Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[mitch]

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.
.

Cheers Spear

I think you are are doing a great job on this issue. I have a fairly clear picture of what has gone on here thanks to your efforts.

Of course it's not possible to be 100% certain about events, Odds On could be supplying you with duff code in support of a convoluted story.

However, I am not going to go with the conspiracy theory here.

I prefer the risk reward theory. ie Why would Odds On risk a huge proportion of their business on a scam that would only give them a small rise in their profits?

I can't convince myself that they are so stupid!

Perhaps they are, and this cannot ever be proved 100%, however I will go with the opinion of yourself and the Meister on this issue. You have met the people involved here and you are experienced enough to see through any BS.

People posting, questioning yours and the Meisters integrity, should be ashamed of themselves IMO.

It's possible you might not be right in fact, but I am utterly convinced you are right in principle.

Mitch

 

[gfkostas]

Why oddson didnt test the game for randomness in the first place?

 

[Macgyver]

Some of you need to learn some tact, for Pete's sake ...

You act like you're paying spearmaster to look at this code. The man's doing it, on his own free time, out of his desire to make his own decision about the matter and impart that decision to the forum. He's probably spent more time responding to people's comments on here than he has evaluating the code.

If you disagree with his methods and/or findings, that's your right. What isn't your right is to attack the man's character because of that disagreement.

Learn some maturity ... crap like "NEE NAW BAD ANSWER" is simply childish. Just those four words alone made me gloss over what factual information and conclusions may have been after it. How do you expect an informed discussion of the matter when it feels like a grade school in this thread?

Personally, I'm surprised spear hasn't told y'all to jump in the lake by now. He's got a lot more patience with your antics than I'm having right now.

 

[soflat]

It seems like every piece of evidence that is (slowly) surfacing is more and more damning.

 

[ftg]

I am very very confused......

I respect Spearmaster and I won't question his integrity.

However, I do find it unconvicing at all for the whole thing. The more information is given out, the more questions are in my mind and the more I don't believe it's just a mistake. (Error on the codes is there, as Spear has been explaining. I have no problem in believing it.)

 

[vinylweatherman]

Bonus Game

No-one seems to have noticed that the bonus game, while with weighted "cards", was designed to offer the chance to win a multiplier, and at worst half the doubling win would be returned. Depending on the weights used, this may turn out to be a fair 50/50 game, but with much higher variance. I can see why a casino would consider offering this, with it's chance for a 10x win, on a game such as VP doubling, which is a straight forward double or nothing shot.
We should not expect this variation to be rushed out soon, I am sure they will be quadruple checking this code before they release it, as they must realise that another screw-up with this particular piece of code is not an option!
I expect that the value of the card would have been the multiplier, and perhaps face cards were taken as a multiplier of 0.5 The deck would probably weight heavily in favour of Deuces & Faces, and the 10 would hardly ever appear. It might have been better to use a weighted deck of numbers, with the casino logo where the suit was. This would make it clear that this was no ordinary card based game.
If they get this bonus game right, it may actually be worth a try.

 

[spearmaster]

I will need to double check on the actual period which was tested - I assumed that it was January 1 as a starting point and May 2 as a finishing point.

Mitch and MacGyver, thanks for your kind words.

Vesuvio - I don't believe that there would be an intent to deliberately mislead players as to the randomness of the cards, based on how the bonus game operates. The value of the multiplier is not contingent only on the value of the card, but also on the suit. The weighting across suits, however, is exactly even. That is to say - a 2 of clubs is the worst card worth 0.5x - but a 2 of spades would be worth 4.5x multiplier - yet they carry exactly the same weight. You would theoretically have a better chance of drawing a 2 of spades than a 3 of clubs (worth 0.65 multiplier).

Thelawnet - your proposition is not viable. You already indicate an obvious drop of play in the period in question - yet it is not correct to assume that this lower amount of play can be applied across the preceding period when the game was normal. The total number of hands played from the beginning of the year is probably much higher than you used for your testing - and only dropped off dramatically when people started losing more often.

vwm - the weightings decrease proportionately starting from the highest weight for a deuce to the lowest for an ace. The suit, however, does play a role, but there are no differences in weighting across suits. A 2 of clubs carries equal weight to any other 2, and an Ace of clubs carries equal weight to any other Ace.

Nevertheless - it does look like an interesting game worth trying provided that it is clear that the cards are not evenly weighted. We will have to wait and see, however, when - if ever - this game is introduced. I wouldn't mind giving it a run myself, the thought of doubling a win for $10 and then getting a bonus game which either cuts my win to $5, or increases it to $50, or somewhere in between, definitely appeals to me.

 

[atherm]

I've been following this thread sporadically up until now. I just spent a ridiculous amount of time reading the entire thing straight through and I believe that those who have been reading this day by day, taking in each new development in turn have become detached from the clear and obvious facts that have been present since the beginning. This detachment is somehow allowing for each of you to entertain the casinos "glitch" story. Lets break this down, plain and simple for one last time.

1. Player discovers he is not being dealt a fair doubling game
2. Collaboration from other players confirm this beyond anything but the most absurd mathematical doubt
3. Suddenly, just a couple days after his thread starts, the game is being dealt fair again
4. Theories are created, acusations made, and investigations begin
5. Casino first denies that the game was not fair, then eventually claims that a software glitch (all be it an elaborate one backed by an almost believable story)
6. Readers\Players, even ones who had predicted from the start that the casino would go with a malfunctioning software story, for some reason are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the casino.

These first 5 statements above should not be leading to number 6. But they are! If thelawnnet hadnt caught this then the casino would have "fixed" the software eventually (whether or not is was "broken" intentionally or not is apparently not something that is allowed to commented on here, but use common sense) and then one of two things would have happened depending on what you think
1. The casino had intentionally caused the glitch and obviously wouldnt refund any money
2. The glitch was not intentional, but the casino sure as heck isnt going to notify its players and refund their money once they notice it and fix it.

Unfortunately for the casino, option 3 happened, and all they can do is scramble to save their business.
It is time for brutal honesty. No accusations, insults or assumptions. Just tough truths. Every online casino in the end is just an elaborate tool created to take peoples money, and none of the people who would create such a business could possibly care whatsoever about the well being of their customers. They only care about them enough so that they will remain customers. In the long run we all know that none of us can ultimately win money playing these games. So we have the right to expect absolute perfection on the casinos part if they want our business. Helpful and fast CS, quick\ secure financial transactions, and as weird as it sounds when I say it... every one of their unfair games, needs to be running fair 100% of the time. No game should be made available for the public to play until it is tested so extensively that the casino knows that the game is absolutely being dealt, rolled, spun or drawn exactly as one would expect it to be in a live, fair casino. When there is a mess up like this one they deserve no sympathy, no oppurtunity to make excuses, no second chances. There are hundreds and hundreds of casinos available online today. As far as I'm concerned, English Harbour is no longer one of them.

 

[spearmaster]

No game should be made available for the public to play until it is tested so extensively that the casino knows that the game is absolutely being dealt, rolled, spun or drawn exactly as one would expect it to be in a live, fair casino.

This bonus game was never intended to be live under any circumstances - but somehow the code got uploaded to the live server. I am sure we all agree that no game should ever see the light of day until it is fully tested.

But shit happens - simple as that. No one is making any excuses as to why the game was uploaded - what they are really having to defend against is why that first explanation was so woefully wrong. Had they done a more complete investigation in the first place they wouldn't look so bad. But the code somehow got uploaded, and then they compounded things with that first statement, and they accepted those consequences and of course made restitution above and beyond what should have been required.

Now I'll just get the information out here (soon, I hope) and then you will have all you need to make your own decisions.

 

[atherm]

This bonus game was never intended to be live under any circumstances - but somehow the code got uploaded to the live server. I am sure we all agree that no game should ever see the light of day until it is fully tested.

"never intended" , "somehow got uploaded". Not phrases we want to hear associated with cheating\nonrandom\unfair (pick your own adjective if you dont like any of those) casino gaming software.

regardless, you've done a very good job in handling this situation spear.

 

[thelawnet]

Thelawnet - your proposition is not viable. You already indicate an obvious drop of play in the period in question - yet it is not correct to assume that this lower amount of play can be applied across the preceding period when the game was normal.

If you look, you can see I did not apply the lower amount.

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

The total number of hands played from the beginning of the year is probably much higher than you used for your testing - and only dropped off dramatically when people started losing more often.

The period from April 1st to April 12th is much higher than from April 13th to May 2nd. I extrapolated the figure from April 1st to April 12th for the 'dark' period from January 1st to March 31st - not the lower number from April 13th onwards. I already used the much higher number. Accordingly, I do not believe their claim that the data showed 'normal' results when examined for the whole period is likely.

 

[thelawnet]

I will need to double check on the actual period which was tested - I assumed that it was January 1 as a starting point and May 2 as a finishing point.

Mitch and MacGyver, thanks for your kind words.

Vesuvio - I don't believe that there would be an intent to deliberately mislead players as to the randomness of the cards, based on how the bonus game operates. The value of the multiplier is not contingent only on the value of the card, but also on the suit. The weighting across suits, however, is exactly even. That is to say - a 2 of clubs is the worst card worth 0.5x - but a 2 of spades would be worth 4.5x multiplier - yet they carry exactly the same weight. You would theoretically have a better chance of drawing a 2 of spades than a 3 of clubs (worth 0.65 multiplier).

There is no casino game that operates in a manner akin to that described. Regardless of whether the cards have a balancing weighting factor on their payout, cards that do not occur randomly do not exist in fair casino games.

 

[spearmaster]

If you look, you can see I did not apply the lower amount.

My apologies, I probably jumped before I looked But in any case, I also assumed the test period in question - I will try and get the actual period next chance I get.

There is no casino game that operates in a manner akin to that described. Regardless of whether the cards have a balancing weighting factor on their payout, cards that do not occur randomly do not exist in fair casino games.

I think you're getting hung up on the fact that cards were used to determine the multiplier. This is unfortunate and I fully agree with you - in fact I expressed the same surprise in one of my calls with them.

Nevertheless, the bonus game is not bound by the same standards as another card game or a doubling function - it is akin to the results you get when playing a bonus round in some of the slots we play. And it was actually derived from a bonus game designed for slots.

Cards DO occur randomly in the doubling game because that is standard. Cards do NOT necessarily occur randomly in a bonus game because the cards are not meant for gambling - they are being used as objects for the purpose of awarding a bonus.

 

[Vesuvio]

I think you're getting hung up on the fact that cards were used to determine the multiplier. This is unfortunate and I fully agree with you - in fact I expressed the same surprise in one of my calls with them.

As I said before - to have a bonus game using cards and not be deceiving players you'd have to make it 100% clear the cards were weighted. If players know cards can be weighted in the bonus game they're not going to trust the cards in the normal VP game or in any other card game offered by the casino. It would be absolute madness to introduce such a game, so unless they're absolutely mad I really don't believe they would genuinely have considered releasing it.

If they weren't planning to introduce the game then we're left with the question of why they developed a routine to deal weighted cards. I'd submit that by far the most logical reason would be that they intended to weight the doubling game. And that they did. Mitch, I really don't think this qualifies as the "conspiracy" theory - it's too straightforward and plausible. The EH version's the one that beggars belief.

 

[ftg]

My apologies, I probably jumped before I looked But in any case, I also assumed the test period in question - I will try and get the actual period next chance I get.

 

[tennis_balls]

For the record, my lunch consisted of a crappy hamburger, some fries and a couple of beers.

spear:

you ordered a burger in Canada??? you sir have a gambling problem!

 

[Pinababy69]

Some of you need to learn some tact, for Pete's sake ...

You act like you're paying spearmaster to look at this code. The man's doing it, on his own free time, out of his desire to make his own decision about the matter and impart that decision to the forum. He's probably spent more time responding to people's comments on here than he has evaluating the code.

If you disagree with his methods and/or findings, that's your right. What isn't your right is to attack the man's character because of that disagreement.

Learn some maturity ... crap like "NEE NAW BAD ANSWER" is simply childish. Just those four words alone made me gloss over what factual information and conclusions may have been after it. How do you expect an informed discussion of the matter when it feels like a grade school in this thread?

Personally, I'm surprised spear hasn't told y'all to jump in the lake by now. He's got a lot more patience with your antics than I'm having right now.

Bravo Mac. Everything else aside, the comments you have made regarding Spearmaster, and him taking HIS time to try and wade through all this, were long overdue.

I have deliberately stayed out of this thread, because truthfully the technical aspect of it is above me. Personally, my own opinion is that I don't believe this was intentional on the part of the casino, but intentional or not, a screw-up of this magnitude is almost inexcusable. Would I play there myself? No. Would I refer anyone there? No. But do I question Spear's motives or integrity? Absolutely, unequivocally no. He has never been afraid to call a spade a spade, he's probably one of the most direct and "no bullshit" type people you will ever run across on any forum. What does he have to gain by "covering up" for a casino? For any casino? He's not an affiliate, he's not on their payroll, he's not receiving huge amounts in media buys from them. I really don't get the doubt factor.

How often is a third party even shown or given access to a casino's programming code? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say never. I think that proves at least to some degree that the casino/software provider is hoping for some sort of resolution to put this matter to rest, that they are not trying to hide anything so to speak.

The ones of you who are questioning Spear's motives, I have to ask you, what is in it for him? What would he be gaining by "covering up" for EH (well, besides all that cheap wine and stale cheese I mean)? Do you think because he moderates this board, that makes him biased in some way? So you must all be questioning Bryan as well then I suppose? I'm certainly not going to get into a debate with you, but I want Bryan and Spear to know that whatever the final findings are, I trust both of you to deal with the situation accordingly. It won't change my opinion of the casino themselves, this is a monumental screw up. Unfortunately, as life goes, everyone makes mistakes, even top notch programmers. And if that's the direction that Spear's findings take, I can accept that. Of course, there will always be the conspiracy theorists who will never be happy with that explanation.

Good job Ted, and thanks for taking the time to keep us all updated and to post what you can as you go along. Make sure you save some cheese for the plane ride home.

 

[spearmaster]

spear:

you ordered a burger in Canada??? you sir have a gambling problem!

I forgot... LOL... knew I should've had the rack of lamb instead

As for cheese... I thought I'd eat some at the conference just so the theory would be partly right - but I refused to partake of the Ripple...

 

[spearmaster]

As I said before - to have a bonus game using cards and not be deceiving players you'd have to make it 100% clear the cards were weighted. If players know cards can be weighted in the bonus game they're not going to trust the cards in the normal VP game or in any other card game offered by the casino. It would be absolute madness to introduce such a game, so unless they're absolutely mad I really don't believe they would genuinely have considered releasing it.

If they weren't planning to introduce the game then we're left with the question of why they developed a routine to deal weighted cards. I'd submit that by far the most logical reason would be that they intended to weight the doubling game. And that they did. Mitch, I really don't think this qualifies as the "conspiracy" theory - it's too straightforward and plausible. The EH version's the one that beggars belief.

Short answer - as I have not seen any graphic or standard text elements that indicate anything about the bonus game, I can't presume anything about how the game would be presented. I would naturally imagine that it would be clear the cards were weighted, otherwise I'd have the exact same thought that you did.

It is clear that they did not intend to weight the doubling game based on the observations derived from the code. I know this point will always be debatable - but short of the final post I will make as soon as I can, there is absolutely nothing more that I can do to convince anyone that one simply would not program a fix in this manner.

 

[Zoozie]

As I said before - to have a bonus game using cards and not be deceiving players you'd have to make it 100% clear the cards were weighted. If players know cards can be weighted in the bonus game they're not going to trust the cards in the normal VP game or in any other card game offered by the casino.

I can not agree more.

But I think it is too late. I do not trust them in a 'normal' VP game anymore.

Zoozie

 

[erp1]

But do I question Spear's motives or integrity? Absolutely, unequivocally no. He has never been afraid to call a spade a spade, he's probably one of the most direct and "no bullshit" type people you will ever run across on any forum.

Well said. Personally I'm convinced that Spearmaster does his best to reveal what happened, accepting "no bullshit" neither from the Odds On/ΕΗ nor from hotheads.

How often is a third party even shown or given access to a casino's programming code? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say never. I think that proves at least to some degree that the casino/software provider is hoping for some sort of resolution to put this matter to rest, that they are not trying to hide anything so to speak.

Did they have any other options?
Option 1: Go the line out and deny everything. Nobody would trust them and they would just have lost everything.
Option 2: Admit and limit the damage. But the situation is so bad that they would not be able to get their message through.

I don't think they had any other realistic option than silence, unconditional surrender and acceptance of demands from observers with insight and a balanced view.

Thanks to Spearmaster we have the possibility to get insight and a balanced view of the whole affair.

I started with an open mind to accept reasonably explanations of a deplorable but legitimate bug.

But the more that is revealed the less I'm able to characterize the bug as a deplorable but legitimate bug.

 

[ergopro]

Isn't OddsOn owned and operated by EH these days or am I totally wrong?

 

[tennis_balls]

and they accepted those consequences and of course made restitution above and beyond what should have been required.

i guess we'll just agree to disagree on this matter. i don't think 120% to affected players is even in the ballpark of making restitution. this is the online casino equivalent of a surgeon who sews up the patient with a scalpel inside.

"mistakes were made" is only generally acceptable if you're the leader of the free world by a fraudulent vote count

 

[spearmaster]

i guess we'll just agree to disagree on this matter. i don't think 120% to affected players is even in the ballpark of making restitution. this is the online casino equivalent of a surgeon who sews up the patient with a scalpel inside.

"mistakes were made" is only generally acceptable if you're the leader of the free world by a fraudulent vote count

The alternative would have been no restitution, or perhaps long dragged-out negotiations as evidenced in some other threads.

I believe EH deserves a little credit for its actions, especially compared to other operations. They stepped up to the plate and paid, opened their code up to outside parties for examination, and did this as soon as it was clear that there was a problem with the code.

The example all of you are setting will result, for sure, in the inevitability that NO future operator will ever release their code for scrutiny, admit problems with the code, or make restitution for a bug, deliberate or not. They will simply deny it because they will not get a fair hearing.

If this is the way you think it should be, then so be it. It is a real shame that a few players will set such a poor example for the community at large.

 

[soflat]

The example all of you are setting will result, for sure, in the inevitability that NO future operator will ever release their code for scrutiny, admit problems with the code, or make restitution for a bug, deliberate or not. They will simply deny it because they will not get a fair hearing.

If this is the way you think it should be, then so be it. It is a real shame that a few players will set such a poor example for the community at large.

I think they have been treated fairly.

A lot of posters have been reading this thread from the start and have examined all of the evidence. If they don't agree with you, I don't see why you are ashamed of the community for that. In fact it is offensive that you consider it a poor example.

Personally, I respect the work you have done and don't question your intentions. I simply disagree with you. And I haven't seen anything in this whole thread to be ashamed of.

 

[tony_k]

I've read Mr. Spearmaster's post #395 carefully.

Link Outdated / Removed

What was actually happening was that the winning hand would get another "normal" deal without choice. It is exaclty as same as "second dealing" as a result. That's why win/lose ratio is 1:2.

My figure is here (#224), win/tie/lose = 0.29586/0.11243/0.59172 assuming only winnig hand would get second dealing.

Link Outdated / Removed

Somebody said my figure was totally incorrect but I still stand for my figure.

 

[kengam]

The alternative would have been no restitution, or perhaps long dragged-out negotiations as evidenced in some other threads.

I believe EH deserves a little credit for its actions, especially compared to other operations. They stepped up to the plate and paid, opened their code up to outside parties for examination, and did this as soon as it was clear that there was a problem with the code.

The example all of you are setting will result, for sure, in the inevitability that NO future operator will ever release their code for scrutiny, admit problems with the code, or make restitution for a bug, deliberate or not. They will simply deny it because they will not get a fair hearing.

If this is the way you think it should be, then so be it. It is a real shame that a few players will set such a poor example for the community at large.

So basically what you are saying is accept your explanation and forgive them for their mistake. The few players who don't are ruining any chance of cooperation from other casinos who are caught cheating. This is utterly rediculous. About that restitution. Are you saying that EVERYONE who played the double up game at ANY Odds On joint during the period in question has been refunded 120%? I can assure you that the answer to that is no.

It is not my intent to bash your (Spear) integrity. I appreciate that you have taken it upon yourself to investigate this. I do not appreciate the notion that agreeing with what you believe to have happened is for the good of the industry. We are not sheep. I have personally lost a fortune on that double up game and will continue to insist that it was in cheat mode on other occasions before April.

I am insulted that English Harbour is relying on your testimony. I am insulted that they are beyond giving us an explanation of their own. I am insulted that they are leading you and us to believe that everyone effected by the cheating code was reimbursed 120%.

 

[spearmaster]

I'm not saying accept their explanation at all. I'm saying that you need to consider all of the evidence before making a decision - but at least give them credit for coming forward and allowing me to examine the code, plus making restitution to the players quickly - something I'm sure you will agree is not usually the case with other operations.

They admitted their errors - they made a dumb statement which they regret. They have cooperated fully with me, whereas with operations it's worse than pulling teeth.

That's about all anyone can ask at this stage - when I finally get done with this explanation you are all free to draw your own conclusions - and that is the best that can be expected of you.

I just don't think it's awfully fair to be so hard on them when other operations have been far less cooperative, that's all.

 

[spearmaster]

Are you saying that EVERYONE who played the double up game at ANY Odds On joint during the period in question has been refunded 120%? I can assure you that the answer to that is no.

Missed the quote... LOL...

If EH have not already refunded 120% for the error then I will obviously retract my statement. If anyone here who played during that period of time did NOT get paid, by all means let me know - they promised that they would pay and I would like to know if this is not the case.

 

[derelict]

Spearmaster, I believe you've done a great job explaining the material you've been provided, but I disagree with your position. In my opinion, there are only two things that a casino absolutely must do, and absolutely must be blacklisted for not doing. That is to have fair games, and pay out winnings. If I understand correctly, even you admit that they intended to deal a card game not based on a random selection from the deck. It may be too soon for Casinomeister to judge them but not for me.

There's already an issue of trust simply from the fact that it would be so easy to cheat. This is a case where players caught the house with their hand in the cookie jar and I think certain people are far too eager to write this off as an isolated incident with virtually no effects beyond what took place around the exact time and place where it was proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it did in fact happen.

When I lose money, until recently I wrote it off as bad luck. To me, this incident has raised suspicions of other software providers and devalued the merit of certifying authorities as a whole. In the future I'll be making spreadsheets and I would encourage others to do the same.

 

[Ziggity]

Are you saying that EVERYONE who played the double up game at ANY Odds On joint during the period in question has been refunded 120%? I can assure you that the answer to that is no.

I played the double up game at HotPepper Casino (OddsOn software, but not EH group) during the time the software was bad, and I did get a refund which they claimed was 120%. (120% of what, I'm not exactly sure).

I had no contact with OddsOn or HotPepper about this issue and the refund came as a total suprize.

Ziggity

 

[soflat]

I would be satisfied with this whole thing if EH & OddsOn did the following:

1. Release all logfiles for the past three years for an independent audit.

2. Assure that all affected players were compensated.

3. Cease development of weighted card games. There is no reason to create a weighted-deck game. It would be easy to develop a bonus game with a 52-card, radomly dealt, unweighted deck.

4. Assure players that the operators cannot adjust the play of the games delivered by the software provider.

They've done quite a bit so far by releasing the code and issuing refunds, but these additional steps might go a long way towards restoring player confidence given all the questions so many have, and I hope the watchdog sites will push for this.

 

[kengam]

I would be satisfied with this whole thing if EH & OddsOn did the following:

1. Release all logfiles for the past three years for an independent audit.

2. Assure that all affected players were compensated.

3. Cease development of weighted card games. There is no reason to create a weighted-deck game. It would be easy to develop a bonus game with a 52-card, radomly dealt, unweighted deck.

4. Assure players that the operators cannot adjust the play of the games delivered by the software provider.

They've done quite a bit so far by releasing the code and issuing refunds, but these additional steps might go a long way towards restoring player confidence given all the questions so many have, and I hope the watchdog sites will push for this.

I am curious enough to see if this alternate double up game ever really happens

 

[johnsteed]

***

Wow "Spearmaster", you've REALLY floored-me here. :notworthy I was already impressed by you a while back, and now with the way you've handled yourself here, and think I'm one of your biggest fans (non-sport/entertainment that is... ). :notworthy :notworthy


I haven't read this thread in a week, and boy, has it taken off. By the speed by which this story is growing, it'll take over Barry Bonds #1 spot in the news by next week. With all the criticism being thrown your way (and if I were you), I would have bit the bullet already and called it a life.


While I'd love to contribute and somehow jump-in on this one, I'd be nothing more than a fraud, wherein my math skills are pretty-much that of an armchair sports fan (a mid-level "sabermetric" at best ).


Keep up the great work!


Steed

***

 

[ftg]

Is it time to resume the poll?


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

 

[ftg]

No offence, and I appreciate Spearmater's contribution but in the first place spearmaster is biased from the very beginning.

Spearmaster, we can do a poll here, if more people think that you are biased, you have to rethink about your position.

If this post annoy you, please ban me. I am fine with it.

 

[Pinababy69]

No offence, and I appreciate Spearmater's contribution but in the first place spearmaster is biased from the very beginning.

Care to clarify that statement ftg? On what grounds in particular is he biased? And I'm trying to keep an open mind here.

 

[thelawnet]

Cards DO occur randomly in the doubling game because that is standard. Cards do NOT necessarily occur randomly in a bonus game because the cards are not meant for gambling - they are being used as objects for the purpose of awarding a bonus.

That kind of game is still unprecedented.

And I don't see how they can not be meant for gambling.... If cards are determined by a random routine, they are by definition 'gambling'. Not objects, but randomly determined cards. Choosing 1 out of 52 cards can only be done randomly (fairly). There is no other way.

 

[ftg]

Care to clarify that statement ftg? On what grounds in particular is he biased? And I'm trying to keep an open mind here.

From his post from the very begining, he assumed EH/Odds on in innocent and defend EH/Odds quite a bit before first communication with EH/Odds On. You can re-vist his first posts.

IMHO, we should keep an open mind on this incident. It's either a cheating or it's not, but shouldn't have any standpoint from the very beginning. He may be unbaised on this incident but his posts, mostly defending EH/Odds On, push him in an unfavortie situation. In my other posts, I mention that he just don't need to defend EH/Odds On. Just state his findings is pretty good enough.

I am not saying he's bought as some of the people here or other boards mentioned. I believe he's willing to help but just he's biased which he himself is not aware.

One example,

Spearmaster wrote:

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.?

thelawnet responded with:

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?

thelawnet presented the above with sound arguments. However, spearmaster then responded with:

I will need to double check on the actual period which was tested - I assumed that it was January 1 as a starting point and May 2 as a finishing point.

This shows he doesn't check with EH/Odds On and defended on behalf of them. Does he need to defend like that? And it the first place, how come he could state

the first statement they made was based on a testing of all results from January to May 2.

Again, anyone dare to open a poll to see whether he's biased or not. If you look at the discussion here and winneronline, more than half people disagree with him.

 

[soflat]

Again, anyone dare to open a poll to see whether he's biased or not. If you look at the discussion here and winneronline, more than half people disagree with him.

I don't recommend such a poll. Why not just keep the discussion about EH and OddsOn without attacking the messenger? Anyways people can disagree with his opinion without thinking he is biased.

I am interested in the poll about EH & OddsOn just to see how more people feel, but that is apparently forbidden.

 

[Pinababy69]

ftg

Ftg, I wanted to try and reply as best I could to your statements. You referred specifically to Spearmaster's early posts in this thread, so that is what I have searched. Direct quotes taken from the first 19 pages of this thread are below. Should I search more?

It's Vegas Technology - which is supposedly a new provider taking over from Odds On. Don't know if it's the same programmers behind it, but the platform is entirely new and you will not find any of the old Odds On games.

Commenting on revised results people were getting:

These aren't exactly normal results either... LOL...

Commenting on a poster saying the software seemed to patch itself:

This is also strange. No element involving calculation of results should be on your computer. The software should only be a GUI - graphic user interface - which displays results as sent by the server.

The Wiz stopped providing CFG seals/services some time ago - so this text is extremely old, not to mention the fact that Odds On ceased to exist sometime last year.

A housecleaning is definitely in order.

Well, I'm willing to be wrong here - the last time I talked to Michael, I am sure he said he was no longer going to provide CFG services. But he may have decided to continue.

The Odds On site does still exist, so presumably they are still providing services to other customers. But I am unsure as to whether or not they are connected to Vegas Technology, despite what you may be seeing elsewhere.

Oh, and btw, Caruso, "cheat" has not been proven. Not that I'm all that inclined to disagree, but it *is* possible there was a glitch which caused these results, or even possibly, albeit remotely, that there was nothing wrong with the software and various players just happened to catch bad runs.

If you have proof, of course you're welcome to present it. Otherwise, we'll just go on the evidence shown here in this thread that something definitely does not look right but we don't know why.

Strong suspicions of a non-random game? You can bet your mammy on that...

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

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

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

Come to think of it, this statement is bogus. Just because a random number generator is truly random does not necessarily mean that game play results conform with accepted statistical norms.

I can still use the number generated by the RNG and apply it to a formula which says "If (RNG>.00000000001) {dealercard="Ace";}"... LOL...

You've got the idea. Again, I am not saying that anything occurred - and I haven't done any calculations to test anything - but accidental programming errors are still possible. I'm not going any deeper than this, though, because I don't want them to get any ideas.

Zoozie... LOL...

That was a pretty poor explanation from EH management. These "theoretically deterministic varying chances" just don't add up... pun fully intended.

My apologies, I guess the Wiz is still on the job At least now we know that a proper review will take place by one or more parties.

I would suggest that until this has taken place, members of the forum kindly refrain from any accusations or insinuations as to what happened.

Flavio - yes, that's the Wizard of Odds.

I repeat again - insinuations and accusations should be avoided for the time being. Although the first time was a request, this time it's a warning - until such time as we hear from the auditing parties, no more speculation of this sort, otherwise you will be speculating on vacation.

The fact that logs are being handed over to players should indicate some sincerity, for crying out loud. What program do you know will damn themselves like that if they were trying to hide the problem?

Not turning them over would be very dubious at best.

Turning them over would "damn them" if they had intended to cheat players. What I'm trying to point out is that perhaps they are trying to be upfront and provide you with what you should be entitled to in the first place.

So if they give you the logs - knowing that the data in there may indeed expose an issue - then this is tantamount to acknowledging that there may be problems and that they will work with you to address them.

Dovmin - again, while I don't disagree with you - I have already asked twice that no more insinuations or accusations be thrown for the time being.

This is a final warning to everyone. Talk all you like but do NOT make any more accusations or insinuations because there are a number of parties already working on the issue. "Non-random" is okay. "Cheating" or "deliberate" is not.

Hey kengam... welcome back!

I think the possible answers will be obvious -

1. Any player who suddenly feels he is having bad luck at doubling will stop soon enough - especially if the results aren't what he/she is used to seeing from the past.

2. Obviously the issue being raised in the forums also contributed to a slowdown in real-mode doubling-down.

I too would like to see exactly what error was discovered... but if it's what I think it is, it is an obvious boo-boo. But better I not speculate - let's see if they're willing to tell us.

I see absolutely nothing here that shows bias on behalf of the casino, or bias against the players. On the contrary, what I do see is someone who freely admitted that there was an error of some sort, but didn't want to "speculate" on what that may be without being in possession of all the facts. I see someone who repeatedly asked posters in a polite manner to refrain from making assumptions and insinuations, and from using the word "cheater" when that had not been proven as yet. I see someone who agreed with posters that the original statement from EH was laughable.

What I do not see is Spearmaster ferociously defending the casino. Maybe it's all in perception, but if anyone thinks that because Spear didn't chime in with the chorus of "cheaters", that makes him biased, then all I can say is you have no idea of what is involved in running a site of this nature. This site is not here as strictly a "Casino Watchdog" site, it is here as a watchdog site....period. The amount of time and effort spent in developing contacts and relationships to make this forum successful...it's not something you do overnight. It's based on mutual trust, respect and integrity.....with all parties involved, players and casinos alike. No, they don't allow casinos to be called cheaters prior to all the facts being in. In the same vein, they don't allow posters to insult or degrade one another. Shouldn't the rules be the same for everyone? Shouldn't a little bit of tact and diplomacy be called upon in all situations?

I think that Spearmaster has been more than accomodating to everyone, and has tried his best to maintain some neutrality throughout this whole issue. And perhaps that's the problem some of you are having, with neutrality? Maybe some of you expected something else? When all is said and done, I have full confidence that IF Spear's findings supported a theory of cheating, that he will have no qualms about posting that explicitly. If, on the other hand, his expert opinion is that it was a programming error and nothing more, I will accept that.

In regards to a poll, what could that possibly accomplish? People are going to have their own opinions no matter what. All it would succeed in doing is opening up another avenue for some additional character assassination, and innuendo. Ftg, I was glad to see you at least clarify that you don't believe he has been "bought off". I thought that's where you were headed with your statement.

I agree with the poster above who stated that the thread should be kept focused on EH and not on the messenger. Because in the end, that is exactly what Spearmaster is, a neutral third party trying to find some answers.

 

[Macgyver]

From his post from the very begining, he assumed EH/Odds on in innocent and defend EH/Odds quite a bit before first communication with EH/Odds On. You can re-vist his first posts.

IMHO, we should keep an open mind on this incident. It's either a cheating or it's not, but shouldn't have any standpoint from the very beginning. He may be unbaised on this incident but his posts, mostly defending EH/Odds On, push him in an unfavortie situation. In my other posts, I mention that he just don't need to defend EH/Odds On. Just state his findings is pretty good enough.

I am not saying he's bought as some of the people here or other boards mentioned. I believe he's willing to help but just he's biased which he himself is not aware.

For my two cents added, if you're holding that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" means a person is biased, I'd hate to see you charged with an offense in court (criminal or civil) that you were innocent of.

Bold added by me ...

 

[spearmaster]

That kind of game is still unprecedented.

And I don't see how they can not be meant for gambling.... If cards are determined by a random routine, they are by definition 'gambling'. Not objects, but randomly determined cards. Choosing 1 out of 52 cards can only be done randomly (fairly). There is no other way.

You still don't get it, do you?

Ok. Doubling game is NORMAL. Player has WON doubling event.

Random event triggers bonus game - 52 STICKS of varying lengths and colors are available, of which four are chosen and the player chooses one of these, assuming he has elected to play the bonus game.

You choose one stick, which turns out to be the shortest stick, colored blue. Its multiplier value is 0.5.

You could have chosen another stick, which also turns out to be the shortest possible stick, but its color is green - the multiplier is 4.5.

The chance of you choosing a slightly longer blue stick is slightly less than choosing the shortest green stick - but the multiplier is 0.65.

Please get OFF the bit with the cards. I have already stated that it is unfortunate that they used 52 cards - but the bonus event is NOT a standard event and return on bet is also weighted. It matters not one whit whether these objects are a deck of cards or a set of colored sticks or mahjong tiles or whatever constitutes 13 elements with 4 different colors or suits or whatever. It is NOT a standard card game of any sort.

 

[tennis_balls]

where can I play this stick game? are you saying the guy with biggest stick always wins?

 

[thelawnet]

You still don't get it, do you?

Ok. Doubling game is NORMAL. Player has WON doubling event.

Random event triggers bonus game - 52 STICKS of varying lengths and colors are available, of which four are chosen and the player chooses one of these, assuming he has elected to play the bonus game.

You choose one stick, which turns out to be the shortest stick, colored blue. Its multiplier value is 0.5.

You could have chosen another stick, which also turns out to be the shortest possible stick, but its color is green - the multiplier is 4.5.

The chance of you choosing a slightly longer blue stick is slightly less than choosing the shortest green stick - but the multiplier is 0.65.

Please get OFF the bit with the cards. I have already stated that it is unfortunate that they used 52 cards - but the bonus event is NOT a standard event and return on bet is also weighted. It matters not one whit whether these objects are a deck of cards or a set of colored sticks or mahjong tiles or whatever constitutes 13 elements with 4 different colors or suits or whatever. It is NOT a standard card game of any sort.

Oh, so they coincidentally chose 52 elements. It just happens to the number of cards in a deck of cards, and is not a number shared with anything else that I can think. I don't think so. Agreed if this was treasure chests or pearls or something, then it would be fair enough. But cards? There is hundreds of years of precedent, and that precedent says that card games must be random. I would very much appreciate if you could show me a game that uses 52 cards in a non-random fashion, as I don't think there is one.

NOBODY makes a game involving 52 elements coincidentally. It can only be done to represent a deck of cards. And a deck of cards if not random is cheating.

 

[ftg]

For my two cents added, if you're holding that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" means a person is biased, I'd hate to see you charged with an offense in court (criminal or civil) that you were innocent of.

Bold added by me ...

Whatever, perhaps I am choosing the wrong pharses here.

My point is Spearmaster is accepting almost everything, if not all, EH/Odds On explains to him even some of them are quite obvious unbelievable and illogical, and defended them without first clarification of them (my example in my earlier post.) And I don't think this can be regarded as non-biased.

 

[ftg]

BTW, I must stress that I am not anti-spearmaster. I just voice out my opinion and can't agree his approach towards this incident.

Have a nice weekend!

 

[ftg]

Obviously I'm not unhappy with his suspension of my poll.

A poll is a poll, which is based on the existing/limited resouces/information to make an opinion. I can't agree on his "no poll until I have presented all the facts to you and you have to listen to me first." approach.

We can do a poll before certain events occur and after it to see the effect but not the existing arrangement.

Even if he reveals all the information, what about someone jumps in and say "No, stop! I am researching on further events. No poll until my tasks are finished"?

 

[atherm]

The alternative would have been no restitution, or perhaps long dragged-out negotiations as evidenced in some other threads.

I believe EH deserves a little credit for its actions, especially compared to other operations. They stepped up to the plate and paid, opened their code up to outside parties for examination, and did this as soon as it was clear that there was a problem with the code.

Wow spear? Please be joking. "Deserve credit", "stepped up to the plate". How about a few more undeserved cliches to describe EH's actions. They are nowhere near having done anything for which they should deserve any credit. They have done the bare minimum that they could possibly do, and now theyre waiting and feeling out the situation to figure out how much more is necessary to make the public forget this incident and bring in a new wave of clients.
Be careful spear, im starting to agree that you are definitely backing the casino much more then they deserve. If you wanna play devils advocate then fine, but if you actually believe some of these things then....

 

[JohnGalt]

You still don't get it, do you?

Ok. Doubling game is NORMAL. Player has WON doubling event.

Random event triggers bonus game - 52 STICKS of varying lengths and colors are available, of which four are chosen and the player chooses one of these, assuming he has elected to play the bonus game.

You choose one stick, which turns out to be the shortest stick, colored blue. Its multiplier value is 0.5.

You could have chosen another stick, which also turns out to be the shortest possible stick, but its color is green - the multiplier is 4.5.

The chance of you choosing a slightly longer blue stick is slightly less than choosing the shortest green stick - but the multiplier is 0.65.

Please get OFF the bit with the cards. I have already stated that it is unfortunate that they used 52 cards - but the bonus event is NOT a standard event and return on bet is also weighted. It matters not one whit whether these objects are a deck of cards or a set of colored sticks or mahjong tiles or whatever constitutes 13 elements with 4 different colors or suits or whatever. It is NOT a standard card game of any sort.

I don't understand how you can not get it. Whether it's a double-up game or a poker game or a bonus game, if the game involves picking a card from a deck, it must be random (same if you're rolling a die in the bonus game, etc.). I am fairly sure this is the law in Las Vegas. Even if it's a bonus round, if you are drawing a card it MUST be dealt randomly. Anything else is considered cheating. I don't understand the emphasis you are placing on the fact that it's a bonus game, as this distinction is not recognized as relevant by anyone else anywhere as far as I know.