Are Some Computer RNGs More Equal Than Others?

I'm thinking about playing craps for real on Bovada & have established an account, but haven't sent any money, yet. What I first want to do is use Bovada's free game feature, but have trouble accessing that feature. ("No current balance") I own a Mac, btw.

I have been using, for some time, the Wizard's online practice game & also have a small offline program that I've played on. (Not WinCraps) But, I'd like to use Bovada's practice feature, since I believe its RNG will be the same for a real game. Since I have trouble accessing Bovada's feature, I'm wondering if the Wizard's RNG is close enough or identical. I'm sure the offline program I have does not have the quality RNG of Bovada.

I may be in left field on this. Maybe all RNG's are created equal & I can practice on the other two, believing what I get there I will get on Bovada after I deposit money. Any help/advice appreciated. BTW, I've read several threads in this forum & have some reservations playing online, but that's another story.

If you think you are going to spot some pattern from the RNG and be able to exploit it, well, good luck with that. It will probably cost you bank roll.

But then again, some people in the past have indeed found a flaw, and profited from their finding. I wish you luck, but don't play with your mortgage money.

The thing I have noticed about the practice games is, money is no object. If you go broke, you just reload and go again. I don't know about you, but I don't have a bankroll like that. I can play with abandon for a bit, but then my pain level gets hit, and I have to slow down. And if I am playing slow when the great roll comes along, I do not recover my losses, and the result is a losing session.
I learned a lot about this by running sessions with WinCraps where I ran the same betting patterns, and ran the exact same roll sequences, but with different starting bankrolls. It was a real eye opener with how many sessions I busted out with a 1k bankroll, and what my average win amount was, compared to the same rolls when I had a 2k bankroll.

So, decide how much you can really afford to lose, and then play your practice session(s) with only that amount. When that runs out, you have gone broke. No reloads. Then see if you have a winning strategy for craps...

Thanks, RaleighCraps. No, I use the practice games as if I were playing live. IOW, if the game starts w/ $1K, I prorate that down to the $200 or $400 buy-in for a session, as if live. And, no, I'm not into trying to track/figure what an RNG is doing. All I want to know is if I practice either on the Wizard's site or w/ my offline program, am I getting reliable random numbers, whatever they may be, so that IF I play on Bovada for real, I can trust the randomness of the numbers that turn up.

I'm too lazy to check right now, but I think both Bovada & the Wizard use the Real Time Gaming RNG, which is supposed to be the best. I can't get any info from my offline producer re: the RNG it uses.

Are rng threads srarted just to torture me?

Quote: EvenBob

Are rng threads srarted just to torture me?

Haha. No, EB, not at all. There's no search window so I can't search this forum for RNG threads & I don't want to spend the time going thru hundreds of threads to find answers to my specific need.

I have no insight into how gaming machine RNGs work but cannot believe they don't use some kind of timing (e.g. using the milliseconds) to mix up the string of random numbers generated by the program. I'm aware of a number of ways to create random numbers, essentially it is picking the next one from a very long sequence of numbers which is created so it is quite difficult to work out the next one from the ones you have. Given the machine will not use all the digits (for instance to decide a roulette wheel 0-36 say) then, trying to crack the code, you don't see all the info.

Technically the one I'd use is the Mersenne one ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister ) .

Quote: Sonny44

There's no search window so I can't search this forum for RNG threads

There is a search item in the main menu (upper middle-right). If you click that, you can type 'RNG' in the search box and press Enter, and a list of RNG-related threads will magically appear.

Quote: charliepatrick

Technically the one I'd use is the Mersenne one

Your link had a problem (it included the trailing ) and period).

Here is a working link.

Personally, I prefer a straightforward linear congruential (generating numbers continuously by a timer of some sort), but you use a range larger than the one you need and then take the most significant bits - this makes the periods between iterations of a particular number variable.

Thanks - I've fixed my link (the site must have added the "."). I also used simpler ones when it didn't matter, such as X' = (X*A)+B mod 16^something (it was mainframe testing).

Quote: JB

There is a search item in the main menu (upper middle-right). If you click that, you can type 'RNG' in the search box and press Enter, and a list of RNG-related threads will magically appear.

Yes, Sir. I discovered that after posting. (Face is red.) What I'm really after is if the Wizard's "Play Craps for Free" uses the same RNG that Bovada uses. There are lots of RNG threads, but I need some specific info. My $12 offline program has many features I wish the Wizard's had, but I can't get any RNG info from the company. Thank you, nevertheless.

Quote: Sonny44

What I'm really after is if the Wizard's "Play Craps for Free" uses the same RNG that Bovada uses.

The RNG used in the craps game is JavaScript's Math.random() method. It would not be suitable for use by an online casino, so it's safe to say that the RNG used in the Wizard's craps game is definitely NOT what Bovada (or any other online casino software) uses.

Quote: JB

The RNG used in the craps game is JavaScript's Math.random() method. It would not be suitable for use by an online casino, so it's safe to say that the RNG used in the Wizard's craps game is definitely NOT what Bovada (or any other online casino software) uses.

I suppose my little offline program uses the JavaScript RNG, too. Thanks for that info. I think I've read that Bovada uses the Real Time Gaming RNG. Is that true? RTG's RNG is supposed to be the best there is for online gambling. As usual, I could be wrong.

What's the difference between the RNGs ?
Is the JavaScript RNG more apt to have a detectable pattern of number generation?
Would it be correct to assume that in a game like craps, the JavaScript RNG would produce a fair and nondetectable distribution of dice throws?

I don't know how much this contributes to the conversation, but I understand JavaScript RNG uses the pseudorandom number generator, called the Mersenne Twister: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister. The article supplies formulas, sample coding, & at the bottom it shows languages using it, which you can click on. The "twister" is supposed to be a good RNG. I also understand all browsers use the JavaScript RNG.

I suppose if I use the WOO's practice game, it will be pretty good, altho not meeting casino requirements. I'm still going to try getting into Bovada's practice game, which is supposed to be Mac compatible, according to MacCraps.com, altho I find I can't download the software, but can play online.

Quote: Sonny44

(Face is red)

Only when playing bubble boy hockey, comrade

OOPS! How about MY face is red? ; )

Quote: Face

Only when playing bubble boy hockey, comrade

That's a good one. I can't remember when was the last time I saw a USSR bubble hockey unit though. The few ones you can find now are usually vs. Canada.

Quote: Sonny44

I don't know how much this contributes to the conversation, but I understand JavaScript RNG uses the pseudorandom number generator, called the Mersenne Twister: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister. The article supplies formulas, sample coding, & at the bottom it shows languages using it, which you can click on. The "twister" is supposed to be a good RNG. I also understand all browsers use the JavaScript RNG.

I suppose if I use the WOO's practice game, it will be pretty good, altho not meeting casino requirements. I'm still going to try getting into Bovada's practice game, which is supposed to be Mac compatible, according to MacCraps.com, altho I find I can't download the software, but can play online.

Someone that is more knowledgeable with RNGs please correct me, but in terms of actual results, it's unlikely you'll notice a difference in results from the Wizard's practice game and Bovada's game. Bovada has to use a more advanced RNG than javascript more for security purposes, not to improve the likelihood of random results. If someone cracks Wiz's pseudoRNG to predict results, the only benefit he gets is the accomplishment, no cash.

You may wish to read one of the testing laboratories write up on how they test RNGs (see p39ff in http://www.gaminglabs.com/downloads/GLI%20Standards/Bill%20E%202011/GLI-11%20v2.1.pdf - or follow link from http://www.gaminglabs.com/default.asp?contentID=3 - i.e. their standards).
I am not related to this company but have stumbled across this as part of my personal investigations, so thought it fair to share the type of testing that goes on.

For more words than you may want to read about the subject, follow the link at the top of this WOV post titled "a thread over at thePOGG" to go to, of all places, a thread over at thePOGG's forum.

Chris

Quote: binary128

For more words than you may want to read about the subject, follow the link at the top of this WOV post titled "a thread over at thePOGG" to go to, of all places, a thread over at thePOGG's forum.

Chris

In that thread you wrote explaining how an honest RNG works.

Quote:
"Again, the ONLY thing that an RNG does - when something asks it for a number within a range, then it makes sure that any number in that range has exactly the same chance of being returned as any other number".

Can you explain how the alleged random RNG's were programed to operate when anyone of the many online rigged software's were exposed? For example,

Quote:
"The software by BLR Technologies, based in Costa Rica, detects a player's bet and increases the chances of a losing roll, according to gambling consultant Michael Shackleford, known as the "Wizard of Odds," and Eliot Jacobson, operator of Jacobson Gaming, which audits and certifies casino games around the world."

it depends on the game ,algorithm and the seed.

For example if you use 32,64 or 128 bit RNG (high quality algorithm, nothing wrong with distrubition) to to deal the cards for texas hold'em game, it is still rigged, not fair enough because you need at least 226 bit to create all possible shuffles for a 52 cards.

Quote: jackhigh78

it depends on the game ,algorithm and the seed.

For example if you use 32,64 or 128 bit RNG (high quality algorithm, nothing wrong with distrubition) to to deal the cards for texas hold'em game, it is still rigged, not fair enough because you need at least 226 bit to create all possible shuffles for a 52 cards.

Only if you're doing a single RNG pull and mapping that data to a deck ordering. That's not the way most shuffles work, certainly not the Fisher-Yates shuffle. Under the assumption of an unbiased RNG, all you need is 6 bits (and multiple pulls) to shuffle the deck. You could certainly pull 226 random bits from an unbiased bit stream and then do that mapping using a factorial scheme, but I don't know if anyone's actually doing that. It would involve a lot more cycles than the F-Y shuffle.

Quote: 4ofaKind

Can you explain how the alleged random RNG's were programed to operate when anyone of the many online rigged software's were exposed?

Let's say that, in code, you had a "thing" (an organized pile of programming) called a RouletteGame. When you asked it to, this RouletteGame would do something called PlayGame. To do this PlayGame, the RouletteGame would need a list of the players bets (a combination of bet types and bet amounts).

GameResults = RouletteGame.PlayGame(PlayerBets)

BUT ....

What if the RouletteGame ALSO could make use of a little bit of information that I'll call WinFactor.

GameResults = RouletteGame.PlayGame(PlayerBets, WinFactor)

The WinFactor would be used first. It determines whether this spin of the Roulette wheel is going to be a winner or a loser. Here's how that would work.

WinOrLose = GetRandomNumber(1, 100)

If WinOrLose is less than WinFactor, then this game is going to be a loser (IsGameLoser = True). For example, if WinFactor is 20 and the WinOrLose random number is 17 then all of the game processing that follows will result in a losing game.

Let's see how that would work.

If IsGameLoser Then
- Do
- - - WheelResult = RouletteWheel.SpinWheel (This is the part that uses the RNG)
- - - BetResult = RouletteBets.GetTotalResult(WheelResult)
- Loop While BetResult > 0
End If

NOTE - the RNG is inside the Do loop. The RNG is doing exactly what I described - "... the ONLY thing that an RNG does - when something asks it for a number within a range, then it makes sure that any number in that range has exactly the same chance of being returned as any other number".

The game is corrupted by the Loop While statement. What this statement means is to just keep running the game over and over until you get a loser.

That was the flaw in the Legends' statements that they were using a "high quality RNG". The game corruption had nothing to do with the RNG - it had to do with that "Loop While" statement.

Chris

Great explanation Chris.

I will never trust any electronic gambling for this very reason. It is too easy to manipulate the supposed randomness with code.

Quote: RaleighCraps

Great explanation Chris.

I will never trust any electronic gambling for this very reason. It is too easy to manipulate the supposed randomness with code.

Isn't that a pretty broad statement to make? I'd like to see other opinions on this. I'm no programmer, but I do get the Loop While function & the RNG's place w/in it. But, couldn't authorizing authorities, somehow, make sure there's no Loop While function in the code? Or, even if they did, the code could still be altered afterward to "fix" the machines. Is that possible?

IOW, the only reliable randomness is in live table games? Everything else is "fixed"? I haven't put real money into an online craps game & that's what I'm trying to decide & why I started this thread. Maybe forget that scene?

Quote: Sonny44

Isn't that a pretty broad statement to make? I'd like to see other opinions on this. I'm no programmer, but I do get the Loop While function & the RNG's place w/in it. But, couldn't authorizing authorities, somehow, make sure there's no Loop While function in the code? Or, even if they did, the code could still be altered afterward to "fix" the machines. Is that possible?

Not only do regulators and test labs in well-run jurisdictions get source code for everything, they do testing at all levels of the process: the RNG itself, the scaling algorithm that converts raw RNG output to game-specific output (like roulette numbers), and the final results distribution. That "loop until the player loses" nonsense would never get past the NGCB or GLI, and it's absurd that anyone would ever claim that it's a proper use of an RNG. RNGs have been used (properly) in electronic single- and multi-player games since the 1980s. These days it's more likely to find a meaningful bias in a roulette wheel than a software RNG.

Quote: MathExtremist

Only if you're doing a single RNG pull and mapping that data to a deck ordering. That's not the way most shuffles work, certainly not the Fisher-Yates shuffle. Under the assumption of an unbiased RNG, all you need is 6 bits (and multiple pulls) to shuffle the deck.

What's important is not the number of bits the RNG will return as a random number, but the number of bits the (pseudo-)RNG keeps as its internal state.

Quote: MathExtremist

Not only do regulators and test labs in well-run jurisdictions get source code for everything, they do testing at all levels of the process: the RNG itself, the scaling algorithm that converts raw RNG output to game-specific output (like roulette numbers), and the final results distribution. That "loop until the player loses" nonsense would never get past the NGCB or GLI, and it's absurd that anyone would ever claim that it's a proper use of an RNG. RNGs have been used (properly) in electronic single- and multi-player games since the 1980s. These days it's more likely to find a meaningful bias in a roulette wheel than a software RNG.

"regulators and test labs in well-run jurisdictions get source code for everything, they do testing at all levels of the process"

And therein lies my reluctance. Any online craps game that exists in an online casino that I am aware of today, is NOT being run in any jurisdiction that I would dare bet is 100% looking out for the players. You can trust your money to the nations who allow casino internet craps games, but I don't.

Now, once internet casinos come online in the US, then I would tend to agree that the adherence to legitimate randomness will be assured. But until then it is my opinion that you are just gambling that the game is going to be completely fair.

I would think that ME's statement above is applicable to electronic gaming in the US. Other countries may indicate their games pass GLI, but who is the enforcement agency that is guaranteeing compliance?

I do find it interesting that the electronic craps games released in casinos in the US today all use real dice to determine the roll outcome. I am not aware of any game that rolls the dice via a RNG.

Quote: MangoJ

...the number of bits the (pseudo-)RNG keeps as its internal state.

I was initially confused at first, but you are correct.

Assuming you're shuffling one pack of cards, you need to ensure that every possible [re]ordering of the cards can come out, presumably with equal probability. Simply put you have to pick a number from 1-52 for the first card, 1-51 for the second etc.

(i) the output of each "number" from the RNG has to be big enough to create 52 different answers (2^6 would do, but for practical purposes 2^32 is easily sufficient).
(ii) the output of 51 consecutive "numbers" has to cover all the permutations (internal state).
(iii) the algorithm to use those numbers to create the shuffle has to be fair and equal (programming outside the RNG generator).

Since each starting place (internal state) will always produce the same sequence of random numbers, rule (ii) means there must be more starting places than there are possible orderings for a pack of cards. This is where the 226 number comes from (2^226 and 52!).

However what is also probably worrying for a casino only using 2^226, assuming you know the internal logic, is that the order of a single pack of cards identifies the starting position and presumably the next pack dealt. That is why they probably would keep picking random numbers in real time until the next one is needed.

Quote: MathExtremist

Not only do regulators and test labs in well-run jurisdictions get source code for everything, they do testing at all levels of the process: the RNG itself, the scaling algorithm that converts raw RNG output to game-specific output (like roulette numbers), and the final results distribution. That "loop until the player loses" nonsense would never get past the NGCB or GLI, and it's absurd that anyone would ever claim that it's a proper use of an RNG. RNGs have been used (properly) in electronic single- and multi-player games since the 1980s. These days it's more likely to find a meaningful bias in a roulette wheel than a software RNG.

Nevada and New Jersey are the only two jurisdictions I know for fact that require this type of testing. Not that there aren't any other land based jurisdictions requiring the same scrutiny.

When it comes to computer games I wouldn't even trust land based Indian casinos since most of their back end operations are secret and most information is unavailable to the public.

Now when it comes to online gaming is when the fn ridiculous comes into play. If anyone out there thinks they know for sure that their gambling online and confident their getting a fair game can only be considered a gambling fool.

Other then the obviously exposed proof of the poker scandals which made its way to the main stream media, name me one case when rigged casino games were exposed and any online regulator taking any type of serious action.

Online regulators can't even enforce their own basic rules when handing out licenses. I'm willing to bet that you could stomp them just asking about an RNG, source code, scaling algorithm, etc.

At quality land based jurisdictions not only is the software lab tested, it's then sealed with a tag and could only be installed and removed with a regulator present.

This is not saying there aren't any online casinos offering a fair game. But if you have to count on the he said, she said, he said - it's fair, and when you run into a problem the only chance of at least someone listening to you, even if they are Kangaroo Court's are places like "Casinomeister"............ gambling fool is an understatement.

@Chris...Thanks for the explanation, one of the very few that would be willing to step to the plate.

Quote: 4ofaKind

Nevada and New Jersey...require this type of testing.

The UK requires the same for Fruit Machines (which is where I read about the machines needing to keep selecting random numbers in the background) (ref http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/test_houses.aspx ). However it's on the basis of the tester being authorised, so I don't know how closely things are monitored. At the end of the day the casino has to report it's take and payout and meet the stated percentage (which has to be displayed) - one casino I know always adds a couple of percent to the stated value.

My only concern would be, as a player, if you were somehow denied a payout while someone else subsequently received a higher prize - I know with some earlier machines there were people who could tell when a machine would play, something to do with wins with nudges - but now all the casino machines (except a very small number of £500 ones) are spin, lose, win or predetermined feature payout.

It would be interesting if the Wizard weighed in on this since he endorses the Bovada online casino.

Quote: Sonny44

It would be interesting if the Wizard weighed in on this since he endorses the Bovada online casino.

Online regulation enforcement is non-existent. Always was and still is. Without monthly audits by regulator enforcement reviewing all gaming data in and out there could be no debate about online regulation enforcement. This argument is closed. Gambling and trust based on hear say is no different then flipping a coin for a wager without being able to check the coin before or after the flip.

Regardless who endorses any online casino in today’s present unregulated environment, that endorsement should be meaningless to an educated gambler. Obviously, endorsements under present online conditions and coming from a professional gaming expert must have other motivations involved.

I'm not trashing the host here, just expressing my personal opinion after considering the actual facts.

4ofaKind --

In 6 years of investigating software, the RNG has never been the problem. It would be incredibly difficult to reprogram the RNG to make it behave one way for one game, another way for another game. There is no need to do that. It is quite trivial to use a high-quality RNG to weight the outcomes using appropriate scaling. Use any standard RNG you want, the code that generates a weighting of 52/48 on a coin flip is trivial.

Quote: teliot

4ofaKind --

In 6 years of investigating software, the RNG has never been the problem. It would be incredibly difficult to reprogram the RNG to make it behave one way for one game, another way for another game. There is no need to do that. It is quite trivial to use a high-quality RNG to weight the outcomes using appropriate scaling. Use any standard RNG you want, the code that generates a weighting of 52/48 on a coin flip is trivial.

I totally understand the reliability of RNG's, it's the software's programming codes I'm concerned with. The RNG's can only make a decision based on what choices are there for it choose from.

Quote: RaleighCraps

Great explanation Chris.

I will never trust any electronic gambling for this very reason. It is too easy to manipulate the supposed randomness with code.

I don't want us to go off the deep end here. The question to which I responded referenced BLR Tech., and I offered a plausible explanation on how that fiasco might have played out.

I'd like to remind, or inform, the audience that I'm the President of Galewind Software Corp. We make these products. The fact that I am aware of these cheats does not, or certainly should not, mean that we use them. Besides, the cheat that I detailed would easily be caught by any competent, and honest, game auditor.

I realize that Galewind Software is a really small fish in a really big pond. But I like to think that over the years we have built up a reputation for integrity that protects us from being painted with the same brush as other, less reliable, software providers. The Gods know that we've worked very hard to achieve that objective.

Chris

This is a terrific discussion, thanks all! There is a lot of really good information here and answers several questions I've had as well.

Quote: binary128

I realize that Galewind Software is a really small fish in a really big pond. But I like to think that over the years we have built up a reputation for integrity that protects us from being painted with the same brush as other, less reliable, software providers. The Gods know that we've worked very hard to achieve that objective.

Chris

@Chris

Your reputation and integrity speaks for itself. Over the years and reading your posts/threads you’ve proved to be a warrior trying to right the wrongs with the underground non-transparent online gaming industry.

I also recall your software being used by a rogue operator who was wrongfully keeping a players winnings. A substantial amount I should add. Unable to persuade the operator to pay the winner, you stepped up to the plate and paid the winner directly out of pocket and tossed the operator. I can’t name a single whale software provider that ever did this.

With regards to this incident could you tell us what the regulators position was on this case?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the regulators supposed to make certain that the casino operator maintains a minimum separate escrow account for player safety?

Did the regulators make certain this operator couldn’t own or operate another online casino in the future?

Did the regulators take any form of action legal or otherwise against the operator?

I’m certain your software had to pass some form of testing before the regulators accepted it in their jurisdiction. Was this testing done by them, or did you just pay to have it tested and provide a seal of satisfaction?

Once the software was approved by the regulator and being used by an operator, was there ever any future software testing requirement; if so, how often? If there was additional testing, was it done by them or did you just have to pay for and provide proof of a current test?

Once you sold your software to an operator, who actually had access to the software and programming codes?

If an operator wanted too could he or she alter code without you knowing about it?

How, as a software provider do you know with certainty that no one could tamper with the software after it’s in place?

With the confirmed rigged software that was being used by BLR, was that rigged programming done by the operator or the software provider?

I’ll end it here but still many more questions. If your not comfortable answering I understand.

Quote: 4ofaKind

@Chris
Once you sold your software to an operator, who actually had access to the software and programming codes?
If an operator wanted too could he or she alter code without you knowing about it?
How, as a software provider do you know with certainty that no one could tamper with the software after it’s in place?

These are questions I'm also interested in the answer to. IOW, once the software is in the hands of the operator, to what extent is there security that the software will not be tampered with? And, if it is tampered with, how will that be found out?

Quote: 4ofaKind

With regards to this incident:

1. Could you tell us what the regulators position was on this case?

2. Aren’t the regulators supposed to make certain that the casino operator maintains a minimum separate escrow account for player safety?

3. Did the regulators make certain this operator couldn’t own or operate another online casino in the future?

4. Did the regulators take any form of action legal or otherwise against the operator?

5. I’m certain your software had to pass some form of testing before the regulators accepted it in their jurisdiction. Was this testing done by them, or did you just pay to have it tested and provide a seal of satisfaction?

These questions deal with the relationship between the licensing jurisdiction and the operator. As with Gibraltar, Curacao does not have a licensing or approval system for software providers. For this jurisdiction Galewind Software responds to the contract requirements of the operator.

Therefore (and this is not a cop out, but a precise description), Galewind's answer to all 5 of the above questions is "Not Applicable".

Quote: 4ofaKind

Once the software was approved by the regulator and being used by an operator, was there ever any future software testing requirement; if so, how often? If there was additional testing, was it done by them or did you just have to pay for and provide proof of a current test?

For software that is unchanged, there is no contract requirement specifying what tests need to be performed, and how. Obviously, the monthly CFG analysis of the game results and the RTP report do represent additional testing.

For our iTech Labs RNG certification there is a re-certification requirement if there are any changes made to the software. For example, we made a change to the Cycle process, which is what prompted the current iTech Labs certification, dated 2011 Oct 03, to replace the previous, dated 2010 Jul 06.

And finally, Galewind Software is licensed and regulated by the AGCC (License # 57 A, first issued on 2012 Jun 01 and renewed on 2013 Jun 01). I am not aware of any testing requirements that apply to non-modified code. However, any new or modified code has to be submitted to the AGCC for their testing and approval prior to production release. (We're just getting ready to do that for 3 new and 2 modified slots.)

Quote: 4ofaKind

1. Once you sold your software to an operator, who actually had access to the software and programming codes?

2. If an operator wanted too could he or she alter code without you knowing about it?

3. How, as a software provider do you know with certainty that no one could tamper with the software after it’s in place?

Although the servers on which our software runs are owned , racked and administered by the operator, we define and configure server access accounts, and also what is called NTFS security settings. Only accounts with Administrator membership can "Remote Desktop" into the server, and only accounts with Administrator membership can edit files.

There are 4 Administrator accounts defined - 3 for Galewind Software and 1 for the operator. (We're pretty thorough in defining access credentials. No user names like "paul" or "tom" or "chris" and so forth. All passwords have to be 15-character pass phrases.)

I'm going to guess that 95% of our total code is contained in compiled components. I won't speak to the tremendous difficulties of working with "de-compiled code". The remaining 5% of the code is "script" code, which can be easily edited in Notepad.

So, if the access credentials for the single Operator Administrator account were stolen by, or given to, a nefarious character, then this character would be able to gain access to the web servers, and have "Edit" permissions for the web servers "script" code.

Obviously, figuring out what to do at that point would represent a significant challenge. I mean, you are looking at thousands and thousands of lines of script code contained within hundreds of separate files. What do you want to do, and just how do you go about doing it?

Still, they could make changes. Galewind would not be aware of these changes until something unexpected or inappropriate happened within the system as a result. It would then be a relatively simple matter to find the altered file, the altered code, the account that made the changes, and when.

Quote: 4ofaKind

With the confirmed rigged software being used by BLR, was that rigged programming done by the operator or the software provider?

I would expect that the "If ... Do ... Loop While" example that I provided in a previous post would have to be written by the software provider, and then used by the software provider and/or the operator.

I would also expect that the code which defines the value of that "adjustment factor" would be script code, so it could be quickly and easily modified by anyone that had edit privileges to that file.

Chris

Quote: binary128

I don't want us to go off the deep end here. The question to which I responded referenced BLR Tech., and I offered a plausible explanation on how that fiasco might have played out.

I'd like to remind, or inform, the audience that I'm the President of Galewind Software Corp. We make these products. The fact that I am aware of these cheats does not, or certainly should not, mean that we use them. Besides, the cheat that I detailed would easily be caught by any competent, and honest, game auditor.

I realize that Galewind Software is a really small fish in a really big pond. But I like to think that over the years we have built up a reputation for integrity that protects us from being painted with the same brush as other, less reliable, software providers. The Gods know that we've worked very hard to achieve that objective.

Chris

Chris,
Thanks for jumping in and making sure Galewind's reputation is not tarnished with this topic. That certainly was not my intent.

Since I write code, just as a hack, I too am aware of what 'could' be done with code. And yes, compiled code does make it rather difficult to rewrite the behavior of the wins, or change the randomness of the game, but as you have acknowledged, it is not impossible. And one has to look no further than Absolute Poker to see the other dangers that lie with computer gaming.

My issue is not really with the game code itself, it is more with the jurisdictions that run the games, and the extremely small protection that there is for the player. Your code can be as clean as a whistle, and certified as such, but once the operator has the code, anything can happen.

I think the responsibility for the code should never leave your domain of control. The operator should be responsible for taking deposits, settling accounts, deciding on the games to offer, but the actual game play should never leave the control of the software company. The software company would ALWAYS be responsible for fair game play, providing audit readiness, and any certifications.

@ Chris

I gather based on your last response that Galewind Software or any other software provider that have product in those jurisdictions would have no relationship with any regulatory body prior to launch.

I assume the contract requirements an operator requests a software provider to meet are requirements established by the regulatory body. If the regulators don’t have an approval system for software how is it they know for certain the programs meet their requirements? Do the operators just have to provide a CFG certificate of approval for the regulators and their good to go?

It’s also obvious based on your explanations of security measures that are in place after launch preventing tampering, actually aren’t preventing anything. Three administrator accounts for Galewind and one administrator account for the operator which gives the 4 administrators full access to code with no regulator intervention prior to gaining additional access to codes after launch. Hypothetically speaking its obvious the door is open for foul play possibilities with collusion between the software provider and owner, and or the owner colluding with a third party programmer to alter gaming results.

Let’s assume your software was being used by a 100 different casinos with servers located all over the world. How would you catch the one rogue operator who altered gaming results with a third party programmer?

It's obvious there is no serious online gaming regulation protection in place for the players safety. Gambling against a computer program online based on trust and faith with billions of dollars exchanging hands is presently designed for the stupid and compulsive gambling sick customer. Just the fact that confirmed online rogue casino and software provider blacklists need to exist because their still operating or re-branding and getting away with it speaks to the point. (review the history over the past decade)

There is just no way (based on the numbers) to educate the entire world about the real risks their taking when gambling online in today's unregulated environment. As a result of this fact nothing will improve, and imagine the only hope that exists (sadly I might add) is a government stepping up to the plate.

Not sure if online gaming could ever achieve the same safety for the player and the casino as walking into a casino in Las Vegas. Places like Las Vegas are endlessly chasing down cheats and only have to deal with however many people are in any one casino at one time. Imagine what it would take to properly navigate with millions of players at one time. Now throw in the free will all the operators and software providers presently have online with endless unchallenged access to gaming codes.

This whole online gambling thing is presently just a cluster fucking mess. This is why online gaming is still presently underground and non-transparent and most likely will remain that way. Just because some online casinos are publicly being traded still doesn't change any of the existing facts. Of course we would need to keep in mind just how honest and straight up Wall Street is.

Not just with unlimited gaming code access, but also having full control of all banking transactions, and being able to design, change, and implement T&C's at will, always concluding with the punter excepting their ruling as final (not a regulators) is why online gambling is presently an operators dream come true.

Bernie Madoff looks like a saint when compared to the present online gaming facts.

{edited - added a few more sentences}

I want to extend to all of the contributors to this thread the acknowledgement that I have read all of your posts.

My initial contribution was a pointer to a "data dump" about RNGs at thePOGG's forum. Given the title of this thread, that seemed to be an entirely "on subject" post to make.

Having been specifically asked, I provided a plausible explanation to how the BLR Tech fiasco could have occurred even given the use of a "high quality" RNG.

Again having been specifically asked, I provided information on a number of questions regarding regulators, operators and casino software providers.

At this point the thread's subject has completely evaporated.

I feel as though I am now being used as a springboard for others to take a dive into neighboring pools. I don't consider that to be "conversational fair play", and I think that anyone who found themselves in the same position would feel the same way.

Having acknowledged all posts to date, I think I'm going to slide a bit back from the table here.

Chris

A lot of this recent discussion gets into the question of trust in a distributed computing environment. If you're not familiar with this problem, it's not a trivial one to solve. For the record, the majority of online gaming operators use 3rd party software (e.g. from Galewind), and don't have staff on hand capable of making the kind of modifications needed to rig an otherwise fair game. Further, if they did, they wouldn't need to buy 3rd party software in the first place -- they could just write their own. Writing their own is how most of the social vendors operate, and it's well-acknowledged that their games aren't always fair. Many social casinos guarantee a bonus within the first N spins of a newly-unlocked slot game, etc. That's another example of a non-random conditional test pre-empting the RNG, even if the RNG itself is fair.

But moreover, there is no foolproof way a 3rd party software provider could feasibly prevent their software from being tampered with by the customer. That's like asking "how does Sony prevent you from tampering with your television after you've bought it?" They can't and they don't even try to. Any time your bits are flowing through someone else's server, they're available to be altered. It would even be possible to put a "rigged game" layer on top of a fair 3rd-party vendor platform so that even if the platform itself were fair, the operator's use of it is not. The vendor would have no knowledge of this, nor any ability to stop it.

One good solution is for the software provider to actually host the operation of the casino, and then just expose the payment and account hooks to the operator. When the player is actively making bets, they're doing so in a popup directly against the vendor's server. Then you just need to trust the vendor. But if the vendor's code is installed at the operator's site, you need to trust both parties. If you don't, don't play there. That's no different than saying "if you don't trust Caesar's Palace or IGT, don't go to Caesar's Palace to play IGT slot games."

@ Chris

Please don’t think for one word that I would trash Galewind. Your reputation and track record speaks for itself. If the big software providers followed your integrity there would be no need for rogue blacklists today. It's sad when the only chance of fair gaming online is when a software provider is doing a regulators job.

The protocol to launch any online casino is dictated by the regulators. It’s the regulators job to mandate and enforce rules that prevent access to code. After testing confirms codes are fair it’s the regulators job to see to it that this code can’t be reached without a regulators presence.

Server based games being used in New Jersey has the software operating in a separate secured room after the software was previously tested, sealed, and then put in place. The only way to access this sealed software requires two keys like a safety deposit box. One key in the possession of the casino and the other key from a regulator.

Stand alone machines also have tagged and sealed software that require a regulators presence to gain access.

Any software changes or replacements to gaming outcomes are documented, re-tested, and resealed before approval.

Ron Harris the Las Vegas programmer who rigged slot games in the early 90’s was a direct result of this protocol.

Online software presently being used in Vegas is secured and sealed in a special room located in the casino.

Bottom line with online gaming not only are regulators useless and provide nothing in the lines of security for the player, I’m not even sure how it could be done in a secure fashion.

Quote: Sonny44

It would be interesting if the Wizard weighed in on this since he endorses the Bovada online casino.

Unless I have missed it, the Wizard has not endorsed the fairness of Bovada's RNG. I believe his endorsement is based only on the generous odds they offer, The fact that they have been around for years, Their impeccable payment reputation, Their great customer service, The good bonus system. a few more of course but they really have nothing to do with the fairness of the RNG. I agreed Bovada is one of the best casino online.

He has promised to help players who have not been able to solve a dispute with Bovada, under one condition "you clicked through this site to join"
I really hope that's not the case and that wording is just an encouragement for people to join from hear. I'm sure many people have used other sources leading them to Bovada that are no longer around and now participate here andbelieve if there was a problem he would try to help them.

Quote: Sonny44

Quote: RaleighCraps

I will never trust any electronic gambling

Isn't that a pretty broad statement to make? I'd like to see other opinions on this.
IOW, the only reliable randomness is in live table games?

I've been a programmer for 49 years (call it half a century).
I, too, will never trust any electronic gambling. I'm not saying "everything else is fixed," but the potential exists. Put it this way: "it takes a programmer, to know a programmer." A bad programmer can/does make mistakes. A good programmer can write fraudulent programs.

Quote: indignant99

I've been a programmer for 49 years (call it half a century).
I, too, will never trust any electronic gambling. I'm not saying "everything else is fixed," but the potential exists. Put it this way: "it takes a programmer, to know a programmer." A bad programmer can/does make mistakes. A good programmer can write fraudulent programs.

I now agree w/ you, 99. I've played strategies on the computer, won/lost, gone to a live table w/ same strategies, and the wins/losses were reversed. This throws the entire sim enterprise into doubt. You can't take results from a computer sim and transfer them to a live table. WinCraps, et al., are only indications of the probabilities, not the probabilities, themselves. A sim is not the reality of a live table, where the dice are the only reliable RNGs. And, this is why games on machines are suspect. I will never gamble on a machine.

WinCraps, et al., are valuable for players to learn and test out their theories/strategies, but at the tables, nothing will hold up. It's what I've proposed in my thread re: Einstein on math, where he says, ""So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality." This applies many times over to craps sims.

Craps math discussions are fun for, well, math people. They love their calculations out to the 9th decimal, and so be it. They love all those numbers. But, they work out their calcs on computers with flawed RNGs. The dice are the only reliable RNG, and that can be found only on a live table.

Quote: Sonny44

Craps math discussions are fun for, well, math people. They love their calculations out to the 9th decimal, and so be it. They love all those numbers. But, they work out their calcs on computers with flawed RNGs. The dice are the only reliable RNG, and that can be found only on a live table.

May I recommend you visit John Patrick's forum.

Quote: Wizard

May I recommend you visit John Patrick's forum.

Do you disagree re: computer sims vs. experience at a live table? Are you suggesting machine/computer games are as valid as live tables? Do you affirm that computer RNGs are reliable as predictors of live table experience where the dice are the RNG? I will examine "John Patrick's forum," which I know nothing about, except that Mr. Patrick has some craps ideas of his own, discounted by others.

Sorry if I'm a thorn in your side. You have performed a valuable service to the craps community, and I don't discount what you have done. Your sites are required reading for any craps novice. Despite your wish I leave this site (as another poster has suggested), I will not, as there are many good discussions on it. I filter out the involved math discussions. I am free to express my opinion as much as anyone else on this board, whether you like it or not.

I would appreciate an answer to the above questions.