Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[Linus]

I know that many of you want to believe that you've been cheated -

What players want to believe, is that if a casino is caught cheating, there will be consequences.

Internet casinos - unlike B&M's - are not regulated. They don't have to worry about losing their licenses , and 99% of the time, a player has zero recourse, and no way of knowing how - or even whether - he was cheated. So in the 1% of the time when a game was not only unfair, but proven to be biased in favor of the casino, players would like to see something done about it.

What players want is some sense of security that the games are actually fair. Or, failing that, at least a sense that there are consequences when a casino cheats.

Players DO NOT "want to believe they've been cheated."

They want to believe the games are fair.

and that many of you believe I've been bought, as well as the Wiz -

All I can say is that - outside of the internet casino industry - "conflict of interest" rules would generally prevent someone from offering advice or analysis if they had a financial interest in the case at hand.

I realize the internet gambling doesn't work under the same rules as other industries. That's why sites like CasinoMeister are so important.

In the short run, sweeping something like this under the rug may seem like the best thing for internet gambling. But the industry is asking players to deposit money on faith - faith that they'll be paid if they win, faith that their deposits won't be stolen, and faith that the games are fair. In the long run, anything that undermines that faith is bad for everyone - not only for the players (who can, after all, always go to land-based casinos and get free drinks along with fair games) but for the casinos and their affiliates as well.

There will always be casinos that cheat their players. That's just human nature - especially in the gambling industry, where the risks are so small, and the rewards are (potentially) so great.

What players are looking for - hoping for - is that there is someone with influence in the industry who is both willing and able to put the long-term interests of everyone over the short-term interests of the casinos.

If you believe players want to think they've been cheated (maybe I've misunderstood you), you have no business representing players anywhere, to anyone, and especially not at an internet gambling conference.

 

[spearmaster]

Last post before I go... LOL...

Code is in Java. The doubling game itself was not modified, but new code which had been introduced and which would give the player an OPTION to additionally risk his double bet in a bonus game was being tested, and in typical programming testing fashion left open so that it would occur 100% of the time, and assumed that player had selected the bonus game.

This code was NEVER meant to be uploaded, and certainly not in this fashion. If there was incompetence, it was by whoever allowed this code to be uploaded.

Linus - I have already established that there is no conflict of interest many times over and I do not wish to do it again. There will not be sweeping anything under the rug - I am going to expose everything that happened in as open a fashion as I can, with detailed explanations and hopefully, if I have the time, with graphic diagrams which show how this could happen.

You are not going to get a 50-word post full of hot air - this post may well turn out to be the longest in Casinomeister history (assuming there is not a message length restriction in the forums LOL).

 

[kengam]

nah this will never get to winning screenshots length.

Spear, what makes you think they never used this buggy code before April of this year? This code would still be used now if it wasn't investigated here. I am posting to let others know that this buggy code was in place at other times before. The only reason I even came to this forum was because I saw a link elsewhere and it reminded me of my team's horrible sessions with the double up game. The numbers posted here did not even surprise me. What did surprise me was the fact that the for fun version ran on the same software platform. Had I known that for sure I would have saved mid 5 figures. It would be much easier for English Harbour to deny my claim and produce the numbers than for me to share my evidence. If I was the EH manager then I would do just that as I am not going to let this go simply because you feel the burden of proof is on me when the casino has already been caught with buggy code that was cheating players.

 

[soflat]

I was away from the internet for a week and apparently nothing has changed.

Sure, EH provided buggy software code to be looked at, but we ALREADY KNEW the code had a bug, right?

Anyways, the code does not prove intention, except intention to institute a NON-RANDOM CARD-BASED BONUS FEATURE, right?

Why haven't they released data to an independent third party yet?

Why not let a truly independent third party look at three years worth of logs? Just because there is no proof of wrongdoing earlier than April? No data, no proof.

How come we can't even have a poll? (I know, because someone has to decide for us when we have enough data. But EH haven't released the data to an independent party yet, have they?)

 

[kengam]

Apparently Spearmaster feels that we need to have concrete evidence of wrongdoing prior to April of this year to warrant a request to see all of the numbers from double up dating back 3 years. Apparently he also feels that there is not enough information to warrant having a poll. Maybe we should have a poll to determine if there is enough information to have a poll? This whole ordeal smells bad...real bad. I am very disappointed to say the least.

 

[sirius]

Last post before I go... LOL...

Code is in Java. The doubling game itself was not modified, but new code which had been introduced and which would give the player an OPTION to additionally risk his double bet in a bonus game was being tested, and in typical programming testing fashion left open so that it would occur 100% of the time, and assumed that player had selected the bonus game.

This code was NEVER meant to be uploaded, and certainly not in this fashion. If there was incompetence, it was by whoever allowed this code to be uploaded.

It appears from this statement that you seem to have already made up your mind that it was never meant to be uploaded and it was really part of a double up bonus. Let me ask you why would they add such a bonus round in video poker? I've not seen it anywhere else. The player can already choose to repeatedly double up as many times as they want. You think they were going to add an extra option? Can anyone describe how this supposed bonus game was supposed to work when finished?

How this would have the side effect of selecting lower cards is mind boggling. How on earth is that possible - it sounds as if this supposed bonus game wasn't going to be a fair deal? If this was really a test for the bonus game, what purpose did it serve as there is no bonus game evident at all. This just sounds like a good way of cheating the game.

No one has yet explained how the results from May 1st were a few thousand to one chance of using the unfair code. The code was supposed to have been changed on May 2nd.

 

[soflat]

I'm not a programmer so can someone explain how you can tell from the code whether they intended to upload the buggy code?

Also, were they working on a non-random card game, or did I miss something?

There is a lot left to explain (the May 1st anomaly, for example).

 

[thelawnet]

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

Correct.

If variables are missing, as described, the code would not compile at all.

If it would not compile, it could not possibly be the code they had on their servers.....

It seems more likely that they hacked up some crappy code to fit their story, which is why it appears that it would not run - because it doesn't!

 

[HateMG]

If variables are missing, as described, the code would not compile at all.

If it would not compile, it could not possibly be the code they had on their servers.....

It seems more likely that they hacked up some crappy code to fit their story, which is why it appears that it would not run - because it doesn't!

I'll try to disagree. Although it's probably unlikely but I think it's possible.
Let's say you have 2 classes : class1 and class2. Class2 was just created and you're trying to pass a variable from class1 to class2.
So: class1.varA = class2.varB. You compiled both classes with no problem, you even tested in development, but then you release to production just the changes that you made in class1 and forgot or did not want to release class2 at that particular time. Let's say you can not under any circumstances throw an exception and instead you have some IF statement that sets var1 to null. Would it work?

Again I'm not trying to defend EH. I never played there and never will. But from programming point of view it's possible to have such bug.

 

[thelawnet]

I'll try to disagree. Although it's probably unlikely but I think it's possible.
Let's say you have 2 classes : class1 and class2. Class2 was just created and you're trying to pass a variable from class1 to class2.
So: class1.varA = class2.varB. You compiled both classes with no problem, you even tested in development, but then you release to production just the changes that you made in class1 and forgot or did not want to release class2 at that particular time. Let's say you can not under any circumstances throw an exception and instead you have some IF statement that sets var1 to null. Would it work?

Again I'm not trying to defend EH. I never played there and never will. But from programming point of view it's possible to have such bug.

I do not know how Java handles references. But I would have thought that it would have noticed that the reference was not to the same version of class2 and would not run.

Anyway, this is somewhat impoissible to judge without the source code....

If what they say is true it does sound like the kind of place where you'd be mad to play. It sounds like they have no release management process, no development/production code tree, and essentially no understanding of how to run a software project. This is pretty unbelievable for a financial application like a casino. All changes should be documented and first implemented in development. It should not be possible for them to go straight into production like this.

I might expect this at a two-bit company producing websites for 2,000 a time, but not a casino. Do they expect us to believe that their software is high quality and reliable when they run their development like this?

Hacked and incomplete code will always happen.

Incompetent development practices are just shitty management symptomatic of a development procedure that is incapable of releasing high-quality code due to poor process - regardless of the quality of the coders.

I would be very worried about the rest of their code that we haven't scrutinised so carefully, as it's evident that they don't run their build/test/release process in anything other than a shambolic incompetent amateurish manner, with the inevitable result of faulty code.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Just like to add that my opinion of the situation is the same as most players out there. I have little doubt that this cock and bull story that they 'accidently' added this 'feature' to the software is not the way it happened. I believe that more likely they decided to turn the odds in their favour, came up with a plan that included an excuse for if they got caught and then went ahead with it.

But that's my opinion...not fact of course.

What makes it more suspect in my eyes than if BJ or Roulette etc had been rigged is that this is just a feature of the main game that isn't going to be generally analysed results wise. Most people wouldn't even use it very often, and even if they did wouldn't notice the overall outcome. It's the perfect game to rig in my opinion if you are going to rig an aspect of the casino.

Anyway as theLawnet et al has already said, even if this was complete accident why on earth would anyone play at a place that doesn't have the measures in place to make sure they are dealing a fair game? Personally I've got no idea why.

 

[spearmaster]

Geez, just back and I am exhausted. I will only answer a couple of questions here.

HateMG, that's pretty close. The new weighted bonus game does indeed return null. But the problem is, in this new game, the code wrote the cards into the object created by the doubling game, not into the intended bonusgame object.

Returning null does indeed throw an exception which simply reverts back to the result of the normal doubling - but the wrong array was written to and thus the card chosen in the doubling game with which the player won the bet now contains a new value which is re-evaluated against the dealer card.

I don't know how much help my explanation will be to a non-programmer - but any programmer who can claim that they have never made this mistake in the past is probably not being truthful.

By the way, the explanation of the error is coming from me as I understand it. If you think that this is a cock and bull story, then it is MY cock and bull story that you don't believe - not EH's.

 

[suzecat]

Not a programmer so would not know if anyone was selling a plausible reason or just waiting for the storm to clear. Spear I believe your motives are genuine and I for one trust your analysis. Can't go that far for the casino operator.

I would expect, if such an innocent "glitch" were uncovered, that EH would take strong damage control efforts. From what I have seen, EH seems content with the volunteers who have come forward to pursue a reasonable explanation. But all that has come out is that a bungled programmer had a brain fade and here's the money it cost you. So I am doubtful that EH has taken this glitch at all seriously.

I think inquiring minds want/need more to instill trust back into EH, if that is even possible after this comedy of errors.

 

[ftg]

Geez, just back and I am exhausted. I will only answer a couple of questions here.

HateMG, that's pretty close. The new weighted bonus game does indeed return null. But the problem is, in this new game, the code wrote the cards into the object created by the doubling game, not into the intended bonusgame object.

Returning null does indeed throw an exception which simply reverts back to the result of the normal doubling - but the wrong array was written to and thus the card chosen in the doubling game with which the player won the bet now contains a new value which is re-evaluated against the dealer card.

I don't know how much help my explanation will be to a non-programmer - but any programmer who can claim that they have never made this mistake in the past is probably not being truthful.

By the way, the explanation of the error is coming from me as I understand it. If you think that this is a cock and bull story, then it is MY cock and bull story that you don't believe - not EH's.

I can understand the error and it's probably the casue of this disaster double up, but how can be be so sure that it's not intentionally introduced?

 

[spearmaster]

Suzecat, thanks for your confidence

ftg - the reason I believe it is not intentional is because:

1. There are a number of lines which are clearly intended for testing only - not just because of the comments surrounding the lines, but because some of these statements are clearly intended to bypass routines which would only enable the bonus game on random occasions. These are clear signs of code in testing which would never exist in normal code.

2. There are parts of code missing - and variables which have not been declared yet are referenced in functions.

These types of inconsistencies can only be unintentional - it is extremely unlikely that any programmer would deliberately introduce code like this under any circumstances in any industry. Those who claim that this appears to be a deliberate, complicated ruse are not likely to be programmers because they would have no idea how something like this could happen and under what circumstances. Only a programmer with a reasonable amount of experience - even average experience - would understand this type of mistake. I personally make the same types of mistakes regularly and have done so for nearly 30 years.

Programming a fix would be much more simple than this - or much more elaborate and difficult to discover than the code in question. All of the hallmarks of test code are present.

 

[ftg]

Suzecat, thanks for your confidence

ftg - the reason I believe it is not intentional is because:

1. There are a number of lines which are clearly intended for testing only - not just because of the comments surrounding the lines, but because some of these statements are clearly intended to bypass routines which would only enable the bonus game on random occasions. These are clear signs of code in testing which would never exist in normal code.

2. There are parts of code missing - and variables which have not been declared yet are referenced in functions.

These types of inconsistencies can only be unintentional - it is extremely unlikely that any programmer would deliberately introduce code like this under any circumstances in any industry. Those who claim that this appears to be a deliberate, complicated ruse are not likely to be programmers because they would have no idea how something like this could happen and under what circumstances. Only a programmer with a reasonable amount of experience - even average experience - would understand this type of mistake. I personally make the same types of mistakes regularly and have done so for nearly 30 years.

Programming a fix would be much more simple than this - or much more elaborate and difficult to discover than the code in question. All of the hallmarks of test code are present.

Sure I understand what you mean but I also realize that the 2 reasons given are rather weak too, IMHO.

While "it is extremely unlikely that any programmer would deliberately introduce code like this" (assume it's extremely unlikely for the time being), it can't be denied that "it is also extremely unlikely that a not-yet-finshed code like this introduced to their production server without going through the UAT" especially online casino industry.

And how about the events for May 1 and May 2 stuff?

EH needs to explain in very details, what was happening during April to May 2. Spearmaster is actually examinming the code mainly and is giving his opinions but sorry it's not fact yet.

 

[Vesuvio]

Spearmaster - did you clear up whether the intended new bonus game they programmed would be dealing weighted cards? Also, did you see evidence of the extensive new graphics and other additions that you'd expect if a new game was going to be introduced?

 

[Zoozie]

After collecting the pieces of information revealed by Spearmaster over his last posts, I am getting a good picture of this incident. But why was it spread
over so many posts? Spearmaster, maybe you can write a pseudo algorithm that shows how the code is running in the 'normal' and 'bug' version.
I do think I understand it now, but only because I read all posts.

Is the following correct?

Normal version:
1. Server draws 5 random(non weigthed) cards and stores them
2. Card 1 is send to client, he picks one of the remaining 4 and send the number back to the server.
3. The server then reveals the other 4 stored cards and win is determined by which of the original cards the cliented selected(by number reference, not card).

Bug version:
1. Server draws 5 random(non weigthed) cards and stores them
2. Card 1 is send to client, he picks one of the remaining 4 and send the number back to the server.
3. Because of a code error, the server makes a call to the new bonus game method and this replaces the 4 stored cards with 4 new ones, but these are not random (small cards)
4. The server then reveals the 4 stored(the new ones) cards and win is determined by which new stored cards the cliented selected(by number reference, not card).

There is no doubt that the code error described could result in what happened.

I still have the following questions(not for Spearmaster, since he has no chance of knowing this), some allready raised by other members.

1) The idea for a new bonus game when doubling is suspecious especially due to the weighted cards for a 'double' game. (and new ideas in doubles games are very rare, last one was suits in MG. Am I wrong here?)

2) Is it not illegal or at least highly unethical to have weights in a card game? Because then it is not a card game anymore!!!!

3) Are you sure the buggy code first was introduced into code recently? I could have been there for years, but with the weighting less noticable. We have only seen the double games win/lose data for 1 month. So it was only because they changed the weighting to much that this occoured.

4) Code errors(bugs) happen all the time, but one so obvious should have been caught in a unit test. The server code is written in Java and anyone calling himself a Java programmer knows how to make unittests and how important they are, or did this release slip past the unit-testing? (unittest plays some millions random games and results should fit within a certain limit).


Zoozie

 

[two_card]

4) Code errors(bugs) happen all the time, but one so obvious should have been caught in a unit test. The server code is written in Java and anyone calling himself a Java programmer knows how to make unittests and how important they are, or did this release slip past the unit-testing? (unittest plays some millions random games and results should fit within a certain limit).

This is the crux of the matter for me.
1. If an error of this magnitude can get to the customer - how can you trust the rest of their software ?

2. Java programming has been around for a long time - well understood and used in many applications.

3. Every programmer test their routines - even for home use only.

3. A company's business plan has to include a software release and testing procedure. (Are they ISO certified ? - if so the certification authority should be notified.)

Their business practices may be a larger problem than the programming.

 

[HateMG]

I work for a huge brokerage/bank with more than 60 thousand workers wordwide. As a programmer I'm dealing with bugs almost on daily basis. Some of them are creating breaks worth millions and sometimes billions dollars. And I'm talking about production bugs. We are all human beings and even best programmers make mistakes. We can not predict and prevent everything in our unit testing. We just try to the best of our ability to program and test it. The test cases we create are the ones that best suit our undestanding of what need to be tested. Some bugs are sitting in production for years undetacted because the part of the code where they were was never executed before and one day it produces errornious results. Any programmer knows that even one line code change which seems so innocent can fix one problem and break something else.
What if 2 programmers are making changes to the same module. The first started, did not finish his testing and somebody else introduced changes that needed to go live ASAP and with no knowledge releases programmer 1 changes.
To tell you the truth I have my doubts that any gaming sofware not cheating to some degree. I just don't believe in such streakiness, especially MG BJ.

But I'm, personally, want to be open minded in this case with EH and give them benefit of a doubt that it was a human error.

 

[spearmaster]

Sorry for scattering bits and pieces throughout the thread - it's only because I'm trying to answer questions as they come along. I will of course gather all of this into a single post (or maybe web page depending on how it needs to be presented in order to make it as clear as possible.

Meanwhile, in case anyone is interested:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

two_card, part of the problem is that this code wasn't meant to be uploaded - I don't know if they use production (test) servers or not but I presume they would - yet somehow the code still got uploaded to the actual game servers. It's very clear that something needs to be tightened up and I was assured that this would be the case - sometimes it takes a mistake in order to wake up.

zoozie, I do intend to illustrate exactly what happened, with pseudo code inserted where necessary. I'm also planning a flowchart which will show how this happened.

Your "bug version" is more or less correct, though the cards in step 3 are still random - but they are weighted - vesuvio, I thought I said this somewhere earlier but if not I apologize. Also, I have not seen any graphics nor did I ask to but I also don't think that there would be any need for extensive graphic changes.

Zoozie's questions:

1. The bonus game issue is NOT to replace the doubling routine at any time - it is supposed to be an additional bonus game which occurs randomly, and the player is supposed to be given a choice of whether or not they wish to play this bonus game, since some players would obviously prefer to stick to doubling only.

2. See point 1. The player is supposed to always have the choice to not play the bonus game when it occurs randomly after a doubling win.

3. Based of the number of errors and missing code instances, I am quite certain that this has never been introduced in the past.

4. This was in early testing - as I said, it was incomplete and thus perhaps not properly tested for results. That's my opinion, anyhow.

ftg, the May 1 and 2 stuff is not all that clear but I would imagine that the dates given for the change were not precise.

 

[kengam]

I am not so kind as to give this outfit the benefit of the doubt. That benefit was given while depositing and playing. Finding out you were cheated by whatever means removes any benefit of the doubt they might have had. We have to trust an online casino to deposit and play. When that trust is abused, either by malice or incompetency, then it is irrepairable.

Questions still need answering as far as why did English Harbour have the opportunity to introduce new code into an Odds On product? The ability to introduce new code is a license to steal and that is exactly what they tried to do. If it aint broke dont fix it.

IMO Spear made up his mind on EH's innocence long before he examined this code. His posts throughout this thread clearly indicate this. Because of this I do not think of him as an impartial mediator. When one makes up his mind before he examines the facts then it is very likely that his hypothesis will be based on his original thoughts. That is human nature.

The Wizard of Odds has clearly dodged questions that would help us in determining whether the bug was due to malice. He is protecting his own income line and is not looking out for the player. This will come back to bite him as his reputation is key to the business he gets from this industry.

I would love to hear from Bryan who remains silent. I would also love to hear from The Original Mary. As a team we used to tackle corrupt casinos for the good of the industry.

 

[spearmaster]

Kengam - I answer questions as they come. I report things as I see them - and I have not yet declared anyone innocent of anything. The alternative would have been to say nothing all this time - then how much would you believe any subsequent statement?

What you see in here is what I believe I am seeing - buggy code. That in itself does not absolve anyone of anything. Furthermore, I am not a mediator - I am an independent third party making a report on what I see. I am not judge or jury - you guys are.

 

[Vesuvio]

Your "bug version" is more or less correct, though the cards in step 3 are still random - but they are weighted - vesuvio, I thought I said this somewhere earlier but if not I apologize. Also, I have not seen any graphics nor did I ask to but I also don't think that there would be any need for extensive graphic changes.

The extensive graphic changes would give some measure of plausibility to EH's story. Otherwise we're supposed to believe they were just going to have the same doubling but preceded by a pop-up - "would you like to try an exciting new doubling game where instead of a 50:50 chance of winning the odds are stacked in our favour?". It doesn't make any sense.

The more likely explanation is they were being hit by bonus hunters on this feature and were experimenting with ways of rigging the outcome to cut their losses/make a profit. They might have introduced it by mistake, or with a bigger house edge than intended, but the fact that they were programming a weighted card routine has got to be damning enough evidence for most.

 

[soflat]

The Wizard of Odds has clearly dodged questions that would help us in determining whether the bug was due to malice. He is protecting his own income line and is not looking out for the player. This will come back to bite him as his reputation is key to the business he gets from this industry.

I thought the Wiz said he was going to look further back into the data. If so, then I don't think he is dodging anything and should be given a little time. Who knows, maybe he found more anomalies and is trying to get some explanation right now for us.

(by the way, EH and OddsOn should have allowed a truly independent third party do the analysis, but at least they admitted they were developing a weighted card game, which is bad enough)

In my opinion, EH and OddsOn should be standing up in their own defense here. It looks a bit odd having someone presenting their case.

 

[spearmaster]

The extensive graphic changes would give some measure of plausibility to EH's story. Otherwise we're supposed to believe they were just going to have the same doubling but preceded by a pop-up - "would you like to try an exciting new doubling game where instead of a 50:50 chance of winning the odds are stacked in our favour?". It doesn't make any sense.

The more likely explanation is they were being hit by bonus hunters on this feature and were experimenting with ways of rigging the outcome to cut their losses/make a profit. They might have introduced it by mistake, or with a bigger house edge than intended, but the fact that they were programming a weighted card routine has got to be damning enough evidence for most.

Keep in mind the player is given a choice of whether to play the game or not, and that this was to occur randomly AFTER a doubling win and does not otherwise modify the standard doubling routine. It does not replace the doubling routine at all.

 

[spearmaster]

I thought the Wiz said he was going to look further back into the data. If so, then I don't think he is dodging anything and should be given a little time. Who knows, maybe he found more anomalies and is trying to get some explanation right now for us.

(by the way, EH and OddsOn should have allowed a truly independent third party do the analysis, but at least they admitted they were developing a weighted card game, which is bad enough)

In my opinion, EH and OddsOn should be standing up in their own defense here. It looks a bit odd having someone presenting their case.

I actually possess more pieces of code and information than anyone else, including the Wiz.

EH/Odds On has already apologized, admitted an error, and fairly compensated those affected. The only reason this is still going on is because I personally did not believe the explanation was sufficient and they trusted me enough to give me access to this information.

Had they rejected my request I would have been the same as the rest of you - unconvinced. This is why I understand where you are coming from, and also why I am reporting information as requested.

 

[kengam]

I thought the Wiz said he was going to look further back into the data. If so, then I don't think he is dodging anything and should be given a little time. Who knows, maybe he found more anomalies and is trying to get some explanation right now for us.

(by the way, EH and OddsOn should have allowed a truly independent third party do the analysis, but at least they admitted they were developing a weighted card game, which is bad enough)

In my opinion, EH and OddsOn should be standing up in their own defense here. It looks a bit odd having someone presenting their case.

The Wiz has dodged questions concerning the actual audits he does. He never revealed whether he had access to the logs of the double up game specifically. He has not answered any of my questions pertaining to the game over the last 3 years. I would think that someone who is paid to audit their games for fairness would have the numbers. My guess is he doesn't really audit them closely if at all.

 

[kengam]

I actually possess more pieces of code and information than anyone else, including the Wiz.

EH/Odds On has already apologized, admitted an error, and fairly compensated those affected. The only reason this is still going on is because I personally did not believe the explanation was sufficient and they trusted me enough to give me access to this information.

Had they rejected my request I would have been the same as the rest of you - unconvinced. This is why I understand where you are coming from, and also why I am reporting information as requested.

This is why you come across as having your mind made up. Since they didnt reject your request for the code then you are not unconvinced like the rest of us? Not being unconvinced is the same as being convinced that they werent cheating on purpose.

 

[soflat]

I am unconvinced of their innocenece because EH never bothered to try and convince me. They just made a couple statements, and turned over info to two people.

The Wiz has dodged questions concerning the actual audits he does. .... My guess is he doesn't really audit them closely if at all.

Depends on what you consider an 'audit'. Since he doesn't reveal how he performs the audit, I don't consider it an audit. As I understand it, he takes a look at the payback percentages they give him, which he compares to the theoretical hold.

By the way, a weighted card game is a weighted card game. I don't care if the player has a choice (he/she always has a choice). They should never even think about designing a weighted card game, much less instruct someone to actually design one.

 

[kengam]

I wonder if English Harbour is feverously working on the new so called double up game as it will be expected now that they are using that as a coverup for the cheating bug.

I wonder if they threw that program together in the couple of days they had so they could easily convince Spear that the missing subroutine was a work in progress. It seems to have worked. I do not believe a word of it.

 

[soflat]

I wonder if English Harbour is feverously working on the new so called double up game as it will be expected now that they are using that as a coverup for the cheating bug.

LOL. Yeah, I can't wait to play the new double-up game. I hear it's real exciting.

Maybe this whole thing was just a marketing strategy to gain interest in the new game.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Oh Dear!

I suspect EH and Odds On will end up being punished enough, whatever the eventual verdict (accident or deception). This has highlighted that the possibility of code that alters the game in the favour of the house can get past testing procedures, and take some considerable investigation to unravel whether or not players were simply unlucky or the victim of a bug.
I expect now that every time many players seem to have abnormal streaks of bad luck will be less inclined to believe that it is all down to bad luck. This highlights that, although the RNG is fair, the algorithms that convert this into game results may not be, whether by accident or deliberate weighting, such as in 3 reel slots (where this would be legitimate).
If the industry is to gain full credibility for fairness, then ALL the source code needs to be evaluated by an independent organisation, followed by a large test of the game outputs, and whether they comply with the rules as shown to the player.
A weighted double bonus game would be OK provided players were made fully aware that this was a slots type bonus game, and that it was not simply a means to fool the player into doubling with a weighted double game while believing he was still playing a 50/50 game but with fancy graphics.
Odds On should eventually release the completed version of this bonus game. This will indeed show that they had an accident during development. If no such game ever materialises, an explanation will be required as to what they were testing.
I doubt an error that produced a doubling game that swung the same amount in the PLAYER'S favour would merit a thread of this length so quickly, and there would be little pressure on the casino to clean up it's procedures and not give players this break ever again!
There have been errors like this that weight games in the player's favour, but players often only complain when the casino notices and takes the game away, such as the VP with a small edge to the player in Crypto and the nickel DW at Sci-Fi casino. Once too many players cottoned on, the games were put back to a house edge, and in the case of Crypto casinos, they bodged this by keeping the old paytable in display but paying on the new.

I have always believed that some software (MG) is designed to produce streaks by the way that the algorithms interpret the raw random numbers into output, and I have mentioned my "lock down" theory where the software just gets stuck into a prolonged spell of dealing duff cards to the player, and miracle beats for the dealer time and time again where a dealer is involved. Overall, the results end up being fair, but the streaks can make or break a player.

Spear's latest explanation looks like the doubling game was more or less dealing "seconds" when the player won the double. The data seems to fit this, and this has been mentioned by another poster. Even if the redraw was random, it only happened when the player won, so gave the dealer a 50/50 chance of beating the player again. If the cards were weighted in this second selection, I would have expected the performance to be even worse than experienced.

I can believe that such bugs get into programs, especially where release schedules are tight, giving little time for prolonged testing. programming by committee can also lead to such bugs. MG have a challenging program of releasing 4 games a month, but look at all the bugs they were (and still are) having. They are simply pluging new games into existing game engines for the most part, and bugs tend to be minor (wrong rules displayed on Harveys etc), but the major core upgrades when new classes of game arrive have caused all sorts of trouble, including killing off casinos on the player PCs.

EH and Odds On would have been better off by introducing a new game with which to first test, and then launch, this new bonus doubling game. At least if things went wrong only a single, and obviously new, game would be affected. This would have made the "accident" explanation far more believable, and would have done far less damage to their future than this will end up doing (there are too many casinos for players to continue playing where they doubt the fairness of the game, no matter that the doubt may be totally unjustified).
I would expect EH to show the same level of concern for fairness to players they inadvertently label as "fraud risks", as they are expecting the player community to show them over this terrible blunder that they have made, with out any intent to defraud the players; that we will see if we listen to them and not simply make our minds up and "ignore all further correspondence from them".

 

[Simmo!]

There have been errors like this that weight games in the player's favour, but players often only complain when the casino notices and takes the game away, such as the VP with a small edge to the player in Crypto... Once too many players cottoned on, the games were put back to a house edge, and in the case of Crypto casinos, they bodged this by keeping the old paytable in display but paying on the new.

It was 99.94% originally. Their bodge IMO, well Inter's anyway, was more about trying to pass it off as an "upgrade" and giving the impression that they don't necessarily see their players as that intelligent

 

[Vesuvio]

Keep in mind the player is given a choice of whether to play the game or not, and that this was to occur randomly AFTER a doubling win and does not otherwise modify the standard doubling routine. It does not replace the doubling routine at all.

It still seems a bizarre idea for a variation on video poker. Are we supposed to assume that if they'd introduced this game they'd have made it absolutely clear to the player that it was dealing weighted cards? Even if they explained the mechanism surely it would (understandably) reduce players' confidence in all the other card games they offer (including video poker itself). Commercial madness, I'd have thought.

 

[erp1]

The Holy Grail for fairness in a card game is that each not exposed card has exactly the same probability to be the next exposed card.

We should not focus on regrettable but inevitable programming errors. We ought to focus on system errors.

According to the information we have now, the bonus game that apparently caused the biased result produced those biased results exactly because the game was meant to deal the cards weighted. We still dont know exactly how and why the code for the bonus game in test mode influenced the doubling feature for games played in production mode.

What stands is that Spearmaster in detail has exposed that they deliberately were manipulating with the Holy Grail for fairness in a card game.

Add to that an unbelievably break of some of the fundamental guidelines for programming.

I think we should all thank Spearmaster not attack him. He has helped us to gain a reasonably balanced insight in the events. We can now discuss and interpret based on facts.

Thanks to Spearmaster we now know that the biased outcome of the doubling facility in the second half of April is the consequence of a combination of inevitable bad programming praxis and manipulation with the Holy Grail for fairness in a card game.

 

[thelawnet]

1. The bonus game issue is NOT to replace the doubling routine at any time - it is supposed to be an additional bonus game which occurs randomly, and the player is supposed to be given a choice of whether or not they wish to play this bonus game, since some players would obviously prefer to stick to doubling only.

2. See point 1. The player is supposed to always have the choice to not play the bonus game when it occurs randomly after a doubling win.

But you still haven't answered how anybody could develop a card-based game that is weighted (i.e. cheating the player). Regardless of whether the game is +ve for the casino (which is fine), using rigged games is absolutely unacceptable.

I cannot understand why you are being so generous to them.

 

[thelawnet]

The Holy Grail for fairness in a card game is that each not exposed card has exactly the same probability to be the next exposed card.

We should not focus on regrettable but inevitable programming errors. We ought to focus on system errors.

According to the information we have now, the bonus game that apparently caused the biased result produced those biased results exactly because the game was meant to deal the cards weighted. We still dont know exactly how and why the code for the bonus game in test mode influenced the doubling feature for games played in production mode.

What stands is that Spearmaster in detail has exposed that they deliberately were manipulating with the Holy Grail for fairness in a card game.

Add to that an unbelievably break of some of the fundamental guidelines for programming.

I think we should all thank Spearmaster not attack him. He has helped us to gain a reasonably balanced insight in the events. We can now discuss and interpret based on facts.

Thanks to Spearmaster we now know that the biased outcome of the doubling facility in the second half of April is the consequence of a combination of inevitable bad programming praxis and manipulation with the Holy Grail for fairness in a card game.

It is not so much a Holy Grail as a founding principle.

There is randomness, and then there is cheating. What has been described is a cheating game. A broken cheating game, stuck in by mistake, yes, but still a cheating game.

 

[spearmaster]

I wonder if English Harbour is feverously working on the new so called double up game as it will be expected now that they are using that as a coverup for the cheating bug.

I wonder if they threw that program together in the couple of days they had so they could easily convince Spear that the missing subroutine was a work in progress. It seems to have worked. I do not believe a word of it.

You are obviously not a programmer - so please do not assume that stuff can be put together in an instant to suit one's whims. Neither are you qualified to make any assumption about my knowledge of programming or my ability to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

Got something constructive to add, or are you only intent on trying to damage my reputation?

 

[spearmaster]

It still seems a bizarre idea for a variation on video poker. Are we supposed to assume that if they'd introduced this game they'd have made it absolutely clear to the player that it was dealing weighted cards? Even if they explained the mechanism surely it would (understandably) reduce players' confidence in all the other card games they offer (including video poker itself). Commercial madness, I'd have thought.

The weighting would have only been on the bonus game. The doubling game itself would still have been normal.

 

[spearmaster]

The Holy Grail for fairness in a card game is that each not exposed card has exactly the same probability to be the next exposed card.

We should not focus on regrettable but inevitable programming errors. We ought to focus on system errors.

According to the information we have now, the bonus game that apparently caused the biased result produced those biased results exactly because the game was meant to deal the cards weighted. We still dont know exactly how and why the code for the bonus game in test mode influenced the doubling feature for games played in production mode.

What stands is that Spearmaster in detail has exposed that they deliberately were manipulating with the Holy Grail for fairness in a card game.

Add to that an unbelievably break of some of the fundamental guidelines for programming.

I think we should all thank Spearmaster not attack him. He has helped us to gain a reasonably balanced insight in the events. We can now discuss and interpret based on facts.

Thanks to Spearmaster we now know that the biased outcome of the doubling facility in the second half of April is the consequence of a combination of inevitable bad programming praxis and manipulation with the Holy Grail for fairness in a card game.

Again, the card game itself was not being manipulated, nor was the doubling game (not intentionally). It was a bonus game/event which was to be randomly triggered on a doubling WIN, allowing the player to win a multiplier of the value of the doubled win. The multiplier ranges from 0.5x (meaning you'd only win half of the double - but still a win nevertheless) to 10x.

 

[spearmaster]

For the record, my lunch consisted of a crappy hamburger, some fries and a couple of beers Meister, though, went whole hog... he had pasta with asparagus and a couple of beers And he mooched some of my fries...

The discussion was very frank and open - they are obviously concerned that they are getting the cold shoulder even though they admitted their mistake and paid 120% of any ties or losses - and naturally they are anxious that this issue should be cleared up.

I told them that the best I could do was provide as detailed an explanation as I could and they were satisfied with that.

Mitch - in answer to your questions, the glitch affected all EH group casinos, and possibly a small number of bets elsewhere, as the gaming server is the same. All coding is controlled by the software provider and the casino operators do not have access to this code.

One more explanation - the first statement they made was based on a testing of all results from January to May 2 - and because of this the results were very close to normal despite the period during which the new code had been introduced.

It was only after they examined the logs on a daily basis, rather than over a specified period of time, that they discovered the problem - and this is why the first statement appeared to be a rash, knee-jerk statement. I know that they regret not having done more comprehensive testing for daily results but as it stands they must accept sole responsibility for that statement and the subsequent uproar that ensued.

 

[erp1]

What has been described is a cheating game. A broken cheating game, stuck in by mistake, yes, but still a cheating game.

I agree. That is excatly what has been exposed.

The cheating game might well have been stuck in by mistake. But it doesn't mean that the affair is forgivable because of lack of intention. Odds On/ English Harbour has in praxis demonstrated that they find it's ok to develp card games that break with the founding principle that each not exposed card has equal probability to be the next exposed card.

We must as players in praxis demonstrate that we have no tolerance for software providers and casinoes that is willing to break with the most founding principles of fairness in a card game.

 

[thelawnet]

For the record, my lunch consisted of a crappy hamburger, some fries and a couple of beers Meister, though, went whole hog... he had pasta with asparagus and a couple of beers And he mooched some of my fries...

The discussion was very frank and open - they are obviously concerned that they are getting the cold shoulder even though they admitted their mistake and paid 120% of any ties or losses - and naturally they are anxious that this issue should be cleared up.

I told them that the best I could do was provide as detailed an explanation as I could and they were satisfied with that.

Mitch - in answer to your questions, the glitch affected all EH group casinos, and possibly a small number of bets elsewhere, as the gaming server is the same. All coding is controlled by the software provider and the casino operators do not have access to this code.

So why did it not affect Hot Pepper Casino, as we found at the time?

That does not make sense.

 

[spearmaster]

I agree. That is excatly what has been exposed.

The cheating game might well have been stuck in by mistake. But it doesn't mean that the affair is forgivable because of lack of intention. Odds On/ English Harbour has in praxis demonstrated that they find it's ok to develp card games that break with the founding principle that each not exposed card has equal probability to be the next exposed card.

We must as players in praxis demonstrate that we have no tolerance for software providers and casinoes that is willing to break with the most founding principles of fairness in a card game.

I want to correct this apparent misconception. Thus I will illustrate in a text manner what happened, though obviously I will work on a flowchart later.

Player has winnings, and chooses to double.
Dealer is given one random card.
Four random cards are drawn from which player selects one.

If player loses, end.

If player wins, random bonus game may be triggered (as the game is in testing mode 100% of wins will initiate bonus game).

Player is given choice of whether they wish to play the bonus game or not (as the game is in testing mode assumes player wants to play bonus game).

Four random cards are drawn from a weighted deck. Information is supposed to be written to "bonusgame" array, but instead is incorrectly written to "double" array.

Game malfunctions and returns null because certain other objects and properties are non-existent.

Error is trapped - and goes back to compare the normal doubling game - only now the four random cards have four NEW random, weighted cards in the array.

Result is evaluated again - thus automatically making all wins be re-evaluated against the new player card - and of course there is a slightly increased chance of a loss because of weighted distribution - BUT what is worse is that 100% of wins are now re-evaluated and thus many will be returned as loss or tie.


At no time is the doubling function weighted - it performs exactly to normal standards. If a player were to have the ability to choose whether or not to play the bonus game (which is what is intended but for testing the choice was assumed to be yes), and the player were to decline the opportunity to play the bonus game, everything would have been just as normal.

 

[spearmaster]

So why did it not affect Hot Pepper Casino, as we found at the time?

That does not make sense.

As I pointed out, a small number of results at other casinos were affected. I presume that you tested in free play mode - and thus this would not have been recorded in the logs.

So yes, it did affect Hot Pepper Casino as well.

 

[spearmaster]

The problem with the bonus game is that they chose to use cards - but for all intents and purposes they could have used 52 different symbols like star, ball, square etc. with different colors red, green, blue etc. and because there were 52 elements, the exact same thing would have occurred because the same number of elements are present in both the doubling and bonus games.

Had there been fewer elements, losses would have been greater.

 

[thelawnet]

One more explanation - the first statement they made was based on a testing of all results from January to May 2 - and because of this the results were very close to normal despite the period during which the new code had been introduced.

NEE NAW

BAD ANSWER

They lose.

Let's go back and look at the logs

The game was playing fairly from April 1 to April 12th, and for this period there were a total of 11,293 wins, and given that it was a 50/50 game, a similar number of losses. After April 12th the number of wins dropped sharply, because people lost all their money and also sensed the game was unfair

From January 1st - April 12th there are 31 days + 28 days + 31 days + 12 days = 102 days

Given 11,293 * 2 win/losses in 11 days, then in 102 days there are 11,293 * 2 / 11 * 102 = 209,434 wins and losses. You would expect:

104717 wins, 104717 losses.

Then for April 13th - May 2nd, there were 2,626 wins and 5,166 losses.

So from January 1st to May 2nd there would be a total of

104717 + 2626 = 107,343 wins
104717 + 5166 = 109,883 wins

out of
107,343 + 109,883 = 217,226 trials

The mean number of wins (for a fair game) from 217,226 trials is 217,226 * .5 = 108,613.

The standard deviation (for a fair game) is given by sqrt(npq) = 217,226 * .5 * .5 = 233

The actual result, around 107,343, is no less than five and a half standard deviations from the mean.

This is a probability of 0.00000025 (40 million to one against) of being from a fair game. THIS IS NOT VERY CLOSE TO NORMAL. It is not even in the same ballpark as normal.

Given that during the rigged period the number of wins was 1270 less than expectation, to have a 'close to normal' result, let's say 2 standad deviations (which is actually a generous standard to them, as when you have been presented prima facie evidence of cheating, any kind of result below the mean should make you examine things *very* closely) away from the mean, a sample size of 1270 / 2 = sqrt(n * .25)
n = 635^2 = 403,225 would be required for the period.

That would mean roughly 4,500 wins & losses per day for all of January, February and March (for which logs have not been provided). This is over double the number they were getting at the start of April. This is not plausible.

Fact is, that the claim that when you mixed in the bad results with a few months good data it looked 'normal' is crap - it actually would have looked very abnormal, because you had 5.5 -ve sds from the rigged period. Not quite winning the lottery five weeks in a row bad, but certainly far more than bad enough not to issue the kind of bullshit statement they put out.

How can we trust them given this?

It was only after they examined the logs on a daily basis, rather than over a specified period of time, that they discovered the problem - and this is why the first statement appeared to be a rash, knee-jerk statement. I know that they regret not having done more comprehensive testing for daily results but as it stands they must accept sole responsibility for that statement and the subsequent uproar that ensued.

 

[Vesuvio]

The weighting would have only been on the bonus game. The doubling game itself would still have been normal.

That's exactly what I assumed, but as I understand it this bonus game would still have functioned by dealing weighting cards. Whether it's a doubling game or a bonus game weighted cards are going to deceive the player. If they were going to use this game fairly they'd have to announce that they were dealing weighted cards... but then the players would have no confidence in their other card games. Therefore no sane casino would ever introduce such a game. Therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that they were just planning a way to cheat players. Whether they introduced it deliberately or accidentally would surely be irrelevant.

 

[Vesuvio]

The problem with the bonus game is that they chose to use cards - but for all intents and purposes they could have used 52 different symbols like star, ball, square etc. with different colors red, green, blue etc. and because there were 52 elements, the exact same thing would have occurred because the same number of elements are present in both the doubling and bonus games.

Had there been fewer elements, losses would have been greater.

This is beginning to border on the comical! Did you perhaps consider why they chose to use cards instead of random symbols. Might it possibly have involved the fact that the player assumes cards will be dealt with natural distributions rather than weighted!??