Double or Nothing Controversy Investigation -- June 20, 2006

The Wizard's News

Video Poker Issue at English Harbour / Odds On

The most significant recent issue centers around the controversy involving English Harbour and Odds On. A player raised concerns about not receiving fair treatment in video poker double-up bets at English Harbour. His claims were substantiated, prompting me, as a fairness certifier for Odds On casinos, to immediately scrutinize their log data to determine if the game was indeed random. My investigation, covering April 13 to May 2, revealed that the win rate for double-up bets in video poker was merely around 33%, not only at English Harbour but across all casinos running Odds On software. Meanwhile, Odds On was conducting its own review, later finding that a software glitch from an update had caused the double-up feature to run a bonus round similar to that of slot machines rather than the expected video poker bonus, resulting in significantly lower odds for players. Casinomeister I have discussion points regarding this matter on my website, but I want to express here my firm belief that the issue stemmed from a software error rather than a conscious decision to cheat. It is quite common for users on forums to suggest that Odds On was intentionally deceiving players, yet it's important for patrons to understand that a company like Odds On has much to lose and virtually nothing to gain by tampering with their video poker offerings. Such discrepancies are easily identifiable, as highlighted by the swift actions of the player who promptly posted about the issue in the forums. Additionally, software developers are keenly aware that any irregularities in their games will be spotted quickly. It's not entirely equivalent to an audacious attempt to seize the President's microphone during a speech, but the manipulations, when present, are still evident.

My official statement I commend how professionally Odds On managed this situation. Upon receiving the report of the issue, I promptly requested their recent log files, which they provided instantly. Furthermore, Odds On reimbursed players for all net losses related to double-up bets during the problematic timeframe and supplemented that with an additional 20% to the players’ accounts.

Following this incident, I made the decision to step back from the casino auditing industry. This choice is influenced by various factors, predominantly that my current commitments are overwhelming, and I wish to allocate more time to my website.

Sadly, this controversy has led many players to now suspect either foul play or a software malfunction whenever they experience losses. What troubles me more is the likelihood that they will approach me for verification. However, if I were to entertain such inquiries, it would consume all my time. I am more than willing to delve into any legitimate concerns regarding fairness in online casinos, but for a complaint to be regarded as serious, it must be supported by substantial and detailed data from the player’s gaming session. I can recall only a handful of instances where players provided such data. For more context, check the Casinomeister forum regarding the thoroughness of the player in the English Harbour situation.

Just as discussions surrounding Odds On began to settle, I became embroiled in a dispute involving King Neptune's Casino. A player familiarized herself with the bonus rules on April 30 and executed her play on May 1. Within this short span, a new rule surfaced that limited the Deuces Wild ten-play option, indicating that wins from this game could be nullified. After partaking in the restricted game, her winnings were indeed voided as per the terms. While it’s reasonable for a casino to withdraw a bonus if a player fails to comply with its terms, confiscating a player's winnings solely due to bonus terms not being met is unacceptable.

Other online casino controversies

I seized the chance to critique casinos that burden players with an excessive number of rules in their terms and conditions, which makes it laborious for players to remain compliant with a bonus. Neglecting to comply can result in forfeiting all winnings. Unsurprisingly, King Neptune’s disagreed with my viewpoint and communicated their discontent. As per usual, in discussions of opinion, I believe both sides ought to be represented, so I shared their response. The entire exchange is located in the first query of the

Coincidentally, on the same day, I received a displeased email from K2 casino. I added each casino under the Gambling Federation umbrella to my list, including K2, due to a case where a casino winner had not been paid, with payment decisions made by the Gambling Federation rather than casino management. K2 argued that their position on the list was unwarranted as none of their players had been affected. I clarified that my concern lay in the potential for any K2 player to be affected in the future while GFed managed the support. I proposed removing them from the list on the provision that they ensure players had a direct line to casino management and that they would honor player payouts irrespective of GFed's decisions. However, the response from the casino manager solely intensified with threats. In the final correspondence, I was labeled a 'capricious child and brainless [sic].' If this tale seems intriguing, you can view the entire exchange. (6/15/07 update: Issues with K2 casino have been addressed, and the earlier mentioned 'exchange' has been removed.) May 31 Ask the Wizard column.

My experiences with video poker at Treasure Island online casino blacklist On a more upbeat note, Treasure Island awarded me $300 in complimentary play for my birthday month. Soon after midnight on Mother’s Day, I decided to pop in and utilize it promptly, with no plans for an extended visit. I settled at a $2 three-play jacks or better machine located in the high-stakes slots area. During my fifth hand, I was dealt four cards toward a royal flush, missing just the jack of hearts in the middle slot. I remember it was the fifth hand because I was wagering $30 each time and still had $150 in complimentary play left over. Having encountered four to a royal numerous times, I had never managed to complete the hand. My previous two royal flushes came from holding three cards once and receiving a complete royal hand on another occasion. In fact, exactly a year had passed since my last royal of any kind, and I estimated it to be around 2 to 3 cycles of royals. Not wanting to get my hopes up, I retained the four cards to the royal, hesitated for approximately two seconds, and pressed the button, expecting yet another miss. Suddenly, the machine froze, lights illuminated, and music began to play. It had been ages since I last saw this, and I briefly thought there might be a malfunction. But there it was, the jack of hearts, beautifully displayed in the center of the screen. It was a spectacular sight! With a $2 bet, this amounted to an impressive $8,000 jackpot. Here is

the evidence of it. This win was an essential boost for my confidence in video poker. My heartfelt thanks to the Treasure Island for such a wonderful birthday surprise!

I disagree with your perspective, at least based on your reasoning. In your scenario, it’s true that most individuals would leave Vegas with a profit. Yet, some players may initially lose their first bet and then spiral down quickly, depleting their entire bankroll. Assuming consistent gameplay and strategy, the overall house advantage would remain unchanged regardless of how players manage their funds. In a nutshell, betting systems cannot diminish the house edge, nor can they make a significant difference to it. Returning to your inquiry, if everyone were to walk away as soon as they came out ahead, the volume of gambling would drastically decrease. Thus, although the house edge stays constant, it would apply to a lesser total amount wagered, which would ultimately impact the casinos' finances adversely. a picture and another picture In May, I introduced a plethora of exciting new content. I take great pride in my

Ask the Wizard!

Here's an excerpt from the newest Ask the Wizard column #166.

I also received assistance from an exceptionally talented newcomer in the blackjack community, Scott E. He has significantly improved my

(Read more Ask the Wizard .)

What's new on the site

to incorporate numerous new rules. He has conducted a thorough investigation into the differences between total dependent and composition dependent blackjack strategies, with the results detailed in my latest Las Vegas blackjack rules survey. . A huge thank you to Scott for all his contributions! Additionally, there are fresh Ask the Wizard columns, blackjack house edge calculator Until next time, aim high with your expectations. blackjack appendix 15 Ninety-five of you participated in our survey providing feedback on the new website design before we concluded submissions . The opinions varied widely, but there was considerable backing for the following points: #165 and #166 .

Differentiating content color from the surrounding perimeter

From Michael Bluejay..

Website makeover, and $100 drawing

Maintaining the existing color scheme but enhancing the labeling

• Background color other than white
• Menu color other than green
• Widening the gaps between columns on the homepage
• We heard your feedback loud and clear, leading us to implement all these adjustments. My favorite change is the enhanced color selector. Previously, you could only select one color for the entire page. Now, you can individually choose colors for the perimeter, content area, menu bar, and Bodog sidebar ads. In fact, you even have the option to select black for the ad color, effectively blocking most ads for those of you who prefer fewer distractions. Why do we permit you to suppress ads from our trusted advertisers? Simple: Most of you do not click on the ads at all; our revenue relies on the fact that only a handful of readers do. Furthermore, we assume that if you go through the trouble of blocking ads, you were not among those few who would click on them to begin with, so our advertiser is not really missing out.
• The color changer functions on the majority of our pages, although some still exist in an earlier format, meaning you'll see the same color applied to both content and perimeter on those pages.

Some of you preferred the earlier 3-D beveled graphics for the perimeter, mostly because you desired a distinction between the perimeter and the content. We’ve resolved that now by introducing differing colors for both areas. For those who appreciated the old graphics anyway—well, they’re currently unavailable, but there’s potential for similar elements to return in the future once I can find the time to make them compatible with our fantastic new color-changer.

Explore the Top Online Casinos Available in Your Region

Calculator for Lottery Jackpot Ticket Purchases

Engage in Slot Tournaments Featuring Huge Prize Pools

Double or Nothing Controversy -- June 20, 2006 Insights

Video Poker Issue with English Harbour / Odds On

The recent controversy surrounding English Harbour and Odds On has garnered significant attention. A player reported that he was experiencing unfair treatment in the double-up bets of video poker at English Harbour. His claims seemed reliable, prompting me, as the official certifier of Odds On casinos for fairness, to swiftly examine their log data to ensure the randomness of the game. My analysis revealed that between April 13 and May 2, players faced only a 1 in 3 chance of winning on double-up bets, a trend that extended beyond English Harbour to all casinos using Odds On software. While I was conducting this review, Odds On initiated their own investigation and discovered that a programming glitch from a recent software update led to the double-up feature incorrectly engaging a routine meant for a slot machine bonus round instead of the intended video poker bonus round, resulting in players receiving poorer odds during the double-up attempts.

• My website contains a more detailed discussion regarding this matter, but I want to express my firm belief that the issue stemmed from a software glitch rather than any intention to manipulate the outcome. It's common in online forums to assert that Odds On was deliberately cheating players, yet it’s crucial for players to understand that a reputable company like Odds On risks losing everything if they were to rig a video poker game in such a blatant way. This kind of irregularity is easily detectable; as shown by how quickly a player noticed it and reported it online, and every software developer knows that any flaws in their games can't remain hidden for long. While it doesn't equate to sabotaging a President's speech, it is indeed something that would be noticed almost immediately.

  I want to commend Odds On for their professionalism in handling this situation. As soon as the issue was brought to my attention, I requested their recent log files, which they provided promptly. Additionally, Odds On took the initiative to refund players for their net losses on double up bets made during the problematic period and offered an extra 20% to those accounts.our old design This incident prompted me to reconsider my position in the casino auditing sector. A variety of factors influenced this decision; primarily, I feel overwhelmed at the moment and wish to focus more on my website.

  So I have to ask: What are you smoking?!

• "I don't like the new font size.\"

  Sadly, this controversy has led many players to question the integrity of online casinos and suspect unfair practices or software problems whenever they experience a loss. The troubling aspect for me is that many will reach out to me for validation. However, if I entertained every one of these inquiries, it would dominate my time. I genuinely welcome investigations into valid concerns regarding online casino fairness, but such investigations need substantial data from the player’s experience to be credible. In fact, very few players have reached out to provide that kind of detailed information. For a comprehensive look at how thorough the player was in the English Harbour case, please refer to the Casinomeister thread.

• Just as the discussions around Odds On began to settle, I found myself involved in a new controversy at King Neptune's Casino. A player there read the bonus regulations on April 30 and waited until May 1 to participate. Within less than a day, a new restriction was added to the Deuces Wild ten-play game, stating that any winnings from this game could be voided. The player then played this restricted game, and understandably, her winnings were nullified according to the newly enforced rules. While it's acceptable for casinos to retract bonuses when players don't comply with the terms, it’s unjust for a casino to seize a player’s winnings solely based on non-compliance with a bonus offer.

  I took the chance to criticize casinos that frequently impose numerous rules in their terms and conditions, making it incredibly tedious to meet bonus requirements, with the risk of losing all winnings if a player fails to adhere. King Neptune's did not share my perspective and made that clear. In disputes of opinion, I believe both sides should be represented, so I made their response public. You can find all of that correspondence in the first question of the

• Coincidentally, on the same day, I received an irate message from K2 casino. I had added all Gambling Federation casinos to my list, including K2, because there was a reported instance of a casino winner not being paid, and decision-making on payments is handled by the Gambling Federation, not the casino's management. K2 felt that their presence on the list was unjustifiable since none of their players had experienced issues. I clarified that my concern was that as long as GFed managed support, such issues could potentially affect a K2 player in the future. I proposed removing them from the blacklist if they could assure me that players would have direct contact with casino management and that they would guarantee payments even if GFed failed to do so. Unfortunately, the casino manager's responses escalated to threats, with the final message including insults such as calling me a \"capricious child and without brain [sic].\" If you're intrigued, you can read the entire exchange. (6/15/07 update: Issues with K2 casino were eventually resolved, and the mentioned \"exchange\" has been removed.)

  My experiences with video poker at Treasure Island

• On a more positive note, Treasure Island generously gifted me $300 in free slot play for my birthday month. Just after midnight on Mother's Day, I decided to drop by and quickly utilize it, intending to stay for only a short period. I settled at a $2 three-play jacks or better machine located in the high-limit slots area. On my fifth hand, I was dealt four cards towards a royal flush, only missing the jack of hearts in the middle place. I remember it was the fifth hand clearly because I was betting $30 each time and still had $150 remaining in my free play balance. I had seen four cards towards a royal several times before without a hit. My last two royals had come from either holding three cards or being dealt a complete royal from the start. In fact, it had been nearly a year since my last royal flush, by my rough estimates, usually 2 to 3 royal cycles between hits. I didn't even allow myself to feel hopeful; I held onto the four cards, waited a couple of seconds, and pressed the button, bracing myself for yet another disappointment. However, the machine froze, the lights illuminated, and music began to play. It had been so long since I had witnessed this that I initially thought it was a malfunction. But lo and behold, the jack of hearts appeared right in the center of the screen. What a stunning sight! On a $2 machine, this victory translated to an $8,000 jackpot. Here is

  Thanks for noticing!

• the evidence of it. This was a much-needed boost for my video poker morale. Many thanks to Treasure Island for the wonderful birthday present!

  I see things differently, particularly regarding the reasoning you provided. In the scenario you illustrated, it's true that most players might leave Vegas as winners. Nevertheless, some would lose their initial bet and continue spiraling deeper into debt, potentially exhausting their entire bankroll. Assuming identical games and player strategies, the overall house edge behaves consistently, regardless of different money management approaches. In essence, betting systems can't eliminate the house edge and fail to even diminish it. Returning to your original inquiry, if everyone ceased playing as soon as they experienced winnings, it would significantly reduce the amount of gambling occurring. Despite the house edge remaining constant, it would be applied to a smaller pool of total bets, adversely impacting casino revenues.

• I introduced a wealth of exciting content in May. I take particular pride in my

  I also received valuable assistance from a gifted newcomer in the blackjack realm named Scott E. He has improved my

• to accommodate a variety of new rules. Additionally, he conducted an analysis on the differences between total dependent and composition-dependent blackjack strategies, with the results featured in my latest

  . A heartfelt thank you to Scott for all his contributions! And of course, there are new columns in Ask the Wizard,

• Until next time, aim high.

  Ninety-five respondents provided feedback on our survey regarding the new website design before we closed it. While the feedback varied widely, there was considerable support for the following:

• Implementing distinct colors for the content and the surrounding area.

  Maintaining the existing color scheme while improving the labeling. how to get good google rankings .

• Widening the space between the columns on the homepage.

  We listened to your feedback attentively and made all those adjustments. My favorite enhancement is the new color selector. Previously, you could only choose one color for the entire page. Now, you can select different colors for the surrounding area, content area, menu bar, and even for the Bodog sidebar ads. In fact, you can choose black for ads, which effectively blocks most of them for those who prefer fewer distractions. You might wonder why we allow you the option to block ads from our trusted advertiser: simply put, the vast majority of you don't interact with the ads at all; our income relies on the occasional clicks from a small number of readers. If you're intending to go to the effort of blocking ads, it's likely you're one of those who wouldn’t click anyway, so our advertiser is not truly missing out.

• The color changer is functional on the majority of pages, although some still utilize an older format, meaning those pages will display the same color for the content and perimeter.

  While some of you preferred the original three-dimensional beveled perimeter graphics mainly to differentiate it from the content, we have resolved that concern with the introduction of distinct colors for both areas. For those nostalgic for the previous graphics as well — they're not available for now, but we may consider reintroducing something akin to them in the future, once I have time to ensure compatibility with our upgraded color-selection tool.

• Find the Top Online Casinos Available in Your Region

  Calculate Your Lottery Jackpot Ticket Sales Easily

• Engage in Slot Tournaments with Huge Prize Pools

  Double or Nothing Controversy -- June 20, 2006

• Video Poker Issue involving English Harbour / Odds On

  An audience of paragraphs.

• "How can I make money playing slots?\"

  You're not smart enough to play slots.

• A major recent incident involves the dispute regarding English Harbour / Odds On. A player shared on the forums that they felt the double-up bets in video poker at English Harbour were unfair. Their claims were quite credible, motivating me—since I certify the fairness of Odds On casinos—to set aside my work to sift through their recent log data. The goal was to determine whether the game played out fairly or if something was amiss. My findings revealed that from April 13 to May 2, players only had about a 33% chance of success with double-up bets not only at English Harbour but across all casinos utilizing Odds On software. During my investigation, Odds On was conducting their own analysis and discovered that a bug introduced in a software update had unintentionally made the double-up feature call for a bonus routine typical of slot machines rather than the usual video poker bonuses. This explains why players at video poker experienced significantly worse odds than what they typically would expect.

  I've detailed more about this issue on my platform, but I want to emphasize that my firm belief is that this was a software glitch rather than a planned malicious action. There is a prevalent narrative circulating in online discussions suggesting that Odds On operated under bad faith, but players should acknowledge that a company like Odds On risks their entire reputation and gains very little by tampering with fairness in video poker. Such discrepancies are typically easy to detect, as illustrated by how promptly a player recognized the problem and alerted the community, something that software developers are well aware of—they know that any discrepancies in their games will be revealed quickly. This situation isn’t akin to trying to swipe a microphone from the President during a live speech, but it nonetheless remains quite obvious.

I appreciate how Odds On dealt with this situation professionally. When I flagged the issue, I asked for their recent log files, and they promptly provided them to me. Furthermore, Odds On issued refunds for all net losses on double-up bets during the problematic timeframe, including an additional payout of 20%.

Following this episode, I've resolved to step away from the business of auditing casinos. The decision stems from several factors, chiefly that I feel stretched too thin and prefer to dedicate more attention to my website.

Sadly, as a consequence of this incident, many players will likely now harbor suspicions of cheating or software bugs during their losing streaks. What troubles me even more is that they might reach out to me for verification. However, if I were to entertain every such inquiry, that would consume all my time. I’m willing to investigate any genuine concerns regarding online casino fairness, but to qualify as legitimate, any complaint must come with a substantial amount of relevant data from the player's session. In fact, I could count on one hand how often a player has sent me such information. You can refer to the Casinomeister thread to see how detailed the player was in the English Harbour situation.

Just as the dust was settling on the Odds On matter, I found myself involved in another controversy at King Neptune's Casino. A player examined the bonus rules on April 30, deciding to wait until May 1 to make their wager. Within that brief window—a span of less than 24 hours—a new rule was introduced that limited the Deuces Wild ten-play, stipulating that winnings from this game could be nullified. The player engaged in the restricted game, ultimately having their winnings voided according to the new terms. While a casino can indeed revoke a bonus if a player fails to comply with its conditions, it’s unacceptable for them to confiscate a player's winnings merely because they didn’t meet the requirements of a bonus offer.

Written by: Michael Shackleford