Possible issue with BLR Tech casinos craps software

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
Is it possible to outsmart this rigged software to ensure you WIN more than you should?

If this is possible, the casino will be forced to admit the game is not random in order to void the bets.
In craps you can bet on both sides of any event (or almost any, if I missed something), so you cannot simply rig it by some loaded dice. If the game were made much more unfavourable to the pass bettors, who are the majority, the don't pass bettors could clean up. The roll of the dice must depend on the bets on the table, just like in Elka Systems/Oyster Gaming roulette in fun mode. I did an experiment, if I bet on red, red would come up about 80% of the time, if I bet on black, black would come up 80% of the time. I would not be surprised if the probabilities were reversed when playing with real money. The exact method of rigging can only be guessed from sufficiently large data.
 

boymimbo

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Location
Niagara Falls, ON
Dice aren't loaded. They're fixed.

In craps you can bet on both sides of any event (or almost any, if I missed something), so you cannot simply rig it by some loaded dice. If the game were made much more unfavourable to the pass bettors, who are the majority, the don't pass bettors could clean up. The roll of the dice must depend on the bets on the table, just like in Elka Systems/Oyster Gaming roulette in fun mode. I did an experiment, if I bet on red, red would come up about 80% of the time, if I bet on black, black would come up 80% of the time. I would not be surprised if the probabilities were reversed when playing with real money. The exact method of rigging can only be guessed from sufficiently large data.

Results were biased in one direction when the don't was being placed and in the other direction with the pass being played. When another player (using real money) placed all of the numbers after the point was made, the 7 was the next number rolled in 41 of 74 experiments, so I'm pretty much convinced that the software is intelligent enough to kill you no matter what you're betting.
 

Eliot Jacobson

Dormant account
Joined
May 9, 2006
Location
Santa Barbara
Results were biased in one direction when the don't was being placed and in the other direction with the pass being played. When another player (using real money) placed all of the numbers after the point was made, the 7 was the next number rolled in 41 of 74 experiments, so I'm pretty much convinced that the software is intelligent enough to kill you no matter what you're betting.
The game of craps offered by BLR Technology is rigged; it performed in a rogue fashion against all tested strategies. There is no indication that a strategy could be devised to defeat this rogue programming; it appears to be adaptive.

This is not a matter of a faulty RNG, or an RNG that is somehow producing one outcome more often than another. This is hard coded rogue logic built into the game software. I have tested RNG's for many years, and have a lot of experience with improper installations of RNG's and with RNG's that are not performing randomly. This software gave no indication of a problem with the RNG. Rather, the software gave an indication of weighting the outcomes according to the bets on the table, with the RNG producing an outcome consistent with this weighting.

In testing, it is important to state a hypothesis before the testing occurs and then to create an experiment based on that hypothesis. Because of my belief that the program was adaptive, I devised an experiment to exploit this logic to create an extremely biased particular outcome. I was able to make the software produce 41 "7"s in 74 rolls. This is an incredible result. Incredible because of the force of the conclusions that must be drawn, as well as the extraordinary odds against such an occurrence.

Any online casino that continues to offer the BLR Technology product with knowledge of the audits that took place, and is not itself conducting an immediate, fair and impartial third party audit of the BLR Technology craps software, is operating as a rogue.

Kind regards,

Eliot
 

spiderman

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
Milky Way Galazy
The game of craps offered by BLR Technology is rigged; it performed in a rogue fashion against all tested strategies. There is no indication that a strategy could be devised to defeat this rogue programming; it appears to be adaptive.

...

Any online casino that continues to offer the BLR Technology product with knowledge of the audits that took place, and is not itself conducting an immediate, fair and impartial third party audit of the BLR Technology craps software, is operating as a rogue.

Kind regards,

Eliot


So the case of it right now is that BLR is the first of what you personally ever suspected and detected as a reactive cheating algorithym? Thank you.

** I apologize; but is the question still viable?
 
Last edited:

Eliot Jacobson

Dormant account
Joined
May 9, 2006
Location
Santa Barbara
{Taken from an email addressed to Mr. Jacobson}.
It is highly inappropriate to post private emails without the explicit permission of the other party. I ask that you remove your post immediately, if possible, or that you request the moderators here remove it. After you've removed your post, if you would like to ask me a question, I will consider if it is something I can appropriately answer.
 

Eliot Jacobson

Dormant account
Joined
May 9, 2006
Location
Santa Barbara
So the case of it right now is that BLR is the first of what you personally ever suspected and detected as a reactive cheating algorithym?
The important point is how easy it was to detect this rogue program by simple statistical tests. Moreover, because the user clempops4 had the foresight to video his play and post it on YouTube, there was no need for log files and no way for the software vendor to "flip the switch" -- the facts obtainable from the videos spoke for themselves. Michael Shackleford's article about the game on his web site has a lot of good detail about the process of conducting an audit.

Beyond that, every case I know of where a software vendor knowingly created and licensed rogue games is publicly referenced through the rogue pit on this site.
 

4 of a kind

Repeated violations of forum rule 1.16 - troll
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Location
New York
In this case we see a software provider as far as I could tell being over zealous with their rigged software. It also is surprising that if rigged software is so easy to detect as many seem to believe, how did this software provider last so long with a blatantly detectable program?

How could the players ever be confident that even the bigger platforms that are not so zealous (or as greedy) and are smart enough to only program the software to reflect a 5% additional house edge in table games, that they too would be detected? Like it was said over at the WOV website that it would have been smarter to program the software just to "fleece the sheep, not slaughter it".

Even if a player was playing a video poker game with an expected 98.6% rtp, retaining long term data with results of 94.6% rtp, it certainly would be written off as nothing more then bad luck. Even just consistent results of only 1 or 2 percent lower rtp’s would be written off as bad luck, but could mean millions and millions of additional income for the casinos, and those results even if consistent could never hold enough water to confirm fraud.

The only way to know for sure would be for every cent that entered the game to be recorded over time and then analyzed by a confirmed honest regulator. This is not now or ever has as far as I know being applied as confirmed fact for online casinos.
 

boymimbo

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Location
Niagara Falls, ON
True That

Well, exactly. For example, both the Wizard and TEliot both have "certified" 5 dimes Bonus Casino and did some statistical analysis on a number of games. In BLR craps, it was so obvious that the Wizard was able to complete his test after only 328 trials, and Teliot did a test over 74 trials (playing $7, the pass and placing all the numbers) to realize beyond a doubt that the software was completely rigged. It was alot easier to see a 46% HA vs a 1.4% one, after all.

Now, when you get into the 5% range, it becomes a lot more difficult to prove, and you have a ton of more trials, on the order of 10,000 or so, to complete. Take a game like craps and set it to a 5% HA. The probability of success on the pass line is .493. The odds of having 4750 or less successes in 10,000 rolls is only .000164539. It's not incomprehensible.

So I don't even think a 5% HA is really realistically detectable, and this is where the online, unregulated casino, has you by the balls.
 

Jufo

Three-toed sloth
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Location
Finland
How could the players ever be confident that even the bigger platforms that are not so zealous (or as greedy) and are smart enough to only program the software to reflect a 5% additional house edge in table games, that they too would be detected? Like it was said over at the WOV website that it would have been smarter to program the software just to "fleece the sheep, not slaughter it".

[...]

The only way to know for sure would be for every cent that entered the game to be recorded over time and then analyzed by a confirmed honest regulator. This is not now or ever has as far as I know being applied as confirmed fact for online casinos.

I am happy that you brought this up, because I have actually gone through a case like you described, where I constantly ran around 5% below expected long-term RTP for a duration of 1.5 years, 20 000 hands in total played and 350 000€ in total wagered on low-variance games (mostly Blackjack). I recorded every hand and my losses over time were this:

lossgraph.jpg

The black curve at the top is the expected return at any given point, around which the actual return curve (blue) should fluctuate. The end result, which includes every single wager made at this casino from the moment of registering an account, suggests a roughly 1 in 300 000 chance for a loss rate this deep across my 1.5 years of play.

Is this enough to prove rigged software here? Probably not, but the result is severe enough that I will publish the results in detail at some point in the future once I have organized the data in full, so that it is ready to be published. This also includes the responses from the software provider in an attempt to discredit my results with false mathematics, and stating that my results are "compeletely normal". Oh, and this is one of the major casino softwares with high reputation.
 

4 of a kind

Repeated violations of forum rule 1.16 - troll
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Location
New York
I truly believe that most members here are predominantly slot players accustomed to and expect drastic swings in RTP’s per session. Slot players could have losing sessions for 11 months in a row, but with the simple click of the mouse at the right time could turn their losing year into a winning one simply by hitting a Jackpot.

A hard core blackjack or video poker player, playing perfect strategy expecting a return of 98.85 on BJ, and anywhere from 96 to 98+ on video poker perfect play, and suffering 11 months of losing sessions can’t overcome their losses or get their RTP back to expected with a Royal Flush or a Black Jack.

With that being said, regardless how lucky any one player might be, the law of gambling against a built in house edge dictates that if that lucky player keeps playing he or she too will eventually become just another losing gambler statistic. No arguments there…

Table players of Baccarat, Black Jack, Craps, Video Poker, and others expect a longer life for their money when compared to slot players and certainly could never expect a life changing win from any one session. This is why I believe most slot players don’t understand how important it is to be certain that when playing one of these table games that they are programmed exactly to the specified return as advertised.

If I’m playing a Video Poker machine expecting 98% RTP and actually am only getting a 93% RTP, I would be better off playing a slot machine where I would at least have a chance of hitting a massive Jackpot.

I’m looking forward to Jufos spread sheet, but would recommend he take those statistics to the Wizard. That site is loaded with endless mathematicians with doctrine degrees, and endless computer software engineers of assorted types. Eliot Jacobson a member here being one of them. I must also admit that I feel very under educated when I participate in threads there.

I also feel cheated after 10 years of playing video poker online, with my last two years of such ridiculous outcomes convincing me of foul play forcing me to quit and pursue the facts. Unfortunately, I could only trust my experiences as being fact, since I only kept financial records, not game records.

BLR being exposed helps enforce my convictions, but I want more. At least their exposure proves that even when someone owns a money printing press, they still want more even faster then the machine could print, and are willing to speed it up till it breaks down.

For all the people that insist there is no reason for any online casino to ever cheat, you stand corrected. Without regulation and enforcement there could be no guarantees, regardless what anyone thinks or who says otherwise.
 

Jufo

Three-toed sloth
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Location
Finland
Table players of Baccarat, Black Jack, Craps, Video Poker, and others expect a longer life for their money when compared to slot players and certainly could never expect a life changing win from any one session. This is why I believe most slot players don’t understand how important it is to be certain that when playing one of these table games that they are programmed exactly to the specified return as advertised.

Yes very well put. With table games the true RTP is crucial because low variance dictates that you can only swing up or down so much with close to 1:1 payouts.

I’m looking forward to Jufos spread sheet, but would recommend he take those statistics to the Wizard. That site is loaded with endless mathematicians with doctrine degrees, and endless computer software engineers of assorted types. Eliot Jacobson a member here being one of them. I must also admit that I feel very under educated when I participate in threads there.

Yes that's a good idea. I was very impressed with how much crucial input they gave with the BLR software incident and it also motivated me to get back to this unresolved incident of mine. Unfortunately in my case, I don't have videotaped footage across my 20,000 transactions and 1.5 years of play (would anyone even have the patience to watch them all through) so I have to rely on play logs only, and my case is much messier in every other aspect as well, so I'd need to construct a clear case with only key facts and then give it them to digest.
 
Last edited:

Eliot Jacobson

Dormant account
Joined
May 9, 2006
Location
Santa Barbara
I am happy that you brought this up, because I have actually gone through a case like you described, where I constantly ran around 5% below expected long-term RTP for a duration of 1.5 years, 20 000 hands in total played and 350 000€ in total wagered on low-variance games (mostly Blackjack).
I've seen this before. What you should look at is the distribution of individual cards for your hands. What is the frequency of each card by rank out of all the hands you were dealt? How does this compare to the dealer's distribution? See if you are playing with a "short deck."

If you need any help and don't mind disclosing personal information to me, please feel free to contact me.
 

Jufo

Three-toed sloth
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Location
Finland
I've seen this before. What you should look at is the distribution of individual cards for your hands. What is the frequency of each card by rank out of all the hands you were dealt? How does this compare to the dealer's distribution? See if you are playing with a "short deck."

If you need any help and don't mind disclosing personal information to me, please feel free to contact me.

Hi, I already conducted a battery of statistical tests to the data, including those you mentioned. I didn't find anything special and didn't get any specific direction as to what to focus on. For different tests I obtained p-values around 0.01 ... 0.05 range which would still classify as bad luck and are in line with my loss rate. That being said I only did the statistical tests to a sample data of size of ~1000 hands. The reason is that it was extremely time-consuming to manually write all the hands to Excel so even adding 1000 hands took forever. I might go back to look if there is a way to incorporate a larger number of hand details to Excel.

Thanks for the offer to help, it might be turn out very useful. I don't mind disclosing personal details but I still have to update my analysis a bit so that it is organized enough for others to review.
 

Jufo

Three-toed sloth
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Location
Finland
You can request your complete log files from the casino vendor, the logs should come as CSV files.

I have done that too, but they only sent me data that doesn't show hand contents, only sessions played. They said "unable to assist" when I asked the data in more detailed format.
 

mightymaron

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Location
usa
Well, exactly. For example, both the Wizard and TEliot both have "certified" 5 dimes Bonus Casino and did some statistical analysis on a number of games. In BLR craps, it was so obvious that the Wizard was able to complete his test after only 328 trials, and Teliot did a test over 74 trials (playing $7, the pass and placing all the numbers) to realize beyond a doubt that the software was completely rigged. It was alot easier to see a 46% HA vs a 1.4% one, after all.

Now, when you get into the 5% range, it becomes a lot more difficult to prove, and you have a ton of more trials, on the order of 10,000 or so, to complete. Take a game like craps and set it to a 5% HA. The probability of success on the pass line is .493. The odds of having 4750 or less successes in 10,000 rolls is only .000164539. It's not incomprehensible.

So I don't even think a 5% HA is really realistically detectable, and this is where the online, unregulated casino, has you by the balls.

I had a session in the cashback casino using BLR craps software where I only played no pass....Here is the thread posted in August
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


I got hit and hit hard by this only playing no pass. The wizard emailed 5dimes and got his money back. I played the same game, in the same casino at the same place 5dimes. I had a documented session and a number for the losses. I got a two line email saying the BLR software was pulled. No lossback for me...vexing
 

Zoozie

Ueber Meister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Location
Denmark
Multiple RNG calls?

There has been several cases of rigged software in the past. But I especially remember one case that seems similar to this one.
It was covered by WoO as well and is probably 8 or more years ago. The game in question was blackjack and after
various statistically analysis it was concluded that data was fitting perfectly to the having the dealer dealing
a second card in case he busted. And than accepting the fate of the second card no matter what. When cheating this way, there is no way the player can exploit it of course.

The result is a house edge less than the expected house edge for any bet. Also this is the most easy way to cheat, simply just
invoke the RNG again if you do not like the result. Maybe it can be tested if this hypothesis is consistent with the data? Or maybe even a third RNG call.

Also Eliot Jacobson experienced a huge lag when he was forcing the cheating software to get an improbably event and having multiple RNG calls
can explain this since RNG calls will give delays, while normal server-calculations are so fast they can not be responsible for any lag.
 
Top