StanJames deceptive fun money games !

[PlayHunter]

I think it is deceptive for the player to offer games which have discrepancies between fun money play and real money play. Anyway, is this practice legit or not after all ? In `Games` section at StanJames, `Hi lo and numbers` tab anyone can find a game called `Triple Chance Hi-lo` (no account needed to be played in fun mode)

Its rule clearly state that the numbers are randomly drawn and that the same number can appear multiple times in a row, and if you draw a number equal with the previous one you lose your bet. OK ! The thing is that it will happen only when you play for real money, but when you play for fun money it will NEVER appear same number twice in a row ! (I have tested it for many hours) - Can someone explain me if it is legit for them to use deceptive fun money games ?

[Muppet]

Interesting. I just played for 15 minutes or so and never got the same number again on a spin either. You would expect it to happen once every 13 spins on average, so I should have seen it happen. Well spotted.

It gives the player an advantage because there is one less possibility of losing on each spin. When you are spinning against a 1 or a 13 where you only have one option of high or low there is no possibility of losing.

The question is does it happen during real money play? Have you played it for real? If the same number never spins in real money mode then it may just be a programming error. If the error does not happen in real mode then it is highly suggestive of separate code being run in real and play mode which in my view is a no-no.

Also before you go loco on Stan James, the game is published by a company called Dynamite Idea which looks to be a subsidiary of GTech G2. Have you contacted Stan James or GTech G2 about it?

[PlayHunter]

OK Muppet and everyone else who is wondering about the same things, I`ll make it very clear: (thought I`ll get rich - no!)

1. Tested in Real Money mode too (10c/spin) - the same number seem to appear even more than 1 in 13 ! (bad luck ?)

2. Is not a vendor issue because this very same game runs fair at Betdaq ! (this issue is only at StanJames and Nordicbet)

[Muppet]

The different casinos could be running different versions of the game where the "bug" has been fixed. But I still don't like the fact that it seems there are two separate code paths being used depending on whether the game is in real money or play mode. Or perhaps they are two totally separate game builds.

As for your points:

1. Hard to tell without a large sample and records of each spin.

2. It has to be an issue with the vendor because they are the ones that program the game and make this sort of thing possible, intentionally or not. The casinos cannot change the game like that unless the vendor programs the ability to alter things. If they are doing that I would not play any of their games ever again.

Did you contact Stan James and ask them?

[thepogg]

The different casinos could be running different versions of the game where the "bug" has been fixed. But I still don't like the fact that it seems there are two separate code paths being used depending on whether the game is in real money or play mode. Or perhaps they are two totally separate game builds.

As for your points:

1. Hard to tell without a large sample and records of each spin.

2. It has to be an issue with the vendor because they are the ones that program the game and make this sort of thing possible, intentionally or not. The casinos cannot change the game like that unless the vendor programs the ability to alter things. If they are doing that I would not play any of their games ever again.

Did you contact Stan James and ask them?

Hey Muppet - i've already collect video evidence that proves that the free play version is currently non-random, have tested in real play and proved that the results differ and am in the process of contacting SJ about the issue. I'll be doing the same with NB. I suspect that this will be a case of an update having been release and only updated on the real play versions as i find it unlikely that two bookmakers of that size would willing jepordise their reputations over such a small game. I'll update once i have feedback.

[Muppet]

Yes I tend to agree that its probably an unfixed bug. This game probably makes them bugger all money. The larger question is are there other bugs like this in their other games which would be far harder to spot?

[thepogg]

Now that's a really good question. 300 odd spins on this game with no matching consecutive numbers is approximately a 26 billion to 1 chance. Proving problems with their other games would take far more than 300 trials.

What i can say is that Dynamite Ideas provide a relatively small volume of the games provided by these casinos.

[GarryMc]

Here at StanJames.com we take Casino integrity issues very seriously. Please be assured that we would in no way intentionally mislead our players. Our games are configured to comply with all regulatory and fair means testing. We also test all of our games in both real and demo play before publication.

We have referred this issue to the game supplier for further testing to find out exactly what the situation with demo/real play is, and if indeed there is an issue. If any issue is confirmed, we will of course work with the supplier to rectify it as soon as possible.

Thanks to everyone who has highlighted this and please be assured that we are looking into it as a matter of urgency.

[SlotsAff]

It's good to know, at least, that they are looking into it

[Schankwart]

The same scenario happened already a while ago at Lady Dream, Goldbetting & Co.
Cheating fun mode does not neccessarily mean that the operators are aware of it or did it intentionally, but it should never happen. I would not touch this software or casino again.

If the RNG is messed up, I suggest talking to some guys in Australia... link.

[thepogg]

This seems like a farily simple mistake that both parties are working to resolve - might be a little harsh to blackball them both in this instance.

[thepogg]

We also test all of our games in both real and demo play before publication.

In contrast to what i just posted - this statement simply doesn't make any sense in this instance.

Either your testing of your free play games only involves someone sitting down and playing for a while to decide if they're working correctly - in which case your testing methods are inadequate - or something serious has gone wrong with your own testing of this game.

If the game was tested properly in free play mode - i.e. enough trials were played to give an accurate payout percentage - then either this game would have given a figure that was substantially out or the game is non-random.

I'm not trying to bust any balls here - as long as the error is rectified i'm happy - but the free play version of this game cannot have both been tested properly and not function correctly if it's truly random.

[Schankwart]

This seems like a farily simple mistake that both parties are working to resolve

I do not think this is a simple mistake at all. Any online casino only works if the RNG is intact. If players get faulty results in fun mode and happen to win extraordinarily big, they might be attracted to risk more than they can afford in real money mode.

There are plenty of options to test this before the software is being taken online.

[PlayHunter]

If players get faulty results in fun mode and happen to win extraordinarily big, they might be attracted to risk more than they can afford in real money mode.

There are plenty of options to test this before the software is being taken online.

I believe that players are lured to try the game in real money mode, if they win consistently in fun mode. But not that they are going to risk more than what they can afford. For example with this particular game, as I said, I was still suspicious and tried the game with the smallest stake which is 10 cents per spin, I did not went to bet 250$ per spin when I saw a 13 or 1.

See also a case with a card game at Bet365, basically it was a slot game and not a card one, but which was intentionally put in the wrong section to deceive players. (no one is allowed to weight a deck of 52 cards, yet to claim is a pure card game)

That case (and many others) have no ties with StanJames, but as a matter of fact almost ALL fairly mistakes/errors are in the casinos favor and never for the punter. - Why ? If in a very rare case a punter can exceptionally exploit a bad designed paytable and finally win some (serious) money, he will get only his deposits back even if he risked all ! (5Dimes deuces wild case)

As for the RNG testing, as you see they claim that all of their games are tested in both real and fun mode before online publication. - Well, I wonder if this is just a copy paste response having provided all the needed details at hand ?

[thepogg]

I do not think this is a simple mistake at all. Any online casino only works if the RNG is intact. If players get faulty results in fun mode and happen to win extraordinarily big, they might be attracted to risk more than they can afford in real money mode.

There are plenty of options to test this before the software is being taken online.

Well on this point our opinions would divege fairly dramatically. There's no conceivable logic to rigging what is highly likely to be one of the least popular games in the casino in fun mode - the number of players that would try this game in fun mode is likely to be fairly small comparitively and as such the extra revenue brought in by players who 'win extraordinarily big' in free mode is going to be tiny when balanced against the loss of custom that would happen if SJ were caught cheating.

On top of that this isn't a RNG error. There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest their RNG is compromised in any way, shape or form. This is a programing error where one of the possible outcomes has been removed as a possiblity and the game uses the RNG to draw a random number from a set of 12 rather than a set of 13.

As stated in my previous post, it's obvious that the test process that SJ apply is inadequte but this certainly doesn't suggest that other games have been intentionally bias in this way. Net Entertainment - who provide the vast majority of SJ's games stand to lose far to much to allow casino using their software to rig games in this fashion

[thepogg]

as a matter of fact almost ALL fairly mistakes/errors are in the casinos favor and never for the punter. - Why ? If in a very rare case a punter can exceptionally exploit a bad designed paytable and finally win some (serious) money, he will get only his deposits back even if he risked all ! (5Dimes deuces wild case)

That's not factual either - i've found and exploited several casino game glitches over my time as a player. Whether you get paid or not normally depends on two factors; how reputable the group is and how greedy you got. Errors happen both ways, it's just that most players aren't saavy enough to spot the ones in their favour. I've also been double paid on many occasions and been allowed to withdraw long before wagering has been met on others. It's simply easier to remember the times where you had a strong feeling of injustice.

The simple facts of the matter is that for any software brand with a good reputation allowing the casinos that license your product to cheat by rigging games makes no financial sense. All it would take is one disgruntled employee to take a screen shot of the back end system and put it up on some gambling message board and very quickly it would spread and the reputation of the software brand and the casinos using that brand would be in tatters. The simple fact is that all the games are weighted in the casino's favour already, they don't need to do anything other than keep a clean reputation and wait for the money to come to them.

[PlayHunter]

That's not factual either - i've found and exploited several casino game glitches over my time as a player. Whether you get paid or not normally depends on two factors; how reputable the group is and how greedy you got. Errors happen both ways, it's just that most players aren't saavy enough to spot the ones in their favour. I've also been double paid on many occasions and been allowed to withdraw long before wagering has been met on others. It's simply easier to remember the times where you had a strong feeling of injustice.

I agree with what you said, errors shall happen both ways, and I heard of them both ways also. But I want to argue about how you see and feel things. You think that we as humans are easier to remember bad luck and bad scenarios more often than the good stories. Well, let me tell you I am a very good backgammon (and other skill games) player and I fairly do remember my best strikes and jokers as well as my bad and unlucky times. If I balance them, those two things tend to equal.

But if we are talking about casino games, player exploits, player greed and casino/bookie reputability, well I can say you must be a damn lucky man, honestly. In my example I said 5Dimes (SBR A+) very reputable. I do not see the greed when you invest 7000$ and try to get out 22000$, it`s just triple the deposit. It is all about just how much big money are at stake.

You said that you was double paid several times. I am sure I had more than 10000 withdrawals along the years, but well, never ever one time happened to me to be double paid. Not even a mere 50$ or less. It is easy to speak when you are lucky.

As for the RNG, you may be right for sure, it may be a StanJames programming error most probably. But this still does not make up for how they responded here with a copy paste like response claiming that the game was previously tested in both fun mode and real mode before online publishing, as you also have very well remarked. My point of view is that the customer and any potential customer must be treated like a boss and not like a number ! That`s why I do not like copy paste responses.

[PlayHunter]

I am also expecting a resolution from StanJames at my other complaint regarding my SJ Casino and Skill Games closure at https://www.gpwa.org/forum/stanjames...tml#post684961 (PM`ed SJ rep. also - hope I`ll not get a copy paste respone)

[thepogg]

I agree with what you said, errors shall happen both ways, and I heard of them both ways also. But I want to argue about how you see and feel things. You think that we as humans are easier to remember bad luck and bad scenarios more often than the good stories. Well, let me tell you I am a very good backgammon (and other skill games) player and I fairly do remember my best strikes and jokers as well as my bad and unlucky times. If I balance them, those two things tend to equal.

Actually i wouldn't argue either. The human brain is wired in a way that allows us to focus on the things that validate our belief or the pattern we're looking for, while discounting those that don't. In the case of a gambler looking for a 'winning system' they'll remember the times that they made a play and won and fail to be so clear about the times when they made the same play and lost. That's where the blackjack 'anchor man' myth comes from. In the case of a player who believes the casino are cheating him, he'll remember the times that validate his argument while discounting as luck the times he wins.

But if we are talking about casino games, player exploits, player greed and casino/bookie reputability, well I can say you must be a damn lucky man, honestly. In my example I said 5Dimes (SBR A+) very reputable. I do not see the greed when you invest 7000$ and try to get out 22000$, it`s just triple the deposit. It is all about just how much big money are at stake.

You said that you was double paid several times. I am sure I had more than 10000 withdrawals along the years, but well, never ever one time happened to me to be double paid. Not even a mere 50$ or less. It is easy to speak when you are lucky.

I wouldn't consider 5 Dimes casino opporation particularly reputable if i'm honest. It's certainly not one i'd go out of my way to steer customers to. But if you're talking about the particular instances i think you are then you're right, they should have paid. That was little to do with getting greedy and more to do with the casino offering a stupidly good paytable. That willfull negligence rather than a glitch and falls into the same category as the Betfair 'Happy Hour' debacle.

When reviewing a casino recently one of the reviewers who helps me out came across several glitches in a blackjack game, all of which favoured the player or at worst were indifferent. Casino still paid them out even though they'd won a sizable amount of money. That was in the last 4 months. Anacdotal evidence really proves nothing, but my point is that not all errors favour the casino. It may feel like that at time and there certainly is some truth in the view that the casinos seem to come away with the upper hand more often than not, but the point i'm trying to make is that how a casino handle a situation where either they or the customer have been unfairly favoured is largely dependant on the casino involved.

As for the RNG, you may be right for sure, it may be a StanJames programming error most probably. But this still does not make up for how they responded here with a copy paste like response claiming that the game was previously tested in both fun mode and real mode before online publishing, as you also have very well remarked. My point of view is that the customer and any potential customer must be treated like a boss and not like a number ! That`s why I do not like copy paste responses.

I do agree that the response so far isn't all i'd hoped for - for a start the game is still available. It really should have been pulled as soon as the glitch had been verified.

[Schankwart]

I did not say it was done intentionally. All I am saying is that my trust is broken if the outcome of a game is not natural at all.