I
inetwiz
Guest
Is there a hidden agenda against a legitimate online gaming concern?
I did indeed contact, via email, Microgaming Systems' United Kingdom office and that business entity was given an opportunity to address the random number generation issue. Of the two email responses I received, one recently from a Microgaming Systems representative and the email I received from Mandy Crerar on January 1, 2001, both expressed incredulous outrage. The most recent email accused me of slanderous remarks, inaccuracies, and a follow up email, to the two correspondences previously mentioned, indicated a need for attorney action.
In gambling regulated areas such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City the states gaming commission completely examine the inserted program code of hardware slot chips (EEPROMs), for video poker machines, to ensure fairness and proper compliance with gaming laws. Does PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) or any government oversight entity examine Microgaming Systems program code for triggers of calculated payoffs by command line parameters or integration with a third party application for profiling casino players? Granted PWC does declare payoff ratios at casino sites for promotional purposes and conduct statistical trials for random number generation of microgamings software in controlled numerical environments. Does that in and by itself constitute credibility? Sir/madam, that is not an attack on PWC, I only wish to raise the question of PWC's entire involvement with microgamings software development.
I noticed that different online casino sites utilize various versions of the microgaming software indicating an earlier version may have a programming flaw. Could that same previous version software flaw be carried over to later developed versions during an upgrade? Online casino sites utilizing any gambling system software, in conjunction with third party profiling software, may be tracking registered casino players in order to debase the integrity of the payoffs. In addition, most casino sites are conducting business outside US territorial control, so wherein lies the accountability for scamming the online players. Any of these practices may lead to controlling randomness of numbers generated to meet payoff ratios described by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Casino sites displaying PWCs seal of approval never boasts of payoffs of 110% and that means the players never have consistently beaten casinos on regular basis. Scary thought, maybe then the numbers cannot be truly randomly generated based on bet amount, if possible calculation of payoff ratios occur before the blackjack cards are dealt, slot machines symbols turn, or the virtual roulette wheel spins.
Online casino players should be aware other players have found unexplained issues with casino software and are posting in online casino forums. Some observe random number generation suspicions. Consider 5 or 6 card draws by a virtual blackjack dealer to hit 21 when you are holding 20. What is the probability of that occuring in a real world case? 1,000,000 to 1 or maybe even higher odds against dealer catching 21 with 5th or 6th card being an ace.
Are we all wrong? Calls to mind Groupthink, where everyone involved with programming virtual casino gaming software is of one mind--denial. Nothing can be wrong with my software just because nobody has raised a specific issue or played certain scenarios. Can programming technicians account for all player scenarios involved with a particular piece of casino software? Give Me Break! Be advised, although another topic of discussion, I also understand the seeding and different program methodologies of random number algorithms. I must admit I dont profess to fathom the process by which PWC determines random number generation of a particular game (e.g., roulette, slots, blackjack, etc..) contained within a casinos gaming software system. How many ways are there to skew or bias probability results of statistical calculations? Let me think. Discard numbers outside the norm to avoid skewing the results, take it worked before prearranged sample set, average the results of several standard deviations, probability of only one result occurring from within a closed set (Pigeon Hole Principle), scientific control of the numerical environment by alleviating player variables, etc.
In summary, online casino players need certain protections against unscrupulous casino software developers and casino Internet sites. Without a US government Seal-of-Fairness Internet casino players have only the word of online gambling software developers and the casino utilizing a particular gambling software program as to the integrity of such online gaming software. Until a US approved body of independent examiners can inspect an online gaming companys software internal software program code, for discrepancies, I will continue to apprise US citizens of the pitfalls of offshore gambling utilizing microgaming or any other casino software system developed without proper verification for player fairness.
inetwiz
I did indeed contact, via email, Microgaming Systems' United Kingdom office and that business entity was given an opportunity to address the random number generation issue. Of the two email responses I received, one recently from a Microgaming Systems representative and the email I received from Mandy Crerar on January 1, 2001, both expressed incredulous outrage. The most recent email accused me of slanderous remarks, inaccuracies, and a follow up email, to the two correspondences previously mentioned, indicated a need for attorney action.
In gambling regulated areas such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City the states gaming commission completely examine the inserted program code of hardware slot chips (EEPROMs), for video poker machines, to ensure fairness and proper compliance with gaming laws. Does PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) or any government oversight entity examine Microgaming Systems program code for triggers of calculated payoffs by command line parameters or integration with a third party application for profiling casino players? Granted PWC does declare payoff ratios at casino sites for promotional purposes and conduct statistical trials for random number generation of microgamings software in controlled numerical environments. Does that in and by itself constitute credibility? Sir/madam, that is not an attack on PWC, I only wish to raise the question of PWC's entire involvement with microgamings software development.
I noticed that different online casino sites utilize various versions of the microgaming software indicating an earlier version may have a programming flaw. Could that same previous version software flaw be carried over to later developed versions during an upgrade? Online casino sites utilizing any gambling system software, in conjunction with third party profiling software, may be tracking registered casino players in order to debase the integrity of the payoffs. In addition, most casino sites are conducting business outside US territorial control, so wherein lies the accountability for scamming the online players. Any of these practices may lead to controlling randomness of numbers generated to meet payoff ratios described by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Casino sites displaying PWCs seal of approval never boasts of payoffs of 110% and that means the players never have consistently beaten casinos on regular basis. Scary thought, maybe then the numbers cannot be truly randomly generated based on bet amount, if possible calculation of payoff ratios occur before the blackjack cards are dealt, slot machines symbols turn, or the virtual roulette wheel spins.
Online casino players should be aware other players have found unexplained issues with casino software and are posting in online casino forums. Some observe random number generation suspicions. Consider 5 or 6 card draws by a virtual blackjack dealer to hit 21 when you are holding 20. What is the probability of that occuring in a real world case? 1,000,000 to 1 or maybe even higher odds against dealer catching 21 with 5th or 6th card being an ace.
Are we all wrong? Calls to mind Groupthink, where everyone involved with programming virtual casino gaming software is of one mind--denial. Nothing can be wrong with my software just because nobody has raised a specific issue or played certain scenarios. Can programming technicians account for all player scenarios involved with a particular piece of casino software? Give Me Break! Be advised, although another topic of discussion, I also understand the seeding and different program methodologies of random number algorithms. I must admit I dont profess to fathom the process by which PWC determines random number generation of a particular game (e.g., roulette, slots, blackjack, etc..) contained within a casinos gaming software system. How many ways are there to skew or bias probability results of statistical calculations? Let me think. Discard numbers outside the norm to avoid skewing the results, take it worked before prearranged sample set, average the results of several standard deviations, probability of only one result occurring from within a closed set (Pigeon Hole Principle), scientific control of the numerical environment by alleviating player variables, etc.
In summary, online casino players need certain protections against unscrupulous casino software developers and casino Internet sites. Without a US government Seal-of-Fairness Internet casino players have only the word of online gambling software developers and the casino utilizing a particular gambling software program as to the integrity of such online gaming software. Until a US approved body of independent examiners can inspect an online gaming companys software internal software program code, for discrepancies, I will continue to apprise US citizens of the pitfalls of offshore gambling utilizing microgaming or any other casino software system developed without proper verification for player fairness.
inetwiz
