Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[spearmaster]

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.

Whatever EH tells me must be compared against the evidence in front of me. No description of the bonus game was given to me - this was determined by the files I received.

Biased is when you make up your mind before the evidence is in - and in this case all of you players are showing far more bias than you are accusing me of.

 

[spearmaster]

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....

I said - compare them to OTHER operations and incidents where you simply get stonewalled. Please do not take my comments out of context.

If operations front up and they get treated the same as operations who SHUT up - why the hell should any operation front up in the first place?

 

[spearmaster]

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.

Ok, that's it. No more explanations from me until I am done, because you guys cannot distinguish between a random card game with completely even chances and 1x payouts and a bonus round with weighted chances and weighted payouts between 0.5 and 10 - you are all stuck on the fact that cards were used as objects. The bonus game is NOT a card game - it is a game with cards used as objects.

Find me ANY bonus game in the world, using ANY bonus elements, which gives you completely random, non weighted chances AND a multiplier which produces more OR less than "double or nothing".

 

[ftg]

Biased is when you make up your mind before the evidence is in - and in this case all of you players are showing far more bias than you are accusing me of.

You are far much emotional. I don't see all the players having the same comments towards you.

Are you speaking for the players or speaking on behalf of the casino now?

 

[ftg]

Ok, that's it. No more explanations from me until I am done,

That's very good. I look forward to reviewing the whole thing again from your final write-up.

Thank you very much for your hard work.

 

[soflat]

...The bonus game is NOT a card game - it is a game with cards used as objects.

Find me ANY bonus game in the world, using ANY bonus elements, which gives you completely random, non weighted chances AND a multiplier which produces more OR less than "double or nothing".

If they use cards, it is a card game. That is the standard in most jurisdictions where their players are. If they stuck to that simple rule, they would not have run into a problem.

It is easy to make a real random card game with bonus multipliers and no weighting. In fact, most casino card games have a multiplier.

By the way, are you sure it was weighted? This could have happened without any weighting if it just canceled the first double win and went on to a second fair double-or-nothing game.

 

[spearmaster]

If they use cards, it is a card game. That is the standard in most jurisdictions where their players are. If they stuck to that simple rule, they would not have run into a problem.

If you don't mind, could you find an example of this standard for me?

In California, 5-card draw is legal. Poker variations with community cards are legal. But 7-card stud is illegal. What's the difference?

It is easy to make a real random card game with bonus multipliers and no weighting. In fact, most casino card games have a multiplier.

Example, please. No "single card" game that I know of has a multiplier. Only multiple cards and particular combinations of these multiple cards have multipliers.

By the way, are you sure it was weighted? This could have happened without any weighting if it just canceled the first double win and went on to a second fair double-or-nothing game.

Yes, I am sure of what happened. The only reason weighting even came into play is because a second set of 4 cards was drawn from a weighted deck and was written into the wrong object.

 

[soflat]

If you don't mind, could you find an example of this standard for me?

GLI tests and approves gaming devices for many states. Their standards for electronic card games include the following:

"Unless otherwise stated on the payglass, where the gaming device plays a game that is recognizable, such as Poker, Blackjack, Roulette, etc., the same probabilities associated with the live game shall be evident in the simulated game...the odds of drawing a specific card or cards in Poker shall be the same as in the live game..."

In California, 5-card draw is legal. Poker variations with community cards are legal. But 7-card stud is illegal. What's the difference?

I don't know, but it isn't relevant here anyways.

Example, please. No "single card" game that I know of has a multiplier. Only multiple cards and particular combinations of these multiple cards have multipliers.

I didn't know it had to be a single card game. I could devise one pretty quick though where the multiplier is based on how much you beat the dealer's hand by, or if you tie the dealer hand, etc. No weighting needed.

 

[JohnGalt]

The bonus game is NOT a card game - it is a game with cards used as objects.

Find me ANY bonus game in the world, using ANY bonus elements, which gives you completely random, non weighted chances AND a multiplier which produces more OR less than "double or nothing".

It may be that I don't understand how the bonus game is displayed and played, but if it simulates drawing a card from a deck, I think the chances of a given card coming out should be the same as for actually drawing a card out of a deck.

It shouldn't be me who has to find a non-weighted, random, multiplier bonus game, because I'm not saying they can't have a weighted game. What I'm saying is they can't simulate drawing a card from a deck for their bonus game and have THAT be weighted. If YOU could find a bonus game with weighted, non-random multipliers that uses cards, that would be relevant.

 

[spearmaster]

GLI tests and approves gaming devices for many states. Their standards for electronic card games include the following:

"Unless otherwise stated on the payglass, where the gaming device plays a game that is recognizable, such as Poker, Blackjack, Roulette, etc., the same probabilities associated with the live game shall be evident in the simulated game...the odds of drawing a specific card or cards in Poker shall be the same as in the live game..."

You are not drawing a card in a poker game. You are playing a bonus game and there are no standard probabilities for poker games. There would be no equivalent live game, and I should hope that the bonus game does NOT look like a standard doubling game, otherwise I might sort of agree with you.

I didn't know it had to be a single card game. I could devise one pretty quick though where the multiplier is based on how much you beat the dealer's hand by, or if you tie the dealer hand, etc. No weighting needed.

What I'm looking for is evidence that any game involving cards where the payout is not "double or nothing" has cards that are not weighted. Keep in mind that I said the cards are elements, and they are weighted because the payout is weighted from 0.5-10x.

JohnGalt - replace the word "cards" with something else and you should get the idea. We're not simulating a random card being drawn from a deck - or at least that's not the way I see it - we're drawing 4 elements from a selection of 52. These elements are weighted.

Maybe the element of confusion is here - there is NO dealer card in the bonus game, you cannot win or lose based on a comparison because there is nothing to compare. You pick an element - or card - and you get a multiplier. This is not a "multiplier or nothing" game.

The problem, however, is that the value of the elements/cards is stored in the wrong place - and since the game returns a null value because it has errors, it reverts to the old game, which DOES have a dealer card - and the comparison is performed again, incorrectly, because the cards in the original array were replaced by values from the new game when they should have been completely separate.

 

[soflat]

Oh, I thought they were randomly picking cards from a shuffled deck. I guess they can do whatever they want if it does not involve the impression they are dealing cards.

 

[spearmaster]

I was maybe tired and rushed. I did not even draw the distinction correctly - but just in case I did and it wasn't clear, the bonus game is NOT a doubling game - you pick a card and get a multiplier, that's it.

 

[HKGambler]

So now, according to Spearmaster, the buggy code was SOMEHOW uploaded by accident on May 13 to the live servers of various OddsOn-powered casinos: English Harbor, Hot Pepper, etc.?

So during the whole of those 19 critical days, not one, if not all, of the said joints had recognized or reported the discrepancies? And this need not be answered?

While Spearmaster has no idea why the upload had taken place, he is only pretty sure that the bug was never intended, how come nobody had requested for an explanation directly from OddsOn themselves? Why relying on Spearmaster finding the answers all along, as he alone is not able to answer some of the questions raised other than the codes at hand, as well as he sometimes has to double check for clarifications of some contradictions like the Jan to May data period? And by now he is seen to be very exhausted!

The source code is the property of OddsOn, who should be held totally responsible, who should have full knowledge as to what had been going on. Why had OddsOn been allowed to shut their mouth and be uninvolved? Has anyone who is helping pressed for one announcement from them?

I do not give credit to any of OddsOn or EH for most of what they did. The cooperation & good gesture they expressed to the third party for investigation, albeit prestigious, who either have past business dealings or current links with them; or the 120% restitution they had offered to the cheated, are only the most basic steps which they had no choice not to take, are far from enough to earn contentment of the players majority.

Ill remain suspicious and criticising until I have most of my frustrations settled.

 

[Vesuvio]

JohnGalt - replace the word "cards" with something else and you should get the idea. We're not simulating a random card being drawn from a deck - or at least that's not the way I see it - we're drawing 4 elements from a selection of 52. These elements are weighted.

The patronising tone here and elsewhere doesn't do you any favours, spearmaster. If you read the posts you'd see we're as clear as we can be for now on how this phantom game would have worked - we just disagree with your overly generous interpretation of it.

You're asking us to believe that they would program a game to deal 4 cards (remarkably like the video poker doubling), but that these would be weighted. You haven't answered the logical objection that if explained to players this would destroy confidence in the cards dealt in VP, VP doubling and indeed all the other card games at the casino. How likely is it that they would ever really introduce such a game?

That's just one part of a weirdly unlikely chain of events:

1) This exciting new game code gets written in a game specifically targetted by bonus hunters (who would just ignore it, removing the most likely innocent explanation for making a change). It's unprecedented as a variation of video poker and unprecedented as a game which is going to openly deal weighted cards.

2) The code somehow gets uploaded to the server.

3) Remarkably rather than just doing nothing or producing a fatal error the new code integrates with the old and the game runs smoothly. The only outward difference is that the casino now has a large edge.

4) This flaw isn't spotted by any testing or audits for weeks (though you'd think if they were busy reprogramming VP there'd be some attention paid to it).

5) A player spots it and posts on Casinomeister and the software then automatically updates itself over the weekend to remove the flaw.

6) The casino, as casinos do, deny it, before realising that mathematically they're in a completely indefensible position. They then take the only option of trying to provide some sort of evidence of an innocent mistake, seeing as the alternative is to be 100% confirmed as cheats.

7) They refuse to provide logs going back over the last few years which might have the potential to blow their whole story out of the water.

Do you really think that anyone who finds this chain of events suspicious is biased and jumping to conclusions? You must realise the case you're stating isn't somehow self-evident. There's an outside chance it might be what actually happened, but for the moment (pending more details) no impartial jury would accept it.

 

[nafanny29]

As far as im concerned the jury is still out on this one!!

This is assuming for one minute that English Harbour were actually cheating.(im not saying they were but hypothetically speaking)

As they realised they were caught red handed they panicked and thought up a plausable explanation (ie the new feature excuse) They then got their programmers to write bogus code to back this up and pass it out for examination.

As I say this is all hypothetical but could this be possible?

 

[thelawnet]

3) Remarkably rather than just doing nothing or producing a fatal error the new code integrates with the old and the game runs smoothly. The only outward difference is that the casino now has a large edge.

4) This flaw isn't spotted by any testing or audits for weeks (though you'd think if they were busy reprogramming VP there'd be some attention paid to it).

5) A player spots it and posts on Casinomeister and the software then automatically updates itself over the weekend to remove the flaw.

This one is the unbelievable one isn't it.

They (claim that they) screw up their code. They notice it's screwed up and schedule it to be fixed.

Coincidentally that time is IMMEDIATELY after they are caught in public.

Just to get this straight:

They had the code in place for three weeks
They suddenly noticed that the code didn't work properly and was ripping off players to the tune of thousands of dollars per day
They realise they should fix it, but instead of immediately disabling the game they continue to leave the code they 'accidentally' released running, even though they know it's heavily biased against the player.
Instead of an emergency fix they leave the code running a bit longer, even though it appears from Spearmaster's analysis that it was shoddy and did not work properly, and was a serious liability - not an 'oops, we got the graphics a bit wrong error', but a whopping great 'we are cheating players out of thousands of dollars a day with broken code that isn't even finished'
No contact with the players. Nothing. What kind of person would see that they had this code in place and just do nothing about it? I would be seriously freaking out if I knew had released this kind of mess into a production system. I would be spending every second frantically working out what problems it had caused for the bank I work for and would not stop working on it until I had resolved the problem. But for English Harbour, it's no sweat, no investigation, just 'we don't give a shit', let's release an update to go out in the next release and hope that the mug punters don't notice.

And then magically the time that they scheduled this to be fixed is immediately after they are caught cheating on a public message board.

And then they send out this notice saying 'no, nothing was wrong', even though they knew perfectly well something was wrong as they had (they claim) scheduled the code to be fixed.

And then they subsequently say that their analysis showed nothing was wrong because they looked over too long a period, a claim which appears to be false - and despite the fact that they knew they had half-assed unfinished code with missing variables in place....

Whichever way you slice this there's no scenario that leaves them looking honest, decent or credible.

 

[ergopro]

Why had OddsOn been allowed to shut their mouth and be uninvolved? Has anyone who is helping pressed for one announcement from them?

Maybe because OddsOn is owned by EH New Ventures Gaming Inc. that operates all EH group casinos...

 

[Annorax]

If you don't mind, could you find an example of this standard for me?

In California, 5-card draw is legal. Poker variations with community cards are legal. But 7-card stud is illegal. What's the difference?

Under California law, draw poker and poker variants with community cards are considered games of skill, while stud poker is considered a game of chance, and thus is banned.

 

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by spearmaster
JohnGalt - replace the word "cards" with something else and you should get the idea. We're not simulating a random card being drawn from a deck - or at least that's not the way I see it - we're drawing 4 elements from a selection of 52. These elements are weighted.


The patronising tone here and elsewhere doesn't do you any favours, spearmaster. If you read the posts you'd see we're as clear as we can be for now on how this phantom game would have worked - we just disagree with your overly generous interpretation of it.

There wasn't anything patronizing about that at all - certainly nothing intended, in any case. My whole point is that the nature of elements used in the bonus game were irrelevant - it was only after I wote that bit that I realized everyone was thinking that a dealer element was present - there is no dealer element in the bonus game. It is functionally equivalent to being asked to select one of four sticks, or colors, or whatever in the presentation. You do not have to beat the dealer to get your multiplier.

You're asking us to believe that they would program a game to deal 4 cards (remarkably like the video poker doubling), but that these would be weighted. You haven't answered the logical objection that if explained to players this would destroy confidence in the cards dealt in VP, VP doubling and indeed all the other card games at the casino. How likely is it that they would ever really introduce such a game?[/quote

See above. The doubling game must by nature include a dealer element - you must beat the dealer in order to win. The bonus game does not have a dealer element - it's more like picking a prize.

3) Remarkably rather than just doing nothing or producing a fatal error the new code integrates with the old and the game runs smoothly. The only outward difference is that the casino now has a large edge.

Smoothly is not the correct description. Just because a function throws an error doesn't always mean that execution stops. Functions usually return a null value - the problem is that the invalid return value triggered another comparison.

6) The casino, as casinos do, deny it, before realising that mathematically they're in a completely indefensible position. They then take the only option of trying to provide some sort of evidence of an innocent mistake, seeing as the alternative is to be 100% confirmed as cheats.

This is also invalid - because no casino has ever claimed anything but a bug in any software. EH simply allowed me to verify this fact in its code. Other operations might simply hope it all goes away and refuse anyone access to their code.

7) They refuse to provide logs going back over the last few years which might have the potential to blow their whole story out of the water.

Irrelevant. Considering the nature of the bug, it would not have been an issue in past few years unless somehow we allowed it to go undetected - and as the logs of April show, the game WAS normal before the bug was introduced.

Do you really think that anyone who finds this chain of events suspicious is biased and jumping to conclusions? You must realise the case you're stating isn't somehow self-evident. There's an outside chance it might be what actually happened, but for the moment (pending more details) no impartial jury would accept it.

It is not an outside chance at all. In studying the code it is plainly evident - but again this is not possible for me to explain clearly without a lot of skepticism, so as I said there is absolutely nothing more I can do than to post my interpretation of all the issues and let it go. I don't expect EH, or any other operator, will ever allow anyone to examine its code again because of the uproar it has caused. And I have already stated that I don't argue with your right to be skeptical - but then telling me that you don't believe what I am seeing, well, what do you expect from me?

 

[spearmaster]

Under California law, draw poker and poker variants with community cards are considered games of skill, while stud poker is considered a game of chance, and thus is banned.

Nice catch, Annorax But they are all still universally considered to be forms of poker...

Anyhow, this issue with the cards automatically constituting a card game is now irrelevant since I think we have established that there is no dealer element in the bonus game - by picking a card you either increase the size of your win, or decrease it, but you do not leave the bonus game with nothing since you don't have a dealer to beat.

 

[spearmaster]

Whichever way you slice this there's no scenario that leaves them looking honest, decent or credible.

Then that is my fault, because they haven't said a thing, and I've said a lot based on what I have seen and you guys don't believe me. So I will take responsibility for laying out an unbelievable scenario and you guys can just ignore anything I say in the future because you believe that I am not telling the truth.

EH has not ONCE, in any instance, even contacted me to ask me NOT to say anything, or to say anything in their favor, or anything at all except to ask when I am going to be finished with my analysis. You can rest assured that everything that has been said after their statement compensating the players that EVERY single word and opinion has been MINE, and mine alone.

So if you think EH is going to come on board now when you have already locked the door and thrown away the key without a fair trial, then you have another think coming.

And as for me, I'm in the middle of a 30-hour flight home, but I think that since you guys are NOT willing to listen to an independent analysis, that I am just going to drop the whole damn thing. I would rather get home and sleep soundly on the plane than worry about what knife you are going to pull out next.

That's it. Sorry if I've misled everyone, bothered anyone, let anyone down, whatever, but I have finally lost my patience. I am NOT ever again going to speak up for people who are not willing to keep an open mind and realize that there are two sides to every coin.

 

[thelawnet]

Then that is my fault, because they haven't said a thing, and I've said a lot based on what I have seen and you guys don't believe me. So I will take responsibility for laying out an unbelievable scenario and you guys can just ignore anything I say in the future because you believe that I am not telling the truth.

EH has not ONCE, in any instance, even contacted me to ask me NOT to say anything, or to say anything in their favor, or anything at all except to ask when I am going to be finished with my analysis. You can rest assured that everything that has been said after their statement compensating the players that EVERY single word and opinion has been MINE, and mine alone.

So if you think EH is going to come on board now when you have already locked the door and thrown away the key without a fair trial, then you have another think coming.

But that's to their detriment.

They are the one with the serious credibility problem. They are the only ones who should care less. If they don't want to speak up for themselves, they are only damaging themselves. Not me, not Vesuvio, not anybody else.

And as for me, I'm in the middle of a 30-hour flight home, but I think that since you guys are NOT willing to listen to an independent analysis, that I am just going to drop the whole damn thing. I would rather get home and sleep soundly on the plane than worry about what knife you are going to pull out next.

That's it. Sorry if I've misled everyone, bothered anyone, let anyone down, whatever, but I have finally lost my patience. I am NOT ever again going to speak up for people who are not willing to keep an open mind and realize that there are two sides to every coin.

Well I hope you know that I have not impugned your character. But perhaps it would be better if they did speak for themselves, because they have seriously not handled this well, and you should not be the one standing up for them and acting as the target for criticism of them.

 

[ergopro]

See above. The doubling game must by nature include a dealer element - you must beat the dealer in order to win.

Here in local Video poker games we have a doubling where it deals one card face down and you just have to guess if the card is either "low" A-6 or "high" 8-K ...in case a 7 shows up, house wins Sorry, a bit off topic...
Oh, one more thing...anyone thought that since EH owns OddsOn, they might not use the same code as other OddsOn clients do...since they deliver the platform to clients?

 

[Mousey]

Spearmaster -- I don't think you're biased in favor of the casino. And I truly appreciate all the time you've spent looking at the code, explaining what happened, and monitoring this thread.

Being dense (I'm just a player, having no clue about programming or the math), I still don't grasp how the VP played normally, without errors or red X's or crashes or lockups or any of those other things I'm accustomed to experiencing when software is buggy. This has probably been addressed in previous posts and I'll wade back into this monster thread to see if I can find it.

All things considered, will I play OddsOn again? Probably not. Frankly, this whole episode has placed a huge grain of doubt in my mind pertaining to the fairness of online casino software in general.

 

[ergopro]

I'd play on any other OddsOn casino even after reading this thread, just not EH...I honestly think that even EH makes their end rigged, I don't think they'd survive an attempt of selling rigged software to clients...players would find it out sooner or later. Like I'd like to believe what's happened here is that they made a mistake, but with all the info...and the fact that EH takes care of all programming before releasing the software to clients, would they alter their own software with a code that makes it non-random, probably not...probably would...what's the end result...losing all trust towards them...If they've handled 2,3million customers in the past...well, can probably move the comma after this...Just as bad as finding out that momma has balls...Sorry, just my 2cents...

One question to those who are pros with this kinda stuff...are the alterations coded to the front end code of the software or to the back end and uploaded after that?

 

[HKGambler]

They then got their programmers to write bogus code to back this up and pass it out for examination.

As I say this is all hypothetical but could this be possible?

Me, having been doing accounting jobs for several years, know too damn well the tricks- for example, how to do cover-ups; how to fake figures to fool the auditors. And the auditors have no way to, as they seldom do, inquire to the bottom to 100% verify the sheets given.

 

[ergopro]

Still would like to know if the code you were sent was meant for front or back end of the main code...? The front end is written with C++ and the back end is with Java...if the code is supposed to be in the front end...then it's bogus...also, try replacing the figures at page xx EH sent...put 1 in front of all won doubles and 2 in front of all losing doubles and see if it's resemblant of the figures cought in the "rigged" period =) Hehe, conspiracy theory =)

 

[Vesuvio]

My whole point is that the nature of elements used in the bonus game were irrelevant - it was only after I wote that bit that I realized everyone was thinking that a dealer element was present - there is no dealer element in the bonus game. It is functionally equivalent to being asked to select one of four sticks, or colors, or whatever in the presentation. You do not have to beat the dealer to get your multiplier.

I can't speak for everyone but I didn't think there was any dealer element. That doesn't stop it being a game that deals cards. I understand your point but disagree with it. The elements chosen weren't random symbols and if you're displaying cards the player expects them to be dealt fairly. Anything else and you're undermining all the other games involving cards at the casino.

Irrelevant. Considering the nature of the bug, it would not have been an issue in past few years unless somehow we allowed it to go undetected - and as the logs of April show, the game WAS normal before the bug was introduced.

But you're assuming 1) it's a bug, 2) they never allowed any similar bugs to be introduced, 3) it's impossible to turn it off and on & 4) it's impossible players might not have noticed unfair results, even if the house advantage was much smaller. Yep, it's not directly relevant to the code you're analysing, but EH should provide the data as it'll go a long way to improving their credibility.

And I have already stated that I don't argue with your right to be skeptical - but then telling me that you don't believe what I am seeing, well, what do you expect from me?

I'm in no way questioning that you're giving your honest opinion about this matter, for which I'm grateful. I just disagree with your interpretation. I know you've ended up in a hugely stressful position, but that doesn't mean you're up against a lynch mob. Other people are also just trying to do their best to get at the truth here.

 

[cryingbaby]

Believe or Not, Forgive or Not

Belive or Not:
Five years ago, I was a game developer with 10 years software development experience. one player won about $200K on double (only) in couple days. that caused the attention, what could happen? was it just lucky for that player? It was difficult time for developers SINCE there was no such forum somebody could tell us some clues... that player won on 100% double as long as there was one card higher than the face up card...
Here comes the end: the bug was found out after spending nights without sleeping (you might think I was stupid and worst developer in the world, I woudl not mind, but that was reality) ---- the double cards were dealt to the player when the double option was given to the player, not after the player selects to play double game, that player basically deciphed the communication layer and found out this bug and knew the whole cards before he decided which card to pick on double.....

Forgive Or Not:
Of course, the company lost the money and blocked that player( that was the only option for the boss, what else could they do?)...

The company did not fire the development team, I think they forgave the mistake, but the developers blamed themselves for the forgiveness for long time... at least it was for me, after that lesson, I have been trying so hard to make code perfect, but would perfection exists in this world?

 

[ergopro]

Honestly, Spear...you're making a wonderful job examining the code...but the main fact is that there's always two more to outlast your ´final word...I'd say that they've made a switch, got caught, covered it up by sending you a bogus code and now try to think how to cover that up...Just my 2 cents.
Nothing comes out from nothing...Ex nihilo nihili... =)
Even you can tell when they've done it...You were sent a scrappy Java scrip that isn't compatible with the C++ code they use in their front end where the problem existed? Didn't anyone think of that before? It raises a h*ll lot of questions...If they were to insert that code in to the main source code...it still would've been done a x amount of times in their "test bench" before releasing...no programmer/coder has the authoroties to do that!!! So why does it sound fishy...because it is Cheaters, caught...and a cover-up...end of story...Could you also produce us a time-stamp when the code you got was made? That would be really interesting to see...Ban me if you want...But they cheat!

 

[suzecat]

Then that is my fault, because they haven't said a thing, and I've said a lot based on what I have seen and you guys don't believe me.

EH has not ONCE, in any instance, even contacted me to ask me NOT to say anything, or to say anything in their favor, or anything at all except to ask when I am going to be finished with my analysis. You can rest assured that everything that has been said after their statement compensating the players that EVERY single word and opinion has been MINE, and mine alone.

So if you think EH is going to come on board now when you have already locked the door and thrown away the key without a fair trial, then you have another think coming.

Spear, I hope you read this after you have had a restful sleep and very pleasant flight.

Since EH has not bothered to come here and address any of the concerns raised -- and you were willing to (show us the respect we have come to expect) -- then you, as the "messenger" got shot for that. If EH had confronted the problem directly, they would have been blasted with the incredulity of the story they claim instead of you. This thread has been active for too long with nothing being addressed by EH directly. That leads to my belief they have something to hide and are waiting for the storm to clear. I see this thread as "Casino Management 101: What NOT to do."

 

[ergopro]

Ya, that's what happens when you own OddsOn and claim to be a trusworthy operation without a doubt...
What I mean is..unless there's an explanation, you can't code a C++ code with Java without it colluding

 

[soflat]

All they had to do was release the log files for 2-3 years, and even everything looked good then I think most people would have believed it was a one-time glitch.

But they only let us see a very small window of data. What is in the rest of logfiles and why don't they want us to see them?

 

[suzecat]

Just curious, so checked out Oddson's website for RNG seals.
This is what it says, verbatim:

All on line games produced by Odds On Gaming have been audited for fairness of play by an independent third party gaming expert, Mr Michael Shackleford ASA, who's Gaming Audit practice is located in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The results of this ongoing audit indicate that the random number generator is truly random and accordingly, the game play results conform with accepted statistical norms.

To acknowledge this commitment to fairness, the "Certified Fair Gaming" seal has been applied to all games produced by Odds On Gaming

Note: The most recent CFG audit was undertaken in August 2002




Is it the norm to check RNG results on an infrequent basis?

 

[ergopro]

I'd like to add that I'm terribly sorry for venting and assuming things...but that's the best and most we can do since there hasn't been any kinda information on this issue...I'd like to thank Spear and Wiz and Bryan for handling this thing well but would also like to hear EH's point of view of what's happened completely as I think many ppl here would.
What's making me pissed that I just yesterday learned that one of my friends has been playin at EH quite a bit and was totally unaware of the possible glitch they might have had...but after telling him about this thread he too started questioning the entire operation...Since if one game isn't fair, even just for a small period of time, how can ayone be certain that all other games are..But again, I'm sorry for the venting and assuming stupid things...I'm sure there will be some sort of conclusion for this matter/thread as well

 

[jetset]

QUOTE: And as for me, I'm in the middle of a 30-hour flight home, but I think that since you guys are NOT willing to listen to an independent analysis, that I am just going to drop the whole damn thing. I would rather get home and sleep soundly on the plane than worry about what knife you are going to pull out next.

That's it. Sorry if I've misled everyone, bothered anyone, let anyone down, whatever, but I have finally lost my patience. I am NOT ever again going to speak up for people who are not willing to keep an open mind and realize that there are two sides to every coin. UNQUOTE

Spear, having myself also just arrived home after 30 or more hours en route I was dismayed (although I could certainly understand the motivation behind it) to read the above from you, and I hope that once you've had a chance to enjoy a shower, a quick forty winks and some family time that you will reconsider.

You are one of the few members here sufficiently trusted and qualified to offer an objective opinion on this. You have already devoted a considerable amount of your time to this project which you took on voluntarily so that all of us would have facts on which to base our personal decisions on EH's culpability or otherwise here.

I don't think that the regrettable personal remarks aimed at you over the past week or so by a few people should deter you - there will always be those who denigrate genuine efforts such as your own, but I am confident that there are probably more of us who are interested in your informed opinion on this as a signpost for their own final and personal decision on EH.

IMO the lack of public statements by EH on this is deplorable, and it is made doubly so by the fact that you have been left out there as a target when all you are guilty of is trying to approach a serious issue in an even-handed and intelligent manner.

Well, I join others here in saluting your effort thus far and hope you will stay focused on the facts and see this one through to the end. I would hope that your final report is open to the Wiz and to another independent expert like Grandmaster, because there will undoubtedly be some who will attack its credibility.

 

[thelawnet]

Well, I join others here in saluting your effort thus far and hope you will stay focused on the facts and see this one through to the end. I would hope that your final report is open to the Wiz and to another independent expert like Grandmaster, because there will undoubtedly be some who will attack its credibility.

My understanding is that Grandmaster has not been given access to any code with which to check what English Harbour have said.

 

[maxlevine]

Spear, I second Jetset. I went through this whole thread and am very interested in your findings. I wish you would keep at it. I would also like to know if the coding creates the same effect as dealing seconds.

Max

 

[tronk]

i'm no geek but i have followed most of this thread. It seems that spearmaster has come into the firing line from taking on this thankless task. Its IMHO ridiculous that EH have not shown face at any time (apart from issuing a brief statement on the problem and offering compensation) Clearly by the amount of attention this thread has received you would think something else would be said by them.

(btw cryingbaby? why would you thank spearmaster for saying he will no longer help again like this )

Ultimately i believe EH's negiglence to contribute here has put spear in the firing line. Its obviously EH prerogative whether they choose to come forward on public message boards. Im only saying that from a players perspective it doesn't look good.

Not having a grasp on the dynamics of programming, the code etc, im personally interseted more in whether this has been something that has happened before, and of course EH's own explanation rather than an outsiders attempts to put the jigsaw together. But thankyou spearmaster for what you have tried to do so far!!!

 

[The Dude]

Then that is my fault, because they haven't said a thing, and I've said a lot based on what I have seen and you guys don't believe me. So I will take responsibility for laying out an unbelievable scenario and you guys can just ignore anything I say in the future because you believe that I am not telling the truth.

EH has not ONCE, in any instance, even contacted me to ask me NOT to say anything, or to say anything in their favor, or anything at all except to ask when I am going to be finished with my analysis. You can rest assured that everything that has been said after their statement compensating the players that EVERY single word and opinion has been MINE, and mine alone.

So if you think EH is going to come on board now when you have already locked the door and thrown away the key without a fair trial, then you have another think coming.

And as for me, I'm in the middle of a 30-hour flight home, but I think that since you guys are NOT willing to listen to an independent analysis, that I am just going to drop the whole damn thing. I would rather get home and sleep soundly on the plane than worry about what knife you are going to pull out next.

That's it. Sorry if I've misled everyone, bothered anyone, let anyone down, whatever, but I have finally lost my patience. I am NOT ever again going to speak up for people who are not willing to keep an open mind and realize that there are two sides to every coin.

I don't blame Ted for feeling this way. Nowadays, it seems whenever a casino issue appears, there are groups of posters who are have the blinders on - they have that tunnel-vision thing going. Casinos will cheat at every chance they get.

This has been the problem from the git-go on this one. The flaw was discovered, and this thread began to go to hell in a hand basket. Spearmaster took the bull by the horns, and jumped in with both feet. He did this totally on his own account and expense. I cannot fathom why anyone in his right mind would chastise his undertaking, or jeopardise it with insults and insinuations. A thankless and thoughtless lot you are (if the shoe fits, wear it). I don't blame Spear throwing his arms up in exasperation and saying "fuck it".

I spent a lot of time with Spear last week, and I joined him and the EH people for a meeting last week as well. At this point, it doesn't matter what I think or what I have to say, because most everyone has made up their minds on this whole scenario anyway.

For the record, I have never ever been an affiliate of EH. There is no monetary bias here. And even if I was being paid, roguing or removing someone from the site makes no difference to me. If I feel someone has done something seriously wrong, players deserve to be warned. Simple as that. If a casino doesn't meet my standards, it's adios. Lest we forget, I've dropped a number of casinos off of the site for various meanderings into the dark side. The last biggie was Fortune Lounge for their spam campaign. I removed them mainly because we have a differing philosophy on how to market one's casino. No one is exempt from removal.

With this said, I hope that the majority can make decisions on their own without jumping on band wagons, or grabbing pitchforks and torches.

As insinuated elsewhere, I don't side with casinos or software providers because it's bad for industry not to. That's total bullshit, and those who feel this way need to take their blinders off, and pull their head out of their ass. I think it's good for the industry when casinos are scrutinized, or brought forth to be hammered on to a cross for screwing over players. But like Spiderman was told, with great power comes great responsibility. I try my damnedness to be fair as possible - and this can be tough sometimes when you have to put bits and pieces together. Gut instincts and "peripheral knowledge" comes into play.

People make mistakes - it's a fact of life. Get over it. This was one of the topics I covered during my presentation on Online Casino Management on day two at the GIGSE. There are certain things to do if you make a mistake - one is to admit the mistake and take 100% accountability - then apologize.

What not to do: Deny everything and make counter-accusations. This was taught to me as a young US Army paratrooper (when caught by superiors or by enemy forces) - but in cyberland - this doesn't work so well (Joyland and Indio casino spring instantly to mind).

So, was the EH software thing a bonehead error, or intended to cheat the players? Well, when we are talking about "intent" this is a really difficult thing to deal with because we cannot see inside the person's head who overwrote the wrong files on the server. We have to take in a lot of peripheral knowledge - things we know about the people running the company, the history of the firm, how they have handled other issues, how they reacted to the discovery, etc., etc.

Their reaction to the discovery has a lot of weight IMO. I think about other software providers being caught cheating (doesn't happen to often). CasinoOnAir - their immediate reaction was to try and sue anyone who dissed them. Elka Systems - remained quiet. And when I rogue these kind of operations, I'm much more in jeopardy because no one knows what these people are capable of.

Many other software companies or casinos that experienced problems - (I won't call it cheating, because I don't think the intention was there; it was buggy, glitchy, human error, whatever) either ignored the problem (iGlobalMedia), or "denied everything and made counter-accusations" (Joyland).

In looking at the EH situation, I have to go with gut instinct and my "peripheral" knowledge since I was not there when it happened. Was this an honest screwup? Or an intention to screw players? Well - from what I can go by, I would say it was human error. I haven't seen any evidence to make me state otherwise. Would it be fair toss someone into the rogue pit for making a human error? No. It would devalue the rogueness of the rogues - we would all be in jeopardy if this was the case.

I - like you - are still waiting for the final word from Spear, M. Shackleford, and the Grandmaster on their final findings. These people, in my opinion, are qualified to give "expert" opinions on this.

And you need to rely on your own instincts and peripheral knowledge to agree or disagree on whatever I have to say. You can choose to trust me when I say "trust me," or you can choose to have a "meister" hate-fest - whatever.

 

[Vesuvio]

This has been the problem from the git-go on this one. The flaw was discovered, and this thread began to go to hell in a hand basket.

Well, but this has been another problem from the git-go. You use the word "flaw", which is assuming what this whole thread has been trying to discover (the presence or lack of intent).

Despite what some seem to think the vast majority of people who have been disputing the interpretations made in favour of the casino are doing exactly what Spearmaster is trying to do - get at the truth. We've also devoted a lot of time to considering the information available and it's extremely insulting for you or others to suggest that we're not willing to give the casino a chance.

I'm not going to rehearse all the arguments again, but the story we're being asked to believe here is verging on the incredible - and still hasn't been convincingly justified. An objective assessment at the moment at the very least has to cast suspicion on the casino's actions. You've talked to them in person which is all well and good (though surely they should be responding publicly), but bear in mind that apart from some psychologists and specially trained professionals people are notoriously bad at spotting lies.

 

[spearmaster]

bear in mind that apart from some psychologists and specially trained professionals people are notoriously bad at spotting lies.

I resemble that remark. Thank you for judging me on this single issue instead of everything I've done over the past six years. That was about as low an insult as you could have possibly thrown at me.

 

[The Dude]

We've also devoted a lot of time to considering the information available and it's extremely insulting for you or others to suggest that we're not willing to give the casino a chance..

Then why has Spear said the hell with this? I don't think I have been insulting in the least bit. Only a few of us stand aside from our online personas and go public with our names, and meet with casino operators at our own expense. We sacrifice our time away from home, away from our families, so we can provide information for you to deal with. The only people I may have insulted are those who question the motives and lash out at people like me, Ted Loh, B. Cullingworth, Shackleford, etc., and don't have the guts to speak to us face-to-face. That's the sorry lot I'm referring to. I thought that this was perfectly clear.

...You've talked to them in person which is all well and good (though surely they should be responding publicly), but bear in mind that apart from some psychologists and specially trained professionals people are notoriously bad at spotting lies.

True, and my point was that the only way to bring this together is to take into account everything you know about the group. They didn't just jump off of some boat from China (no offense to the Chinese); the operators have been around for a number of years and are personally well-known in the industry. To purposely try and cheat players would not logically fall into play in this situation - that's all I'm trying to get across. I'm speaking from 8 years experience in the business. If you don't want to consider my honest opinions, that's your prerogative. It doesn't make any difference to me.

 

[Vesuvio]

I resemble that remark. Thank you for judging me on this single issue instead of everything I've done over the past six years. That was about as low an insult as you could have possibly thrown at me.

Spear, I don't think you got my meaning. I'm lumping you with 99.9% of humanity, so it's not an insult. I'm also not saying EH are necessarily lying, just that you can't judge that on the basis of face-to-face to contact.

 

[Vesuvio]

To purposely try and cheat players would not logically fall into play in this situation - that's all I'm trying to get across. I'm speaking from 8 years experience in the business. If you don't want to consider my honest opinions, that's your prerogative. It doesn't make any difference to me.

Of course I'll consider your opinion, but there's also the question of the facts of the case. It might not be logical to cheat, but it's also not logical for the programmers to have done what they claim. It's a matter of weighing up the evidence rather than simply trusting the opinion of authority figures, however respected. I wish you and Spearmaster would stop taking this personally and accept that there is room for discussion.

 

[soflat]

CM, you believe that the error was caused by an accident, right? (they accidentally loaded the wrong module or whatever)

For me, the problem is not the accident, but that they did not have the necessary controls to prevent it.

If they didn't have the proper procedures in place April - May 2006, then they didn't have them in place in 2005, 2004, 2003, etc.

They need to check that the problem (lack of controls) did not jeopardize game fairness during the entire time that the problem existed.

But they only checked 2 months of data. Spearmaster absolutely said they should not go back further in the data, and that is my only criticism.

They need to address the problem over the entire time it existed.

Next, they need to fix the problem. Paying players during April-May and uploading new code did not fix the problem. They have to have some controls in place to protect the players in the future.

 

[jetset]

I think a read over some of the unnecessarily unkind comments directed at Spearmaster in this thread may explain why he was entitled to take this personally, but I hope he will persevere in his assessment despite that.

Some of the reactions and comments made in this thread and others elsewhere imo do little to encourage specialists to come forward and try to assist in the future and that helps nobody in my view.

Certainly the manner in which EH has remained aloof whilst Ted took flak that was not deserved is a real shocker and does them little credit in my personal opinion.

However, it's done and we need to focus on the rights and wrongs of the incident itself. I'm hoping that Ted and others involved in the investigation will as soon as possible issue a joint communique independent entirely of EH, furnishing them with a copy at the same time as it is posted here.

That will give members the background and expert views they may (or may not) feel they need in drawing their own and final conclusions on this, and the report will become a matter of future record in this thread.

What English Harbour management do once the report is made public will clearly have a major influence on how they are seen going forward...and that will have an impact on their business.

What I hope NOT to see are further attempts to discredit or insult those who have been good enough to devote their time and skills to helping us understand what happened here.

 

[kengam]

This is a sensitive issue for everyone. No one wants to be cheated and no one wants to be called a cheater. Spearmaster got his feelings hurt. IMO he took on a much bigger responsibility than he could handle. There are some of us who disagree with him and some who don't. He should have known this would happen. It is par for the course.

The reality is we should be directing accusations at English Harbour. They have failed to give a legitimate reason how this erroneous code got into their main game server. They have failed to give data from earlier periods concerning the double up game. They have failed to give us a reason to trust them. We do not need testimony from Spearmaster or anyone else to determine for ourselves whether or not to trust English Harbour.

I am disappointed that Casinomeister isn't willing to rougue this outfit simply based on the failure of English Harbor to keep this from happening. This is his site and he can rogue who he wants. He has rogued other outfits for what I would consider less severe acts. Do I personally give a hoot who he rogues and who he doesn't? No I don't. I know who cheats. I have been doing this for a long time and have a good bit of data collected by myself and by hundreds of other players. I do feel for genuine newbie players who have no idea. All I can say to those people is there are plenty of places to play that have not been proven to have cheated in the past. Go play there. DO NOT PLAY AT ENGLISH HARBOUR OR ANY ODDS ON AFFILIATE.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, I don't think you got my meaning. I'm lumping you with 99.9% of humanity, so it's not an insult. I'm also not saying EH are necessarily lying, just that you can't judge that on the basis of face-to-face to contact.

Lumping me with the lot wasn't exactly a compliment now, was it? Just which way did you expect me to take that?

#1. I have the benefit of face-to-face contact - none of you do, and I do not think you are in any position whatsoever to judge whether or not they were bullshitting me.

#2. I know a bullshitter when I see one. I can spot slime a mile away (Meister and Jetset will testify to that when I pointed out Slots Alley last year)

#3. I have the benefit of code in front of me - none of you do, and I do not think you are in any position whatsoever to judge whether or not this code is bogus.

#4. I have been programming for 30 years in various programming languages and I know when something is amiss.

#5. I have been around here actively posting for six years - you OUGHT to be able to judge from this period whether or not I am a bullshitter or whether or not I am the type to call a spade a spade.

As far as I am concerned - I am the one who deserves all the flak, and I will take all that flak, even IF I have been telling the truth and offering an honest opinion the whole time. But I will not take low blows sitting down.

EH is not responding here because they believe my independent analysis will be better than them coming in here to point out what I am trying to point out when all of you will simply not believe them any more than you are believing me at present. Frankly, I don't blame them - you've got the knives out and are ready to carve the turkey even though it's not Thanksgiving or Christmas.

You will not give them a fair trial, since you are not giving me a fair trial - so what the hell did you guys expect in the first place?

I wish you and Spearmaster would stop taking this personally and accept that there is room for discussion.

You call this a discussion? You call this not personal?

Get real. I'm ducking and diving trying to avoid friendly fire from all corners. Sounds a lot more like "Shoot first, ask questions later" - hardly what I would call a discussion.

Spearmaster got his feelings hurt. IMO he took on a much bigger responsibility than he could handle. There are some of us who disagree with him and some who don't. He should have known this would happen. It is par for the course.

What a load of SHIT. My feelings aren't hurt - you don't think I've developed a Teflon coating by now? I'm just tired of listening to a bunch of bullshit - no sense talking to the wall here, is there?

Responsibility - you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I disagree.

Should have known? Of course I knew - and you think I'm stupid to carry on? I'm not stupid - I'm tired. And I WILL finish this when I am good and ready - in the meantime keep your condescending remarks to yourself.

 

[soflat]

Spearmaster, Do you think EH's problem was that a) they loaded some bad code one day, or b) that they didn't have anything to prevent that from happening for so many years (and still don't)?

If the real problem is the latter, then there may be many more instances, and the problem is not really fixed now by just giving refunds and apologizing.