Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[spearmaster]

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.

Accusing me of being biased isn't that civil... I'm as interested the truth as everyone else, and I'm willing to go as far as I can in order to discover this truth.

The code was written without any knowledge of what the result would be. If it had turned out that the numbers were wrong, there likely would have been hell to pay. As it turns out, though, the scenario supports what has been seen in the logs.

I mentioned at least a couple of times in the last few days that I would be doing brute-force simulation as well as releasing that code publicly - and you made no mention of it then - why would you bring it up after the results of the simulation appear to support the casino? Would you have said the same thing if the results did not appear to support the casino?

 

[kengam]

Spear, I just want to see the double up logs for the last 3 years. That is my concern. I don't care what code they sent you. The game was cheating in April. I have reason to believe it was cheating at other times before that.

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PAST LOGS? Everyone else here has posted that it would be helpful to see them.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, I just want to see the double up logs for the last 3 years. That is my concern. I don't care what code they sent you. The game was cheating in April. I have reason to believe it was cheating at other times before that.

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PAST LOGS? Everyone else here has posted that it would be helpful to see them.

I said that the past logs have no relevance to the current issue. I did not say anything about their significance or lack thereof. And I also said that if someone posted reasonable evidence that there was a problem in the past, that I would look into it.

Since you are the only one actually claiming a problem in the past, and you can't or won't provide reasonable evidence, I see no reason to proceed.

It is simply unreasonable to call for logs based solely on the belief that you might have not had a fair game, because players constantly claim that "this casino cheats", "that game is unfair", etc. and if we looked into your unsubstantiated claim, we would then be told we should look into all these other unsubstantiated claims, and if we didn't we would be accused of being biased.

Definite no-win for me or anyone else trying to help out. So, if you want the logs, and the casino is willing to give them you on the basis of your claim, I won't be the one looking into it.

I do agree that revealing them and showing fairness of their games in the past would probably benefit the casino.

But that's what I call a Pandora's Box - and it is not exaggerated in the slightest.

 

[kengam]

It is simply unreasonable to call for logs based solely on the belief that you might have not had a fair game, because players constantly claim that "this casino cheats", "that game is unfair", etc.

While this is true the one problem is THIS CASINO DID CHEAT. How is it unreasonable? You are alone in your thinking on this. Did you ever for a second think that you have been had? Have you ever been wrong in your life? Your Pandoras Box analogy works fine in cases where the casino had not been caught cheating. English Harbour was caught and it is up to THEM to prove that it didn't happen before.

 

[spearmaster]

While this is true the one problem is THIS CASINO DID CHEAT. How is it unreasonable? You are alone in your thinking on this. Did you ever for a second think that you have been had? Have you ever been wrong in your life? Your Pandoras Box analogy works fine in cases where the casino had not been caught cheating. English Harbour was caught and it is up to THEM to prove that it didn't happen before.

My definition of "cheat" includes "willfully" or "deliberately". Caught with their pants down, yes. Non-random, yes. Cheating, still undetermined.

You are alone in your thinking on this. Did you ever for a second think that you have been had? Have you ever been wrong in your life?

You're crossing that "civil" line again.

 

[kengam]

enough with your little warnings. Ban me if you feel it is necessary, but I will continue to speak my mind.

 

[spearmaster]

enough with your little warnings. Ban me if you feel it is necessary, but I will continue to speak my mind.

Pardon me if I hold you to your own promises.

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

 

[chalupa]

I think in retrospect (I would imagine Spear agrees by now ) a more independent programming expert should have examined the code.

Not someone who is also involved in the industry, too busy to investigate quickly, and most importantly -- a moderator on this board, with the power (which was excercised) to suspend user accounts and close polls which he felt were unfair to English Harbour, while we waited (and waited).

Those factors severely distract from the only question that really can be answered by examining the code: "Does the code as provided by English Harbour explain the irregular doubling results?" That question could have (and should have) been answered quickly and dispassionately.

The rest of the defense of English Harbour is of course opinion and conjecture. And it is English Harbour's fight to fight, not a hapless intermediary's problem.

English Harbour / OddsOn has not been at all forthcoming. The explanation for how this screwup occurred should have been supplied by them directly long ago.

Based on what Spear has reported so far, I would guess that it is probably an inadvertent screwup.

But even assuming that's true, thay have not explained when the bonus game code was originally introduced, or whether it was being tested at other points in the past.

They should have immediately provided a comprehensive analysis of all log files from the time anyone ever started messing with the code to present, to allay fears that it was broken during some period(s) in the past. They should continue to provide log files for at least several months in the future to show that the problem is indeed fixed.

And, of course, they should have explained what systems they are (hopefully!) putting in place to make sure that a similar problem does not go undetected in the future.

They have yet to directly reply to any of the numerous legitimate concerns raised in this thread. They are coming up awfully short in a number of respects. The magnitude of the error demands better.

As has been pointed out... they ain't exactly the only game in town. We're already gambling -- who needs the extra uncertainty?

 

[spearmaster]

I think in retrospect (I would imagine Spear agrees by now ) a more independent programming expert should have examined the code.

Not necessarily - one of the problems is that a person examining the code does have to have reasonable knowledge of the game being analyzed.

Not someone who is also involved in the industry, too busy to investigate quickly, and most importantly -- a moderator on this board, with the power (which was excercised) to suspend user accounts and close polls which he felt were unfair to English Harbour, while we waited (and waited).

This moderator suspended one user account in relation to this issue after repeated warnings that wild speculation would not be tolerated. The polls were suspended because they both were based on speculation alone and could have been unfair to EH.

The rest of the defense of English Harbour is of course opinion and conjecture. And it is English Harbour's fight to fight, not a hapless intermediary's problem.

Hapless? LOL, don't know if I would agree with that...

But even assuming that's true, thay have not explained when the bonus game code was originally introduced, or whether it was being tested at other points in the past.

My understanding is that this game was not introduced or ready to be introduced. If you mean introduced into the coding itself rather than being able to be played, that I don't have an answer for.

And, of course, they should have explained what systems they are (hopefully!) putting in place to make sure that a similar problem does not go undetected in the future.

This I fully agree with.

 

[The Dude]

Not someone who is also involved in the industry, too busy to investigate quickly, and most importantly -- a moderator on this board, with the power (which was excercised) to suspend user accounts and close polls which he felt were unfair to English Harbour, while we waited (and waited).

Actually, I would rather have Spear deal with this than some other third party entity - especially one we are unfamiliar with. Reason? Spear can't be bought off, and I'll put my reputation on the line to back him up. I wouldn't do that with ACME Auditing Ltd. So I think we have the best thing going for now. There's something to be said about a self-regulating industry.

Sure Spear is a moderator here, and yes he suspended one account of a member who has a history of ignoring forum rules and guidelines. (Spear did warn people to chill, did he not?) Keeping a thread on track is a very difficult job, especially ones like this that are so heated yet so important. We cannot afford to let it spin out of control with emotionalism; this is a discussion - not a witch hunt.

Moderation is tough work and the only thing he gets out of it is recognition and maybe a dinner once or twice a year from me.

As for hurrying for the results, I would rather have the results from something well-thought out than hastily done.

 

[Pinababy69]

Moderation is tough work and the only thing he gets out of it is recognition and maybe a dinner once or twice a year from me.

Maybe next time you guys meet up Bryan, you could make sure he gets something better than a lousy hamburger and some soggy fries? LOL......

 

[The Dude]

Maybe next time you guys meet up Bryan, you could make sure he gets something better than a lousy hamburger and some soggy fries? LOL......

FTR: if you are referring to the fries Spear had during the lunch meeting with EH. They were not soggy; they were totally excellent.

 

[spearmaster]

Actually, if there weren't any fries there would have been a big problem... the fries were half-decent.

The dinner Meister treated me to was really excellent though... needless to say it was more than wine and cheese and I'll have to try hard not to become biased

 

[chalupa]

Not necessarily - one of the problems is that a person examining the code does have to have reasonable knowledge of the game being analyzed.

I have difficulty imagining a programming expert who can't understand how a video poker game (and specifically a double-down game) is supposed to work within 5 minutes of playing one.

My understanding is that this game was not introduced or ready to be introduced. If you mean introduced into the coding itself rather than being able to be played, that I don't have an answer for.

Yes, that's what I mean. From what I understand, code was written, they were goofing around testing it, then didn't correctly comment it all out before uploading it to the live server.

Unless all that code was written and (mostly) removed within one release cycle, it stands to reason that at some previous point there was code being tested... and possibly not being completely removed.

Certainly it is a completely valid concern for a player to have, and one that English Harbour should be making every effort to dispell. The fact that they didn't immediately release a longer historical record (and still have not) can only cause doubt and suspicion in players' minds.

This moderator suspended... because... unfair to EH.

Your defensive response simply underscores the problem. The reasons for the suspensions are almost immaterial. Whether players agree with your reasons or not, you are clearly not an unencumbered examiner of code.

A truly independent examiner would not care if something was unfair to English Harbour, wouldn't be defending them or comparing them favorably to others in the industry, or wasting time defending his public profile from personal attacks... etc. He would simply report his findings on the code. And those findings would be much more likely to be taken at face value.

Your apparent personal relationship with English Harbour execs certainly doesn't help perceptions either. And perceptions are extremely important, because players have to place a HUGE amount of faith in these invisible offshore unregulated easily-riggable casinos.

I personally am not questioning your integrity, but nonetheless I think English Harbour did themselves and you a big disservice by involving you in this manner, given your pre-existing roles.

Perhaps that's difficult to see while you are embroiled in this nearly thankless situation... but it's pretty clear from here. You poor hapless sucker.

 

[Pinababy69]

Actually, if there weren't any fries there would have been a big problem... the fries were half-decent.

Nice to know we do something right here in Canada, lol.... Glad you guys enjoyed them.

The dinner Meister treated me to was really excellent though... needless to say it was more than wine and cheese and I'll have to try hard not to become biased

LMFAO..... touche Spear.

 

[Vesuvio]

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.

It's a shame about the graphics, though. One of the key issues here is the credibility of this unusual bonus game as a genuine "enhancement" they planned to introduce and not simply as a card-rigging routine that somehow found its way onto the server. Some graphical evidence for the game would make it hugely more plausible.

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.

I don't doubt for a second the overall code you were given produces the results suggested, but if we're going to get any closer to resolving the question of intent through the code then we also need to know the details of how the results were produced. Again, the bonus code is central to this. There shouldn't be a problem giving away proprietary details of a way of dealing weighted cards as no fair (and sane) casino software company would ever introduce such a thing

 

[spearmaster]

I have difficulty imagining a programming expert who can't understand how a video poker game (and specifically a double-down game) is supposed to work within 5 minutes of playing one.

One still has to sort out what is what. A person who would not be a VP player would have to take some time to sort this out.

That being said, working out a doubling game is not, as some people might put it, rocket science. But you still have the apparently unintended interference from the bonus game.

Yes, that's what I mean. From what I understand, code was written, they were goofing around testing it, then didn't correctly comment it all out before uploading it to the live server.

Unless all that code was written and (mostly) removed within one release cycle, it stands to reason that at some previous point there was code being tested... and possibly not being completely removed.

Agreed.

Certainly it is a completely valid concern for a player to have, and one that English Harbour should be making every effort to dispell. The fact that they didn't immediately release a longer historical record (and still have not) can only cause doubt and suspicion in players' minds.

I'm still not convinced that a longer historical record has anything to do with this issue at all. You have to consider a few basic things:

1. The game did operate properly for the first part of April.
2. A problem like this surely would have been raised earlier if it existed because it was such a huge disadvantage to the player - and surely no one could have missed this - you see in the forums even really obscure casinos are being challenged on similar things - how in the world could EH have escaped being noticed?

You might not consider that enough reason NOT to look - but I do.

Your defensive response simply underscores the problem. The reasons for the suspensions are almost immaterial. Whether players agree with your reasons or not, you are clearly not an unencumbered examiner of code.

Disagree. Warning was issued at LEAST twice, if not more - and was NOT heeded. Our job as moderators is are exactly as our titles describe. Had someone from EH came in here and tried a similar tactic they would have received exactly the same treatment. And when other casino reps come in here and spam or pose as a player, intentional or not, they too get the same treatment.

Let me point out that Caruso was the first person I banned for something other than spam - so it's not like I have a track record of banning people who disagree with me... sheesh...

A truly independent examiner would not care if something was unfair to English Harbour, wouldn't be defending them or comparing them favorably to others in the industry, or wasting time defending his public profile from personal attacks... etc. He would simply report his findings on the code. And those findings would be much more likely to be taken at face value.

See above. All posters in here are treated the same way provided they follow the rules.

Keep in mind that I am not being paid for this work or investigation, whereas what you term as a "truly independent" examiner or auditor most indeed gets paid for his work. So if I appear a bit irritable at times you might be able to understand why.

Your apparent personal relationship with English Harbour execs certainly doesn't help perceptions either. And perceptions are extremely important, because players have to place a HUGE amount of faith in these invisible offshore unregulated easily-riggable casinos.

My personal relationship with EH execs have generally consisted of "Hello, how are you, how's business" and that's about it. I am perfectly happy to disclose the extent of any relationship - and in fact have done so before and multiple times.

I personally am not questioning your integrity, but nonetheless I think English Harbour did themselves and you a big disservice by involving you in this manner, given your pre-existing roles.

They did not involve me. I involved myself. I take sole responsibility for trying to investigate this issue. And again I will repeat that EH has cooperated in a manner unlike other operations by releasing their code - and have not once tried to influence, suggest, or otherwise manipulate the outcome.

Perhaps that's difficult to see while you are embroiled in this nearly thankless situation... but it's pretty clear from here. You poor hapless sucker.

LOL. Not hapless. Maybe hardheaded, but as I said above I involved myself of my own free will, with no pressure from anyone to do so.

 

[spearmaster]

It's a shame about the graphics, though. One of the key issues here is the credibility of this unusual bonus game as a genuine "enhancement" they planned to introduce and not simply as a card-rigging routine that somehow found its way onto the server. Some graphical evidence for the game would make it hugely more plausible.

I think I said somewhere before that graphics are usually produced after the fact - I know I always prototype with code and text first. And frankly, I don't think there would be any significant amount of special graphics involved in any case.

Your point is taken, however.

I don't doubt for a second the overall code you were given produces the results suggested, but if we're going to get any closer to resolving the question of intent through the code then we also need to know the details of how the results were produced. Again, the bonus code is central to this. There shouldn't be a problem giving away proprietary details of a way of dealing weighted cards as no fair (and sane) casino software company would ever introduce such a thing

I did say I would try to detail as much as possible - whether or not it's exactly what you are looking for or not will be known soon as I am done anyhow The bonus code is not really that central, you might compare it to a bystander on the street somehow caught up in an accident.

The dealing of weighted cards is only supposed to occur in the bonus game itself - not in the doubling function. I am, however, going to show in the code the exact same results delivered by the doubling function, then with the overwrite I will show what an evenly weighted result would have delivered after the error occurred. And in the visible results, but not in the code, I will show what effect the weighted result would have had on exactly the same results - I cannot release the actual weights to you but I am expecting that the change in results will be very slight.

I will do my best to deliver as clear a picture as possible - I am trying to anticipate what you might look for as a player because I am myself approaching this from the perspective of a player.

edit -> By the way, I should add that the brute-force code I wrote used a completely random deck without weighting - and is already more or less consistent with the results - this is why I don't believe the weighting will make any difference.

 

[Zoozie]

1. The game did operate properly for the first part of April.
2. A problem like this surely would have been raised earlier if it existed because it was such a huge disadvantage to the player - and surely no one could have missed this - you see in the forums even really obscure casinos are being challenged on similar things - how in the world could EH have escaped being noticed?

We all agree that the bug has not existed in the same form for a very long time. But I am still suspecious about doubling as I myself about 6 months ago had a very bad loosing streak doubling in VP (but only 1 to 15000 I think, so possible).

The bug could have been there forever, but if the second bonus game was a 'fair' game, it would not have been discovered. It would actually be a perfect fair doubling. But what if this parameter for the second bonus game has been changed multiple times during development? And it was just in the last
release that it was changed so much it became obvious?
( It could have been 40% win ratio at some time earlier)

I see two ways to settle this:
1) Provide old data for the doubling
2) Access to the version history for the code (CVS etc.)

Zoozie

 

[spearmaster]

The bug could have been there forever, but if the second bonus game was a 'fair' game, it would not have been discovered. It would actually be a perfect fair doubling. But what if this parameter for the second bonus game has been changed multiple times during development? And it was just in the last release that it was changed so much it became obvious ( It could have been 40% win ratio at some time earlier)

It's not a parameter - that's the whole point. This code could not have been present in a live game in the past because even with a NORMAL deck the error would have resulted in the logs you see for the period in question.

I see two ways to settle this:
1) Provide old data for the doubling
2) Access to the version history for the code (CVS etc.)

Zoozie

Again, access to the logs doesn't make any sense because there isn't any sort of switch present. This code is not possible to tweak in the manner you described because, as I said, even with a normal deck the results would have caused a huge discrepancy had the bonus code been enabled in any way.

Access to the CVS would be wonderful! LOL... but somehow I really doubt that would happen especially since the code has never been open source

 

[ftg]

The polls were suspended because they both were based on speculation alone and could have been unfair to EH.

Please explain how this poll was based on speculation alone and could have been unfair to EH.

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

Will you continue to play at the EH/Odds On casinos?

1. NO! Never at neither at EH nor Odds On.

2. Never at EH but other Odds On OK.

3. Depends on further Wiz/Spearmaster/EH/Odds findings/announcements

4. YES! Both EH and Odds On casinos



Would you have suspended the poll if 100% voters had chosen #3?

 

[spearmaster]

The poll was not appropriate because it would have required members to formulate an opinion based on an ongoing situation which had not been resolved.

Furthermore, this was the second poll put up regarding this issue - after the first I had already requested that no more polls regading this issue be put up in the meantime. The poll would have been suspended under any and all circumstances irrespective of any votes that had been recorded up to that point and regardless of which option had been chosen.

 

[ftg]

Regarding examining the previous 3-year logs, I have some words to add.

If on the other hand, the game had been discovered to be in favour of the players instead of the house, would EH/Odds On look at the previous logs? I believe most likely they would.

In fact, perhaps they have looked at the logs already.

 

[ftg]

The poll was not appropriate because it would have required members to formulate an opinion based on an ongoing situation which had not been resolved.

Furthermore, this was the second poll put up regarding this issue - after the first I had already requested that no more polls regading this issue be put up in the meantime. The poll would have been suspended under any and all circumstances irrespective of any votes that had been recorded up to that point and regardless of which option had been chosen.

Just can't agree. A poll is a poll.

The polls were suspended because they both were based on speculation alone and could have been unfair to EH.

You said it's based on speculation alone in your earlier post, and when I asked you reason for that, you said it's becasue it "required members to formulate an opinion based on an ongoing situation".

What's wrong with a poll based on ongoing situation?


But anyway, you are the modulator.

 

[spearmaster]

Regarding examining the previous 3-year logs, I have some words to add.

If on the other hand, the game had been discovered to be in favour of the players instead of the house, would EH/Odds On look at the previous logs? I believe most likely they would.

In fact, perhaps they have looked at the logs already.

The answer to that would most likely be no because they would obviously know when they added code and when a problem would have been likely to occur. But that is neither here nor there.

In addition to that, as part of an ongoing audit process, I suspect they would be looking at the logs on a regular basis to begin with. So they would have had no reason to go over three years' worth of logs again.

 

[ftg]

The answer to that would most likely be no because they would obviously know when they added code and when a problem would have been likely to occur. But that is neither here nor there.

In addition to that, as part of an ongoing audit process, I suspect they would be looking at the logs on a regular basis to begin with. So they would have had no reason to go over three years' worth of logs again.

Honestly, if I were the shareholder of EH/Odds On, I would have asked the mangers to audit all the double up games in VP, if not all the games for at least 2 years. And I would have instructed them to release the logs, if and only if the logs shows normal results.

 

[soflat]

How frustrating!

So many people believe in the importance of looking back further in the logs, except this one individual.

And I think the only person who hasn't expressed an opinion about a 2-3 year log audit is Casinomeister himself (probably the only person who could convince Spearmaster).

The code is such a distraction.

And what ever happened to the Wizard of Odds? His original statement indicated he would be looking further back in the logs. But not a peep in weeks. Does he really look at the doubling game logs every month as part of his audits, or is it just the RNG or just overall percentages?

 

[ftg]

How frustrating!
So many people believe in the importance of looking back further in the logs, except this one individual.

Very frustrating indeed.

"The codes is the king"!

The casino would only give out codes that produce the results for the half month but Spearmaster is writing simulation to prove that the codes actually produced the abnormal results.

 

[kengam]

Is it possible that the code you are reviewing was written to be a cheat switch? They could add it to an update and run it as long as they want and then fix itself with another update. This is essentially what they did. It could have been written to look like a subroutine, but maybe they knew what it would cause to the normal double up game.

deciphering this code doesn't seem to be the issue to me. Discovering how the code got there and whether it was ever placed there before seems to be the ultimate question.

I think it is entirely possible that the code you are viewing is nothing more than an elaborate cheat switch. Think about it, if you were going to put cheating code into a game wouldn't you disguise it in the form of a standard upgrade or game change. Then if they were ever caught they would have an excuse which might be the case here.

 

[120sam]

Originally Posted by spearmaster
The poll was not appropriate because it would have required members to formulate an opinion based on an ongoing situation which had not been resolved.

I'm sure all forum members are looking forward to the happy day when all will be resolved and we are finally allowed to formulate an opinion. For me resolution will include EH breaking their silence and answering all issues raised in this thread. Can you give me some kind of timeframe for this Spearmaster? An approximation will do. I only ask so that I can give my brain some advance warning of when it will be allowed to start thinking.

 

[erp1]

I said that the past logs have no relevance to the current issue. I did not say anything about their significance or lack thereof. And I also said that if someone posted reasonable evidence that there was a problem in the past, that I would look into it.

Since you are the only one actually claiming a problem in the past, and you can't or won't provide reasonable evidence, I see no reason to proceed.

Let's not try to fool each other. It's a proven fact that EH in the second half of April offered a game that was dealing second. The issue is not IF they were dealing second in that period. The issue is not IF the game was fair but WHY it was NOT fair.

When the result of a bug is a game that is dealing second, we all know that intentional cheating is a possible explanation.

Their first explanation that nothing is wrong was obvious a lie. What about their second explanation - a bug?

I and several other readers of this forum have shown an open mind to consider alternative explanations. Maybe their claim is correct - maybe not!!!

They have the right to decide if they want to publish facts to support a claim of fairness before the mentioned period in April. And they have the right to decide if they want to publish arguments to claim that introduction of a second array that represent weighted card is a legitimate part of a fair game. And we have the right to weight the importance of facts and arguments we ask for including facts and arguments we ask for but are not given.

But that's what I call a Pandora's Box - and it is not exaggerated in the slightest.

They opened Pandora's box when they made changes in the code on April 12. Not the players.

EH/Odds On have had the ball in almost a month. The way EH/Odds On have treated the whole affair have not made it easier to keep an open mind to alternative explanations that do not involve intentional cheating.

 

[spearmaster]

Frustrated, are we?

I guess I should expect that from people who are unwilling to accept the possibility that the casino MIGHT just have unintentionally made a mistake.

People who cannot accept that the manner in which the code was written, and unintentionally enabled, points very strongly to the fact that this code has never been live in the past.

People who cannot accept that the results of this code are consistent with what is shown in the logs.

People who cannot accept that there is increasingly less evidence to support their contention that the casino deliberately cheated them.

Well, guess what guys?

The truth shall come out, no matter how much you don't want it to, now that you know it's unlikely that the error was deliberate.

And you shall have a few more days to express your frustrations because I am not going to be making a statement of any sort today, nor will I further respond to the pack of dogs baying for blood.

 

[tennis_balls]

The truth shall come out, no matter how much you don't want it to, now that you know it's unlikely that the error was deliberate.

seriously, spear. were you on O.J.'s defense team?

nor will I further respond to the pack of dogs baying for blood.

howooooooooooolll! grrrr!......grrrr!......howhow...howoooooooollll!!!.....arf!

 

[soflat]

Frustrated, are we?

I guess I should expect that from people who are unwilling to accept the possibility that the casino MIGHT just have unintentionally made a mistake.

That is NOT TRUE. I am willing to accept that the casino unintentially made a mistake.

People who cannot accept that the manner in which the code was written, and unintentionally enabled, points very strongly to the fact that this code has never been live in the past.

People who cannot accept that the results of this code are consistent with what is shown in the logs.

People who cannot accept that there is increasingly less evidence to support their contention that the casino deliberately cheated them.

Well, guess what guys?

The truth shall come out, no matter how much you don't want it to, now that you know it's unlikely that the error was deliberate.

This is CRAZY. I don't think the request is so unreasonable. You belittle us and our intelligence because we want to see certain evidence.

And you shall have a few more days to express your frustrations because I am not going to be making a statement of any sort today, nor will I further respond to the pack of dogs baying for blood.

This is why I hope Casinomeister can step in. You think we are baying dogs, but I think we are intelligent gamblers who are making a reasonable request. I never attacked you or the casino. Nor did most posters. Why belittle us like this?

Spearmaster, please stick by your word not to respond if you are just going to ridicule us.

 

[ftg]

We only see that one person here excludes all the possibilities but the casino is innocent.

BTW, I still open for any possibilities and that's why the exmaination of past logs is important. If we had any conclusion, we don't need to get the logs. Make sense?

I repeat myself here: Honestly, if I were the shareholder of EH/Odds On, I would have asked the mangers to audit all the double up games in VP, if not all the games for at least 2 years.

 

[kengam]

People who cannot accept that the manner in which the code was written, and unintentionally enabled, points very strongly to the fact that this code has never been live in the past.

People who cannot accept that there is increasingly less evidence to support their contention that the casino deliberately cheated them.

You are showing that the codes you have would give the rigged results from the time in question. It got there somehow by an update that was not supposed to happen. Please tell me how this further proves that the cheat wasn't deliberate? You have provided no reason why this code couldn't have mysteriously entered during any other update prior to this event and then fixed by a subsequesnt update sometime thereafter. I told you long ago that you were wasting your time with this code. You have no idea if this was used before. It happened with an update in April, why couldn't it have happened with an update in say November? You have no idea other than the fact that they told you it was a one time thing.

All of your "guesses" seem to lean towards EH's innocence. I am not surprised though.

 

[thechap]

Frustrated, are we?

I guess I should expect that from people who are unwilling to accept the possibility that the casino MIGHT just have unintentionally made a mistake.

People who cannot accept that the manner in which the code was written, and unintentionally enabled, points very strongly to the fact that this code has never been live in the past.

People who cannot accept that the results of this code are consistent with what is shown in the logs.

People who cannot accept that there is increasingly less evidence to support their contention that the casino deliberately cheated them.

Well, guess what guys?

The truth shall come out, no matter how much you don't want it to, now that you know it's unlikely that the error was deliberate.

And you shall have a few more days to express your frustrations because I am not going to be making a statement of any sort today, nor will I further respond to the pack of dogs baying for blood.

Just from skimming it seems like your not taking a neutral view and instead you're efforts are totally screwed towards proving innocence. For your report to be concise you need to remove the bias, and just factually lay out everything.

 

[HKGambler]

Please explain how this poll was based on speculation alone and could have been unfair to EH.

Give up on the poll. A poll had never been, is not, will not be an accurate indicator of the truth.

A poll. Not a poll. Makes no difference because the truth is already there in the bygone 600+ posts. It's already in my heart.

The ultimate real power lies in the hands of the truth beholders. To the real rogues, we can sink them.

 

[120sam]

Frustrated, are we?

Yes.

I guess I should expect that from people who are unwilling to accept the possibility that the casino MIGHT just have unintentionally made a mistake.

Doesn't apply to me. Which people are they?

People who cannot accept that there is increasingly less evidence to support their contention that the casino deliberately cheated them.

Doesn't apply to me either. Never assumed it was deliberate cheating. I don't care if it was deliberate or not. I hope someone still does.

The truth shall come out, no matter how much you don't want it to

Well that is good news, but is there really any need to speak in the manner of a champion of truth and justice alone against the world? We are all champions of truth and justice here, My cape is red.

And you shall have a few more days to express your frustrations because I am not going to be making a statement of any sort today

Well to be honest it's EH's statements I want to read anyway, maybe they'll fill in for you.

nor will I further respond to the pack of dogs baying for blood.

I can't hear any barking. You're saying you can? How long has this been going on?

 

[derelict]

People who cannot accept that the results of this code are consistent with what is shown in the logs.

Maybe I missed it but I have yet to see anyone say that the code you've got does not cause the problem seen in the logs. I certainly would assume it does.

People who cannot accept that there is increasingly less evidence to support their contention that the casino deliberately cheated them.

I chuckled right here. The whole problem is that there is hardly any meaningful evidence at all. The report you're working on is great and useful but can in no way from the information provided prove intent and history which are the real issues at hand.

 

[kengam]

Spearmaster, I think you should drop all your efforts at this time. You are making a mess of the whole situation. You have obviously become too emotional and are losing your wit and patience.

The sooner you wash your hands of this the sooner English Harbour themselves would have to come and defend their business. You are hurting our chances of ever getting answers and finding out the truth. How can you not see that?

 

[spearmaster]

Spearmaster, I think you should drop all your efforts at this time. You are making a mess of the whole situation. You have obviously become too emotional and are losing your wit and patience.

The sooner you wash your hands of this the sooner English Harbour themselves would have to come and defend their business. You are hurting our chances of ever getting answers and finding out the truth. How can you not see that?

Just because I am no longer responding to the issues doesn't mean you should be talking shit like this.

 

[120sam]

I think the point Kengam was making was that by jumping in on every issue raised, you are actually legitimizing English Harbour's silence, which is not necessarily a good or helpful thing, however well-meaning. It's a view I share.

If someone states a viewpoint you don't agree with, saying "you're talking shit" doesn't do much for the level of debate. Isn't that something CM calls "potty mouth language" and awards people holidays for?

 

[spearmaster]

I think the point Kengam was making was that by jumping in on every issue raised, you are actually legitimizing English Harbour's silence, which is not necessarily a good or helpful thing, however well-meaning. It's a view I share.

If someone states a viewpoint you don't agree with, saying "you're talking shit" doesn't do much for the level of debate. Isn't that something CM calls "potty mouth language" and awards people holidays for?

What you are calling a "viewpoint" looks a hell of a lot more like a personal attack than what most normal people would call a viewpoint. And by the way, personal attacks are not tolerated here though that last one wasn't overly harsh.

Furthermore, "potty mouth language" is a little bit worse than "shit" and is typically much more offensive than using a four-letter word as slang.

 

[120sam]

What you are calling a "viewpoint" looks a hell of a lot more like a personal attack than what most normal people would call a viewpoint.

Please don't fall back on the old "most normal people" line, it looks terribly weak. It is a viewpoint. My viewpoint. I haven't expressed it up to now because I thought it would come across as impolite and personal, and it didn't seem fair to mention it as you have been working so hard. But since Kengam mentioned it, and following your reaction to his post, I thought I should make it clear as diplomatically as possible that he wasn't one shit-talking personal attacker, as you claimed, but was saying what I, and maybe other people, thought. I would like to hear a response to many of the issues on this thread directly from EH, and when you jump in on their behalf, or say they are quite right not to post here, I find it frustrating and annoying. That is my viewpoint, and it isn't meant personally, so please deal with it in whatever way you have to without being so rude. It's not my fault you hear dogs bark.

If this was about Fortune Room or Vegas Partner Lounge their rep would be involved publicly on the thread from day one. That is what we are used to from groups that care about their reputation. I am actually a big fan of Fortune Lounge, and the fact that they are in the rogue pit for "bad marketing strategy" while English Harbour hide behind a wall of silence with the support of a moderator shows how arbitrary the little regulation we have in this industry is. But hey, this is CM's site and he makes the rules and if you don't like it ...

Furthermore, "potty mouth language" is a little bit worse than "shit" and is typically much more offensive than using a four-letter word as slang.

I was browsing the forum recently and came across a post from a member who had something like "1 week ban, potty language" next to his name, which made me laugh. I don't know if that's exactly what it said, but it made me laugh and it stuck. It was CM's phrase and I quoted it assuming it was an acceptable term on the forum and that you would be familiar with it and the context in which it was used (banning members who are rude to other members) and not take offense. But I forgot about the dogs barking in your head.

Still, you're the moderator, so you get to define what's offensive and what isn't. Telling another forum member not to talk shit is ok when you say it. Saying potty mouth is ok if CM says it. Got it.

Anyway, nice to see you back in the debate after your short absence. I was worried there that you might really be stepping back to let EH respond to the legitimate concerns of players (or "shit", as you might say).

 

[thelawnet]

Frustrated, are we?

I guess I should expect that from people who are unwilling to accept the possibility that the casino MIGHT just have unintentionally made a mistake.

People who cannot accept that the manner in which the code was written, and unintentionally enabled, points very strongly to the fact that this code has never been live in the past.

People who cannot accept that the results of this code are consistent with what is shown in the logs.

Which proves what?

That they had code in place that had the effect of cheating players.

Even if you can prove that that code was in place (which you cannot), what does it prove?

Absolutely nothing, it's still unfair code that profited English Harbour to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. There's no evidence that it was not intentional that they put in this code that made them a lot of money.

Even if you can show that the code they gave you produces the same results as those exhibited, it proves nothing other than that they had a good cover story: they decided to put in this half-assed bonus game because they realised it would make them a lot of money.

People who cannot accept that there is increasingly less evidence to support their contention that the casino deliberately cheated them.

And then denied it afterwards.

Well, guess what guys?

The truth shall come out, no matter how much you don't want it to, now that you know it's unlikely that the error was deliberate.

Sorry, but we can never know the truth about the past.

I think the analysis of the code is like OJ's glove - it's a great drama - but it still doesn't answer why they didn't shut the game down, and why they had scheduled this update, denied that there was something wrong, and why they said the game was playing fair, even though any reasonable test I believe would show that this was not the case.

Will you have answers to these questions or just the code sideshow?

 

[spearmaster]

Please don't fall back on the old "most normal people" line, it looks terribly weak. It is a viewpoint.

I was referring to this:

Spearmaster, I think you should drop all your efforts at this time. You are making a mess of the whole situation. You have obviously become too emotional and are losing your wit and patience.

The sooner you wash your hands of this the sooner English Harbour themselves would have to come and defend their business. You are hurting our chances of ever getting answers and finding out the truth. How can you not see that?

If that is not the viewpoint you were referring to, I apologize. But since it is the viewpoint directly above your post, I assume this is what you were referring to.

when you jump in on their behalf, or say they are quite right not to post here

Where did I say this? I said we shouldn't blame them for not posting here considering all of the heat (unwarranted, in my opinion) that they are taking in this thread.

you are actually legitimizing English Harbour's silence

I am not legitimizing anything. I am posting my findings when asked - the fact that these findings apparently support the casino's standpoint does not mean that I am legitimizing anything in the slightest.

On the other hand, since these findings do appear to support the casino's standpoint, some of you are using this to legitimize your claim that I am biased.

I was browsing the forum recently and came across a post from a member who had something like "1 week ban, potty language" next to his name, which made me laugh. I don't know if that's exactly what it said, but it made me laugh and it stuck. It was CM's phrase and I quoted it assuming it was an acceptable term on the forum and that you would be familiar with it and the context in which it was used (banning members who are rude to other members) and not take offense.

Did I take offense? I said "shit" is not the same as "potty mouth language" in the context in which it was being referred to. The context in which CM classifies something as "potty mouth" is more like "fxxing axxhole", "stupid bastard", and the like which is a foul-mouthed attack on a person.

There is a huge difference between "talking shit" and calling someone an axxhole. I trust you can see that for yourself. And if the tables were reversed and someone said I was talking shit - it would have the same connotation and I seriously doubt anyone would earn a holiday for that.

Anyway, nice to see you back in the debate after your short absence. I was worried there that you might really be stepping back to let EH respond to the legitimate concerns of players (or "shit", as you might say).

I am not responding to any more queries about the issue, just like I said. I will, however, defend my own personal integrity so don't get any bright ideas.

Will you have answers to these questions or just the code sideshow?

The code is not a sideshow. It is the key to determining what happened and whether or not it is likely that anything was done deliberately. Everything ELSE is a sideshow.

So the short answer is, maybe, maybe not.

 

[soflat]

The code proves there was a code that dealt an unfair game. We already knew that it was unfair.

Spearmaster is even whipping up some code real quick that does the same thing.

So far I think it is just EH's word. But Spearmaster says he only knows them well enough to say 'Hi, how's it going, how's business' and have a burger with them. Doesn't seem like he knows them that well. (Maybe they kept their hands off his fries?)

On May 5th, the Wizard of Odds made a statement including this:
"Although both English Harbor and myself believe that April 13 to May 2 was the only period affected we will be scrutinizing earlier logs to make sure, and will be monitoring future play closely. "

So The Wizard disagrees with Spearmaster.

Not even English Harbor agrees with Spearmaster!

Unfortunately, there has been no word about this from The Wiz since.

 

[kengam]

ok fine spearmaster. I guess I will stay within the parameters of your almighty definition of potty mouth talk. I think just about everything you have said in this thread sounds full of shit.

Spearmaster, I think you should drop all your efforts at this time. You are making a mess of the whole situation. You have obviously become too emotional and are losing your wit and patience.

The sooner you wash your hands of this the sooner English Harbour themselves would have to come and defend their business. You are hurting our chances of ever getting answers and finding out the truth. How can you not see that?

This was your quote of me talking shit. Excuse me from expressing how I feel but as you have already found out I am not alone in my thinking. I implore you to relieve yourself of your efforts in this matter. You are not getting us any closer to the truth and are only acting as EH's shield. My post was not talking shit. It is what I truly believe and apparently others too. Be a moderator, and don't try to act as an omnipotent internet investigative reporter. You are a moderator. To us posting, that is what you are. Dont assume power and authority over this issue.

 

[120sam]

Spearmaster - I have no issue with your personal integrity, you've put in a lot of hard work with the best of intentions and I appreciate it.

I said in my first post that one result of EH's refusal to respond to issues on this thread would be a general fall in the level of debate and an increase in personal bickering. Well in my case I'm afraid it's become true, because rather than sit and stare at my screen in impotent fury at EH's silence, I have been venting, resorting to sarcasm and generally been expressing myself in a manner unworthy of myself and this thread.

I have therefore decided to ban myself from making any further postings on it. I have nothing new to say, and there is nothing left worth hanging around for for me, EH aren't going to take questions and I'm not interested in the deliberate / incompetence debate.

So before I get into a time-consuming semantics argument about which of the words potty, shit, asshole etc are most offensive, I shall bow out with what little dignity I have left.