statistical Analysis of game play results.

3. We publish these CFG monthly reports, along with easy-to-understand run charts summarizing 12 months of data.

4. CFG combines the monthly logs to perform a 6-month analysis, a 12-month analysis, etc. to ensure that all of the statistical data remains "clean" as the larger sample sizes reduce the affects of variance. (Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) .)

5. We publish the Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) for all of our games.

Now, as mentioned above, my reason for creating this list:

First of all, all of the above represents a lot of work, a whole lot of work, on Galewind's part. And yet, has this, all of this, proven sufficient to establish trust?

I think an accurate answer is - for some, yes; for others, no. Returning to the thread "Return to Player - Critiques Requested.":

... I'd like to see a solution offered where TRUST is not an issue, that I don't have to take that blind leap of faith and just hope that everything is going to be fair and above board.

... all those things you wrote in the above quote makes me wonder if even inclusion of external auditor is able to solve the trust issue between the player and casino completely.

... neither auditing agencies, gaming commissions nor published RTP reports address the lingering questions, and there does need to be a new model for transparency.

The Randomness Control system at BetVoyager Casino was then introduced into the conversation:

There ARE solutions which guarantee fair results with NO trust between player and casino needed. Betvoyager casino has randomness control which gives the result to the player in encrypted form before the player plays his hand, making it impossible to alter the results after the bet has been placed.

Strike::Sapphire's system of publishing all of their decks was later introduced into the conversation:

... any player can compare her hands against the deck and see it was fair, and compare every deck against every other deck we ever dealt, and see if there's some kind of bias in the shuffles.

How these systems are being presented within this (and the earlier) discussion:

"This is it, people. This is THE ONE. All of the other stuff is questionable; this one is not. Nothing else is needed, nothing else is required. If every online Casino did this, then that would be the end to mistrust, cheating, worry and doubt."

(Yes, I know - the above statement is silly, and taken to the extreme. I apologize to both Jufo and JStrike for even remotely associating them with this. Neither of them have made declarative statements that even approach this level of silliness. I offer it only to make a point; it is often from the extreme ends of the spectrum that understanding arises.)


From Galewind's perspective, if steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which we have already taken in order to demonstrate and establish trust with our products, have proven insufficient, why in the world should Galewind expect that the addition of a step 6, and/or a step 7, and/or a step 8 will finally do it?


Warning - Tin Foil Hat Alert.

So, I projected myself into an imaginary future, one in which Galewind had gone to the time, trouble, and expense of implementing a system similar to what is exemplified at BetVoyager. Given that "insufficiencies" in all of our current steps have been proposed, I thus considered whether, at some point in this imaginary future, "insufficiencies" may also be proposed for our new system.

(In other words, Galewind spent money to achieve an objective. Was that objective achieved? Was the investment worthwhile?)

In this imaginary future, I threw one possible "insufficiency" off the top of my head. This specific "insufficiency" has been questioned (refuted?) within this thread.

I might then propose another possible "insufficiency" - given that you need to click on something to receive the checksum, only "rig our game" when the checksum has not been requested. This "insufficiency" may also be refuted.

I might then propose another - the fact that we tell you what your cards are, or spin is, or roll is, prior to the fact, doesn't mean that our game isn't still "rigged". After all, the game is defined on the server. The fact that we are telling you about it beforehand doesn't negate its existence.

I could go on, but I suspect that you get my point.

Are you saying to me Jufo that if you were to put on your own "tin foil hat" (you can borrow mine if necessary) you couldn't find something to question about our "imaginary future" system?

Tin Foil Hat removed.


Quotable declaratives, for which no context is necessary:

• I think that BetVoyager's Randomness Control system is a great idea.
• I agree with the statisticians that the SHA-256 encryption algorithm is unbreakable.
• I think that this system is a welcome addition to the set of tools which Casino software providers have available to address trust and transparency.
• I applaud BetVoyager for implementing this system.
• My hat is off to them for the amount of work that they put into developing and deploying this product.
• I think the fact that BetVoyager has implemented this system speaks well of their honesty, integrity and transparency.

I'm not saying all that I have said here because I question BetVoyager's system, and the work that they have done to implement this system. I'm saying this because ultimately Galewind needs to answer the question: At what point is there no real return on the investment? 5 steps? 6 steps? 7 steps? At what point does any further effort simply become futile?


And in addition, your example speaks most eloquently to the other issue that I raised - Is this really any way to play some rounds of Pontoon? In my eulogy to the "Return to Player - Critiques Requested." thread, I included the following:

From the Player's perspective:

1.) How do I know, absolutely KNOW, that I am getting a fair game?

2.) What price do I need to pay for this knowledge?

The example of your game play which you have provided in your previous post seems to me to indicate a relatively high price.

Chris

 

[KotDaVinci]

Another nice 1. Thanx very much, particularly for 'Tin Foil Hat removed' paragraph. To say a couple of good words about your bright forward competitor - thats shows a lot of confidence in your own product.
Also many thanx to everyone who helped to throw light and put the dots for all the i's in the above discussion about RC protection for players.

 

[Jufo]

Argh, another "such" reply from Chris. Chris, you know, it would have been fine just to write: "After Jufo's explanation I understand Randomness control better now. Yes, it looks like it works as advertised. I stand corrected."

But you took the longer route again. Nothing wrong with that, but some of the topics in your post relating to Galewind would probably be better served in the "RTP Critiques" thread, which might need to be resurrected from the grave. So with that, since this thread is about Betvoyager, I am only going to address the points relating directly to Betvoyager and Randomness control here, and leave the rest to be discussed elsewhere.

In this imaginary future, I threw one possible "insufficiency" off the top of my head. This specific "insufficiency" has been questioned (refuted?) within this thread.

Yes, and could you state what you think of it now as I tried my best to open it for you? Did you find the explanation, which attempted to show that the particular "insuffiency" doesn't really exist, unsatisfying?

I might then propose another possible "insufficiency" - given that you need to click on something to receive the checksum, only "rig our game" when the checksum has not been requested. This "insufficiency" may also be refuted.

Yes it may and should be be refuted. Since the software cannot know when you are going to click the "receive result" button then it wouldn't know when it is safe for it cheat and when it's not. Note that you will receive the checksum (output hash) first and after the outcome you will receive the result string in case you request it. So the only way the software could cheat would be for them to be sure that for the next round you are not going to request the (falsified) result string. But given that it takes only ONE such instance where the result string doesn't match the output hash (checksum) to make them get caught, this seems like a very illogical and stupid thing to do. So even though possible, it just wouldn't make any sense. So the "tin foil hat" argument remains quite weak if it is a sort of thing that would get them caught in a matter of minutes.

I might then propose another - the fact that we tell you what your cards are, or spin is, or roll is, prior to the fact, doesn't mean that our game isn't still "rigged". After all, the game is defined on the server. The fact that we are telling you about it beforehand doesn't negate its existence.

This is a valid point. Much better than the previous. But for roulette spins this possibility can be completely eliminated by the shift option (see my previous post where I explained how the shift option can be used against suspected outcomes to make the results to be the complete opposite of what they originally were chosen to be by the server).

But for card games, you are absolutely right, there does exist a certain weakness in the randomness control system, which I will address in my next post. I was kind of expecting you to spot it and I am glad that you did.

Are you saying to me Jufo that if you were to put on your own "tin foil hat" (you can borrow mine if necessary) you couldn't find something to question about our "imaginary future" system?

Yes, I probably would find several things to question, like you have done here. And like I mentioned above, there is at least one legitimate weakness that should be addressed.
But I am also going to display that there exists a relatively simple solution to fix that one as well. You seem to be saying that no matter how good a "Randomness Control System" one implements, it will always be vulnerable to player getting cheated. I somewhat disagree, in my opinion it's not impossible or even difficult to make such a system, and in my opinion Betvoyager is already "almost there" perhaps being short of just a few minor improvements with their execution of it.

And in addition, your example speaks most eloquently to the other issue that I raised - Is this really any way to play some rounds of Pontoon? In my eulogy to the "Return to Player - Critiques Requested." thread, I included the following:

The example of your game play which you have provided in your previous post seems to me to indicate a relatively high price.

Having played a lot at Betvoyager, I don't feel like there is any price or cost for me as a player at all. I'd only verify the checksum every now and then with a "spot check" style so it's not an inconvenience really. And since they always show you the complete shuffle of the deck(s), it's kind of fun to check how many cards away you were from that royal whenever you got that 4-to-a-royal on the draw in Videopoker. Or if you play Oasis Poker and receive "four-to-a-flush plus high pair" and decide to face dealer's hand by sticking to the pair only, you can then always check afterwards if you would have made the flush by breaking up the pair and discarding the offsuit card. So to me all of this is not an inconvience, on the contrary, I get much more information (whenever needed) than what I get by playing these same games in other softwares.

 

[Jufo]

Concerns with the Betvoyager's randomness control system

I'll now post the couple of things that in my opinion are still unresolved issues about Betvoyager's randomness control system. Chris rightly pointed out the second of them. But it should be stated that both of these are likely to have easy solutions to eliminate the causes of concern.

Injectivity of the SHA-256 algorithm

I didn't find an answer yet whether the SHA-256 algorithm is injective or not. That is the procedure:

Result String -> [SHA-256 Algorithm] -> Output hash (given before the deal)

Which can be also expressed as a function

X -> Y = f(X) -> Y,

has the property that for any given value Y (output hash) there exists either only zero or one (but never two or more) correct X-values (result strings). If that's the case then we know that for the given output hash, there is only one corresponding result string, making the result unique. The problem is that if the SHA-256 algorithm is surjective, then there would exist more than one result string for any given output hash, making the original result string ambiguous, and giving the software the chance to choose from a list of possible result strings the one that suits them the best.

I am going to ask the experts at tWoV forum about this property of SHA-256 algorithm and get back to this.

Randomness of shuffle in card games

In card games the problem is that the Randomness control isn't sufficient to quarantee that the deck or shoe is shuffled perfectly randomly. Yes, after every round you get to see the complete shuffle in it's entirety but you still don't know how exactly it was produced. The option for the player to shift the starting position of the shuffle to any value (in other words cutting the shoe) isn't sufficient to overcome this, because suppose that the shuffling procedure was biased so that it never lets five suited high cards (10-A) to be within a span of Five or Six from each either. In video poker this means that the player could never get a pat royal flush (span 5) or a royal flush by drawing one card to a 4-to-a-royal (span 6), no matter what initial cutting point (shift) he chooses. So this is a problem that the randomness control in it's current form cannot eliminate.

Of course given that the player has always the opportunity to view and store the entire shuffle, he could collect a large number of shuffles to archive and run some statistical tests to verify their randomness (ie. verifying that five suited high cards CAN be consecutive according it's expected frequency). But this is unsatisfying because the whole purpose of the randomness control thingy was to free us from all of that.

The solution or "fix" would be that instead of just choosing one shift value for the shuffle, the player could choose the indexes for all the five cards he is going to draw. So when playing Video poker I could request that (after the shuffle is done by the server) I am going to pick cards #7, #14, #21, #1, #47 to form my initial hand and if I get a 4-to-a-royal I will pick card #36 as the one replacement card. This sort of control would eliminiate this issue. I hope Betvoyager staff reads this post and implements this system as soon as possible.

 

[SlotMonster]

Thanks, Jufo!

Another excellent post. I've been playing at casino with Randomness Control since the 1st one was opened, and NEVER EVER got a feeling that I was cheated.

With SHA-256 it impossible.

Even (and I seriously doubt you will) you can find two strings of the same hash - you are still limited to the STRUCTURE, as it has to be the same as casino using (word "spins" and "server code" in it)! And it will take FOREVER to find it.

My gosh...there is NO WAY how casino can cheat the player, if it uses RC!

 

[Jufo]

Thanks, Jufo!

Another excellent post. I've been playing at casino with Randomness Control since the 1st one was opened, and NEVER EVER got a feeling that I was cheated.

With SHA-256 it impossible.

Even (and I seriously doubt you will) you can find two strings of the same hash - you are still limited to the STRUCTURE, as it has to be the same as casino using (word "spins" and "server code" in it)! And it will take FOREVER to find it.

My gosh...there is NO WAY how casino can cheat the player, if it uses RC!

Yep, sure but I am discussing this with Chris with having my "cynical hat" on to get to the bottom of any possible loopholes, no matter how unlikely they may be. And as good as Betvoyager's system is, there's always room for improvement like the video poker card drawing stuff I posted last. This is especially true if some other software provider gets interested and implements something similar in their own SW.

 

[Jufo]

I guess it's okay to address the other topic of Chris' post here as well.

P.S. I raised a question about Randomness Control and other casinos few times at Casinomeister forum, but with no much luck

Yes, it would be great to see some other SW provider implement a feature similar to Betvoyager's randomness control but so far there have been no takers. We do have Chris from Galewind here but he is still to be convinced of the extra value such a feature would yield.

From Galewind's perspective, if steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which we have already taken in order to demonstrate and establish trust with our products, have proven insufficient, why in the world should Galewind expect that the addition of a step 6, and/or a step 7, and/or a step 8 will finally do it?

I'm not saying all that I have said here because I question BetVoyager's system, and the work that they have done to implement this system. I'm saying this because ultimately Galewind needs to answer the question: At what point is there no real return on the investment? 5 steps? 6 steps? 7 steps? At what point does any further effort simply become futile?

These are good questions. If we take the five steps that Chris listed in his post that Galewind does "to address the issue of trust" and call this a "Level 5 system in terms of player trust", this is most likely sufficient for majority of players, including me. It wouldn't require me to take a "leap of trust" larger than what I would feel comfortable with. But then there might be players who have played at casinos that are only on "Level 1 or 2" or even "Level zero" in terms of player trust and they have felt that they cannot trust the results any longer, so being tired with all of that, they might want to only play at a casino with Randomness control or similar system (following Chris' numbers I suppose you could call it a "Level 6" or "Level 7" player trust system, even though such ranking is quite subjective). KotDaVinci came to this thread looking for information about Randomness control and he seemed already having made up his mind about what "level of trust system" he wants.

So to Chris' question, whether Randomness control and a couple of steps higher "level of trust" provides any further return on the investment, the answer would be that it depends on whether there is a market for it. It will depend on how many players like KotDaVinci there are or will be. I am anticipating that the number is going to get larger as players get tired of the "How can I trust their results?" issue at "low level trust" casinos and start demading the best possible "level of trust" there is on the market. So to me it would seem like a good potential market, and implenting a variation of randomness control system would both attract new players and provide a very good marketing tool for the casino. So to me it doesn't look like the effort or investment would go wasted. But Chris may not agree with this being something of potential or something worthy of pursuing, and of course he could be right.

 

[SlotMonster]

Viaden is going to implement it, and I hope I will be able to present the RC feature in all Viaden casinos till the end of 2012. As for Video Poker - you still can use shifting, so I don't see any problem with that.

Randomness Control was thoroughly analysed by many people on Russian gambling forums, and it was proven that it's impossible for casino to cheat. One casino which was using RC - Hibet.ru - even offered 10.000 euro to anyone, who will be able to find two different strings with the same checksum. Well, no one was able to do that.

One famous Russian player won there about $94.000 in 6 months, starting with $45, and was paid in full. I can find this thread, but you will have to use Google translate to be able to read it.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Nifty29]

Great discussion everyone.

I've learned a great deal and plan to learn a lot more!

 

[KotDaVinci]

Viaden is going to implement it, and I hope I will be able to present the RC feature in all Viaden casinos till the end of 2012. As for Video Poker - you still can use shifting, so I don't see any problem with that.

Randomness Control was thoroughly analysed by many people on Russian gambling forums, and it was proven that it's impossible for casino to cheat. One casino which was using RC - Hibet.ru - even offered 10.000 euro to anyone, who will be able to find two different strings with the same checksum. Well, no one was able to do that.

One famous Russian player won there about $94.000 in 6 months, starting with $45, and was paid in full. I can find this thread, but you will have to use Google translate to be able to read it.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

PLease, please SlotMonster find it for me. As long as Betcruise is a sequel of Hibet (that was mentioned somewere above) that would be THE info 4 me.
You absolutely right about the level of my personal trust. But I am not here to trust noone (on-line casinos). Tell me an excellent reason why I should. Unlike Chris says, this is NOT a boring way of gambling when U use RC. Not for me. (I would rather get bored than ripped off anyway). And unlike Jufo, I squeez BetVoyager for the checksum every single time, never miss it. (I finally started giving a trial to them). I have my own style 'cynical hat' on? May be. But, again, I am not here to trust noone (online casinos).
Almost all of you are technical people here, representatives of IT companies directly or by implicity. I am a new man on campus but I can see it clearly. You play - to test your competitors (like SlotMonster). You speak - to push your ware's (like Chris from Canada). You probably never heard of the word 'tilt'. I have a ghost of a feeling that a lot of you 'working' here. I wont even be understood if I tell you that I gamble to chase adrenaline. But you can always try to feel yourself a gambler. Put 20-30k (or what ever you can afford) in your casino account, play. And only then we will get back to the issue of trust. At the moment you make me feel like a patient in front of the council of psychotherapists.
As to myself, I worked hard for month buying/selling shares/currencies. Time to visit Red Sea for couple of days.
Leaving you all in peace, KotDaVinci

 

[SlotMonster]

Generally speaking, there is no need to "trust" a casino which can't cheat, i.e. can't change RNG sequence during game session.

And by the way, the other side of the medal is that in case of losing streak players will not be able to complain about "rigged" software!

 

[Jufo]

You probably never heard of the word 'tilt'. I have a ghost of a feeling that a lot of you 'working' here. I wont even be understood if I tell you that I gamble to chase adrenaline. But you can always try to feel yourself a gambler. Put 20-30k (or what ever you can afford) in your casino account, play. And only then we will get back to the issue of trust. At the moment you make me feel like a patient in front of the council of psychotherapists.

Haha, well said mate! As for me, I am just a player like you. I don't work in the industry. I don't get paid for the posts I make about Betvoyager, or any posts for that matter. The stuff I posted is all my opinion as a player so I don't have the "working for competitor" position like SlotMonster or Chris here have, if that makes any difference for you.

Everyone considers himself of at least one cardinal virtues, and this is mine - I am a reserved, good tempered man with healthy nerves. And I stay like this even when I gamble, win or break even. What makes me furious is aloss. (Not in live casino thou where I, 4 instance, can check cards or change table in case I feel suspicious). And not the fact of a loss itself makes me nervous. Inner belief that some dirty characters on the other side of the screen simply took my money by cheeting does. That must be sick, I know (who also thinks it is send me a :nod: icon).

Yes I will send you a :nod: icon! Those are the exact same feelings I have when I cannot be sure whether the really bad run is really a result of "fair game" or not. I would describe it like this: When you lose on a game that you know is fair, it feels like a punch in the stomach. It hurts but you get over it. At least you know that you got a fair shot, you know that you had a good bet even if didn't work out for you this time. But when you lose in a situation where you don't know if you got a fair deal, it feels much worse than a punch in the stomach. It feels like some one attacked you in the street, kicked you to the curb, stole your wallet and laughed at you: "What are you going to do about this? You can't do nothing!" Instead of being punched it feels like you got stabbed. Of course it could have still been a fair loss, but you just can't know it and it haunts you. So the good thing about Betvoyager (and also for highly transparent softwares like Galewind) is that you can be quite sure that this will not be an issue there.