Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[kengam]

why have we not had a statement from English Harbour? Spear, I am going to be frank here and I hope I don't insult you. You are using terms such as "comedy of errors" and sloppy programming. I am not sure you are capable of interpreting this code. It shouldn't be so complex that it causes you to be "fuzzy" and hard to think clearly. I do not feel comfortable with the interpreting of this code in your hands. Let it be analyzed by someone more familiar with gaming code or no one at all. I know that is probably out of the question but I thought it needed to be said.

You say there was no evidence of past cheating to be concerned with the numbers of years past. Alrighty then. Sure, I understand, they couldn't be so corrupt as to have cheated in the past now could they? You are giving them WAY too much benefit of the doubt and I am afraid you are going more than overboard to protect their name. A cheat was exposed. EH denied it. You are analyzing code that EH sent you. If they were cheating with this code would they have sent you it? I am interested in past numbers. I am interested if the Wiz ever audited this specific double up game in the past. Nothing I have read has told me that he has. He also has not repsonded to this question.

I am sorry Spear, but I think you are way out of your league in trying to interpret this code and you are taking chances on your evaluation. You are also taking chances on your integrity as you are WAY too quick to defend this outfit who was caught cheating.

 

[spearmaster]

With all due respect, Kengam, I am probably more qualified than anyone else here in interpreting code - since a lot of the code I have written in the past involves various gambling applications.

But you cannot interpret code without having certain parameters set out first. It is not complex, nor fuzzy, but it still requires time to analyze. And keep in mind I am certainly not spending 24 hours a day on it, not that it would require such - I do have a life, and I do have jetlag, and I do have other things that take time.

I need to get information in order to do a proper analysis - and I do not plan on rushing anything out just to satisfy the few detractors who think I'm fiddling while EH is on fire. You guys can scream all you like and attack my integrity but as you can see I am not worried.

Surely there must be a reason for that?

 

[kengam]

why are you not worried?


maybe you haven't been burned by them in the past. I have. Others have been burned as well. I feel English harbour owes us an updated statement.

 

[spearmaster]

why are you not worried?

Because I don't have anything to hide in the first place. The objective here is based on truth, not emotion.

maybe you haven't been burned by them in the past. I have. Others have been burned as well. I feel English harbour owes us an updated statement.

I feel you will be seeing statements shortly - but I am not the person to ask for a timeframe, other than perhaps for my own statement.

Being burnt in the past - believe you me, I have been burnt in the past by a total nincompoop in management at EH who has long since left the scene. I don't hold any more fondness for EH than you do.

But I am still after the truth and I am otherwise on good terms with their management even though I haven't promoted them in a long time. So if the opportunity presents itself to get to the bottom of this situation, I see no reason not to get involved.

This is really all I want to say at the moment. I'm sorry that you've felt burnt in the past - but if you cannot substantiate that with any data you surely cannot expect me or anyone else to follow that up.

 

[kengam]

Spear, if you want data to substantiate my claim then ask them for the numbers on the double up game over the past 3 years.

I doubt that they would provide them. The results would be damning.

 

[spearmaster]

As the plaintiff, it should be incumbent on you to provide this data. If courts or law officials were to receive complaints from people which require the the accused to provide all data nothing would ever get solved in this world... LOL...

 

[kengam]

As the plaintiff, it should be incumbent on you to provide this data. If courts or law officials were to receive complaints from people which require the the accused to provide all data nothing would ever get solved in this world... LOL...

Get real Spearmaster. They are the ones with the data. If this were the real world their logs would be subpoenaed. Do you think there is Zero chance that they have used this buggy software code before? Why believe them that it only occurred during that 2 week timeframe?

 

[spearmaster]

You have not substantiated your claim in any manner, no recorded results, no logs. All you are doing is crying wolf.

If you had recorded your results, or kept your logs, we wouldn't be debating this at all. Without any evidence whatsoever, who in the world is going to proceed?

 

[AceMan76]

As the plaintiff, it should be incumbent on you to provide this data. If courts or law officials were to receive complaints from people which require the the accused to provide all data nothing would ever get solved in this world... LOL...

I really think you are losing sight of this problem. You are applying a litigation context to this issue that is not necessary. If EH takes a litigation posture, then so be it, but they do not have to. I completely disagree that worried customers should be compared to "plaintiffs".

There is irrefutable mathematical evidence that EH offered an unfair game. IMO, the burden has now shifted to EH to offer credible and compelling evidence that they are a fair company. For most people, that would include disclosure of past game logs. From a customer service POV, treating your customers like "plaintiffs" is ridiculous.

If the "truth" is the real goal here, then why not full disclosure of the past three years of VP game logs?

 

[spearmaster]

I really think you are losing sight of this problem. You are applying a litigation context to this issue that is not necessary. If EH takes a litigation posture, then so be it, but they do not have to. I completely disagree that worried customers should be compared to "plaintiffs".

My choice of words might not have been so good... LOL... but the fact remains that unless you can provide some substantiation or evidence of something amiss at a particular point in time, it makes no sense to go and investigate. None of us have the time to jump at every request to check to see if a game or casino was rigged at any time in the past.

There is irrefutable mathematical evidence that EH offered an unfair game.

Agreed.

IMO, the burden has now shifted to EH to offer credible and compelling evidence that they are a fair company.

Sort of agreed.

For most people, that would include disclosure of past game logs. From a customer service POV, treating your customers like "plaintiffs" is ridiculous.

Completely disagree. The next thing you know other operations will be subjected to calls that all bonus offerings be checked in case they made a bad offer in the past.

If you can't show a good reason, don't expect any assistance.

If the "truth" is the real goal here, then why not full disclosure of the past three years of VP game logs?

Because it is not relevant to the issue at present. Just because Kengam jumped in with an assertion that he feels the game might not have been random in the past does not mean that this was a fact - and furthermore, he provides zero data to substantiate his claim.

You may disagree - in which case, try filing a complaint with someone else and see what they would do in the same situation. Or put the shoes on your own feet - you did not meet the terms and conditions of the last bonus you paid, deliberately or unintentionally. Should the casino then force you to prove that in every previous instance where you received a bonus, you provide proof that you met the terms and conditions?

 

[Vesuvio]

There is irrefutable mathematical evidence that EH offered an unfair game. IMO, the burden has now shifted to EH to offer credible and compelling evidence that they are a fair company. For most people, that would include disclosure of past game logs. From a customer service POV, treating your customers like "plaintiffs" is ridiculous.

If the "truth" is the real goal here, then why not full disclosure of the past three years of VP game logs?

Exactly. EH need to pull out all the strings and then some to convince players they're fair. I'm personally willing to trust Spearmaster and others to provide a fair assessment of the code given to them, but the best case scenario for EH is that it'll be seen as "conceivable" that they could have accidentally given themselves an advantage. The circumstantial evidence (that this happened in a part of a game exploited mainly by bonus hunters - where it would be hard to prove & those involved might be unwilling to go public anyway) coupled with the initial statement from the casino isn't going to go away. Even if we all accepted it was an error there's the question of how we should treat a casino that runs software so faulty it gives them a massive advantage - and they don't have any systems in place to pick that up until a player spots it weeks later. I've got a lot of sympathy with the zero-tolerance views on casino errors expressed earlier in this thread.

EH should be more than willing to provide the old VP logs to try and bolster their reputation. Unless of course they do have something to hide.

 

[wizard]

The cause of the software bug

After I made a statement about the software bug affecting the double-up feature at Odds On (the name of the software used by several casinos, including the English Harbour) casinos, players wanted to know how the bug occurred. This is an addendum to my statement to answer that question.

When players started asking for details about the bug I asked on Odds On for a copy of the source code, and they sent it to me immediately. The code is at a higher level than I write myself and Odds On made their programmer available to answer my questions in deciphering it. The problem was that the video poker double up bonus round was calling a second bonus routine that was still under development. This bonus routine is very similar to the bonus games found in their slot machines.

In slot machine bonus rounds the prizes are sometimes drawn from a pool, and the smaller prizes have a greater probability of being chosen than the larger ones. This is achieved by associating each prize with a weighting factor and is standard in bonus game designs. When married to the video poker game, the result was that the player had a greater probability of drawing the smaller cards. As I've mentioned before, this problem was automatically corrected in the software on May 2.

Based on what on Odds On has shared with me, their complete cooperation, and my six-year open and honest relationship with them, it is my firm opinion that indeed the problem was an accidental human error.

I absolutely do not believe that on Odds On would attempt to cheat their players in such a blatant manner, since it would be so quickly and easily discovered -- which is exactly what happened in this case. No professional casino willingly goes down that road. Besides the risk to their reputation, there is also the money they're out by paying a consolation prize to affected players on top of reimbursing their losses.

 

[Vesuvio]

The problem was that the video poker double up bonus round was calling a second bonus routine that was still under development. This bonus routine is very similar to the bonus games found in their slot machines.

I guess the obvious question is why we should believe they didn't intentionally move over to this "slots" bonus routine? That it would be a stupid move as they could be found out isn't a sufficient reason.

p.s. at least a casino's desire to change a game with no house edge to a "more exciting" one with a huge house edge rings true

 

[spearmaster]

I guess the obvious question is why we should believe they didn't intentionally move over to this "slots" bonus routine? That it would be a stupid move as they could be found out isn't a sufficient reason.

Because it wasn't ready. Parts of the subroutine were missing, which resulted in invalid values being returned - but the key point is that, in this new code, one particular line was poorly coded and had a direct impact on the results.

I'm still waiting for a bit of information but I think you can see that the Wiz has also already seen the code and I presume has done a similar analysis.

edit ->

I've got a lot of sympathy with the zero-tolerance views on casino errors expressed earlier in this thread.

With all due respect, your sympathy is misplaced. Any other casino I know, online or off, would have invoked the "malfunction voids all plays" clause.

 

[Vesuvio]

How was the new bonus game intended to work? If it was planned to use cards I'd have thought weighting should be out of the question - otherwise players would be deceived. Or were there supposed to be some weighted events that somehow got translated into card values, though I'm not quite clear on how that could happen I'm not dismissing your assessment of the code provided but just trying to get a clearer idea of what's suppposed to have happened.

 

[spearmaster]

I had the very same question... LOL...

I will explain this when I have all the information I need.

 

[sirius]

After I made a statement about the software bug affecting the double-up feature at Odds On (the name of the software used by several casinos, including the English Harbour) casinos, players wanted to know how the bug occurred. This is an addendum to my statement to answer that question.

When players started asking for details about the bug I asked on Odds On for a copy of the source code, and they sent it to me immediately. The code is at a higher level than I write myself and Odds On made their programmer available to answer my questions in deciphering it. The problem was that the video poker double up bonus round was calling a second bonus routine that was still under development. This bonus routine is very similar to the bonus games found in their slot machines.

In slot machine bonus rounds the prizes are sometimes drawn from a pool, and the smaller prizes have a greater probability of being chosen than the larger ones. This is achieved by associating each prize with a weighting factor and is standard in bonus game designs. When married to the video poker game, the result was that the player had a greater probability of drawing the smaller cards. As I've mentioned before, this problem was automatically corrected in the software on May 2.

Based on what on Odds On has shared with me, their complete cooperation, and my six-year open and honest relationship with them, it is my firm opinion that indeed the problem was an accidental human error.

I absolutely do not believe that on Odds On would attempt to cheat their players in such a blatant manner, since it would be so quickly and easily discovered -- which is exactly what happened in this case. No professional casino willingly goes down that road. Besides the risk to their reputation, there is also the money they're out by paying a consolation prize to affected players on top of reimbursing their losses.

The software was updated on 2nd May but why were the results for 1st May not unfair? It was a few thousand to one chance of it using the unfair code then- the win/lose ratio was almost even on May 1st.

Also, you don't say when they actually sent you the code, just that they sent it to you 'immediately' when you asked them. Instead of using that word it would be more helpful to know when they actually sent it to you. Don't you think it strange that they could introduce this code accidentally? I have no way of knowing for sure but it's highly improbable and nonsensical.

You are seriously saying that they accidentally introduced some code for a bonus game (that didn't exist) that somehow worked without errors and made the smaller cards more likely to be chosen? It looks like deliberate cheating to me and they used that method for it. If some other software used this method to cheat, would you think it was accidental? I don't think any unbiased person would. It would just be a good way to program the cheating. If they wanted to cheat they would code it in a similar way. I have programmed card based games before (BJ simulator) so have enough knowledge about it.

 

[spearmaster]

You are seriously saying that they accidentally introduced some code for a bonus game (that didn't exist) that somehow worked without errors and made the smaller cards more likely to be chosen? It looks like deliberate cheating to me and they used that method for it. If some other software used this method to cheat, would you think it was accidental? I don't think any unbiased person would. It would just be a good way to program the cheating. If they wanted to cheat they would code it in a similar way. I have programmed card based games before (BJ simulator) so have enough knowledge about it.

Without having seen the actual code you would not be in any position to judge whether said code was deliberately or accidentally modified to output the result, nor to judge whether the persons examining the code were biased or not.

 

[gamemaster]

My not-so-humble opinion

While I have great respect for both Spearmaster and the Wizard of Odds and have no doubt whatsoever about the honesty of either, the online gambling community stands to gain very little, if anything, by "forgiving" English Harbor Casino now that the events that created the under-payment of the games in question has been explained.

First and foremost, it's obvious that this operation does not have a day-to-day audit function to alert the casino personnel that a game is malfunctioning. The fact that it was malfunctioning in favor of the casino is a byproduct that raises the eyebrows of most observers and one must wonder how long a malfunction in favor of the players would have gone unchecked. But I'll keep my comments confined to the original premise: their game was not working correctly and they didn't know it!

Secondly, the "knee jerk" reaction to the charges were typical casino arrogance. Nothing's wrong, they said. As the evidence that something was indeed wrong piled up, they went into full damage-control mode, which is to be expected of course. After all, did they really have any choice at that point? Spearmaster commented in a post here:

"With all due respect, your sympathy is misplaced. Any other casino I know, online or off, would have invoked the 'malfunction voids all plays' clause."

Sure, any casino that wanted to go out of business in a week.

He evidently does not understand that state regulation for brick-and-mortar casinos - even those in Las Vegas - provides an "ombudsman" to protect the public. As for online casinos, the ombudsman is fine, open Websites like this. In other words, the online community must be the regulators of the casinos and do so through the power of choice.

As for the ultimate explanation of the problem - a software malfunction - I can accept that. I don't necessarily believe it, but I'll accept it; stuff happens. But what kind of organization allows it to happen for two weeks?

Can we all agree that it's either an incompetent organization or an organization that had larceny in its corporate heart? One of the two must fit, but perhaps there's a third explanation I'm unaware of.

So, what are the arguments in favor of the online gaming community forgiving English Harbor Casino? Well, they have apparently done a good job up to this point and that's worth something. They offer good games? Well, not really - the best Video Poker they have is full-pay Jacks or Better (99.54%), but let's be honest here, full-pay Jacks games are all over the 'Net. How about their Blackjack? I'll quote the Wizard of Odds from his review of OddsOn software: "The house edge under these rules is 0.73%, the highest I have seen on the Internet." Okay, no help there.

Somebody might say that we need good casinos with "proven" track records and I'll agree. But the loss of English Harbor Casino won't make even a ripple in the pond. Of course The Wizard of Odds has reason to encourage the forgiveness; it's a paying customer and, while I definitely believe Michael would not let a few $$$ tarnish his outstanding reputation for honesty and feels this was just a software "glitch", the fact remains - he has a vested interest in seeing it survive.

Does Spearmaster have a vested interest in seeing English Harbor Casino survive? I seriously doubt it, but he's a good and fair person that, it seems to me, would rather take a neutral path in this matter, which is certainly his right.

I am not willing to take a neutral stance on this matter, because if we do, the message thread here will gradually sink to the bottom and that old adage of the politicians will kick in: "The public's memory is short."

If the online gambling community allows English Harbor Casino to survive as it is now, we're sending a message to every casino operator that it's okay to have a game malfunction so long as you pay the losers even after said malfunction is discovered - not by you - but by your customers.

Is that really the message we want to come from the online gambling community? That we can forgive a malfunction that had to be discovered by the players?

Or do we want to send the same type of message they send to what the casinos term bonus "abusers" - be they abusers or not: "You messed up once, so you're out of here."

I think that's the message we need to send.

Boycott any casino that uses OddsOn software.

GM

 

[Linus]

I've never had anything but respect for The Wizard, but I'm a little sadder, now.

Based on ... my six-year ... relationship with them ...

It's hard to be a referee and an employee at the same time. That's just human nature.

 

[spearmaster]

GRR!

I had just completed a long reply which essentially agreed with Gamemaster except for his "boycott" position... but my session timed out on me and I lost the whole post.

Goes to show that shit happens... GRRRRR...

So this post is short since I have to go out.

I agree with Gamemaster - except that I don't agree nor disagree with the boycott position he takes and I will try to explain that when I get back.

Yes, I know what the ombudsmen do And no, I have no vested interest in anything except the truth.

 

[spearmaster]

ok... back... going to try this again.

Audit function - that's a good idea. Obviously they have nothing like this in action at present...

Knee jerk - definitely. Something they obviously regret and I hope in the end everything will show this to be nothing other than poor judgement.

Ombudsman - while this is obviously the case in many land-based jurisdictions, the fact remains that a malfunction of any sort would void all play. EH took action of their own to pay out not only all losses, but also ties, which were recorded during the period in question. Compare that to some other operations - winner.com for example - where some people are STILL negotiating settlements months after their own error caused many problems.

I have no vested interest in anything other than the truth.

People make mistakes. I don't know whether you program or not, I would guess that you do - so I assume you be able to tell the difference between a deliberate fix and a bonehead error. I have been programming for almost 30 years - nothing quite as critical though - and I make these types of errors all the time.

Forgiveness? Clinton denied knowing anything about a cigar - but when outed, he eventually tearfully admitted it. Does that mean he should not be forgiven?

I think that's got to be an individual choice. When all the facts are laid out on the table, everyone must decide for themselves what to do with these facts. My own personal objective is to get the facts out. I cannot tell people to support EH, or boycott EH, I can only try to get as many facts as they can and hopefully present them in an objective, unbiased manner, at least from my point of view (since I have to interpret code and intent).

 

[HKGambler]

Spear, youve made a few significant mistakes throughout. First of all, youve taken a wrong stance leaning too much towards EH.

You started out to neglect & seemingly laughed at the overwhelming mathematical evidence. In responding to a poster who reported a good result (59W vs 35L) on May 1, you said, These aren't exactly normal results either... LOL...

After the wiz confirmed the probability was way off the mark, and after EH had made the second statement to admit rigged games. You turned from disbelief of unfairness to a theory of possible software bugs. Well of course no one can argue about a glitch at any point of time.

Secondly, Carusos remarks which you deemed biased, immature, impatient, negative, personal, proof-lack annoyed you. You even granted him a 7-day vacation. And there at WOL, you also asked Max to extend his vacation on the same basis & with the same attitude. At what point an empty allegation can become a solid accusation? If such incredible & contradicting statements as those made by EH that cannot be condemned, called a cheat, what can? I actually thank Caruso for having spoken most of my mind.

And then you thought out excuses good for EH (bad for players). Your latest argument (post #314) which shocks me quite: With all due respect, your sympathy is misplaced. Any other casino I know, online or off, would have invoked the malfunction voids all plays clause." indicates that you did nothing but invited the majority to believe that you were helping EH at every corner, but of course you claimed you talked only of balance & impartiality.

Again, your analogies such as Bush-Iraq; plaintiff; Clintons cigar. dont look smart. They are either irrelevant or not to the point.

The problem this time is that you feel too much sympathy for EH. Perhaps because you dont gamble yourself; or you had frequent communications & long relationship with the industry guys, and basically your income is built on the survival of the industry overall. No offense here you know. Therefore you are bound to be more in their shoes than the players are.

My advice: You should concentrate on your analysis of their source code. But then it is hard to convince the players anyhow for such a bug to have accidentally incurred. Stop speaking for EH for it isnt worth the case.

 

[Vesuvio]

The more I think about this the more it looks like:

EH's programmers were playing around with code to rig the doubling game of their VP to give slot-like weighted results.

They introduced this new code in a bungled manner.

Their defence seems to be that they hadn't actually meant to implement the code yet, or at least not so as to give the casino quite such an advantage.

As defences go, it's not great. It looks about time to start calling a spade a spade...

 

[thelawnet]

After I made a statement about the software bug affecting the double-up feature at Odds On (the name of the software used by several casinos, including the English Harbour) casinos, players wanted to know how the bug occurred. This is an addendum to my statement to answer that question.

When players started asking for details about the bug I asked on Odds On for a copy of the source code, and they sent it to me immediately. The code is at a higher level than I write myself and Odds On made their programmer available to answer my questions in deciphering it. The problem was that the video poker double up bonus round was calling a second bonus routine that was still under development. This bonus routine is very similar to the bonus games found in their slot machines.

In slot machine bonus rounds the prizes are sometimes drawn from a pool, and the smaller prizes have a greater probability of being chosen than the larger ones. This is achieved by associating each prize with a weighting factor and is standard in bonus game designs. When married to the video poker game, the result was that the player had a greater probability of drawing the smaller cards. As I've mentioned before, this problem was automatically corrected in the software on May 2.

Based on what on Odds On has shared with me, their complete cooperation, and my six-year open and honest relationship with them, it is my firm opinion that indeed the problem was an accidental human error.

I absolutely do not believe that on Odds On would attempt to cheat their players in such a blatant manner, since it would be so quickly and easily discovered -- which is exactly what happened in this case. No professional casino willingly goes down that road. Besides the risk to their reputation, there is also the money they're out by paying a consolation prize to affected players on top of reimbursing their losses.

Although I have no doubt that the code they sent you performs as described, it's still hard to se how this can b justified.

Bottom line is they were selecting cards to display on scren. I still cannot see how even a bonus game could fairly select low cards more tha high ones. THere is no deceit in weighting lower prizes, e.g. by selecting four treasure chests with 10 coins and only one with 500.

BUt a card-based game as this bonus game appears to be can only be based on random cards, as the game undoubtedly was displaying cards, which the code must have been selectig.

Any bonus game that did not select the cards randomly would be cheating, as appearing to represent a random deck of cards while in fact cheating would be deceitful. The ONLY way casinos win with cards is by stacking payouts rather than rigging card turnups. E.g. casino war, losing ties; baccarat, paying less than true odds. So if this bonus game was to e done it could e.g. pay 11-1 for naming he rank ofthecard. That would be fair. This is not.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot think of any game that could function as described and not be cheating.

Secondly, the claim that the cheating could not have been intentional is not proven. They were not caught for several weeks, and from their statement initially denied all knowledge, and seemed to believe things would even out. That they were caught could not have been known to them.

Thirdly, they knew that the code was broken because they claim they had scheduled it to be fixed. So why were they still offering the rigged game while the fix was pending? They needed to send out refunds and shut the game then, as they knew it to be broken.

Only responding after being publicly outed makes their claims somewhat dubious.

One can believe what one chooses, but their explanation that they were not cheating but accidentally put in code for a different cheating game is not a good one.

 

[nafanny29]

The more I think about this the more it looks like:

EH's programmers were playing around with code to rig the doubling game of their VP to give slot-like weighted results.

They introduced this new code in a bungled manner.

Their defence seems to be that they hadn't actually meant to implement the code yet, or at least not so as to give the casino quite such an advantage.

As defences go, it's not great. It looks about time to start calling a spade a spade...

I tend to agree here Vesuvio.

Wonder if the "new exciting double-up feature" will ever surface on their VP games.

This whole thing is rather like some online casinos blackjack. You KNOW its rigged but you just cant prove it

 

[spearmaster]

Welcome back HKGambler! Long time no see

First of all, let me clear up my stance - at the time of the first posts, there was certainly no leaning towards EH - those numbers being posted clearly pointed to a problem. The logs subsequently revealed a distinct bias which indicated that the results were non-random.

Nevertheless, non-random can be cheating, or can be unintentional. I did indeed find it hard to believe that EH could, or would, be so stupid as to deliberately introduce such a bias into their game. Bugs are equally as possible as code to unfairly fix a game - and I took what I believed to be a neutral stance but obviously it did not appear that way to others.

I did not ask Max to extend a vacation to Caruso - I have no influence there and would not exert any pressure on anyone there. I did say that Caruso was lucky that Max didn't ban him there - and that was my opinion - but in no way would I ask Max to ban him either publicly or privately - that is not my choice.

By the time we got to post #314 in this thread - the "malfunction voids all plays" post, as it were, I had already studied the code and the numbers and it was apparent to me that the likelihood of a bug rather than a fix was much, much greater. At this point I do not blame anyone for thinking that I was leaning towards EH, because it is obvious now that, with more information in hand, it looks like a bungled piece of code.

I feel no sympathy for EH - if only you could have heard that first phone call I had with them, it was very direct and I belittled them severely for introducing such a bug without any error-checking procedures. I believe that, unintentional or not, they deserved to be challenged by the players and I told them that the ONLY way they could escape this was to show someone the code - and both Wiz and I have looked at this code. I had already received pseudo (sample) code by the time this first call occurred so there would have been zero opportunity for them to fix the code after the fact because it would have stuck out like a sore thumb to me and you know fully well that I will always call it as I see it.

Keep in mind that I do not make income from EH, nor have I done so for at least two years, if not three. I do not expect to get paid for my efforts by any party and certainly will not accept any such thing now or in the future.

I always appreciate your comments, however - I know that you too will call it as you see it and it becomes apparent that perhaps the perception of my involvement in this issue is not quite what I believed it to be.

Nevertheless, I will say it again one more time - the facts that I lay out later shall speak for themselves - each of you can then choose to believe or disbelieve these facts and proceed accordingly.

Vesuvio is pretty close in his last analysis - and one cannot argue the fact that the explanation of a weighted doubling game does indeed look strange because it deviates from a standard that we all know.

Thelawnet - I think I will have to explain how each of these things took place from my viewpoint - but I won't elaborate until I have the last bits of information I need.

No matter how unbelieveable the situation is, I believe it deserves to be aired in full - and then once you have all of this information in hand, you make a decision for yourselves. I am only here to make sure that all of us have as much information as possible. I won't be making any recommendations as to what players should do - I will, however, render a personal opinion as to what I believe took place.

 

[spearmaster]

nafanny, your post came while I was replying... LOL...

I'm in Detroit waiting for my connection to Montreal - the wireless here sucks, but at least I have a net connection...

I thought I should point out that any admission of a weighted distribution of cards MUST necessarily be pretty damning without a knowledge of the situation under which it was accidentally introduced - and again I don't blame anyone for taking this view.

But honestly - in your minds - how could anyone believe that we would reveal the presence of new code introducing weighting unless we were trying to establish the truth? If we were going to be part of a coverup I think it should also be pretty obvious that we would never make mention of something like this...

 

[ergopro]

I may be totally wrong here, but isn't a source code in an industry this big supposed to be ran thru a "test-bench" numerous times just to find any bugs and irregularities before being launched? Sorry, if I'm wrong...it just sounds strange that the code happened to be buggy. Of course bugs can occur...but it's kinda weird that it was so precise

 

[HKGambler]

Spear, nice to know you understand I did not question your integrity or motive; the stance thing only.

I had already received pseudo (sample) code by the time this first call occurred so there would have been zero opportunity for them to fix the code after the fact ....

That really was a good move that showed some kind of sincerity by EH, to say the least.

I am anticipating your summary although I dont know what to expect from it, frankly. I only know that takes a lot of your time & energy.

In order for any conclusion that the bug was unintentional to be valid, it will have to fully explain:

How did the problem auto-correct itself when nobody even knew there was a problem until the initial results came to light?

So we are left thus: this bonus round "routine" found its way into a game it would have no place being in even if it wasn't "under development" all by itself; having found its way in all by itself, it then found its way out all by itself; having found its way out all by itself on May 2nd, it somehow magically retroactively de-applied itself to play on May 1st, when results normalised. This impossible time-loop effect also happened with a game frequented by bonus players taking advantage of the zero house edge on the double up feature. This is pure coincidence.

 

[erp1]

I think that's got to be an individual choice. When all the facts are laid out on the table, everyone must decide for themselves what to do with these facts. My own personal objective is to get the facts out. I cannot tell people to support EH, or boycott EH, I can only try to get as many facts as they can and hopefully present them in an objective, unbiased manner, at least from my point of view (since I have to interpret code and intent).

I appreciate that stance. Let's try to get as many facts as possible and lets analyze the evidence with an open mind.

But let me add: I have tried a variety of possible interpretation of the events. All of them lead to the verdict: guilty in un-acceptable conduct.

 

[mitch]

Spear

Can you clear up once and for all the question raised by the fact that this bug only seemed to affect EH casino. ie

Are casinos, licenced to use Odds On software, able to alter the source code in a way that could alter payouts to players and do Odds On provide the means to do so?

This is a simple question and Odds on should be able to give a simple and unambiguous reply.

Mitch

 

[spearmaster]

Hi Mitch!

I will try to get those answers for you ASAP - but as far as I know only EH was affected, and the casino operators themselves do not have access to code or any "switches".

I also expect to have a detailed post outlining what happened but I need one more confirmation from outside, and then it will take a bit of time to compose the whole thing because I want to try and do it in as clear a manner as possible - and I have to find time between all my other appointments here in Montreal LOL.

 

[mitch]

Cheers Spear.

Mitch

 

[ftg]

Hi, Spearmaster,

I always respect you and respect your contribution to the industry.

I just can't believe you shut down my poll in another thread. Do you think we really need to have all the "facts" laid down before we players can make decision(s)? Even if you think so, you or someone can start another poll setup once you think all the "facts" are available!

 

[spearmaster]

A previous poll had been shut down as well. I think it is not reasonable to hold such a poll without having facts in front of you - especially if you know those facts are due shortly.

If everyone thinks I'm wasting my time - fine. You don't want the truth - fine. But until such time as I post my findings, there will be no polls - unless Casinomeister disagrees in which case the poll will be restored. I find it incredible that people have closed their minds to any possibility that the problem was unintentional - I can only imagine how you would feel if you had been unfairly judged before the facts came to light when some casino decides you've abused a bonus, or opened a duplicate account, and someone else opened a poll to bring judgement down upon you.

 

[ftg]

A previous poll had been shut down as well. I think it is not reasonable to hold such a poll without having facts in front of you - especially if you know those facts are due shortly.

If everyone thinks I'm wasting my time - fine. You don't want the truth - fine. But until such time as I post my findings, there will be no polls - unless Casinomeister disagrees in which case the poll will be restored. I find it incredible that people have closed their minds to any possibility that the problem was unintentional - I can only imagine how you would feel if you had been unfairly judged before the facts came to light when some casino decides you've abused a bonus, or opened a duplicate account, and someone else opened a poll to bring judgement down upon you.

Sorry, but I really can't agree with you on closing my poll, which is quite neutral by itself.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...inue-to-play-at-the-eh-odds-on-casinos.12465/

Look at the 4 options:


1. NO! Never at neither at EH nor Odds On.

2. Never at EH but other Odds On OK.

3. Perhaps, depends on further Wiz/Spearmaster/EH/Odds findings/announcements

4. YES! Both EH and Odds On casinos.


People choose 1 becasue either they think they cheat or they don't like the casinos to have things like that happened even if it's nothing to do with cheating.

Option 3 actually allow people to see further findings before making decision.

What's wrong with that? And I see about 30% people are actually choosing option 3!

While you don't know why "people have closed their minds to any possibility that the problem was unintentional" ( I don't know why too), I don't know why some others have closed their minds to any possibility that the problem was intentional. For me, I am still 50-50 about this but i still think I won't play at the casinos anymore.

I just believe there's no need for you to put yourself at either side.

 

[sirius]

This has happened before

I'm a bit bemused how the Wiz can state on the front page of his site that it was a 'software bug' as if it was a known fact. We all know Odds On claimed it was a bug but that is obviously questionable.

About 6 years ago I proved a casino was cheating at roulette. I carried on playing until the chance in a fair game was over a trillion to one (1 in 1,191,708,106,582 to be exact). I could have stopped at the millions or billions to one but wanted it to be conclusive. I lost $1000 during this but they refunded it.

This was the casino's response (also claiming software error):

We have been treating your complaint with the utmost degree of seriousness.
Please let me explain to you fully what has happened, what we have done to
resolve the issue on the software side and what we intend to do about it,
financially, for you.

Firstly, however, let me say that with a complaint of this nature, 24 hours
to respond/resolve the matter is to be expected.

After fully investigating the matter here and at our gaming servers, we have
discovered a software glitch that affected your account on that game, and
your account on that game only. We have now resolved this matter to our 100%
satisfaction.

I should say that Gaming Data Solutions made a large investment in Asian
Gamble. All our games have been created from the ground up by
industry-leading programmers and software designers, and underwent extensive
testing all through our development period (18 months) and for three months
prior to launch. This problem did not arise at any point during any of that
testing.

We have not licensed software because we intend to be around for a very long
time. To suggest, therefore, that we intend to 'cheat' is something that I,
personally, and we as a company, have taken considerable offence with.
...

Our records also show hundreds of other gamers playing Roulette at the same
time as you (this was a funny claim because I am pretty sure I was the only one playing the roulette at the time). None of these players have complained about our service,
because the games at Asian Gamble are not 'fixed' in any way. We do not
cheat.

We do, however - or did - have a glitch in your game. And for that, I would
like to extend my full apologies.

To help make amends, we are prepared to make an immediate credit of $1000 to
your Asian Gamble account or to your credit card (through FundsFast). We
hope that you will consider this fair. I will personally ensure that this
credit is made on Monday,11th September. Please let me know where you would
like the money to go.

I hope that this meets with your satisfaction. Should you have any further
questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Kind regards,

[email protected]

When pressured for more details on the 'glitch', they claimed it was a problem with the 'game reader' (whatever that is) sending and receiving the wrong information. That was supposed to explain how it kept missing my numbers that I picked but whenever I changed them the previous numbers started appearing!

More info here:

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

 

[spearmaster]

Geez... I remember Asian Gamble well...

Nevertheless - and also with regard to your assertion elsewhere - the chances of the code I have seen being a fix are pretty slim, and this is 30 years of experience in coding talking.

I'm going to try to work through the explanation today as I don't have any appointments this morning - if all goes well I'll get the rest of the numbers I need today and I'll have everything on the table by tomorrow.

 

[slash1]

Time

Spear, I have been following this tread since the beginning and was just wondering if you have a full time job. If so how do you find time to do all you have done to get this sorted out. It would seem that it would take up a lot of your time sorting through this.
It may not sound like it all the time but I think most appreciate the work you are doing on it.

Slash

 

[spearmaster]

Welcome to Casinomeister, Slash!

Technically, yes - I have a full time job which requires me to work 7 days a week - with another 7 hours a day doing work for both that job as well as doing online-gambling related work.

Right now, though, I am attending the Global Interactive Gaming Show and Expo in Montreal, with Casinomeister and Jetset also present. This week is full of meeting people from the industry, other colleagues who run websites, and even players who have taken the time to come out here to meet up with us.

This afternoon I am on the eCOGRA panel discussion about player protection - guess who's going to represent the players LOL... I invite any of you out there who are in Montreal attending the GIGSE to come and see us - and see if I really am interested in protecting the player or just paying lip service - you can judge for yourselves in a live forum

Thanks for your kind words, they are much appreciated.

 

[kengam]

So I read on the other forum that English Harbour has stated that a incomplete bonus round was causing the bug in the double up game. That is total horse crap. Are you going to tell us that you buy this excuse Spearmaster? I would like to hear a word or two from Bryan about this.

As far as I am concerned, Odds On, English Harbour, and any webmaster who advertises for them should be blacklisted. Anyone else who defends them has already lost trust and integrity in other forum circles. I am disappointed in The Wiz for falling into their trap and protecting his auditing bisiness which must be pretty lucrative. This whole affair smells bad. Everyone involved in it that weren't cheated themselves should be ashamed.

 

[spearmaster]

Kengam -

I have the code here. I have analyzed it and determined that it is definitely buggy, since certain variables are missing. But the key bug is not even a full line of code - it is a change in a reference to a particular object.

And, to be honest, I would be skeptical as well if I did not have the code in front of me.

Anyhow, I'm not going to debate the issue of belief - you can determine that for yourself when I'm done. I know that many of you want to believe that you've been cheated - and that many of you believe I've been bought, as well as the Wiz - and you're entitled to your opinion.

Whether I deny it or not you're not going to believe me - so you guys might as well stop reading because you've already made up your minds. Why waste your time posting in these threads?

For the record (whether you believe it or not) I have not received any compensation of any sort from anyone for my work - not even a Mountain Dew. I will, however, be meeting with EH management tomorrow for lunch, along with CasinoMeister. It ain't going to be wine and cheese, more likely it will be lunch in a hotel restaurant in full view of tens if not hundreds of other participants at GIGSE.

Full disclosure - whether you believe it or not. If I manage to get in touch with PinaBaby before she leaves Montreal I will gladly show her everything as well - whether it makes any difference or not I have no idea. And anyone else who is here in the area can feel free to let me know and I will be glad to show them too.

 

[kengam]

I have my own facts. My mind was made up long before April. Spearmaster you keep telling us that you have the code and it looks like the error is not one of malice. You have yet to give us your analysis of this code. You have only agreed with The Wiz's assessment as if you were waiting for it before you could give your own. I do not find you to be a qualifying person to analyze this code. You keep telling us that you are awaiting other information. You said earlier in this thread that you have a hunch of what the problem might have been. This was before you even had the code. Can you enlighten us as to what this hunch was?

If the game was broken in April that should be reason enough to audit this game over the past few years. I could provide you with my logs, but surely they would dispute their validity. I cannot provide you with the numbers from other players for reasons stated earlier. The only way for them to prove that this was a two week mistake is to release their numbers from the past 3 years. If they truly believed the game has always been fair then releasing these numbers would be a good thing for them.

It is not too early to pass judgement on Odds On and English Harbour. We have enough evidence that they were cheating in April. You do not get a second chance in this biz. I am sorry to hear that you are going to side with the casino on this bogus excuse. You have always been one of the good guys in the industry. This certainly changes things

 

[spearmaster]

As I said before - produce some data to establish your claim - otherwise stop crying wolf. My objective is to address the issue that came up last month, and I have no reason to expand this investigation otherwise.

The information I am waiting for is a mathematical analysis, since I am not qualified to do that type of research.

 

[kengam]

crying wolf? Do you know the story? In the story there never was a wolf when that boy kept saying there was. In this the wolf was exposed in April so your statement doesn't make much sense does it?


The only public statement from English Harbour thus far was the one where they claimed the software was working fine and that the numbers would even out. Why on Earth would they not come and explain theirselves now? Do they really need you to defend them? Your stance on this is sickening. I really would like to hear Bryan's take on all this.

 

[spearmaster]

By wolf I am referring to your alleged claim that the game was fixed in the past. There is no wolf - you have not produced any evidence whatsoever that there was a wolf. No tracks. No fur. No nothing at all.

I am studying the wolf that appeared in April - and that is what I intend to confine my research to. I am sorry that you do not believe that I don't have any ulterior motives - but I knew that when I started the research and I'm not about to stop now.

Please in future confine yourself to the issue that occurred in April, or produce some evidence that the problem may have existed before that time.

 

[kengam]

I do not think you have ulterior motives. I just think you have chosen to side with proven cheats. Crying wolf would mean that a wolf was never found, yet it was found in April so you might want to stop using that reference as it is making you look idiotic.

Why should I have to stick to April's events? This thread is about English Harbour and the relevance of them being caught cheating. Past history is definitely pertinent here. Stop treating posters as if we do not have a voice.

 

[spearmaster]

All people have a voice here. However, when making a claim, I think it's natural to expect the person making the claim to produce some facts. Since the only facts I have here are from this period in April, that is the only thing I can reasonably test against.

Using the theory that you can test results going back three years - an arbitrary number, I might add - and without any evidence being produced, one could easily extend that to include all games at any time ever produced by a manufacturer who has had a game malfunction.

This is simply not reasonable nor practical. If you have the evidence for the period in question, produce it and we'll test it. Simple as that.

And before you go labeling operations proven cheats, realize that we are trying to establish the source of the problem and in the context that you are using, you leave no possibility for something which is entirely possible - the fact that a mistake was made.

This is no different to a casino labeling a player a bonus fraudster on the evidence that this person once entered a piece of information incorrectly during registration. It *is* possible that the person made a typo. It is even possible that the person typed in an old address or phone number out of sheer habit (hell, I do that, I know). And it is entirely possible that the person simply had a brain fart and entered the street number of his/her old house with the name of the street of his/her new house. Or, of course, the person deliberately did so and really is a bonus fraudster.

Should we automatically condemn a player based on this error, intentional or not?

You can't have it both ways. It is simply ridiculous to believe that casino software manufacturers are infallible and bulletproof and thus if a problem occurs they have maliciously cheated you.

I've gotta run. I've started on the explanation but I haven't made much progress because I am in here having to deal with these posts. Hopefully I will get this finished today but at this rate, and given my commitments, it is highly unllikely.

 

[two_card]

I have the code here. I have analyzed it and determined that it is definitely buggy, since certain variables are missing. But the key bug is not even a full line of code - it is a change in a reference to a particular object. .

I am a programmer and having difficulty understanding how this program would even function at all given the Spearmaster's post.

What language is the code written in ??

I can not believe a company like Odds-On is this incompetent.

A double-up routine is very simple in almost any language.
And the testing is also very easy to verify.

I would suggest that whomever is doing this investigation interview the programmer. They are either terrible programmers or doing their master's bidding. And I lean towards the "terrible programmers". Easy to write a routine that is almost undectable and give the house a 5% edge.