Casino software caught cheating

[TheGooner]

COMPLETE DERAIL

The estimated probability of Life spontaneously forming is 1 in 10³⁹⁰, yet some people believe it happened while others do not. That is 390 zeros. I only see 29 zeros above.

What is that 1 in 10³⁹⁰, calculating? Given the amount of climatic and environmental change that goes on an active planet.
Chances in a given environment every 1000 years?

Throw in millions of environments, over billions of years, and trillions of stars, in unlimited (?) galaxies and I see your 390 zeroes and raise it by several orders of magnitude. Very small chance I agree. But over so much space and time it becomes a virtual certainty. The facts are that life is almost certain to be spontaneously starting in many places at many times - and once it starts in any form it quickly multiplies to occupy a planet.


But it is also true that the chances of spontaneous life starting on any specific single planet is low - so the chances that we are living close to another lifeform in time / space is also very remote too. And a neighbouring intelligent lifeform is almost impossible. All those ufo spotters are seeing natural (or secret phenomenon), and all the alien abduction reports either mentally ill, governmental victims or lying.

/ DERAIL

[muffincrumbs]

They really do a good job of looking like a bunch of criminals. In the article above they showed that case to be equivelent to winning the USA powerball 14 times in a row, or 1 in 10¹²⁰

[Muppet]

Great post. This must be the 3rd or 4th time that Amigotechs have been caught cheating. Same old, same old.

[iGamingWriter]

In the name of transparency I'm publishing all communications with Amigotechs. I say this knowing full well that I don't come across in a sparkling fashion - I certainly missed a few things when preparing responses and I am unquestionably standoffish in tone - however I don't feel anything to this point undermines the fundamental issue which is the game not functioning in a fair way.

I apologise for the format, it's not the most readable. I considered editing it to make it more accessible, but came to the conclusion that any editing (other than removing personal details) was likely to detract from rather than improve the credibility of the document. If anyone requires verification of the document's authenticity I'll be happy to make screen shots or a video of accessing the relevant email chain.

http://thepogg.com/conversations-with-amigotechs/

[Sherlock]

Ok I see, and between you and I, we both see it is not fair, but just to argue which I love to do I doubt it would stand up in court or something like that. Yes there is no record of anything statistically that impossible to achieve I could find expect one.

The estimated probability of Life spontaneously forming is 1 in 10³⁹⁰, yet some people believe it happened while others do not. That is 390 zeros. I only see 29 zeros above.

The probability of spontaneous forming of life is for sure nothing certain. It might be any high number, it is somehow misleading to argue for or against number that does not make sense.

But anyhow, if we agree that chance that something occured is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
therefore chance it did not occur is
100%-0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
and then there are almost equally big groups of people who are fans of YES/NO, then the people who believe in event 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% are simply dogmatic opportunists and there is no sense to argue with them (it is possible to kick their butt though). Those situations are definitely red flag about human perception. But that is not the issue here.

The way of thinking, where we argue with smallest possiblity as excuse, leads to postmodern notion of life, which is killing any rational debate. "Because we know nothing for sure, therefore we can not decide about anything." It is idiocy of smartasses.

The decisions need of real life in the end always rule of thumb.

If I accidentally sit by computer of my girlfriend and find there emails from some guy, where they plan and talk about meetings, where they make love and she says him how good lover he is. The meetings always match times when she is not at home. Then I find a sperm on her underwear, that is not mine. Then I call the guy and ask him if he is f****** my girl and he says yes and then I ask even her if they do it...

Yes. There is still a chance that she wrote all the emails by herself just for fun. That the sperm is a yogurt. That the guy is just making fun of me. And that even my girlfriend is lying from some reason etc. But any sane person evaluates this as a 100% fact of cheating. And the probability in this case is even much higher.

Please, let's not even open postmodern discussions. I know it is a very popular nowadays, but I am somehow getting violent when I read it. Yes, it is possible that there are people who can walk on lakes (one of them was Jesus Christ, whose walking on water is allowed with extremely low probability by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the same principle allows with extremely low probability spontaneous boiling of glass of icy water [as described in a very nice books from G. Gamow about Mr. Tompkins]). But it is certain that thinking that those events might sometimes occur leads to asylum.

Players were cheated on purpose or it was a bug. Period.

[iGamingWriter]

Players were cheated on purpose or it was a bug. Period.

Hey Sherlock,

I'd completely agree with your analysis up until this last line. I disagree with this last line for similar reason to you concluding your gf was cheating in the analogy you gave.

I'm afraid to say that in this scenario a bug has become an extremely unlikely possibility. My reasoning is as follows;

1) The Wizard of Odds issue - This issue carries a remarkable similarity to the issue 3 years ago where winning hands of a predefined level seem to be less likely to occur than they should be (or simply not possible). If these were simply bugs it's pretty unlikely that they'd bear such a marked similarity. Alternatively if the issue had been identified in 2012 and not fixed, this now qualifies as cheating.

2) Reports of other issues at BeatingBonuses - I know and understand why this site strongly divides opinion within this community, I also accept that the owner simply reported rather than published data supporting the conclusion I reference on his site. One thing is unquestionable though, Nolan is a far better mathematician than me and he was my first port of call when I wanted my conclusions verified. While his warning doesn't allow for independent verification, he's not known for posting information like that without verifying the conclusions himself. That's more issues of a similar nature.

and most importantly

3) Both the main game and the post game double feature were returning results that favoured the casino vastly more than is naturally possible. I appreciate that not everyone here will be familiar with the double feature, but this is an entirely separate game that HAS to be analysed separately from the main game. Likewise it has to run on separate code to the main game. For two separate batches of game code to both return bugs that both strongly favour the casino at the same time is VERY unlikely.

When the number of reported issues is considered alongside the similarity of the last two issue and two different sets of code being caught at the one time, the chances of this being a bug has diminished tiny levels.

I would say that both Eliot Jacobson and Michael Shackleford agree with this conclusion (I added MS as a peer reviewer after receiving his permission to cite his name yesterday).

What we can't say with any certainty is how the rig is being implemented. That would require a lot more testing. I could take a guess, but it would be nothing more than that.

[iGamingWriter]

I feel it's important to state at this point that Amigotechs/Skybook are now reaching out to the player to arrange for the return of their funds.

[Sherlock]

Well, if bugs (=errors without intention occur), there is always 50% chance it will side the house and 50% the player. There were few cases of those bugs, I recall bug in Spanish 21 many years ago, which allowed someone to win 1M or so. But yes - 1. I do not believe this was a bug and I should not suggest it; and with those arguments you just said, it is impossible 2. Even if it was bug it does not make the problem smaller and I should have said it

This is a shame for industry.

[iGamingWriter]

Well, if bugs (=errors without intention occur), there is always 50% chance it will side the house and 50% the player. There were few cases of those bugs, I recall bug in Spanish 21 many years ago, which allowed someone to win 1M or so. But yes - 1. I do not believe this was a bug and I should not suggest it; and with those arguments you just said, it is impossible 2. Even if it was bug it does not make the problem smaller and I should have said it

This is a shame for industry.

If that bug was at an Amigotechs casino I would be very interested to be pointed to more information. You're absolutely right that accidental errors should go both ways, and this is another factor against Amigotechs here as all the reported errors go for the casino and against the player.

The Amigotechs CEO made a semi-valid point when I raised this issue, that being that player positive issues weren't likely to hit the forums and the player benefits. That's true but only if the issue isn't detected by the casino before they pay the player out. Where the casino realise that players are winning because of a game error the usual result is for them to confiscate the winnings and cite a 'game error' clause. This inevitably results in angry players posting on forums. So player positive issue only tend not to receive attention if they're not caught by the casino.

[Triple7]

I feel it's important to state at this point that Amigotechs/Skybook are now reaching out to the player to arrange for the return of their funds.

Well, because they see there's really no other option to save their ### A bit late in my eyes...

[Triple7]

Not the first time they are caught and the mail conversation between The Pogg and them says all... in my eyes.

I'm not so impressed when someone ask for sorry and admits when he's driven completely in the corner and as good as K.O. They knew they were cheating and they are just giving this player his money back because all is online now and everybody knows they cheated. Propaganda. If no one noticed, they would keep on cheating.

[casinogratis77]

Wow thanks for sharing. It's a shame that they are doing such things. Casinos blacklisted.

[ocreditor]

http://www.onlinecasinoreports.com/a...n-cheating.php

This one was published last week !

Thanks ThePogg for making this post.

[alldog]

This must take a lot of time, but very worth it.

[iGamingWriter]

I wanted to update everyone - I've now confirmed that the owner of Amigotech software has personally repaid this player's losses.

I've heard nothing further regarding the impact on other players or repayment of any affected players baring the complainant.

[gyaloggalopp]

Well, this is the case when it's good news at first glance but not really good if you think about it. Will you add them to your blacklist anyway?

[iGamingWriter]

Well, this is the case when it's good news at first glance but not really good if you think about it. Will you add them to your blacklist anyway?

All casinos using Amigotechs software were on my Blacklist before any of this happened. The other reports I references regarding the integrity of their software were more than enough for me to not feel comfortable representing this software provider as fair.

While I do view the repayment of this player as a positive step, it doesn't in any way change the conclusions drawn in the report. There has been no statement from Amigotechs regarding what happened here and even if there had - short of a full confession - the evidence against any non-malicious explanation is over-whelming. I specifically made the offer I did to the player so I could not be put in the position where I had to choose between taking the right action (listing Amigotechs in our Blacklist) and getting the player's money back.