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?