Finsoft/Spielo G2 Games Issue

[vinylweatherman]

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.

Quite, this makes this FAR worse than the previous issue, which turned out to be a weighted production of card values, yet still random in the sense that the player could still get lucky.

An adaptive game is far worse. This is cheating the player through deception. The player CANNOT get lucky and end up well ahead, as the game adapts to how the player is betting to keep to the set RTP. Whether the OP had bet mostly on red, or mostly on black, the game would have adapted the outcomes such that BOTH strategies would have the same eventual outcome, a 4% take for the house.

This is simply a UK style fruit machine in disguise. Although coded to run to a set RTP, the complexity of the code needed to "cheat" means that clever players frequently take them to the cleaners.

In the above citation of a player forcing a FOBT to produce 36 three times on the trot by betting the other numbers, there are many FOBT systems doing the rounds that claim to trick this cheating code to operate in the players' favour. Bookies regularly ban players for consistently beating their "random" FOBT kiosks. If it was pure chance, they would NOT ban such players, but offer them free coffee in the hope they play for longer and get beaten by the long term house edge.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

An adaptive compensated game posing as a random card game is rogue software, simple as that IMO.

What I'm curious about here, is it actually possible to win on this game at all? If it adapts to the player's strategy in real time, and targets a 96% RTP, given the small multiplications of stake available as the maximum prize, do we actually have a game here that it's impossible for a player to win on.

 

[P.V.]

This is simply a UK style fruit machine in disguise.

Then everyone should run if the UK fruit machines are the same as the US fruit machines before vice shut them all down.

 

[Balthazar]

Holy crap this isn't a help file issue. This is a rigged card game issue!

You know, the kind of thing that players suspect and are told that they are into conspiracies when they bring it up.

Hey Betfred! Are your video pokers rigged too? What about your keno? Does the number 80 have the same chance to land when I pick it than when I don't? What are my chances to get a royal flush at Jack or better?

What about Roulette? Blackjack? Do we have to assume that they are all rigged and you're running a rogue software?

Holy shit, this situation brings online casinos back to the stone age.

I sure hope that Bryan joins this thread soon.

 

[Balthazar]

Quite, this makes this FAR worse than the previous issue

It cannot be worse than cheating the deck of cards, which is what this game is doing. I don't care if the game adapts and if you can get lucky or not, cheating is cheating and it's rock-bottom low. It cannot go lower.

If you mess with the probabilities of card games, craps, roulette or keno, you are cheating, you are rogue and should be punished by law.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I just don't trust these 'hybrid' casinos TBH, they can basically drop the 'gaffed' games, cut themselves loose from a software supplier, blame that supplier, and carry on just as before.

32Red for example are 100% Microgaming, if an MG game was proven to be cheating, 32Red would be in a world of pain - and quite frankly I think that's a good thing. 32Red need MG to be on the level, it's a symbiotic relationship, which is how it should be.

The more softwares individual casinos have on their books, the more they just become a frontend for a backend of various unknown softwares, whilst still maintaining the advantage of a big brand name.

 

[dionysus]

Maybe I'm reading the whole situation wrong, but to assume BF is rogue is to assume the other casinos using the software are rogue; could this just be the case of human error (wrong RTPs attached, specs wrongly written), poor software design) before there's a witch-hunt?..mistakes, happen, things fall through cracks, etc etc

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Maybe I'm reading the whole situation wrong, but to assume BF is rogue is to assume the other casinos using the software are rogue; could this just be the case of human error (wrong RTPs attached, specs wrongly written), poor software design) before there's a witch-hunt?..mistakes, happen, things fall through cracks, etc etc

That was covered a few posts ago, the game absolutely has to be rigged/cheating/fraudulent (take your pick) by design.

It can't be explained away as an error.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

 

[Balthazar]

I just don't trust these 'hybrid' casinos TBH, they can basically drop the 'gaffed' games, cut themselves loose from a software supplier, blame that supplier, and carry on just as before.

The only "gaffe" here is when the Betfred rep told us that the problem was the help file. Gaffed game my ass, it's straight up cheating and people would go to jail if this happened in a land based casino.

This is no different than if the MGM in Vegas had a rigged roulette game using magnets.

 

[threescatters]

Maybe I'm reading the whole situation wrong, but to assume BF is rogue is to assume the other casinos using the software are rogue

Yes to be fair, nobody has tested the game yet at the other casinos running it as far as I know.

 

[dionysus]

That was covered a few posts ago, the game absolutely has to be rigged/cheating/fraudulent (take your pick) by design.

It can't be explained away as an error.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/

I'm not saying the game isnt faulty. I'm suggesting the human error also lies with the casinos (poor quality control v malicious intent).
And why is BF being thrown under the bus here? (Since their name is being most often thrown around). I thought it was discerned several operators used this game, and to date, ONLY BF has stepped forward.

 

[Balthazar]

I'm not saying the game isnt faulty. I'm suggesting the human error also lies with the casinos (poor quality control v malicious intent).
And why is BF being thrown under the bus here? (Since their name is being most often thrown around). I thought it was discerned several operators used this game, and to date, ONLY BF has stepped forward.

You don't understand dionysus. The game should give a 100% RTP. Not 96%, not 99%, not 101%: 100%. This is a heads or tails game. The game is set to 96%, therefore it's cheating.

This isn't human error, it was done on purpose. The rep admitted that the problem wasn't the game but the help file so the game is "running as it should be".

Showing the 100% RTP on the help file originally was also obviously done on purpose, otherwise it would just give away the fact that the game is rigged.

 

[dionysus]

Thank you. However, I do believe I do understand. I may be wrong, in the end or now, I'm suggesting (only) that it may come down to laziness, poor quality control and/or a bad apple or two, v a series of out-and-out malicious intent to screw players. I'm personally, willing to follow along, question motives, read feedback and see how it all comes out in the wash before running to hang the whole lot.

 

[Balthazar]

Thank you. However, I do believe I do understand. I may be wrong, in the end or now, I'm suggesting (only) that it may come down to laziness, poor quality control and/or a bad apple or two, v a series of out-and-out malicious intent to screw players. I'm personally, willing to follow along, question motives, read feedback and see how it all comes out in the wash before running to hang the whole lot.

If it's true (as someone suggested earlier in the thread) that the game supplier makes money from a percentage of the profit generated from their games, there's a damn good reason to believe that they wouldn't release a game with a 100% RTP.

Were Betfred aware that they were offering a rigged game? Probably not. Should they be held responsible for the games on their website? Absolutely.

 

[dionysus]

If it's true (as someone suggested earlier in the thread) that the game supplier makes money from a percentage of the profit generated from their games, there's a damn good reason to believe that they wouldn't release a game with a 100% RTP.

Were Betfred aware that they were offering a rigged game? Probably not. Should they be held responsible for the games on their website? Absolutely.

I agree a company is liable for the product is sells and here, to a degree, it appears BF is looking to make amends.
If a land-based casino used a wobbly roulette table sold by an incompetent dealer or mislabeled cards dealt manufactured by a piss-poor supplier, or a croupier who deals from the bottom, I still think the casino should be held accountable. I'd just question the casino's quality control, not their motives.

 

[dunover]

Quite, this makes this FAR worse than the previous issue, which turned out to be a weighted production of card values, yet still random in the sense that the player could still get lucky.

An adaptive game is far worse. This is cheating the player through deception. The player CANNOT get lucky and end up well ahead, as the game adapts to how the player is betting to keep to the set RTP. Whether the OP had bet mostly on red, or mostly on black, the game would have adapted the outcomes such that BOTH strategies would have the same eventual outcome, a 4% take for the house.

This is simply a UK style fruit machine in disguise. Although coded to run to a set RTP, the complexity of the code needed to "cheat" means that clever players frequently take them to the cleaners.

In the above citation of a player forcing a FOBT to produce 36 three times on the trot by betting the other numbers, there are many FOBT systems doing the rounds that claim to trick this cheating code to operate in the players' favour. Bookies regularly ban players for consistently beating their "random" FOBT kiosks. If it was pure chance, they would NOT ban such players, but offer them free coffee in the hope they play for longer and get beaten by the long term house edge.

I did ask this further back, did the OP ever change the stakes??

 

[aceking123]

Its 100% down to the casino to check double check ,triple check, there games aswell , typos whatever Bf are a uk bookmaker , using the same systems as they on there FOBT in book makers this is clear now . how many more machines cards blackjack etc etc are being used by not only betfred but all the other book makers.

seems to me someone caught betfred out & knew there software was in fact rigged ( weighted ) this begs the question on all forms of machines on all softwares.

many of you guys spend alot of money online including myself , i doubt anyone could not think along the lines of if they were 100% random , i doubt there will ever be a machine thats 100% random as the would not appeal to any casino or player , but they could at least put up true facts about there machines , being weighted just like uk slots ( fruit machines )

Any machine that displays rtp% on it cannot be random its set to pay whatever that is over any given point in time this is 100% fact , cycles on machines are bound by the rtp% hence to why sometimes someone hits big its all part of gambling.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

There is a another issue here that has been touched on but perhaps deserves to be more clearly flagged up, and that's the fact that the game behaves differently in free play compared to real play.

Even if Betfred are going to stick with the 'wrong help file' excuse, we're still left with a game that plays differently (i.e. fairly) in free play mode, and then cheats in real money mode - which is clearly deceptive behaviour.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

I did ask this further back, did the OP ever change the stakes??

This is not relevant to the operation of the program. It's rogue programming and behavior was not based on stake size. The OP had long periods of the same stake, but did occasionally change stakes.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

There is a another issue here that has been touched on but perhaps deserves to be more clearly flagged up, and that's the fact that the game behaves differently in free play compared to real play.

Although the original post in this thread makes this claim with some evidence, this is a speculative statement and has not been proven. I have no opinion in this matter.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Although the original post in this thread makes this claim with some evidence, this is a speculative statement and has not been proven. I have no opinion in this matter.

Doesn't the nature of the request to the server in free play mode show that it can't cheat in the way that real play mode does?

i.e. The server doesn't know what the player has chosen when it returns a card, so it can't weight the results.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Doesn't the nature of the request to the server in free play mode show that it can't cheat in the way that real play mode does?

The results posted by the OP that claim this were not independently checked or duplicated. Moreover, there is no proof that the posted server request represents the full communication between player and server for the game event.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The results posted by the OP that claim this were not independently checked or duplicated. Moreover, there is no proof that the posted server request represents the full communication between player and server for the game event.

Fair enough

Although the OP also states:

We then tested the play money games for several hours to see if they showed the same behaviour. We recorded all our sessions (and have about 9 hours of recorded play on file)

Not that I'm suggesting you should review 9 hours of recorded free play games, but it would appear that enough evidence exists to say one way or the other should it be reviewed.

 

[Jufo]

Quite, this makes this FAR worse than the previous issue, which turned out to be a weighted production of card values, yet still random in the sense that the player could still get lucky.

An adaptive game is far worse. This is cheating the player through deception. The player CANNOT get lucky and end up well ahead, as the game adapts to how the player is betting to keep to the set RTP. Whether the OP had bet mostly on red, or mostly on black, the game would have adapted the outcomes such that BOTH strategies would have the same eventual outcome, a 4% take for the house.

This is simply a UK style fruit machine in disguise. Although coded to run to a set RTP, the complexity of the code needed to "cheat" means that clever players frequently take them to the cleaners.

I don't see any evidence that this is the case here. You seem to assume that every rigged game = fruit machine, which is not the case. UK fruit machines have the distinctive property of memory about how much the player has lost so far. This game on the other hand, simply seems to be a random game set to run at 96% return. It has no memory, You CAN get ahead, it's fair in this regard. The problem is that the probabilities it uses are not the same ones displayed to the user. This game is like a roulette game, where the server draws a number between 0-40 instead of 0-36 and if the drawn number is between 37-40 then the server randomly chooses one of the numbers where the player didn't bet on. It's still completely random and the player CAN get ahead, it's just that there are extra outcomes added to increase the house edge.

What I'm curious about here, is it actually possible to win on this game at all? If it adapts to the player's strategy in real time, and targets a 96% RTP, given the small multiplications of stake available as the maximum prize, do we actually have a game here that it's impossible for a player to win on.

Like said it looks like the game is random in the sense that it doesn't have a memory. The player's chances are just manipulated to be lower than advertised. You have slightly better chances to win in this game than in double-zero roulette, so you can get ahead for a short while.

 

[fourwood]

I have had a browse through this thread, I understand the paytable say 100% RTP, but where does it say the game has a random draw for the results?

Could it not have a 100% RTP, but also have weighted results... just make the game payout more to some players, less to others.

As for any HI-LO games i've always found them to feel compensated since when they first came out, winning lots of gambles at lower stakes and always losing when higher stakes where placed or regambled.

Why also are some on this thread quoting laws surrounding land based gaming about the odds have to be as represented?

Furthermore I can't see how its trying to represent a "pack of cards" since there are no 10s.

I would assume that the same card can be redrawn at any time?

 

[Jufo]

There is a another issue here that has been touched on but perhaps deserves to be more clearly flagged up, and that's the fact that the game behaves differently in free play compared to real play.

Even if Betfred are going to stick with the 'wrong help file' excuse, we're still left with a game that plays differently (i.e. fairly) in free play mode, and then cheats in real money mode - which is clearly deceptive behaviour.

I agree. The Fun mode vs. Real mode behaviour is something that still should be examined. If they are found to be different, ie. fun mode pays out 100% then this is another clear indication of deliberate deception. If the OP has logs of 9 hours playing this game in fun mode, then someone should look into the data. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to verify from the data whether the fun mode pays 96% or 100% based on the p-value from the data.

 

[thelawnet]

The results posted by the OP that claim this were not independently checked or duplicated. Moreover, there is no proof that the posted server request represents the full communication between player and server for the game event.

I have checked and can confirm indeed the post by the game in free play and real play are different.

I recorded this XML message at Bet365, in real money mode, betting on black:

<placebet signature="xxx" site="bet365" session="xxx" stamp="xxx" game_instance="xxx" mode="REAL" game="HILOGAMBLER" initialnumber="0"><bet id="0" payout="null" repeatcount="1" stake="5" state="0"><betselections><betselection savedstake="0" selection="HIGHLOW_BLACK" id="0" /></betselections></bet></placebet>

And the response:

<placebet game_instance="xxx" playduration="28" session="xxx" stamp="xxx"><bet bettype="ACS" id="xxx" isqualifiedforjackpot="false" payout="9.75" repeatcount="0" repeatssofar="1" stake="5.0" state="PLC"><betselections><betselection id="0" price="1.95" selectedvalue="" selection="HIGHLOW_BLACK" stake="0.0"><betoutcomes><betoutcome haswon="1" price="1.95" value="2"/></betoutcomes></betselection></betselections></bet><gamestate isover="0" isspecial="0" iswaitingstake="0" iswon="1" manuallypaidout="0" midbalance="xxx"><result number0="2"/></gamestate><account balance="xxx" country="GB" displaybalance="xxx" firstname="" language="1" lastname="" nonwithdrawablebalance="NaN" playabilityrolloverpercent="0.0" title="" username="xxx"><preferences mus="0" snd="0"/></account><notifications/></placebet>


And at Betfred in free play with the same bet:

<funplayrequests signature="xxx" site="BetFred" mode="FUN" game="HILOGAMBLER"><funplayrequest id="0" allowduplicates="true" count="1" rangehigh="12" rangelow="1" method="generaterandomnumbers" /></funplayrequests>

And the reply:
<funplayrequests><randomnumbers id="0">10</randomnumbers></funplayrequests>


My observations are:

* At Bet365 the game pays out 1.95, which is consistent with a fair 97.5% RTP game, but I haven't tested it for fairness.
* It is necessary for a real play game to send the bet at the time of requesting the result, so the message request in real mode is not inherently suspicious
* It is not unusual for a free play game to operate 'offline', for speed and to conserve server resources, albeit that technically no server request is required at all, since the random numbers can be generated client-side
* It is indeed correct, that if the real play game is adaptive to player's bet, that the free play game cannot be, since I can confirm that no message is sent to the server other than these that could contain the player's bet.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Thelawnet, thank you for your efforts on behalf of Free Play vs. Real Play. This now seems to be established.

 

[thelawnet]

I would note that the other sites could be tested in an expedient fashion using custom-authored automated software provided that you had a balance at the site (or were willing to deposit to do so).

There is some reason to believe that the software does not operate in the same manner on all sites, since the Bet365 has a paytable consistent with a fair, but casino-advantage, game, whereas Betfred does not.

It seems therefore that the game has both an adaptive setting to adjust RTP (which is cheating) and the option to adjust the paytable (which is not). Whether it is ever a fair game is not clear to me.

 

[dunover]

This is not relevant to the operation of the program. It's rogue programming and behavior was not based on stake size. The OP had long periods of the same stake, but did occasionally change stakes.

It shouldn't be but that is my point. If the game is not fair, and adheres tightly to an RTP significant rises in stake will weight an outcome against the player if the result would mean the player deviating too far from the variance allowed in the program. If you talk to players (I've never played one admittedly) who frequent the FOBT's that have similar games, this is common despite them allegedly being 'random'. I digress though from my point.
If this game uses weighting, which seems to be the consensus here, results can be slewed by varying the stake.

 

[katie91]

I'm pleased that others have been able to independently verify my results and have come to the same conclusions about these games.

Thelawnet, would you mind also examining the requests for the following games in free play mode for an anomaly which we discovered when looking at HiLo Gambler:

Trail Blazer
Aladdin's Treasure
Hi Lo Shuffle

I believe they all show the behaviour of excluding the player's current number from the results of the next spin in free play mode only. This can be seen as an excludenumbers parameter in the request.

For a hi-lo game, landing on the same number is bad for the player as it will always cause them to lose. This causes the player's RTP to be much higher in free play than real play. In fact, it wouldn't be possible for the player to lose on a bet of 1 which would result in a > 100% RTP for this bet. I don't believe this happens in real money play.

For now I would prefer it if Betfred focussed their investigation on Reel Deal and Hi Lo Gambler as these are the deceptive and rigged games I played and lost money on. While they have Finsoft on the line they might as well clean up all their games and it does show that the free play and real play games can be configured differently with higher RTPs in free play.

 

[thelawnet]

Yes it does show the following:

<funplayrequests signature="xyz" site="BetFred" mode="FUN" game="TRAILBLAZER"><funplayrequest id="0" excludenumbers="20" allowduplicates="true" count="1" rangehigh="20" rangelow="1" method="generaterandomnumbers" /></funplayrequests>

where excludenumbers is the number displayed, so 20 in this case, but it could be anything from 1-20.

I conducted 100 trials and the same number never occurred twice in a row, which has a chance by random luck of only 0.5%, which given the nature of the excludenumbers parameter, which serves no purpose that I can see, other than to cheat, is sufficient for me to conclude that the freeplay mode on this game is rigged in that it induces the player to play by demonstrating a higher-than-actual chance of winning.

Therefore it seems that this company cheats as a matter of course and a reasonable response would be to pull all their games from the casinos they are offered on.

 

[katie91]

Aaron@Betfred, As you can see my overall experience at Betfred as a HiLo player has been disappointing. I hope you continue this investigation with Finsoft/Realistic Games to get to the bottom of why they are providing so many deceptive/rigged games and refund players where appropriate. I would hope that if Finsoft and Realistic Games cared about their reputation they would also want to make a statement about this. I certainly won't be playing any of their games again if they consider this kind of behaviour to be acceptable.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Aaron@Betfred, As you can see my overall experience at Betfred as a HiLo player has been disappointing. I hope you continue this investigation with Finsoft/Realistic Games to get to the bottom of why they are providing so many deceptive/rigged games and refund players where appropriate. I would hope that if Finsoft and Realistic Games cared about their reputation they would also want to make a statement about this. I certainly won't be playing any of their games again if they consider this kind of behaviour to be acceptable.

I have to say Katie, your language is very measured and reserved, considering what's been uncovered here.

I'd be going for stronger words than 'disappointing'

Kudos to you for bringing this whole matter to light, I think a lot of people are going to watching this whole affair very closely indeed.

 

[deucebag]

Surely, we're talking fraud here? It's clearly intentional.

 

[katie91]

Editor's note: this player opened an account at this casino using another person's identity, and misrepresented himself to the community and those who were trying to assist him. This does not negate the fact that there are serious issues with the software and how the regulatory commission and affected casinos are responding to this.

I was initially very angry with Betfred about this but I've had a couple of weeks to calm down since then. I guess for a lot of people they were waiting for Eliot / Betfred to complete their analysis so it's only just starting. For me I've known that my log files were genuine and if you've seen the game play as much as I have you would be convinced that it was not dealing a fair game.

It's a relief to get this all confirmed by other parties, collecting all the evidence and handling the investigation has been very stressful over the past few weeks (not to mention the money lost on these games). I think it's at the point now where it's about more than just one player (me) and possibly more than one casino and there are people much better qualified than me to lead at this point. I hope you get the answers from other casinos but personally I never want to see these games again.

I hope Aaron and Betfred pursue Finsoft to get the answers here and ultimately refund the players involved. They do seem to be making progress (slowly) with this but I think there's still a long way to go.

 

[Balthazar]

The problem is that the probabilities it uses are not the same ones displayed to the user. This game is like a roulette game, where the server draws a number between 0-40 instead of 0-36 and if the drawn number is between 37-40 then the server randomly chooses one of the numbers where the player didn't bet on. It's still completely random and the player CAN get ahead, it's just that there are extra outcomes added to increase the house edge.

AKA rigged and completely illegal. I don't know how people could see this any different than plain old rigged Blackjack.

 

[mattsgame]

This whole thing is becoming crazy, and I would have expected a better response from Betfred.


EDIT: Removed the rest of my post as I think I maybe a little mixed up.

Is this the

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

Betfred etc are talking about? The game is not actually listed on that site.

 

[dunover]

I was initially very angry with Betfred about this but I've had a couple of weeks to calm down since then. I guess for a lot of people they were waiting for Eliot / Betfred to complete their analysis so it's only just starting. For me I've known that my log files were genuine and if you've seen the game play as much as I have you would be convinced that it was not dealing a fair game.

It's a relief to get this all confirmed by other parties, collecting all the evidence and handling the investigation has been very stressful over the past few weeks (not to mention the money lost on these games). I think it's at the point now where it's about more than just one player (me) and possibly more than one casino and there are people much better qualified than me to lead at this point. I hope you get the answers from other casinos but personally I never want to see these games again.

I hope Aaron and Betfred pursue Finsoft to get the answers here and ultimately refund the players involved. They do seem to be making progress (slowly) with this but I think there's still a long way to go.

Katie, I'm glad you initiated this thread for the benefit of all players. I would expect to see similar analysis of all similar games if possible from all providers. I would NOT expect this case to be unique, or this particular software supplier the only offender. I get the feeling this is endemic rather than unique. If only we could obtain this data for slots too, it would put to bed much conjecture and explain the rationale for many players' suspicions and opinions resulting solely from their experience.
Just one question. You played a significant number of coins on this game, and obviously lost badly. At what point did you suspect dubious software? I think it would have been obvious quite quickly you'd never win. I assume you chased and chased before realizing.

 

[katie91]

I guess when I was down by about 200 bets I suspected the game wasn't fair. I asked my brother to check the results the first time and he said we needed more spins before going public in case it was just bad luck. I then played another 10000 or so spins at minimum betsize over about 5 days.

I never got to the point where I was placing massive bets so I don't think I was really chasing losses. I could imagaine someone losing very badly on this game though if they thought it was fair and kept doubling up their bets to chase losses. The maximum bet on the game is £1000 so you could be cheated out of as much as £40/spin.

 

[dunover]

I guess when I was down by about 200 bets I suspected the game wasn't fair. I asked my brother to check the results the first time and he said we needed more spins before going public in case it was just bad luck. I then played another 10000 or so spins at minimum betsize over about 5 days.

I never got to the point where I was placing massive bets so I don't think I was really chasing losses. I could imagaine someone losing very badly on this game though if they thought it was fair and kept doubling up their bets to chase losses. The maximum bet on the game is £1000 so you could be cheated out of as much as £40/spin.

Good for that. It's clear that this software is reactive to players' stakes and choices and weights accordingly, and that making a sudden large stake to alleviate previous gradual losses on low stakes would be a disaster. It shouldn't do but I think we all know it would. It plays almost like people have described the FOBT's as playing. And they are appalling by all accounts.

 

[The Dude]

Just an FYI that I'll be getting involved with this tomorrow (Monday). As many of you may have guessed, I was out most of last week and the Christmas holidays.

In the meantime, if someone could post a list of casinos that use this software, I would surely appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[vinylweatherman]

It seems that Finsoft is part of the Boss Media group, which seems to have changed it's name a couple of times. Maybe Realistic Games is one of Finsoft's partners in game development. The games would then be produced by Realistic and other partners, but distributed by Finsoft. Finsoft have a small list of "blue chip" client companies on their site, which is a starting point to who might have these games. The list seems to be comprised of online bookies.

It is immune to cut & paste.

It also only shows 10 clients that have content in "different product areas", so is probably just an example list, not a full list of casinos having this game.


The way this is developing suggests that so far we have the "tip of the iceberg" with regard to games that "cheat" depending on what the player bets on, as well as being compensated, weighted, etc.

It also seems that the free play version does NOT "cheat", and so cannot be used as a means to check whether or not the real money version plays fair.

The only way forward would be to "mystery shop" these games by using real money accounts and gather enough data whilst using a betting pattern most likely to show up any adaptive behaviour, such as the OP's betting on one colour for thousands of wagers.

 

[katie91]

The casinos with the HiLo Gambler game that I could find are:

Betfred
Bet365
Nordic Bet
Sporting Bet
Stan James
Boylesports

There may be others I have missed.

 

[thelawnet]

There is a map here of the links between software:



Opnebet = Electracade (same company)

Finsoft is Gtech/Spielo G2, as is GTS.

The cheating (in free play mode at least) Aladdin's Treasure (from Finsoft) has an Electracade logo at bottom-right.

The format of the XML message sent by the Aladdin's Treasure game in free play mode is identical to the cheating-in-real-play Hi-Lo Gambler. However it seems that all Finsoft games use the same format for free play, and that it permits but does not necessarily encourage the individual developer to cheat.

Openbet have been involved in several previous scandals of incompetent came configuration, such as https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/sky-vegas-confiscates-big-wins-on-their-new-slot.48633/ and others.

 

[mattsgame]

Hi all,

In the meantime we will be removing the game, but let me stress that all data requested will be made available to all relevant parties.

Kind regards,

Aaron
Betfred

The HiLo Gambler game is still on the site? or was this only Real Deal?

 

[ThePOGG]

Ok - i'm coming to the party late on this one. I've been conscious of this thread for about a week but delaying reading it as i've been updating all the casino reviews and wanted to wait until i got to Betfred before getting bogged down.

As i see it this game has been confirmed to not be offering true odds (i.e. odds reflective of an actual game of cards). Help files really have NOTHING to do with the problem here. Weighting outcomes in games that mimic cards, dice, wheels ect is absolutely deceptive and unethical. Realistic in this instance have programmed a game to do just that. As such they've broken an ethical standard in what would be acceptable if this industry was properly regulated.

Is any of the above wrong?

If i've picked this up right, if a casino were caught rigging there blackjack games you wouldn't continue to play with them and just not play blackjack, you'd avoid them completely. Similarly, if i caught a software platform offering a intentionally rigged game i'd blacklist the entire software platform, not just the game i caught the rig on. Following this line of thought, as Realistic have been caught offering unethical games any casino property that is interested in protecting their reputation should pull ALL games from this provider. They can no longer be trusted to audit their own games or in fact program fair games to begin with.

Eliot - i'd be happy to help apply pressure to any parties that you want response from and have contacts within most of the casinos listed offering these games. Anything i can do, just drop me a PM.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

Is any of the above wrong?

What you've stated is consistent with my opinion.

Eliot - i'd be happy to help apply pressure to any parties that you want response from and have contacts within most of the casinos listed offering these games.

I've done what I am willing to do here. This is much bigger than Realistic Games. It involves multiple parties at many levels and is still in the discovery phase. Betfred has been almost entirely non-cooperative. Every other party has been entirely non-cooperative.

At this point, there is a growing list of major online casinos that should be considered as potential rogues. None have come forward to address this issue. The one casino caught in the crosshairs (Betfred) has at best directly implicated itself in this fraud. There is a software company that is definitely rogue. There is a software distributor that may be rogue. There is a governmental regulatory agency that is claiming no reponsibility in its oversight obligations. And so on.

There is almost too much here to keep track of. None of these parites is cooperating with my inquiries, so I have dropped out as an active investigator. I simply have no leverage.

 

[Seventh777]

What you've stated is consistent with my opinion.

I've done what I am willing to do here. This is much bigger than Realistic Games. It involves multiple parties at many levels and is still in the discovery phase. Betfred has been almost entirely non-cooperative. Every other party has been entirely non-cooperative.

At this point, there is a growing list of major online casinos that should be considered as potential rogues. None have come forward to address this issue. The one casino caught in the crosshairs (Betfred) has at best directly implicated itself in this fraud. There is a software company that is definitely rogue. There is a software distributor that may be rogue. There is a governmental regulatory agency that is claiming no reponsibility in its oversight obligations. And so on.

There is almost too much here to keep track of. None of these parites is cooperating with my inquiries, so I have dropped out as an active investigator. I simply have no leverage.

Bloody hell, about time that some form of regulatory agency stepped in and did take responsibility, beggars belief that in these times of regulations etc that the only people involved in exposing it are completely independent entities with absolutely no leverage whatsoever (no disrespect intended).

 

[ThePOGG]

What you've stated is consistent with my opinion.

I've done what I am willing to do here. This is much bigger than Realistic Games. It involves multiple parties at many levels and is still in the discovery phase. Betfred has been almost entirely non-cooperative. Every other party has been entirely non-cooperative.

At this point, there is a growing list of major online casinos that should be considered as potential rogues. None have come forward to address this issue. The one casino caught in the crosshairs (Betfred) has at best directly implicated itself in this fraud. There is a software company that is definitely rogue. There is a software distributor that may be rogue. There is a governmental regulatory agency that is claiming no reponsibility in its oversight obligations. And so on.

There is almost too much here to keep track of. None of these parites is cooperating with my inquiries, so I have dropped out as an active investigator. I simply have no leverage.

In that case i will be contacting each of my AM's at the various affected casinos asap, contacting the UKGC to discuss the licensing of Realistic Games, contacting other major portals owners who i have a realtionship with directly and posting about this on a few affiliate directed forums to encourage as many other webmasters as possible to apply pressure. This is an extremely serious issue and i can understand your frustration.