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?