RealTime Gaming and Caribbean 21

[RTG_MMcMain]

For the last several months RealTime Gaming has been involved in extensive analysis and testing of the Blackjack variant called Caribbean 21. As all of you know, this game was abruptly taken offline when casinos became concerned about the relative balance some players were able to achieve.

After close to 500 man hours of study RealTime Gaming has concluded that the game is statistically accurate. The game has a positive casino expectation, as do all games we produce. Like many new games there was an initial concern that something could have been missed. However, after analyzing every aspect of the game we have concluded unequivocally that this game is a fair expectation of a casino game for both the casino and the player (assuming that players understand that all games are ultimately balanced in favor of the casino).

Casinos have been advised to bring the game back online. Note that there is no software update associated with bringing the game back online. We have made no changes to the game play, rules, deck or payouts. This was a simple evaluation of the existing game.

It is likely that most, if not all, casinos will opt to bring the game back online with low betting limits. We are suggesting that casinos initially limit the betting to $5 per hand. This is due to the high variance of Caribbean 21, and will help casinos better to manage balance fluctuations due to random chance

I will answer questions related our findings. As is the policy of RealTime Gaming, I will not answer questions related to the rules of independent casinos or individual player issues.


I will be checking this board once a day for at least the next few days to respond to questions and concerns.


Michael McMain
Director of Engineering
RealTime Gaming

 

[gamblinboi]

looking forward to playing the game, as i missed out before it was yanked off. I prefer Pontoon (great game, btw :> ).

Just to be the first to say it, RTG has great software (only thing I would change is when you log into the casino and theres an update, it kicks you out and logs you in again. You might wanna change it so that it updates before you even log in, hence saving the trouble of having to type in your username and password twice). It's really too bad you allow scummy operations to run your software, because if you guys had the business sense like MG to only allow GOOD operators, you'd be #1.

Secondly, let's have some comments from you about this bot theory. The game is legit, so a bot would only be beneficial to the house. The game is secure, so there's no way the guy cheated. Thirdly, this BS about detecting a bot with mouse movements, also ludicrous - agreed? Of course you don't wanna divulge proprietary stuff as to how RTG software maintains security, but Hampton Casinos claims are prepostrous, correct?

You're going to be facing some tough questions here, Mr McMain. And if it is your policy not to answer about your licencees and this whole C21 mess, it begs the question - what exactly are you even doing here?

 

[caps]

The status of the game has no significance apart from the situation with the Pirate, and RTG knows this. It seems to me that this is an indirect but clear response to the Hampton matter.

I read this as an effort by RTG to distance itself from Hampton. The game is fine. Hampton has no finger to point at the game or at RTG. Because the game carries a high variance, though, Hampton acted stupidly (suicidally?) in letting the Pirate play in the way that he did (and with the bet limits, it will be suggested that others not be so irresponsible in the future). But RTG's point is that the game is fine -- therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the use of a robot can only magnify and compound the house advantage. There are no weaknesses in the game for a robot to exploit.

This leaves only Hampton's no-robot rule, something about which RTG declines specific comment. But I actually do think they comment, albeit in subtext -- if the game is fine, then there can really be no defense for a rule that precludes a mechanism that, by promoting high turnover, accentuates the house advantage. That leaves Hampton seeking to shilly-shally out of a debt generated through play of a sound game, all in reliance upon a conceptually nonsensical rule -- and without having offered any technical evidence that the rule was even violated in the first place.

 

[RTG_MMcMain]

gamblinboi,

Software:

We are looking into ways to better support the patch situations. Currently, any patch made to the main lobby will require a restart of the application. In an upcoming release the application will allow the user the option of remembering the PlayerID, so that helps a little.


BOT Theory:

You are correct that robot play alone is not capable of turning a game into a positive expectation for a player. By robot player, I mean here one that interects directly with the client software.

That said, Casino owners decide what they do and do not want to allow. It is important that when someone decides to play at a casino they understand all of the Terms and Conditions they are expected to follow. For example, most of our licensees do accept and even encourage fair robot play.



Mouse Movements:

The software has no built-in ability to record mouse movements and report that type of activity in any way.


Cheating:

Part of our investigation was to be sure that the system was in no way comprimised. We found no evidence that a player of that game attempted to bypass the game client or hack into the system.


Tough questions:

Yes I expect tough questions and I will try and answer every question I get. However, in this thread I would like to stick to technical questions about the game and the software as it relates to the problem at hand.

In my post that started this thread I should have added "in this thread" to the final sentence. Answering some of the questions people have is not as easy as just posting what I think. I will, however, strive to get my answers to questions posted in a timely manner.

 

[gamblinboi]

Thank you, Mr. McMain.

This cinches it. Hampton's is full of sh*t, there is ABSOLUTELY NO doubt right now.

1) The player did NOT use a robot.
2) The player did NOT cheat.
3) The player won FAIR and SQUARE.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT now that the above facts are TRUE and CANNOT be disputed.

gamblinboi,

Software:

We are looking into ways to better support the patch situations. Currently, any patch made to the main lobby will require a restart of the application. In an upcoming release the application will allow the user the option of remembering the PlayerID, so that helps a little.


BOT Theory:

You are correct that robot play alone is not capable of turning a game into a positive expectation for a player. By robot player, I mean here one that interects directly with the client software.

That said, Casino owners decide what they do and do not want to allow. It is important that when someone decides to play at a casino they understand all of the Terms and Conditions they are expected to follow. For example, most of our licensees do accept and even encourage fair robot play.



Mouse Movements:

The software has no built-in ability to record mouse movements and report that type of activity in any way.


Cheating:

Part of our investigation was to be sure that the system was in no way comprimised. We found no evidence that a player of that game attempted to bypass the game client or hack into the system.


Tough questions:

Yes I expect tough questions and I will try and answer every question I get. However, in this thread I would like to stick to technical questions about the game and the software as it relates to the problem at hand.

In my post that started this thread I should have added "in this thread" to the final sentence. Answering some of the questions people have is not as easy as just posting what I think. I will, however, strive to get my answers to questions posted in a timely manner.

 

[toofast4u]

I am sure with this there will be lots of people trying thier luck at this game. Limiting the bets to $5 is kind of lame, you at least gotta give players a chance to win a little, I would say a $10k limit is extreme, but normal limits like $100 or $200 is reasonable. No one is going to play a game that they expect to lose, no one gambles with the intention of losing money, although casinos expect people to gamble with this intention

 

[cipher]

For the last several months RealTime Gaming has been involved in extensive analysis and testing of the Blackjack variant called Caribbean 21. As all of you know, this game was abruptly taken offline when casinos became concerned about the relative balance some players were able to achieve.

After close to 500 man hours of study RealTime Gaming has concluded that the game is statistically accurate. The game has a positive casino expectation, as do all games we produce. Like many new games there was an initial concern that something could have been missed. However, after analyzing every aspect of the game we have concluded unequivocally that this game is a fair expectation of a casino game for both the casino and the player (assuming that players understand that all games are ultimately balanced in favor of the casino).

Casinos have been advised to bring the game back online. Note that there is no software update associated with bringing the game back online. We have made no changes to the game play, rules, deck or payouts. This was a simple evaluation of the existing game.

It is likely that most, if not all, casinos will opt to bring the game back online with low betting limits. We are suggesting that casinos initially limit the betting to $5 per hand. This is due to the high variance of Caribbean 21, and will help casinos better to manage balance fluctuations due to random chance

I will answer questions related our findings. As is the policy of RealTime Gaming, I will not answer questions related to the rules of independent casinos or individual player issues.


I will be checking this board once a day for at least the next few days to respond to questions and concerns.


Michael McMain
Director of Engineering
RealTime Gaming

Thank you Mr. McMain. Your continued presence and efforts geared towards providing myself and the other posters of the forum here with RTG's view of the facts, relative to the Caribbean 21 issue is very much appreciated. Welcome to the Forum.

Cipher

 

[thesmacker]

Whoa, this is amazing. RTG collaborates everything that the players have been claiming through this whole POC21 debacle began.
1) Hamptons has no proof of mouse movements and has been full of shit this whole time.
2) Being that they have no proof of cheating they were in fact trying to coerce a confession from POC21 through bullying tactics.
3) The game play for POC21 was totally fair.

Hamptons where are you now???? Crawled back under your rock I assume. Why do I see in your future a major drop in business. Caught in your own web of lies. Why don't you pay this player and stop lying to everyone.
Cheers

 

[caruso]

Good grief. This is intended to turn this PR nightmare into a PR COUP. Screw the player but indirectly publicize his win by dedicating a thread to the game everyone knows was behind it. RTG win-win situation.

RTG, you are THE most crafty bastards I can imagine. You're beautiful.

And it'll work as well. Everyone's going to play C21 now. And Pirate will probably remain unpaid.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head and laughing. It's perfect.

 

[cipher]

Good grief. This is intended to turn this PR nightmare into a PR COUP. Screw the player but indirectly publicize his win by dedicating a thread to the game everyone knows was behind it. RTG win-win situation.

RTG, you are THE most crafty bastards I can imagine. You're beautiful.

And it'll work as well. Everyone's going to play C21 now. And Pirate will probably remain unpaid.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head and laughing. It's perfect.

You are absolutely dead on Caruso. and If anybody has a dime in HAMPTON or DELANO CASINO they would be well advised to get it out of there now.

To put it mildly, Hampton Casino and any of the other casinos involved in that group are taking on water and they're taking it on fast and it's clear that Realtime Gaming is more than willing and probably hoping they will sink to the bottom and fast.

CIPHER

 

[hhcfreebie]

Okay, now the software is fair, secure, and everything is fine and dandy.
The player won fair and square.
I'd like to ask:
(1) Why are all pirate's accounts with RTG casino still locked? All the fund should be released and ready for the pirate to withdraw or play.
(2) What are RTG going to do when their casino operators fail to pay up? Will RTG assume at least partial responsibility?
Since most of RTG casinos locate at some tiny country far far away, they can go under anytime and it would be hard to hunt them down. RTG on the other hand, locate in US and they are collecting royal from casino which make them partners of the casino they support. If a RTG casino go under, I bet pirate would have a strong case aganist RTG itself.
I hope everything will go smoothly. The casinos pay up, pirate get his money and boast his winning on forums, RTG got more business from other players etc etc. Unfortunately it seems neither RTG nor casinos would do the right thing now and this issue will drag on. Even if they can win the case (which I don't think so), their reputation will be forever damaged.
Make your choice, RTG. We are waiting.

 

[spearmaster]

I don't necessarily agree with Caruso and Cipher here.

I believe Mr. McMain did exactly the right thing - protect the interest of RTG by stating the facts, which in turn exposed Hampton and its representatives as liars.

However - and this may be beyond Mr. McMain's area but he can certainly get the message across - RTG must not allow Hampton to exercise any such ridiculous claim that a bot was used in order to get out of paying what now looks to be 100% legitimate winnings.

Should RTG not take action to ensure Hampton's compliance with the terms of the agreement to pay the player, as well as comply with the terms and conditions under which Hampton licensed the software, then RTG's validation of the game will do nothing to increase the trust that players have in RTG's software - because with dishonest operators in the game it matters not that the software is fair - or even an edge in favor of the player.

In short - I don't see any sudden increase in play at many RTG casinos until such time as this case is closed in a satisfactory manner - so please pass this message on to your colleagues Dan and Eddy and Tom and whomever you like and make sure that the appropriate action is taken to rescue what remains of RTG's reputation.

 

[RTG_MMcMain]

I'd like to ask:
(1) Why are all pirate's accounts with RTG casino still locked? All the fund should be released and ready for the pirate to withdraw or play.

We are in the processing of lifting the bans associated with our fraud investigation.

(2) What are RTG going to do when their casino operators fail to pay up? Will RTG assume at least partial responsibility?

--snip--

RTG on the other hand, locate in US and they are collecting royal from casino which make them partners of the casino they support.

RealTime Gaming does take player payment seriously. Our license model is not royalty based so we don't profit in any way when players go unpaid. We feel that fraudulent behavior on the part of the casino or the player hurts our brand. We will continue to work on this (and all other) situation(s) to be sure all parties deal with each other fairly.

 

[jetset]

I agree with caps's post here - look carefully at the subtext in RTG's response - they have to my mind very wisely decided that they will not be a party to the sort of technical BS that Hampton has tried to hand the playing community, and they are to be commended for that.

Mike M, thanks for braving the lion's den and coming on here to answer general technical questions surrounding this sadass affair. Thus far you have acquitted yourself well.

Hampton - now would be a great time to start talking to the player.

I believe Cipher's word of warning to players regarding HAMPTON is probably both timely and very smart.

 

[jetset]

I guess hhcfreebie's comment on RTG standing behind it's failed casinos like Microgaming and Cryptologic does really falls outside Mike McMain's technical remit here, but it is nevertheless a valid observation that should be addressed by RTG of they're serious about this industry and their role in it.

Most RTG casinos carry the boilerplate blurb "legally licensed and fully insured" and have done for ages - the snag is that this claim is never explained...and it would seem to suggest that even players at failed RTG casinos are going to be looked after?

RTG is now big enough in the business to take a more active role in this regard.

I was also intrigued at the comment that RTG's business model is not based on royalty payments? So licensees are signed up on a one-time payment? Yet they claim easier pricing than the top competitors in their field? Interesting....

 

[SFeagleAgain]

RealTime Gaming does take player payment seriously. Our license model is not royalty based so we don't profit in any way when players go unpaid. We feel that fraudulent behavior on the part of the casino or the player hurts our brand. We will continue to work on this (and all other) situation(s) to be sure all parties deal with each other fairly.

I have to say a few things here. First of all, Mr. McMain, it IS your reputation on the line here, even more so than Hamptons and I will tell you why. Long after Hampton is gone and buried, which may be sooner rather than later which would be a shame for pirate, the RTG name will possibly still be around. Then it will be "Hampton who?" and "Remember that old RTG casino who stiffed that player out of the million+?" You see, Mr. McMain, it is not just Hampton on the line here, it is ALL RTG casinos. The gambling world is waiting to see where YOU and the rest of your management team at RTG take this and to see how seriously you consider the importance of a good reputation for online gambling. In this case, I don't see anything that has changed my mind as to the player winning fair and square. If this goes to court, and I hope it does, it will not just be Lewen and his band of merry henchmen going, it will be RTG and all your licensees. Judging from your first post here, Hampton can no longer claim software tampering and player abuse. I can guarantee you one thing, Mr. McMain. It will not hurt your brand, this type of negligence will DESTROY your brand. As long as ridiculous managment teams, such as the one at Hampton, are permitted to operate and hang the RTG shingle, this is as much your problem as theirs. I have never seen a more blatant case of "guilt by association".

 

[caps]

I'm not so sure that I would point the gun at RTG quite yet.

If I'm RTG, and I'm intent on pursuing a strategy of hanging the casino out to dry, I would commence matters with a calm and clear rejection of the innuendo, technical and otherwise, that the casino has been spreading around. And that seems to me to be precisely what RTG has done here. One senses that Hampton is now swinging from the longarm, and, based upon everything that folks have seen on these boards for the past few weeks, that's probably a mighty good thing.

I would wait for phase two before drawing any firm conclusions. Once the Hampton fellows have been interred, the question then becomes, how does RTG deal with the player? If the answer is, fairly and honestly, then RTG and its game come out of this with gold plating. A nightmare becomes (for RTG at least) the PR coup that the hamfists at Hampton never understood. On the other hand, if RTG, having killed the crooked casino, simply washes its hands of the matter (not our problem), then the credibility it perhaps has started to earn here ends up having a very short shelf life.

But in my estimation, it's still far too early to tell.

 

[jyde]

I will not answer questions related to the rules of independent casinos or individual player issues.

Even if those rules are used for the biggest robbery in onlinegambling history? I tend to agree with those who find it tacky you come here and announce the return of this game - knowing it got a lot of publicity because of the Pirates win and lots of players will give it a try. I hope everyone will remember that the biggest winner on this game and probably on the RTG software ever, got shafted.

As for this statement:

Our license model is not royalty based so we don't profit in any way when players go unpaid

Last time I checked the standard offer for new wannabe clients are $150K for the software and 20% royalty - and then you negotiate from there.

 

[cipher]

Even if those rules are used for the biggest robbery in onlinegambling history? I tend to agree with those who find it tacky you come here and announce the return of this game - knowing it got a lot of publicity because of the Pirates win and lots of players will give it a try. I hope everyone will remember that the biggest winner on this game and probably on the RTG software ever, got shafted.

As for this statement:
Last time I checked the standard offer for new wannabe clients are $150K for the software and 20% royalty - and then you negotiate from there.

Very solid point indeed.

 

[aceinhole21]

"We analyzed the pattern on how the mouse was moved"

Robert Myers
Public Relations
Hampton Casino


"The software has no built-in ability to record mouse movements and report that type of activity in any way."

Michael McMain
Director of Engineering
RealTime Gaming

-------------------------

I respect McMain's professionalism here. ok now, I can't say one way or the other if Pirate used a robot, but obviously the casino is full of crap here. if they are full of crap about this, who knows what other stuff they would lie about. So I have to tip my scale in favor of Pirate's story at this point (even though saying what you did on the phone to them was quite stupid, true or not true). I also think Bryan was too harsh in originally calling Pirate a "fraudster" (but no disrespect to Bryan intended - he has a tougher job than most people probably realize.) The situation is obviously more complicated than initially thought, and it looks like there are other fraudsters in the midst...

 

[jyde]

I believe Mr. McMain did exactly the right thing - protect the interest of RTG by stating the facts, which in turn exposed Hampton and its representatives as liars.

But doesn't exposing one of their supposedly big licensees as liars indicate they gave up on them? It sounds like this couldn't be solved in private, so now they renounce them in public instead.

Besides from that I find it amusing that RTG now confirms everything we've been saying for the past month. McMain might as well have posted that Hampton are lying sacks of shit.

 

[spearmaster]

I don't think the purpose was to "expose a liar" - rather, to prevent falsehoods being spread with regards to RTG software.

That having been said, by protecting the interests of RTG, Mr. McMain by default rendered the claims of Hamptons false.

It doesn't necessarily indicate that they've given up on Hamptons - however, it is certain that the interests of RTG in protecting the integrity of its software certainly carry more weight than trying to shield a dubious operation or claim.

Unless Hamptons now come in and commit to properly resolving this issue within a certain period of time, they might as well shut down now because all they will see in the near future are withdrawal requests. So anyone thinking of putting money in there, don't.

And you are also right about the licensing structure - I find that claim at best dubious. And when I last checked... LOL... it was $75K and 20% royalty But that was much longer ago than when you last checked...

 

[portia]

Welcome to Casinomeister Mr. McMain.

Appreciate RTG coming forward with some straight facts.

In recent past the play logs were sent out by RTG not the casino. Can you confirm that Pc21's play logs are available to him as he requested in the other thread on this forum?

Are you able to state what is the basis of the monthly payments liscensees pay to RTG now?

They used to be based on monthly casino win. Are they now based on number of active accounts, or % of Deposits or a flat monthly fee not connected to the action at the casino?

 

[jetset]

If I might add one more question just for clarification, please - during the exhaustive tests on the software did RTG personnel also check out Pirate's gaming logs? If so, did they similarly not suggest the use of a bot?

If not, then I would suggest that Pirate's request for his gaming logs from Hampton be granted direct by RTG (can't trust Hampton as a middleman)

 

[The Dude]

Hi RTG_MMcMain,

And welcome to the forum. I just want to take this opportunity to thank you for joining us since I hope that your presence will bring a number of things to lightwhich I see it already has.

Im looking forward to the answers of some of the questions that have been posted here. Again thanks for joining us.