Due diligence

The casino section of the sites in question is a very small part of the their operation. Legends, WorldWide and 5Dimes have been around for a while so changing their website and reappearing elsewhere won't work with them.

From my perspective, it appears that the casino SOFTWARE is what is in question. 5 Dimes killed their casino right away at the start of this scandal but they had other casinos on other platforms to offer. Legends is claiming that the RNG is theirs and there is no problem. Someone will have to test that, but given that WorldWide and 5Dimes had the same bias using the same software platform tells me that the problem lies with BLR and not the casino itself and that the bias will be at Legends as well.

You made me vote.

Quote: boymimbo

The casino section of the sites in question is a very small part of the their operation. Legends, WorldWide and 5Dimes have been around for a while so changing their website and reappearing elsewhere won't work with them.

From my perspective, it appears that the casino SOFTWARE is what is in question. 5 Dimes killed their casino right away at the start of this scandal but they had other casinos on other platforms to offer. Legends is claiming that the RNG is theirs and there is no problem. Someone will have to test that, but given that WorldWide and 5Dimes had the same bias using the same software platform tells me that the problem lies with BLR and not the casino itself and that the bias will be at Legends as well.

So boymimbo, you are saying a business (on-line casino) bought a product (software) from a company (BLR) and started using it and didnt check it even cursorily? Even if that was true, that would be damning enough. But how many test rolls would it have taken for the company to notice the likelihood of there being a problem? You don't think if you did a 100 pass line trial and noticed 25 wins and 75 losses that would at least be cause for concern and further testing? I found the software manufacturer's website and as best I can tell the company is based in Costa Rica. Has there ever been an on-line fraud tied to that country......???? Now we can add another....

The sites do not feature a certificate of fair gaming or any kind of randomness test, so I think the casinos are absolutely complicit.

It could have been easy enough as BLR doing a software update which contained the rogue code and the affiliate not being aware that the software update barfed up the odds. Who knows?

Legends is in denial, and I haven't seen any statement from WorldWide.

Edit: Both of the above casinos have been put on CasinoMeister's rogue list.

Further Edit: I'd leave 5 dimes up on the list as well until they have refunded the players who lost their money.

I didn't really post anything on this in any thread since frankly, I didn't really get into any of them to begin with. Since the Wizard's posting on this WoO site, I thought I'd check it out. I still didn't feel the need to post anything, but I do want to make a comment on this poll and the situation in general.

First, this poll is kind of like asking OJ Simpson "Did you murder them by shooting them, or are you completely innocent?" The first answer isn't entirely a "Yes" so it's a NO. In the case of these two questions, there's something in between being completely complicit and completely unaware... at least to find a reasonable answer. OBVIOUSLY, the casinos were complicit as they didn't do enough tests to figure out whether the software was rogue.

A better poll question is "To what degree did the online companies know the software was rogue?" Then you could have 4-5 options... I'm most curious as to how many people think they knew something was wrong and didn't do anything about it. Obviously, two companies are still denying it, meaning they must KNOW that's it bad software.

Perhaps the better question about the situation is... WHY DID PEOPLE KEEP PLAYING THERE???? I feel bad that a guy played 3000+ rolls, but SERIOUSLY... at what point do you say you just need to give up??? I would NEVER play online, including poker, except for play money. But even if I did, I wouldn't DARE go to an online casino and give up that many rolls and sit back and say it's ok.

It's like the new machines on Pai Gow Poker that set house ways AND where the cards go. I KNOW NGC would not allow those RNGs to be rogue, but I still don't like playing on them. Why? Well it was amazing how when I did play on them, the dealer got all the great bonus hands, and usually had the strongest hands. If they didn't, the house way would be set to beat.

OK, I KNOW FOR A FACT that this was just variance at my time at the Cosmopolitan. I wouldn't make an argument otherwise, but after losing 300 pretty quickly, I said, I'll go to Caesars where at least they shake the dice up. But an online casino... after about 10 rolls I would be saying "See ya!" and pray that I get the money I sent back...

At some point in time, it no longer becomes about the money. You try to prove a point to yourself and the world. I've done that - sat at a video poker machine at a casino asking myself, is this just bad variance or is the machine rigged and played until i came to my own conclusion (it's rigged). Unfortunately the only way to do this is with real money.

ClemPops who was the OP posted that he had only won 843 (it was actually 853) of 3,200 bets. Well, if the bet is a YO or even a C&E bet that would be a good thing. Everyone doubted him until DorothyGale and I started asking for an receiving the videos. If he had only recorded 500 bets and he won only 130 we would chalk it up to bad luck and send him on his way. He wouldn't have posted the videos and probably that would be it. Now he probably didn't have to go to 3,200 bets but he did, videotaping each set along the way. He had $25 Grand in his account balance so some $1 don'ts probably fascinated him at first until it became a clear anomaly and probably a fascination.

But to Clem he didn't have a statistics background to realize the sample size required to discover cheating. And it took analysis by DorothyGale, myself (who became quite curious) and realtime tests (with statistical analysis) by teliot and the Wizard to back it up. And it took an activist to advertise it on the sbr.com and casinomeister site, which most gamblers don't even bother reading.

Sometimes you just can't believe it. There have been several threads about online casinos cheating, and the typical response has been "why would they - they have the edge built it". Well, sometimes the built in edge isn't enough, apparently, and that's quite sad. And given that the sportsbooking side of the wagering site has been given A+ ratings to Legends and 5Dimes (WorldWide is a B) at SBR.com, there are probably many many players who think "trust the sportsbook, trust the casino" and were absolutely ripped off.

News is spreading: now at reviewed-casinos.com.

And I've learned over at SBR that 5 dimes is not going to refund money to someone who had lost earlier at their rigged casino.