Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[ChopleyIOM]

I think 'trueblood' is going the way of the dodo. Redbet is adding BetSoft and already has MG.. 32Red has quickfire. In a competitive market, single skew casinos (IMO) are going to become things of the past.

Hmmm that's a shame.

'Not our fault mate, it's Software Provider #25 who've cocked this one up, but don't worry, we're very sorry about it all and we're not using them any more. In the meantime please continue to deposit and play the games we offer by fifty other software providers.'

Casinos should be held accountable for the software they run.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

I wrote some primitive C code to explore the outcomes produced by the game Reel Deal as played by the OP. In this code, I assume that a player always wagers on Red and simulated 19197 rounds, the same number of rounds the OP wagered on Red. The intent of the program was to produce an RTP of 96% (the approximate RTP of the OP) and to get a distribution of outcomes that I could run a chi-squared test against the distribution of the OP.

This code has two steps. First it chooses a color, Red or Black. It is biased towards Black, so that 48% of the time the program chooses Red and 52% of the time it chooses Black. Once a color is chosen, then a number is chosen at random for the card. Thus, if the color is Red, then the program chooses a number at random from 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. If the color is Black, then the program chooses a number at random from 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12.

Every time I ran this code, the even numbers (Black) were the top 6 numbers by frequency and the odd numbers (Red) were the bottom 6 numbers by frequency. The results of the OP are in the yellow column. The results of three sample runs are in the next three columns. Along the bottom are the p-values obtained by comparing the OP's results with the sample runs of the biased program.

Note, this analysis does not prove that the code for Reel Deal was written in the manner given in the code below. This analysis shows only that the method used in the code below cannot be excluded.

Here are the results:



Here is the code in full:

 

[threescatters]

Casinos should be held accountable for the software they run.

Well exactly, the bottom line is this.

What is on betfred.com is ENTIRELY betfreds responsibility. End of. There is no other way to look it.

 

[Seventh777]

I agree what chopley and threescatters said to a certain extent, yes casinos should be responsible for the respective software's they incorporate, but, if no-one has reported anomalies regarding these they will be completely unaware of them, do any casinos out there check brand new games from their providers every time one is released?.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I agree what chopley and threescatters said to a certain extent, yes casinos should be responsible for the respective software's they incorporate, but, if no-one has reported anomalies regarding these they will be completely unaware of them, do any casinos out there check brand new games from their providers every time one is released?.

Well that's the entire problem IMO, the more casinos are allowed to distance themselves from the product they're selling, the easier it is for them to squirm off the hook when something goes wrong.

If I were calling how this one is going to pan out from here, I'd take a guess at:

1) Realistic Games say the game was not behaving as intended. It was a bug, or they put out the wrong help file, whatever the hell they want to say, basically.

2) Betfred cite the response from Realistic Games. They apologise, they state they can only implement the games they're provided with on good faith, they reimburse the player for their losses, they say they take this sort of thing very seriously.

3) Betfred may or may not delete the game from their books, and/or remove all products from Realistic Games.

4) Everything carries on just like it was before.

This is why I get a bit itchy when it comes to casinos who just chuck any old game from any old provider onto their books, 'cause when the proverbial hits the fan they've basically got total deniability as to any liability for any problems. 'It's not us mate, it's the software provider.'

Casinos should have far more of a symbiotic relationship with their software provider IMO.

 

[dunover]

An interesting interjection here - does the OP or did they, ever vary their stake during their play on this 'rigged' game?

Of course, as virtually all games are 'random' and 'don't have any compensation for, or memory of previous games' this should be irrelevant.

I mean, I could play this game and bet 10p per hit on red each go, lose 10 times on the trot and be a £1 down, then whack £10 on red, win, and be £9 up couldn't I? I mean it wouldn't weight red after raising my stake 100x after 10 losing red bets and come up black yet again surely? You know, like those 'random' card/roulette games on the FOBT's would never do?

 

[Seventh777]

Well that's the entire problem IMO, the more casinos are allowed to distance themselves from the product they're selling, the easier it is for them to squirm off the hook when something goes wrong.

If I were calling how this one is going to pan out from here, I'd take a guess at:

1) Realistic Games say the game was not behaving as intended. It was a bug, or they put out the wrong help file, whatever the hell they want to say, basically.

2) Betfred cite the response from Realistic Games. They apologise, they state they can only implement the games they're provided with on good faith, they reimburse the player for their losses, they say they take this sort of thing very seriously.

3) Betfred may or may not delete the game from their books, and/or remove all products from Realistic Games.

4) Everything carries on just like it was before.

This is why I get a bit itchy when it comes to casinos who just chuck any old game from any old provider onto their books, 'cause when the proverbial hits the fan they've basically got total deniability as to any liability for any problems. 'It's not us mate, it's the software provider.'

Casinos should have far more of a symbiotic relationship with their software provider IMO.

You forgot - 5) Someone let Tom the tea boy set the RTP for this game, not sure who it was but heads will roll for this. .

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Realistic Games, Limited, is licensed with the U.K. Gambling Commission. Their status is listed as "active." A company that uses the software provided by Realistic Games has the U.K. Gambling Commission standing behind the products. In particular, the Gambling Commission addresses the fairness issues raised in this thread.

Here are some excerpts from the U.K. Gambling Commission's document: "Testing strategy for compliance with remote gambling and software technical standards - August 2009."

Risk Examples:
• Customers suffer unfair financial loss because the random number generator (RNG) is not ‘random’:
• Customers suffer unfair financial loss because scaling/mapping components do not produce the expected (‘random’)

Required Testing:
Approved third party test house performs statistical analysis of RNG and game outputs, prior to release.

Risk Examples:
• Customers suffer unfair financial loss because RNG contains incorrect/malicious code causing non-random output
• Customers suffer unfair financial loss because scaling and/or mapping components contain incorrect/malicious code that causes the game to operate outside the published rules.

Required Testing:
Approved third party test house examines RNG, scaling and mapping components (to include source code review where considered appropriate by Commission/third party) to assess whether they operate in accordance with the rules of the virtual game or event, prior to release.

 

[Jufo]

2) Betfred cite the response from Realistic Games. They apologise, they state they can only implement the games they're provided with on good faith, they reimburse the player for their losses, they say they take this sort of thing very seriously.

Reimburse only this player? Shouldn't they reimburse all players who have played this game which means potentially millions of transactions? I recall I played the other rigged game (Hi/Lo Gambler) back in 2008 at BetDirect casino also believing it to be a 100% payout game. Now where is my money back?

 

[threescatters]

I recall I played the other rigged game (Hi/Lo Gambler) back in 2008 at BetDirect casino also believing it to be a 100% payout game. Now where is my money back?

I dont think anyone has tested what the game is like on other sites, it would be an interesting thing to see if it behaves the same everywhere imo

 

[Balthazar]

Depends on the contract with the casino. If it's percentage of profit they will benefit.

Which brings the following question:
Would you make a game with a 100% RTP if you were making money through a percentage of profit generated from the game?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Realistic Games, Limited, is licensed with the U.K. Gambling Commission. Their status is listed as "active." A company that uses the software provided by Realistic Games has the U.K. Gambling Commission standing behind the products. In particular, the Gambling Commission addresses the fairness issues raised in this thread.

Here are some excerpts from the U.K. Gambling Commission's document: "Testing strategy for compliance with remote gambling and software technical standards - August 2009."

Risk Examples:
• Customers suffer unfair financial loss because the random number generator (RNG) is not ‘random’:
• Customers suffer unfair financial loss because scaling/mapping components do not produce the expected (‘random’)

Required Testing:
Approved third party test house performs statistical analysis of RNG and game outputs, prior to release.

Risk Examples:
• Customers suffer unfair financial loss because RNG contains incorrect/malicious code causing non-random output
• Customers suffer unfair financial loss because scaling and/or mapping components contain incorrect/malicious code that causes the game to operate outside the published rules.

Required Testing:
Approved third party test house examines RNG, scaling and mapping components (to include source code review where considered appropriate by Commission/third party) to assess whether they operate in accordance with the rules of the virtual game or event, prior to release.

To get proper attention drawn to this, it is the UK Gambling Commission that needs to be told of this as they have certified both the company and this game to be fair. The UKGC have dropped the ball on this, not just Betfred. I expect that Betfred management felt it reasonable to rely on the UKGC's seal of approval on this game provider, so didn't run tests themselves.

This would not have come out had the player frequently swapped between colours as the bias would have been less obvious.

What is even worse is that this is not merely a skewed game, but an ADAPTIVE game, as had the same bias been presented to a player wagering only on black, it would have been a +EV game.

A compensated game is completely different to a random game, even one with a static weighting such as a "classic" 3 reel slot. A compensated game is a peculiararity of the UK "pub slot" scene, and to the rest of the world would look like cheating. Even worse is that it breaks the UKGC rules for a compensated game, which stipulate that it must be clearly advertised as such on the device itself, not hidden away in some help file. It would have been the provider that wrote the misleading help file, not Betfred.


As for multi provider casinos "getting off" because they can plead deniabilty, it is not that clear cut. Players who got cheated will remember getting cheated by Betfred (or whoever had the game in question), not by Realistic games. It will be "Betfred cheated me with a rigged game" that they will be posting, or telling their friends.

This means that by relying on the provider, a multi provider operator places their entire brand at risk if just ONE game is proven to be "gaffed" and cheating their players. It is even more unfortunate for Betfred that this incident came to light over Christmas, as this added to delays in responding to the allegations.

A player cheated by this game should make a formal complaint to the UKGC, providing the evidence that Eliot has presented about the fairness of the game. The UKGC will take the view of Eliot much more seriously that some player complaining that they feel the game cheated.

This also calls into question the third party testing company that Realistic used to verify that this game was fair. How can they not notice when their tests would be more rigorous than a player running 20,000 bets.

 

[Jufo]

I want to restate my opinion that no conclusions about any particular party should be made yet. The only conclusion I can make with near certainty is that the game Reel Deal does not behave consistently with the help file associated with it. I would ask for patience until a response from Realistic Games is given.

It's not only about the fact that the game does not behave consistently with the help file associated with it (which could be seen as a minor oversight). It's also that the odds dealt by the game don't reflect the odds implied to the user. In other words if the game implies that a 52-card deck is used with 26 Reds and 26 Blacks then the player has the right to assume that the implied odds (50% of draws are red) are also true odds, regardless of whether the help file is accurate or not. So in my opinion this is a much more serious breach than just an error in the help file document.

BLR had their software placed at 5Dimes and other casinos. Their craps game was determined to be gaffed. The top casinos (e.g. 5Dimes) immediately removed the software and have not suffered any ongoing ill-will because of it. Betfred did exactly the right thing here.

With the case still on-going I don't want to see an independent investigator to start giving positive remarks about a operator at this point, if you want to retain the impression of being impartial.

Bottom line is that Betfred has included a game in their game selection that has not behaved as advertised and has not dealt odds consistent with the rules of the game. Responsibility lies with Betfred that they are 100% sure that each game that they incorporate on their website is fair, and they have completely failed to do that here. Therefore, opposite to what you wrote, I wouldn't consider ongoing ill-will against Betfred to be necessarily unjustified in this case.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

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

Page 37, section 7b

"Licence holders are required to use equipment, software and services that are compliant with the Commissioner‟s Technical Standards document and take responsibility for any failures in these arrangements"


It seems it is betfred's responsibility does it not ? You can't pass the buck.

 

[Westland Bowl]

...... What is even worse is that this is not merely a skewed game, but an ADAPTIVE game, as had the same bias been presented to a player wagering only on black, it would have been a +EV game......

I've been saying these games of online casinos are adaptive for years. Random enough if you flat-bet and/or are all over the map in terms of bet sizes but once you employ a discernable betting strategy, it adapts to it against you soon enough.

 

[Nifty29]

I've been saying these games of online casinos are adaptive for years. Random enough if you flat-bet and/or are all over the map in terms of bet sizes but once you employ a discernable betting strategy, it adapts to it against you soon enough.

IMO you're putting two and two together and getting 78.

We are talking about one game from one supplier here.

If all casino games were adaptive etc as you say, why hasn't someone come forward like the OP did with evidence for analysis? It's because by and large casino games are fair and properly designed. As this case shows, any attempt to tamper with the randomness in a game stands out like dog's balls.

I'm yet to see anyone who has complained here about the games being "rigged" etc as you have stop gambling online for that very reason....which speaks volumes. I assume you're still playing.

Personally, if I discovered or even suspected that I was being duped by dodgy games, I would be out of the online casino game for good.

 

[Westland Bowl]

IMO you're putting two and two together and getting 78.

We are talking about one game from one supplier here.

And I'm talking about this as being indicative that other games and suppliers do the same.

If all casino games were adaptive etc as you say, why hasn't someone come forward like the OP did with evidence for analysis? It's because by and large casino games are fair and properly designed. As this case shows, any attempt to tamper with the randomness in a game stands out like dog's balls.

I mainly play blackjack and I doubt adaptiveness will stand out as easily as it does with roulette. The overall win rate can still be around 43% while fixing the larger progression bets to lose more often. How can one prove that a win did NOT happen? But how many times can my double-down 20 get beat by a dealer 6 within a span of 200 hands and still be considered random? It doesn't happen once in a blue moon...it happens often in these online casinos! I feel like I am blacklisted within the online casino industry. Perhaps someday I will record screen capturing my blackjack play on Galewind's software then play, say, Digital Gaming Solutions' software that most sportsbooks use.... you will see the difference.

I'm yet to see anyone who has complained here about the games being "rigged" etc as you have stop gambling online for that very reason....which speaks volumes. I assume you're still playing.

I only play the free games, like at SBR Sports Forum and free no-deposit bonuses and maybe Pinnacle's casino in fun play. That is about it. I basically am just waiting for some type of regulated online casinos in the States. Meanwhile, I do decent in land-casinos.

Personally, if I discovered or even suspected that I was being duped by dodgy games, I would be out of the online casino game for good.

As I mentioned, I am out of online casinos expect for free ones!

 

[mrmark21]

Food for thought

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Update

The joys of doing work for free: no one is cooperating.

At this point, a proper investigation would need the cooperation of Realistic Games, Betfred, the UKGC, and the other casinos that use Realistic Games software (Bet365, Nordic Bet, Betpack, Stanjames), at the very least. There appears to be no entity (including CM) interested in conducting a full investigation. I certainly am not.

I did extensive research into Realistic Games. After identifying the key officers, I e-mailed Realistic Games on 12/30/2012 stating, in part,

"These numbers represent significant abnormalities with game behavior that appear to be intentionally integrated into the logic of some online casino games that Realistic Games has produced ... I would like your opinion on how this occurred and a statement from Realistic Games on the matter."

This e-mail has not been answered or acknowledged.

On 12/30/2012 I sent an e-mail to the UK Gambling Commission, asking, in part:

"The testing required is that an approved third party testing house is supposed to check the games. How can I find out which test house is responsible for testing the specific games I am concerned about, the dates of the testing and the results of those tests?"

I received a communication back from the UK Gambling Commission on 01/02/2013. They stated, in part:

"... you should bear in mind that it is the licence (sic) holder that makes a game available for use e.g. by putting it on their website that is required to ensure a game is appropriately tested and not the software developer."

I requested full logfiles for Reel Deal for November and December, 2012, from Betfred. This request has not been acknowledged.

I asked this question directly to Betfred on January 1, 2012: "Did you or anyone at Betfred know about Reel Deal games being gaffed?" This question has not been answered or acknowledged.

I received a letter back from Betfred this morning, stating that they would be giving an official response soon on CM.

I wanted to finish my investigation and issue a full report by January 7, 2013. However, at every turn, my efforts are being blocked. The only evidence I have at hand are the log files provided to me by the OP. I do not consider this sufficient to draw widespread conclusions about all the parties involved.

My opinion is that this is a significant issue that may implicate many parties in player-fraud. In my opinion, this may be ongoing at some casinos. Without the cooperation from any of the parties beyond the OP, I can't do anything more here.

It's easy to talk. What's tough is getting something done. I've put about 30 hours into this investigation. That's free time -- I get no pay for this work (pay would create conflict-of-interest issues). I hope that someone else picks it up from here.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Crikey.

And we wonder sometimes why online gambling is seen as the wild west of the casino world.

Shocking stuff, thanks for your efforts Eliot.

It will be interesting to see if Betfred remain accredited.

 

[dionysus]

Update

The joys of doing work for free: no one is cooperating.

At this point, a proper investigation would need the cooperation of Realistic Games, Betfred, the UKGC, and the other casinos that use Realistic Games software (Bet365, Nordic Bet, Betpack, Stanjames), at the very least. There appears to be no entity (including CM) interested in conducting a full investigation. I certainly am not.

I did extensive research into Realistic Games. After identifying the key officers, I e-mailed Realistic Games on 12/30/2012 stating, in part,

"These numbers represent significant abnormalities with game behavior that appear to be intentionally integrated into the logic of some online casino games that Realistic Games has produced ... I would like your opinion on how this occurred and a statement from Realistic Games on the matter."

This e-mail has not been answered or acknowledged.

On 12/30/2012 I sent an e-mail to the UK Gambling Commission, asking, in part:

"The testing required is that an approved third party testing house is supposed to check the games. How can I find out which test house is responsible for testing the specific games I am concerned about, the dates of the testing and the results of those tests?"

I received a communication back from the UK Gambling Commission on 01/02/2013. They stated, in part:

"... you should bear in mind that it is the licence (sic) holder that makes a game available for use e.g. by putting it on their website that is required to ensure a game is appropriately tested and not the software developer."

I requested full logfiles for Reel Deal for November and December, 2012, from Betfred. This request has not been acknowledged.

I asked this question directly to Betfred on January 1, 2012: "Did you or anyone at Betfred know about Reel Deal games being gaffed?" This question has not been answered or acknowledged.

I received a letter back from Betfred this morning, stating that they would be giving an official response soon on CM.

I wanted to finish my investigation and issue a full report by January 7, 2013. However, at every turn, my efforts are being blocked. The only evidence I have at hand are the log files provided to me by the OP. I do not consider this sufficient to draw widespread conclusions about all the parties involved.

My opinion is that this is a significant issue that may implicate many parties in player-fraud. In my opinion, this may be ongoing at some casinos. Without the cooperation from any of the parties beyond the OP, I can't do anything more here.

It's easy to talk. What's tough is getting something done. I've put about 30 hours into this investigation. That's free time -- I get no pay for this work (pay would create conflict-of-interest issues). I hope that someone else picks it up from here.

I would think CM, and Nordic would be inclined. Did they make any statements, official or otherwise?

 

[Scooter7]

I guess I'm a bit of an @$$hole.
I just posted a link to this thread on Betfred's FB page asking for a comment.
I'm assuming they'll take it down in a matter of minutes.
Feel free to keep reposting it

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

I would think CM, and Nordic would be inclined. Did they make any statements, official or otherwise?

Again, this is the type of investigation that should happen. These other casinos should be contacted. They should make their log files available. A reputable 3-rd party should audit the logs for the suspect games. Damages, if any, should be determined. Players should be compensated. Casinos should be rogued. And so on. I have no statement from ANY party except the far-less-than-satisfactory response from the UKGC.

 

[threescatters]

UKGC might be responsible for Realistic Games but Gibraltar are responsible for betfred and as someone already linked gibraltar states that the responsibility for fair games falls on the licence holder under their regulations. They should be contacted as well imo.

Also I think victor chandler also have some realistic games games

 

[binary128]

More data, perhaps for the OP:


Betfred is licensed by the Government of Gibraltar and regulated by the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner.

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

[/URL] (You will need to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page.)


CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS REGARDING BREACHES OF LICENCE CONDITIONS

For further information on complaints and regulatory issues please see:

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

[/URL]

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

Complaints about operators must follow the process set out in The Gambling Commissioner’s advice to complainants. Complaints must be submitted in writing, by email, using the prescribed form (

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

) to gccomplaints@gibraltar.gov.gi.

Ultimately, in all of these various layers of business and licensing infrastructure, there must be something and/or someone that can actually do something about this?


Chris