Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[spearmaster]

Oh and by the way, I think we should also be thanking thelawnet for exposing the problem in the first place. It does go to prove that when everyone pitches in, we have a much better chance of keeping the playing field level for everyone

 

[thelawnet]

thelawnet, by "automatic" I think they meant "previously scheduled". And btw, they said "automatically corrected by an update", not "automatically updated".

That is fair enough. But firstly the Video Poker has been the same as it is now for a long time. It's hard to see why they would have changed it around April 13, as it's been there for months and nothing should need to be changed.

Be that is it may, and assuming they had a reason to update that code, it is just unbelievable that they would later fix the code again without knowing that it was broken. They must have known they had fixed it with the May 3rd update, so to deny that there was a problem is implausible and damaging to their credibility and makes a mockery of their latest statement.

 

[Wildfire7]

It will be interesting to see if this bug has happened in earlier months pre jan 06 from the Wizards audits. If this kind of thing can happen even once every 18 months, and go undetected for just a couple of weeks, then that's a nice little profit for the Casino in question.

What reassurances do players now have that this kind of thing will not happen again. Confidence and trust in the software is paramount and players have a right to know what measures have been implemented so that a repeat is unlikely to happen in the future.

Simply saying that we had a bug, now we have fixed it, so don't worry, certainly doesn't restore my confidence. The very fact that an error like this can go undetected for nearly a month is pretty disturbing. But hey what do I know I am just a customer whose confidence in fair gaming has been shaken, because if it can happen in VP doubling, then how many other bugs are out their, that have not yet been dicovered?

Wildfire7

 

[thelawnet]

It will be interesting to see if this bug has happened in earlier months pre jan 06 from the Wizards audits. If this kind of thing can happen even once every 18 months, and go undetected for just a couple of weeks, then that's a nice little profit for the Casino in question.

Of course we don't know what is audited, or when, as the logs are not public. I am slightly confused actually that initially WoO promised to audit all logs back to January, and did not suggest that he had previously examined the logs for January, February and March. If the video poker doubling had specifically been examined for January, February and March he could have stated then that he had audited January, February and March's results, as part of his monthly audit, and therefore the problem must have started in April - there would be no reason to go back to January 1.

So I'm not sure that the statement today that the problem would have been identified in the routine April 2006 audit really stacks up. Certainly other audits (e.g., PWC at Microgaming) just look at percentage payouts on games, and do not necessarily cover matters as specific as this.

 

[spearmaster]

That is fair enough. But firstly the Video Poker has been the same as it is now for a long time. It's hard to see why they would have changed it around April 13, as it's been there for months and nothing should need to be changed.

Be that is it may, and assuming they had a reason to update that code, it is just unbelievable that they would later fix the code again without knowing that it was broken. They must have known they had fixed it with the May 3rd update, so to deny that there was a problem is implausible and damaging to their credibility and makes a mockery of their latest statement.

The denial came before they actually looked at logs - and I fully agree that the initial statement was premature and damaging and really was done without proper examination of the issue at hand.

I am not going to speculate on what changed or why - as a programmer, however, I will say that it is very easy to muck something up without even noticing you've done it until it's too late.. LOL... on the other hand, I don't program casinos, the mistakes I made don't cause any major problems for anyone but myself

Besides which, Microsoft is the king of bugs and vaporware - and yet 95% of us still use Windows...

 

[dresden]

I was just refunded $300+ from this error, glitch, malfeasance or whatever it really was. Thanks thelawnet.

This is just anecdotal but I utilised the doubling feature with real money in early mid-April and noticed I had an awful, awful run. I have been playing at English Harbour for 6 months or so and that was the first time I had a visceral reaction to my results. That is to say, I do not believe the doubling was unorthodox at any other point in my past play. This is in response to speculation about past errors, glitches or malfeasance. I have no evidence either way however.

 

[caruso]

Be that is it may, and assuming they had a reason to update that code, it is just unbelievable that they would later fix the code again without knowing that it was broken. They must have known they had fixed it with the May 3rd update, so to deny that there was a problem is implausible and damaging to their credibility and makes a mockery of their latest statement.

This is what they said:

We have concluded our review of the game play and randomness for all Video Poker games. We have found, taking several sample sets over different and varying lengths of time, that they yield in our opinion, a non biased distribution of the cards.

So assuming we invest the "bug" story with any credibility at all: they had a problem, they knew about it, fixed it, lied about there ever being a problem - then changed their minds and acknowledged it.

We'll call that Scenario Number One.



Then there's Scenario Number Two:

There was a fix in the game, which ran until just after this thread was posted; within a day or so, as soon as they could get around to it, they pulled it - this squares with our members' results suddenly and somewhat mysifyingly normalising, which is an indisputable fact (the sudden normalising). They were TOTALLY caught with their pants down and rushed out the cover-up story (see above); with a little more time to get their heads around it, they realised the impossibility of the "non biased distribution of the cards" claim, and rolled out the "bug" story.

Which scenario squares with the facts as we know them?

 

[thelawnet]

The denial came before they actually looked at logs - and I fully agree that the initial statement was premature and damaging and really was done without proper examination of the issue at hand.

I am not going to speculate on what changed or why - as a programmer, however, I will say that it is very easy to muck something up without even noticing you've done it until it's too late.. LOL... on the other hand, I don't program casinos, the mistakes I made don't cause any major problems for anyone but myself

It would be quite hard to introduce this kidn of bug I think. I cannot think how it could happen except by adding several deliberate lines of code.

And not to mention that, even if they did mess it up, they unmessed it. To change it back, you must know it is broken.... They tried to cover up and this is damning.

 

[kengam]

Spear has much more confidence in this group's ability to explain themselves than I do as I can not think of any possible way for them to save face on this. They added something to a fair program to cause it to deal unfairly to the players and then when it was exposed they then took it away and returned the game to its earlier form.

If it aint broke...don't fix it. Mike Shackleford does business with this company so while we can thank him for his help in analyzing the data, there is an obvious conflict of interest here.

 

[spearmaster]

I think I would tend to agree that in the majority of cases, a change in algorithms would normally require more than a line of code, and that typos generally can't happen as the code would return with an error and stop execution.

That being said, I still have one scenario in my own mind which could explain the abnormalities that were encountered but again I don't think it's wise to speak about it at the moment because I don't intend to open any avenue for escape, if you see what I mean.

Kengam - I'm not confident of anything at this stage - the only difference between me and everyone else at this point in time (other than being a moderator, of course) is the scenario I have referred to above. I have no vested interest in EH, as I do not market or affiliate with them (or anyone else at this time, though of course there are a few unused links on Awesome Jackpots.com LOL). In fact, my primary and voluntary mission at this time is to protect players from being ripped off or otherwise unfairly treated by rogue casino operations.

But I cannot do this at the expense of harming an operation unnecessarily or unfairly - there must be some sort of balance somewhere. So, while we are fresh from the battles... LOL... I think it's only fair to give EH a bit more time to explain exactly what happened, if at all.

If no explanation is forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time I will naturally be forced to assume that there is something to hide, at which point no further guarantees or warranties are made

Oh and by the way, I think you are unfairly tarring Mike Shackleford, who is and has always been an honest gentleman and well respected by everyone. While I agree that there is a relationship between him and OddsOn, he is very, very unlikely to risk his reputation to hide any irregularities (if any) for one of his clients. And he and I have enjoyed a close trusting relationship for almost as long as I've been in the industry and I will be more than happy to stake my own reputation on his reputation...

 

[soflat]

...

Which scenario squares with the facts as we know them?

There are all sorts of scenarios possible.

Maybe there was a disgruntled employee who did it.

Maybe they found another bug in March and that is why they updated the software April 13th.

Maybe in debugging or testing the first bug, they introduced a new bigger bug.

What are the chances this was the first bug they ever had? This one was pretty obvious and they didn't notice it until it came up here.

 

[suzecat]

What are the chances this was the first bug they ever had? This one was pretty obvious and they didn't notice it until it came up here.

And though we will never know, what are the chances it would have ever been admitted had thelawnet not made the initial post?

Sorry Spear ....... I am anxious to read your final analysis ........ will I play at OddsOn or OddsOff?

 

[spearmaster]

And though we will never know, what are the chances it would have ever been admitted had thelawnet not made the initial post?

I think the question is, what are the chances the problem would have been discovered had thelawnet not spotted it so early on...

Sorry Spear ....... I am anxious to read your final analysis ........ will I play at OddsOn or OddsOff?

LOL... good one...

I think the final analysis will be made by everyone here once OddsOn comes forth with an explanation of what happened. I would dare to venture that my analysis will turn out to be the same as everyone else unless, and only if, the one scenario I have possibly envisioned ultimately turns out to be what happened (and this is no more likely or unlikely than any other scenario).

 

[rj314]

same owner

For those who are nervous about this incident, it should be pointed out that these OddsOn casinos are owned by VIP Sports, who also owns VIP Casinos and Acropolis Casino.

 

[nektar4d]

Well, thats what I read

Superior control?

Yes, as written previously:

This is from the Oddson-site:
The Management (Back Office) Software is unmatched in its superior power, functionality, and flexibility. It incorporates HTML-based, high-encryption web page technology the most secure and advanced availableand does not require any specialized proprietary products. Information on player registration, games played, wagering g and account balances is captured and compiled in a multitude of reports:

The only interesting here is the "superior power, functionality, and flexibility". Maybe too superior

Zoozie

 

[Aindreas_Daoc]

Wow, this thread sure exploded.

A couple of things:

1) Thanks to WoO for his quick help.

2) EH chose to do some things right. I am satisfied that people affected by this particular problem will be refunded fairly. I retract my earlier statement that I doubt they will do this. However, it is still unclear whether this was done due to their own integrity or because they simply had no choice after WoO examined the logs. After all, the initially came out and strongly denied anything was wrong. Also, the timing of the "autoupdate", merely days after this thread started in the forum seems a bit too convenient

3) Further explanation is needed in some instances: As some forum members pointed out software doesn't corrupt itself nor fixes itself, so how was this "bug" introduced, and what assurances do players have that the rest of the software is sound? Let's not forget, the reason this "bug" was discovered was because it was so blatantly obvious. If the "bug" had been a smaller one no one would notice.

4) How did the update only affect EH group casinos and apparently not other non-EH OddsOn casinos?

 

[bb1webs]

How did the update only affect EH group casinos and apparently not other non-EH OddsOn casinos?

good question.

 

[freakin]

my thoughts exactly. And its likely to be the one string nobody can explain away. Since its obvious that this was not something across the board sends red flags up all over the place for me.

I have not been able to come up with a plausible reason for it only happening at the one network ... unless you add into the equation someone at the network having the ability to alter the end game results ...

well okay I suppose it could be that the software company could have things set up so they could alter the results at one network of casinos but not at another but I fail to find any sound logic to that end.

Besides which in either case it puts the software in bad light so I suppose that point is rather mute.

... gonna be a tough sell explaining away why this happened at one network and not another.

after further thought I suppose its possible the games are served separately to each network, therefore the update only effecting the one network ... but I would be surprised to find out that is how things are done.

It is quite likely the EH requested some kind of functionality that was not previously in the software (could have been anything from better reporting to faster response time in certain situations) and Odds On delivered them the updates before anyone else. Just like how not all Microgaming Viper casino is running the latest version with all the latest games. Just because a developer releases something does not mean all the customers immediately implement it.

It seems extremely unlikely that any casino operator would rig a game to be THIS obviously biased that a sufficient amount of evidence could be generated in one or two days that would damn them. I have a close friend who was affected by this and complained about it loudly to me, but I still think it *could* have been an actual bug.

 

[tennis_balls]

i demand a refund to my play money account

i wonder how long such a software error could have continued were the odds skewed in favor of the player?

 

[nektar4d]

the "superior" software strikes back again

4) How did the update only affect EH group casinos and apparently not other non-EH OddsOn casinos?

good question.

Not so difficult to answer.
Ok, lets explain the superior software better:
This is from the Oddson-site:
"The Management (Back Office) Software is unmatched in its superior power, functionality, and flexibility."

Practically it may mean that the management or the IT department of any Oddson casino may alter the payouts of specific games or even better of specific features of games. If this is possible, we can never know which casino alters which feature of which game and for how long every time, (unless we get lucky like in this case, thanks to a player who has mathematics knowledge).
This is just a scenario.

My english are not great, so please someone start a nice poll about this thread. Facts are enough for a personal feeling or opinion and it will be most interesting to see the effects to the fame of EH among the players!

 

[bb1webs]

CM and the rest of you portal owners; you really should drop all Odds-On casinos without any delay.

just for the record; I haven't listed them since ... nearly since they changed software from being MGS. thats a long time ago.


***********

freakin: you caught me. I had decided I was being too quick on the draw and was going to wait to post that later on after more people had weighed in with more knowledge than myself: but as my luck would have it .... lol.

 

[sirius]

Please wake up!

Michael Shackleford is able to program well enough to know that their explanation is implausible at the best of times but especially given the circumstances of the situation. I also doubt his audits normally covered the double up feature at all despite the implication otherwise. The results data sent to be audited could also easily be fabricated by the software provider in any case.

The software provider really needs a more techinical explanation for the error as it seems unlikely to be possible without deliberate rigging.

 

[erp1]

What I don't understand

If the software has a feature that makes it possible to define the target of the win/lose ratio then I can understand that its possible by mistake to change the parameter from a neutral and fair value of 100% to a not neutral and not fair value of 50%.

If a not neutral and not fair value of such a parameter is set to 50% at English Harbour in the period April 13 to May 2, I am too able to understand way the result in that period is in imbalance as reported in the logs for that period.

What I dont understand is why the software should have such a feature unless the assumed parameter is a handle to produce not fair and not random results.

 

[tony_k]

assumption

I was thinking how it could happen. Let's say they do "second deal". I mean if player has a winning hand, the house will deal a "second card" as a replacement. It's much easier than manipulating RNG.

normal win/tie/lose ratio is 0.46154/0.07692/0.46154.
I figured win/tie/lose ratio on "second deal" as 0.29586/0.11243/059172.
win/lose ratio is almost 1:2 and tie ratio is bigger than normal under this story.

It's an only assumption but it is pretty much fitted to sample provided by house, isn't it?

 

[thelawnet]

If the software has a feature that makes it possible to define the target of the win/lose ratio then I can understand that its possible by mistake to change the parameter from a neutral and fair value of 100% to a not neutral and not fair value of 50%.

If a not neutral and not fair value of such a parameter is set to 50% at English Harbour in the period April 13 to May 2, I am too able to understand way the result in that period is in imbalance as reported in the logs for that period.

What I dont understand is why the software should have such a feature unless the assumed parameter is a handle to produce not fair and not random results.

There shouldn't be any parameter. If the game was set so that the player wins half the time and the dealer wins half the time then it would make sense, but the game is based on drawing cards at random. There was no problem with whether the software thought the card was higher or lower. The problem was the player card was lower than the dealer card far more often than is possible by chance. This cannot be caused by a parameter - you are not doing

if RandomNumber Is Less Than 50%, but accidentally typing in Less than 33% or something
Then Player Wins
Otherwise Dealer Wins

You are drawing five cards at random, and the cards speak for themselves

 

[dovmin]

They used to have one line jacks or better as a game that counts towards the wagering now I see it is not

I wonder why

 

[paul02085]

IMO English Harbor and all Odds On casinos should be rogued. There is no way i believe this was a mistake. Only mistake was they got caught.

Doesnt this just show how easy it is for online sites to rip people off??? Wow.


PS- Thelawnet, kudos for exposing this.

 

[ergopro]

The following table shows the results of all double or nothing bets in real play mode from April 1 to May 3.

Sorry to ask a stupid question but were the stats at page 17 all of the double or nothing bets made at EH casinos that day?
Again, sorry for a stupid question...

 

[caruso]

They used to have one line jacks or better as a game that counts towards the wagering now I see it is not

LMAO.

If that's correct, the circumstatial evidence is now completely overwhelming. It's far too much of a coincidence that they just happened to pull that game from their promos now it's had the fix removed. They only allowed JOB while the unbeatable fix was in. Now it's gone, they've pulled the game that no longer represents a guaranteed profit.

Everything now adds up to a deliberate fix.

 

[spearmaster]

LMAO.

If that's correct, the circumstatial evidence is now completely overwhelming. It's far too much of a coincidence that they just happened to pull that game from their promos now it's had the fix removed. They only allowed JOB while the unbeatable fix was in. Now it's gone, they've pulled the game that no longer represents a guaranteed profit.

Everything now adds up to a deliberate fix.

I'm tired of this horseshit.

Circumstantial evidence, overwhelming or not, is still circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, no one has substantiated WHEN JoB was removed from being allowed for qualifying, yet all of a sudden you decide this is key evidence. And you are calling what happened a fix, again without any proof.

I hope it's warm where you are, Caruso, because you've just bought a one-week ticket. I'm quite certain you were angling for this to see how far you could go - well, you just found out.

 

[suzecat]

Well, I am not going to diss the board....no way...just going to enjoy listening to the singing Munchkins (Ding!Dong!....).......

 

[thelawnet]

LMAO.

If that's correct, the circumstatial evidence is now completely overwhelming. It's far too much of a coincidence that they just happened to pull that game from their promos now it's had the fix removed. They only allowed JOB while the unbeatable fix was in. Now it's gone, they've pulled the game that no longer represents a guaranteed profit.

Everything now adds up to a deliberate fix.

Sorry, you are wrong. At one time they allowed all video poker games. Then they banned multiline video poker (last year). Then they banned Jacks or Better (before the rigged doubling starting). There is no correlation between them no longer offering Jacks or Better and the rigged video poker doubling.

Them no longer allowing Jacks or Better just meant that you could play a different video poker game, probably Tens or Better. I guess they stopped offering it for the obvious reason that Jacks or Better is less profitable.

It doesn't change the fact that they issued a false statement about their game being fair, even though the software had just been changed back from rigged to fair. That is the most damning thing, not to mention that it's pretty hard to see how this could have happened in the first place.

 

[Mousey]

I have read the entire thread... and parts of it more than once. I'm not a mathhead, don't know a darn thing about programming, or even understand how online casino software really works -- so the following few things are what really bothers me about this goof up (if the explanation is in the thread, forgive me and just point me to it)..

Who diddled with the software? The casino? The software provider? Did the 'glitch' affect only one casino or did it affect all OddsOn/Vegas Tech casinos? Perhaps it wasn't deliberate, but it proves that simple, standard game features can be made screwy and still appear to function normally whether by accident or design. If they can monkey with the DoubleUp, can't they also fiddle with the card deal and/or draw during game play?

Who executed the patch that repaired it? The software provider? or English Harbour?

As I play a lot of VP, this incident has really given me the creeps.

 

[dovmin]

thelawnet, It is true that multihand Videopoker is not allowed for a longer period BUT the 1 line jacks or better was banned during the NON RANDOM period.

The casino alleges that the Non Random started at the 13 of April, well I don't think so. Even if you believe the casino that it was a mistake, you don't have to believe them that it started at the 13 of April.


If the assumption is that everything was not a mistake then a player who plays other Videopoker might get a fair doubling because if he plays that game he is probably not a professional player.


There is one theory that going on between the webmaster that if they wanted to cheat they would do it in a mush less obvious way. The fact the NON RANDOM was so obvious is to their favor now. Well, maybe they knew that fact, maybe they knew that the bigger the lie is the better it is to cope with it once you get caught. You can always say it was a big mistake.

I have information with me that I can not disclose.

The information I have does not prove BUT it supports my theory. This is only a theory and of course there is a chance and even large odds that it was a mistake.

Look what happened with RTG, they had the bug in their blackjack only for players who play with coupons which means bonuses.

They sent an email that they found an error in the software that all splits were not paid and they returned the money.

I believed them, it is all about trust. For now I don't believe English harbour although I have no 100% proof that I am right

 

[spearmaster]

The casino alleges that the Non Random started at the 13 of April, well I don't think so. Even if you believe the casino that it was a mistake, you don't have to believe them that it started at the 13 of April.

First of all, the stats from April 1st were posted, and it is obvious that the ratio changed on April 13th.

Now you can always choose to believe that they manipulated those numbers just to make their claim correct - but you have missed the fact that anyone playing there would have noticed the same thing as thelawnet did if it had happened earlier. The numbers were so far off, and the odds so far against the player, that it would have been impossible not to notice that something was wrong.

So unless anyone has any results from before April 13th that indicate that the doubling game was seemingly abnormal, I would tend to think that we can accept the stats that were posted.

 

[suzecat]

Despite enduring enormous patience waiting for something (anything) from OddsOn(OddsOff?) to fully explain this "mistake," none has been proffered to my satisfaction. Hummmmm....There are simply too many casinos available on the internet for me to feel comfortable with this group. So life goes on.

 

[ergopro]

the stats from April 1st were posted, and it is obvious that the ratio changed on April 13th.

Sorry to ask again, but those stats that were posted, are they for the entire EH?

 

[Zoozie]

Who executed the patch that repaired it? The software provider? or English Harbour?

Only the software provider is capable of releasing new patches.

The issue was caused by a bug in the software staging release on the later part of the day April 13 and went unnotice.

If this is true then the software provider is responsible. A lot of people
are very angry at English Harbour right now, but they are actually innocents if this is true.

As a software developer I not believe it is due to a bug (a bug is an unintended malcfunction). The point it is that the 'new' code would look fundamentally different from the old 'symmetric' code.

I strongly believe it is due to a software configuration change which could be by mistake or deliberate. However this is actually not important as I will explain later.

English Harbour wrote the following to our beloved meister:

In theory, the number of Wins versus the number of losses and (excluding ties) will converge to 50% over a sample set that is large enough. .

Now THIS is interesting. It is mathematically plain wrong. #wins/#losses will converge to 100% given a fair game. It is a realistic mistake for someone not used to mathematics. And the data posted by English Harbour EXCACTLY match this 50% ratio (1/3 wins and 2/3 looses)...

And given the casino had a parameter to configure for this ratio, just 1 number (the ratio) is the obvious way to make it. It would be stupid to have two % fields where you type 50% in one and 50% in the other.

But IF such a parameter exists in the software everyone would agree that it is 'not fair' software. The double up game with 5 cards is just an 'illusion' then.

Notice that the mathematically challenged person that did this configuration very likely did it by mistake (or he he was also stupid and greedy), but revealed a serious problem with the fairness of the software.

This is my theory.

Zoozie

 

[spearmaster]

Ergopro, as far as I know this is for EH only.

Zoozie - we all agreed that this statement was not only premature, but incorrect...

I think we are best off ignoring the first post which was clearly made in haste and poor judgement. The second post, plus the post by the Wizard, are more indicative of the situation and the resolution.

We are of course still waiting for a technical explanation, but it is the weekend, so let's see if something is forthcoming in the next day or two. And worse comes to worst, I and Meister are expecting to be meeting with EH senior management in Montreal the following week to try and get to the bottom of this issue.

Please rest assured that we have everyone's best interests in mind. And thank you for not trying to draw any more conclusions for the time being as they will not serve any real purpose nor will they affect the resolution that EH has proposed. One way or another there will be an answer for all this.

 

[tronk]

i wrote this before seeing spearmasters post above but i will leave it, as i would like to air my opinion

the evidence is all there. Its clear that the doubling JOB game was rigged. Its probably never going to be proven whether this was delibrate or not, but i think the majority of intelligent players will see what has taken place as damning evidence enough to put a black mark on english harbour, and possibly all odds-on casinos.
Two days after this issue was brought to public attention the problem vanished into thin air and everything was fine again. Under heavy scrutiny, and other than suspending play on JOB, this would most obviously be the expected result. Days later a premature response was made by EH that probably had the effect of further expasterating involved players suspicions.
I also find it hard to believe that moderators on this forum came up with things like "within the realm of possibility" (sarcastic?) after the chances of these results had been shown to be one in billions and billions.

Im not accusing them of delibratley cheating, as i see spearmaster has already warned about allegations. We however all hold our personal opinion but it seems we cannot express it here without facing suspension.

Most thanks to thelawnet for uncovering this and playing some kind of part -i believe- in keeping casinos in check. Thanks to this thread players have recieved compensation for playing in an unfair situation and EH have faced some kind of public accountability. Its depressing to hear this sort of thing can happen at online casinos, but it has been shown that in the past many times that seemingly random games can become by way of glitch or otherwise, altered to offer a non-random game in the houses favour.

 

[spearmaster]

I also find it hard to believe that moderators on this forum came up with things like "within the realm of possibility" (sarcastic?) after the chances of these results had been shown to be one in billions and billions.

Not moderator(s) - me.

And yes, it was semi-sarcastic. However, I don't believe in accusations without proof - and that was what we were dealing with in that particular instance.

As you have seen, further posts have indicated that there was indeed something wrong with the game, so that should put any doubts about that to rest.

Now you should know that the moderators here MUST necessarily give equal treatment to all parties (except spammers) and thus I was not, and still not, willing to conclude "cheat" as was done in the instance referred to above.

Non-random - yes. Unfair game - yes. Cheating - not yet.

Let me put the post in question into perspective:

So it'd be fair to say this was no "freak run".


I did say "albeit remotely" Nevertheless, it still exists within the realm of possibility... barely...


No, that is not possible.

522 wins out of 1537 trials has according to Excel a zero chance of occurrence. Of course it is non-zero, but the number is so small, Excel cannot calculate it. The best it can do is for 617 wins, when the possibility is

0.0000000000000019

So the fact that the software was cheating is a fact as anything can be.


See above If you replace the words "cheating is a" with "non-random is as close to" I can't argue.

People do sometimes make errors in coding. But that being said, they're going to have to climb a very tall mountain to make that one stick in this case.

You can see that my response which included the words "realm of possibility" also included the words "albeit remotely" and "barely" and, though not shown here, a grin after "albeit remotely".

Furthermore, in the same post by Caruso, he directly called the software "cheating", implying that a cheat had been put into place, rather than a possible coding bug - and this I was not, and am still not, willing to accept until I hear further from EH.

 

[ergopro]

I just didn't get the fact that:
Apr 28: wins=93, losses=173, ties=24, win ratio=34.96% From EH stats...
And the lawnet alone played 84 wins, 152 losses,19 ties that day...So am I missing something here? I think I just didn't get it...sorry bout my stupidity...Cause wouldn't that mean that the total of all the rest of their players doubling up would be 9 wins 21 losses 5 ties...Not a huge activity with a casino that big...Hmm, I think I've misunderstood this one =) Damn language barriers

 

[Aindreas_Daoc]

Gah, this whole thing pisses me off.

Yesterday I had a bad run at BJ on Crypto. Of course these things happen, but before I would be satisfied that it was bad luck. Now this little voice is nagging in my head "What if they pulled an EH?".

This whole thing has really reduced my enjoyment and trust level for all online gambling, not just EH.

 

[gamemaster]

Zero tolerance called for here

I'm sure that Bryan, Brian and Ted, plus others here will remember the Gambling Software Systems (GSS) scandal of a few years ago. For those that don't, GSS software was shown to have a "switch" in it that could change the odds of their Video Poker games by making a non-random deal. The online gambling community quickly became aware of this situation and eventually GSS went out of business, although some casinos using that software may have survived by switching to other software platforms.

The evidence presented here shows that Odds On software (or whatever its official name is) contains a similar "switch", be it in the form of a glitch or a deliberate feature. In any event, it obviously caused non-random results to occur and was repaired, which implies that their programmers now know how it happened - which further implies it could happen again.

The gambling public has no choice - in my humble opinion - but to adopt a "zero tolerance" attitude towards software that fails to produce random results. If software screws up - for whatever reason - it should be boycotted, period, amen. Sure, glitches can happen to any program, but with all of the other choices out there, why should any producer of casino software be forgiven? Is the online gambler to demonstrate compassion toward those who are clearly shown to have non-random results at any time?

That's not to say English Harbor itself shouldn't survive; perhaps the glitch wasn't their fault and it's true that they've done the "right thing" by making retitution to the players involved. But it seems to me that for them to survive, they must switch software platforms asap and then work to develop their business by relying upon their fine reputation, which has taken years to establish.

Online gamblers control very few aspects of their chosen form of recreation, but choice is one of them and it's the most powerful. We are all now faced with a choice. As for me, I will never advertise or recommend or play at a casino that uses Odds On software from this point forward. I hope many others will join me in this.

GM

 

[thelawnet]

Ergopro, as far as I know this is for EH only.

Zoozie - we all agreed that this statement was not only premature, but incorrect...

I think we are best off ignoring the first post which was clearly made in haste and poor judgement. The second post, plus the post by the Wizard, are more indicative of the situation and the resolution.

Er, why should we ignore it? It's indicative of a casino that has done something wrong and is now denying it. To me that's definitely something not to ignore, but to have at the front of your mind when deciding whether to play here.

 

[spearmaster]

Welcome back Gamemaster - been a long time since we've had the pleasure of your company, I hope all is well with you

Yes, of course we all remember GSS

Yes, this clearly is a serious issue which will take some doing to recover from - as I have mentioned, however, I am waiting for a final bit of information before making my own opinion clear.

Ergopro - I thought those numbers were startling as well But I believe they are correct - and you have guessed that activity is not particularly high at the moment.

thelawnet - The only reason I ask that the first post be ignored is because I am quite certain it was made in haste without fully ascertaining the severity of the situation, and also before examination of the logs. Had they made such a post after looking at the logs there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been rogued instantly.

Everyone makes boo-boos sometimes. Sadly, though, this was a big boo-boo. And they also came clean shortly afterwards, apologized for their errors, and made what I believe was a reasonable compensation offer - again, thanks to your efforts. Oh - and BTW, at no time have any of us recommended that you play... LOL... I sure as heck wouldn't be playing right now and naturally I can't expect any of you wanting to play either...

Now I, and I'm sure Meister as well, want to concentrate on finding out exactly what happened without having to delve through all sorts of allegations, slime, arguments, whatever - obviously having to monitor this thread with the great level of activity doesn't make it any easier and takes away from our time doing other things that need doing.

There is only one piece of information missing (that I can think of) and this is what we're trying to obtain. Everything else said in here will have no bearing on the outcome of the investigation until this last piece of information is obtained, if at all.

Again I reiterate, we have everyone's best interests at heart - so please be patient and give us a little breathing room so we can put an end to this once and for all.

 

[erp1]

I dont think English Harbour is lying when they say: The issue was caused by a bug in the software staging release on the later part of the day April 13 and went unnoticed. As so often the problem lies in the details.

What I think happened but that is of course only one among other hypothesis is that a build-in parameter that makes it possible to manipulate the win/lose ratio was activated by mistake.

How could an assumed parameter function? Again pure speculations: the algorithm that interprets the number delivered by the RNG, could have an option to weight the frequency of winning cards, i.e. there could be a bias in the frequency of the four cards the player choose among. Winning cards could be represented by a narrower range of random numbers than loosing cards.

Whether my hypothesis is correct or not, the following questions need to be answered in details:

1. Which kind of bug in the software staging release can produce an outcome where the win/lose ratio drops from the natural and fair 100% to something in the area of 50% and can go unnoticed for about three weeks and easily be corrected in connection with a maintenance release?

2. If its possible to activate such a "bug" by mistake, wouldnt it then be possible to use the same "bug" as a handle that makes it possible deliberately to set the win/lose ratio to a value below 100%?

3. If the software has build-in such a feature and the feature has been activated by mistake on April 13, how can the software provider/casino vouch for that the feature will never be used deliberately to manipulate the win/lose ratio?

 

[thelawnet]

thelawnet - The only reason I ask that the first post be ignored is because I am quite certain it was made in haste without fully ascertaining the severity of the situation, and also before examination of the logs. Had they made such a post after looking at the logs there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been rogued instantly.

I can see that in this casino a casino might choose to make a quick denial that there was anything wrong, and that's not necessarily indicative of guilt, merely undue haste and poor behaviour in making a statement not backed by the appropriate actions to confirm its veracity.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that given that the problem entered the software for whatever reason (and of course we cannot say for sure what the intent was), it was identified and removed from the software in the short period between it being publicly proven that English Harbour's video poker was ripping off the players and their statement being issued.

The fact they fixed the code so it played fair, something they MUST have known they had done, and immediately after that code was fixed issued a statement saying nothing was wrong does not look good to me.

Sure you or they can claim that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing: that someone had found out it was broken (and that's assuming we actually believe that somehow the code could accidentally come to shortchange the player in the first place) and quietly fixed it, while at exactly the same time this was being fixed, the PR/legal/fairplay department issued a pseudo-mathematical statement saying there was nothing wrong, while not knowing what the coders were doing.

So for us to accept that the first statement should just be ignored and is not an indicator of malfeasance, we have to accept the following postulates:

1. That English Harbour could cause a game based on a player card being lower than the dealer card to deal lower cards to the player more often than is random, by some coding error (i.e. not deliberately trying to cheat the player)
2. That the error having been introduced into a game that does not appear outwardly to have changed and in theory should not have had its internal code changed at all, someone would go back to that game, check the code, identify the problem, and fix the bug
3. That the bug fix would be scheduled to be deployed in the tiny period between the public proof of foul play and the English Harbour statement, and the even tinier period where English Harbour could have 'reviewed their game play'
4. That having "concluded our review of the game play and randomness for all Video Poker games" English Harbour had no idea that the 'bug' had just been fixed, even though they had just fixed it, and must have had code check in logs, etc.

Sure if you think all that's plausible, but to me given the circumstances, I don't think that it makes sense to take what they say at face value. There is prima facie evidence of cheating, and that should be enough to make any statement coming from them suspicious at best.

And we still haven't heard why this 'bug' didn't seem to affect Hot Pepper and Fire and Ice casinos.

 

[thelawnet]

I dont think English Harbour is lying when they say: The issue was caused by a bug in the software staging release on the later part of the day April 13 and went unnoticed. As so often the problem lies in the details.

What I think happened but that is of course only one among other hypothesis is that a build-in parameter that makes it possible to manipulate the win/lose ratio was activated by mistake.

How could an assumed parameter function? Again pure speculations: the algorithm that interprets the number delivered by the RNG, could have an option to weight the frequency of winning cards, i.e. there could be a bias in the frequency of the four cards the player choose among. Winning cards could be represented by a narrower range of random numbers than loosing cards.

Whether my hypothesis is correct or not, the following questions need to be answered in details:

1. Which kind of bug in the software staging release can produce an outcome where the win/lose ratio drops from the natural and fair 100% to something in the area of 50% and can go unnoticed for about three weeks and easily be corrected in connection with a maintenance release?

2. If its possible to activate such a "bug" by mistake, wouldnt it then be possible to use the same "bug" as a handle that makes it possible deliberately to set the win/lose ratio to a value below 100%?

3. If the software has build-in such a feature and the feature has been activated by mistake on April 13, how can the software provider/casino vouch for that the feature will never be used deliberately to manipulate the win/lose ratio?

Any software that has a win/loss parameter on a card game is by definition cheating software.

A game of cards can only be programmed fairly by randomly drawing cards and following the rules for that game. Any other means of programming is rigged (cheating).

There can be no 'win/loss parameter' in any fair casino, except possibly slots; for normal casino games the casino win is not determined by the software, but by the rules and the laws of probability.

I don't see why you are interested in the win/loss parameter hypothesis, as it doesn't help English Harbour at all.

 

[jetset]

I think what erp1 is suggesting is that we need a rational, factual and clear explanation from EH or Odds On or the Wiz...or all of these involved parties...on what went wrong here.

Despite the fact that this has now reached crisis point and must be reverberating around the Internet, it is the weekend which might explain the silence from those involved.

But come tomorrow and a new week, it is going to look mighty strange and not a little damaging if some answers are not forthcoming.

In the meantime it is tempting and even diverting to speculate, but what we really need here is hard information.