Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[kengam]

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.

wouldn't an incorrect array return an error? It is very hard to fathom this bug not causing the program to crash. There were no indications that anything was erroneous if you tried it out during the time in question. Not a slight pause, nothing out of the ordinary. If the code was so sloppily written you would think it wouldn't be able to integrate itself into the game without causing fatal errors.

 

[spearmaster]

wouldn't an incorrect array return an error?

Not unless the array didn't exist. Unless the array had strict bounds and the particular element being written to exceeded these bounds, the array would simply have been overwritten.

It is very hard to fathom this bug not causing the program to crash. There were no indications that anything was erroneous if you tried it out during the time in question. Not a slight pause, nothing out of the ordinary. If the code was so sloppily written you would think it wouldn't be able to integrate itself into the game without causing fatal errors.

Strangely enough, array mismatches don't cause fatal errors unless as described above.

It was a very unfortunate "mismatch" in that both arrays were of exactly the same type and fell within similar bounds. This is also the worst nightmare that programmers experience as they are very difficult to detect if the change is slight or unmonitored or untested.

Like I said, though, I can easily see myself making that mistake - in fact, it happens to me frequently when I am in a "groove" and programming frantically before I forget what the hell it was I was trying to do It is, however, definitely not something I would think of if I had anything to hide.

 

[thelawnet]

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.

The question is why they had arranged for the code to be fixed instead of shutting it down straight away. They said there was a scheduled update - so the imrpession that they were trying to switch the game back to fair as a a way of 'burying the evidence', because the game was changed immediately after it was posted on here - was in their view wrong because it was scheduled.

But why would they schedule it and not shut it down immediately?

 

[spearmaster]

The question is why they had arranged for the code to be fixed instead of shutting it down straight away. They said there was a scheduled update - so the imrpession that they were trying to switch the game back to fair as a a way of 'burying the evidence', because the game was changed immediately after it was posted on here - was in their view wrong because it was scheduled.

But why would they schedule it and not shut it down immediately?

Had it been me, I would have shut it down and immediately re-enabled it after finding out and fixing whatever was wrong.

However, I believe they were waiting for Wiz to come back with his analysis before doing anything as they originally and mistakenly thought that there was nothing wrong as evidenced by their first statement. I haven't checked the timeframe on that but I suspect it would have been very close.

 

[thelawnet]

Had it been me, I would have shut it down and immediately re-enabled it after finding out and fixing whatever was wrong.

However, I believe they were waiting for Wiz to come back with his analysis before doing anything as they originally and mistakenly thought that there was nothing wrong as evidenced by their first statement. I haven't checked the timeframe on that but I suspect it would have been very close.

Again, the problem is that the code had already been switched shortly before the first statement, as verified by testing at the time.

It's pretty unbelievable that they could switch this code out and at the same time as they did this say 'No, definitely nothing wrong with our code', even though they had just fixed it.

 

[spearmaster]

I should shut up before I reread this long ass thread... LOL...

The first statement came well after the software update apparently fixed things. Needless to say the statement was blatantly incorrect - so I will try and determine exactly what happened and on what timeframe. I stand corrected yet again

 

[120sam]

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.

Can we get away from the Kengam thing? The fact that the game wasn't reliable for a period in 2006 is reason enough for concerned players to want the logs for earlier years to be checked. That is the "good reason". EH should be bending over backwards to reassure concerned players.

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

I'll bet they would. They can step up to the plate and start making public statements on this thread any time, it's open 24/7. The "what's the point in me saying anything because you'll just all jump down my throat / hang me out to dry anyway" justification for their silence is one I wouldn't let a sulking 8-year old get away with. It certainly isn't an appropriate (lack of) response from a company of their size handling the amount of clients' funds that they do and dealing with an issue of this nature. In what other industry would a similar sized company be allowed to get away with adopting this attitude? They'd be hounded by the press, industry watchdogs and any other concerned authorities. Keeping quiet and hiding behind a voluntary third party wouldn't be an option. No reputable company would even try it.

The first statement came well after the software update apparently fixed things. Needless to say the statement was blatantly incorrect - so I will try and determine exactly what happened and on what timeframe. I stand corrected yet again

Why on earth would you try and determine anything? Simply invite EH to address the matter on this thread. Don't they have a PR guy? Why not? I thought you were just checking the code. If you choose to be the messenger on all issues, don't complain when the flak comes flying at you. EH seem to be successfully evading all their responsibilities when it comes to responding to the legitimate concerns of their customers.

 

[soflat]

Can we get away from the Kengam thing? The fact that the game wasn't reliable for a period in 2006 is reason enough for concerned players to want the logs for earlier years to be checked. That is the "good reason". EH should be bending over backwards to reassure concerned players.

Yes, my statement had nothing to do with Kengam's unsubtantiated claims.

So far the only evidence EH has submitted has proven that they dealt an unfair doubling game during a period of time.

 

[nafanny29]

As thelawnet said I am very suprised they did not shut the game down and do a full investigation. Fair enough an "update" went through the next day but how did they possibly know that the "update" would rectify the situation.

Normally when there is a serious malfunction with anything involving $$$ it is shut down and not reopened until a VERY full investigation has taken place.

 

[spearmaster]

You guys can cry for a full investigation all you like but I am simply not going to proceed without some evidence that there were indeed problems before this. I have already explained why I cannot do this and I am not going to be the one opening the Pandora's Box, period.

I thought you were just checking the code. If you choose to be the messenger on all issues, don't complain when the flak comes flying at you.

I want to know for myself - if you don't WANT me to get the answer then I won't waste my time telling you.

Fair enough an "update" went through the next day but how did they possibly know that the "update" would rectify the situation.

They didn't - that's why they made that rash first statement in the first place.

 

[JohnGalt]

You guys can cry for a full investigation all you like but I am simply not going to proceed without some evidence that there were indeed problems before this.

Of course you and they can do what you like. But I can only think of one reason why a casino would not want to take the relatively simple step of proving that their doubling game has been fair all along.

They went back 4 months. Why only 4 months? Why not 3 years? And according to you, they DID go back more than 4 months, since analyzing only 4 months would have made it impossible for them to make their initial statement that everything was okay. So why did they release results for only 4 months?

 

[spearmaster]

They chose the wrong test to begin with. That in itself does not provide any reason for looking back over the last 2-3 years. The only problem discovered was the period in question.

For the last time - there is nothing to investigate unless some reasonable evidence is produced by someone.

This is not a court. I am trying to resolve the issue at hand, and NOT determine their past history.

 

[soflat]

You guys can cry for a full investigation all you like but I am simply not going to proceed without some evidence that there were indeed problems before this. I have already explained why I cannot do this and I am not going to be the one opening the Pandora's Box, period.

I thought they asked you what data was needed to clear up this mess. So you asked for the code. That clears it up for you apparently. Were they asking what info would convince you, or what would satisfy the community of players at CM?

We don't have any other go-between. Maybe someone from EH is reading the threads. If they are I hope they know that some of us would be satisfied if we saw that the games were always fair before the recent incident.

I don't know how many players are already satisfied with just the code, and how many would give them a second chance only on seeing a 2-3 audit. A poll to see how many players are interested in what data might be a good thing.

 

[spearmaster]

And just who is going to donate their time poring over 3 years worth of logs based on an unsubstantiated claim?

You guys must think we have a lot of time on our hands...

 

[GrandMaster]

The casino's own software should be able to produce the required information. Of course, some people will reject anything coming from the casino as forged.

 

[120sam]

I want to know for myself - if you don't WANT me to get the answer then I won't waste my time telling you.

I don't want anyone to have to go and get the answer. I want EH to have the courtesy to bring it here instead of hiding behind a go-between.

We don't have any other go-between.

Why do we need a go-between? EH should be addressing their customers directly.

English Harbour's crisis management seems to be as pathetically incompetent as various other areas of their operation have been shown to be. They are a bunch of amateurs who shouldn't be allowed near anyone's money. They certainly won't be allowed near mine.

 

[tennis_balls]

And just who is going to donate their time poring over 3 years worth of logs based on an unsubstantiated claim?

You guys must think we have a lot of time on our hands...

donate? hopefully EH will see the light and pay an independent party to do this work.

 

[nafanny29]

What I still cannot get my head around is the sudden drop-off of actual play from the day the "bug" entered the game.

These are the figures for the days before and after "bugday"

Apr 12: wins=1199, losses=1195, ties=121, win ratio=50.08%
Apr 13: wins=194, losses=266, ties=27, win ratio=42.17%

During the period Apr 1 - Apr 12 there were an average of 1993 double up actions every day. Why the sudden dramatic drop to 487 the very day the bug enters the mix. Something here just does not make any sence to me.

 

[GrandMaster]

1. Some people may try to double up more than once. If they lose more often, they will get fewer opportunities.

2. If people lose too often, they might feel it is not their lucky day and stop doubling up or playing VP.

3. It is worth checking whether there was any change in the T&C.

 

[AceMan76]

The only problem discovered was the period in question.

How could other problems be discovered without access to the data? How many actual players keep a log of each bet they make and the results? In this instance the players GOT LUCKY that lawnet noticed something amiss, knew of this forum, and posted his results. This could have easily gone unnoticed in the past if it occured over short periods of time.

EH's position is that this is a one-time glitch. The burden is on them to establish this as a fact because they are the ones claiming it as a defense. How can this be considered a one-time glitch when no one has been able to analyze the past data? Can I say because the sun came out today it is a one time glitch because I didn't see it come out yesterday? For all I know, this game has glitches all the time. How easy would it be to establish it by just turning over log files for the past few years?

This is not rocket science and you are right, it is not "court". If this was proceeding in court, those past log files would fall under the definition of "relevant" evidence and would be discoverable by an opposing party. The legal definition of "relevant evidence" for discovery purposes is very broad.

 

[spearmaster]

What I still cannot get my head around is the sudden drop-off of actual play from the day the "bug" entered the game.

These are the figures for the days before and after "bugday"

Apr 12: wins=1199, losses=1195, ties=121, win ratio=50.08%
Apr 13: wins=194, losses=266, ties=27, win ratio=42.17%

During the period Apr 1 - Apr 12 there were an average of 1993 double up actions every day. Why the sudden dramatic drop to 487 the very day the bug enters the mix. Something here just does not make any sence to me.

What Grandmaster said.

I think I addressed this much earlier in the thread - if you kept losing, would you continue to double? Then there is the issue of this thread warning people, and rightfully so...

How many actual players keep a log of each bet they make and the results?

If you're going to make a claim, back it up with some evidence. You can't just shout "Fire!" and expect everyone to believe you when there isn't even any smoke present.

The "one-time glitch" statement is NOT the issue at hand here. The "non-randomness of the doubling game within video poker from April 14-May 2" is the issue at hand.

You can say you never cheated on your wife/gf/bf/significant other, and when caught claim it is a one-off after a heavy drinking session. Should you be required to produce all the people you have met in the past to verify that you didn't do anything strange with them too just to prove that it indeed was a one-off - or do you think admitting your mistake and allowing the evidence of the current issue to be examined is the right way to go?

Let me state one LAST time - I am trying to get to the bottom of the non-randomness of the doubling game during the period in question - NOTHING else. It's bad enough that I'm being sidetracked by a million (gee, maybe I better go count just to make sure) other things entirely unrelated to this issue.

 

[HKGambler]

To EH/OddsOn

Spear, why do you have to decide for EH not to turn over past log files? Did you actually ask them and they replied no way? At least I am interested in hearing what they think.

EH, know you are reading here:- Is it really that impractical to hand over log files, of say past 24 months, to some prestigious certified accountants for scrutiny? This is a wise move for you if you are really genuine & co-operative, like Spear described. At least that can shut lots of peoples mouth, if not all. Dont tell us it sets a bad precedent. Your case already is a bad precedent. Solve today before you think of tomorrow, maybe you have no.

Or, are you just expecting Spearmasters report on your codes that can settle the crowds frustration? I predict that Spears final report alone doesnt explain all (not intended to pour cold water onto Spears head).

Or, are you just sitting at your back office, praying this will end as soon as possible?

Or, are you planning to do something solidly more, than the code release alone, to our surprise, to save your already damaged reputation?

Answer us. Since youre not willing to come forward, emailing Bryan or Ted will do.

 

[thelawnet]

They chose the wrong test to begin with.

What test did they choose? First I heard you said they were saying if you went back to January 1st then things would look fair.

Then you said you just assumed January 1st, and it might be an earlier date.

Now are you saying that they did go back to January 1st but chose the wrong test?

If so, what kind of test did they use? I believe any test would show up the problem.

These excuses from them seem pretty thin. All evidence points to that first statement being complete bullshit (firstly, any test would show that the game was biased; secondly, they had just replaced the code in the game in question, and thirdly, the statement subsequently was acknowledged by them to be totally wrong, and in fact the game was rigged). Whether or not they accidentally put bad code in or not, I cannot see how the first statement can be explained as anything other than them attempting to deny what they knew well that they had done, namely provide a rigged game.

You can say you never cheated on your wife/gf/bf/significant other, and when caught claim it is a one-off after a heavy drinking session. Should you be required to produce all the people you have met in the past to verify that you didn't do anything strange with them too just to prove that it indeed was a one-off - or do you think admitting your mistake and allowing the evidence of the current issue to be examined is the right way to go?

I don't quite get the 'English Harbour don't have to justify themselves, they are doing everyone a favour by providing what info they have' schtick. Yes they do have to justify themselves. They have been caught once, and so the presumption of guilt is there. Not only that, but they are running the business, not me, not anybody else here. They need to convince players that they are honest. There should not be any 'ah we'll give you four months, but we can't be bothered to go back and check two years'. It is quite clearly not the same as a wife cheating on her husband: in that case the couple have some commitment to each other - you can't replace years of love, memories, possessions owned together - whereas the player's relationship with English Harbour is completely disposable, and could easily be replaced with any one of the thousand other online casinos. So no, this is not like a CHEATING wife.

The question of opening Pandora's box as you put it doesn't come into it. This is not a player trying to get paid, this is about English Harbour trying to convince everyone else that they are an honest casino, and as such they need to do whatever needs to be done to convince people. How hard can it be to provide 24 months data if they have already provided 4 months? I find it unlikely that they would provide accurate data in the event that they had previously 'flicked the switch', because it would basically prove that they deliberately cheated, but I don't see that English Harbour are any position to dictate what they will or won't do.

And why do they not explain why they left faulty code in place, and why they denied something was wrong, having just replaced some faulty code?

 

[thelawnet]

What Grandmaster said.

I think I addressed this much earlier in the thread - if you kept losing, would you continue to double? Then there is the issue of this thread warning people, and rightfully so...

Actually this thread came a couple of weeks after the cheating started. It didn't warn anyone, as they shut the game down very soon after this thread was posted.

But I don't think the decline is particularly notable: one, you go play something else if you start losing, and two, if you lose, you run out of money, so it's not possible for you to play any further.

So no great mystery.

 

[spearmaster]

What test did they choose?

What I meant by my statement is that they obviously did not choose to test daily results - rather, they tested a cumulative result over a period of time which I thought to date from January 1.

The question of opening Pandora's box as you put it doesn't come into it. This is not a player trying to get paid, this is about English Harbour trying to convince everyone else that they are an honest casino, and as such they need to do whatever needs to be done to convince people.

I completely disagree. And I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[soflat]

I don't think they are trying to convince players to give them a second chance. They have already written us off.

They are more interested in getting affiliates on board to attract new players. Eventually this thread will disappear into the depths of CM archives, and the new players won't have a clue.

They have avoided roguedom at CasinoMeister and WoO. Mission accomplished.

 

[kengam]

Ted, you seem to speak freely for English Harbour. Have you been in communication with them since the conference?

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, why do you have to decide for EH not to turn over past log files? Did you actually ask them and they replied no way? At least I am interested in hearing what they think.

I didn't decide for them. I said that I would not ask for them.

EH, know you are reading here:- Is it really that impractical to hand over log files, of say past 24 months, to some prestigious certified accountants for scrutiny? This is a wise move for you if you are really genuine & co-operative, like Spear described. At least that can shut lots of peoples mouth, if not all. Dont tell us it sets a bad precedent. Your case already is a bad precedent. Solve today before you think of tomorrow, maybe you have no.

Or, are you just expecting Spearmasters report on your codes that can settle the crowds frustration? I predict that Spears final report alone doesnt explain all (not intended to pour cold water onto Spears head).

Then why do I feel all wet Just teasing...

Or, are you just sitting at your back office, praying this will end as soon as possible?

Actually, there was another conference in Miami which I didn't attend. And one of them was in a car crash, already back home but obviously feeling very sore and awaiting test results, but not back in office yet.

Or, are you planning to do something solidly more, than the code release alone, to our surprise, to save your already damaged reputation?

Answer us. Since youre not willing to come forward, emailing Bryan or Ted will do.

See above. Naturally I think they should come forward but given the circumstances I don't blame them if they won't.

I don't think they are trying to convince players to give them a second chance. They have already written us off.

They are more interested in getting affiliates on board to attract new players. Eventually this thread will disappear into the depths of CM archives, and the new players won't have a clue.

This is not the case as far as I know. They had a separate issue with affiliates a couple years back which caused most of us to drop them, but nothing which would have affected players.

 

[derelict]

If you're going to make a claim, back it up with some evidence. You can't just shout "Fire!" and expect everyone to believe you when there isn't even any smoke present.

I don't expect anything to come of it based on his statement alone, but I do actually believe this player encountered an improbable house advantage in this game and understand his reasons for not disclosing his information. Considering this game was actually proven to be unfair recently, I think your statement about prior data being irrelevant is completely out of line.

You can say you never cheated on your wife/gf/bf/significant other, and when caught claim it is a one-off after a heavy drinking session. Should you be required to produce all the people you have met in the past to verify that you didn't do anything strange with them too just to prove that it indeed was a one-off - or do you think admitting your mistake and allowing the evidence of the current issue to be examined is the right way to go?

I think this is a poor analogy. To me a more appropriate one would be "You find an unauthorized transaction on your credit card statement. Should you check previous months and see if there are more suspect charges?"

Let me state one LAST time - I am trying to get to the bottom of the non-randomness of the doubling game during the period in question - NOTHING else. It's bad enough that I'm being sidetracked by a million (gee, maybe I better go count just to make sure) other things entirely unrelated to this issue.

If you think it would be productive, perhaps you should focus on that and provide something solid that supports your claim. No offense, but I think you would be fare better if you could come up with something plausible and verifiable to back up your conclusions.

My feeling is that because there's no way to force them to turn anything over, and no way to verify the authenticity of what they provide, that there will be no conclusive results from any investigation other than the one that thelawnet started with his post which proved conclusively that the game was unfair during the testing period. As far as I'm concerned there was nothing more for them to say after the game was proven unfair, the subsequent fix, and the subsequent denial.

 

[Linus]

I don't think they are trying to convince players to give them a second chance. They have already written us off.

They are more interested in getting affiliates on board to attract new players. Eventually this thread will disappear into the depths of CM archives, and the new players won't have a clue.

They have avoided roguedom at CasinoMeister and WoO. Mission accomplished.

I suspect that about sums it up.

Fortunately for them, they weren't accused of scraping.

 

[spearmaster]

I don't expect anything to come of it based on his statement alone, but I do actually believe this player encountered an improbable house advantage in this game and understand his reasons for not disclosing his information. Considering this game was actually proven to be unfair recently, I think your statement about prior data being irrelevant is completely out of line.

Prior data is not the issue AT ALL. Whether we believe it or not he still needs to give us some reasonable evidence that there might have been a problem.

I think this is a poor analogy. To me a more appropriate one would be "You find an unauthorized transaction on your credit card statement. Should you check previous months and see if there are more suspect charges?"

Your analogy may apply to a player, for sure. EH could themselves decide that they DO want to do a three-year audit - but that's their decision. I do not see the need for it and I am not going to press for it.

The longer we debate this issue, the longer it takes for me to do what I need to do to resolve the real issue. Which will it be? You want me to continue debating, I am happy to do so. But I would rather just get the other stuff over and done with if that's all right by all of you.

If you think it would be productive, perhaps you should focus on that and provide something solid that supports your claim. No offense, but I think you would be fare better if you could come up with something plausible and verifiable to back up your conclusions.

ummm.. that's what I would LIKE to do if I don't keep getting sidetracked?

 

[spearmaster]

Ted, you seem to speak freely for English Harbour. Have you been in communication with them since the conference?

Only just now by IM - when I discovered that one of them was in the car accident. I am not speaking on their behalf, as I have been pointing out all along - I am telling you what has happened since.

 

[soflat]

The longer we debate this issue, the longer it takes for me to do what I need to do to resolve the real issue. Which will it be? You want me to continue debating, I am happy to do so. But I would rather just get the other stuff over and done with if that's all right by all of you.

You might as well 'resolve' it.

If they haven't supplied any evidence by now, we ain't never gonna get it.

 

[spearmaster]

You might as well 'resolve' it.

If they haven't supplied any evidence by now, we ain't never gonna get it.

That's what I hope to do as soon as I can - resolve it. Only a few questions need answering, plus my sample code needs to be written, and diagram is almost complete.

I will try my best to get this done in the next two days - but if not I have to fly to Manila for a couple of days in which case it will be next week - sorry for the delays.

 

[mitch]

This silence from the Casino and OddsOn is disturbing me more and more.

Perhaps they are relying on the old premise that they are innocent until proven guilty. However, in the UK, if a possible offence is put to someone they are cautioned that if they fail to mention something that they subsequently rely on for their defence in court then this may harm their defense.

This clause in the caution was introduced fairly recently because clever criminals and their compliant lawyers were using the 'right' of silence to try and make the prosecution guess what issues they needed to look at and confirm, they would then try and ambush the prosecution in court with new material that the prosecution would be unable to verify. Many heavy criminals evaded justice because of this.

I find that people who refuse to answer questions when interviewed under caution have almost always got something to hide.
Innocent people are normally only too willing to answer questions. If they are telling the truth why not?

Lets be honest there is a possible offence here.
There is no doubt that the casino was using cheating software. The only question at issue is whether this was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud.

When originally they responded about the issue their answer was totally misleading and could not possibly accord with the known facts of the case.
This again could have been innocent due to a hurried and not fully considered reply. However, it could have been a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Since then there has been total silence on all the questions (a lot of them perfectly reasonable ones ) raised by their customers and other interested parties.

WHY?

They apparently have not opened up their logs to an independant firm of auditors. Why not? Whats the big deal? I can go onto many Casino sites and find monthly reports by firms like Price Waterhouse Cooper reporting on player payouts game by game from that casino. These reports can go back a long way.

EH are surely not relying on just Spear. He has access to only part of the picture not the whole picture.

EH had better get their arse in gear if they are going to recover their reputation.

Roguedom surely is looming the way things are panning out.

Mitch

 

[spearmaster]

Perhaps they are relying on the old premise that they are innocent until proven guilty.

I opined somewhere (can't remember) that this type of issue would naturally force people to assume guilty until proven innocent and that I would not blame anyone for taking this stance. And to be dead honest, this is the premise I operated under when I asked them to show me the code.

They apparently have not opened up their logs to an independant firm of auditors.

I believe that the Wiz is the auditor, as he certifies them with his "Certified Fair Gaming" seal. It's not PwC or Ernst & Young, but in my eyes the Wiz' certification is actually better because he understands gambling and the math behind it.

EH are surely not relying on just Spear. He has access to only part of the picture not the whole picture.

I'd say I have access to most, if not all, of the picture. It would be very difficult for me to render a fair opinion without the whole picture, and very unfair of me to even offer an opinion at all with only part of the picture.

 

[Linus]

...in that case the couple have some commitment to each other - you can't replace years of love, memories, possessions owned together...

Dude. I don't know who you're married to, but if my wife caught me cheating, a last will and testament might be in order... but explanations would be entirely beside the point!

 

[AceMan76]

Whether we believe it or not he still needs to give us some reasonable evidence that there might have been a problem

You are making a simple request much too complicated. It is about customer relations and establishing honesty. You are caught up in "relevance" and "evidence" . . . that is a great PR strategy They were caught with an unfair game in an industry known for its shenanigans. It is incumbent upon them to go the extra mile to restore their reputation.

Unless you work for EH, your thoughts on providing the game logs are "irrelevant" to me. I will also say this, and this is just my opinion, if I was EH, I would be asking you to shut the heck up because you sure are not helping their image any.

 

[Vesuvio]

The longer we debate this issue, the longer it takes for me to do what I need to do to resolve the real issue. Which will it be?

1) Requests for past data aren't aimed at you, Spear. We're appealing to EH - they can read and post without having to go through an intermediary. If you seriously don't think past data would be of any benefit here (even in strengthening EH's case) that's your opinion, but it's beside the point.

2) Assuming EH provided data and it showed rigging had also taken place in the past you could take a holiday as the present code would be irrelevent. We'd have resolved the issue and saved both time and hundreds of thousands of words of inconclusive debate. So the argument that requests for data are delaying anything is somewhat dubious.

Anyway, feel free just to finish your report. If EH don't want to provide data that's their choice - it's not up to you to explain their actions.

 

[soflat]

EH never provided the data the players requested. They only complied with The Wizard of Odds and Casino Meister requests because those are the two entities that could rogue them. EH doesn't seem to give a hoot about convincing players, just avoiding roguedom.

 

[tennis_balls]

Dude. I don't know who you're married to, but if my wife caught me cheating, a last will and testament might be in order...

unless she had a moment to compose herself as she'd surely stand to gain more financially by sparing your life.

 

[spearmaster]

unless she had a moment to compose herself as she'd surely stand to gain more financially by sparing your life.

In the heat of the moment of discovery, I hardly think that financial considerations would be foremost in her mind

 

[spearmaster]

A short update.

While waiting for the last bits of information, I did manage to create the brute force simulation based entirely on the scenario I had gleaned from the code - but without using or porting any of the actual code that was given to me. The script was written entirely from scratch to recreate a doubling game, with additional code to simulate the end result of the bonus game as I understood it.

The results of this brute force simulation are entirely consistent with the results shown in the logs - at least in my opinion, without any mathematical testing done against these results.

I do need these last bits of information in order to make sure my recreation of the scenario in code is accurate. Once this is done I will release the full simulation code, commented in great detail, along with a live demo for testing - but no graphics LOL, I don't think they are necessary for this simulation.

 

[big_mac]

That sounds like it should be interesting, I am sure that I am not the only one who would love to see the original code! But I am a very curious chap ;-)

FWIW, I am happy to believe that it looks very much like this was a stupid mistake (made enough of them myself).

Although I am curious as to why they were testing this new bonus game with VP in the first place, does the code give any clues to that? Are all the bonus games interchangeable, or was this one being specifically written for VP?
I know that sometimes, when you are testing a new feature, you put it in somewhere else so that it happens much more often and you can do the testing quicker.

Does it look like the new bonus game could have been designed to replace the old one? i.e. is it supposed to follow the same format, look, or have the same public method calls etc.
Does it look like the new bonus game was meant to be a 50/50 game, or was it meant to be weighted in some way?

Sorry if any of these were answered already, it's a lot of posts to get through - and hard to spot the details!

 

[spearmaster]

That sounds like it should be interesting, I am sure that I am not the only one who would love to see the original code! But I am a very curious chap ;-)

FWIW, I am happy to believe that it looks very much like this was a stupid mistake (made enough of them myself).

Although I am curious as to why they were testing this new bonus game with VP in the first place, does the code give any clues to that? Are all the bonus games interchangeable, or was this one being specifically written for VP?
I know that sometimes, when you are testing a new feature, you put it in somewhere else so that it happens much more often and you can do the testing quicker.

Does it look like the new bonus game could have been designed to replace the old one? i.e. is it supposed to follow the same format, look, or have the same public method calls etc.
Does it look like the new bonus game was meant to be a 50/50 game, or was it meant to be weighted in some way?

Sorry if any of these were answered already, it's a lot of posts to get through - and hard to spot the details!

Let me clarify what is going on LOL.

I wrote code to simulate the scenario based on what I surmised had happened - I did not have the actual code with me and really there was no need for it because I had already studied the scenario.

What I will release is my simulation code - obviously not the original code that was given to me by EH. But the simulation code will pretty much show what happened as it runs in a very similar manner.

The simulation I wrote does not include the bonus code because ultimately that bonus code was irrelevant, except for the part where it overwrote the wrong array. It will, however, have some bit to simulate weighting, although what I release to the public will be evenly weighted as the actual weights would not make a significant difference and of course are proprietary. This bonus code was meant for the VP games only, though I believe it was derived from other bonus game code used elsewhere.

The new bonus game was NOT in any way designed to replace the standard doubling game. It was meant to be an enhancement in that, on random occasions (think RapidFire at Intercasino, or perhaps the Heroes jackpot) give you a CHOICE of whether or not you would like to risk your doubled winnings for the chance of up to 10x multiplier, hence the weighting was introduced. This bonus game is not meant to be mandatory at any stage so if a player only wanted to play the normal doubling game he could do so.

There is NO weighting code for the normal doubling game at all.

I'm going to try and make my simulation code cleaner, and the output more comprehensive so it will be easy to follow along to see what happened.

Thanks for the questions!

 

[120sam]

I want to know for myself - if you don't WANT me to get the answer then I won't waste my time telling you.

I assume this was written in haste, and that you're not seriously suggesting that you will, in addition to filtering the questions you think are suitable to be put to EH, now also be filtering any information that may flow in the other direction, on the basis of who annoys you ?

The longer we debate this issue, the longer it takes for me to do what I need to do to resolve the real issue. Which will it be? You want me to continue debating, I am happy to do so. But I would rather just get the other stuff over and done with if that's all right by all of you.

You still think the real issue is whether the game was fixed deliberately or through mind-blowing incompetence? That's no longer the issue for me, it has become an irrelevance. And any "resolution" of that issue will leave a whole lot of other issues unresolved, all of which have been raised in this thread, all of which have been ignored by EH.

All EH have done so far is pay Spearmaster the huge compliment of being the first in the industry to get code from an online casino (the code that they chose to show him anyway), and left him to handle all the flak for them, which he has voluntarily done (although I can't for the life of me work out why).

EH seems to think that if a question hasn't been asked by Spearmaster then they don't need to answer it. This seems to be a view shared by Spearmaster. You really need to define your role here Spearmaster, first you were checking the code, now you're doing what? If you resent having your time wasted by forum members raising legitimate questions and concerns why do you respond to them? Why don't you just stand back and let EH do it, while you get on with checking the code? And if EH don't respond, let their silence speak volumes.

Those seeking the banning of internet gambling can hold up EH as the perfect example of the type of cowboy operation that is currently operating in the industry. They can get away with bent games, incompetence, and ignoring their customers. This case also illustrates a complete absence of effective controls and consequences. The only consequence is that those who know about EH (or remember this in a few months from now) will never go near them again.

 

[kengam]

Spearmaster...I do not understand what significance your simulated code will have on the defense of English Harbour as it is absolutely clear to me that you are hell bent on defending them. You are telling us that you wrote a pseudo code in a short period of time. How do we know that isn't exactly what their programmers did in the weeks time they had to submit this code to you? If you look back at the timeline they had much more time coming up with this sloppy code than you have spent.

You seem to be the only one who believes that past history logs are unimportant to their defense. Perhaps your pandora box theory is a little exaggerated. Since you will not ask for the logs, I will ask for them personally. If they had nothing to hide they would have provided them already. You alone have given them an excuse to not provide them. You are muddying the waters here between players and management.

 

[spearmaster]

Spearmaster...I do not understand what significance your simulated code will have on the defense of English Harbour as it is absolutely clear to me that you are hell bent on defending them. You are telling us that you wrote a pseudo code in a short period of time. How do we know that isn't exactly what their programmers did in the weeks time they had to submit this code to you? If you look back at the timeline they had much more time coming up with this sloppy code than you have spent.

You seem to be the only one who believes that past history logs are unimportant to their defense. Perhaps your pandora box theory is a little exaggerated. Since you will not ask for the logs, I will ask for them personally. If they had nothing to hide they would have provided them already. You alone have given them an excuse to not provide them. You are muddying the waters here between players and management.

I thought we agreed we were not going to start this up again?

I did not write a game. I wrote what I said would be code to simulate the scenario - you cannot draw any distinctions between my code and their code, plus their code was not used, copied, or reverse-engineered in my simulation - in fact it was nowhere to be seen when I wrote it.

I answered your questions, and I will answer more of your questions, and you promised to stop getting on my case. So what prompted you to start up again, the fact that I did a brute-force test which shows that the scenario is consistent with their logs?

You may ask all you want for their logs and if they deliver that's up to them. But I have already said that *I* will not be examining them and that is final. And if they decide they don't want to divulge the logs for whatever reason, don't even think about blaming me.

absolutely clear to me that you are hell bent on defending them

And no more of this shit. If the scenario had NOT panned out then I would have been asking a LOT more questions.

 

[big_mac]

What I will release is my simulation code - obviously not the original code that was given to me by EH. But the simulation code will pretty much show what happened as it runs in a very similar manner.

I understood that bit! I am not expecting to get to see their code, particularly if it's as bad as you say it is, they are probably embarassed ;-) Actually, I could do with a job for the summer, maybe I could tidy it up for them.......

The new bonus game was NOT in any way designed to replace the standard doubling game..... This bonus game is not meant to be mandatory at any stage so if a player only wanted to play the normal doubling game he could do so.

That's what I wanted to know. Although you had said this before, I was a bit cynical that you were just taking their word for it - but I understand better now.

I'm going to try and make my simulation code cleaner, and the output more comprehensive so it will be easy to follow along to see what happened.

I look forward to seeing it!
Thanks for the answers.

 

[kengam]

I did not write a game. I wrote what I said would be code to simulate the scenario - you cannot draw any distinctions between my code and their code, plus their code was not used, copied, or reverse-engineered in my simulation - in fact it was nowhere to be seen when I wrote it

Explain how this is going to help us? Sounds like a waste of time to me. I am being civil, but I stand by my statement that you are hurting our chances of ever seeing the logs from years past.