Playtech rigged slots?

[Richas]

It seems to be generally accepted that when you play slots you are playing with unknowns. The only thing you will get is the paytable but you get no information about how likely it is to hit a certain combination or hit a bonus round. It would be a good service to actually list these probabilities and currently I know of only one software provider who has done this, and it's Galewind (see Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) ). In fact I believe they did this page based on feedback from people on this very forum. The wording of GRA terms is ambigious but it seems they don't require odds to be expessed to the player in this detail. It would be good for transparency if this was a requirement though.

I accept that the rule is not really very clear and I can see that publishing a full rtp is not an explicit requirement and maybe not part of the rule at all but this is the whole section

The published game rules and information should be sufficient to explain to
customers all of the applicable rules and how to participate. As applicable, game
information should include the following:
.......
h) Information about the likelihood of winning:
i) a description of the way the game works and the way in which winners are
determined and prizes allocated;

ii) For each game, information about the potential prizes and/or payouts
(including the means by which these are calculated) should be easily
available. This should include, where applicable:
(1) Pay tables, or the odds paid for particular outcomes.

(2) For peer-to-peer games where the prize is determined based on the
actions of the participants a description of the way the game works and
the rake or commission charged.
(3) For lotteries and other types of events where the potential amount or prize
paid out may not be known before the customer commits to gamble,
describing the way in which the prize amount is determined will be
sufficient.
(4) Displays of jackpot amounts that change over time (“progressives”)
should be regularly updated and as soon as possible after the jackpot has
been reset following a win.

Now to this bear of little brain it seems clear that the bold bit is additional to the bit underlined. I feel like I am so out of touch that I might come across as patronising or critical when I don't mean to but a general acceptance that all you get is the pay table is determined by what the casinos are providing, not what the rules say they are required to do. They have to have something for the bold bit that is supplemental to a pay table even if it is short of a full rtp disclosure.

If the play games and real games had something that meets the bold bit we could check if they play as described and that the descriptions match. It seems to me that we can only really see that the two "deviled" slots don't operate in the same way because the difference is visually explicit. There is no basis apart from huge sample sizes to check the rest of the stable of games - but there should be.

Clearly I am coming late to this particular party and I play poker and blackjack not slots but has anyone ever taken a sample game and made a complaint about the bold bit above not being met and seen what the GRA say about it? I guess I just prefer my "generally unknowns" to be the other players cards unless I force them to show me rather than pretty much the entire operation of the game.

 

[243 lines=daft]

It does seem that the regulation about free vs real gameplay has been breached here.

It did occur to me that playtech games can be played for fun in offline mode (unlike MG for example) and that might be a general reason for there being different sets of code for real and free?

A serious issue has definitely been unearthed here but I can't help feeling that a ongoing balanced analysis will serve the thread better than an all out presumption of outright rigging.

There is at the very least an important difference between this and the Finsoft 'thang', namely the 'virtual playing like physical' requirement (by which i mean we know how a 52 card deck should act in the real world but we can't say how an Ocean Princess turtle would act in the real world..) and also there's no suggestion of adaptive software here.

 

[binary128]

@Richas:

I agree that the "critical" word in the specification you've been referencing is "likelihood". So, when in doubt, check out Wikipedia. Not surprisingly,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

on this.

This article contains the sentence - "In non-technical parlance, 'likelihood' is usually a synonym for 'probability'." Whether these regulations were written "in non-technical parlance" is a real fence-sitter, but I would fall on the side that they are.

So, replace "likelihood" with "probability" and see where we stand.

Does the Casino/Software Provider have to provide "information about the probability of winning" (emphasis mine) or "the actual probability of winning"? The first, which is the actual regulation, is obviously not at clear cut as the second.

I know that the CM membership leans more to the slot player audience. And slot RTPs have historically been held "close to the chest" by the Casinos/Software Providers (although this has begun to loosen lately). In addition, slots are (pretty much anyway) the only type of Casino game where you can't go to a reference web site to get the game's RTP.

However, documenting non-slot RTPs can also be tricky because of the "House Edge" versus "Element of Risk" conflict. (There is a CM thread I started in late 2011 that goes into this whole thing in detail.)

The CM thread that I linked above arose from an internal objective at Galewind. Jufo's statement concerning the page to which he provided a link - "In fact I believe they did this page based on feedback from people on this very forum." - is true, as explained in this CM thread from early 2012.

The AGCC (with whom Galewind Software is certified) has similar requirements in their Standards. However, our documentation in this area satisfied any possible interpretation of the Standard.

So, I'd bottom line it this way:

1. The GRA standard says that the Casino should provide information about the probability of winning (and not the actual, statistical, probability of winning) for all games.

2. The actual, statistical, probability of winning for some games (table pokers, for instance) is a contentious calculation.

3. Most people are not aware of point 2.

I would conclude that the GRA standard does not require the Casino to publish the specific RTPs for any/all games.

---

However, as to the issue of whether the Play-for-Fun and Play-for-Real games need to provide (essentially) identical game play, including RTPs - there was no room for interpretation of this within the AGCC regulations. This is absolutely true.

(That would be like a car dealer having a demo sports car with 520 HP, but the actual delivered car has 140 HP. Pretty clearly fraud.)

The only question I have on this one, to which I don't have an answer (because I didn't need to ask the question) - What about Play-for-Fun products that run totally on the client? Clearly, these games have a different RNG than the (server provided) Play-for-Real games.

In this case, however, there is no intent of fraud. And it may just fall into the "too trivial to worry about" category.

Chris

 

[Richas]

I would conclude that the GRA standard does not require the Casino to publish the specific RTPs for any/all games.

OK I can get that, I think that what galewind have done is a good example of meeting what the requirements are asking for and the sort of thing the regulator should be asking for from everyone but I can accept that for whatever historic and competition reasons (plus complexity) the sites don't want a simple RTP publication to be statutory (and it probably isn't) but at the moment we have a pay table listed as a requirement after this:

h) Information about the likelihood of winning:
i) a description of the way the game works and the way in which winners are
determined and prizes allocated;

There has to be something to cover the above and it can't be the paytable as that is part II of h) and is only the payout rates for events - at the moment there does not seem to be anything that most sites are doing to meet this additional non pay-table requirement and so they must be breaching it ........and the GRA is clearly not enforcing it..... and because it is not enforced it makes it impossible for us for most games to check if the play game matches the real money game.

For two games we can see that they operate differently - for the others they may or may not, we can't see a difference but we have no description of the way the game works and the way in which winners are determined and prizes allocated in order to make a reasonable assessment as to whether they are operating in the same way....or indeed if they are a game we consider fair or a game we want to play.

It would be nice to have a game description showing it is non adaptive for example. As it is they say nowt and the question of adaptivity is left to the same rules that say we get a description when we clearly don't.....it really doesn't inspire confidence does it?

 

[Richas]

However, as to the issue of whether the Play-for-Fun and Play-for-Real games need to provide (essentially) identical game play, including RTPs - there was no room for interpretation of this within the AGCC regulations. This is absolutely true.

(That would be like a car dealer having a demo sports car with 520 HP, but the actual delivered car has 140 HP. Pretty clearly fraud.)

The only question I have on this one, to which I don't have an answer (because I didn't need to ask the question) - What about Play-for-Fun products that run totally on the client? Clearly, these games have a different RNG than the (server provided) Play-for-Real games.

In this case, however, there is no intent of fraud. And it may just fall into the "too trivial to worry about" category.

Hmm I've been thinking about this. I am not sure we can say that just because there is another reason for making the play game run differently (offline availability and no strain on the providers systems) that intent to deceive the customer is ruled out, all we can say is that there is a motive for different game mechanism that might result in deceiving players accidentally unless the provider is very careful about how the different play game works. This is the requirement:

‘Play for Free’ Games
(1) Play for free games for no prize are not gambling but should accurately reflect any
„real-money‟ version of the game, and should not be used to encourage those under
18 to use licensed gambling facilities.
(2) In particular, such games should not be designed to mislead the player about the
chances for success by, for example, using mappings that produce different
outcomes than the cash game. Licence holders should be able to demonstrate this
equivalence to the Gambling Commissioner upon request.

The sites need to be able to demonstrate equivalence to the Gambling Commissioner on request. It does not really matter if they deceive accidentally or on purpose, and if they fail that test the supplementary question is whether it was designed that way. A lack of ability to demonstrate equivalence alone is a breach.

Surely finding even one game that has been running for a long time in a way that can deceive is reason enough for the regulator to start asking for such demonstrations (or ask for more than they do now)- starting with the rest of these playtech games. Now maybe asking a licence holder to show this equivalence for some of their games every few months (or annually) would help? Who knows maybe they do this? Maybe the GRA should be asked if they do this and if not if they will consider doing it from now on and informing the players of how many games are being checked/rechecked each month/quarter/year - such a measure might improve confidence.

 

[binary128]

Richas,

I understand that you're still trying to clarify (or receive clarity on) exactly what these regulations really boil down to.

And I'm sorry to say that I've given you all that I've got.

I can say that the GRA and AGCC Standards are significantly the same. As you've seen, regarding this whole "likelihood of winning" thing we provided enough information to satisfy any interpretation of the Standard. Therefore, there was no need for us to "dig into the details" of this requirement with the AGCC. It was just "OK, check, next."

There is another part of the Standard - Game Malfunction - that might conceivably be involved here. (Another CM post in which we addressed this for the AGCC.)

Chris

 

[Richas]

Richas,

I understand that you're still trying to clarify (or receive clarity on) exactly what these regulations really boil down to.

And I'm sorry to say that I've given you all that I've got.

I can say that the GRA and AGCC Standards are significantly the same. As you've seen, regarding this whole "likelihood of winning" thing we provided enough information to satisfy any interpretation of the Standard. Therefore, there was no need for us to "dig into the details" of this requirement with the AGCC. It was just "OK, check, next."

There is another part of the Standard - Game Malfunction - that might conceivably be involved here. (Another CM post in which we addressed this for the AGCC.)

Chris

Thanks for this. i appreciate that you are trying to help and we definitely agree on loads, wanting a regulated industry that we can all have confidence in and as an industry insider I welcome your insight. I also think that Galewind (who you work for) have done a bit more than tick the box and move on, you read the question. I have doubts that others bothered.

Thanks again, I'll look into the malfunction bit when I get a chance but I wanted to thank you for responding.

 

[Betfred]

Hi all,

Our investigation of the two games in question (Ugga Bugga and Ocean Princess) shows that there was a difference in the RTP between the real play version and the free-play version. We have raised this with the supplier, Playtech, and they agree with our analysis and are deploying a fix, estimated for this coming Monday.

It is important that people understand how the differences arose and their significance. The fun play/offline version of these games are self contained software, and have the same math and RNG model as the real play version. However, because the fun/offline version does not interface with the gaming server (to record the bet) it did not receive an update deployed to the real play version of the game. As the forum pointed out, this meant a visual glitch was not corrected in the fun/offline version, which restricted the representation of certain reel combinations to fun play players. This would have created a slightly different game play and a different RTP between fun and real.

While this is not intended or acceptable, it must be stressed the real play version does play in the manner described and advertised in the help file. However, we will be withdrawing the fun play versions of the game until the fix has been deployed. As such, the effected games will not be available on the Betfred website until further notice.

Due to the way fun play is recorded, the exact difference in RTP of the free-play version cannot be determined. Analysis of real-money play shows very few player numbers, which would mean only a few players could claim to have been misled by this fault. If they believe they have, we will happily review their play and consider a refund.

The Gibraltar regulator is aware of this incident and is working with Playtech to resolve the problem, as it may affect other Playtech clients as well.

Finally, both the Gibraltar regulator and Betfred have asked that Playtech (and our other suppliers), in addition to our own testing programme, to commit to a full audit of their games to ensure this scenario isn’t repeated. As part of our commitment to Casinomeister and forum members, we will post any results and actions taken by Betfred here.

As always, I would like to thank the members for bringing this to our attention and to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[KasinoKing]

Due to the way fun play is recorded, the exact difference in RTP of the free-play version cannot be determined.

This part of your otherwise very good post is, frankly BS.
Software suppliers know exactly what the T-RTP of any game is - they don't need people to play it so they can work it out from the results!
I don't know who is giving you this information, but if I were you, I'd be pretty annoyed with them

KK

 

[Betfred]

Hi KasinoKing,

Playtech and Betfred know the T-RTP for the games However the bug altered the performance of the game in fun play/offline mode and because these versions do not interact with the game servers, Playtech have no recorded information on play/payouts and can't therefore calculate how the bug effected the RTP. They could, of course, simulate the bug in a real environment, run the effected versions through millions of game rounds and record the results to determine it, but I think it makes more sense for them to concentrate on getting a fix deployed.

Cheers,

Aaron

 

[P.V.]

Hi all,

Our investigation of the two games in question (Ugga Bugga and Ocean Princess) shows that there was a difference in the RTP between the real play version and the free-play version. We have raised this with the supplier, Playtech

Kind regards,

Aaron

Sounds like a lot of issues going on between free play and real play online as Aaron has pointed out.

The heads up is don't play free versions, think you're playing the same game while betting real money at OC's.

 

[vinylweatherman]

So, we have the same game with two different RTP settings in a software that was previously thought to be like MGS in that all games were using the same logic with all operators. A visual glitch would NOT alter the RTP in any way, it would merely mis display the result. The mere existence of this glitch implies that this is not a simple weighted slot, but some kind of fixed probability table of results, which are then represented by creating "eye candy" effects as though it were a slot. It's not so much a slot game, more a scratchcard that represents it's results as a slot.

The update may well have been a fix for a glitch that meant one particular layout never got selected to display a certain result, but it could be far more serious. It could be evidence that like RTG, Playtech slots have operator configurable RTP settings, and this glitch is similar to the "two pears" glitch on the RTG game Fruit Frenzy that showed players proof that different RTP settings were in effect.

The test for this would be to see whether this game operates differently between different operators in real play mode. If some have the glitch spotted in free play, whilst others don't, it could show that Playtech games are indeed running at different RTPs among different operators.

You had better hope that what you were told by Playtech about the two running at different RTPs because only one got an update is BS. Playtech should realise that they have more or less admitted that their games CAN run at different RTP settings, which are altered by rolling out updates to the games. Which is higher we don't know, and we don't know whether any such settings are in use by operators.

Unfortunately, we were misled by the RTG statement that the 91.5% setting was "only for land kiosks" when it was revealed that the "two pear" setting on Fruit Frenzy was the 91.5% one, rather than the top 97% one, with the explanation changing from "land kiosks only" to "operators may make the business decision to operate on 91.5%".

This is worse for Playtech, since they don't state RTP in the help file, so can't try and hide behind the "wrong helpfile" excuse, nor can they claim that since the game operates to the RTP stated in a help file, there is no issue to address.

It seems the earlier case has caused some to look at other games from other softwares, and other examples are being revealed of "glitches" in games that mean that free play modes do not play the same as real money modes.

 

[Balthazar]

Playtech and Betfred know the T-RTP for the games However the bug altered the performance of the game in fun play/offline mode and because these versions do not interact with the game servers, Playtech have no recorded information on play/payouts and can't therefore calculate how the bug effected the RTP. They could, of course, simulate the bug in a real environment, run the effected versions through millions of game rounds and record the results to determine it, but I think it makes more sense for them to concentrate on getting a fix deployed.

So in other words:

-There was initially a bug with the slot that affected the RTP (in both real money and free money modes)
-The slot got patched in real money mode
-The slot didn't get the patch in free money mode
-They don't know what was the RTP of the bugged (unpatched) version of the slot
-Therefore, there's no way to know the RTP in free money mode unless they simulate millions of spins.

Am I correct?

 

[E-Gambler]

Hi KasinoKing,

Playtech and Betfred know the T-RTP for the games However the bug altered the performance of the game in fun play/offline mode and because these versions do not interact with the game servers, Playtech have no recorded information on play/payouts and can't therefore calculate how the bug effected the RTP. They could, of course, simulate the bug in a real environment, run the effected versions through millions of game rounds and record the results to determine it, but I think it makes more sense for them to concentrate on getting a fix deployed.

Cheers,

Aaron

perhaps they could concentrate on both ?

 

[Richas]

Hi KasinoKing,

Playtech and Betfred know the T-RTP for the games However the bug altered the performance of the game in fun play/offline mode and because these versions do not interact with the game servers, Playtech have no recorded information on play/payouts and can't therefore calculate how the bug effected the RTP. They could, of course, simulate the bug in a real environment, run the effected versions through millions of game rounds and record the results to determine it, but I think it makes more sense for them to concentrate on getting a fix deployed.

Cheers,

Aaron

Aaron you need to get on to Playtech and whoever is in charge today at BetFred. You have just admitted that you can't meet your regulatory requirements.

Here are the rules:

Play for Free’ Games
(1) Play for free games for no prize are not gambling but should accurately reflect any
„real-money‟ version of the game, and should not be used to encourage those under
18 to use licensed gambling facilities.
(2) In particular, such games should not be designed to mislead the player about the
chances for success by, for example, using mappings that produce different
outcomes than the cash game. Licence holders should be able to demonstrate this
equivalence to the Gambling Commissioner upon request.

The fundamental design of likely all the play money games means that you as the licence holder can't meet the requirement in bold. My advice - pull every play money game you have until you can meet the regulatory requirements for them. Like the scene from Aliens when they decide to take off and nuke from orbit "because its the only way to be sure" pulling the games is the only way to be sure (for the avoidance of doubt you are Hicks in this analogy - you know the corporal "He's just a grunt, he can't make that sort of decision".

 

[Betfred]

Hi Balthazar,

Yes, correct.

Ref vinylweatherman's post: I know of no ability to set RTP - we have absolutely no control over the algorithms of games. The fun and real play versions had the same RTP initially but that diverged with the update, which contained visual and RTP changes. Regrettably, the same changes were not passed on to the fun version. This is what has a) been detected in our investigation and b) what we've been told by Playtech.

Playtech are aware of the thread, as are the GRA. If there are further questions raised on the back of comments here, Betfred will assist all parties to ensure they are answered.

Kind regards,

Aaron

 

[Richas]

Hi Balthazar,

Yes, correct.

Ref vinylweatherman's post: I know of no ability to set RTP - we have absolutely no control over the algorithms of games. The fun and real play versions had the same RTP initially but that diverged with the update, which contained visual and RTP changes. Regrettably, the same changes were not passed on to the fun version. This is what has a) been detected in our investigation and b) what we've been told by Playtech.

Playtech are aware of the thread, as are the GRA. If there are further questions raised on the back of comments here, Betfred will assist all parties to ensure they are answered.

Kind regards,

Aaron

What changes were made to the information available to players of the real money game when changes were made to the RTP? That is a change to the likelihood of winning and the way the game works and the way in which winners are determined and prizes allocated; which you are obliged to provide information about under the GRA rules.

 

[Richas]

. If there are further questions raised on the back of comments here, Betfred will assist all parties to ensure they are answered.

Did the change in RTP of the real money game increase or decrease the return to players?

 

[Jufo]

Hi KasinoKing,

Playtech and Betfred know the T-RTP for the games

Aaron, could you tell us what is the T-RTP value for Ocean Princess at Betfred? Boyle casino manager has confirmed the following information:

The Ocean Princess slots game can be found at Playtech casinos. Playtech do not publish the house edge of their games, however several established Playtech casinos have started releasing this information and on the CasinoMeister forum, the Boyle Casino Manager confirmed that Playtech slots games are not configurable at the operators end. As such, it is possible to identify that the house edge of Ocean Princess is; playing max coins using the optimal strategy the house edge is 0.93%, playing less than max coins with optimal strategy the house edge is 1.26% and the average player strategy generates a house edge of approximately 3% and should be valid at all Playtech casinos.

Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Therefore, Aaron, could you confirm for us that the T-RTP of Ocean Princess is 99.07%. If it's not this value, then either you run the game at different RTP setting than Boyle, which should not be possible, or you have made an update to this game in secrecy to lower the T-RTP without letting your customers know.

 

[Jufo]

Did the change in RTP of the real money game increase or decrease the return to players?

I have information that the demo version of Ugga Bugga pays 99.63% with optimal strategy. The real money version should pay 99.07% with optimal strategy. I would like Aaron to confirm the latter value.

 

[Richas]

If there are further questions raised on the back of comments here, Betfred will assist all parties to ensure they are answered.

Did the visual and RTP changes included in the upgrade of the real money game alter the optimal strategy for the game?

 

[ThePOGG]

While this is not intended or acceptable, it must be stressed the real play version does play in the manner described and advertised in the help file. However, we will be withdrawing the fun play versions of the game until the fix has been deployed. As such, the effected games will not be available on the Betfred website until further notice.

Hey Aaron,

First off i'd like to say how glad i am to see you back at the table with regard to these issues. I understand that you may have been told to refrain from commenting regarding the FinSoft issue for now and that your hands may be tied, but i can't say i think that policy is benefitting Betfred right now.

What i do want to point out to you however is the lack of consistency that's being shown here. You've pulled both the Playtech games that have been shown to be operating differently in free play mode to real play mode, but the FinSoft game that's doing exactly the same thing is still available!! thelawnet looked at the code weeks ago now and detailed their findings in the original thread and i've conducted testing on this game which you can see at https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/. Aladdin's Treasure clearly does not function the same in free play as it does in real play - why hasn't it been pulled?

 

[binary128]

Some (Detailed) Data on System Audits

I'm posting this because I believe, based on a documentation comparison, that both the GRA and the AGCC do very similar things, in very similar ways. Obviously I can't definitively state that what follows applies to the GRA, but I believe this to be true.

Also, I'm only going to focus on the audits of the games, and not of the Administration and Control systems.

What the AGCC (and as I said the GRA and others) does in performing a System Audit of casino software is that an AGCC-certified Auditor takes the AGCC's published requirements, various casino documentation (help files, game source code, etc.) and (some of) the people that wrote all this casino stuff into a room. (Coffee is provided.)

The Auditor then starts at the top of their documentation, going through each section (and sub-section, and sub-sub-section) of the Standard, asking questions, receiving verbal answers or references to printed answers. If all of the answers that they receive to a particular question, or set of questions, are logical, consistent and, in their opinion, satisfy each of their "should" statements, then they move on to the next section of the Standard.

If, however, there is confusion or inconsistency between the "should" statement and the provided answer(s), then more (and more, and maybe more) questions are asked. Sometimes, this ultimately leads to an "OK, let's move on". Sometimes, this leads to "What you do, or say, does not meet the requirements of the Standard". A "Corrective Action" is thus assigned. Usually, this "Corrective Action" is weighted as to its severity - Critical, Major, Minor, Suggestion.

In a previous life I worked as the Director of Quality Assurance for a large North American manufacturing company. I had 10 years of experience in building a Quality System into a manufacturing infrastructure. I also had 10 years of experience in reading Quality System Standards, and in going through audits based on those Standards.

In addition, we also had our RNG/Scaling/Mapping system audited and certified by iTech Labs. And finally, we had 3 years of statistical analysis reports for all of our games available from Certified Fair Gambling.

I thus felt that we were very well prepared when it came time for our AGCC audit.

As I've said, for many sections of the Standard it was "OK, looks good, let's move on." However, even though we were well prepared, we still received about 15 "Minor Corrective Actions".

One of the sections of the Standard that took awhile to address was the "Play-for-Fun versus Play-for-Real" games. This part of the Standard was dealt with not only by the AGCC Auditor, but also by the Approved Testing Lab that had been assigned to our application (a company named SQS). Here, the Testing Lab spent a lot of time:

1. Comparing the actual game play in the Play-for-Fun and Play-for-Real casinos. (It's pretty easy to have one instance of each product up on the screen side by side.) This also included comparing the Help file documentation.

2. Comparing parts of the source code one to the other. For example, they compared the "reel strips" of all of the slots, the "hand scoring and payout calculator" for all of the Video Pokers, the "collapsing tube" of our Keno game, the "Deal code" for our Blackjack game, and so forth.

(Source code was the only way to compare certain aspects of the "Fun versus Real" products because we don't store game hands for the Play-for-Fun casino in a database. So, there is no other way to verify that the Play-for-Fun product's actual RTP is the same as its published Theoretical RTP, or the same as the Play-for-Real product's RTP values.)

As I've said, I have 10 years of experience in building, and documenting, Quality Systems. Even so, we wound up with 15 "Minor Corrective Actions" from the audit. (I'm not positive it was exactly 15, but that is a pretty good estimate.)

Does all of this mean that something still didn't "slip through the cracks". Certainly not. I/we had nothing to hide but we still missed 15 "things". There is no reason to believe that the AGCC/SQS Auditors didn't miss stuff as well.

I'd say the bottom line - people make mistakes. Judgement can be applied to that, but perhaps more important is the judgement we apply to the response to those mistakes.

---

Sounds like a lot of issues going on between free play and real play online as Aaron has pointed out.

The heads up is don't play free versions, think you're playing the same game while betting real money at OC's.

P.V. - I confess that I was stunned by your conclusion here. Given the amount of time that we and other casino software providers spend in making sure that the Play-for-Fun product is an exact replica of the Play-for-Real product, your conclusion was very deflating. It was almost like "Well, the Players won't believe it anyway, so why bother?"

I certainly agree with your first sentence - who wouldn't. But the purpose of the Standards is to weed out the "mistakes" (or the "bad apples"). I'd say that your conclusion here has the baby exiting with the bath water.

Chris

 

[Richas]

As I've said, for many sections of the Standard it was "OK, looks good, let's move on." However, even though we were well prepared, we still received about 15 "Minor Corrective Actions".

One of the sections of the Standard that took awhile to address dealt with the "Play-for-Fun versus Play-for-Real" games. This part of the Standard was not dealt with only by the AGCC Auditor, but also by the Approved Testing Lab that had been assigned to our application (a company named SQS). Here, the Testing Lab spent a lot of time:

1. Comparing the actual game play in the Play-for-Fun and Play-for-Real casinos. (It's pretty easy to have one instance of each product up on the screen side by side.) This also included comparing the Help file documentation.

2. Comparing parts of the source code one to the other. For example, they compared the "reel strips" of all of the slots, the "hand scoring and payout calculator" for all of the Video Pokers, the "collapsing tube" of our Keno game, the "Deal code" for our Blackjack game, and so forth.

(Source code was the only way to compare certain aspects of the "Fun versus Real" products because we don't store game hands for the Play-for-Fun casino in a database. So, there is no other way to verify that the Play-for-Fun product's actual RTP is the same as its published Theoretical RTP, or the same as the Play-for-Real product's RTP values.)

As I've said, I have 10 years of experience in building, and documenting, Quality Systems. Even so, we wound up with 15 "Minor Corrective Actions" from the audit. (I'm not positive it was exactly 15, but that is a pretty good estimate.)

Does all of this mean that something still didn't "slip through the cracks". Certainly not. I/we had nothing to hide but we still missed 15 "things". There is no reason to believe that the AGCC/SQS Auditors didn't miss stuff as well.

Thanks for this. Very helpful. Could you describe one of the 15 so that we can see what a minor corrective action is? I am guessing that what we have been discussing here is not in that lowly category but it would give us a better idea of the review process.

The Approved Testing Lab that certificates an application. Once it has issued a certificate what level of change to the game requires recertification? At first glance it would seem that changes that I would assume should affect that external certification have been happening without new certification (changes to game play/rtp).What is the trigger?

 

[binary128]

Thanks for this. Very helpful. Could you describe one of the 15 so that we can see what a minor corrective action is? I am guessing that what we have been discussing here is not in that lowly category but it would give us a better idea of the review process.

The Approved Testing Lab that certificates an application. Once it has issued a certificate what level of change to the game requires recertification? At first glance it would seem that changes that I would assume should affect that external certification have been happening without new certification (changes to game play/rtp).What is the trigger?

Here are 2 examples of the "Corrective Actions" that we received during our AGCC audit.

1.) When you "mouse over" a bet "hot spot" on any of the Roulette tables, a "tooltip" appears giving the "name" of the bet as well as the current bet amount. For the combination bets at the top of the bet table (any combination involving 0, 00, 1, 2 and/or 3) this "tooltip" did not appear. (We added them.)

2.) A few of the games displayed a currency symbol with the bet amount. The majority of the games did not display a currency symbol. The AGCC viewed this as a point of confusion for the Player. (We decided to remove the currency symbol from those games that used it.)

---

Here are some examples of game changes which required re-certification.

1.) I started a CM thread asking for Player input into our slots and video pokers. For the slots, the "min coin amount, min coin count, max line count" change required re-testing/re-certification. For the video pokers, the "min coint amount, max coin count" change required re-testing/re-certification.

2.) Changes to our slot console for available bet options, about which discussion was started here and then implemented here were then modified here. The original implementation was used for the first round of game certification. The modifications that are discussed in the third post then had to be re-certified by SQS.

---

Another example of re-certification, this one involving our RNG.

Our RNG system was first certified by Certified Fair Gambling on April 8 2009.

We modified the RNG (going from a single-threaded executable with mutex to a multi-threaded executable with mutex), and decided to change our Certification source to iTech Labs (because of international accreditations). We received our new RNG Certification on July 6 2010.

We then made a change to what is called the "background cycling system" of the RNG process, which required re-certification. We received our current RNG Certification on October 3 2011.

---

The issue with certifications is that they take time, and they also take money. (In our case, and on our budget, a lot of money.) The same issues exist for re-certifications - time, and money.


Chris

 

[P.V.]

---

P.V. - I confess that I was stunned by your conclusion here. Given the amount of time that we and other casino software providers spend in making sure that the Play-for-Fun product is an exact replica of the Play-for-Real product, your conclusion was very deflating. It was almost like "Well, the Players won't believe it anyway, so why bother?"

I certainly agree with your first sentence - who wouldn't. But the purpose of the Standards is to weed out the "mistakes" (or the "bad apples"). I'd say that your conclusion here has the baby exiting with the bath water.

Chris

You're correct, I should have said "some" OC's.

 

[Richas]

Here are 2 examples of the "Corrective Actions" that we received during our AGCC audit.
......

---

Here are some examples of game changes which required re-certification.
.....

---

Another example of re-certification, this one involving our RNG.

...

---

The issue with certifications is that they take time, and they also take money. (In our case, and on our budget, a lot of money.) The same issues exist for re-certifications - time, and money.


Chris

Thanks again. The minor corrective actions from the audit are the sort of thing I would have expected. It does suggest the close detail involved in the audit and does tend to suggest that what we have had reported here is in a different league to that sort of corrective action.

The re-certification examples in game operation that you have were very visible changes. They were important but they altered the defaults on entry or introduced new options - highly visible but not really a different game or a change in the likelihood or game operation. I can see that the cost of re-certification for these would seem (well be) burdensome for what in other industries would be a standard user interface enhancement.

The RNG re-certifications I think are absolutely non negotiable. Changing the rng operation must mean re-certification in my book, indeed the act is explicit on that for good reason. For me this re-certification seems like a cost of doing business, if you want to change/improve the rng that's the cost. If you change the rng without re-certification then that is a clear offence.

This leaves me thinking that there is a high cost in time and money to recertify and so there is a big incentive to not recertify for less visible but potentially far more significant changes to the game play and rtp. If the help file is unaltered and if the game play looks the same then not recetifying is attractive. This also seems to provide an incentive to have less helpful help files - the less info they have in them the less likely they are to change and so make some other change visible and thus more clearly requiring the expensive recertificaton.

If this speculation has some truth to it then we have a perverse incentive driven by the regulatory recertification cost to provide as little game description as possible, to avoid visible change and avoid informing players of changes to the gameplay, rtp and potentially optimal strategy not so much to deceive players as to avoid triggering recertification.

Is there any guidance (beyond touching the RNG) on when recertification is required?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Balthazar,

Yes, correct.

Ref vinylweatherman's post: I know of no ability to set RTP - we have absolutely no control over the algorithms of games. The fun and real play versions had the same RTP initially but that diverged with the update, which contained visual and RTP changes. Regrettably, the same changes were not passed on to the fun version. This is what has a) been detected in our investigation and b) what we've been told by Playtech.

Playtech are aware of the thread, as are the GRA. If there are further questions raised on the back of comments here, Betfred will assist all parties to ensure they are answered.

Kind regards,

Aaron

So, PLAYTECH release updates to existing games in order to change the RTP, something they don't publish.

Well, one - nil to the tin foil hat brigade who believe that the seemingly unnecessary updates for existing games are changes to the RTP. Whilst the games are not operator configurable, it seems the software provider can and DOES alter the RTP of some of it's existing games. Surely this would be more than a "minor change", so the game should require recertification. This also makes the secrecy surrounding RTP more sinister, as it wouldn't merely be that players won't understand the information, but that the few that do would instantly spot that the RTP of a game had been changed, and would "clarify" the meaning of this information for the players that don't understand the meaning of RTP. It is also likely that the changes in this case would alter the optimal strategy.

If optimal strategy in the free play version produces a higher RTP than optimal strategy in the real money version, then the standards set by the regulator have been breached.

The more examples like this that emerge, the less trust there will be in the industry. The operators and software providers should find and correct such games before players find them. Bear in mind that the correction might get noticed, so rather than doing this in secrecy, it should be operator lead, with the changes introduced along with an apology to players.

The regulators may end up insisting on this, as it would clear up the matter in one go, rather than have such cases trickle out over many months or years as they are discovered by smart players.

 

[Nifty29]

So, PLAYTECH release updates to existing games in order to change the RTP, something they don't publish.

Well, one - nil to the tin foil hat brigade who believe that the seemingly unnecessary updates for existing games are changes to the RTP. Whilst the games are not operator configurable, it seems the software provider can and DOES alter the RTP of some of it's existing games. Surely this would be more than a "minor change", so the game should require recertification. This also makes the secrecy surrounding RTP more sinister, as it wouldn't merely be that players won't understand the information, but that the few that do would instantly spot that the RTP of a game had been changed, and would "clarify" the meaning of this information for the players that don't understand the meaning of RTP. It is also likely that the changes in this case would alter the optimal strategy.

If optimal strategy in the free play version produces a higher RTP than optimal strategy in the real money version, then the standards set by the regulator have been breached.

The more examples like this that emerge, the less trust there will be in the industry. The operators and software providers should find and correct such games before players find them. Bear in mind that the correction might get noticed, so rather than doing this in secrecy, it should be operator lead, with the changes introduced along with an apology to players.

The regulators may end up insisting on this, as it would clear up the matter in one go, rather than have such cases trickle out over many months or years as they are discovered by smart players.

More like 1,679 - nil to the "VWM is making stuff up" brigade.

Betfred mentioned ONE update to change/correct a bug in the game, which involved an RTP update as well (or as a consequence). So what? Where does it say in the licence terms, which you continually quote, that the operator must use a static RTP across all games at all times? It appears from this thread that they are not even obliged to provide a TRTP to the player, so they would certainly not be obliged to tell players when they change it.

We know that RTG operators can request changes via the provider, and I've never seen it stated that PT games had a static, unalterable TRTP.

You're also saying that ONE update containing an RTP change means that EVERY update means the RTPs have changed. You're passing off your opinions as facts again.

Again, no smoking gun here.

 

[Jufo]

If optimal strategy in the free play version produces a higher RTP than optimal strategy in the real money version, then the standards set by the regulator have been breached.

Like I mentioned a few posts ago I have data collected by a friend who arrived at 99.63% TRTP playing Ocean Princess/Ugga Bugga in free mode for hundreds of thousands of spins and determined the TRTP from the frequencies of symbols appearing.

Aaron from Betfred is yet to confirm whether the real-money mode of this game delivers 99.07% return with optimal strategy - this is the TRTP information that has been published by Boyle Casino.

In any case as 99.63% is more than 99.07% so the fun-mode paid more than real-mode.

 

[ThePOGG]

So what? Where does it say in the licence terms, which you continually quote, that the operator must use a static RTP across all games at all times? It appears from this thread that they are not even obliged to provide a TRTP to the player, so they would certainly not be obliged to tell players when they change it.

I'm on the fence on this one, but if you change the fundamental way the game operates - i.e. the RTP - then there's simply no way that the original testing certificate can remain in any way meaningful. Testing is meant to confirm that the game operates to the pre-defined criteria that the provider claims. If the provider is going to change these then a new certificate would need to be acquired.

The difference with RTG and the likes of IGT where the games are configurable is that - and this is an assumption - the games would be tested at each setting to obtain the original certificate. Moving between settings would be covered in the original testing. In this case Playtech - by their own admission - changed the game, altering the settings that had originally been certified. As such a new testing certificated should have been required to ensure the new settings were performing at the defined levels.

The Playtech issue is, to my mind, fundamentally different to the FinSoft issue. With the Playtech issue, while we don't have any evidence to say it wasn't intentional that these games returned different results in free play mode, neither do we have any evidence that i can see to suggest this was anything more than a mistake. Whereas with the FinSoft issue we have games that have had code specifically inserted to achieve the increased RTP in free play mode - you can't accidentally add code like that. I do think the certification needs addresses and i genuinely hope that the GRA look at everything that's happened in the last 5 weeks and think about how they have to alter their procedures to insure their licensees are complying with the necessary certification requirements, but i don't think it's anywhere near on the same level as games that were specifically coded to mislead players and until evidence can be presented showing that intent that's where i'll remain.

 

[vinylweatherman]

More like 1,679 - nil to the "VWM is making stuff up" brigade.

Betfred mentioned ONE update to change/correct a bug in the game, which involved an RTP update as well (or as a consequence). So what? Where does it say in the licence terms, which you continually quote, that the operator must use a static RTP across all games at all times? It appears from this thread that they are not even obliged to provide a TRTP to the player, so they would certainly not be obliged to tell players when they change it.

We know that RTG operators can request changes via the provider, and I've never seen it stated that PT games had a static, unalterable TRTP.

You're also saying that ONE update containing an RTP change means that EVERY update means the RTPs have changed. You're passing off your opinions as facts again.

Again, no smoking gun here.

The industry has been making stuff up for ages, and this is unacceptable when it concerns relevant information that players need to know in order to get a fair game.

What about the big lie that Playtech told Bryan about the company Paragon International Customer Care being an independent operator, and Playtech themselves having never had offices in the Phillipines. It turns out that this supposedly independent company was part of Playtech, but operated as a subsidiary. It also turned out that this company DID in fact operate a "bonus abuser" database that shared personal data between all Playtech operations about individual players. I was told to "shut up" about such a dataset because it didn't exist. This was a lie, and part of "damage control" to prevent this information becoming accepted fact. The cover up was blown by the Grand Duke rep who used this database and information Grand Duke had been given from it to defend something they did that was about to go to a PAB. He also used this defence in a post on this forum, so it is a matter of public record, not speculation.

If they are going to tell big lies like this, they are certainly going to tell smaller ones. The issue about RTP is not so much a lie but being "economical with the truth", where NOT saying something can be just as misleading as telling an actual lie.

Players have long asked why existing games keep getting updated with many providers, and have been given incomplete and evasive answers. Rather than lying by saying that RTP is never subject to change, they gave incomplete explanations that were intended to lead us to conclude that there was nothing fundamental being changed with the updates, hence was spawned the accepted fact that RTP never changed.

It's the same with Microgaming. Noone has ever produced evidence that the same games can operate at different RTP settings at different operators. This has become accepted fact, yet like Playtech, it has never been stated. By the same argument, Microgaming could make global RTP changes via updates, and since they have never stated otherwise, this is supposedly acceptable. It may be legally, but it would be a massive blow to the trust between player and casino, so MGS would never want to get caught doing something like this. The easiest way to avoid getting caught is to not do it. Playtech should have left the game alone, and if necessary developed a sister game having the differences they wanted.


It seems there are many things that appear to have been acceptable to regulators and operators that players believed would never happen on account of them being fundamentally unacceptable in a fair gaming environment. We have little idea how long this has been going on unchecked, nor the extent of the problem.

 

[thelawnet]

Hi all,

Our investigation of the two games in question (Ugga Bugga and Ocean Princess) shows that there was a difference in the RTP between the real play version and the free-play version. We have raised this with the supplier, Playtech, and they agree with our analysis and are deploying a fix, estimated for this coming Monday.

It is important that people understand how the differences arose and their significance. The fun play/offline version of these games are self contained software, and have the same math and RNG model as the real play version. However, because the fun/offline version does not interface with the gaming server (to record the bet) it did not receive an update deployed to the real play version of the game

When was this update deployed?

Are you saying that from the beginning both the real and free play modes were faulty, but that the real play mode was subsequently fixed but the free play was not?

Due to the way fun play is recorded, the exact difference in RTP of the free-play version cannot be determined.

This is untrue. The RTP can be calculated in a few minutes using a modern desktop computer.

Finally, both the Gibraltar regulator and Betfred have asked that Playtech (and our other suppliers), in addition to our own testing programme, to commit to a full audit of their games to ensure this scenario isn’t repeated.

Indeed, testing RNGs is all very well, but proper testing of both free and real play modes of each game is the path to ensuring that games function correctly.

 

[thelawnet]

More like 1,679 - nil to the "VWM is making stuff up" brigade.

Betfred mentioned ONE update to change/correct a bug in the game, which involved an RTP update as well (or as a consequence).

I don't find their explanation entirely credible.

Why would they fix the real play and not the free play?

The issue here is that one of the stops has a probability of zero.

If they fixed it in real play but not free play, that's incompetent at best, corrupt at worst - it's entirely obvious that both versions would need to be updated, assuming of course that they don't share a code base or templating system to reduce the impact of this kind of logic change.

If the code was separately implemented in the Flash and C++ (or whatever it is) from the beginning, that would be more understandable, but the explanation they have given, that the found a bug, and fixed it only in real play does not reflect well on them IMO.

 

[Nifty29]

The industry has been making stuff up for ages, and this is unacceptable when it concerns relevant information that players need to know in order to get a fair game.

What about the big lie that Playtech told Bryan about the company Paragon International Customer Care being an independent operator, and Playtech themselves having never had offices in the Phillipines. It turns out that this supposedly independent company was part of Playtech, but operated as a subsidiary. It also turned out that this company DID in fact operate a "bonus abuser" database that shared personal data between all Playtech operations about individual players. I was told to "shut up" about such a dataset because it didn't exist. This was a lie, and part of "damage control" to prevent this information becoming accepted fact. The cover up was blown by the Grand Duke rep who used this database and information Grand Duke had been given from it to defend something they did that was about to go to a PAB. He also used this defence in a post on this forum, so it is a matter of public record, not speculation.

If they are going to tell big lies like this, they are certainly going to tell smaller ones. The issue about RTP is not so much a lie but being "economical with the truth", where NOT saying something can be just as misleading as telling an actual lie.

Players have long asked why existing games keep getting updated with many providers, and have been given incomplete and evasive answers. Rather than lying by saying that RTP is never subject to change, they gave incomplete explanations that were intended to lead us to conclude that there was nothing fundamental being changed with the updates, hence was spawned the accepted fact that RTP never changed.

It's the same with Microgaming. Noone has ever produced evidence that the same games can operate at different RTP settings at different operators. This has become accepted fact, yet like Playtech, it has never been stated. By the same argument, Microgaming could make global RTP changes via updates, and since they have never stated otherwise, this is supposedly acceptable. It may be legally, but it would be a massive blow to the trust between player and casino, so MGS would never want to get caught doing something like this. The easiest way to avoid getting caught is to not do it. Playtech should have left the game alone, and if necessary developed a sister game having the differences they wanted.


It seems there are many things that appear to have been acceptable to regulators and operators that players believed would never happen on account of them being fundamentally unacceptable in a fair gaming environment. We have little idea how long this has been going on unchecked, nor the extent of the problem.

The industry has improvements to make. No doubt. The evidence (important word here) presented and analyzed by a few dedicated members regarding Spielo etc will, I hope, be a catalyst for meaningful change.

The difference between between them and yourself is that they deal with hard evidence and facts, whereas you take one tidbit and turn it into an industry wide scandal......make enough predictions and a few will come true to some degree, just like Nostradamus. Your way of viewing things is similar to another poster here....you see a conspiracy/smoking gun in anything and everything, and make wild accusations based on conjecture rather than facts.

I've read posts here before (Simmo!?) revealing that different PT casinos run different TRTP variants of different games apologies if it was others), and it didn't surprise me then, and it doesn't now. So, again, there's no "big expose" here.

In fact, given that AFAIK it is possible, and therefore highly likely, that different PT operators run different variants, the fact that the update referred to by Betfred was system wide suggest that it WAS a bug that required fixing across the board.

You stated that PT have basically been misleading players and that every update must be an RTP change. I challenged it. You basically ignored it and went on about other irrelevant issues. Could you please either present facts/evidence to support your claims, or admit you got it wrong.

Unless you can come up with a statement from PT or an operator that confirms TRTP is not alterable at any level, then holding up Betfreds explanation as a "smoking gun" is complete folly.

I don't see what Grand Duke or databases has to do with anything. Your comments are mostly speculation, and unhelpful at best. If you're going to start digging up everything and anything related to PT, you should consider startinga seperate thread so as not to deflect attention away from the very serious issues at hand.

 

[Nifty29]

I don't find their explanation entirely credible.

Why would they fix the real play and not the free play?

The issue here is that one of the stops has a probability of zero.

If they fixed it in real play but not free play, that's incompetent at best, corrupt at worst - it's entirely obvious that both versions would need to be updated, assuming of course that they don't share a code base or templating system to reduce the impact of this kind of logic change.

If the code was separately implemented in the Flash and C++ (or whatever it is) from the beginning, that would be more understandable, but the explanation they have given, that the found a bug, and fixed it only in real play does not reflect well on them IMO.

I get what you're saying.

It depends in the end on whether you see it as a genuine error/stuff up (it happens), or deliberate attempt to fleece players.

If its the former, then the incompetent tag probably fits....in relation to their IT team anyway.

If its the latter, it seems to be an extremely lame idea, considering that the majority of players don't play free mode first before real mode, and certainly the vast majority don't do so to test the TRTP in any meaningful way. Any keen player looking for evidence would, and did, spot the difference pretty quickly, and we are talking about less than 1% RTP here....the average player most likely wouldn't even notice, unless they recorded every bet over time and analyzed them.

Added to that, betfred stated the play on these games is extremely low anyway, so what earthly point would there be cheating to deliberately extract and extra .08% out of hardly anyone? 1% of f**k all is still f**k all. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If BF were out to make some serious money in an underhanded way, then they picked exactly the wrong games and exactly the wrong method. I could entertain the logic perhaps for a small operation on games with high volume, but it wouldn't be worth the risk for big players like BF.

In this case with these games, I'm leaning more towards incompetence rather than deliberate cheating. I can't say the same for the finsoft issue, although for me the jury is still out in regards to BFs culpability in the overall picture.

 

[Simmo!]

I've read posts here before (Simmo!?) revealing that different PT casinos run different TRTP variants of different games apologies if it was others), and it didn't surprise me then, and it doesn't now. So, again, there's no "big expose" here.

IGT actually. I've not seen PT casinos vary but then again, I've only seen two sets of RTP docs so that's hardly conclusive. My gut feel from everything I've been told and seen down the years is that all PT and MG casinos have the same RTP, certainly on the newer games. Not sure about PT's old stand-alone games.

 

[243 lines=daft]

In this case with these games, I'm leaning more towards incompetence rather than deliberate cheating. I can't say the same for the finsoft issue, although for me the jury is still out in regards to BFs culpability in the overall picture.

It seems a shame that the first page of this thread is basically full of references to the Finsoft case for seemingly arbritary or tenuous reasons at best. The two cases are very different.
Essentially the Playtech discussion doesn't actually start till about post 13!

That might be one of the reasons the thread isn't getting any response on this issue from playtech or any PT casino other than Betfred. Just a thought..

 

[thelawnet]

It seems a shame that the first page of this thread is basically full of references to the Finsoft case for seemingly arbritary or tenuous reasons at best. The two cases are very different.
Essentially the Playtech discussion doesn't actually start till about post 13!

That might be one of the reasons the thread isn't getting any response on this issue from playtech or any PT casino other than Betfred. Just a thought..

My guess is that they are not responding for the same reason that they didn't fix the code properly, and for the same reason that the Finsoft case has not been handled properly, namely that there is no real accountability in this industry, no effective regulation, no fines for f-ups, etc., and limited reputational damage even from large forums like this one.

I.e. they don't really care, because they don't have to.

 

[Betfred]

Hi The Pogg,

Indeed silence is not in Betfred's best interests, but like you rightly say, there are currently limits to what can be divulged while the investigation continues ref the SPIELO G2 case. Let me reassure you/everyone, we will be making a statement when we can, and that the remedial actions taken by Betfred continue.

We've pulled games that have been investigated through proper channels; channels recognised by suppliers.

Ref this case: further questions have been raised with Playtech, but I made a statement based on the facts I had to hand, fully and without bias, as soon as I could for the readers here.

Talk soon,

Aaron

Hey Aaron,

First off i'd like to say how glad i am to see you back at the table with regard to these issues. I understand that you may have been told to refrain from commenting regarding the FinSoft issue for now and that your hands may be tied, but i can't say i think that policy is benefitting Betfred right now.

What i do want to point out to you however is the lack of consistency that's being shown here. You've pulled both the Playtech games that have been shown to be operating differently in free play mode to real play mode, but the FinSoft game that's doing exactly the same thing is still available!! thelawnet looked at the code weeks ago now and detailed their findings in the original thread and i've conducted testing on this game which you can see at https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/finsoft-spielo-g2-games-issue.54475/. Aladdin's Treasure clearly does not function the same in free play as it does in real play - why hasn't it been pulled?

 

[ThePOGG]

We've pulled games that have been investigated through proper channels; channels recognised by suppliers.

Hey Aaron

It's a fairly trivial issue to prove that game is not functioning right - Bet 365 have already pulled it.

30 min of testing would be more than ample to prove the point and dismissing evidence simply because it doesn't come from a software supplier approved source isn't really valid. The suppliers are not the frontline operation here and reputationally stand to lose far less than Betfred. It would seem to me that prioritising the needs of Betfred first would be a wise decision.

 

[Simmo!]

A friendly reminder please that this thread is about the Playtech games, not the Finsoft issue. Please keep posts on topic. Finsoft issues will be dealt with at the appropriate time.

Thx

Simmo!

 

[Jufo]

We've pulled games that have been investigated through proper channels; channels recognised by suppliers.

I hope there will be further liabilities / loss of complete confidence to your operation for the fact that you have now been informed several times that you are still running games that breach your license and you have taken zero action or attempt to fix the issue.

 

[Jufo]

My guess is that they are not responding for the same reason that they didn't fix the code properly, and for the same reason that the Finsoft case has not been handled properly, namely that there is no real accountability in this industry, no effective regulation, no fines for f-ups, etc., and limited reputational damage even from large forums like this one.

I.e. they don't really care, because they don't have to.

Is there anything we as a player community can do to make them care? How about publishing these incidents in UK newspaper that has been on the table here but hasn't led to anything so far? Surely that has to be something that forces them to start caring?

 

[Richas]

Is there anything we as a player community can do to make them care? How about publishing these incidents in UK newspaper that has been on the table here but hasn't led to anything so far? Surely that has to be something that forces them to start caring?

I do think "they" care, they just seem to be in a state of (hopefully temporary) disarray and are seemingly unable to give us the information we want (yet).

As for a newspaper story, I am not sure we have one here yet. What we have are a lot of unanswered questions.

The Finsoft stuff is not for this thread but a simple tale has been muddied and confused by how and who revealed a real issue. No newspaper can touch this without the full story which we are waiting on and much of that newspaper story is about the role of the regulator and the failure of the certification process to stop this mess up (which is complexity on top of complexity making it a hard story to do even with full disclosure).

The Playtech stuff is still remarkably unclear to be a story. Play game proven to not be the same as real game is known. Whilst this breaks the rules not many would care. A failure of software update to reach the play game is what has been said as the rather un-newsworthy reason.

The trouble is that the real story is yet unproven/unknown and that story relies on what was the reason for changing the game play and rtp in the upgrade, How that was or was not a re-certification event and whether recertification was ignored as a requirement. Whether such changes are fair at all (especially if they alter optimum play or rtp without notification) is key to the story too.

How common such changes are affects how newsworthy it is. A systemic failure to recertify when they should or sites systematically misleading players via undisclosed changing rtp and optimum play is far more newsworthy than a one off software mess up - even if we already have two such mess ups that seem to benefit the site rather than the player (so far).

We have far more unanswered questions than stories here.... ....and all that doubt is underpinned by a widespread industry practice of not disclosing - "Information about the likelihood of winning...a description of the way the game works and the way in which winners are determined and prizes allocated;" as without that information the level, frequency and type of change being made by all sites is kept secret.

I think where the story is going is for it to really be about certification and the abuse of certification. If the software had been properly tested then the gameplay and rtp would not have differed between play and real. What unites these cases is less the illegal difference in play between the cash/play versions of the game and more that multiple versions of a game that plays differently and pays differently are using the same certification(issued before the changes are made) and that those significant changes to game play and likelihood of winning are happening without any disclosure to players and most likely the regulator.

 

[Simmo!]

Great post Richas

 

[Realitybitez]

The threads too long

and I dont really have the time to read it but I always thought, free play was fixed to give you more wins than losses so you'll be more tempted to play real money? Thats why I've never judged a game on how it pays out in free play because I honestly thought they were rigged to let ya win, so your'd think your'll have a really good chance to cashout in real play and I thought this of all casinos.. lol

Obviously I must have the total wrong end of the stick

 

[vinylweatherman]

The industry has improvements to make. No doubt. The evidence (important word here) presented and analyzed by a few dedicated members regarding Spielo etc will, I hope, be a catalyst for meaningful change.

The difference between between them and yourself is that they deal with hard evidence and facts, whereas you take one tidbit and turn it into an industry wide scandal......make enough predictions and a few will come true to some degree, just like Nostradamus. Your way of viewing things is similar to another poster here....you see a conspiracy/smoking gun in anything and everything, and make wild accusations based on conjecture rather than facts.

I've read posts here before (Simmo!?) revealing that different PT casinos run different TRTP variants of different games apologies if it was others), and it didn't surprise me then, and it doesn't now. So, again, there's no "big expose" here.

In fact, given that AFAIK it is possible, and therefore highly likely, that different PT operators run different variants, the fact that the update referred to by Betfred was system wide suggest that it WAS a bug that required fixing across the board.

You stated that PT have basically been misleading players and that every update must be an RTP change. I challenged it. You basically ignored it and went on about other irrelevant issues. Could you please either present facts/evidence to support your claims, or admit you got it wrong.

Unless you can come up with a statement from PT or an operator that confirms TRTP is not alterable at any level, then holding up Betfreds explanation as a "smoking gun" is complete folly.

I don't see what Grand Duke or databases has to do with anything. Your comments are mostly speculation, and unhelpful at best. If you're going to start digging up everything and anything related to PT, you should consider startinga seperate thread so as not to deflect attention away from the very serious issues at hand.

Whilst it's not surprising, whether this was PT or any other provider, but what is scandalous is when they are asked the question, and then lie to mislead players.

Playtech have made it clear via channels that all operators use the same game configurations. If so, there is no point in developing more than one variation, which should be used in free and real play. Further, updates that fix "visual glitches" should NOT be changing anything to do with the probabilities of getting certain combinations, RTP, etc.

I gave a case where Playtech blatantly lied in the past, and although it was a completely different issue, it demonstrates that Playtech are prepared to lie, even to highly respected industry people such as Bryan, in order to keep something covered up that they shouldn't really be doing.

The bonus abusers database that they lied about is potentially illegal, as under EU law we have the right to have a copy of everything a company holds about us revealed to us for a statutory fee (£10 in the UK). By lying that no such dataset exists, and "hiding" it in a subsidiary company based outside the EU, they are trying to skirt around the law. They got caught not only because of the Grand Duke rep spilling the beans, but because of the fact that whilst they would lie to players and Bryan, they dare not lie to the stock exchange, and the "facts" are all contained in the annual company reports.

 

[Nifty29]

Whilst it's not surprising, whether this was PT or any other provider, but what is scandalous is when they are asked the question, and then lie to mislead players.

Playtech have made it clear via channels that all operators use the same game configurations. If so, there is no point in developing more than one variation, which should be used in free and real play. Further, updates that fix "visual glitches" should NOT be changing anything to do with the probabilities of getting certain combinations, RTP, etc.

I gave a case where Playtech blatantly lied in the past, and although it was a completely different issue, it demonstrates that Playtech are prepared to lie, even to highly respected industry people such as Bryan, in order to keep something covered up that they shouldn't really be doing.

The bonus abusers database that they lied about is potentially illegal, as under EU law we have the right to have a copy of everything a company holds about us revealed to us for a statutory fee (£10 in the UK). By lying that no such dataset exists, and "hiding" it in a subsidiary company based outside the EU, they are trying to skirt around the law. They got caught not only because of the Grand Duke rep spilling the beans, but because of the fact that whilst they would lie to players and Bryan, they dare not lie to the stock exchange, and the "facts" are all contained in the annual company reports.

You have no legal expertise, so it is pointless going on about EU/UK Law because Playtech are not bound by them anyway (as you point out). I don't see a problem with having a shared database of fraudsters or any other undesirables.

I'm stopping there as you're trying to make this about other issues when it is not.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You have no legal expertise, so it is pointless going on about EU/UK Law because Playtech are not bound by them anyway (as you point out). I don't see a problem with having a shared database of fraudsters or any other undesirables.

I'm stopping there as you're trying to make this about other issues when it is not.

Lay persons also need to know about the law, as ignorance is no excuse when in court. Consumer law in particular is widely publicised so that ordinary people fully understand their rights. In fact, Playtech IS bound by these laws if the casino concerned is being run (licensed) from an EU jurisdiction, as there is a provision that means when an EU based company outsources it's data processing to a non EU country, they are obliged to ensure said country matches EU data protection laws.

An actual breach would occur if a player of an EU based casino made a statutory data disclosure request, and the reply didn't include all data held about them. If they argue that the Philipines subsidiary is merely a third party, this too could land them in trouble because they let the data "leak" outside the company.

A fraud database is different, the Playtech database in question is mere SPECULATION about the motives of players who abide by all the rules, pass ID checks, and happen to win. Playtech casinos are taking action against players based on mere speculation from some database, if this level of "fact" is good enough for the operator, it is good enough for the player.

It is not a different issue really, it is the issue about the business ethics of Playtech in general. The "rigged slots" issue is just another symptom of this ethic. Whether carelessness or design, they got away with it right under the noses of the regulators, who seem pretty lame. This leads to the speculation that there are other things to be found, and the more that are found, the more the speculation becomes fact.

There has been plenty of time for this industry to clean up it's act, but if anything it seems things are getting WORSE. This is progress in the wrong direction, and clearly keeping quiet and minding one's manners has allowed this to happen. Many "accepted truths" about the industry have been blown out of the water, the most shocking was the accepted truth that no player of an MGS product would ever lose out if an operator went bust. This was shown to be false when TUSK went under, and then again and again, ending with Purple Lounge. Players were for YEARS trusting MGS as one place where their funds were truly safe, and found out the hard way that there is nothing safe about the fact an operator is MGS. We have also found out that EU based jurisdictions are just as bad, if not worse, than places like Curacao.