Dan's "Disaster" - Lucky Win AP report mishap

I had to post this under "Game Inventor's corner" because there is no section for "minor scandals and humiliations." We did describe Lucky Win Bacc as being strong in game protection, but not as strong as the depiction or interpretation as its first AP report/sales sheet really is.

Don't get me wrong - the game is fine, just great to play. It was a representation in the game's new AP (Advantage Play Resistance) report that gave it "undeservedly stellar" robustness, when in reality, its countability is more typical of the nature of a 416 card shoe itself, - so we got lulled into believing that we can make a side bet become, or appear, totally robust, when it cannot yet thought that it was. Coming out of a 416-card shoe, just about any side bet can be tough.

We gave serious effort and consideration into making it relatively safe, by having various win triggers in the pay table to dilute key cards, but the winning 1 over 0 hands, and the 2 over lower hands, still give some weight to Aces and tens, as the pay table is not bottom heavy enough to fully dilute the effect.

I wanted to explain the situation here (- and many of a suspicious mind will inaccurately say "to come clean"), but really, it was non-nefarious clerical errors. Anyway, Lucky Win, just recently approved in Nevada, is decent in safety, and will be getting a new AP math report within 24 hours, - the true results will be posted for everyone's harsh eyes.

Takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.

" Trust me, if ANYONE would design in anti-AP play aspects into a new game, it would be PGD! "

Gee , lucky guess on my part.

http://apheat.net/2013/09/30/card-counting-the-lucky-win-baccarat-side-bet/#more-4120

1. at $25 per bet limit, which will be a standard side bet limit, it is one-fourth of $100 model used in the example in terms of "theoretical cash" obtain.

2. Eliot's post is extremely harsh on me and my company; mistakes were made and admitted to. Eliot's name is used for the rankings of the other side bets used as comparison, and not on Lucky Win line item.

3. As harsh as Eliot is on me at his site, I assure you the damage to me from this mistake, in terms of lost sales, professional ridicule, etc., far exceeds anything that Eliot will experience in terms of fallout, as it pales in comparison to the rightful and brutal beating he has bestowed upon me. And...I still owe him an apology, which he will indeed receive, and that I wish to present in person with great remorse, really. I also wish to state that no malice or nefarious actions were involved, as it was an error - and as soon as it was pointed out, I immediately and openly posted it, as well as requested an AP math re-run with corrections to be done, and will post that, also.

4. Steve How also did an analyis on the game at http://discountgambling.net/. Steve did a good analysis on the game, also treating it rough, but sparing me or any person or company any vitriol for the error.

I repeat " Takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. "

Quote: Buzzard

I repeat " Takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. "

Buzz, thank you.

Quote: Paigowdan

2. Eliot's post is extremely harsh on me and my company; mistakes were made and admitted to. Eliot's name is used for the rankings of the other side bets used as comparison, and not on Lucky Win line item.

3. As harsh as Eliot is on me at his site, I assure you the damage to me from this mistake, in terms of lost sales, professional ridicule, etc., far exceeds anything that Eliot will experience in terms of fallout, as it pales in comparison to the rightful and brutal beating he has bestowed upon me. And...I still owe him an apology, which he will indeed receive, and that I wish to present in person with great remorse, really.

I didn't see your name mentioned at all, so it's hard to see how he was being harsh on you personally. I think he was taking umbrage at being associated with work he didn't produce (whether or not it was correct, though obviously the error looks worse than a correct result would have).

Perhaps this incident will enable you to justify additional resources being devoted to your QA processes. I frequently see gaming products being rushed out the door without adequate testing. That's fine when the stakes are low, such as virtual-currency social gaming. But when real money is on the line it gets expensive especially in regulated jurisdictions where you may need to resubmit.

After I posted my blog-rant I went to visit a friend, we played a few fiddle tunes and I drank a beer. On a re-read, I softened the tone of my blog post considerably, turning down the righteous indignation from 11 to about 7.

Here's the thing, the AP information is really wrong and my name was on the document in a way that didn't make clear that I had no responsibility whatsoever for the really wrong stuff. That's just bad. I'm glad I was the one to discover it, rather than have it hit me from behind and to have to do damage control.

Here is the offending part of the rack sheet:



In my blog post, I showed that the Lucky Win bet could be beat out of $142 per 100 hands using a balanced count. Stephen How got $149 with an unbalanced count.

Dan has been a real gentleman to me in our phone calls. Both Dan and Charles have expressed deep regret to me. I absolutely accept their apologies.

Eliot - thank you so much.

Like I said, I consider this an error that got through many checks, and one that I immediately posted an alert on once known, - and I am taking quick response to update all related documentation. (We used your standard dollar valuations for Dragon bonus through Lucky Nines.)

To summarize:
1. The error was immediately and openly reported when pointed out, and as a responsibility owed to all in gaming; I felt I had to report it. Me and my game gets a black eye. As a game designer, this alone is very painful and disheartening, hence the thread's title.
2. This will be corrected with accurate updates.
3. I have been rightfully horsewhipped.
4. I'm looking towards fixing it 100% and moving on.

In life, mistakes are made.....they are simply part of the journey....nothing done here appears to have been intentional, it was a mistake.

I don't know all the facts, but perhaps better labeling should have been done, better analysis of the vulnerability, etc.. But I don't think anyone intended to put out misleading information.....that just isn't how Dan or Charles roll as most of us who know the men personally can attest.

Reputations are not judged based on whether one has or hasn't made a mistake......we have all made mistakes. Rather, reputations are earned or lost based on our responses when mistakes are brought to our attention.

It appears to me that all parties are doing their best to correct the situation.....and I would expect nothing less from Dan or Charles....they are both stand up gentlemen with impeccable integrity in my book and will do whatever it takes to make it right......I would bet on it!!!

Hello everyone,

I appreciate the kind words, and as Eliot, Dan and I can attest, there have been many phone calls, emails and FB messages in the past 24-48 hours.

For those unfamiliar with the nature of the error, the basic formula for figuring out the AP win per 100 hands is:

(A) % of hands with an edge * (B) Average % edge when you have it = (C) Overall % edge per hand observed.

My engine did things slightly differently (I used exact information values at various depths, rather than determine a count system and simulate its effectiveness). I do this mostly because I'm a big fan of hard theoretical maximums. And in fact, the output from my engine was pretty much in line with Eliot's -- 8.81% of hands have an advantage (A) and an overall edge of 0.97% (C); the last hand occurring with 21 cards left in the shoe. I would expect exact information to outperform a count-based system, and despite the extra 7 cards of penetration in Eliot's sims, that was pretty much the case.

HOWEVER. The results that my engine provided [A and C] were accidentally being compared to Eliot's figures of A and B, which means that there was an extra (re)multiplication of the overall player's edge by 8.81%, making it look much, much lower than it actually was.

I can't let Dan take the heat for this, however; a review of my email chain shows we did discuss these results compared to known values. Which means at some point, all the information was in front of me and, as the mathematician of record, I was responsible for ensuring it was accurately discussed and compared, which it was not. Or, if I had shown the diligence to my work that Eliot has shown to his, this would have been caught in time.

Needless to say, I have retooled my engine to now output (B) as well...

From my read, everyone involved here has responded to a difficult and unfortunate situation with courage and integrity. My respect for all of these men has not only been confirmed, but strengthened.

I was reluctant to mention Charles' name . But I have the same admiration of him as for Dan.

I REPEAT : "Takes a big man to admit when he is wrong."

Quote: Paigowdan

Don't get me wrong - the game is fine, just great to play. It was a representation in the game's new AP (Advantage Play Resistance) report.

Reminds me of the story Grosjean tells of a similar 'approved' game
where he beat it so badly, the game inventor was standing there
in tears when they shut it down. That game was deemed to be
AP unbeatable too. Problem is, the people who proof these games
aren't AP's. An AP would never take the pay cut to work for the
DarkSide.

You will never outsmart AP's ever.

Dan just wants to make AP hourly wage too low to be bothered with.

I don't want AP to take the place of gambling, or too rewarding.

As for never being able to get in front of AP's, we in the industry are playing catch-up, - not always perfectly as we've seen, but with a good faith effort.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Paigowdan

Don't get me wrong - the game is fine, just great to play. It was a representation in the game's new AP (Advantage Play Resistance) report.

Reminds me of the story Grosjean tells of a similar 'approved' game
where he beat it so badly, the game inventor was standing there
in tears when they shut it down. That game was deemed to be
AP unbeatable too. Problem is, the people who proof these games
aren't AP's. An AP would never take the pay cut to work for the
DarkSide.

The person who "proofed" the game spent several years as a part-time AP and nine months as a full-time one. The problem had absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the mathematics. The report as presented from the person who "proofed" it said that the player wager had a 0.97% overall player edge with perfect play. The breakdown was between that stage and marketing.

Quote: teliot

After I posted my blog-rant I went to visit a friend, we played a few fiddle tunes and I drank a beer. On a re-read, I softened the tone of my blog post considerably, turning down the righteous indignation from 11 to about 7.

Here's the thing, the AP information is really wrong and my name was on the document in a way that didn't make clear that I had no responsibility whatsoever for the really wrong stuff. That's just bad. I'm glad I was the one to discover it, rather than have it hit me from behind and to have to do damage control.

Here is the offending part of the rack sheet:



In my blog post, I showed that the Lucky Win bet could be beat out of $142 per 100 hands using a balanced count. Stephen How got $149 with an unbalanced count.

Dan has been a real gentleman to me in our phone calls. Both Dan and Charles have expressed deep regret to me. I absolutely accept their apologies.

Eliot, again, I wanted to expressed my personal apologies to you for any perceived slight, as Charles had done also, - and also our appreciation of your acceptance of our apologies.

The faster this goes into the rear-view mirror, the better we will all be .

Quote: Buzzard

The faster this goes into the rear-view mirror, the better we will all be .

Exactly.

Here's the thing, Dan, you said:

Quote:

And...I still owe him an apology, which he will indeed receive, and that I wish to present in person with great remorse, really.

I do accept your apology, but I also am holding you to this promise.

Quote: teliot

Here's the thing, Dan, you said: You have never, not once, said "I apologize Eliot." Not in e-mails, not in your posts, not once. I accepted your apologies earlier in this post assuming this apology would come, and I am still waiting. Dan, I treated the quote above as a promise to me, and accepted your "apology" in advance. I am still waiting, for you to say directly to me, here or in writing, "I apologize, Eliot." This is a promise, and I am going to hold you to it.

Eliot,
I have indeed, we spoke on the weekend and I explained and apologized that:
1. That we used the "$100 bet times 100 bets" as a very fine reference standard, and since it was commonly used by you, (kind of your trademark or signature rating system), it would simply be amiss to exclude it. If all had been correct and fine and dandy, I was afraid of receiving a call from you that said "The $100 amount times 100 bets usage was really was pioneered by me, Eliot Jacobson, and it should be included!" It was a damned if you, damned if you don't situation.

2. The AP report I had receive did not express its performance in this format scale, and that there was some ambiguity in it, and so I forwarded it to other eyes for verification, and yes, it got through to printing (not dissemination), and it was just a simple error. The set of eyes that approved it were outside of my company, a contractor.

3. This was a rush job just before G2E, and it was not distributed; a few sheets were disseminated to only mathematicians at the show (as they expressed interest, - you, Steve How, and Mike were basically it); - as all who saw Lucky Win were all focused on the No commission aspect (the winning three-card banker-7 "push mechanism" was all the rage and focus with Baccarat products at this year's G2E - as that game play feature became public domain.) We did not distribute it as there was simply a question on it very early on.

4. We spoke that weekend, and you said to me to destroy all copies, as there is a math error in it, and your name is mentioned (in passing, and in small print), and you don't want to be associated because of an error caught. I immediately complied - and apologized - and it was taken fully out of service. For all real-world purposes, it was out of circulation and from that point on just an "internal document" that was discarded, really. We complied to your directives, and you said "thanks, Dan," and I expressed my regret on this to you. Fine. I actually thought it was a properly resolved issue at that point, and feel it really should have been.

5. Now, one of the last sheet copies which Jacobson had - instead of destroying it, (or just keeping it for a memento of "a snafu that was stopped on his behest,") - Jacobson himself then began posting the actual discarded document all over the Internet - on his site, and on this WOV site - creating a HUGE "noise model" for the world to see, and demanding an apology for what was his own creation, really - concerning "the egregious slander of my fine name." And Jacobson's first post was quite filled with anger and vitriol over his own posts and blogs, really shaming and horsewhipping me and my mathematician - damaging us professional and publicly - our "good names" - in Jacobson's first blog. He has since toned it town, even adding in a few words of kindness, - much appreciated.

6. To Eliot: I have not only apologized to you personally Eliot, - you yourself posted here and acknowledged that you had graciously accepted it, and all is good - and within this thread. I ask that you stick to your word on this.

Below is Jacobson's acceptance of my apology, and of Charles:

Quote: teliot

Dan has been a real gentleman to me in our phone calls. Both Dan and Charles have expressed deep regret to me. I absolutely accept their apologies.

Eliot, I hope you mean what you have publicly stated.
I do appreciate very much you accepting our apologies, and I want to stress that no harm, slander, or malice - zero - was ever meant, practiced, or dispersed towards you or to your fabulous name at any time. I have repeatedly made this quite clear. How we can continue to further operate on this unnecessary and hostile basis with "indignant grandeur demanding recompense" is getting into some seriously borderline territory over here.

God help us, - this is done with. This is a prayer.