Skillonnet Warning

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland

ThePOGG

Dormant Account
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
I'm more than happy to answer any questions i can that the article didn't already cover.

If i could have thought of a way to establish the certainty levels i did without the maths i would have - i tried to simplify to a easy to understand conclusion after each burst of headache juice lol.


ThePOGG
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
It would certainly appear that some 'adjustments' have been made by SkillOnNet - have they responded to this possibility?

It certainly could carry some far reaching consequences if they've been running a questionable game for so long.
 

ThePOGG

Dormant Account
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
It would certainly appear that some 'adjustments' have been made by SkillOnNet - have they responded to this possibility?

It certainly could carry some far reaching consequences if they've been running a questionable game for so long.

I agree it does. Unfortunately the series of events that culminated with this report being written lead me to feel that could no longer trust any response giving by SkillOnNet.

I contacted them on the Friday after having just completed our own testing with the obviously worrying conclusions. Their basic response was 'How can you prove that with such a small sample size? Fairness testing requires millions of rounds of play', so i talked them through the maths in the article including referencing the wiki page so they could follow what i was telling them. At which point i was told that they were going to test this immediately and get back to me. I heard back first thing Monday morning, when they emailed me with an attachment of their test results saying that as far as they could see the game was producing normal result and was i sure of the results i had?

The first thing i did was contact my reviewer and repeat the test - it was obvious very quickly that the results were varying dramatically from the results of a few days previous as we started seeing winning sequences of not just 3 in a row, but 5 and 6 in a row. At that point i was faced with the reality that we'd either encountered a 1 in 2000000 negative result on the previous session (actually it's a lot worse than that as it correlated with the data set from the forum members here) or the game had already been altered. Given that it was extremely unlikely that this was a natural result, the logical conclusion is that the game was altered. If we assume that the game was altered, it then follows that the data set i was emailed showing normal results was generated after the change had been made. I found it highly unlikely that it was simply a coincidence that the game had been changed at the same time the issue was highlighted and as such had to conclude that SkillOnNet were aware that the game had been altered before they generated their data set and questioning the integrity of the data set i provided was likely to be an attempt to cover the fact their game had ever been producing anything other than normal results.

The ramification of this for SkillOnNet are most likely very limited as this situation now boils down to my word against theirs. As it stands the game is currently producing far more normal results and only one webmaster is claiming that it was ever doing anything else. I know that the data set we produced was real, but other than myself and the reviewer who worked with me on this no-one else actually saw this non-random event. I now really regret not videoing the original playing session - a mistake i'll certainly never make again if a similar situation was to occur.

So ultimately it comes down to whether you trust my word that it's likely that SkillOnNet offers at least one game that can be configured to produce non-random results. I'm a new poster here, so i could quite understand my account being called into question - however it is backed back the experiences of some better known posters from 2009.

Conclusion - as long as you assume that the results i attest to in the article are genuine you come to the same conclusion as i did, however - and this would be the obvious route for SkillOnNet to take if challenged about this - how does anyone know that those results were genuine? And if we can't prove beyond question that the results are genuine (achievable only with video footage), how can any punative measures be taken against SkillOnNet?

ThePOGG
 
Last edited:

thelawnet

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Location
UK
I'm more than happy to answer any questions i can that the article didn't already cover.

It would have been nice if you had credited me for performing the original analysis.

I'm not really sure that there are any questions to ask.

The video poker double-up feature was shown to be cheating 3 years ago, there is nothing novel or new in your post.

I'm all for busting cheating casinos, and for publicising that they have been busted, but this is one that was already busted and unless you were going to test the blackjack, or the craps, or something NEW, there was very little point in repeating the analysis.

If i could have thought of a way to establish the certainty levels i did without the maths i would have - i tried to simplify to a easy to understand conclusion after each burst of headache juice lol.

Well you certainly made it WAY more complicated than it needed to be. Game appears suspect, it's a simple win/lose, i.e. binominal distribution, so test it with the cumulative distribution function (=binomdist(x,x,x,TRUE) in Excel), end of story.

Stuff like this:

"The second task we needed to look at was establishing what the true chance of receiving a loss when playing the SkillOnNet gamble feature was."

is redundant.

The game cheats. It's not 50/50. So don't play it. The analysis is pointless in any case because there's no reason to suppose that the chance of losing is always the same (it could be compensated, in the manner of a fruit machine).

Kudos, however for following it up with the provider.
 

ThePOGG

Dormant Account
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
It would have been nice if you had credited me for performing the original analysis.

Hey TLN

I had intended for you to feel that i'd done that in referencing the original thread - however, to rectify the situation i've updated the article to include thanks to you at the bottom.


I'm all for busting cheating casinos, and for publicising that they have been busted, but this is one that was already busted and unless you were going to test the blackjack, or the craps, or something NEW, there was very little point in repeating the analysis.

I disagree for a few reasons. Firstly the original thread seems to have gone largely un-noticed. It was fairly short and none of the mods here contributed to it - both of which suggest that it didn't make any large impact even here. Secondly, it was old and buried. When i found the thread here there were three newer news articles above it - personally i feel that when there is an issue this serious it needs to be kept at the forefront of the community conscience. Thirdly, given that it was a relatively simple process for me to double check the given figures, it would have seemed somewhat unfair to the casinos i'd been asked to generate reviews for to blacklist them without doing so and would also have provided the casinos the easy comeback of 'but how do you know these figures are accurate?'.

I'm not claiming that my article is going to be any wider circulated than the original thread - atm i'm a very small site - but if even a few more players avoid this group i feel that the article's done some good. There was always going to be an article anyway - they'd asked for a review so one way or the other i was going to publish the results of that review.


Stuff like this:

"The second task we needed to look at was establishing what the true chance of receiving a loss when playing the SkillOnNet gamble feature was."

is redundant.

I disagree with you here - although as above this is simply my opinion and is offered only to explain my reasoning. I actually think the analysis of the true chance is the more important aspect - yes the Binomial Distribution conclusively proves the game is rigged, but most of the people who read the article aren't going to be familiar enough with the Binomial Distribution to really understand what the results mean, whereas most of them will understand that the chances of losing should be 50% and by showing with a very high degree of certainty that 50% wasn't even an option it provides a more easily accessed proof.

Given the first comment from AudiMan perhaps i missed my target with this.

Kudos, however for following it up with the provider.


Thanks!


ThePOGG
 

Zoozie

Ueber Meister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Location
Denmark
I have just realized SkillOnNet's casino "MegaCasino" has been approved by the official Danish Gaming legislation(Spillemyndigheden). A rather cumbersome process both technical and administrative. When a casino is
approved it means it is legal for danish citizens to play online at the casino and all winnings are tax-free.

An very interesting technical detail is that Spillemyndigheden must receive and store the results of all games! I am not 100% certain this also covers the double-up games, but it is possible. And that way
they would run their own statistical analysis.

So I mailed Spillemyndigheden with the information we now have on SkillOnNet, and we will see if they take my letter serious.They do not know me and I am sure they get daily mails from conspiracy players rambling about "rigged games".

SkillOnNet will have to answer any questions from Spillemyndigheden. If it comes to that, I am not even sure Spillemyndigheden will share any information with the public.

Zoozie.
 

guybrie

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Location
underground
you can add oxygen9casino.com to the list. They also supply games to the Georgian europe-bet.com and bet365 sites. Their deal with bet 365 surprised me when I read about it - big coup!

I'm not 100% sure but I think some of the people who ran the original IOG casino affiliate program (pre-affclub) set up skill on net...
 

TheLastCylon

Banned User - violation of rule 1.19
I don't find it too surprising that only a short time after we were discussing problems with trusting casinos, we have an issue involving a casino's numbers not adding up.

This is precisely the kind of issue that would have been ferreted out by Certified Fair Gambling. As The POGG has shown, statistical analysis of game results were needed, not just a simple end-term financial analysis.

Yet again, why I will only ever play at casinos that are audited, underwritten, and tested up the wazoo. If a casino hopes to get my business, I better see this sort of work linked to RIGHT ON THEIR HOME PAGE.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
I have just realized SkillOnNet's casino "MegaCasino" has been approved by the official Danish Gaming legislation(Spillemyndigheden). A rather cumbersome process both technical and administrative. When a casino is
approved it means it is legal for danish citizens to play online at the casino and all winnings are tax-free.

An very interesting technical detail is that Spillemyndigheden must receive and store the results of all games! I am not 100% certain this also covers the double-up games, but it is possible. And that way
they would run their own statistical analysis.

So I mailed Spillemyndigheden with the information we now have on SkillOnNet, and we will see if they take my letter serious.They do not know me and I am sure they get daily mails from conspiracy players rambling about "rigged games".

SkillOnNet will have to answer any questions from Spillemyndigheden. If it comes to that, I am not even sure Spillemyndigheden will share any information with the public.

Zoozie.


Did you ever get a response from the Danish regulator on this one Zoozie - it's been a few weeks now and that should be enough time for them to respond?
 

guybrie

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Location
underground
I'm not 100% sure but I think some of the people who ran the original IOG casino affiliate program (pre-affclub) set up skill on net...

Another 2 for the list: eurokingclub.com and queenvegas.com - both of which look surprisingly similar to IOG's old casinoking and casinolasvegas brands....
 

ThePOGG

Dormant Account
webmeister
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Location
UK
Did you ever get a response from the Danish regulator on this one Zoozie - it's been a few weeks now and that should be enough time for them to respond?

I'm interested to know too.

There is the real possibility that they wouldn't find anything anyway - if they only recently gained Danish regulation, the game appears to have been reset as i've checked it again several time since and received normal results so they won't find anything. What concerns me about the issue is that unless both i and the CM members before me experienced extremely unlikely events (like winning the lottery several times in a row unlikely), all this shows now is that the game can be adjusted and that after being shown that this was actually easily detectable they chose to use a natural (or near to natural setting). Detecting anomiles in higher variance games would be far more difficult to detect and if this game that should never have been configurable was configurable, how many other games are?

I can't say with any degree of confidence that any other games are affected, but for me at least they've breached the trust bond that will ensure that SON software and all casinos using their software will remain on my blacklist.
 

Jennifer

Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Location
canada
Sorry for the bump but I just wanted to say thanks to all involved here. Protecting the community is very important. I received an email today from this company for a free $10. I went and looked at it and tried it out free of risk. I really enjoyed some of the games but figured i would do the usual search before depositing. I have come across a few threads that throws many red flags up.

Thanks for helping me avoid these guys
 
Top