Organic Roulette Experiment

I've been sworn to secrecy about this project until now. The backstory is that in September I was presented with some evidence that was pretty convincing that Organic Roulette machines by Interblock were steering the ball away from players who: (1) bet large, (2) bet numbers in a close section, and most importantly (3) bet AFTER the ball came out. It was enough for me to spend six months in meetings, Emails, and collecting data to confirm or deny the accusation. You can read all about it in my new page Organic Roulette Experiment as well as my response at the bottom. That page has probably had more revisions than any other I've ever written, because others were involved and had their opinions about how I worded things.

Although the page is somewhat short, a great deal of time went into the experiment. Please have a look and let me know your thoughts. There is a lot I'm still sworn to secrecy on, but otherwise I'm happy to take questions. The question for the poll is which statements do you agree with (multiple votes allowed).

A correction to a sentence in the "Conclusion":

Quote: Conclusion

... It could have easily been caused by back luck.

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly investigate Wizard!. Some questions I have is were the same number of spins tracked across all three machines in the Round two experiment? Also, was a players card inserted at each session?

I'd like to hear more details about the evidence that piqued your interest to start the study. The machine(s) were producing non-standard results at that time, so does variance still explain those results too?

If in fact the machine is deploying countermeasures some of the time, but not all of the time, what is Mr. S's hypothesis regarding how the machine accomplishes it without visual detection? It is a physical machine, with moving parts. Does the machine give the wheel an imperceptible increase or decrease in the rate of the wheel spinning, use magnets, or a kicker to keep the ball out of the winning sector?

Very interesting.

Wizard, we know that you are a man that likes to wager, at what level would you be comfortable betting that this game is not gaffed?

I am not offering a wager but i am just trying to understand from your perspective based on your trials and your experience with regulated gaming what you think the likelihood is that the wheel is truly biased.

Without sharing specifics of Mr. S's records on the game (if you're allowed to), what's the probability of those results or worse on a fair game?

Has an instance ever occurred of a gaming machine In Clark county being intentionally gaffed by casino or maker?

Quote: Ayecarumba

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly investigate Wizard!. Some questions I have is were the same number of spins tracked across all three machines in the Round two experiment? Also, was a players card inserted at each session?

You're welcome. No, the number of spins at each of the three casinos were different. I was asked to not get into the specifics of that by another person on the team. About the player card, I'm not sure. That may also be a detail too sensitive to reveal.

Quote:

I'd like to hear more details about the evidence that piqued your interest to start the study. The machine(s) were producing non-standard results at that time, so does variance still explain those results too?

I was very firmly asked to not discuss the evidence that led to this. It is addressed a little in the response by Mr. S. All I can say was the evidence presented to me was enough for me to spend six months on this. I get accusations of cheating all the time, mostly from losers with sour grapes, so it takes a lot for me to take one seriously.

Quote:

If in fact the machine is deploying countermeasures some of the time, but not all of the time, what is Mr. S's hypothesis regarding how the machine accomplishes it without visual detection? It is a physical machine, with moving parts. Does the machine give the wheel an imperceptible increase or decrease in the rate of the wheel spinning, use magnets, or a kicker to keep the ball out of the winning sector?

I'd love to talk about this but it was another detail I was asked to not address.

Sorry for such a poor response. Hopefully the gag I'm under will be lifted down the road.

The fact that there is a gag on the full mathematics - and the genesis of the statistics of the product by a renown mathematician is concerning and suspect on the Roulette product.

In no other www.wizardofodds.com game description that you post do you say, "I cannot give you the full game play mechanics/mathematics of the game or device - in the genuine determination of the result of the hand, statistically. I am under a gag order by the entities related to the product to keep my mouth shut."

Great.....Full revelation of the math and statistics is to be concealed here, and for reason.

Many gamblers will say, "Okay, I totally get this, I figured as much...."

Less is More, in the sense that being under threat to say less, says a real lot.

Not meaning to stick fingers into your lower posterior regions over here Mike, you are indeed right, as you yourself admit - the response may be considered deficient and suspect. Full transparency instills confidence, and concealment instills distrust.

It implies a gaffed gaming product.

I think it's very noble to investigate this especially, as you know, it's very difficult to prove bias without a substantial number of trials. There are quite a few automatic roulette machines in the UK and most casinos have banks of terminals where you can bet on a live table or the automatic one. Thus it would be very worrying if there was something fishy going on.

One thing I'm wondering is whether there might be an inherent bias within the machine of numbers spun to those spun two turns ago - yes they should be independent but are they?

Also isn't possible for the authorities to see the code to check whether the spin can be affected by the sizes or numbers being bet?

Another question would be if this just ended here or there is something else going on with perhaps Gaming that cannot be discussed at this point. Either way, I wouldn't think anyone on any side is happy with this just ending like this.

So right now we can't know when, where, why, how, or who...just what the game is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few years back many of the machines had significantly longer than 5 seconds after the ball was shot to make your bets, witch seems crazy, especially when you can see obvious predictable ball drop off points along with some other obvious things.

Slowly they lowered many of the machines betting windows, some even to zero. Why not make them all Zero instead of gaffing them? If its true one would suspect they went out of their way to lure and target certain type of players including AP's.

If its true, it's kinda clever of them to only target Late bettors who make larger bets. Not too smart of them to target people who are probably AP's, because they are the ones likely to figure out if something stinks.
If they get caught, they can claim they were only targeting players who are/were trying to cheat/break the CASINO rules. (IIRC, according to Dan, you are breaking the rules if you are playing a game in a way the CASINO didn't intend it to be played, even if that's simply using your brain?)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People are probably wondering how the machine would avoid specific numbers after the ball was shot and bets were made.
I assume some people are thinking there are some kind of magnets that kick in. If the public found out the machines were using magnets on a game I can only imagine the fallout.

The machine could adjust the speed of the wheel, I assume that would be somewhat noticeable, especially with a few hours of video.

Mr S. was not the only one looking into clocking thees machines, I bet there are other AP's out there cringing all this came out.

There is no doubt in my mind someone took advantage of theses machines at one time.

Even with it being gaffed it seems theres could still be an advantage to be had once someone figured out exact how the gaffing worked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions:
Was your testing done in or outside NV?
What now?

Quote: Paigowdan

The fact that there is a gag on the full mathematics - and the genesis of the statistics of the product by a renown mathematician is concerning and suspect on the Roulette product.

I'd like to be clear that the gag put upon me was one of the other team members who was concerned about privacy issues.

Quote:

Not meaning to stick fingers into your lower posterior regions over here Mike, you are indeed right, as you yourself admit - the response may be considered deficient and suspect. Full transparency instills confidence, and concealment instills distrust. It implies a gaffed gaming product.

I don't like it any more than you do.

Quote: RS

Without sharing specifics of Mr. S's records on the game (if you're allowed to), what's the probability of those results or worse on a fair game?

I'm gagged from answering that. Again, my apologies.

Quote: AxelWolf

If they get caught, they can claim they were only targeting players who are/were trying to cheat/break the CASINO rules. (IIRC, according to Dan, you are breaking the rules if you are playing a game in a way the CASINO didn't intend it to be played, even if that's simply using your brain?)

This depends if the action done for a disallowed advantage; if you get backed off or 86-ed and put in the surveillance book, you weren't successfully using your brain.

Here we got a product released for the gamblers that seems to be gaffed by manipulating the wheel under computer control based on the bets made, equally as bad.
It's not which side that gaffes a game, it is that a gaffe is present.

Quote: charliepatrick

Also isn't possible for the authorities to see the code to check whether the spin can be affected by the sizes or numbers being bet?

Here in Nevada, the Gaming Control Board has the right to inspect any new electronic product before it hits the casino floor. However, I think it would not be difficult to fool them by submitting software that plays fairly and then swapping a critical computer chip in the field. Of course, I'm not saying that happened in this case. Just saying it is hypothetically possible for any electronic gaming product. It is also not meant as a criticism of Gaming, as they have limited resources, like any policing authority.

Quote: AxelWolf

So right now we can't know when, where, why, how, or who...just what the game is.

Yeah. I don't like it either. I think my gag on this may be lifted somewhat once the dust settles, but no promises.

Quote:

There is no doubt in my mind someone took advantage of theses machines at one time.

I agree.

Quote:

Was your testing done in or outside NV? What now?

My testing was entirely within Nevada. Right now I want to get onto new business. I'm kind of sick of this thing. If anyone has a good project idea for me, send me a PM.

I'm not an AP, so I miss seeing a lot of things, but if I believed it was gaffed I would hang around waiting for some big bettors - maybe be able to identify them too. Especially the $20+ bettors, and of them those that bet sectors.

Then I would bet a different sector and just for less money.

It's sort of like thinking a craps game is gaffed. There has to be a way to take advantage.

This fiasco smell fishy. I compare it to the so called DI's blaming "biased dice" when they lose.

1. Thanks Mike!

2. How many more spins would be needed, assuming the same or worse results, to get the probability of this occuring in a fair game to lower than 1%? (Thanks in advance to anybody willing to calculate that.)

3. It has been mentioned that a likely way to manipulate the outcome would be to increase / decrease wheel speed. This would be very easy to prove, assuming that the wheel speed is constant outside "threatened" mode. All that is required is some high speed video of normal and threatened mode. Depending on the speed difference, even a regular cam with 25fps might prove it.

4. If the machine is cheating, how many people in the company would be aware of that? (That would be a question for Ahigh, or is there other expertise in developing electronic casino games on this forum?) What would they be charged with if there was proof, and what kind of sentence would be likely?

Just wanted to say thanks for throwing away a grand of EV on this. Each spin must have been painful.

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm not an AP, so I miss seeing a lot of things, but if I believed it was gaffed I would hang around waiting for some big bettors - maybe be able to identify them too. Especially the $20+ bettors, and of them those that bet sectors.

Then I would bet a different sector and just for less money.

It's sort of like thinking a craps game is gaffed. There has to be a way to take advantage.

You would have to wait for people that are betting "late" (during that 5 second window). Then identify their bets and make your own bets on top of that. Lots to do in a small period of time.

Quote: Wizard

Right now I want to get onto new business. I'm kind of sick of this thing.

On to new business??? This is fairly important. I understand due to the gag order your hands are tied. Assuming the gag order will get lifted somtime soon, I would think this has just gotten started.

You just gave ALL the ," the casinos are cheating me" conspiracy theorists somthing to latch on to.

Quote: AxelWolf

You would have to wait for people that are betting "late" (during that 5 second window). Then identify their bets and make your own bets on top of that. Lots to do in a small period of time.

Quote: the wizard page on this

Red flags for a wheel clocker were hypothesized to be:

*Large bets. It was unclear how big "large" had to be, but $20 in total was deemed to be enough.
*Late bets. To be specific, the five seconds between the ball launch and the window of time closing.
* Section bets. Betting single numbers in close proximity on the wheel.

I gathered from this that just a large bet was enough, but maybe it has to be 2/3 in combination. Obviously, you are right, it would be a bit harder, but I dunno, if sectors are bet ...

Quote: odiousgambit

I gathered from this that just a large bet was enough, but maybe it has to be 2/3 in combination. Obviously, you are right, it would be a bit harder, but I dunno, if sectors are bet ...

I'm assuming since they have a significant advantage over anyone whos not clocking the wheel, they would only taget people that might be clocking the wheel.

Unless someone has figured out some type of a pattern on ball speed and wheel speed, you have to wait until after the ball is shot to clock it. That's why I'm assuming that's the first and foremost factor.

As for Mr. S.'s analysis, the eerie ability of the roulette ball to make a bet be "EXACTLY CENTERED on the absolute WORST possible section" correlates with my own decision, once per session, to go darkside or rightside in Craps: it is typically eerily EXACTLY CENTERED on the absolute WORST possible timing!!

Maybe I can get Michael to chi-square up some data on that for me, I'll start keeping track!

Do the wheels on these machines spin both ways? Is the spike at +6 pockets away from the center of the five pocket "sector" akin to reel slots showing "near misses" to encourage continued play?

Would tracking the individual results of three players, each taking a different 5 pocket sector force the wheel to reveal its gaffe? If one player took the "big" bettor position, wagering $20, thereby triggering "threatened" mode, while the other two wagered $5 each on their sectors on the opposite side of the wheel, the team should be able to influence the machine to drop the ball on one of the smaller bettor's sectors more often.

If the gaffe is sophisticated enough to drop the ball consistently on an empty pocket, it should be apparent fairly quickly.

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm not an AP, so I miss seeing a lot of things, but if I believed it was gaffed I would hang around waiting for some big bettors - maybe be able to identify them too. Especially the $20+ bettors, and of them those that bet sectors.

You would have to wait for not just big bettors, but ones that make very late bets and bet only in sectors.

Quote: AxelWolf

On to new business??? This is fairly important. I understand due to the gag order your hands are tied. Assuming the gag order will get lifted somtime soon, I would think this has just gotten started.

There isn't anything else left to do except field questions here.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Do the wheels on these machines spin both ways? Is the spike at +6 pockets away from the center of the five pocket "sector" akin to reel slots showing "near misses" to encourage continued play?

Would tracking the individual results of three players, each taking a different 5 pocket sector force the wheel to reveal its gaffe? If one player took the "big" bettor position, wagering $20, thereby triggering "threatened" mode, while the other two wagered $5 each on their sectors on the opposite side of the wheel, the team should be able to influence the machine to drop the ball on one of the smaller bettor's sectors more often.

If the gaffe is sophisticated enough to drop the ball consistently on an empty pocket, it should be apparent fairly quickly.

I'll just say that even under the evidence I was presented with in September, the wheel clocker didn't always lose. The alleged theory was that the game influenced the ball away from the sector bet by the clocker. It didn't always work. Speaking as the devil's advocate, one wouldn't need to make the clocker lose every spin to get rid of him, just give him negative expectation, even a thin one, and he will turn into a profitable player for the casino or leave.

I would think you would bet the same numbers continuously as a comparison for changing the bet based on what you see. I'm very swayed into suspicion by the employee saying, "we're aware of it" and not discussing it further. It's not an admission of guilt, but actually nothing that could be said is good enough with accusations out there. Late betting should just not be allowed rather than cheating the late bettors, if that's the case. They're not always competently doing so and even more unfair to the general public.

Just the mention of a $20 bet possibly scaring the machine, would just make my $20 random bet at a table. Triple zero isn't a reality to me yet, but Id rather know the risk upfront than wonder how much it is. I'd probably wait until I'd find a HL table and make one big bet there over a few small ones at triple zero or a possibly gaffed machine.

If the machine winds up returning as expected, with people trying to game it, than that might prove counter measures. Problem is those trying to game it would give up as soon as they realized something fishy might be happening, and be a pretty insignificant part of the play.

Integrity of gaming died years ago in my opinion. Funny this is very similar to Harley's craps issues where he thought fair dice weren't being used where a collection of many dice would act as suspected, but not individual dice always. I'll just not be surprised when I hear accusations of fishiness, thinking the casino will protect itself and pull a con on the con, while denying it.

Oh my gawd. Here we go again. More conspiracy theories. This sounds like the dice bias guys. They couldn't win at craps by attempting to control the dice so the dice MUST be biased. The guy who presented the evidence to you couldn't win at roulette so he claims that the game is shooting against him. How ridiculous. In a nutshell, here is what you are stating:

1. You've been "presented" with some "evidence" from "Mr. S." that was pretty "convincing" that the Organic machines are steering the ball away from players who bet large in a section late in the spin. Tell us, do tell, who is this "Mr. S.". Is he afraid to reveal himself? Why not present us with his "convincing" evidence?

2. You are "sworn" to secrecy? Really? So it's something like this: "I've been presented with a theory and I know it must be right because some secret super smart math guy told me so. I can't reveal his name because he is a roulette god who beats the hell out of the game and hence would be excluded from every casino on the planet if they knew what he was up to". If Mr. S wants us to believe him he needs to present himself and his "mountain" of evidence. After all, your experiment proves nothing. See #4.

3. You and/or him clearly spent $100s or $1000s of your own money (I wasn't clear if you spent your own money; I hope not) playing random sections just to try to prove a point and nothing was proved. Either he is lying or he wasted a lot of his own money. Either way how are we to believe that what he says is not just made up conspiracy stuff?

4. Your "Organic Roulette Experiment" was quite random as you have acknowledged so why present it at all? I took a look at your data myself. As you stated, it proves nothing. I'll put it in a synopsis and we have:
a. Table 1, chi square 45, chance of random 16%. Any random sample could give this about one out of 6 is actually pretty normal considering that you did several of these.
b. Table 2, probabilities of 52%, 11%, 5%, 4%, and 13% for different arc sizes. With these percentages all pulled from the same data sample, 4 out of 5 of them below average is certainly within a reasonable chance of randomness.
c. Table 3, chi square 35, chance of random 57%. REALLY?
d. Table 4, probabilities of 66%, 29%, 42%, 9%, and 44% for different arc sizes. lol
e. Table 5, chi square 42, chance of random 27%. more lol
f. Table 6, 65%, 15%, 17%, 3%, and 26% for different arc sizes. Not convincing because not enough data.

5. In the conclusions for the experiment it states:
"I have no justification to make any accusations that the Organic Roulette machines are playing unfairly."

Here is what I think you need to tell "Mr. S". Stop complaining about the game and play. If he feels that the game is beatable then beat it and stop complaining about it. Why would it matter if the game is shooting against him if he can still beat it? If he can't beat it then spewing conspiracy theories about it will only make him appear more foolish.

Quote: wildhare

Oh my gawd. Here we go again. More conspiracy theories. This sounds like the dice bias guys. They couldn't win at craps by attempting to control the dice so the dice MUST be biased. The guy who presented the evidence to you couldn't win at roulette so he claims that the game is shooting against him. How ridiculous. In a nutshell, here is what you are stating:

1. You've been "presented" with some "evidence" from "Mr. S." that was pretty "convincing" that the Organic machines are steering the ball away from players who bet large in a section late in the spin. Tell us, do tell, who is this "Mr. S.". Is he afraid to reveal himself? Why not present us with his "convincing" evidence?

2. You are "sworn" to secrecy? Really? So it's something like this: "I've been presented with a theory and I know it must be right because some secret super smart math guy told me so. I can't reveal his name because he is a roulette god who beats the hell out of the game and hence would be excluded from every casino on the planet if they knew what he was up to". If Mr. S wants us to believe him he needs to present himself and his "mountain" of evidence. After all, your experiment proves nothing. See #4.

3. You and/or him clearly spent $100s or $1000s of your own money (I wasn't clear if you spent your own money; I hope not) playing random sections just to try to prove a point and nothing was proved. Either he is lying or he wasted a lot of his own money. Either way how are we to believe that what he says is not just made up conspiracy stuff?

4. Your "Organic Roulette Experiment" was quite random as you have acknowledged so why present it at all? I took a look at your data myself. As you stated, it proves nothing. I'll put it in a synopsis and we have:
a. Table 1, chi square 45, chance of random 16%. Any random sample could give this about one out of 6 tually pretty normal considering that you did several of these.
b. Table 2, probabilities of 52%, 11%, 5%, 4%, and 13% for different arc sizes. With these percentages all pulled from the same data sample, 4 out of 5 of them below average is certainly within a reasonable chance of randomness.
c. Table 3, chi square 35, chance of random 57%. REALLY?
d. Table 4, probabilities of 66%, 29%, 42%, 9%, and 44% for different arc sizes.
e. Table 5, chi square 42, chance of random 27%. lol
f. Table 6, 65%, 15%, 17%, 3%, and 26% for different arc sizes. Not convincing because not enough data.

5. In the conclusions for the experiment it states:
"I have no justification to make any accusations that the Organic Roulette machines are playing unfairly."

Here is what I think you need to tell "Mr. S". Stop complaining about the game and play. If he feels that the game is beatable then beat it and stop complaining about it. Why would it matter if the game is shooting against him if he can still beat it? If he can't beat it then spewing conspiracy theories about it will only make him appear more foolish.

Blackhole I presume.

It might be nice to get a roulette wheel, some cameras, record 1,000 spins, then give him all day to pick his numbers. He can rewind, think, whatever take as much time as needed. Too bad this thing is over.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Blackhole I presume.

Could be. Certainly not "new"

I am new to this forum but have gambled for many years so no, I am not new to the games. I like organic roulette and hate it when conspiracy-minded people try to make a fun game look bad.

Quote: wildhare

I am new to this forum but have gambled for many years so no, I am not new to the games. I like organic roulette and hate it when conspiracy-minded people try to make a fun game look bad.

THATS your "thing"? Forget about child hunger and global warming. You're championing the cause of fighting conspiracy-minded people who try to make a fun game look bad.

Quote: RogerKint

THATS your "thing"? Forget about child hunger and global warming. You're championing the cause of fighting conspiracy-minded people who try to make a fun game look bad.

We all have to believe in something so I believe I'll have another beer.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

I would think you would bet the same numbers continuously as a comparison for changing the bet based on what you see. I'm very swayed into suspicion by the employee saying, "we're aware of it" and not discussing it further. It's not an admission of guilt, but actually nothing that could be said is good enough with accusations out there. Late betting should just not be allowed rather than cheating the late bettors, if that's the case. They're not always competently doing so and even more unfair to the general public.

Just the mention of a $20 bet possibly scaring the machine, would just make my $20 random bet at a table. Triple zero isn't a reality to me yet, but Id rather know the risk upfront than wonder how much it is. I'd probably wait until I'd find a HL table and make one big bet there over a few small ones at triple zero or a possibly gaffed machine.

It was discussed beforehand about approaching Interblock the gaming show. Most said to me, "Why bother, all they will say is that the game is random." The actual answer I got I at least didn't expect. However, it leads into your next point about why not just close betting before releasing the ball. I think they may be offering a few seconds as a tease to get play from bad wheel clockers, which probably most of them are.

Quote: wildhare

Oh my gawd. Here we go again. More conspiracy theories. This sounds like the dice bias guys. They couldn't win at craps by attempting to control the dice so the dice MUST be biased. The guy who presented the evidence to you couldn't win at roulette so he claims that the game is shooting against him. How ridiculous. In a nutshell, here is what you are stating:

Yeah. You make some good points there. In my defense, the reason I spent so much time on this was to confirm the data I was already presented with. It was not just an adjective-laden rant by a sore loser that started all this. I get those all the time. However, I understand the "Here we go again" comment. I would probably say the same thing too. That is what I think every time I hear about secret evidence to support dice influence. From your perspective, it is a justified and rightly skeptical response. Unfortunately, I'm gagged and can't get into the Mr. S evidence.

Don't misunderstand me. I've seen nothing I can quote or authenticate that leads me to stating that the game ever played unfairly. As far as I'm concerned, the game gets a clean bill of health from me.

Quote: Wizard

As far as I'm concerned, the game gets a clean bill of health from me.

Now im really confused.


I thought you were suggesting that MR S has you believing there is some merit to the machines being gaffed?

The whole article should be removed. I wonder if Interblock could sue?

Quote: MaxPen

The whole article should be removed. I wonder if Interblock could sue?

I agree is should be removed, but not for that reason.

It's a little bit of a rough situation.

Feeling a bit for Mike, there is no easy way to be party to a gaffed-looking product, as good-faith the involvement.

Being anywhere near such a thing, there's always a bit of involvement with a "Scheiss Spritz" fallout, to use a little German.

Quote: AxelWolf

Now im really confused. I thought you were suggesting that MR S has you believing there is some merit to the machines being gaffed?

You can infer whatever you wish. I'm just saying that I appeared to get a fair game and have no evidence I can publish to suggest otherwise.

Quote: Paigowdan

It's a little bit of a rough situation.

It is. I considered not publishing but I spent so much time on it that I hated to just throw it away. Plus, its my job to produce gambling content and always thought of it under that light.

Quote: Wizard

It is. I considered not publishing but I spent so much time on it that I hated to just throw it away. Plus, its my job to produce gambling content and always thought of it under that light.

I appreciate the effort, and the analysis. I didn't take anything away from the article except that there was a question about the fairness of the machine, an independent study was conducted utilizing available data, and the results were published.

Now... onto the "Shoot to Win" machine??

Quote: Wizard

It is. I considered not publishing but I spent so much time on it that I hated to just throw it away.

I understand, as your effort related here was/is perhaps the most noble of all involved, - which had landed on a more relative or suspect scale after the facts came out, saying poor things here with that, and once things became more apparent.

I myself still often say, "what did I really involve myself over with this job, hmm...." - and can often feel duped by the invisible gods/demons of gambling or money interest, - no matter what my position or role may be.

Quote: BigMike

Plus, its my job to produce gambling content and always thought of it under that light.

The raisins in the cereal are sometimes later revealed as the flies in the ointment, which should be revealed when discovered, but are blocked here by a gag order. Clear and full game mechanisms/gambling content is best. Call a raisin a raisin, and a roach a roach, in this bowl.

I believe that "Gag orders exist only to conceal possibly suspect things." And they are never there by accident. Such things as gag orders may be present simply to conceal deceit on rare occasions, otherwise here would be a full and transparent "check us out on what we claim here" kind of thing, kind of full disclosure thing.

Now, if a motor can be used to spin a roulette wheel under computer control, the same motors can also be used to brake down and control a wheel under computer control also, and after seeing bets placed, too. This all doesn't just make me feel confident.

If they had just limited out late bets, and had pushed the wheel with a plunger, fewer could question the integrity of the device.

A real roulette dealer pushes the wheel by hand, - because there are no computer-controlled magnets or motors in the thing when real money is at stake.

Let me say this, to simply say:

Any Roulette wheel that has:
1. motors or magnets attached to it that can and do control its speed or rotation, and;
2. can see the players bets that are placed before the wheel gives its result, and;
3. is not under my control, but under the control of the casino house or game product seller -

Is not a product I would gamble on.

Just makes plain sense to me. Not touching it, if real table games are present.

Motors and magnets on a Roulette Wheel is something that I would never touch.

Quote: MaxPen

The whole article should be removed. I wonder if Interblock could sue?

Technically anyone can sue anyone. But their grounds would be for what?
Wizard stated claims were brought to his attention and after running some tests he could not come to a conclusion of foul play. That is both a statement of fact and supports interblock so what would their tort possibly be?

All experiment has the possibility for unexpected or unwanted results otherwise why do them. It behooves all scientists and mathematicians to publish results regardless of the outcome. May be less exciting in this case but thats the nature of the beast

Quote: darkoz

Technically anyone can sue anyone. But their grounds would be for what?

For unauthorized disclosure; violation of an NDA ("Non-Disclosure Agreement') or for breach of a contractual covenant.
IANAL, but these might be reasons.

Quote: darkoz

Wizard stated claims were brought to his attention and after running some tests he could not come to a conclusion of foul play. That is both a statement of fact and supports interblock so what would their tort possibly be?

The results 'alluded to' skewed results and/or foul play frequently at times; whether or not they are "court submissable" is another issue, and not relevant here; a positive light on them was not always present, nor a kindly or strongly assumed position in the game's defense assumed.

Problems with the game's merit and integrity were openly displayed and discussed from information gleaned so far, - like electrical motors controlling the roulette wheel, and based on players' bets made. This is serious.

Quote: darkoz

All experiments have the possibility for unexpected or unwanted results otherwise, [and why they had occured]. It behooves all scientists and mathematicians to publish [full] results regardless of the outcome. May be less exciting in this case but that's the nature of the beast

Amen to that, but there was an indicated gag order suppressing full and complete information, arguably.

The mathematical or statistical defense (or dismissal) of the product is concealed under gag order, and indeterminate, suspect, and troublesome here so far.

The computer, magnet, and motor-controlled roulette wheel seems to be the more basic problem, and issue at hand, and this appears to be absolutely true and extremely hard to deny. A motor-controlled roulette wheel that monitors and responds to players' bets in favor of the house is unarguably a gaffed roulette game. This needs to be falsified more strongly, if possible.

Its presence, if true, seems to be an unquestionable potential gaffe on a commercial gaming product.

Quote: Paigowdan

For unauthorized disclosure; violation of an NDA ("Non-Disclosure Agreement') or for breach of a contractual covenant.
IANAL, but these might be reasons.


The results 'alluded to' skewed results and/or foul play frequently at times; whether or not they are "court submissable" is another issue, and not relevant here; a positive light on them was not always present, nor a kindly or strongly assumed position in the game's defense assumed.

Problems with the game's merit and integrity were openly displayed and discussed from information gleaned so far, - like electrical motors controlling the roulette wheel, and based on players' bets made. This is serious.

Quote: darkoz

All experiments have the possibility for unexpected or unwanted results otherwise, [and why they had occured]. It behooves all scientists and mathematicians to publish [full] results regardless of the outcome. May be less exciting in this case but that's the nature of the beast

Amen to that, but there was an indicated gag order suppressing full and complete information, arguably.

The mathematical or statistical defense (or dismissal) of the product is concealed under gag order, and indeterminate, suspect, and troublesome here so far.

The computer, magnet, and motor-controlled roulette wheel seems to be the more basic problem, and issue at hand, and this appears to be absolutely true and extremely hard to deny. A controlled roulette wheel that monitors and responds to players' bets in favor of the house is unarguably a gaffed roulette game. This needs to be falsified more strongly, if possible.

Its presence, if true, seems to be an unquestionable potential gaffe on a commercial gaming product.

Well the irony is any lawsuit would probably be more damaging to interblock

Lets say they claim damages. Then in discovery wizard would be legally compellee to show the original results of mr s. Results that were significant enough to attract the wizards attention. And with that now in open court interblock would have to explain how wizards investigation was not warranted