| Posted by: magnate at September 26, 2003, 10:19 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
If the odds of flipping a coin is 50/50 then each flip has an equal chance.
If the odds of flipping a coin is 60/40 then one has a 50 percent chance of happening more than the other.
However, in this 60/40 example, you still have a 40 percent chance.
And thus most people will continue gambling. Microgaming casinos (IF they are non random) will continue to attract customers (especially if they supply bonuses)
I do not have personal evidence of actual cheating by the majority of casinos.
IF TG (or future large reviews) are able to separate the breakdown of the different w/l/t sequences, we will have more evidence.
What I think is happening is the changing of the ODDS (according to the pattern wagered) and the cards are dealt according to these supplied RNG odds. For example, different algorithms could be used.
PWC could be totally accurate is saying each card has an equal chance and the casinos could be correct in saying neither they nor the ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Gamblegirl at September 26, 2003, 10:06 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by deaning:
OK. Why have MG not replied to the arious allegations?
1. They don't care.
2. They haven't seen them.
Has there been a direct approach by anyone to micro or did I miss one of several hundred posts on many a board pertaining to this?
Microgaming is well aware of what's been going on. There have been several amusing posts at the Danish portals from certain microgaming casino's as to their thoughts on this. And no they haven't been ery complimentary towards TrueGambler in case you're wondering.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: deaning at September 26, 2003, 9:32 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
OK. Why have MG not replied to the arious allegations?
1. They don't care.
2. They haven't seen them.
Has there been a direct approach by anyone to micro or did I miss one of several hundred posts on many a board pertaining to this?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at September 26, 2003, 9:06 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Gamblegirl:
No, I do not see a firm conclusion drawn one way or the other. Enlighten me.
I just don't think he would risk his own money playing at a Micro if he believed it to be "non-random" beyond a reasonable doubt.
The logical deduction is he has enough doubt in the accuracy of the data to continue to play there.
If you mean if I think he has reached a 100% certain conclusion one way or the other, I agree with you he hasn't drawn any conclusions.
I'm certainly not 100% certain one way or the other but I have enough doubt in how the results were arrived at to continue to play Micros. And, if I were a portal owner, enough doubt, at least at the moment, to continue to advertise Micros.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at September 26, 2003, 8:47 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by caruso:
Of course not. It tells you the extent to which he's bought and paid for by Microgaming.
Perhaps it's time for you to disclose your close ties with TG.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at September 26, 2003, 7:54 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Gamblegirl:
So in this instance the wizard (Shackleford) has not drawn any conclusions either.
Wouldn't you say the fact he says that he "will personally continue to play at Micros" implies he has drawn a conclusion as to what extent TG has proven his case?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: magnek at September 26, 2003, 7:36 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
The line has been drawn in the sand. For those who try to take a seamingly cautious approach by toeing the line down the middle, your entire collection of posts do not indicate this at all. You know who you are.
Innocent until proven guilty? How about we assume the worst until microgaming provides in detail how their RNG is tested.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Gamblegirl at September 26, 2003, 7:36 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Actually the inference the wizard suggested was that TrueGambler has not made a case at all because they've drawn no definitive conclusions.
However the disclaimer at the end of the report does not inspire much confidence, stating in part there may be a ariety of reasons theoretical alues differ from actual. So if True Gambler is not going to throw the first stone I'm not going to either.
So in this instance the wizard (Shackleford) has not drawn any conclusions either. One can hardly blame him for taking the fifth on this one. "If TrueGambler don't want to be incriminated neither do I!"
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: caruso at September 26, 2003, 7:27 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Clayman:
As has been pointed out, all the Wiz did was erify that TG can multiply and divide to get the right chi-square.
That's what "The tests have been alidated..." you quoted meant. He had NOT, until then, so it was worth noting.
When it's proven beyond "reasonable doubt" (and a bit more besides) that Microgaming are cheating, we can all say "All this proves is that TG can accurately record data."
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Clayman at September 26, 2003, 6:57 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by caruso:
the statistical tests have even been alidated by Shackelford. How much more "proven" can it get? All you can say now is "I don't believe the basic data". Since you will never lose that right, it's not a alid argument - and you'll note that it's accepted across the board now that the Microgaming blackjack game IS non-random, but that (repeating for the godzillionth time) the exact consequences are not yet on the table - which is why spurious conclusions have been drawn by the resident Griffin wannabes.
As has been pointed out, all the Wiz did was erify that TG can multiply and divide to get the right chi-square.
For anyone who has not read everything the Wiz has to say, perhaps it would be fair to add he said "assuming accurate data".
And what is the Wiz assessment as to whether the data is accurate or not? Perhaps a hint can be found in his overall conclusion:
"Using the U.S. standard of... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: dominique at September 26, 2003, 4:07 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Lol, this is supposed to be about the best Microgaming casinos to play at. As in, mention arious microgaming casinos in your posts, and why you like them better than others.
But, alas, I am guilty as charged and will start a new thread.
http://www.winneronline.com/ubb/For...TML/000108.html
------------------
dominique
www.gamesandcasino.com
www.betonanything.info
[This message has been edited by dominique (edited 09-26-2003).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: bart at September 25, 2003, 9:16 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Dirk_Dangerous:
Two words: Arther Anderson. One word: Enron. IMO, PWC's reports aren't worth the paper they are written on. I'll believe TG long before I believe PWC.
Two more words. Apples. Oranges.
Certification of randomness is a rather meager task and is nothing like an audit as complex as Enron.
For one thing, with the random cert, it is much closer to a black and white "gaurentee". "We confirm". No quibble. The numbers are random.
In an audit, you never say the numbers are correct. You say they are fairly presented in your opinion in compliance with some set of standards. The standards are subject to interpretation and sometimes conflicting.
If you want something to compare it to, it would be more like the tabulation of the Emmy's ballots by Ernst and Young.
Here is the link to the PWC cert. As I read it, they audited the output for randomness. Is it possible that they blew it? Su... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Got2Bet at September 25, 2003, 7:43 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Dirk -
I know who said that LOL.
As I said - I don't read much into the reports/verifications put out by PwC either. But the fact that they have way more to lose by inaccurate or untruthful certification IMHO lends a *wee* bit more weight to their claims
------------------
Spearmaster
Got2Bet - Online Gambling News and Information
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: deaning at September 25, 2003, 6:13 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
...and no, I will not be running for any positions, I am only olunteering for some grunt work.
Ditto.
"The fair and polite exchange of ideas." Thanks Mom for that, hits the nail right on the head.
The forum is an informal one so we can all thrash some ideas out: www.playersandportals.com
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dominique at September 25, 2003, 4:28 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Well, I don't have an opinion yet, to say that off the bat. I know next to nothing about statistics and am watching everyone else figure this out. Thanks to everyone who contributes here. You are all helping not just me but a lot of silent readers understand all of this properly. The controversy is unavoidable until more authoritative judgements are made. I think the controversy is healthy. And I agree much with Mary's comments.
Quote:
No one here - I hate to keep repeating myself - is unwilling to accept the fact that a game might be nonrandom. Some people just keep insisting that portal operators are unwilling to see the truth - but the truth is that the facts are still unclear.
I hesitate to point out that some of these portal operators have given a lot of their time and energy helping players in situations as well, without recompense being made or required. This is not something that should need to be highlighted but given the circumstances it needs to be clear tha... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: The Original Mary at September 25, 2003, 3:42 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
I am interpreting PWC's reports as two different forms of evaluation.
The test of payout percentages could be just a review of data on disk provided by Microgaming.
The test of the rng over a year's time could be on capturing rng results and being familiar with how they are polled by the software, or by sampling the data stream at industry accepted intervals, or by capturing all gaming transactions in a mirror channel...
This is an excellent example of what Spearmaster was pointing out. Since we have no knowledge of PWC's methodology, we cannot evaluate their results. Without knowledge of their security measures, how much control Microgaming had of the data, whether or not PWC has ever evaluated the hardware installation for security, etc. etc. we can't place total faith in PWC's results.
It's not enough to demonstrate that any software has the functionality and potential to be fair. Humans do too, but you still have to get a Sheriff's card to deal blackjack in Nevad... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Dirk_Dangerous at September 25, 2003, 3:41 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
In other words, just because PWC is a big name accounting firm, they could lie or they could easily be fooled by MG. And this is PWC located in South Africa where I've heard business standards are much lower (business corruption is reported to be rampant)than they are in the UK or the United States.
Two words: Arther Anderson. One word: Enron. IMO, PWC's reports aren't worth the paper they are written on. I'll believe TG long before I believe PWC.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Dirk_Dangerous at September 25, 2003, 3:33 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
I just changed the names a bit
"Do you guys believe everything you read?
[I say that the PWC] report is flawed because it does not provide a methodology nor any information on how the data was collected and analyzed.
Which is to say, I could have generated a random set of numbers and published the results as well. Not saying that's what was done, but for all intents and purposes it might as well have been."
Who said this?
[This message has been edited by Dirk_Dangerous (edited 09-25-2003).]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: caruso at September 25, 2003, 2:04 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote:
*PWC reviewed the fairness of the rng with respect to its abiity to provide fair games.
*PWC reviewed Microgaming supplied transaction records with respect to erifying payout percentages.
I don't understand this. Either: they did their own independent, extensive test (1), or they simply rubber-stamped a load of figures supplied by Microgaming (2).
Which one is it?
Again - stated by PriceWaterhouseCoopers:
During the period 31 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, based on our review, we confirm that the random number generator embedded in the Microgaming Software Systems Limited blackjack system consistently selected cards from a single deck of cards on a random basis
They cannot make this statement without conducting an extensive test, because a cursory review of a sheet of payout percentages for the game in question is meaningless - they might as well look over one of their employee's grocery bills and say "we confirm that the Mic... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: The Original Mary at September 25, 2003, 1:03 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
I don't consider the PWC and the TG tests to be strictly comparable, as they measured different things.
*PWC reviewed the fairness of the rng with respect to its abiity to provide fair games.
*PWC reviewed Microgaming supplied transaction records with respect to erifying payout percentages.
*TG collected and reviewed game results as experienced by players all over the world.
There's a whole lotta Internet between those two sample locations.
I also want to point out that TG's *data* and the method of its collection have not yet been reviewed by a second party. TG's *summary* of some of their analyses of the data have been posted by TG and have been discussed.
Nor has PWC's data or the method of its collection been reviewed by a second party. And, while PWC is a big name, American market watchers can tell you that significant conflicts between long-term business relationships and accounting standards can occur internally in any accounting firm.
<... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: magnate at September 25, 2003, 10:04 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by Jetset:
One of my difficulties in this TG issue is reconciling the allegations of cheating with the exhaustive TGTR process by which PwC reviews the transactions at top-end casinos -
The monthly reports do not say that the games were random, Neither do they attest to "fairness" Instead they attest to the supposed payout ratio.
the companies state.
"monthly special reports that state the percentage of payouts (being the percentage of winnings to wagered amounts as shown by the data log files) of our games. PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. independently reviews these payout percentages."
Then PWC leaves things way way open by saying in the reports.
"The scope of this review did not include any financial controls or back-office procedures, including those relating to those received from, or paid to clients of (Fill in any Microgaming company)
Also interesting that all these "groups of ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Got2Bet at September 25, 2003, 7:07 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Um, magnek?
Any discussion in the past was related to payout erification - ie, the 97% payout or whatever certificates. Frankly, I agree with you there - I don't put any stock in those numbers.
What Caruso is referring to are two certificates by PwC for blackjack and roulette (I think?) which erifies that the result is random, or that the cards are randomly drawn, or something of the sort - these two certificates I was not aware of at any time until recently - and that is what is being referred to in the comparison.
------------------
Spearmaster
Got2Bet - Online Gambling News and Information
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: magnek at September 25, 2003, 6:54 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
"First of all, PwC has a reputation it will not risk by making false claims.
Second of all, the issue was never brought up in the forums." -got2bet
The issue has been brought up numerous times in the forums as to whether PWC actually alidates the rng and randomly tests the software for randomness. In fact there was a poll last week on the front page of WOL that asked if we believed the PWC reports. At that time the number that didn't believe the reports was 56%. I do not know the final results of the poll, however. Perhaps Max can put a poll on the front page asking players if they believe in the alidity of the True Gambler study.
I will not accept PWC's ery lovely certificate on every Microgaming site just because they are PWC. When they show me the raw data for which different minds can crunch the numbers then I will.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Got2Bet at September 25, 2003, 6:06 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
I just gave you my response.
PwC is a world-recognized entity which has everything to lose and nothing to gain by falsely erifying that the blackjack game is random, if this is the case.
TG, on the other hand, has nothing to gain either way, except hopefully credibility for trying to ensure a level playing field.
Thus - if PwC says it is so, fine - that doesn't necessarily mean that I believe it LOL - but for this particular organization I think I can give it the benefit of the doubt.
Now it looks like you appear to have lost your marbles, at least temporarily. Insisting that TG is every bit as influential or trustworthy as PwC. While I don't have any cause to believe otherwise, I do think a little proof is in order.
And before you go off on another tangent, just FYI, I don't use or mention the PwC reports when I promote a casino - frankly, those numbers don't mean a whole lot to me anyhow.
Now, if some entity were to erify randomness/fairness or som... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: caruso at September 25, 2003, 4:54 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
G2B - I'm bringing the matter up now - do you have a response? LOL, this particular idiot can't "see the obvious", so enlighten him. Alternatively, a thread on the matter might be interesting. I'd like some more opinions / facts on the matter.
Jetset - You're confusing the reporter with the reported when you suggest that anyone is using aggressive tactics to make a point. The arguments (the data) are intimidating; if I lie to you and you expose my lie, I am censored by the truth. This is good. You do not unfairly or aggressively censor me - the truth does. This is not negative censorship. What "rams the facts down people's throats" are the facts themselves. What censors "freedom of expression" is the facts themselves. What "imposes its own iew" is the facts themselves. What "abuses" or "harrasses" is the facts themselves. The reporter is not the reported. The data is powerful - not to be confused with those giving oice to the data.
... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Jetset at September 25, 2003, 1:10 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Caruso - that is just the sort of inflammatory post I'm talking about! Apparently your desire for freedom of expression and opinion only works your way.
And all this talk of attempting to "stifle" discussion. What's that all about? Nothing said here has attempted to silence any other poster or deny him or her the right to their opinion - fact is, there are already threads relevant to this debate that could have been used rather than diverting this one, which is about customer service at Microgaming casinos. That, together with your comment, Dirk smacks of imposing your own iew regardless of what others may be discussing.
I am concerned that those of you who genuinely and passionately are "MGS is rigged" posters seem determined to force your iewpoint down the throats of those of us who do not at this point share your utter conviction that MGS is rigged. And the other software providers named too, presumably.
Like Spear, I want the truth from people I trust, ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Got2Bet at September 24, 2003, 9:04 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote:
I think you and G2B need to be realistic and consider the strong possibility that Microgaming is cheating.
Speaking for myself, I am being realistic. I am perfectly open to the possibility that something is not right.
I do, however, take exception to the fact that we are automatically assumed to be defending the software when we are not. I have taken a ery cautious line here because the implications are enormous and should not be treated lightly at all.
------------------
Spearmaster
Got2Bet - Online Gambling News and Information
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Got2Bet at September 24, 2003, 8:50 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
First of all, PwC has a reputation it will not risk by making false claims.
Second of all, the issue was never brought up in the forums.
If you can't see the obvious, why bother?
------------------
Spearmaster
Got2Bet - Online Gambling News and Information
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Dirk_Dangerous at September 24, 2003, 2:58 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote:
Are we henceforth to see every thread that mentions blackjack, True Gambler or Microgaming (or maybe even RL and Odds On)now filled with accusations of rigged software
Hopefully Jetset, that is exactly what will happen. I believe Microgaming was/is almost certainly cheating, and the word should be spread. Again, it’s apparent that many of you want to stifle the discussion, but I think you and G2B need to be realistic and consider the strong possibility that Microgaming is cheating. Then go from there.
My own data as well as the data of TG can point me towards no other direction. With the data that's available, I have to conclude that Microgaming is cheating.
The solution to all this is simple. Microgaming has to step forward and prove they are dealing a fair game. Problem solved. Trying to stifle discussion about all this doesn’t help matters.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: caruso at September 24, 2003, 2:19 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Since Ed popped in, I went to the 32red site, clicked on "security" then "payout reviews":-
From Price Waterhouse Cooper:
"During the period...based on our review, we confirm that the random number generator embedded in the Microgaming Software Systems Limited blackjack system, consistently selected cards from a single deck of cards on a random basis".
Why don't I see any of you portals questioning the "methodology"? Why don't I see any of you portals questioning the data collection? Why don't I see any of you portals questioning the motivation?
Where's the proof? How do they justify this? What did the "examination" entail? How thorough was it? Who did it?
Why aren't you people asking THE SAME GODDAMN FRIGGING QUESTIONS TO PWC, AND REQUIRING THE SAME AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE, AS YOU'RE REQUIRING OF THE OCA PROJECT?
What a joke. What a scam this is. Is ANYONE seriously buying this sh*t? The portals accept ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Jetset at September 24, 2003, 2:18 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
This thread is now thoroughly off-track, and whilst I absolutely support the free and polite (well, most of the time!) exchanges of opinion that make a message board interesting the way in which this thread has been taken off on a detour concerns me.
Are we henceforth to see every thread that mentions blackjack, True Gambler or Microgaming (or maybe even RL and Odds On)now filled with accusations of rigged software and arguments concerning the morals of portalmasters?
There are already two threads running on this issue that could be bumped up with the comments made here....three, now.
And Magnek to answer your post - firstly I do not dismiss the PwC group and its professional processes lightly. Second, speaking personally I, like many others have not yet reached my own conclusions on this and I look for the guidance of experts smarter in this field than I to assist me in doing so in a rational and balanced manner.
In the same way that it is your own and others' right... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: caruso at September 24, 2003, 1:44 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
I did not "hijack" this thread. This thread is entitled "Microgaming Casinos"; a more pertinent thread to raise the matter of the OCA and its findings regarding Microgaming software I CANNOT imagine. What's the use of good CS if the software is rigged? Is that irrelevant?? If I p*ssed on anyone's 32Red parade, that's not my concern. People have a right to know what's going on. Many may not. Rather than risk their NOT knowing, I'd rather tell them what they already know. LOL, that's "selfish" and "rude"??? I call it "sensible" and "considerate". I don't think you'll find a single living soul who'd disagree with me - save your good self.
Power to the players. That's my "agenda".
Ed Ware - My Email's in my profile. Click on the question mark, left hand icon.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: joeyl at September 24, 2003, 1:04 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
In all seriousness Ted it's not about you persay or Portal owners in general for that matter.
Really all i ask and i speak for myself are people who have connections with Microgaming to use them to stand up for me on this one.
In standing up for me i mean all i ask is someone get a quote from Microgaming to acknowledge the seriousness of the results and whether they themselves will do all they can to clear up the matter for or agin as soon as is possible.
Let not you have to question anything Ted,that is micro's job.
I want you around to help the player as you have done for many a moon and am not happy to see Micro use your good name and standing with me and maybe others to erify anything for them to just then ignore this and the players and you - in public.
Friendly,helpful portal owners are hard to come by and when you earn the name of a "players friend " by your actions do not be surprised when i get selfish about keeping you to myself,the player... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Ed Ware at September 24, 2003, 12:52 pm | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
[QUOTE]
That Dear Mister Ed Of 32Red is a thoroughly good sort is also beside the point. His casino runs fraudulent software.
Hi Caruso
Perhaps you could send me your email address and we can share in private some facts that may persuade you that you are mistaken.
Look forward to hearing from you.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Got2Bet at September 24, 2003, 10:10 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
Quote:
A portal operator helps people out because that is what puts bread on their table. Doing good deeds doesn't go unnoticed. What it does do is attract referral business for the portal.
As I pointed out before, there is no point in tarring us all with the same brush. And what you said is not always the case, believe me - in fact only a minority of these people ever come back and sign up with another casino.
Quote:
Caruso has done a tremendous job in applying pressure to the bad eggs. He has every right to bash microgaming on every thread it involves because he accepts the accuracy of True Gambler's data collection. He is not alone. I assure you. To ask him to keep his "agenda" to himself when he believes an injustice has occurred is rude and may be construed as selfish.
In the threads which have been started for this purpose, no one will argue the fact. This thread, however, was hijacked when a simple request for information turned i... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: magnek at September 24, 2003, 10:03 am | | Topic: Microgaming Casinos Forum: Winner Online |
A portal operator helps people out because that is what puts bread on their table. Doing good deeds doesn't go unnoticed. What it does do is attract referral business for the portal. Players have helped other players too. Caruso has done a tremendous job in applying pressure to the bad eggs. He has every right to bash microgaming on every thread it involves because he accepts the accuracy of True Gambler's data collection. He is not alone. I assure you. To ask him to keep his "agenda" to himself when he believes an injustice has occurred is rude and may be construed as selfish.
With all due respect he is not wasting our time. The ball is in Microgaming's court. Some players just aren't buying PWC's alidation anymore and maybe never did. It is time for them to step up and produce their own data. Until then it is reasonable to believe that a public warning is in order.
| | Static Link |
|