Thread Rating:

Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 6th, 2013 at 2:37:36 PM permalink
Quote:

Phil Brear is not a regulator but a joke, a moron, a shill, a puppet, a figurehead, a fraud, a placebo, ...



I may have got the impression you don't like him....?


Quote:

So, what I take from that is that the "Gibraltar gambling regulator" is not bound by any rules except those he makes and interprets himself, so he is just a tool (double-entendre intentional) of the online gambling industry to create trust and the illusion of regulation that is in fact non-existent.



He's just making a big fuss that they're not the GRA anymore, but the GGC.


Of course, the response is just ludicrous beyond ludicrous. I don't know where to start, and if I did I'd probably give up anyway. There's only so much idiocy I can handle, and I've handled a lot. This bloke defeats me. I can't believe he's in charge of an ostensibly serious regulator.
Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 8th, 2013 at 7:18:05 AM permalink
I'd like an expert opinion on this. He originally said:


Quote:

In very simple terms, the PFR game logic amounted to each customer choice producing an RNG number between 1 and 10,000, with numbers below 4800 winning and numbers above, losing, creating 96% RTP entirely randomly and a house win of 4%.



Right. So knocking off the zeros, 48 went (say) black, and 48 went red, total 96. I'd already worked that out myself. But the remaining numbers 97, 98, 99 and 100, when they are hit they kick in the "factor X" function, whereby whatever bet the player is currently on loses. So if he's on black, it goes red and vice versa.

Is this correct, and if so is it the ONLY possible conclusion?

If not, what is an alternative?

Could this "adapt to bet" mechanism be engineered straightforwardly enough by a software designer?
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 122
  • Posts: 12712
June 8th, 2013 at 7:24:51 AM permalink
Quote: Caruso


Is this correct, and if so is it the ONLY possible conclusion?

If not, what is an alternative?

Could this "adapt to bet" mechanism be engineered straightforwardly enough by a software designer?



I don't know anything about software design, but what I interpret from what he said is that a RNG-Generated number of 4800 (or less) results in a win for the player...the color the player picked is irrelevant. It will correspond to that color if the RNG returns 4800 or less. If the RNG returns 4801-10000, then the opposite color will win.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 8th, 2013 at 8:02:44 AM permalink
Right, that does look more in line with what he says; thanks.

As such, you could have a "fair adaptive" game where 1 to 5000 returned "win" and 5001 to 10000 returned "lose". This would represent fair odds (for a coin toss, red / black or whatever), but it would still be "adaptive". Right?

To crystalise the difference with examples:

Non-adaptive: "The RNG-generated number is 40, which is mapped to red; the player is on red, so he wins. If the player had bet on black, red would still have been displayed as winning, and the player would have lost".

Adaptive: "The RNG-generated number is 40, which is a player win number; the player is on red, so red is displayed as winning. If the player had bet on black, black would have been displayed as winning".
binary128
binary128
Joined: Nov 5, 2011
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 82
June 8th, 2013 at 9:00:27 AM permalink
I've never played either of these games. (I've seen their pictures, posted by Eliot on Casinomeister.)

Does anyone know whether you can place multiple bet types at the same time, as in Roulette where you can place a "Bet on Red", a "Bet on Even" and a "Bet on 1-18" on the same spin of the wheel?

If not, then I would pursue an "adaptive" argument. If so, then I would pursue a "rigged" argument (as in the infamous BLR Tech Craps game fiasco).

Chris
Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 8th, 2013 at 11:13:25 AM permalink
Quote: binary128

I've never played either of these games. (I've seen their pictures, posted by Eliot on Casinomeister.)

Does anyone know whether you can place multiple bet types at the same time, as in Roulette where you can place a "Bet on Red", a "Bet on Even" and a "Bet on 1-18" on the same spin of the wheel?

If not, then I would pursue an "adaptive" argument. If so, then I would pursue a "rigged" argument (as in the infamous BLR Tech Craps game fiasco).

Chris




Are these not simple two choice games, ie. red / black or high / low? I'm also not familiar with the games, and I can't see any screenshot examples, being banned at Bailey's gaff, but I understand that Reel Deal is a basic coin toss type game.

I'm also interested in a more forensic look at this "adaptive" issue, which is why I'm trying to clarify my thinking. I don't think industry stool pigeons, posing in almost judicial capacity, should be able to get away with this kind of thing so blatantly. Gibraltar needs to be held better to account.
Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 16th, 2013 at 7:16:43 AM permalink
The GRA (GGC) ramping up the rhetoric with this charming threat to Eliot:


Quote:

I have no wish to have a public slanging match on your role in this matter and your defective logic so I suggest you make a diplomatic and tactical retreat.



I have a counter suggestion: maybe Brear should consider a diplomatic and tactical retreat of his own, issue a proper finding and order BetFred to compensate players the 4% of the total wagering handle they're owed over the years this game was in operation.
teliot
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 37
  • Posts: 1956
June 16th, 2013 at 7:50:54 AM permalink
Brear is full of thinly veiled threats, innuendo, intimidation and conspiracy theories. The online casino industry has taken a giant step backwards in credibility with Brear's sorry handling of this issue.
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
June 16th, 2013 at 8:05:51 AM permalink
Quote: teliot

Brear is full of thinly veiled threats, innuendo, intimidation and conspiracy theories. The online casino industry has taken a giant step backwards in credibility with Brear's sorry handling of this issue.




This came to mind as I read Brear's response.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://olivefab.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Nixon-not-a-crook.jpg&imgrefurl=http://olivefab.com/2013/02/17/i-am-not-a-cook/&h=321&w=475&sz=69&tbnid=_SbwwYooRPXCOM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=133&zoom=1&usg=__nhfU4Tw7anQ7H3DbuGocPhFM_wg=&docid=ZPDhCmt-kMh_TM&sa=X&ei=4dO9UfLCOenXygHeqIDACQ&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAQ&dur=424
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
Caruso
Caruso
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 74
June 17th, 2013 at 6:12:15 AM permalink
Quote: teliot

The online casino industry has taken a giant step backwards in credibility with Brear's sorry handling of this issue.



You think? I doubt it. I predict things will tick on pretty much unchanged.

I'll be pleased to be proven wrong.

  • Jump to: