Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[gamemaster]

Spear, you really do need to drop this; it's stressing you out and as you've stated many times, there's nothing in it for you other than some satisfaction from discovering the truth of the matter.

I don't believe you will ever discover the truth of what happened, because the only information you're getting is from the people for whom the real truth may be disasterous. Sure, it may have been only a "glitch", but there's also the possibility that it wasn't a glitch and if that's the case, you will obviously never see the evidence of it. English Harbor, et. al. have an interest only in proving that it was an "innocent" mistake because no other explanation gives them even a prayer of surviving this.

You know these people and so you took on a responsibilty that really belongs to them. You're a nice guy that we all trust - with good reason - so naturally, the EH people consider themselves lucky to have you out here taking all of the flack. If they had tried to explain this themselves, very few readers here would have believed them, which is how it works in the online casino business. All of us players want a "disinterested third party" opinion on this stuff and you are it, but the whole story just stinks nobody wants to see the stink rub off on you.

If nothing else, the OddsOn/ EH group have shown they do not have an internal audit system to catch "errors" like this. Now, you may think their hearts are in the right place and they really will tighten up in that area, but the fact remains and it's undeniable - they offered a non-random game to the public and allowed it to run for more than just a day or so. Most of us do not think they will now "behave" themselves, should they ultimately survive this and I suppose that's the biggest difference between you and some of the readers here.

You are willing to forgive and forget - assuming enough evidence can show that this was a simple screwup - but most of us are not. Even if you could show me conclusively that this was caused by nothing more than the accidental loading of some code, it still doesn't change the fact that this code operates as the dreaded, let's-make-the-players-lose "switch" we've all speculated about. If that's the case, can you truly state that it will never be thrown again?

My hypothesis is that such a switch does indeed exist and it was thrown in order to take down some bonus "abusers" and the real glitch was that someone forgot to turn it off. That may be hard to believe, but it's no harder to believe than all this talk about bonus features being loaded by mistake.

As I've said before, the online gambling community stands to gain absolutely nothing by forgiving this group for their mistake. We must adhere to a zero-tolerance policy in order to protect ourselves and I hope you will come to realize this, Ted.

GM

 

[Vesuvio]

The whole point is that it is very difficult to "plan" sloppy code - and the sloppy code is indicative of something that was not intentionally planned.

It's still sloppy code which happens to be a sloppy version of exactly the sort of card-weighting routine you'd require if you'd chosen to rig VP doubling, which happens to be the element of your casino most under attack from bonus hunters.

Whether they intended to upload it or not when they did or with the exact effect it had is close to beside the point. That this was code intended only for an unprecendented extra bonus game popping up in the middle of doubling requires a further leap of faith on our part - so at least understand our doubts pending further proof.

 

[soflat]

EH needs to make a public statement, end of story.
If they get slammed with durogatory comments, then they should take their lumps and move on, you guys are taking it for them, and you shouldn't be.
Been in business for 5 years, not online, but I could not even imagine not defending myself/business with some type of statement about these serious accusations.
And if I was audited, I certainly would not expect the auditor to defend my position.

Silence is their best defense because half the people are debating about Spearmaster instead of the original issue, and they never have to get their logfiles examined.

 

[spearmaster]

It's still sloppy code which happens to be a sloppy version of exactly the sort of card-weighting routine you'd require if you'd chosen to rig VP doubling, which happens to be the element of your casino most under attack from bonus hunters.

Are you a programmer, Vesuvio? I presume not, because you would understand exactly what I just explained a few posts above.

Whether they intended to upload it or not when they did or with the exact effect it had is close to beside the point. That this was code intended only for an unprecendented extra bonus game popping up in the middle of doubling requires a further leap of faith on our part - so at least understand our doubts pending further proof.

Didn't say you couldn't have any doubt.

 

[Simmo!]

... because half the people are debating about Spearmaster instead of the original issue...

Sad but true

At the end of the day, some people just need everyone to agree with their opinions else they turn on those who don't. So much for debate. Slotster's post is spot on the money.

 

[Vesuvio]

Are you a programmer, Vesuvio? I presume not, because you would understand exactly what I just explained a few posts above.

No, I'm not (unless basic counts ), but there are enough programmers posting who seem to support the intuition that sloppy code can't be used as a sufficient defence. There are too many conceivable explanations which are in no way more far-fetched than the one we're being asked to accept.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, you really do need to drop this; it's stressing you out and as you've stated many times, there's nothing in it for you other than some satisfaction from discovering the truth of the matter.

True, I guess - but I prefer not to leave anything unfinished.

I don't believe you will ever discover the truth of what happened, because the only information you're getting is from the people for whom the real truth may be disasterous. Sure, it may have been only a "glitch", but there's also the possibility that it wasn't a glitch and if that's the case, you will obviously never see the evidence of it. English Harbor, et. al. have an interest only in proving that it was an "innocent" mistake because no other explanation gives them even a prayer of surviving this.

What I have is code. I haven't read the DaVinci Code so I can't draw any comparisons... LOL... but as I said, in my opinion it would be highly unlikely that someone could have intended this code to be a fix. My opinion was not influenced by anything but a reading of the code. Had the code looked strange to me and not reminiscent of a glitch, I would have said so.

You know these people and so you took on a responsibilty that really belongs to them. You're a nice guy that we all trust - with good reason - so naturally, the EH people consider themselves lucky to have you out here taking all of the flack. If they had tried to explain this themselves, very few readers here would have believed them, which is how it works in the online casino business. All of us players want a "disinterested third party" opinion on this stuff and you are it, but the whole story just stinks nobody wants to see the stink rub off on you.

I'm prepared to take the good with the bad. But I also believe that one must always do what's right - and like I said, I don't like to leave anything unfinished. But I appreciate your kind words

If nothing else, the OddsOn/ EH group have shown they do not have an internal audit system to catch "errors" like this. Now, you may think their hearts are in the right place and they really will tighten up in that area, but the fact remains and it's undeniable - they offered a non-random game to the public and allowed it to run for more than just a day or so. Most of us do not think they will now "behave" themselves, should they ultimately survive this and I suppose that's the biggest difference between you and some of the readers here.

My impression is that they do have an audit system but that it failed - miserably, I might add. And yes, I may have a bit more faith than some of the other readers here - but that also comes from long experience in the industry.

You are willing to forgive and forget - assuming enough evidence can show that this was a simple screwup - but most of us are not. Even if you could show me conclusively that this was caused by nothing more than the accidental loading of some code, it still doesn't change the fact that this code operates as the dreaded, let's-make-the-players-lose "switch" we've all speculated about. If that's the case, can you truly state that it will never be thrown again?

I didn't say forgive and forget - I did say get to the bottom of this issue. Once I have as much information out there as I can manage from fact and from "educated" opinion, I still expect everyone to make up their own minds as to what happened, though of course I will give my own opinion as well.

I hear you on the switch thing - heck, even I wonder sometimes if a switch has been thrown - but this code really does not look like a switch, and even if it were, it is practically the most idiotic switch one could make since it would be so blatantly obvious that there was a problem.

My hypothesis is that such a switch does indeed exist and it was thrown in order to take down some bonus "abusers" and the real glitch was that someone forgot to turn it off. That may be hard to believe, but it's no harder to believe than all this talk about bonus features being loaded by mistake.

My reading of the code says otherwise... but if you've got it set in your mind that there was a switch, there isn't a whole lot I can say that will cause you to change your opinion.

As I've said before, the online gambling community stands to gain absolutely nothing by forgiving this group for their mistake. We must adhere to a zero-tolerance policy in order to protect ourselves and I hope you will come to realize this, Ted.

I think this needs to be an individual choice - I do not presume to make the choice for everyone in this situation. And I disagree - if we can show that we are willing to be fair - then perhaps the casinos can be convinced to take less of a hardball attitude towards all players, bonus hunters or otherwise.

As I have said elsewhere, I respect your opinion, but I may not always agree with it. In this case, rather than disagreeing with you (except for the part about nothing to gain), I'd prefer to finish what I'm doing and lay it out and let everyone make their own decision as to what they will do.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

 

[spearmaster]

No, I'm not (unless basic counts ), but there are enough programmers posting who seem to support the intuition that sloppy code can't be used as a sufficient defence. There are too many conceivable explanations which are in no way more far-fetched than the one we're being asked to accept.

Believe it or not, I started with BASIC on mainframes... and was going to write a book on Turbo BASIC by Borland for Que but had to call it off when I moved to Hong Kong And I discovered the first bug which was to result in a major update... by running a QBASIC function of all things Sadly, Turbo Basic never made it beyond version 2...

Keep in mind that I'm offering an opinion here, not stating it as fact. I'd like to challenge any of you programmers out there to plan sloppy code and then write it in such a manner that it is convincing enough to look like test code - through hundreds of lines, numerous modules and errors - and still make it output a final result.

Oh yeah - and do it in a day, that's all the advance warning they had that I was going to look at code of any sort, let alone the actual code modules.

 

[spearmaster]

By the way, on the subject of zero tolerance - in a perfect world this would be brilliant. I would support this concept except for one thing - it's impossible to achieve.

With zero tolerance, you would not have any of the software or scripts that we use today. Microsoft Windows is probably the buggiest software on Earth. vBulletin - the software which powers this forum - is on version 3.5. The CPUs and other chips we have in our computers are not bug-proof. Even your mobile phone has bugs.

How can we demand zero tolerance for anything which relies on software when the software that runs the software that programs the software itself is not bug-proof?

 

[mitch]

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.

I go back to my earlier post as nobody ever commented on the main premise in it. i.e. Why risk so much (probably their whole business) for so little?

It's the risk reward theory. If I offered you 1000 on a 10-1 odds on bet in your favour would you take it? If I did happen to win though you would have to give me everything you owned, money, property, cars etc. Now would you would take it?

You would have to be a simpleton to do so as the risk far outweighs the reward.

The Casino owners and Odds on are surely not that stupid. They are not some penny ante outfit with little to lose, as other cheating Casinos have been, they are a major business with millions at stake.

This after all was not a sophisticated scam and was bound to be discovered if it ran for any length of time. And if it was only intended to be run for a short time it makes the risk reward even more ridiculous!

No I am on the side of genuine cockup.

That said however, I would never risk my money with such a sloppy operater when there are so many good guys out there. I think this incident will be a knife to the heart of the current owners and I can see no redemption without a takeover of some sort.

I must also say that they must be reading this forum (the most respected on the planet) and the way they have left Spear to hang out to dry without any comment is a disgrace IMO.

Mitch

 

[spearmaster]

I don't think they've left me out to dry - I hung myself LOL.

There is really no point at this stage for them to come and comment because they themselves will get hung out to dry... other than their last statement combined with the statements from the Wiz, what more can they possibly say?

 

[120sam]

I've been reading this thread every day since it started. A lot of people have put a lot of time and effort into this, especially Spearmaster but also many posters. Sure, some people just reach for the keyboard, but it's also clear that many posters have thought a lot about this, then taken (a lot of) time to structure and communicate their opinion for the benefit of others and the debate generally. Nobody's getting paid for this, it's all free time that could be spent doing something else. Thanks.

A couple of things occur to me. The first is that since about page 50 it's become more and more about personalities and less and less about the issues. Whether it's a mistake or deliberate is becoming connected to the issue of whether we should be grateful to Spearmaster (we should) and can we count on his credibility. Even Bryan has said "Trust me".

This should not be about whether we can trust Bryan or count on Spearmaster. It is about whether we can trust EH and count on their credibility. But because they're not coming forward to take the questions / flak, we are having issues with each other, the people doing most of the work seeming to come in for the brunt of it.

Whether we should be able to see the logs going back 3 years is slowly becoming an issue of Keengam's credibility. It shouldn't be. It's a simple question the game wasn't reliable for a period in 2006, would you mind us having a look at the logs for 2005, 2004, and 2003 please?

As the people who express (differing) opinions on various issues start falling out with each other, what are EH doing? One suggestion is that they may be standing back having a bit of a laugh. I wouldn't dare to suggest that myself, because someone who disagrees might have a go at me, while EH continue to stand back having a giggle, if that's what they're doing, which I'm not saying they are.

I really don't see why EH haven't made a clear public statement about what happened. They must know / have some idea, and the purpose of turning over their code to third parties would then be for the third parties to be able to verify or disprove what EH claim. EH could also address the issue of how this was allowed to happen, why wasn't the bug caught in testing before release, why wasn't it stopped as soon as they found out about it, etc. This is something that the 3rd parties examining the code can't be expected to answer, and a lot of forum members / players who were affected would like answers.

I think Spearmaster said earlier that we shouldn't be so quick to jump to an opinion about EH, because after all they have made their code available, which is more than anyone else ever does, and if we don't give them credit for that then other casinos will be discouraged from cooperating in situations like this in future. I'm afraid I see this a little differently.

If a casino clams up and doesn't cooperate when an issue like this arises, toss them in the rogue pit. If they go only 20% towards addressing the issue, they still have 80% of the way to go. Turning the code over the 3rd parties and then remaining silent on all other questions while the debate among concerned forum members disintegrates into personal bickering isn't good enough, I don't care how it compares to the worst in the industry, it still isn't good enough.

I know that we want to avoid a situation where in future nobody talks to anybody and everyone gets chucked in the rogue pit, so any communication has to be encouraged and rewarded. EH have the opportunity to communicate on this thread. They can address members concerns and have a high level of debate about what went wrong and how to prevent it happening again with knowledgeable players and industry members, the first 50 pages of this thread were very impressive. But they don't seem interested. Well I'm sorry, but if other casino groups can get tossed in the rogue pit for bad marketing strategies, then appalling communication on an issue as important as the one at EH also needs to have consequences.

The other thing to bear in mind is that some of the members venting here lost real money. I know we're all supposed to think they're just tokens, but it's real money, and when you're trusting people with your hard-earned cash you're entitled to expect the best level of service. You would from your bank. Why not from EH?

 

[gamemaster]

Zero tolerance is, indeed, difficult

My recommendation of a zero-tolerance attitude is certainly difficult to implement in the "real" word, such as MS Windows and the other software you listed, but we're not talking about that here. Were there no MS Windows, our choices would be limited to what...3 or 4 others?

Is EH so good that it cannot be replaced? I think not. Without them, gee, we have only 1400 other choices, which is why a zero-tolerance stance is one of the few truly effective tools the online gambling community has to protect itself.

Rogue operators are sent packing - it's always been that way and hopefully always will be. Of course, we each have our own definition of "rogue", and a software 'glitch' may not make one a rogue in some people's eyes, which is the beautiful part of individual choice.

I admire your willingness to see this through, Spearmaster, so battle on with my best wishes.

I've obviously made my choice and hope many, many others will be just as intolerant.

GM

 

[schmeel]

I have read much in the 50 plus pages about third party auditing, and really this whole situation is not third party at all.
This code and data should have been sent to someone who has no interest whatsoever in this industry.
Spearmaster, this is not a slam at you at all, just mereley stating that a true third party audit involves external auditing.
The audit would be done, and a statement would be made by the company that was audited, once again this is just what a respectable and credible company should and would do.

 

[TheBloke]

Is EH so good that it cannot be replaced? I think not. Without them, gee, we have only 1400 other choices, which is why a zero-tolerance stance is one of the few truly effective tools the online gambling community has to protect itself.

Rogue operators are sent packing - it's always been that way and hopefully always will be. Of course, we each have our own definition of "rogue", and a software 'glitch' may not make one a rogue in some people's eyes, which is the beautiful part of individual choice.

I think these are very good points. Their software screwed up once, it could screw up again. Why would any player take that chance when there are so many other places to play.

At this stage I am assuming that this was a mistake on their part, and not a deliberate attempt to cheat. It really doesn't matter tho, because I will never play at EH again as a direct result of this incident. Either they are cheats, or they are incompetant. Whichever it is, they do not deserve to be in business.

If there's one thing that must be absolutely sacrosanct, it is the fairness of the software. I firmly believe that in this regard there must be a one-strike rule. If your software ever deals an unfair game, you're finished.

Harsh it may be, but there's no excuse for anything else. Casinos, and their software providers, make millions. They can afford to employ as many testers as is necessary to ensure no bug ever enters production (or at least, no bug that affects the fairness of the games.)

Microsoft et al is not the right analogy with regard to 'zero tolerance'. A better analogy is nuclear power station software. Or air traffic control software. Or anything where lives depend on the code. Ok, so the stakes there are infinitely higher, but the same principle applies - it's possible to make software that works right every time, and where you get no second chances if it doesn't. Casinos must operate on the same basis.

EDIT: just to expand on my caveat to the 'no bug ever' rule - I apply this any code that generates or manipulates the result of a game. Any code that involves the genaration of a random result, and the application of that random result within a game, must be treated as carefully as a nuclear power station handles their safety systems code. Every code modification must be checked by one or more peers. Every rebuild of the code must be tested by multiple testing teams. Every line of the code must be documented. Every line of code must be approved by one or more senior technical managers. Therefore they would of course have to separate the 'game generation' code from all other code (such as graphics, audio, user input, etc). The latter they can apply Microsoft-style quality assurance to. The former they must apply nuclear-power-station-style quality assurance to. This is not overkill; their business depends upon it.

 

[sirius]

More double up cheats?

I remember when BJ21.com had a paid area for online casino discussion (actually Wiz told me about it). Someone wrote there many years ago that Aqua Online (aka Cytech) software was proven a year earlier to be cheating in the video poker double up. Golden Palace initially used this software when they moved away from Microgaming and others followed. I could never find out anything about this and he may have actually been referring to Odds On but had the software company mixed up because he was talking about something that had been discussed the year before. It was probably being discussed in a forum somewhere which I didn't read. All I know is that there was a discussion previously some years back which seemed to prove a cheating double up feature in a casino software's video poker.

Back to the matter in hand. I don't think Wiz actually has the double up data from Odds On casinos despite him implying otherwise. If he did, he would be able to supply the data himself for all these years he's been auditing them.

Logically, there would be no reason for a software update of the double up in video poker so Spearmaster was told that other updates for tournaments were in the same update. This code was updated manually and then changed again on May 2nd in another update. The software company seemingly had no knowledge of this at the time. Whoever was responsible for the updated software which included the unfair code must have done a fair bit of work on this update. Spearmaster should ask for all the code changes and not just those for the double up and also the reasons for the other claimed changes and why they had to be changed on April 13th specifically. If there needed to be other changes, it would give more credence to their claim but it is doubtful that the cheating code was left there unintentionally in any case. If they wanted to use a cheat switch, they would probably only make changes to the video poker and nothing else although obviously this isn't necessarily the case.

 

[spearmaster]

My recommendation of a zero-tolerance attitude is certainly difficult to implement in the "real" word, such as MS Windows and the other software you listed, but we're not talking about that here. Were there no MS Windows, our choices would be limited to what...3 or 4 others?

Is EH so good that it cannot be replaced? I think not. Without them, gee, we have only 1400 other choices, which is why a zero-tolerance stance is one of the few truly effective tools the online gambling community has to protect itself.

Point taken - but using your zero tolerance stance I daresay that every
operator would be out of business for a bug or a fix or a poorly-written T&C.

Rogue operators are sent packing - it's always been that way and hopefully always will be. Of course, we each have our own definition of "rogue", and a software 'glitch' may not make one a rogue in some people's eyes, which is the beautiful part of individual choice.

See, this assumes guilt and not an honest mistake - this is the point I cannot accept.

 

[spearmaster]

Microsoft et al is not the right analogy with regard to 'zero tolerance'. A better analogy is nuclear power station software. Or air traffic control software. Or anything where lives depend on the code. Ok, so the stakes there are infinitely higher, but the same principle applies - it's possible to make software that works right every time, and where you get no second chances if it doesn't. Casinos must operate on the same basis.

While I'm partially in agreement with you, I would not put "casino" on the same level as "nuclear power station". Windows is also much more critical by comparison with casino software. It is not really fair to say that software will work right every time - close, maybe. I'm not defending their weakness in auditing their own software - but I think zero tolerance is carrying it to an extreme.

I remember when BJ21.com had a paid area for online casino discussion (actually Wiz told me about it). Someone wrote there many years ago that Aqua Online (aka Cytech) software was proven a year earlier to be cheating in the video poker double up. Golden Palace initially used this software when they moved away from Microgaming and others followed. I could never find out anything about this and he may have actually been referring to Odds On but had the software company mixed up because he was talking about something that had been discussed the year before. It was probably being discussed in a forum somewhere which I didn't read. All I know is that there was a discussion previously some years back which seemed to prove a cheating double up feature in a casino software's video poker.

Golden Palace has never used Odds On software.

Back to the matter in hand. I don't think Wiz actually has the double up data from Odds On casinos despite him implying otherwise. If he did, he would be able to supply the data himself for all these years he's been auditing them.

He did not imply otherwise. Undoubtedly he can obtain this data. And as an auditor I don't think he is entitled to keep data - he is supposed to examine it, prepare a report, and return everything. At least, that's the way it works in real life from my experience.

Logically, there would be no reason for a software update of the double up in video poker so Spearmaster was told that other updates for tournaments were in the same update. This code was updated manually and then changed again on May 2nd in another update. The software company seemingly had no knowledge of this at the time. Whoever was responsible for the updated software which included the unfair code must have done a fair bit of work on this update. Spearmaster should ask for all the code changes and not just those for the double up and also the reasons for the other claimed changes and why they had to be changed on April 13th specifically. If there needed to be other changes, it would give more credence to their claim but it is doubtful that the cheating code was left there unintentionally in any case. If they wanted to use a cheat switch, they would probably only make changes to the video poker and nothing else although obviously this isn't necessarily the case.

I have all code here that is relative to the problem, and this includes a lot, if not all, of the tournament code. I didn't ask any questions about the update or why it was undertaken.

 

[GrandMaster]

Microsoft et al is not the right analogy with regard to 'zero tolerance'. A better analogy is nuclear power station software. Or air traffic control software. Or anything where lives depend on the code. Ok, so the stakes there are infinitely higher, but the same principle applies - it's possible to make software that works right every time, and where you get no second chances if it doesn't. Casinos must operate on the same basis.

EDIT: just to expand on my caveat to the 'no bug ever' rule - I apply this any code that generates or manipulates the result of a game. Any code that involves the genaration of a random result, and the application of that random result within a game, must be treated as carefully as a nuclear power station handles their safety systems code. Every code modification must be checked by one or more peers. Every rebuild of the code must be tested by multiple testing teams. Every line of the code must be documented. Every line of code must be approved by one or more senior technical managers. Therefore they would of course have to separate the 'game generation' code from all other code (such as graphics, audio, user input, etc). The latter they can apply Microsoft-style quality assurance to. The former they must apply nuclear-power-station-style quality assurance to. This is not overkill; their business depends upon it.

You would be surprised to learn how that even mission critical software or software that could kill people (aircraft, medical applications, etc) could be full of bugs.

 

[Zoozie]

You would be surprised to learn how that even mission critical software or software that could kill people (aircraft, medical applications, etc) could be full of bugs.

I know this to be true, but still an bug THIS obvious would be caught in test/unit-test before the software is released. Any software house with ISO certification or CMMI level 1(which require some work actually) would have standard procedures to prevent this from happening.
If you want to develop software for the US military you need to be CMMI level 5 (highest possible).

Even with perfect procedures human error can still happen, but in this case and from the facts so far, I would say it was due to immature software development. (Stupid code mistakes, "Comedy of errors", the bug was rampart for weeks with noone noticing etc...)

If you want to develop casino software you just need a code monkey and some managers that know nothing about software development (it seems). Maybe eCOGRA or a similar organisation could also approve the software and not just the casino operators.

Zoozie

 

[Vesuvio]

You would be surprised to learn how that even mission critical software or software that could kill people (aircraft, medical applications, etc) could be full of bugs.

Those industries are critical, but there's no financial incentive as here for the programmers to introduce particular "bugs". That's why a full explanation's needed. That and the bug occuring in a specific area of a specific game (where the casino might easily be losing money due to bonuses). And the bug being based on a previously unseen game that deals weighted cards (no-one's come up with a convincing response to the reasoning that a casino wouldn't introduce a weighted game with cards as it would destroy confidence in their VP doubling, VP & all other card games).

If this is just a comedy of errors, then the casino's got spectacularly unlucky in allowing a bug that few will ever believe was just a bug. On the other hand, if you upload code and give yourself a large house edge for 3 weeks without spotting it, then lie, then issue an inadequate statement, then fall silent leaving others to suffer on your behalf... I'm not sure you deserve a huge amount of sympathy.

 

[spearmaster]

I know this to be true, but still an bug THIS obvious would be caught in test/unit-test before the software is released. Any software house with ISO certification or even CMMI level 1 would have standard procedures for this.
If you want to develop software for the US military you need to be CMMI level 5 (highest possible).

If you want to develop casino software you just need a code monkey and some managers that know nothing about software development (it seems). Maybe eCOGRA or a similar organisation could also approve the software and not just the casino operators.

Zoozie

I highly doubt that any casino software manufacturer is even ISO certified, let alone CMMI.

But that's beside the point. They didn't catch the bug because their own procedures were simply not up to the task - and now they are paying the price for that.

I don't think eCOGRA is about to get into software testing/approval. Frankly, I don't think any manufacturer, as a general rule, will even allow their code to be inspected, let alone approved - so EH/Odds On has taken a leap of faith by allowing me to inspect it, not knowing what I could possibly do with the code. That should speak volumes - but apparently some people believe it's all a sham - in which case why would any casino manufacturer even take the risk of having their code exposed, sold on, held for ransom, modified to show false code, etc...

 

[spearmaster]

Those industries are critical, but there's no financial incentive as here for the programmers to introduce particular "bugs". That's why a full explanation's needed. That and the bug occuring in a specific area of a specific game (where the casino might easily be losing money due to bonuses). And the bug being based on a previously unseen game that deals weighted cards (no-one's come up with a convincing response to the reasoning that a casino wouldn't introduce a weighted game with cards as it would destroy confidence in their VP doubling, VP & all other card games).

C'mon Vesuvio, you keep getting stuck in on this "bonus hunting" bit with a 50/50 doubling game. Didn't it occur to you that doubling does not count for purposes of playthrough?

Not that I don't appreciate all the scenarios that are being thrown around, but so far I have not seen a single scenario that makes any real sense. Ultimately, once we can exhaust all the possibilities, only a couple are ging to be likely at all.

If this is just a comedy of errors, then the casino's got spectacularly unlucky in allowing a bug that few will ever believe was just a bug. On the other hand, if you upload code and give yourself a large house edge for 3 weeks without spotting it, then lie, then issue an inadequate statement, then fall silent leaving others to suffer on your behalf... I'm not sure you deserve a huge amount of sympathy.

No one in their right mind would walk around with a bulge in their pocket in a state where gun possession is illegal and punishable by life imprisonment or execution. If we really think that any manufacturer would be so stupid as to program such a blatant fix like that and not expect to get caught, then we really must be crazy (myself included).

 

[Vesuvio]

If we really think that any manufacturer would be so stupid as to program such a blatant fix like that and not expect to get caught, then we really must be crazy (myself included).

Who knows what casinos are willing to do - especially if they don't think they'll get caught. The most respected software company in the industry wasn't adverse to leaving their BJ autoplay strategy tables with significant errors for years. They still haven't converted playcheck into a usable tool for seeing if wagering requirements have been met.

Contrary to your assumption this type of error could easily have gone undetected. Who's going to double enough, or assess things statistically? Almost always when someone tries to claim a game's rigged others just turn up and point out it was unusual (so many SDs off norm) but probably just unlucky. You can see the initial response to thelawnet's first post for an example.

My best guess is that they did make a mistake in how they implented this fix, but that they were nevertheless experimenting with it, so deserve all they get.

 

[Zoozie]

I highly doubt that any casino software manufacturer is even ISO certified, let alone CMMI.

I don't think eCOGRA is about to get into software testing/approval. Frankly, I don't think any manufacturer, as a general rule, will even allow their code to be inspected, let alone approved - so EH/Odds On has taken a leap of faith by allowing me to inspect it, not knowing what I could possibly do with the code.

You are right, it would be take tremendous efford by both eCOGRA and the casino software houses to come this far. But the this incident does make me
question if it still would not be good. If you want to develop software for banks, healtcare, military etc. this form of certification is required. And
very often even when developing minor systems if you want to win the order.

'Accidential cheating' casino software that robs peoples money are not serious enough for a similar certification? The online casino industry is a billion$ market with no
similar regulation. But it would then be hard for new casino software developers to enter the market, which is the downside, as I like the diversity and it is good for the competetion.

 

[spearmaster]

Who knows what casinos are willing to do - especially if they don't think they'll get caught. The most respected software company in the industry wasn't adverse to leaving their BJ autoplay strategy tables with significant errors for years. They still haven't converted playcheck into a usable tool for seeing if wagering requirements have been met.

LOL, I remember that. I also remember giving them all sorts of hell over that - they claimed they had a mathematical expert verify the strategy and I and others told them in no uncertain terms to go find another mathematical expert with more experience

Nevertheless, that falls more into the category of "ignorant" than "bug" or "fix" because it was plainly evident to all who bothered to look.

Converting PlayCheck into a usable tool for determining wagering requirements would have to be considered above and beyond the call of duty, if you ask me. But I agree that would be damn useful.

Contrary to your assumption this type of error could easily have gone undetected. Who's going to double enough, or assess things statistically? Almost always when someone tries to claim a game's rigged others just turn up and point out it was unusual (so many SDs off norm) but probably just unlucky. You can see the initial response to thelawnet's first post for an example.

There's a difference - with doubling it will be much more readily obvious that there is a problem than with something as potentially streaky as blackjack. No combinations of cards are involved. And of course people who claim slots are rigged are probably correct LMAO.

I agree it's not in your face - but it's not exactly the most subtle deviation from the norm either.

My best guess is that they did make a mistake in how they implented this fix, but that they were nevertheless experimenting with it, so deserve all they get.

You'd have to see the code like I have to know that this isn't a case of experimentation. I'm not going to argue with you because you haven't seen the code and I don't blame you for thinking this way.

 

[spearmaster]

You are right, it would be take tremendous efford by both eCOGRA and the casino software houses to come this far. But the this incident does make me question if it still would not be good. If you want to develop software for banks, healtcare, military etc. this form of certification is required. And very often even when developing minor systems if you want to win the order.

'Accidential cheating' casino software that robs peoples money are not serious enough for a similar certification? The online casino industry is a billion$ market with no similar regulation. But it would then be hard for new casino software developers to enter the market, which is the downside, as I like the diversity and it is good for the competetion.

Personally, I'm sure everyone, including me, would like to see something like code verification and certification. In fact, many have clamored for this for years. But not one manufacturer has done anything about it.

To me, all this says is that there will continue to be diversity, and competitiveness, and hopefully one of the manufacturers - or a new developer - will see the benefit of this type of certification and the rest will follow.

 

[GrandMaster]

Those industries are critical, but there's no financial incentive as here for the programmers to introduce particular "bugs". That's why a full explanation's needed.

In certain industries, such as banking there is a direct financial incentive, and in general there is plenty of incentive not to fix bugs if they can get away with buggy software. The world's biggest company is founded on the sale of buggy software.

I already ranted enough on the voting machines used in American elections. They use proprietary software, usually certified on the basis of the manufacturer's claims without independent inspection, most states do not require an independent paper trail, there have been many bugs (votes recorded for the wrong candidate, more votes recorded than voters, etc), one particular machine had a backdoor in it which enabled the changing of the results and the biggest manufacturer is a large donor to the Republican Party.

 

[TheBloke]

I think perhaps a few of you have missed my point re my analogy with nuclear power stations, etc.

I certainly don't think that casinos should be completely bug free. Clearly that's unrealistic. I apply this bug-free mentality purely to the 'game generation' code.

To be specific, I would imagine a casino could be programmed in the following way:

1. The RNG module. This is a single code module that simply generates a random number.
2. Multiple 'result' modules. Each of these calls the RNG module and translates its result into a recognisable game event:
a) Roulette module, takes RNG output and translates to 0-36
b) Dice module, takes RNG output and translates to 1-6
c) Deck of cards module, takes the RNG output and translates it into a shuffle of one or more decks of cards, and then returns the order of all of these cards
etc

Therefore the only code that calls the RNG module is one of the result modules. Each of the games then calls the appropriate result module.

The RNG module, and the result modules, should be programmed as I described. Peer review, manager review, documentation, etcera. A change to these modules is a very big event with multiple levels of testing and approval. (EDIT: actually, there's really no reason for these modules to ever be changed once written and fully tested. A roulette spin never changes in nature, nor does a computer-generated shuffle. These modules should be under lock and key and the general coding team should never even be able to view the source code.)

All the other code would be 'normal' code, and programmed in the normal sloppy marketing-lead way (as most code in the world is programmed ). If there's a bug in the graphics, it's not the end of the world. If the casino client crashes every now and then, that's life.

But the core game generation modules must never have those bugs. It would therefore be impossible for Video Poker Double to get cards in a different way to Blackjack, or to Three Card Poker, or whatever. They all call the same core modules, which in turn all call the same RNG module, and it is impossible for sloppy code in a particular game implementation to affect the randomness.

I realise this is a simplification, but the programmers amongst us must understand what I mean.

I still stand by my 'critical code' ie nuclear power station example. I said before that of course casinos are not this critical overall. But within context, it is this critical.

If a supplier of power station software ever introduced a bug that caused a power station to explode, they would never work in the industry again. Perhaps they'd even go to jail. There are no second chances here.

I do not think that any software supplier who does not go at least some way to doing this should be allowed in business. So far as I'm aware Microgaming have never dealt an unfair game. Nor have Party Poker. Perhaps they are not being quite as 'military' in their approach as I describe, but they must be fairly rigid else they probably would have slipped up by now. They won't tell us their methods, but I have confidence that a big supplier like MG must treat their game generation code fairly seriously.

Spearmaster has even said "English Harbour's code was so sloppy that it couldn't have been a deliberate fix". For me, that's the killer sentence.

Why are we even arguing about if they cheated? Why are there 50 pages in this thread discussing it?

They wrote code that was so bad it caused an unfair game to be dealt. Their audit procedures are so bad that they didn't notice for two weeks (and in fact probably it was thelawnet's investigation that caused them to notice, not their procedures).

That's the end of the matter, surely? They're incompetant. They have no right to be in this business. Why would anyone trust their money to a company who cares so little about their customers that they wont implement the required procedures to ensure this cannot happen.

As Gamemaster said, this is not an uncompetitive industry. There are literally hundreds of other places to play. Why bother with the failures.

 

[Slotster!]

Out of interest, a question for Spear, CM, Jetset and Simmo...

Have you thought about asking a few questions of some of the friendlier better known operators (Intercasino, 32RED etc), in terms of if this could possibly happen with their software? What I mean is, do they have safeguards/automatic alerts in place to notify if a specific game returns a significant percentage different from the expectation.

Without revealing too many 'insider secrets', I'm sure one of the industry insiders could offer a fascinating insight into if this is a plausible explanation in their world; or offer reasons as to why it definitely isn't.

 

[spearmaster]

Out of interest, a question for Spear, CM, Jetset and Simmo...

Have you thought about asking a few questions of some of the friendlier better known operators (Intercasino, 32RED etc), in terms of if this could possibly happen with their software? What I mean is, do they have safeguards/automatic alerts in place to notify if a specific game returns a significant percentage different from the expectation.

Without revealing too many 'insider secrets', I'm sure one of the industry insiders could offer a fascinating insight into if this is a plausible explanation in their world; or offer reasons as to why it definitely isn't.

It's happened at Intercasino before - and if I recall correctly it cost them like $1.3 million - but in this case the bug was in favor of the player. They didn't invoke the "malfunction" clause - instead they did the right thing and paid out.

Obviously since then they have improved their auditing.

Neither 32Red, nor any Microgaming operator, have any control over the code - only Microgaming does. And bugs have happened there before to the detriment of the player.

I believe Playtech controls all the code for their software as well.

To sum it up - this is not the first time a bug has been found, not by a long shot.

 

[sirius]

It's happened at Intercasino before - and if I recall correctly it cost them like $1.3 million - but in this case the bug was in favor of the player. They didn't invoke the "malfunction" clause - instead they did the right thing and paid out.

Obviously since then they have improved their auditing.

Neither 32Red, nor any Microgaming operator, have any control over the code - only Microgaming does. And bugs have happened there before to the detriment of the player.

I believe Playtech controls all the code for their software as well.

To sum it up - this is not the first time a bug has been found, not by a long shot.

It wasn't a bug at Intercasino. They got hit by hackers which caused the slots to pay out on every spin after the hackers got into the server.

Bugs at other casinos were true bugs and not whole routines. You can't cause such an unfair deal with a simple mistake in the code.

By the way, wasn't there supposed to be a mathematical analysis of this code provided by EH to see if it actually delivered the results shown? It probably doesn't matter too much given that this probably was the code used, but you never know.

 

[Linus]

I dunno. When lawnet first posted this, I was skeptical. I've seen tons of these kinds of claims and usually they turn out to be normal variance.

But then I tried it for myself. And watched as other posters got the same 2:1 results that I got - and that lawnet originally posted.

This lasted about two days.

Then EH updated its software, and the results returned to normal -- if anything, they seemed to have introduced a player advantage. Perhaps they hoped to cover up the earlier bias.

EH had three options at that point. They could ignore it, claim their software was fair, of go the "bug" route.

They chose the worst option first. They posted a long-winded explanation saying their games were fair, and our results were bogus.

Eventually they switched to the bug route, perhaps realizing the first defense wouldn't wash, and provided Spear with some lines of code to back up their claim.

Spear, you might think I'm biased, because - as far as I was concerned, the case was closed as soon as EH posted the "our software is fair" claim - if not before that. They could have had Maria Theresa come down from heaven and swear on a stack of bibles on their behalf - at that point - and it wouldn't have made a dif.

I've never had lunch with the owners, I've never promoted their products, I'm not an affiliate, and I've never had anything to do with the affiliate industry in any way, shape or form.

My only interest in this thing is as a player, nothing else. And as a player, I couldn't imagine playing at a casino that has a proven record of cheating, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

Your defense is that they're incredibly incompetent. But if they really are that incompetent, how can you also argue they're too competent to cheat in such an obvious way?

And if they were competent cheaters, would they have been caught?

I've asked this before, but I'm going to ask it again - suppose EH had fixed the jackpot payment, so it never got paid (and who's to say they didn't?) How many millions of trials would it take to prove such a thing?

I understand you sympathize with these guys, and you'd like to see players give them a break.

But I don't sympathize with them. They're in business to make money. And if they can't - or won't - provide a fair game, I see no reason to give my money to them.

 

[spearmaster]

I didn't say they were incredibly incompetent... LOL... I did say that they made some pretty dumb mistakes, but this is hopefully a once-off.

Forget the lunch - like I said, it was a crappy hamburger, some fries which Meister mooched, and a couple of beers. If anyone thinks I'm that cheap then I ought to be walking Sunset Blvd

Forget the affiliate bit - I have not promoted them in years, and never made much money with them anyhow - see above

The industry bit? Yeah, I can't argue that - no way I can deny that and I won't.

The first statement they made - rash, knee-jerk, without knowing all the facts - not going to argue with that either - but tell me none of us have ever done anything rash... I'm a multiple offender when it comes to that

The code? I wasn't given "some lines of code" - I was given the full code of every module that was involved - more than the 9xx lines that the Wizard was given.

By jackpot payment I assume you mean getting the 10x multiplier - and I can definitely assure you this is not the case because the 3 other cards with the same value (Ace) have an identical chance of being drawn, with lower multipliers. Furthermore, the weighting spread is evenly/equally distributed and the chances of drawing an ace is only a couple percent less than drawing a deuce. But this is irrelevant to the issue at hand because the bonus game was not only not meant to be active, it was missing bits and did not directly affect the value of the bet except where the wrong object was overwritten with card values and thus caused some wins to become losses.

Yes, I am involved in the industry, and yes, I know a lot of operators and manufacturers. Make no bones about that.

But first and foremost, I am a player - and I want a fair game every bit as much as every other player does. I have had the privilege of examining the code in question, which, combined with other factors which I am seeking to resolve as soon as possible, HOPEFULLY will put my mind at ease - even if it doesn't have the same effect for others.

Let me tell you once again - if I believe this code was unfairly written to take advantage of the players, I will be shouting this from every rooftop to ensure that no other manufacturer dare try to pull a stunt like this ever again.

When the code was put in my hands, you have to wonder what the casino must've been thinking:

* Will he reveal the code to others?
* Will he blackmail us and demand a payment to shut him up?
* Will he tell the truth?
* Will he see the wrong thing and make us look like we deliberately cheated?
* Will he use this code to create his own game?
* Will the players believe him?
* Will he modify the code and then claim it was rigged?
* Were we stupid in not making him sign an NDA?
* Will he discover a flaw and exploit it, and maybe reveal it to others?

If you look at it this way, it is a TREMENDOUS leap of faith for them to put the integrity and possible fate of their business in my hands. If I had been in their shoes, I'm not sure that I would have DARED put my code in someone else's hands under any circumstances, fair, rigged, unintentionally flawed, etc. because it depends SOLELY on one interpretation.

Now I don't know what you think of that - or what you would have thought if you were the one entrusted with the code - but to me this alone speaks volumes, though ultimately I have to verify all of the information I have before I can actually give a full opinion.

 

[soflat]

When the code was put in my hands, you have to wonder what the casino must've been thinking:
...
Now I don't know what you think of that - or what you would have thought if you were the one entrusted with the code - but to me this alone speaks volumes, though ultimately I have to verify all of the information I have before I can actually give a full opinion.

The code doesn't prove much, and the fact that they gave you the code doesn't influence my opinion. It is almost insignificant, but it has become the whole focus of this investigation.

The only real proof is in the log files, which they are apparently not willing to release.

 

[spearmaster]

The code doesn't prove much, and the fact that they gave you the code doesn't influence my opinion. It is almost insignificant, but it has become the whole focus of this investigation.

The only real proof is in the log files, which they are apparently not willing to release.

I have to disagree with this for a number of reasons:

1. It *is* important to try and determine whether or not the code was deliberately modified or not.
2. The analysis of logs for the period in question clearly show that the game was non-random.
3. The logs I presume you are referring to are those of the last 2-3 years based on an unsubstantiated claim from someone who himself is not willing to provide any proof. If he gives us good reason then of course we should expect to see the logs.
4. If we WERE to require the logs because of an unsubstantiated claim, that would open up a Pandora's Box of people demanding we investigate every instance in which they felt they lost unfairly without reasonable proof. This would simply cause the whole system to break down. Just take a look at the number of threads in the Complaints forum for starters...

 

[kengam]

Spear,

What exactly did you talk about with English Harbour folk at the conference? Did they say anything at all about the code they sent you? Did they tell you why they sent you more of the code than they did to their own auditor? (Wiz)

You have yet to go into any detail of what was talked about other than the crappy burger and mooched fries. I am curious to here anything they had to say.


on a side note and not trying to criticize you but I have noticed one thing. You have stated numerous times that they have entrusted you with the code...even more of the code than the Wiz. You are the only one who has been granted access to this amount of code. Going on and on about that simple fact is enough to make the casual observer feel that there is no way you are acting as a neutral party. When you are accused of being biased it may be because of what you say yourself. Just a thought.

 

[thelawnet]

When the code was put in my hands, you have to wonder what the casino must've been thinking:

* Will he reveal the code to others?
* Will he blackmail us and demand a payment to shut him up?
* Will he tell the truth?
* Will he see the wrong thing and make us look like we deliberately cheated?
* Will he use this code to create his own game?
* Will the players believe him?
* Will he modify the code and then claim it was rigged?
* Were we stupid in not making him sign an NDA?
* Will he discover a flaw and exploit it, and maybe reveal it to others?

If you look at it this way, it is a TREMENDOUS leap of faith for them to put the integrity and possible fate of their business in my hands.

Er, what integrity?

They had just been caught with a cheating game, then denied (which they were forced to retract) that there was something wrong. They were seriously deep in the shit. This is not a normal PR move, it's 'do we have any other choice'?

They were hardly in a position to go trumpeting NDAs, although I do note that you have not shared the crappy buggy code, so I can't see that there's any difference.

If I had been in their shoes, I'm not sure that I would have DARED put my code in someone else's hands under any circumstances, fair, rigged, unintentionally flawed, etc. because it depends SOLELY on one interpretation.

Now I don't know what you think of that - or what you would have thought if you were the one entrusted with the code - but to me this alone speaks volumes, though ultimately I have to verify all of the information I have before I can actually give a full opinion.

To me it says they were really worried about how they were going to recover their reputation.

Whether the code is that which was in place or not, it's impossible for you or I to know. Suffice to say they had quite a few days to come up with a story and write some code to fit the bill.

Writing Java code that just implements a bonus game like the one described is not exactly rocket science.

Whether or not that was the code they had on there, we cannot know. There are signs that it was, but equally serious questions if it was about why they did not do anything about the players being ripped off by the code until exposed publicly, despite knowing that the code was faulty.

 

[thelawnet]

C'mon Vesuvio, you keep getting stuck in on this "bonus hunting" bit with a 50/50 doubling game. Didn't it occur to you that doubling does not count for purposes of playthrough?

It certainly does. At least it did until they banned video poker completely, after they fixed their little bug.

So it seems like fair comment, given that English Harbour did indeed count it.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear,

What exactly did you talk about with English Harbour folk at the conference? Did they say anything at all about the code they sent you? Did they tell you why they sent you more of the code than they did to their own auditor? (Wiz)

You have yet to go into any detail of what was talked about other than the crappy burger and mooched fries. I am curious to here anything they had to say.

Fair question.

I remember shooting the shit the first few minutes as we pored over the menus, and then discussing whether or not hamburgers had to be well done in Montreal (normally, yes, but in this particular case they made them "special" but they still sucked).

They then asked me if I was ready with a statement, to which I replied that I needed verification of a few more things. They asked me if I needed any more information, and I said "nothing more at the moment".

I also asked if only EH was affected by the bug, or all Odds On casinos, to which they responded EH was primarily affected, with a few at other casinos not within their group. That was Mitch's question.

They then opined that they would like to see this resolved as soon as possible, as it was understandably affecting their business.

Other than that, as far as I can remember, it was complaints about the crappy burger, the quality of women in Montreal (said to really know how to dress well), teasing the waitress quite a bit about her accent (Meister thought she was suggesting Spaghetti with Raspberry Sauce when she was saying Spaghetti with Asparagus). A little side BS about English football and hockey and golf, and then we all ran off to our next appointment.

Maybe Meister can remember some more - to be honest, there was really very little said about the issue other than what I have said above.

Why did I get more code than the Wiz?

The Wiz was given what he asked for - I don't know how much he did with his analysis so I can't comment further - but in order for me to try and determine exactly what happened in code, I required at least one more module than he did plus a math model (which is really insignificant to the problem but for me I wanted to be as exact as possible).

It's possible he actually got more code - but he did say something about 9xx lines, and I'm sure I have more than that.

on a side note and not trying to criticize you but I have noticed one thing. You have stated numerous times that they have entrusted you with the code...even more of the code than the Wiz. You are the only one who has been granted access to this amount of code. Going on and on about that simple fact is enough to make the casual observer feel that there is no way you are acting as a neutral party. When you are accused of being biased it may be because of what you say yourself. Just a thought.

One cannot be objective without access to as much code as required to obtain the most complete answer possible. But in any case, the additional code I asked for was one they thought they had sent - and had zero effect on the result - I just needed it to be able to completely trace the path of the procedure calls that were being used.

Getting more code does not have any effect on neutrality - if anything, it provides a more complete picture and thus would enhance neutrality.

 

[spearmaster]

They had just been caught with a cheating game, then denied (which they were forced to retract) that there was something wrong. They were seriously deep in the shit. This is not a normal PR move, it's 'do we have any other choice'?

Let me put it this way.

Had it been me, I probably would NOT have released the code for the number of possible consequences listed above. I would rather have dealt with the uncertainty rather than put everything into someone elses's hands and thus having no control over the situation.

There are plenty of other casinos who have done that in the past and stonewalled all of us until the cows came home. EH did not.

They were hardly in a position to go trumpeting NDAs, although I do note that you have not shared the crappy buggy code, so I can't see that there's any difference.

NDA is a requirement throughout the industry - you don't get shit without an NDA. They were willing to forego this presumably because they trusted me (wise or not, you decide).

The reason I don't share this code with others is because I was asked not to - and thus I have not, and will not.

Whether the code is that which was in place or not, it's impossible for you or I to know. Suffice to say they had quite a few days to come up with a story and write some code to fit the bill.

1. They had about a day or two tops.
2. As I have explained before, it is MUCH easier to say this than to do this. I'm not going to bother with that again because it is simply ridiculous for anyone to deliberately think illogically when writing code.
3. They could not have known that I was going to request the real code - furthermore, they could not have anticipated the many questions that I was going to ask - and then you have the possible consequences I listed above.

Writing Java code that just implements a bonus game like the one described is not exactly rocket science.

First of all, the bonus game was NOT implemented. Secondly, what code was actually executed returned with an error. And thirdly, if you think you can do it, then do so.

Whether or not that was the code they had on there, we cannot know. There are signs that it was, but equally serious questions if it was about why they did not do anything about the players being ripped off by the code until exposed publicly, despite knowing that the code was faulty.

Agreed on the first part. Secondly, one cannot necessarily intercept an error if an error isn't properly reported, either by players, or by their error checking system. You cannot assume that they KNEW the code was faulty until the time it was reported - otherwise there would be no bugs in ANY software.

 

[spearmaster]

It certainly does. At least it did until they banned video poker completely, after they fixed their little bug.

So it seems like fair comment, given that English Harbour did indeed count it.

Based on what I have heard from others (and I haven't checked directly with them), I stand corrected.

 

[AceMan76]

When the code was put in my hands, you have to wonder what the casino must've been thinking:

You also have to wonder what the players are thinking . . . how do we or even you know that this is the actual code that was used. The only entity with an interest in covering something up is EH and guess who controls access to the evidence . . . EH. If this was truly an isolated incident, then provide the log files over the past few years to prove it. Until that is done, I give no credence to anything they state.

Bottom line for me, even if I accepted their explanation, is that there are plenty of other casinos that have not royally screwed over players with botched code and then tried to cover it up with a lame knee-jerk excuse that was blown out of the water and had to be retracted.

I have never deposited at EH and I never will and I will actively discourage my friends and acquaintances from ever playing there.

 

[soflat]

3. The logs I presume you are referring to are those of the last 2-3 years based on an unsubstantiated claim from someone who himself is not willing to provide any proof. If he gives us good reason then of course we should expect to see the logs.
4. If we WERE to require the logs because of an unsubstantiated claim, that would open up a Pandora's Box of people demanding we investigate every instance in which they felt they lost unfairly without reasonable proof.

No. That the problem existed 2-3 years IS SUBSTANTIATED. We do not know how many times the problem allowed buggy code to be AUTOMATICALLY FIXED over the past 2-3 years.

The code proves they were developing a bonus game and was a nice little support for their story. But it does not prove anything. It is a distraction at this point.

 

[thelawnet]

First of all, the bonus game was NOT implemented. Secondly, what code was actually executed returned with an error. And thirdly, if you think you can do it, then do so.

I could write something like this in a few hours, without question. Java is not my language, but I do write C# code, which is near identical, and having come up with a reason why a 50/50 game might not behave 50/50, and having a lot existing classes (random number libraries, cards, etc.), I think it would be pretty easy to come up with some code.

Again, I am not saying that that is the case, as we do not know. But it's absolutely incorrect to say that they could not have mocked up this code.

Agreed on the first part. Secondly, one cannot necessarily intercept an error if an error isn't properly reported, either by players, or by their error checking system. You cannot assume that they KNEW the code was faulty until the time it was reported - otherwise there would be no bugs in ANY software.

Erm, yes we can, they said they had already scheduled an update for the software, and that explains how the code started behaving fairly, because they had previously arranged for the code to be fixed.

Why would you schedule an update of this nature, rather than just shutting the whole thing down?

This bit at least doesn't add up.

 

[spearmaster]

No. That the problem existed 2-3 years IS SUBSTANTIATED. We do not know how many times the problem allowed buggy code to be AUTOMATICALLY FIXED over the past 2-3 years.

The code proves they were developing a bonus game and was a nice little support for their story. But it does not prove anything. It is a distraction at this point.

Where is it substantiated?

 

[thelawnet]

No. That the problem existed 2-3 years IS SUBSTANTIATED. We do not know how many times the problem allowed buggy code to be AUTOMATICALLY FIXED over the past 2-3 years.

Where is the evidence, apart from my evidence?

We only have evidence for one month.

It absolutely is not substantiated before this month.

If you have evidence, please provided it.

Otherwise, there is sadly no way to say, although you might well be right.

 

[spearmaster]

I could write something like this in a few hours, without question. Java is not my language, but I do write C# code, which is near identical, and having come up with a reason why a 50/50 game might not behave 50/50, and having a lot existing classes (random number libraries, cards, etc.), I think it would be pretty easy to come up with some code.

Again, I am not saying that that is the case, as we do not know. But it's absolutely incorrect to say that they could not have mocked up this code.

I asked you to try and write illogical code... LOL... it is very difficult to mock up something that doesn't make sense.

It is easy to write in a fix, no question of that. It is even easy to write a lot of routines and calls to classes to try and obfuscate the real intent - no question of that.

I am saying that what I saw in the code is not a fix, is not obfuscation - it's plain illogical! When something is illogical, it's because the programmer did NOT think clearly.

Erm, yes we can, they said they had already scheduled an update for the software, and that explains how the code started behaving fairly, because they had previously arranged for the code to be fixed.

Why would you schedule an update of this nature, rather than just shutting the whole thing down?

This bit at least doesn't add up.

To be honest, I didn't ask this question. I also haven't asked either EH or Wiz how they determined the date, my assumption is that it was updated sometime on the 1st and thus not all results would have been normal - but that from the 2nd onwards all results should have been normal.

 

[kengam]

I appreciate your candid answers Spear. Can you tell us exactly what you are waiting for to complete your analasys? Is there anyway to test this code with the current code to determine if this would in fact deliver a 2:1 loss/win result? Is there any way to ask English Harbour if they have a time frame for when they will be releasing the full version of this new double up feature?


Also way back in this thread you advised us that you had an inkling of what the problem may be but you wanted to give them a chance to respond first so that you didn't provide them with a possible out. Can you elaborate on what you thought it might be and if you were right?

In exchange for your continued cooperation with questions I will refrain from being uncivil and accusatory. I know you are not at fault here.

 

[spearmaster]

I appreciate your candid answers Spear. Can you tell us exactly what you are waiting for to complete your analasys? Is there anyway to test this code with the current code to determine if this would in fact deliver a 2:1 loss/win result? Is there any way to ask English Harbour if they have a time frame for when they will be releasing the full version of this new double up feature?

I am waiting for a few answers on how certain numbers were derived - but in one case I haven't asked the question clearly, and in another I presume my email was overlooked.

I am also thinking of writing a simple script which would simulate the scenario by brute force - and which if I proceed with it, I will make available for everyone to test and see the code.

The numbers I have received from the Wiz and GrandMaster appear to indicate that the scenario jives with the results gleaned from the logs - but I want to make sure that none of us are confused as to how I have described the scenario.

edit - Oops! I will ask EH/Odds On when they do plan to release this new bonus module, if at all - understandably, one might imagine that they are going to be a bit leery of releasing ANYTHING new at all until it has been triple-checked and approved Plus, after all the furore about anything dealing with cards must be random, even just as objects, they could presumably want to make it a bit more clear and use different elements or scrap the game altogether.

Also way back in this thread you advised us that you had an inkling of what the problem may be but you wanted to give them a chance to respond first so that you didn't provide them with a possible out. Can you elaborate on what you thought it might be and if you were right?

I wasn't exactly right but I was close enough - I surmised that the problem could possibly have occurred through a mismatch of arrays, or the incorrect array being written to. It is the second one that appears to have occurred.

In exchange for your continued cooperation with questions I will refrain from being uncivil and accusatory. I know you are not at fault here.

I'll accept that. As I have said all along, I will answer questions as they come if I can.