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 [email protected].

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

 

[dunover]

Thanks to EJ for the work.

I have personally met a couple of members of the UKGC. It is a 'word of mouth' Old Boys club of mainly ex-coppers and civil servants who've collected their pensions at 50-55 for 30-35 years of service, and have got themselves a cushy little 10 more years of taxpayer-funded safe salary to run alongside the pension I already mentioned. When they really do retire at 65 they will then collect another smaller taxpayer-guaranteed pension for the 10 years they 'serve' the UKGC.

Now, unfortunately for them when they've dripped buckets of sweat rubber-stamping or rejecting casino applications in a cursory manner, on occasion a matter will present itself that requires some cerebral activity, such as a player making a complaint regarding a casino they've licensed, or as in this case an eloquent and well presented request from our friend EJ. This will cause panic, and will raise the possibility of work being required. At this juncture, an ad hoc meeting will be pulled together by the outside wall cigarette butt receptacle to decide how best to dispense with this unwelcome and baffling interruption to their days of toil.

It will be decided hence that all possible matters to do with gaming are actually outside their remit as laid down by the last government, and no responsibility lies with themselves. To this end, the matter must be passed on to someone else even suspected of having knowledge of gambling, viz-a-viz the casino itself. After drawing lots, one unlucky member of the clique will be weighted down with ten minutes work whereby they will be required to compose a brief e-mail in reply to EJ abstaining from all possible input. End of.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thanks to EJ for the work.

I have personally met a couple of members of the UKGC. It is a 'word of mouth' Old Boys club of mainly ex-coppers and civil servants who've collected their pensions at 50-55 for 30-35 years of service, and have got themselves a cushy little 10 more years of taxpayer-funded safe salary to run alongside the pension I already mentioned. When they really do retire at 65 they will then collect another smaller taxpayer-guaranteed pension for the 10 years they 'serve' the UKGC.

Now, unfortunately for them when they've dripped buckets of sweat rubber-stamping or rejecting casino applications in a cursory manner, on occasion a matter will present itself that requires some cerebral activity, such as a player making a complaint regarding a casino they've licensed, or as in this case an eloquent and well presented request from our friend EJ. This will cause panic, and will raise the possibility of work being required. At this juncture, an ad hoc meeting will be pulled together by the outside wall cigarette butt receptacle to decide how best to dispense with this unwelcome and baffling interruption to their days of toil.

It will be decided hence that all possible matters to do with gaming are actually outside their remit as laid down by the last government, and no responsibility lies with themselves. To this end, the matter must be passed on to someone else even suspected of having knowledge of gambling, viz-a-viz the casino itself. After drawing lots, one unlucky member of the clique will be weighted down with ten minutes work whereby they will be required to compose a brief e-mail in reply to EJ abstaining from all possible input. End of.

So, why does a software developer (Realistic games) have it's own UKGC license if it is not they that bear the responsibilty for ensuring that the games have been tested and proven to operate in the manner described to players.

This multi-party stonewalling is only going to ensure that this issue becomes something much more major, and if players find more evidence of intentionally running gaffed games from this provider at a number of casinos there is going to be a cry of "deliberate cover up" in order to prolong the lifespan of this gaffed game before they are forced to retire their "nice little earner" for good.

CM has a facility for roguing software brands as well as casinos, so Realistic could be consigned to the pit whilst casinos that at least acted to pull the game to prevent further damage remain with their status intact whilst they can be judged on how they unwind the "cheating" of players that took place.

Max did mention that CM was "on the road" at present, so the OP can set things in motion by making a formal PAB about this issue, which will set in motion the formal investigative processes from which casino warnings and pit entries stem.

Eliot has done enough free investigation for it to be impossible for the parties involved to bury their heads and hope this all goes away.

The game has gone from Betfred, but may be present elsewhere, allowing some further player community testing. Other games provided by Realistic can also be found and tested. Eliot has already outlined the kinds of data needed and tests that can be done to show evidence that the game is likely to be gaffed than fair.

It seems that making the same bet on a supposedly random outcome is best at showing up bias with a relatively small (20K) dataset.

 

[Betfred]

Hi all,

The investigation into the complaint raised here in regard to the Reel Deal game has started yielding results, and as promised before they will be disclosed in this thread. The below is confirmed by Finsoft – the supplier through which Betfred receive Realistic Games products.

Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%. Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.

While mistakes do happen, Betfred realise this is not acceptable. Neither Finsoft or Betfred would purposely mislead players, and will therefore actively compensate players on losses derived from the game over the last 6 months. The amounts should be in accounts by next Tuesday. Claims beyond 6 months will be accepted and honoured, too, but must be submitted individually.

The remaining items brought up in this thread are still under investigation by our suppliers; they are:

1. The suggestion that the game in question’s RTP is adaptive
2. The suggestion that the game performs differently in fun and real modes

It’s been suggested here that the parties involved have blocked Eliot’s investigation. This is simply not true. However, it is possible that some people contacted directly were away over the Holiday period or were not in a position to comment on confidential information to none permitted individuals. Let me assure you that all concerned take this matter very seriously, and I hope this was conveyed in the game being removed and in the compensation now offered.

If you have a claim for losses on Reel Deal then please email [email protected] and we’ll process the amounts in cash and in full to your Betfred accounts ASAP.

Kind regards,
Aaron

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi all,

The investigation into the complaint raised here in regard to the Reel Deal game has started yielding results, and as promised before they will be disclosed in this thread. The below is confirmed by Finsoft – the supplier through which Betfred receive Realistic Games products.

Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%. Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.

While mistakes do happen, Betfred realise this is not acceptable. Neither Finsoft or Betfred would purposely mislead players, and will therefore actively compensate players on losses derived from the game over the last 6 months. The amounts should be in accounts by next Tuesday. Claims beyond 6 months will be accepted and honoured, too, but must be submitted individually.

The remaining items brought up in this thread are still under investigation by our suppliers; they are:

1. The suggestion that the game in question’s RTP is adaptive
2. The suggestion that the game performs differently in fun and real modes

It’s been suggested here that the parties involved have blocked Eliot’s investigation. This is simply not true. However, it is possible that some people contacted directly were away over the Holiday period or were not in a position to comment on confidential information to none permitted individuals. Let me assure you that all concerned take this matter very seriously, and I hope this was conveyed in the game being removed and in the compensation now offered.

If you have a claim for losses on Reel Deal then please email [email protected] and we’ll process the amounts in cash and in full to your Betfred accounts ASAP.

Kind regards,
Aaron

It seems that the "gaffed" nature of this game is INTENTIONAL, and the error is only that the wrong helpfile was given to Betfred during deployment. This dodges the real issue here, which is that the games are deliberately designed to be "gaffed" from the outset. Even with the "correct" help file, players who take the game at face value are STILL being mislead. It is no different really to having a "gaffed" roulette table to give an RTP other than that derived from the layout and paytables, and saying this is OK because the help file says so.

Now, try convincing non UK players that offering "compensated" casino games that give an RTP that is not related to the odds as displayed in the paytable is OK, and see how much convincing it takes.

This means that ALL Realistic games are suspect, and this affair has played right into the hands of the "tin foil hat brigade" who believe that ALL casino games offered online are "gaffed" to keep close to the intended RTP, rather than completely random.

If Realistic supplied a Blackjack game that offered 99.5% RTP from the rules and paytable, who would now believe it WAS "true odds" and dealt fairly.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Any game that uses virtual physical elements (cards) is expected to work as-if the elements were actual physical elements. In other words, virtual cards should act like a physical deck of cards. That is law for U.S. land-based casinos. The question is why this program was ever written in the first place. It could only be viewed as deceptive. If Realistic Games wanted a 96% version, they should just charge an 8% commission on wins.

Could you imagine if blackjack suddenly had the dealer being dealt more than a fair number of aces, for example? How about video poker with the player intentionally getting fewer pairs? What about no-0 roulette (a fair game) that is biased against the numbers chosen by the player? I hope you see the problem. A program should never be written to look and act as if it is fair when the results are biased. The C-code I posted earlier in this thread shows just how easy it is to create this unethical bias in a program.

If the helpfile was supposed to indicate a 96% game, then why would anyone at Betfred consider a version of a game knowing that its behavior was aberrant? What about the other games offered by Realistic Games on Betfred's site?

What about other casinos that offer games made by Realistic Games? Betfred should not be singled out here. What about Bet365? Nordic Bet? What about Sporting Bet?

I have a help file image from Sporting Bet, indicating a 100% return for Hi-Lo Gambler. Are they using this gaffed software too? Are they going to claim they used the wrong help file?

I can't begin to investigate this. But, the issue of gaffed software from Realistic Games is much larger than a help file.

 

[wigan rl]

Betfred you say giving auto refunds from the last 6 months that is not good enough it should be auto refunds from when the game went live

People who played this game went off what the game said but if you want a full refund due to your cock up you have to email in? That to me suggest you are trying to keep the pay back low

 

[vinylweatherman]

Any game that uses virtual physical elements (cards) is expected to work as-if the elements were actual physical elements. In other words, virtual cards should act like a physical deck of cards. That is law for U.S. land-based casinos. The question is why this program was ever written in the first place. It could only be viewed as deceptive. If Realistic Games wanted a 96% version, they should just charge an 8% commission on wins.

Could you imagine if blackjack suddenly had the dealer being dealt more than a fair number of aces, for example? How about video poker with the player intentionally getting fewer pairs? What about no-0 roulette (a fair game) that is biased against the numbers chosen by the player? I hope you see the problem. A program should never be written to look and act as if it is fair when the results are biased.

If the helpfile was supposed to indicate a 96% game, then why would anyone at Betfred consider a version of a game knowing that its behavior was aberrant? What about the other games offered by Realistic Games on Betfred's site?

What about other casinos that offer games made by Realistic Games? Betfred should not be singled out here. What about Bet365? Nordic Bet? What about Sporting Bet?

I have a help file image from Sporting Bet, indicating a 100% return for Hi-Lo Gambler. Are they using this gaffed software too? Are they going to claim they used the wrong help file?

I can't begin to investigate this. But, the issue of gaffed software from Realistic Games is much larger than a help file.

View attachment 37148

That helpfile shows that the 96% RTP is derived from the odds table, not a gaffed deck. The odds for the other selections show the RTP as being 100%. The OP bet on a colour, and with odds of 2.0 this should produce a long term RTP of 100%. Now, why would the "wrong helpfile" even be written to start with, let alone distributed in error. Surely only ONE helpfile exists for this game, and it should be the correct one when the game has passed the testing phase and is being distributed.

It seems that the odds table AND a gaffed deck are both being used to hold the game to a set RTP. Most players will consider this cheating as the majority of countries that allow casinos to operate insist that a virtual card deck behaves like a real one. Even UK players will see this as deceptive, as they have been tricked into playing a "fruit machine" that misrepresents itself as a virtual card game. ALL games offered by Realistic have been damned by this, as the trust in their fairness has been broken. The casinos offering these games also failed in their duty to test that all games they offered complied with the conditions of their license. It would seem that casinos relied on the game supplier to perform these tests, yet their license requires the casino to perform them to ensure the game complies with their obligations.

If we can't trust Realistic, can we trust the other suppliers of similar games, or indeed that the testing prior to release has been sufficiantly robust.

This is not just a random but weighted game, this is a game that alters the outcome based on the players' wager. Either that, or betting only on red instead of black would result in an RTP of around 104%, and guarantee the player a long term profit.

A test to show this would be to bet 100,000 times on black, and then open another session and bet 100,000 times on red. If the stats for 20,000 bets like this are damning, then they will be even more damning if 100,000 bets gives an even less likely result that being dealt 4 consecutive pat RF hands in a 5 card stud game.

 

[Jufo]

Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%. Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.

Like others have said, the issue is much more severe than the wrong help-information being supplied. The game basically draws outcomes based on what the player has bet on. It breaks the fundamental rule of fair gambling - that the outcome is always independent of what the player has bet on. If you maintain that the only problem here was the incorrect help-file then you are in fact saying that it is for example okay for a RNG roulette game to examine at which numbers the player has a bet on and avoid hitting those numbers.

I checked your Hi/Lo games collection and you still have the other compromised game "Hi/Lo Gambler" online at your site. The player had collected evidence that this game doesn't behave according to the implied odds either. Yes, the help-file of "Hi/Lo Gambler" states a payout 96% (did you just change that value?) but it doesn't change the fact that the game once again deals results based on where the player has bet on. There are 12 cards and choosing a single card correctly pays 12X bet, which means that the RTP of a fair game always will be 100% and the stated 96% is not mathematically possible derived from the game's rules. So Betfred: How about remove this game as well and start refunding also those players who have played this game?

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

There is also compelling evidence that the game Hi-Lo Gambler is similarly rigged. The bias against the OP when she wagered on "NONFACE" which pays 1-to-2 had a FACE/NONFACE bias that was more than 4 standard deviations from normal against her.

Given the statement by Betfred that they used a gaffed version of Reel Deal, and that Hi-Lo Gambler is acting in a fashion that is consistent with Reel Deal, I will state my opinion that Hi-Lo Gamber is also gaffed at Betfred. I will give additional data supporting this conclusion if Betfred does not conduct its own investigation and make a statement regarding Hi-Lo Gambler.

This problem is much larger than Betfred. It implicates some of the largest and most well-respected online casinos there are. There is a lot of work to be done here.

I offer this screen shot from Nordicbet's help file for Hi-Lo Gambler:



I offer this screen shot from Stan James for Hi-Lo Gambler:



I offer this screen shot from Sporting Bet for Hi-Lo Gambler:

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I think this situation is quite spectacularly horrible, that a casino could attempt to explain it away as an 'administrative error with a help file' is mind-boggling.

One dreads to think how many gaffed* games are out there completely undetected, quietly picking players' pockets, and whenever those players complain they're brushed aside as tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

* Personally I think 'gaffed' is the wrong word, 'cheating' or 'fraudulent' would work for me.

 

[deucebag]

Any game that uses virtual physical elements (cards) is expected to work as-if the elements were actual physical elements. In other words, virtual cards should act like a physical deck of cards. That is law for U.S. land-based casinos.

It's also the regulation in Gibraltar which states:

(5) A licence holder should not implement game designs or features that may
reasonably be expected to mislead the customer about the likelihood of particular
results occurring. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) Where a game simulates a physical device the theoretical probabilities and visual
representation of the device should correspond to the features and actions of the
physical device (e.g. roulette wheel).

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

 

[binary128]

The investigation into the complaint raised here in regard to the Reel Deal game has started yielding results, and as promised before they will be disclosed in this thread.

.....

Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%.

.....

It’s been suggested here that the parties involved have blocked Eliot’s investigation. This is simply not true. However, it is possible that some people contacted directly were away over the Holiday period or were not in a position to comment on confidential information to none permitted individuals.

I confess that I also am confused - a few database queries and you are yielding results. (Given that you have agreed to pay affected players, the results of these queries must have confirmed the previously, and extensively, reported results.)

These queries would take a few minutes to run, not 7 days, and could have been written/executed by anyone who understands how to calculate RTP. (Given that the RTP formula is (((A - B) / A) * 100), this should not have been a challenging resource to find.)

Assuming that some percentage of the game records for 2012 is contained in "archive databases", it might then take (at most) an hour or so (rather than a few minutes) to determine the full extent of losses, to generate the complete list of affected players, and to determine the amount that each of these players lost, for all of 2012. However, this is still pretty basic stuff - this is what Database Administrators are paid for.

So, I can certainly understand Eliot's frustration at essentially receiving no feedback from anyone, when the full extent of that feedback could have been, and quite possibly was, available within a day.

I can also understand Eliot's confusion concerning your statement:

Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.

Given that this could be a documentation error (lower magnitude) or a game error (higher magnitude), you have stated:

1. This was a lower magnitude documentation error.

2. You had thus always intended to deploy a 96% RTP game, not a 100% RTP game?


Re:

... mistakes do happen ...

Aaron, I don't believe it would be possible to find someone who is more sympathetic to, or understanding of, that statement.

The remaining items brought up in this thread are still under investigation by our suppliers; they are:

1. The suggestion that the game in question’s RTP is adaptive
2. The suggestion that the game performs differently in fun and real modes

I'm proceeding under the very reasonable assumption that the answer to the first question would again involve simple queries that would take a few minutes to execute. Given that 7 days have passed, I'm therefore speculating that this answer is already available.

I'm proceeding under the assumption that the same game but with different RTPs (whether Play-for-Fun or Play-for-Real) is identified by source code version control. Therefore, a quick check on the server will determine which version of the file is deployed (file name, file version number, etc.). Again given that 7 days have passed, I'm therefore speculating that an answer here is also already available.

Aaron, you're right. I'm sticking my nose into something that may well be none of my damn business. However ...

... this affair has played right into the hands of the "tin foil hat brigade" who believe that ALL casino games offered online are "gaffed" to keep close to the intended RTP, rather than completely random.

... this affair and your response to it does have an impact on the entire industry.

Chris

 

[Jasminebed]

Mistakes do happen. But I find it hard to believe at no point since game launch Betfred and the other operators didn't through their own internal audits and reports notice a 100% game paying back 96% month after month.

Does anyone think this game would have quietly stood if by "mistake" this 100% game paid back 104% consistently?

I don't find it all difficult to find that regulatory bodies are plum jobs given to former gov't employees or elected officials, ones with little or no understanding of programming, gambling, or the industry in general.

 

[Scooter7]

A few random thoughts to throw into the discussion:

1. Player perception of trust in a casino is no different whether a game is intentionally or accidentally unfair
2. Good operators are painted with the same brush as bad ones, reducing the overall level of player confidence in the entire industry
3. Without a strong regulatory body that can impose fairness-based decisions on the operators it governs, nothing much will change in a hurry

I'm curious to know how others feel about these thoughts and what sort of discussions we can have that may help the good operators shine brightly enough to relegate the bad ones to the sidelines.

 

[vinylweatherman]

How can one game have 2 different versions of the help file, one calculating 100% RTP, and the other 96% RTP, and both from the SAME paytable of odds

Both versions are wrong, because both versions show that the RTP for betting on non Hi/Lo outcomes, such as colour, is 100%.

We now have 2 "gaffed" games, and at a number of casinos, all of whom are supposed to be auditing actual results as part of ongoing quality control of game fairness. Either everybody missed the "bleedin' obvious", or they KNEW that the game was always intended to pay at 96%, and so didn't see an issue with audits showing that 96% was indeed the actual payout.

 

[aceking123]

lovely can of worms this has opened , well im thinking there will rather more games other than these what need checking aswell , not just this software either .

 

[Mousey]

Are these flakey games 'categorized' under card games in the casinos?

Looking into my little crystal ball, I see these games being demoted to the side-show games category... oh, it wasn't meant to be a real card game afterall... just for a bit of fun ya know.. like scratchies....

Wait... wasn't there another case ... can't find it right now...

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Are these flakey games 'categorized' under card games in the casinos?

Looking into my little crystal ball, I see these games being demoted to the side-show games category... oh, it wasn't meant to be a real card game afterall... just for a bit of fun ya know.. like scratchies....

Wait... wasn't there another case ... can't find it right now...

You may be thinking of this:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/are-bet365-cheating-on-their-game-s.49012/

 

[Westland Bowl]

 

[daywalker]

Hi all,

The investigation into the complaint raised here in regard to the Reel Deal game has started yielding results, and as promised before they will be disclosed in this thread. The below is confirmed by Finsoft – the supplier through which Betfred receive Realistic Games products.

Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%. Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.

While mistakes do happen, Betfred realise this is not acceptable. Neither Finsoft or Betfred would purposely mislead players, and will therefore actively compensate players on losses derived from the game over the last 6 months. The amounts should be in accounts by next Tuesday. Claims beyond 6 months will be accepted and honoured, too, but must be submitted individually.

The remaining items brought up in this thread are still under investigation by our suppliers; they are:

1. The suggestion that the game in question’s RTP is adaptive
2. The suggestion that the game performs differently in fun and real modes

It’s been suggested here that the parties involved have blocked Eliot’s investigation. This is simply not true. However, it is possible that some people contacted directly were away over the Holiday period or were not in a position to comment on confidential information to none permitted individuals. Let me assure you that all concerned take this matter very seriously, and I hope this was conveyed in the game being removed and in the compensation now offered.

If you have a claim for losses on Reel Deal then please email [email protected] and we’ll process the amounts in cash and in full to your Betfred accounts ASAP.

Kind regards,
Aaron

This is a start but really YOU need to be contacting all players to inform them of what has happened and offer refunds to everyone who has played since the game was launched. It is you who should be pro-active about this.

 

[dunover]

There was (I don't know if any one here saw it) a video of a player on a 'RANDOM' FOTB who forced the number 36 to come out 3 times on the trot. He simply bet the other 35 numbers. I suppose it was just a massive coincidence though. I've a feeling this scandal wont be confined to merely the reeldeel game in question.

 

[Przecinek]

This is just awful. Betfred already dropped the ball before by retroactively changing t&c. Now it turns out their 'true odds' games are rigged.

The worst part though is that it's not only Betfred but other accredited casinos as well.
To be honest I just lost my apetite to gamble. If casinos can change the outcome depending on how much I bet, what bets I place etc then what's the point of gambling in the first place?

I think all casinos mentioned by EJ should loose their accredited status. As CM says : "Trust is what it's all about."

 

[thelawnet]

There is actually a very simple issue with the Hi-Lo Gambler game, and it doesn't require any testing.

According to Betfred's (un)helpfile it has an RTP of 96%. But then both black and red pay out x2.

Since the game uses a short deck of 12 cards, 6 red and 6 black, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you bet on red, the chance of getting red must be less than 6 in 12, and black must be more than 6 in 12.

Therefore the game is rigged.

I previously posted a thread, which was spiked, about a so-called 'table game' that used six cards with unequal weighting, so that the Ace was less common than the 9. https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/are-bet365-cheating-on-their-game-s.49012/

However in that case the issue was resolved such that the game was moved to 'arcade games' and the following was noted 'The cards drawn are either 9, 10, J, Q, K & A. No deck is used, instead each card value has a different weighting so lower value cards are drawn more regularly than higher cards'.

In this case however it is not possible that both red and black can pay out 2x and the game have a 96% RTP.

The game must be adaptive, such that if you bet on red there is lesser chance of getting red, and if you bet on black there is a lesser chance of getting black. Since the game cannot be weighted as Three of a Kind was, there is no need to conduct any testing to see that the game is rigged, aka cheating.

I am therefore unclear as to why Betfred continue to offer this game on their website, and why no steps have been taken to pull it from other websites.

 

[mrmark21]

I'm under the impression that none of the Playtech Hi-Lo games have natural odds, one has been found to be rigged, what's to say the others aren't? They'd more than likely make all the Hi-Lo games the same not just single one game out and decide for that game not to have natural odds. I think all the games on the software should be called into question.

I can recall my first time playing the Heads or Tails game doing a martingale... needless to say turned out to be my last.

 

[threescatters]

Neither Finsoft or Betfred would purposely mislead players, and will therefore actively compensate players on losses derived from the game over the last 6 months. The amounts should be in accounts by next Tuesday. Claims beyond 6 months will be accepted and honoured, too, but must be submitted individually.

What do you expect players who played that game over 6 months ago to do? Find this thread of their own accord? Many will not do that and betfred know that full well. It is only a tiny TINY proportion of players that will have played this game that will have seen this thread. This is far below the minimum expected. You should refund all losses on both these games lifetime without people having to chase it up themselves.

Disgusting.