Microgaming VP doubling rigged

[rreevy]

I have noted something similar in Blackjack. When the player hits "stand", the balance updates before the dealer has drawn the cards. Clearly this is another short cut, but in this case the player has no further influence in the outcome.

It may not be an intentional short-cut - I used to do a bit of programming, and sometimes I recall that later tasks would be completed before earlier ones, if for example the earlier ones involved displaying a lot of graphics. However, I'd be surprised if an advanced programmer couldn't find some way round this.

You're right that in the blackjack case the player has no further influence in the outcome, so it doesn't matter imo. The issue I have with the VP is that the player doesn't have any further influence in the outcome either, however the software makes it look as if they do.

 

[Vesuvio]

The reasons for my frustration, and for my efforts to exonerate MG are:
a) It is a witch hunt with very little merit. You're hurt only by the fact that they lied to you, not by the lie itself, and there was no malicousness intended on their part.

I wouldn't say it's a witch hunt - they've been caught actually doing something they shouldn't be and deceiving players about it. I also don't think people are going overboard - no-one's called for Microgaming to be rogued.

But they did, and the most dangerous thing for us to do now is to make a huge fuss about it, and further spread the notion that all online gambling is suspicious and untrustworthy.

I agree with your other points, but personally I think it's a good thing if people's natural suspicions about on-line gambling are reinforced. People shouldn't take anything on trust (there's no regulation and companies can do anything they think they'll get away with), and if this discourages a few from gambling on-line that's a good thing. I know that's not exactly the party line on this site, and I'd be financially worse off if casinos closed, but not much comes from this industry except people losing money they could better use on something else.

 

[rreevy]

I remember a while ago somebody posted in this forum some VP screens with up to 9-10 winning doubles in a row off of a single win. I don't remember exactly if it was RTG or Playtech but it was definately not MG. So could it be MG designed it's VP double feature in such way just to prevent this from happenning? What if they have some counter that allows only 4-5 max. Then it makes a huge difference and gives you an explanation why they implemented such shortcut. Of course I don't have any proof. It just a speculation on my part but on another hand noone can prove that this theory can't be true.

Couldn't it be disproven by someone winning 6 or more doubles in a row at an MG casino?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Speed? - this is "new inproved" MG, what nonsense!

I do not buy a need to make the software faster as an excuse for MG. The saving is small, and they have done so very much to slow their software to the point of not responding over the last two years of monthly updates that I would rather have a proper VP double that takes an extra few milliseconds.
I also dislike the manner in which MG simply do not appear to give the proverbial "flying Rat's ass" about player issues with software bugs that turn up each time an upgrade is done. They will not even reply to direct communications from players, and casino CS do not have the ability to get any more than the standard "switch off/configure your firewall/virus software" out of MG.
If MG upgrade the casino, and the software throws a wobbly, I don't start blaming my PC if I have not changed anything at my end.
Last year, it took significant numbers of players unable to log into MG at all before they began to deal with the problem, and then discovered the problem was fixable at their end.

If MG were willing to communicate with players and allay our fears, these issues would not be so important, their "code of silence" is what makes the more suspicious of us think they have something to hide.

I have already noticed that other softwares can effectively "cheat" by allowing operators to lower the payouts without the fact being obvious to players, as well as the obvious cases of RTG and Crypto operators increasing the house edge on some VP games by making subtle changes to the paytables, and either not mentioning the change, or billing it as an "improvement". Further, we have cases of VP games recycling discards when that is not expected. I didn't even consider this an important issue until I was told that it can make a 3% difference to the house edge!!

 

[nafanny29]

I dont think MG could use an excuse that it makes the software faster, because it has to generate the dealer card, your card and 3 other random (possibly) cards to display anyway.


And I would also like to know what other games/features have this "programming shortcut" which deviates from MG's published rules of the game and how it operates.

 

[Vesuvio]

I dont think MG could use an excuse that it makes the software faster, because it has to generate the dealer card, your card and 3 other random (possibly) cards to display anyway.

I've been wondering the same. The only thing I can imagine is that the software makes up the other cards locally on your computer, so they don't have to be sent - but how much time can you really save sending 2 cards instead of 5?

 

[winbig]

but how much time can you really save sending 2 cards instead of 5?

Milliseconds....

 

[TheBloke]

It saves time because it contacts the server only once.

This is how other VP - say, Playtech - works:
User clicks double - casino client sends 'Double' command to server
Server replies with dealer card
User clicks a card - casino client sends the card that was clicked to the server
Server replies with the list of all 4 cards, and indicates win/lose

This is how MG VP works:
User clicks double - casino client sends 'Double' command to server
Server replies with all 5 cards - the dealer card, the user's card, and the other three cards which are ignored, and also indicates win/lose
User clicks a card - the client does nothing but display the result, the server is not contacted, so this happens instantaneously.

On a slow connection each connection can take 10 or more seconds to complete - I'm sure you've played Playtech VP, clicked on a card, and experienced a delay (I've had it up to 60 seconds) while you wait for the server to confirm if you've won or lost. This never happens with MG.

So it is definitely faster - not much on a broadband connection, but potentially several times faster for modem users. I assume this shortcut has existed since VP was first developed for MG, probably 5+ years ago? Back then modems were standard, and I bet in those days there were a few threads lauding MG for having such fast VP doubling!!

It was the difference in speed that caused me to notice this in the first place - I played once on a modem, and every click took up to 30 seconds before any result came back. Except of course when I picked a double card, which always came back instantenously.

 

[TheBloke]

I prefer it BTW - why would I want it to be slow when it could be fast? I always select the same card anyway, so it doesn't even make a psychological difference.

 

[rreevy]

Thanks for your post, TheBloke. Let me check I've got this right: using Playtech etc., the client has to contact the server again after th e card is picked, to notify the server of which card was selected and update the player's balance according to whether it was a winning/losing card.

With MG, as both cards and hence the result are pre-determined, the server can register a win/loss and update the player's balance at the same time it sends the cards back to the client. Thus no need to make connection again once a card has been chosen.

I have to admit I've softened my stance a bit on this. I'm still slightly unhappy about being presented with what looks like a choice but isn't, but as the actual odds aren't affected I think it's justified if there is (or was) a good reason for it. That said, I think MG or its casinos should at least mention that somewhere in the T&Cs. More important stuff is buried deep in the T&Cs after all.

 

[TheBloke]

Thanks for your post, TheBloke. Let me check I've got this right: using Playtech etc., the client has to contact the server again after th e card is picked, to notify the server of which card was selected and update the player's balance according to whether it was a winning/losing card.

With MG, as both cards and hence the result are pre-determined, the server can register a win/loss and update the player's balance at the same time it sends the cards back to the client. Thus no need to make connection again once a card has been chosen.

That's exactly right.

I have to admit I've softened my stance a bit on this. I'm still slightly unhappy about being presented with what looks like a choice but isn't, but as the actual odds aren't affected I think it's justified if there is (or was) a good reason for it. That said, I think MG or its casinos should at least mention that somewhere in the T&Cs. More important stuff is buried deep in the T&Cs after all.

Yeah, I do think it makes MG's game better. Personally I'd prefer it if there was no choice involved at all - click double, and get back 'win' or 'lose'. Much easier - but not in the interests of the casinos because it lacks the right feel for gamblers

I don't think they'd have considered putting it in the terms because it would cause confusion and queries. I imagine they just thought they could get away with it, and it would give them a little competitive edge without hurting anyone. Stupid in hindsight, but a pretty mild mistake in the grand scheme of things.

 

[The Watchdog]

Excellent post

It saves time because it contacts the server only once.

This is how other VP - say, Playtech - works:
User clicks double - casino client sends 'Double' command to server
Server replies with dealer card
User clicks a card - casino client sends the card that was clicked to the server
Server replies with the list of all 4 cards, and indicates win/lose

This is how MG VP works:
User clicks double - casino client sends 'Double' command to server
Server replies with all 5 cards - the dealer card, the user's card, and the other three cards which are ignored, and also indicates win/lose
User clicks a card - the client does nothing but display the result, the server is not contacted, so this happens instantaneously.

On a slow connection each connection can take 10 or more seconds to complete - I'm sure you've played Playtech VP, clicked on a card, and experienced a delay (I've had it up to 60 seconds) while you wait for the server to confirm if you've won or lost. This never happens with MG.

So it is definitely faster - not much on a broadband connection, but potentially several times faster for modem users. I assume this shortcut has existed since VP was first developed for MG, probably 5+ years ago? Back then modems were standard, and I bet in those days there were a few threads lauding MG for having such fast VP doubling!!

It was the difference in speed that caused me to notice this in the first place - I played once on a modem, and every click took up to 30 seconds before any result came back. Except of course when I picked a double card, which always came back instantenously.

Just a question...

Is this a fact?? and if so.. which is your source?? Did you call MG's and Playtech's hotline so that they will discolse thier codes to you? And not only that.. you are providing time frames and server answers....

I would really like to know who gave you that... If I was on top of MG, I would never give you that info.

So basically you are saying that both Video Pokers work the same only that MG's code is more efficient... damn, you must be an expert on online gambling my friend..

Now, if this is a fact... is there any software that actually took the time to make a decent double feature on Video Poker??

 

[henryVIII]

I was wondering too where The Bloke's 'facts' come from ... ???

 

[winbig]

It's easy to see how many packets are coming in and going out from/to the server; especially if you run a firewall. It's not really rocket science to compare the two and come up with an educated guess as to how they work.

ie: If you pick a card (mg) and a packet isn't sent to your computer from the server, of course it's determined as soon as you click double.

 

[The Watchdog]

It's easy to see how many packets are coming in and going out from/to the server; especially if you run a firewall. It's not really rocket science to compare the two and come up with an educated guess as to how they work.

ie: If you pick a card (mg) and a packet isn't sent to your computer from the server, of course it's determined as soon as you click double.

You said it your self, its still a mere guess...

Plus, haven't heard how he got that conclusion.

 

[jsp377]

TheBloke's answer is the most obvious one if you accept the assumption that this is what Microgaming has done. That's what I expected as soon as the problem was brought up. His answer is also very much pseudocode, and doesn't take a lot of imagination OR inside information to come up with.

 

[winbig]

TheBloke's answer is the most obvious one if you accept the assumption that this is what Microgaming has done. That's what I expected as soon as the problem was brought up. His answer is also very much pseudocode, and doesn't take a lot of imagination OR inside information to come up with.

There's no assuming to it....

If there's no packet being sent to your computer after you pick a card, then that's enough information for it to be a fact that the win/loss is predetermined once you click 'double'....

How else, besides sending that packet of information to your computer, are they letting the software know that you've won/lost? ESP?

All of this is moot anyways. The balance goes up or down once you click double. That's enough proof that it's predetermined.

 

[TheBloke]

jsp and winbig are right. It is blatantly obvious that this is what is happening, there is no alternative. I already explained what events first caused me to be aware of this - if you play the game on the modem it will be obvious to you that the server is not contacted when a double card is clicked, whereas the server is contacted after every other user action. Therefore the client must already know the result. I did test this by checking network traffic - no data is sent between the client and server at this point.

I am surprised at those who are so quick to cast aspersions when they themselves have no basic understanding of what is going on, or how one would test what is going on. If I know nothing on a subject I generally defer to those who do.

 

[henryVIII]

If I know nothing on a subject I generally defer to those who do.

OK, if you are therefore deferring to me then I can only re-state that at the very least they have delivering a game different to what they say they are.

That is NOT a good thing BTW.

 

[tennis_balls]

while i don't think it's rigged, i do agree that it's a crock of shite.

a possible solution would be to have the player check a box that he has a high-speed connection and then only offer this illusion to the dial-up customers

 

[TheBloke]

OK, if you are therefore deferring to me then I can only re-state that at the very least they have delivering a game different to what they say they are.

That is NOT a good thing BTW.

Deferring to you? This is a joke I take it?

 

[henryVIII]

Deferring to you? This is a joke I take it?

Well, not in relation to the fact that you can't understand that some people find what they are doing to be deceitful, suspicious, stupid or just 'not a good thing'.

 

[jsp377]

He already said that it was probably a stupid, but well-intentioned, idea to do this. And while I understand how people can feel deceived, it's no different than using an inverse distribution function to determine the result of a slot spin, or making three rights instead of a left. They're just different paths to the same result.

And, let's not kid ourselves here, we've already taken a big step from classical gambling by using RNGs to simulate cards. Is what MG has done really so much further a step as to infuriate us like this?

 

[Vesuvio]

He already said that it was probably a stupid, but well-intentioned, idea to do this.

I agree it's stupid, but we've no idea if it was well-intentioned. I can imagine the programmers thinking up this clever idea and having a quick laugh at the suckers who'll torment themselves selecting a card while not realising it makes no difference.

And while I understand how people can feel deceived, it's no different than using an inverse distribution function to determine the result of a slot spin, or making three rights instead of a left. They're just different paths to the same result.

It is different, though. The player has no influence on most slots after clicking on "spin". There should be an influence over doubling when you select a card.

And, let's not kid ourselves here, we've already taken a big step from classical gambling by using RNGs to simulate cards. Is what MG has done really so much further a step as to infuriate us like this?

The fact that trust is such a huge issue with on-line gambling is why this behaviour of MG is so unacceptable. If the software providers deviate from simply using the RNG to generate cards they're opening a can of worms.

 

[Mousey]

Allow me one last swing at the expiring equine:

I'll accept the fact that this 'quickie' version of VP Double Up provides no added house edge and the end results (in the long term) are essentially the same. However, I still contend that, as a player, what I want to see on my computer screen is a close approximation of what is actually happening in my card game. (Don't say, well, it could show you screen after screen of 01s and 00. You know what I mean. ) If I am not choosing between 4 'cards' then don't show me 4 cards. Simple. This is not slots we're talking about.

I'd still like more info on B&M VP games. Having a difficult time running down specific info on the double up feature.