clempops4, the thread initiator at tWoV, was amazingly persistent, and inspirationally diligent, in his attempts to get the forum's statisticians around to his side of the blackboard. But I was truly astounded at the amount of data that he included in several of his posts, and the trouble to which he went to put all of this on video and move it all up to youtube.
My hat is off to clempops4, boymimbo, DorothyGale, teliot, and the forum in general.
Now, the issue at hand.
There are a bunch of questions earlier proposed. Let's start with those regarding an online sportsbook's relationship to its casino. Really, the bottom question is, does the sportsbook owner know that its game is rigged?
Does the Sportsbook owner know that its game is rigged?
IMO, an unqualified no. The Sportsbook owner is aware that they have a Casino product, and is aware that this product makes some sort of impact on their financial bottom line. Beyond that, everything else is either on the edge of the radar screen, or off the screen altogether.
I would be surprised if they knew what specific games were in the Casino, what Theoretical RTP means, or what the Actual RTP is for any game in specific, or for the Casino in general, in any given month.
Their number one focus is the Sportsbook. If they offer an interface into one of the Poker networks, then that would probably be the number two focus. Awareness of Casino details would be a distant third place.
Obviously, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. They delegate this awareness, and this operation, to others. (Our product runs on Adobe Flash, yet the complete extent of my abilities there are; I can spell the word "Flash".)
Who would have guessed (I sure didn't) that when you first started this forum back in October 2009 (Happy 2-year Anniversary BTW) that it would morph into what it has become.
I've concluded that anyone having a problem with an online Casino which involves game play knowledge, especially if that knowledge extends into any level of statistical analysis, then they should just bring that problem here.
Re: "... sticking your head out at this time." Hmm. Sounds ominous. Are there injuns in them thar hills?
World Wide Wagering
World Wide Wagering is an online sportsbook using BLRTech software licensed in Dominica. It is owned by World Wide Wagering. The site's primary language is English. A download is not required to place a wager.
click on View details of #4 WWW
No. In my opinion, showing they cheat on the pass side was enough. There is already other evidence they cheat the other way as well.
Well, doesn't that basically implies that it cheats on the fly - whatever you choose, it comes up with a losing outcome for you?
Also, what is a sufficient enough amount of data before you can determined if an even chance game is rigged in there favor?
In the case of the first test (don't pass), the CHIDIST function in Excel shows a probability of 0.0000000000000000000245. A score of 52 gives a probability of about 10 million to one.
In the case of the 2nd test (pass), the CHIDIST function in Excel shows a probability of 0.000000000000610357. A score of 54 gives a probability of about 10 million to 1.
10 million to one is where I think most people in this forum start to blink. This is on the territory of being dealt 3 A-A in a row in texas holdem or having the same color roulette number coming up 22 times in a row. It just isn't probable.
The software is so blatant in cheating as well. The come out rolls on the don't pass showed a massive variance for 7 and a massive variance against 3 and 2. After the come out rolls, the software so blatantly pushed for the point that even on the points of 4 and 10, the dice came out more in favor for the point than against it, over 440 samples. The chi-squared of the result after come-out (138.72) had a probablitiy of 0.000000000000000000000000000334.
When the user switched to pass, the results were different showing a massive variance against the 7 and a massive variance for the 3 (the 3 came out 59 times while the 7 came out only 45 times, in 600 rolls). Of the 89 4 and 10 points made, there were only 14 successes. (expected 37.7).
Spare me the technical mumbo jumbo; can I have it in English please:)
My attempt at the English:
It is often possible to calculate how likely a particular series of outcomes is to occur if the process is genuinely random. If an "allegedly-random" sequence of outcomes is outrageously inconsistent with "genuinely-random" behavior, there is reason to be suspicious. The probability of the "alleged" randomness being "genuine" may be calculated. In the case at hand, that probability is extremely low. If you want to understand how these calculations are performed, you will have to learn to understand "mumbo jumbo."
I personally would be satisfied with 30 trials of an even chance game if it gave a losing outcome to the player on all 30 trials ... that would be 1-in-2^30 = 1-in-1073741824 ... so for me, 30 trials is the minimum sufficient amount of data ... depending on the extent of the cheating, more trials would be needed ... for Mr. W., his 300 or so trials were plenty ... you don't need that many trials if the cheating is bad enough and BLR is really really bad ...Quote: DubStep
Also, what is a sufficient enough amount of data before you can determined if an even chance game is rigged in there (sic) favor?
.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,340,894,340,662,349. That is a trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,trillion,
trillion,trillion,trillion to 1 shot.
There is still a chance that I got unlucky but it is more likely to win the lottery 17 times in a row if the odds are 100,000,000 to 1 against you. It is more likely if there are 10,000 entries each year into the World Series of Poker that someone wins it 38 years in a row. It is more likely to put 10 numbers in a hat and pull out the same number 120 times in a row. Mathematically 843 bets of 3200 could happen in the next trillion years but it ain't gonna happen. That does not include the 153 wins of 564 bets that I did not video.
I can set up an account for you if you like. There is a high probability that the bad run is about to change.
Welcome Mr. Colby. Thank you for joining this forum.
I have a few questions... and thank you in advance for your time...
1. How does your company get paid? Do you sell your software for a set fee, or do you take a percentage of the profits that the purchasing company makes? Or is 'rented' on a per day basis?
2. After a sale, how do you check to make sure nothing like what happened to BLR will occur? Do you do daily tests, weekly, etc...
3. If you were unethical, and wanted to make more than the built in house edge, could you make a program to bump it up a tad? Example... could you make 00 on roulette occur once in 36 times instead of once in 38? Meaning something that would not be noticeable to the average bettor...
Super thanks for your answers...
I view your question #1, as stated, as one of those "really no one else's business" questions.
However, having read through this thread, I believe that my answer to this question would then provide the input parameter for a second question. So, if you don't mind, I'll re-format your first question, and combine it with my understanding of this second question.
"Is Galewind's financial arrangement with our Customer (the Sportsbook) of such a nature that deploying a 'rigged' Casino game would be of financial benefit to Galewind?"
If Galewind was paid a percentage of the monthly profits from the Casino, then there would be 2 advantages to deploying a "rigged" game:
1. We would make more money. (A direct advantage.)
2. We would have a happy customer. (An indirect advantage.)
If Galewind was paid a fixed amount per month, then there would be 1 advantage:
1. We would have a happy customer.
A happy customer is a long term customer. Keeping existing customers is as important, if not more important, than getting new customers.
Therefore, regardless of my answer to your question #1, there would always be a financial advantage to Galewind in providing a "rigged" game.
That is, of course, until we got caught. At that point any advantage evaporates, Galewind is quite probably out of business, and any historical positive return experienced by our Customer (the Sportsbook) is overturned by the negative impact of this exposure.
So, it's like any other form of corruption; everything is great, until you get caught.
Regarding your questions #2 and #3: I'll point you to a Post That I Made in a thread at Casinomeister that I believe speaks to these issues.
And finally, I'll also point you to a Thread That I Started on Casinomeister. As with most of the longer threads on Casinomeister, it starts off by addressing Topic A, then begins to morph into addressing Topic B (and C, and D). This Casinomeister thread starts to get on target with this one starting around page 5 or so. (This is the first, and currently only, thread that I have ever started on any forum in the history of, well, dirt.)
WorldWide and Legends continue to offer the fixed craps game. Why are they still operating the software? Why are customers still playing there? Obviously, the negative publicity doesn't affect their business model and they have no interest in removing their casinos from their site.
A post by another user (mightymaron) kind of says it all: he lost money playing a fixed game at 5 dimes but he will continue to book his money there because he's happy with the service otherwise. i don't get this.