![]() For example, the fact that one through four never occur. Other facts about the data are similarly surprising. However, even if the odds were 5.9%, the odds of something with 5.9% probability actually happening at least 43 times out of 50 are about one in 10^45. If rounds one through five do not hit (which should happen (1-.084)^5 = 64.5% of the time, but only happened 4% of the time in my sample), then the next round to hit cannot be five after since there is no such round, so the actual probability should be much lower than 5.9%. So, if the first round that hits is between one and five, the odds that there will be a second round that hits that is five rounds later are the odds that four in a row do not hit and then the next one hits, i.e. The odds of getting three out of five on any individual round are Choose(5,3)*Choose(75,17)/Choose(80,20) = ~8.4%. Here's that data:Īs you can see, five comes up much more often than one would expect. I'd then count how often different numbers came up and compare the distribution with the expected distribution. I'd then calculate the difference between the first and second round that hit. I'd record in sequence what "rounds" I hit. In order to confirm it, I decided beforehand that I would run fifty trials of the five-number play ten thing that I showed in the video. So, I didn't notice this pattern while I was looking for patterns, I was told what the pattern would be and shown exactly what I was told to expect, and then I confirmed it myself. I then confirmed it myself and showed it to Thomas (from our Cake investigation). He described to me exactly what I've shown you guys and proceeded to play a bunch of Keno while I watched him almost always predict when he would hit. I'm really tempted to add parentheses after like every sentence in this part explaining that I glossed over some stuff, but suffice it to say that something's up and this explanation is good enough.)Įarlier tonight, I was contacted by a mid/high stakes regular who said that a buddy of his told him that AP Keno wasn't random. (This is going to be a little less rigorous than I'd like because I think what's going on is fairly obvious, and I thought it was more important to just get it out than to do it perfectly. It's a bit hard to explain in words what's going on, especially since nobody plays Keno. After the UltimateBet and Absolute superuser scandals, the encryption debacle, the pot that got shipped the wrong way, and the numerous other security problems that players have discovered on Cereus and their repeated promises to improve player security, this is just completely ridiculous. Regardless of whether this "R"NG is used elsewhere or whether this was done intentionally, it still shows that Cereus does not take the fairness of its games seriously enough. The customer still loses, and because it's not random, the customer has a much much lower chance of profiting, but it does appear that the customer actually loses less than he would to a fair Keno game. In particular, it appears that AP's Keno "R"NG actually leads to better results for the customer. There's some reason to believe that this was not done intentionally but rather was simply caused by some extreme combination of laziness and incompetence. So, we would not play any games on Absolute Poker or Ultimate Bet (they're essentially the same) until Cereus clarifies. That seems sort of unlikely because one would hope that someone would've noticed that by now, but given that Cereus ran without encryption for years without anybody noticing, we don't think it would be incredibly surprising to learn that they had an easily crackable "R"NG. We have no clue if this is the same "R"NG that they use for poker or blackjack or anything else. ![]() It is blatantly not run from a real RNG or even a decent pseudoRNG, but rather from some kind of number generator that produces obvious patterns. Watch our YouTube video to see it in practice.Ībsolute Poker has this browser-based Keno client (called "Traditional Keno", found under the other games tab here).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |