ClassII vs. ClassIII electronic games.

Below is a link to an article written by Frank Legato who is a writer for Casino Player Magazine. He clearly explains and compares the functions and different capabilities of both Class II and Class III versions of electronic gambling games. Casino Player is a great magazine for the serious and not so serious gambler of which I also subscribe to.

As most of you know for the last couple of years I’ve been trying to confirm what kind of a deal video poker online casinos are dealing to the players.

Pursuing online regulators for answers only proved to be a massive waste of time and serious effort. It also became obvious that although alleged online regulators do have certain rules written that their casino operator licensees would have to allegedly abide by; they offer no testing facilities of their own and only require a "letter of certification" certificate that the games they will offer meet their requirements.

This post by Eliot Jacobson is an example of how an online operator might prefer to gain a "letter of certification" certificate. It’s obvious Mr. Jacobson is a man of integrity, but I’m willing to bet that many "letters of certification" certificates could be obtained in this manner. https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/15008-a-prospective-cfg-client/#post267199

In addition alleged regulators do not monitor or perform any periodic testing after launch. These facts in themselves leave the door open; in fact more like not having a door on the hinges at all for foul play. Especially, when you consider the anonymity and the possibilities that are now obvious when operating an online gambling site offering real money against gambling games through cyberspace; the players have every right to cry foul play even if it is all just blatant bad luck since there’s no way of obtaining confirmed proof one way or the other.

Just the fact that it is impossible to get confirmed proof of what exactly is in place for online casinos and how it’s done, is enough to cast doubts of fair play. There must be a reason why when pursing these issues about online gaming it becomes similar to trying to find out what the government might actually know about aliens if anything at all. They just deny all accusations and suspicions, and anyone that speaks out or leaks out what might be first hand inside information they get written off as conspiracy nut jobs.

This should not be the behavior which online casinos have when offering a real money game of chance based on entertainment simply when the players just want confirmed proof of a fair game already programmed in their favor.

Yet, when pursuing this same information at land based casinos operating in reputable jurisdictions, all information is easily obtainable with total and willing transparency, of course excluding many of the Indian operators.

When an online player can only get details from an affiliate that promotes (for personal financial gain) the same online casino their questioning simply based on his or her inside connections with reps. or owners; is no different then a crack dealer telling the new user it’s not addict-able. Personally, I think affiliates and casino reps. know nothing about the actual inner workings of the programs being used and could care less. It's just about feeding the family. Let's be honest here and admit that the more you lose the more they get to eat.

I became convinced that Class II video poker versions are being used online years ago and since then it’s been impossible to get confirmed proof their not. At land based casinos that offer Class II versions it would be easy and obvious to the educated player that they are. Fairies with magic wands giving players unexpected automatic wins, or Bingo cards planted on the game make the version obvious. But, online with a little simple code since it’s not required by regulators these indicators and special features that would normally expose Class II games could totally be eliminated.

Of course ClassII video poker games pay what the pay-tables say when you hit a winning hand, but the frequency of these hits are solely based on how many times the software says their possible which is based on what's available in the stack of prizes pool, which is based on the operators pre-determined setting. They have nothing to do with random 52 card draws. When an operator has the privilege of setting a video poker game to pay more or less or anywhere in between expected variance it becomes a slot machine. There is no way an occasional player would even have a clue. I also suspect this ClassII version with endless options are being used on all other online table games just like the Racinos in New York who knowingly offer the worst RTP's on the planet.

I and many others certainly noticed the difference playing online table games. Slot machines don't really relate to the table games issue since the whole idea when you click spin on a slot machine and winning anything is based on wishing upon a star from that point on. Maybe online casinos did decide to risk reputations with table games knowing technically it would be impossible to prove without all history recorded data being made available.

Mr. Legato quotes an operator of Class II games that said:

“the games work like the standard versions of video poker—again, because the Class II casino will not risk “killing a manufacturer’s title.” “A lot of players may not know the difference between Class II and Class III,” he says. “That’s why we replicate the video poker paytables as closely as possible. It would be a killer for us to do anything else.”

Based on all the foul play in all of its different forms we’ve all witnessed over the years with online casino and poker rooms, that quote is tough to accept that online operators would have the same concerns.

Online and land-based casinos, and online and land-based regulators, NOT willingly open to transparency is simply not acceptable and should only be viewed as suspicious.

All the past proven doubts and possibilities surrounding the world of gambling is the reason gambling is usually viewed in a negative way. Las Vegas and Atlantic City recognized this years ago and cleaned it up with serious regulation and enforcement.

Here’s the article:

http://www.casinocenter.com/class-ii-is-it-fair/


(edited to add more points)

Quote: 4ofaKind

.

Pursuing online regulators for answers only proved to be a massive waste of time and serious effort.
/

It's the same for B&M casinos, not just online. You can't
get anybody to tell you anything, it's all a very big secret
how these, or any, electronic games operate. For 3 months
I tried to get info on IGT's Roulette Evolution and hit a
brick wall every time. I even resorted to pretending I was
a casino manager from a Midwest casino and I still got nothing.

Years later when a couple of employee's of the
company who serviced the machines found out they were indeed
not 'fair' and found a way to predict outcomes, it was only then
that I got my answer.

Trust me, the seminoles in Florida are still using their old Class II games, have them placed without differentation among class III machines, and don't make the difference (or the much worse odds) evident to the players. Just because they're B&M doesn't mean they're not willing to deceive unwitting players.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Just because they're B&M doesn't mean they're not willing to deceive unwitting players.

The manufacturers are
just as tight lipped with the casinos as they are with
the public. The casinos that had Roulette Evolution
had no idea it could be compromised, they learned
the hard way. Every aspect of the casino business
is not to be trusted, you will always get burned in
one way or another if you do. Better to go in with
an attitude that you're going to get screwed over
if you don't pay attention.

Quote: EvenBob

The manufacturers are
just as tight lipped with the casinos as they are with
the public. The casinos that had Roulette Evolution
had no idea it could be compromised, they learned
the hard way. Every aspect of the casino business
is not to be trusted, you will always get burned in
one way or another if you do. Better to go in with
an attitude that you're going to get screwed over
if you don't pay attention.

Not everyone gets burned BOB, some people do the burning.

@ Beachbumbabs: This is my opinion of land based ClassII operators. The last paragraph sums it up.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/15194-the-harm-that-casinos-do/4/#post271803

As a "Fair Play" advocate, I've never had a problem with Class II slots versus Class III slots. They both deliver some unknown but fixed TRTP - they just use different methods to do it. As I understand it, Class II slots simply narrow the variance window so that the Casino doesn't have any "Oh No!" days/weeks/months.

As to Video Poker - well, that's another story.

Several people have requested that we implement an automatic "Optimal Strategy Auto Play" for our Video Poker games. I've responded that this would turn them into 2-click slots - Deal & Draw, Deal & Draw, Deal & Draw. No skill involved. In short - what's the point?

4ofaKind, you raised this issue before. I remember that I remained confused as to exactly how a Class II VP game handled the situation of the Player being dealt, say, a full house and then, just for shits & grins, deciding to draw 5 new cards. Your linked article explained it clearly. A magic Genie appears and says "You can't do that.".

(I would speculate that another possible response to discarding a full house is that you just get one back on the draw.)

Unlike Class III Video Pokers, you can't run the paytable through the Wizard's calculator and get the TRTP of the game. That remains as unknown as any slot. The paytable does nothing more than define what the game returns when it decides what your final hand is going to be.

In addition, the final game result is decided, NOT on the Draw (you can throw Optimal Strategy out the window), but on the Deal.

So, I'd say that my response to Class II Video Poker games remains the same as an automatic "Optimal Strategy Auto Play" system - what's the point?

Chris

Quote: binary128

4ofaKind, you raised this issue before. I remember that I remained confused as to exactly how a Class II VP game handled the situation of the Player being dealt, say, a full house and then, just for shits & grins, deciding to draw 5 new cards. Your linked article explained it clearly. A magic Genie appears and says "You can't do that.".

(I would speculate that another possible response to discarding a full house is that you just get one back on the draw.)

Chris

But the main point of this argument is, Class II (or electronic pulltabs) allows you to display a 99%+ paytable for a game dealt from a random standard poker deck, but make its actual return much less. I played Class II video poker in Alabama for amusement only (like 10c a hand) a few years ago; the place is currently shutdown for legality issues...lol ALL the paytables were 99%+ if it would have been a Class III game. I would generally hold garbage for the "genie" to appear and change my hand...or occasionally toss a winner for it to reappear, just like you have described...haha But did these machines actually return 99%, hell no!! The casino would barely turn a profit if that was the case.

With a class II/pulltab setup, you can subtly change the probabilities of occurrence to create a 92% return, or whatever you want...

Back in the mid 90s shortly after I learned about VP, AP, I returned to washington to visit with my Parents. They lived down the street from the Lucky Eagle casino in Rochester Washington. While scouting the casino, I ran into some dollar Video poker. At first glance I knew had to be well over 100% payback. So I went out to my car, got out my 133 MHz canon laptop and opened my trusty VP tutor program, waited 20 min for the calculation. It came back as 106%. I new it had to be rigged. But I tried it anyways, I played a few hands and noticed when I made a play that would have resulted in a better hand if I were to hold something different, the machine magically payed me for the had I would have received, had I played it differently. I did win a few hundred. I did some research and confirmed they were not random, to bad

They did have some great Blackjack. Including a promotion that gave 2 to 1 on a Blackjack for 15 min each hour. From what I can remember they limited the bonus to 12.50

Quote: binary128

So, I'd say that my response to Class II Video Poker games remains the same as an automatic "Optimal Strategy Auto Play" system - what's the point?Chris

The outcomes of ClassII Video Poker or Blackjack games are pre-determined and based on the TRTP programming an operator decides to use, exactly like a pre-determined slot machines TRTP's work. Like I said I have no problems with this programming being used with slot machines.

Video Poker ClassIII games versions are purely designed with TRTP’s based on 100% random 52 or 53 (wild) card draws and the designated pay table. The only way to reduce the RTP’s you get with ClassIII versions is via the pay-table or playing without optimal strategies. I also read somewhere that only 9% of all video poker players play with consistent optimal strategy.

A ClassIII random card draw Royal Flush is 40,000 to one. ClassII has the privilege of making it 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80,000 to one to control the operator’s choice of RTP the casino prefers. With ClassIII games a player could always have the chance of hitting back to back royal flushes. Improbable at 40,000 to one but still possible. With ClassII after hitting a royal flush the chance of hitting another one back to back would be impossible if another hit would mean reducing the operators TRTP expectations. That second back to back Royal win option would be removed from the predetermined stack of prizes available. (Quote) "with prizes drawn from the overall money wagered." So, if enough money wasn't wagered to cover a second back to back Royal that prize would be eliminated from the pool till enough money was wagered to bring it back into it.

Like you said here “Class II slots simply narrow the variance window so that the Casino doesn't have any "Oh No!" days/weeks/months.” {is another benefit the operators gain by using them.}

The bottom line here is that there obvious is nothing wrong with ClassII machines which obviously are all over the place presently being used. I have no problem with its use playing slot machines. I do however have issues when it’s being used with video poker or blackjack games and alleged regulators are not willing to tell the public that plays them exactly what in fact types of games they are.

If I want to play a video poker slot machine I’ll play a video poker slot machine. Yet, when I want to play Video Poker with optimal strategy and expectations of 99% rtp or better over the long run, I need an equally random 52 card draw ClassIII machine, not a ClassII version that might have pre-determined settings at 90% or anywhere else they prefer it to be.

Random vs. pre-determined is very different and advanced video poker and blackjack players will recognize the difference. And we most definitely did over the years. ClassII video poker machines are slot machines dressed up in video poker clothing both at land based and online casinos that are using them.

Quote: AxelWolf

Back in the mid 90s shortly after I learned about VP, AP, I returned to washington to visit with my Parents. They lived down the street from the Lucky Eagle casino in Rochester Washington. While scouting the casino, I ran into some dollar Video poker. At first glance I knew had to be well over 100% payback. So I went out to my car, got out my 133 MHz canon laptop and opened my trusty VP tutor program, waited 20 min for the calculation. It came back as 106%. I new it had to be rigged. But I tried it anyways, I played a few hands and noticed when I made a play that would have resulted in a better hand if I were to hold something different, the machine magically payed me for the had I would have received, had I played it differently. I did win a few hundred. I did some research and confirmed they were not random, to bad

I remember an "Ask the Wizard" question over a similar game in WA years later, it was roughly 106% too. Pretty horrible they posted paytables well over 100% if it would have been from a random deck.

Just for clarification, Class II games are not the same as electronic pull-tab games (Washington tribal, New York Lottery, etc.) The latter are Class III under the IGRA based on 20+ years of decided case law. See Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. National Indian Gaming Commission, 827 F. Supp. 26 (D.D.C. 1993), aff’d, 14 F.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

^^^ Right, but for video poker, they are both equally worthless. It still dumbfounds me that New York decided to go this route in the 2000s. Does anyone have a good argument for offering video poker in manner?

Quote: tringlomane

^^^ Right, but for video poker, they are both equally worthless. It still dumbfounds me that New York decided to go this route in the 2000s. Does anyone have a good argument for offering video poker in manner?

The state can entice people to risk their money without risking any of its own, since administrative costs come off the top, and advertise odds they don't have to pay. If the public will play these crappy games, why wouldn't the state offer them?

Quote: tringlomane

^^^ Right, but for video poker, they are both equally worthless. It still dumbfounds me that New York decided to go this route in the 2000s. Does anyone have a good argument for offering video poker in manner?

Maybe I misunderstood what Mathextremist was saying but New York is definitely ClassII machines.

The only good argument using this version for video poker is the casino has no fear of AP's and has full control of the TRTP.

Now if we could only confirm what version online software providers are utilizing.

Quote: 4ofaKind

Maybe I misunderstood what Mathextremist was saying but New York is definitely ClassII machines.

The only good argument using this version for video poker is the casino has no fear of AP's and has full control of the TRTP.

Now if we could only confirm what version online software providers are utilizing.

As far as I'm aware, the tribal casinos in New York all have compacts that allow them to operate Class III games. The state lottery racinos use electronic pull-tab games which, as above, are Class III. There is no Class II-only gaming in New York to my knowledge.

Don't forget that Class II is an IGRA distinction and is only relevant on tribal lands. No non-tribal entity, to my knowledge, has ever operated a Class II facility because they wouldn't need to.

As ME said, technically they aren't Class II because it's not electronic bingo in New York racinos. They are electronic pull-tabs instead similar to Washington state. For all practical purposes though, this is just a semantics argument because all results for either game are predetermined and you can't play video poker using skill with either of them.

Quote: 4ofaKind

. I also read somewhere that only 9% of all video poker players play with consistent optimal strategy.
.

Well that's just some bunk crap, I would say that only 9% of Professional VP players play consistent OPTIMAL strategy. I have even seen cheat sheets with wrong holds and missing lines. I will go out on a limb and say NO ONE PLAYS perfectly. Thats why BOVADA NEEDS TO BRING BACK THE 7/5 JOKERS

Quote: tringlomane

As ME said, technically they aren't Class II because it's not electronic bingo in New York racinos. They are electronic pull-tabs instead similar to Washington state. For all practical purposes though, this is just a semantics argument because all results for either game are predetermined and you can't play video poker using skill with either of them.

What tringlomane says above is correct. "Semantics Argument" The fact is that there is no federal law that governs the Class of slot machines and is left up to the individual jurisdictions to make that determination.

So to keep it simple, slot machines no matter what Class any state wants to rate them that determines winners based on a bingo, lotto, or any other style game being played at a central server that distributes the winners to random players connected to it, should be considered ClassII.

Maybe we should create our own class and just use Las Vegas style as one, and all other versions as "Money Sucking Shit Boxes" or preferably ClassII.

So for the record New York Rancinos uses loto games to determine winners and would obviously fall into the "Money Sucking Shit Box" category.

Article below with some definition about the different versions.

What is a Video Lottery Terminal?

They are similar in playing style to a slot machine but they are not the same as a slot machine. VLTs in every jurisdiction that I have found referenced are more like bingo, pull-tabs, scratch-offs, and lotto then they are to a slot machine because there are a pre-determined number of winners and you are competing with the other players for a prize; not against the house. There is not necessarily a winner in each game. The game continues until there is a winner.

There is no federal law to govern slot machines, so different jurisdictions may define things differently.

So, what's the difference between a Class II and a Class III video gambling device? Class III machines use the random number generator (RNG) in the machine to determine the results of a spin. No other device or computer is used. Each spin can be a winner even on multiple machines at the same time. Class II machines are not allowed to determine the results. The results are determined at a central location. This makes these machines more like bingo or a lottery than a real slot machine.

That central computer may be located at a Lottery commission or it may be a free standing network within the casino. Whichever method these machines may and usually are monitored by the government using a separate computer, to ensure casinos are running them according to law.

It appears that Video Lottery Terminals are a poor work-around and substitute for a slot machine. They have proliferated where the government was unable or unwilling to change the existing laws.

This is from the New York State Gaming Commision:

• Video Lottery Terminals and Electronic Table Games: Similar in appearance to classic slot machines or as simulated classic table games, these terminals are linked to a centralized system maintained by the Gaming Commission that tracks the game play and earnings for each game.
• Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs) have the same appearance as slot machines. VLTs must receive winning outcomes transmitted by the central system.

So it's obvious that winning combinations are determined by the central server, not the machine your playing-s own RNG. "Money Sucking Shit Boxes"

My question still remains: Show me PROOF of what online casinos are using???????

I also want to add that classifying machines ClassII was a way to release the Indians from tax or fee liability to the states. These ClassII machines came a long way since then.

So, even though N.Y. Rancinos are classified as ClassIII when they are really just "Money Sucking Shit Boxes" (ClassII) was because that was the only way N.Y. State could get its hands in the kettle.

N.Y.S. gaming commission tells you on their first page what configuration they use to determine winners.

Show me PROOF of what online casinos are using???????

I have tried my best to understand exactly how Class II machines pay out. Yes, I completely get that they are Bingo on steroids. But a few things escape me...

1. What if, on the entire network, only one player presses "spin" during the game window of 20ms? Two players are supposed to be in a game to make it valid, yes?

2. Are games played with a static number of balls drawn each time, or are balls drawn until one of the players hits bingo?

3. I get that certain bingo combinations translate to different slot configurations or poker hands. Is it dependent on how many balls it takes to get the bingo, or just the type of bingo a player gets (postage stamp, two-way bingo)? Could a single-line bingo cause a no-win on the slot, simply because it's programmed that way?

4. Depending on how the above questions are answered, could this scenario take place: Somehow, two colluding players are the only people on a Class II network. They are, in effect, playing against one another. Would one of them be guaranteed a win each time? Granted, that win may not be the full value of their bet, I suppose.

I may have more questions after the above are resolved.

4ofAKind, I'm not sure what your profanity-laden rant is all about, but it's full of misinformation:
1) The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, is indeed a federal law. It sets forth the definitions of the three classes of gaming on tribal lands. See 25 USC 2703. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25/2703
2) New York racino VLTs are not Class II. They operate by drawing centrally-determined prize amounts from a set of virtual tickets distributed through a network. Class II electronic bingo games operate by creating a live quorum of two or more players and then conducting a shared bingo draw. A key difference between Class II and Class III games (either slots or centrally-determined VLTs) is that a Class II game is inoperable if only one player is on the network. To my knowledge, the only non-tribal Class II-like implementation ever attempted was in Alabama, but that was shut down by numerous court battles and police seizures.
3) Online casinos use RNGs directly. They don't use bingo draws or virtual scratch tickets. Not all online casinos are using RNGs properly, or fairly, but I can't imagine why an online casino platform would intentionally add the complexity of attempting a multiplayer bingo draw network, or shared virtual ticket pool, when one wasn't needed.

Quote: Dween

I have tried my best to understand exactly how Class II machines pay out. Yes, I completely get that they are Bingo on steroids. But a few things escape me...

1. What if, on the entire network, only one player presses "spin" during the game window of 20ms? Two players are supposed to be in a game to make it valid, yes?

Nothing. The game does not start. If you're in a Class II facility during a slow time, you can find a rare machine and demonstrate this to yourself.

Quote:

2. Are games played with a static number of balls drawn each time, or are balls drawn until one of the players hits bingo?

The balls are drawn until one player hits the game-ending pattern. That's usually only a small fraction of the total prizes paid, however, and many prizes are based on a fixed number of balls prior to that pattern (or after it).

Quote:

3. I get that certain bingo combinations translate to different slot configurations or poker hands. Is it dependent on how many balls it takes to get the bingo, or just the type of bingo a player gets (postage stamp, two-way bingo)? Could a single-line bingo cause a no-win on the slot, simply because it's programmed that way?

It could, but it would be unlikely. But yes, the basic premise is to map bingo patterns onto reel outcomes.

Quote:

4. Depending on how the above questions are answered, could this scenario take place: Somehow, two colluding players are the only people on a Class II network. They are, in effect, playing against one another. Would one of them be guaranteed a win each time? Granted, that win may not be the full value of their bet, I suppose.

Indeed, the game-ending prize is always awarded, but it is usually only a penny or two. If only two players are playing, one of them will win it. Just like bingo-hall bingo (which is the point, and which was a key factor in several legal decisions).

@Dween

Maybe the Wizard could get all those details. My only and main concern is what configuration is being used online to determine how my cards are being dealt to me. Random 52 card draw from a random RNG or controlled determined outcomes based on a pre-set TRTP?

Edit: Looks like Mathextremist was quick on the trigger.

Quote: MathExtremist

The balls are drawn until one player hits the game-ending pattern. That's usually only a small fraction of the total prizes paid, however, and many prizes are based on a fixed number of balls prior to that pattern (or after it).

Quote: MathExtremist

Indeed, the game-ending prize is always awarded, but it is usually only a penny or two. If only two players are playing, one of them will win it. Just like bingo-hall bingo (which is the point, and which was a key factor in several legal decisions).

Ah... so to clarify, say that the game-ending pattern is a simple 5-in-a-row bingo. Balls are drawn until at least one player wins.

1a. Are prizes based on the number of balls drawn? (e.g. Royal Flush for 4 numbers drawn, Straight Flush for 5-9 numbers drawn, etc)
1b. Are prizes based on what type of 5-in-a-row the winning player got? (e.g. BAR BAR BAR for a vertical "O" column win, PLUM PLUM PLUM for a diagonal through the Free Space)
1c. Some combination of the two?

2. Do some games exist that give a higher payout to a premium win? Say, a criss-crossing double 5-in-a-row on the last number?

3. Say the prize won is $12.00. If 3 people have 5-in-a-row when the game ends, do they split it, $4.00 each, like a Bingo Hall?

Not sure where Mathextremist felt my posting went to "profanity-laden"

It's also obvious that Class ratings don't necessarily confirm how winning decisions are decided.

Technology for computer gaming is advancing as fast as hand held devices are. The giant software providers for gaming produce every version and option available to satisfy anyone's needs or requirements, especially over the last five years.

This whole conversation is about comparing the different technical options being used and how winning hands are determined when playing against a computer, and what options online gaming are using.

My only concern is how are card games being dealt online.

Nor sure why I went through all of this searching for confirmation over the years how online casinos deal video poker when Mathextremist was here all along with the answer.

Thanks Mathextremist, I'm satisfied now. I rest my case.

Quote: 4ofaKind

Show me PROOF of what online casinos are using???????

What experiment would you define whose results would provide such proof?

Chris

Quote: binary128

What experiment would you define whose results would provide such proof?

Chris

I don't think an experiment would do it. He'd probably want to see source code.

But then there are online gaming regs that require fair RNGs. GLI-19, for example:
http://www.gaminglabs.com/downloads/GLI%20Standards/updated%20Standards/GLI-19_Interactive_Gaming_Systems__v2_0_Final.pdf

And also the various e-gaming regulatory bodies, like Alderney, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Malta, etc., whose regulations make similar requirements on RNGs.

But proof? There's no way to prove anything about online gaming to someone who doesn't trust the entire system, just like there's no way to prove a land-based video poker machine isn't hooked up to a laptop in a van out in the parking lot to feed it specific card values. Sometimes you just have to trust that the regulators are doing their jobs, or you shouldn't play the games.

Quote: MathExtremist

Sometimes you just have to trust that the regulators are doing their jobs, or you shouldn't play the games.

If your convinced that any of the online regulators you mentioned above are doing their jobs and could be trusted, you're completely out of touch with online gaming and reality.

To me honestly, I'm rather surprised in your ridiculous above comment about online regulators and suggest you stick with land based casinos in honest jurisdictions where that comment is a confirmed fact.

Quote: 4ofaKind

If your convinced that any of the online regulators you mentioned above are doing their jobs and could be trusted, you're completely out of touch with online gaming and reality.

To me honestly, I'm rather surprised in your ridiculous above comment about online regulators and suggest you stick with land based casinos in honest jurisdictions where that comment is a confirmed fact.

I am forced to stick to land-based casinos. I live in a jurisdiction where placing online wagers is illegal.

Like I said, if you have trust issues, don't play. Nobody's forcing you to. You're essentially saying that you believe none of the regulators of online real-money gambling are "doing their jobs and could be trusted." By proxy, then, you're indicting the governments of at least four sovereign nations -- including Canada -- as being corrupt liars. Paranoid much?

And calling me out of touch with online gaming will no doubt elicit chuckles from those who know what I do for a living.

Quote: MathExtremist

And calling me out of touch with online gaming will no doubt elicit chuckles from those who know what I do for a living.

Oh No…. Not just another guys unbiased opinions making money off online casinos. “Say it ain’t so Mathextremist”.

never mind

Quote: MathExtremist

You're essentially saying that you believe none of the regulators of online real-money gambling are "doing their jobs and could be trusted." By proxy, then, you're indicting the governments of at least four sovereign nations -- including Canada -- as being corrupt liars.

I think we'd all have to agree that the recent issue with Gibraltar and the BetFred/Finsoft/Spielo G2 mess did some serious damage to the credibility of the online regulatory agencies. In my opinion, the Casinomeister posts made by Gibraltar's Gambling Commissioner displayed, among several things, a staggering level of incompetence in knowing what they are supposed to be doing, and how they are supposed to be doing it.

Prior to this episode they were among the top 3 jurisdictions, along with Alderney and the Isle of Man. (Although Alderney's reputation was, again IMO, hit pretty hard, not so much by the content of the Full Tilt Poker mess but by its sheer magnitude.)

All that aside:

Quote: 4ofaKind

Show me PROOF of what online casinos are using???????

4ofaKind, I again ask - What experiment would you define whose results would provide such proof?

Chris

Quote: binary128

4ofaKind, I again ask - What experiment would you define whose results would provide such proof?

Chris

@Chris

It’s not about any special experiments that could prove and protect the online players from criminals. All software tests and experiments are supposed to be preformed and approved by regulators prior to any gambling launch being offered to the publics.

Over the years we’ve witnessed endless serious criminal issues from endless corrupt online operators and software providers from every form of gambling presently being offered online. I could understand these issues popping up during the infant stages of online gaming simply because it was a new frontier. But 15 or whatever years after there should be no reason why over and over and over again and still happening today we have to be subjected to exposed rigged software being used in all its different forms. Players also still today are having their winnings and deposits stolen over and over and over again in all the different forms operators get to use including operators just packing up and departing with all players balances.

It’s obvious when games are being offered online all games are controlled by pre-programmed software which could and will always be pre-programmed to satisfy whatever hold the operators prefer as long as it's an authorized and legal setting. It’s up to the operators to be competitive with their pre-determined game settings. The entire computer controlled casino operator’s costs to operate and profit come from pre-programmed software with no direct human interaction with the player. Of course sports betting would be excluded and unfortunately we can’t say the same for online poker since history speaks for itself.

Excluding the possibilities of a new operator obtaining a pre-arranged phony Letter of Certification certificate to satisfy alleged regulators requirements since they don’t have testing facilities of their own, and everything is on the up and up prior to launch; what regulated software security is in place after launch?

How do the regulators monitor the software’s performance and protect it from tampering after launch?

Do the operators need to contact the regulator prior to changing game pay-back settings?

Do the regulators monitor, confirm, record, reseal, these type of changes or monitor gaming software up-dates that are endlessly taking place.

Why aren't endless updates specifying exactly what's being updated?

Where could I review monthly audited casino in and hold financial reports for all the games approved in their jurisdictions?

Are online casino operators able to simply make a call or drop an e-mail to their provider, or simply enter the software with approved access and just click the mouse and puff, new TRTP on the fly with no concerns of the regulator? I know land based can't change software while a player is playing the game or at least for five minutes after the player stopped or without pre-approved notification to the regulator.

What’s the minimum TRTP settings authorized in that jurisdiction?

Are employees or owners of software providers allowed to operate online casinos? I know of a casino operator who was once an employee of a software provider operating a online casino along with 3 other fellow software employees also operating different casinos but all previously employed by the same software provider and operating these casinos with in fact the same software company they worked for. (talk about collusion potential) I exposed one by mistake online and within months that casino was shut down from that software provider. I have no idea what happened to that person or where he is now.

These are just a handful of unanswered questions I can’t get replies to.

ClassI, ClassII, ClassIII, ClassIV, ClassV, I don’t give a shit what class any software is that’s being used online or on land. The whole idea of this thread was to expose some of the different versions available to operators.

With today’s technology and absolutely zero oversight by regulators after launch, and nothing more then a simple download that could alter any pre-approved game; convince me why I should trust you or anyone else in this confirmed crooked industry.

I need to trust the regulators who should be willing and able to prove to me that I could trust them and assure me who has a license in their jurisdiction should also be trusted. Not because the operators are just good honest guys or gals but because they have no choice but to comply with their regulations that are proven to be seriously enforced protecting all of us from cheating.

Rogue operators and software providers are pasted all over the internet warning people to stay away from them. If regulators were doing half of what they need to be doing this wouldn't be necessary. This issue by itself should tell everyone how irresponsible and lackadaisical online regulators are and how little is being done if anything at all. Then when proof of foul play is exposed and brought to the regulators attention they have the balls to say you were suppose to lose anyway. Now you want to tell me the software is fair, please, give me a fn break.

Please don’t use the regulators response to the poker scandals as an example. If that wasn’t blasted all over the media all over the world not one single fn thing would have been done.

I have no faith in any online regulators still today and certainly no faith in bullshit artists making money off online casinos trying to convince me of otherwise in chat rooms, and at the same time trying to convince others who are reading this stuff how safe and honest everything is online with all their bullshit detour tactics, never exposing confirmed facts. This comment is not directed at you personally at all Chris. But I want a regulator to convince me to trust you.

I played online video poker for 8 years or so and was completely satisfied even with the losses I accumulated. After the UIGEA things changed quickly but I still gave it 3 or 4 more years before becoming convinced that video poker is not being randomly dealt and the game was altered. How it’s being done I’m not sure but it’s definitely being done. With today's technology it obviously could be done easily with a simple click of the mouse.

I went to A.C. last Saturday and played in a poker tournament. Eight hours later and being eliminated I had to wait for my friend who was still in it. I played video poker the whole time waiting and lost over 3K. I didn’t feel cheated at all and took my lumps gracefully knowing for certain I was getting a fair game and was just unlucky.

Until online regulators can convince me to feel the same way which they refuse to do, I’m convinced online video poker cheating is taking place and refuse to play online. If I can't trust the regulator I'm certainly not going to trust any operator or software provider. I'm definitely not going to listen too or believe any side-stepping bullshitter's making money off online casinos in chat rooms. Maybe if these money hungry parasites stood up for what's fair and stopped convincing suckers to deposit who are just trying to have a good time with unsubstantiated misleading bullshit, online gambling good become a great place to play.

There's a lot of innocent suckers being taken advantage of online and they don't even realize it, and nothing is being done to fix it.

I don't need proof to confirm video poker is being dealt unfair online. I'm already convinced playing this game most of my adult life. (61 yrs.old now) I certainly don't plan on investing 3 million dollars recording every hand so the Wizard could just add another rogue casino or software provider to his rogue or blacklist.

Regulators need to prove to me it's fair and protected by them to stay that way before they take anymore of my money. Anyone out there with a brain should also demand the same thing.

(edited 10/11/ to add additional comments)

4ofaKind, I feel compelled to say that, on the whole, that was a pretty good post. I can argue with some of it. But I can't argue with the fact that, over the years:

1. We have seen unarguable proof of corrupt software providers, corrupt casino operators, corrupt casino affiliates and corrupt gambling jurisdictional agencies.

2. We have seen unarguable proof of incompetent software providers, incompetent casino operators, incompetent casino affiliates and incompetent gambling jurisdictional agencies.

Both corruption and incompetence have usually resulted in the same thing - money taken from a Player's pocket. Sometimes the money is put back. All too often it is not.

Obviously, if some are corrupt and/or incompetent it does not necessarily follow that all are corrupt and/or incompetent. A valid point - how can you tell the difference?

Someone would need to attach bots to the games ("real play" and "free play") and collect complete data on a large sample size. Somebody was doing that, and publishing data in Casinomeister, but they, and their data, seem to have gone silent. I don't know - maybe the person posting the data was full of crap. But it sure as hell was interesting data. (I've occasionally wondered why they just seem to have disappeared.)

Anyway, I felt compelled to respond to your post in some fashion.

Chris

Quote: binary128

Obviously, if some are corrupt and/or incompetent it does not necessarily follow that all are corrupt and/or incompetent. A valid point - how can you tell the difference?

Someone would need to attach bots to the games ("real play" and "free play") and collect complete data on a large sample size.

Chris

This is the crux of the entire argument.

The only way foul play is exposed online was usually from a savory player. It’s insane to expect a player to hook up bots recording data and however much money it would cost to prove foul play. Besides, for what reason? So a couple of willing web sites could just add them onto the ever growing black-list. Yet, they'll always remain operating and screwing the endless newbies.

Online regulators made it perfectly clear their not concerned about foul play or anything else for that matter. Wasn’t that personally demonstrated to you when you were forced to make a robbed player right (I think the amount was like 60K) instead of the rogue operator of your software being forced too from the regulator? At least you tossed this operator to the curb from ever using your software again. What exactly was the regulators involvement with this issue? What consequences did the operator suffer for his theft of the player from the regulator? Can this operator just move on to another software provider and different regulator unchecked?

You can't help but suspect there has to be something in it for the present online regulators ($$$$) in order for them to operate the way they are. From a gaming regulators point of view it has to be obvious that no one could possibly be this stupid excepting everything that actually is taking place in front of everyone.

Besides, who needs a thousand online casinos to choose from? Real regulation would ween that number down in a hurry, and leave only the financially capable still standing that don't need to use foul tactics to survive.

Do online players really need to be bribed by web-sites holding their members hostage to sign up to casinos through their web-sites simply so they'll have someone to moderate on the members behalf if they have an issue. Do you realize how sad that whole premise is in the first place? Then the moderation process when a problem arrives is a colluded Kangaroo Court.

Why does this bullshit even exist? ..... IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL REGULATION?

I don't know about you, but I certainly would prefer a regulator making the final decision and expect criminal charges brought against any player proven to be tampering with pre-programmed software or falsifying documents.

The online gambling industry had revenue of over 33 billion dollars in 2012..

How many of those billions of dollars were actually retained with all the different confirmed forms of foul play, corruption, and incompetence being used by the casinos, affiliates, and web-sites that willingly promote them?

Why do the honest and competent operators stand for corrupt and incompetent operators who endlessly pollute the waters they swim in while using the same software their using? Why don’t they all stand tall and insist that regulators take a stand and stop it? Personally, I believe the reason why no stance is taken from the honest operators side is simple. The potential to make far more money faster is to leave everything just the way it is. Being able to operate an online casino with the cockpit and all the controls is a lot cheaper and simpler then absorbing the costs and following the demands of serious regulation.

I read a lot of the regulations in place for interactive gaming in Nevada. It intertwines with already land based regulations, but everything you want to know is there. Any time I had a question my e-mail was answered the next day along with links to my answers. http://gaming.nv.gov/gcsearch.aspx?q=interactive%2520gambling

Of course having real regulation cost lots of money. It will obviously come from the players but would also lower the profits for operators if they are forced to be legitimately competitive. I'm certain most players would be happy paying their share for good regulation when compared to it being stolen from them and others.

Just the licensing fees in Nevada are ten times the fees when compared to present online regulators fees.

After reading regulations in Nevada, the amount of operations and monitoring requirements required by the regulators; I would bet the entire present online industry’s software would have to be re-tooled to accommodate their required regulations.

With confirmed real online regulation there would be no need to worry about corrupt or incompetent operators. Anyone that randomly decides to gamble online wouldn’t need to know the tricks of the trade prior since they would have no fear of getting robbed in the first place. Most players today don’t learn the tricks of the trade till they get screwed and start looking around. Even then their still subject to potential foul play. Online gaming history tells the whole story if you know where to look. Obviously most don't or take a multi-billion industry for granted thinking there's no way it could be the way it really is.

The only list of rogue operators and software providers that could be viewed should be on the regulators web site, since they would be banned from ever operating again.

Terms and conditions are written by the regulators. Any additional rules written by a casino need regulators approval.

You have a problem? There’s only one place to go….. The Regulator.

The only decisions any online player should have to consider should only be the same decisions they make when choosing where their going to play when choosing a land based casino. Like, confirmed regulations that are in place, the types of games being used, marketing offers, known house hold being monthly published, reputations, etc. The players are available for the taking; let the operators worry about being competitive legitimately.

Nevada obviously built the model for land based casinos and are now obviously doing the same for interactive gaming.

I don’t think present online regulators could reverse things at this stage, nor do I think they want or even care to. One thing some online regulators do well is spend money setting up some promising looking Web Sites.

I’ve been trying to stay current with what the UK is preparing to do with online regulation, but so far it just seems their main concern is to get their hands into the kettle, although some safety is being considered.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens there, but my guess is the only chance for honest change (force ably enforced) at this stage is the USA involvement.

I believe if Nevada gets to open up to the rest of the world, then foreign online regulators would be forced to take serious action or eventually evaporate.

Never lose sight why so many issues and illegal activities are taking place in today's present online gaming environment.

Simply because they can.

(edited 10/15 - always adding more comments)

Got this link from a poster (Richas) at C.M. and based on his past postings there he appeared to be one of the only level headed guys at that site that also recognized the need for serious regulation.

The link below takes you to the UK gaming commission site.

Be certain to also click onto the link at this site "Machine testing strategy consultation" - October 2013

Gets into lots of new ideas for future required testing and the presently lack of.

Here's a couple of the quotes:

"There have been a number of instances where category B3 slot game titles have been released into the market where variants of the game had not undergone any external testing, and only the primary game itself had been tested. It is considered that where variants of a game title are not tested there is a risk that the game will not perform as intended and could adversely affect the player, and in
particular instances where the RTP is below that expected due to incorrect game maths."

"A platform provider (supplier) modified the architecture of their hardware platform, which necessitated a change to the design of the game software which had been supplied by a third party manufacturer. The game software was not adequately tested to
ensure that it operated as designed when integrated into the hardware platform (integration testing), and it subsequently failed to operate as intended in terms of RTP performance."

"One of the significant contributory factors, in the Commission’s view, which resulted in the problem arising was the failure by any party to ensure that the game had undergone the necessary integration tests prior to game release. Although contractual arrangements were in place setting out which party had responsibility to carry out integration testing, as required by the Commission’s testing strategy, the working practices of both the software manufacturer and platform provider did not follow
that arrangement."

I could add a lot more but just click and read if your interested.


http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/research__consultations/consultations/open_consultations/machine_testing_strategy_con2.aspx

Interactive gaming systems (online casinos) in Nevada are considered just another gaming device. The already in place Nevada regulations for gaming devices are applied. Of course several new regulations have been applied for interactive gaming. I picked just a few of the important ones out not to over bore anyone.

Below are some of the requirements for both land based and online games that simulate live games, including video poker.


4.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices. All gaming devices submitted for approval:
(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play.
(b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game. For other gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game outcome must be constant.
(c) The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method of play.
3. Must display an accurate representation of the game outcome. After selection of the game outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary decision which affects the result shown to the player.


Below are a couple of safety requirements that are in place for online gaming.


Interactive Gaming Systems and Associated Equipment
(Rev. 1/27/2012)
6.140 Control program requirements for interactive gaming systems.
1. Any software or control programs used in the determination of win or loss, or performing other critical functions such as the storage of game session and player session data must reside within the server portion of the interactive gaming system and not within any authorized player software or authorized player system.
2. All control programs residing on the interactive gaming system must be authenticated prior to execution using a means approved by the chairman.
3. Interactive gaming systems must be capable of verifying that all control programs contained on the interactive gaming system are authentic copies of approved components of the interactive gaming system automatically, at least once every 24 hours, and on demand using a method approved by the chairman.


Keep in mind that all pre-existing land regulations in Nevada are also required for online gaming along with the already existing protocol that would require any software or hardware changes. Online casino in and hold financials are published monthly and available for view at the regulators site.

Also, slot games in Nevada can have a legal TRTP setting as low as 75%. Obviously, most know they are in the 90’s simply by viewing monthly statistics. If casino operators want to be competitive they have no choice. They’ll settle for 5 to 10 cents on the dollar but rest assured they would prefer the whole 25 cents if they could get away with it; but they can’t because we know for fact what their making because the regulator tells us every month. Not like present online casinos who are telling you what their settings are simply by typing it on their own web-sites, or promoters with web-sites who themselves have no fn idea for sure what any setting being used online might be.

I don't have any faith in the he said, she said, he said, bullshit, especially when it comes to gambling blindly.

With all of the well documented threads discussing facts and assumptions of what is or what might be taking place when gambling games are being offered online, where are all the people that are involved and responsible for the 24/7 operation?

Why after 15 years you couldn’t find a single thread where a regulator or a software provider made an appearance explaining and proving exactly why online gaming software can’t be altered after an approved launch?

4ofaKind,

First of all, thanks for the following info:

Quote: 4ofaKind

Interactive Gaming Systems and Associated Equipment (Rev. 1/27/2012)

6.140 Control program requirements for interactive gaming systems.

1. Any software or control programs used in the determination of win or loss, or performing other critical functions such as the storage of game session and player session data must reside within the server portion of the interactive gaming system and not within any authorized player software or authorized player system.

2. All control programs residing on the interactive gaming system must be authenticated prior to execution using a means approved by the chairman.

3. Interactive gaming systems must be capable of verifying that all control programs contained on the interactive gaming system are authentic copies of approved components of the interactive gaming system automatically, at least once every 24 hours, and on demand using a method approved by the chairman.

Because we're a no-download product, item 1 above is not an issue for us. This is how we've always built all of our games.

I also think that our current practices and certifications have us covered for item 2.

Item 3 is just going to be a PITA, however, and for a number of "non nefarious" reasons. One simple example (I could provide a dozen more right off the top of my head):

Let's say that we have an ASP file on the server that uses VBScript, and this file contains some amount, however small, of game control logic. Let's say that this file, once approved, is given an ID from some Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA). That means that if I later want to go into this file and simply add a comment I can't do it without resubmitting the file for approval and getting a new SHA ID.

So, I'm not going to add that comment, which is a problem because there must have been some good reason why I felt it necessary to consider adding it to the file in the first place.

And this simple example is extremely trivial in the grand scheme of a complex, high transaction rate, high (very high) security client/server application like an online casino.

I'm constantly revisiting areas of our application and considering possibilities for improvement. On average it takes our server code about 20 milliseconds to turn around a game request. If I shave 1 millisecond off a 20-millisecond process, I just increased our server capacity by 5%. And these are changes that both the Players and I want to see implemented! (Consider the constant Player complaint of slow game response time in online Tournaments.)

Hell, I made 2 changes to a dozen VBScript files TODAY because those changes represented a very small but nonetheless worthwhile enhancement to the security system. I make hundreds of changes of this nature, affecting thousands of SHA ID files, every year, every single year!

I understand - all of this is NOT the Player's problem. But it is MY problem, and it is NOT a trivial one for me to deal with - it is a big problem for me to deal with.

I realize that we need to, and thus are going to, deal with it. But it is simply going to suck. I know that ultimately I am not going to do things that I would otherwise do because the PITA factor of a new SHA ID outweighs the "very small but nonetheless worthwhile" value of the change.

Chris

Quote: 4ofaKind

With all of the well documented threads discussing facts and assumptions of what is or what might be taking place when gambling games are being offered online, where are all the people that are involved and responsible for the 24/7 operation?

Why after 15 years you couldn’t find a single thread where a regulator or a software provider made an appearance explaining and proving exactly why online gaming software can’t be altered after an approved launch?

I know that Galewind Software represents less than 0.01% of the industry, but that's still greater than 0%. Actually, our involvement in the forums possibly represents 50% of the industry.

Chris

Chris, keep in mind that I only posted a couple of Nevada’s new online regulations.

I understand how item 3 becomes a big PITA for you and I assume for any other software provider. Like I said earlier the NGCB considers online gaming just another gaming device. Therefore, all pre-existing regulations that already were in place for land operations are still in place for online gaming, (new gaming device) along with additional new regulations that deal precisely with how the games are delivered to the players and the security oversights in place to prevent tampering after launch.

When you consider the proven and exposed tampering that took place throughout the years with online gaming, a player could only suspect that there is much more going on that is undetectable.

Then when players go to online regulators expecting full explanatory reports of how the tampering was achieved and what was put in place to prevent it from happening again, only to be met with complete silence with that issue is troubling.

The bottom line is present online regulators are incompetent and unable to protect the players. They had over 15 years to prove otherwise and failed in the worse way.

Maybe it’s just impossible to enforce regulations on casino operators that are scattered all over the world. For now I’ll just stick to where I know I’m losing my money fairly.

I also would like to add that Galewind software accounts for 100% of forum interaction. I don’t consider a person named DogEars who anonymously claims to work for RTG‘s software division as a creditable source for information. Besides, he vanished after being challenged.

Whatever online regulations that are presently in place to prevent software tampering after launch is not working. This is a fact…

@Chris,

Like I said earlier I only posted a couple of new online regulations put in place for online gaming in Nevada. Here are a few more that are in place to prevent tampering after launch.

Production Environment Change Control Processes

1. The interactive gaming system operator must adopt a comprehensive and robust change control process to prevent unauthorized changes from being incorporated into the production environment at any layer. The process must include ALL changes to the interactive gaming production environment (operating system, network, databases, and applications). The change control process, including the titles of individuals responsible for all key decision points in the process, must be documented in the written system of internal control pursuant to Regulation 6.090. The change control process includes, at a minimum:

a. Proposed changes to the production environment are evaluated sufficiently for the impact on all aspects of production environment and authorized by management personnel prior to implementation;
b. Proposed changes are properly and sufficiently tested prior to implementation into the production environment;
c. A strategy for reverting back to the last implementation (rollback plan) if the install is unsuccessful, including a test of the rollback plan prior to implementation to the production environment; and
d. Sufficient documentation is maintained evidencing management evaluation, approvals, testing procedures and results, rollback plans, and any issues/resolutions encountered during implementation.

2. All changes must be sufficiently documented and maintained; and is to include at a minimum:

a. The date the program was placed into service;
b. The nature of the change (if applicable);
c. A description of procedures required in order to bring the new or modified program into service (conversion or input of data, installation procedures, etc.); and
d. An indication of who performed all such procedures.

3. A copy of the associated equipment reporting form must be submitted to the Board pursuant to Regulation 14 for each new program or program change, and a record indicating Board approval must be maintained.

4. Quarterly, audit/accounting personnel review a sample of changes made during the prior period to determine that such changes were properly approved, adequately documented, properly tested, and issues resolved and rollback procedures applied. Evidence of the review is to be documented and maintained; and is to include at a minimum the date of the review, the name of the individual(s) who performed the review and the exceptions noted and any related follow-up on the noted exceptions.

5. If the interactive gaming system operator develops any software that interfaces with the interactive gaming application, or develops any or all source code for the interactive gaming application modules, then the operator must adopt and document in its system of internal control a comprehensive and robust software development change control process. The software development change control process must incorporate the following requirements:

a. Source code is maintained in a secured repository for code history and version control;
b. Technical documentation, including all regulatory submission and approval forms must be maintained and available upon request. Technical documentation must include approvals, development, testing, results of testing, and implementation into production. Documentation also includes a record of the final program or program changes, including evidence of user acceptance, date placed in service, programmer sign-off, and explanation of the changes;
c. The production environment is logically and physically segregated from the test/development environment(s);
d. All enhancements and changes are reviewed and approved by management prior to development and the review and approval process is documented. Review and approval documentation, along with technical documentation, is maintained by an individual independent of the development process;
e. Developers are precluded from having access to promote code changes into the production environment. All changes must be promoted into production by someone independent of the development and testing function;
f. End user documentation is maintained and remains current to reflect the most recent software changes. This documentation may be available electronically to the end user;
g. Adequate segregation of duties exists among developers, testing personnel, administrators, personnel who may promote changes into production, personnel who may access frozen code, etc.;
h. An evaluation of the impact of changes on all parts of the production environment and interactive gaming application is performed, and a roll-back plan has been developed in case of failed promotion into production; and
i. Analysis and verification processes are performed to establish the integrity of data when conversion or migration occurs as part of the development process.

I went to A.C. last Saturday and played in a poker tournament. Eight hours later and being eliminated I had to wait for my friend who was still in it. I played video poker the whole time waiting and lost over 3K. I didn’t feel cheated at all and took my lumps gracefully knowing for certain I was getting a fair game and was just unlucky.

With all due respect because I'm fairly new to all this but how do you know " I was getting a fair game and was just unlucky. "

Quote: jetermacaw

With all due respect because I'm fairly new to all this but how do you know " I was getting a fair game and was just unlucky. "

Easy, first I can go to the regulators web-site and read all regulations in place that would protect everyone from software tampering. Like the regulations I’ve been printing from Nevada, and also available for Atlantic City. It also tells me the class or version of games that are being used in their jurisdictions.

I could also go to the regulators web-sites and read all the different casino's monthly gross and amount the casino's held for every game they offer. This also includes all slot games and the casino hold for every denomination on the floor. This confirms for fact what every casinos RTP's are for all the slot machines

If I have any questions or doubts I could contact the regulators by phone or e-mail and expect a response with my answers within 24 hours. Nevada and Atlantic City both have real regulations and serious regulation enforcement. These are the only two places I play at, and only Foxwoods for poker tournaments. But you could research whatever land based jurisdiction where you wish to play to see if their up to snuff on regulation. I can't speak for any place else except for the two jurisdictions I mentioned.

Online casinos offer nothing but basic bullshit on their regulators web-sites, and when contacted by e-mail, by phone, or snail mail, never a response or a call back. No monthly reports available to read about confirmed RTP settings or casino hold information. No way to determine what the games class or style of games that are being used, and no way to find out from the regulators. The only way to get some information is from affiliate web-sites who promote the casinos and tell players what they hear through the grapevine or from their alleged connections from insiders. The good ole he said, she said, he said, bullshit which becomes hard to believe when their making money off of your deposits and loses.

In addition, with the amount of exposed and confirmed rigged software incidents that have taken place with online casinos over the years, it's obvious that online regulators are only regulating their incomes.

Thanks for your info, greatly appreciated.