RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
September 7th, 2013 at 7:44:13 PM permalink
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.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
4ofaKind
4ofaKind
Joined: Sep 28, 2010
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 221
September 8th, 2013 at 5:05:43 AM permalink
@ 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 donít 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?

Itís also obvious based on your explanations of security measures that are in place after launch preventing tampering, actually arenít 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.

Letís 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}
binary128
binary128
Joined: Nov 5, 2011
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 82
September 8th, 2013 at 9:31:38 PM permalink
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
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 8th, 2013 at 9:41:42 PM permalink
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."
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
4ofaKind
4ofaKind
Joined: Sep 28, 2010
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 221
September 9th, 2013 at 4:10:50 AM permalink
@ Chris

Please donít 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. Itís the regulators job to mandate and enforce rules that prevent access to code. After testing confirms codes are fair itís the regulators job to see to it that this code canít 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 90ís 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, Iím not even sure how it could be done in a secure fashion.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 20040
September 9th, 2013 at 6:04:43 AM permalink
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.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
indignant99
indignant99
Joined: Feb 23, 2015
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 250
March 24th, 2015 at 8:19:51 PM permalink
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.
Yeah, I made a mistake once. I thought I was wrong, when I actually wasn't. -Indignant
Sonny44
Sonny44
Joined: May 13, 2013
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 217
March 24th, 2015 at 8:45:16 PM permalink
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.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23604
March 24th, 2015 at 9:01:49 PM permalink
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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Sonny44
Sonny44
Joined: May 13, 2013
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 217
March 24th, 2015 at 9:25:16 PM permalink
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.

  • Jump to: