... One last question since you are a technician: Even if the game was a class 111 video poker machine, and since online is not regulated with the programming being checked, confirmed, and sealed by regulators before it's put on the market, is it possible for a programmer to tweak the RNG altering the outcomes of even a class 111 game? I'm not saying it's being done, just want to know if technically it could be done?
Given that 93% of the known universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy, 2 "things" about which we know nothing ... I'd say that absolutely anything is possible.
(Sorry. I just had to throw that in there.)
I realize that you want me to speak for other software providers, indeed, to speak for the industry in general. I can't do that. I'm clueless there. I can speak about Galewind, which I am both happy and proud to do.
Anyway, your question: Is it possible? Absolutely, no doubt about it, 100% guaranteed, piece of cake, not a problem.
BUT ....
Is it possible to do it
and not get caught?
Well, for Galewind, with Certified Fair Gambling (CFG) double/triple/quadruple checking every single card we've dealt, every combination of cards, every odd/even run, every suit streak, for every hand, and every result, every single month ...
I'd say that it is still possible, but really hard.
I made a
post in another thread, at the bottom of which I listed:
- a 6 month analysis.
- a 12 month analysis.
- an 18 month analysis.
- a 24 month analysis.
So even if CFG misses something using a 1-month sample size (for example, assuming that a 3-sigma result arose from sample variance), they sure as hell are going to pick it up in one of the larger sample tests.
So, still possible, but now it is really
really hard.
Your specific question was:
... is it possible for a programmer to tweak the RNG ...
JStrike made a ("more words than you want to read") (Hey, I have a Patent Pending on that.)
post in another thread in which he made the following comments:
... the RNG isn't the layer where cheating would take place in a crooked system. Neither is the RTP.
... the really dangerous layer of software is right in the middle, in how the random numbers are used to get to that RTP in the end.
If the RNG is all that a Software provider has certified, and the Reported RTP is all that the Software provider and/or Casino has made available, then this "middle layer manipulation" is a lot more probable.
However, as I've pointed out, Galewind doesn't do that.
Again referring to another thread, the following is the list of database data that Galewind sends to CFG every month as part of the certification for Keno (The createdate values below are specific to the month of August 2011.):
SELECT createdate, playeridno, betamount, gameresult, pickcount, catchcount, random1, random2, random3, random4, random5, random6, random7, random8, random9, random10, random11, random12, random13, random14, random15, random16, random17, random18, random19, random20, pick1, pick2, pick3, pick4, pick5, pick6, pick7, pick8, pick9, pick10 FROM kenogames WHERE createdate BETWEEN 40756 AND 40786.9999999999 ORDER BY createdate ASC
Of the 36 fields of data here, 2 fields are for record tracking, 2 fields are for financial performance, and 32 fields (about 90% of the data) are for statistical analysis. If the statistical analysis of any one of those 32 fields throws up a red flag, we would hear about it,
immediately.
(I picked Keno for this example because I thought that it would be easier to understand. I have other, more on target, examples below.)
To be accurate,
I would be scared to screw around with this data, and that I think is exactly the way that it should be. CFG is doing their job; they are keeping us on our toes.
However, yet another quote from a previous thread:
I am absolutely, unshakably committed to ensuring that the Player, and the Casino, receive not one penny more, and not one penny less, than what the game's Theoretical (Maximum) RTP provides. Not one penny more, not one penny less.
So, by CFG doing what they do, and to the extent that they do it, they not only protect the Player, but they also protect Galewind, and they protect the Casino.
This isn't bullshit, by the way: I/we really believe in this.
BUT, there is another twist in all of this. The Reported RTPs for games of skill will NOT approach their Theoretical Maximum RTPs. Let me expand on this.
For Slots, Craps, Baccarat, Roulette and Keno, their Reported RTPs will approach their Theoretical RTPs (
) because there are no decisions involved in game play. There is nothing the Player can do right, and nothing that the Player can do wrong, to affect the Reported RTP.
However, when the Player is required to make decisions during game play, and these decisions affect the outcome, and thus the return, of the game, well ... Players are going to make "wrong" decisions, or they are going to make "hunch" decisions, and like that.
I can give you 2 examples.
For our Stud Poker Game:
- Theoretical Maximum RTP (Element of Risk) = 98.36%
- Reported (Actual) RTP (20 million games) = 97.48%
- Difference = 0.88%
For our Jacks or Better Game:
- Theoretical Maximum RTP (5 coins) = 99.54%
- Reported (Actual) RTP (20 million games) = 98.63%
- Difference = 0.91%
The question: from what do these differences arise?
- Our Software
- Player decisions
- Galewind is cheating
Do I think it is our Software? No. Why?
We have had our RNG gone over, not once or twice but three times, by both iTech Labs and Certified Fair Gambling, each time using a fine-toothed comb. They analyzed the RNG seeding, raw RNG output, our scaling/mapping algorithms, our shuffling algorithms, our actual game output, and on and on. All times, a pass.
Galewind has tested and tested and tested and tested our software. All times, a pass.
Certified Fair Gambling has tested and tested and tested and tested our software. All times, a pass.
Do I think it is Player decisions? Yes. Why? Because I know that Galewind is not cheating.
So, if you have read this far, then once again, dear reader, you have been treated to (or subjected to) one of my (still Patent Pending) "more words than you ever want to read" responses.
However, 4 of a Kind, I don't believe that it is possible for you to have received a more detailed insight into the "behind the curtains" mechanics of an online Casino than what I have posted here.
Whew. I'm tired. It took me a long time to write this. However, 4 of a Kind, you appear to be an intelligent, experienced, knowledgeable Video Poker player who, I am forced to conclude, got hosed with some suspect software.
I once again invite you to give our private Demo a whirl. I can provide complete database records of your game play, in whatever format you wish, and for whatever testing you wish. I'm sure you understand that, given variance, I'm taking a gamble here as well, but I'm confidant enough to go out on that limb.
Chris