Facebook backgammon and manipulation of game

[christophe...@gmail.com]

Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

[Michael Petch]

On 03/08/2013 4:39 PM, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris
>

I am a developer of GNUBG ( www.gnubg.org ), and have written code for
years that generate dice and randomized card deals. Is it possible for a
developer to write bad routines to generate dice? Yes it is, however
there are so many well known and well tested pseudo random generators
that are indistinguishable from real randomness that you can't tell them
apart.

On a pay site in theory developers could keep the fish playing by
altering the dice to favour the weaker player just to keep them from
leaving the site (and I believe that was suggested in many forums) yet
there was never any concrete evidence of it (that I saw), but it could
happen if the business has no scruples. Some businesses don't. So when
it comes to real money play you take your chances.

You bring up a social game in the mix. Social sites have less incentive
to have doubles. If a social site appears to have too many doubles in
your opinion, it is probably more than likely that the rolls are good.
In fact some sites actually realize that random dice don't make it a fun
game, so they bias the generator against longer sequences or clusters of
doubles.

One such case is Safeharborgames (www.safeharborgames.net). A number of
years ago Neil Robbins discovered an issue on a small sample set of
matches on SHG. Will Womack and I collected hundreds of thousands of
rolls originally and discovered that Neil was correct. Safeharbor games
had placed a de-clustering algorithm on the rolls to help prevent longer
sequences of doubles from appearing. The dice were random, but they no
longer reflected the distribution expected from properly weighted 6
sided dice.

I played on this site for the better part of a year and wasn't aware
that there were too few doubles. What I should have picked up on though
was that on SHG there were far fewer people complaining about the dice.
The lack of complaints should have sent up a red flag.

SHG removed the de-cluster algorithm they were using and the statistical
study of the dice after that (millions of rolls worth from actual
matches played) showed the dice were now fine. Unfortunately, it had the
side effect that people now complained that there were too many doubles
and they would leave the site. To make a long story short SHG decided to
appease their social player base and created red dice and yellow dice
rooms. Red dice rooms are the bastardized dice with fewer sequences of
doubles (Mersenne Twister + de-cluster algorithm), and the yellow ones
are based on rolls generate by Mersenne Twister algorithm (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister ). If you wish to read
more about that saga and the user backlash Will Womack's blog is still
aailable to read:
http://backgammoncamp.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/safe-harbor-games-dice/ .

SHG is no longer alone, and thanks to Christopher Yep for contacting me
a couple days ago (I forgot to respond to him until I saw your post)
about another site who offer mobile Backgammon and they make it quite
clear that they too bastardize the dice. The product is FaceMe mobile
backgammon: http://www.quatrian.com/FMBGFAQ.html . Read the section "How
does the Random dice rolling algorithm work?". What they do is take a
random source and then apply a filter to it to reduce occurrences of
clusters of doubles. This doesn't make the dice closer to real life
dice, it makes them much different in a statistically bad way.

On GNUBG (GNU Backgammon, a world class playing program) we make all our
source code fully available (It is open source GLPv3). No one has yet
found in the code where the dice are manipulated when you use the normal
dice options (GNUBG does offer a dice cheating option). Nor have they
found the code that looks ahead at a next roll to make a better decision
on the current roll. No one has found the code where the bot alters the
dice with normal dice options.

The real problem is that people's perception of what randomness looks
like or how many doubles should appear, or how many in a row you should
see is most often flawed. There are many articles on this, and then of
course there is the gambler's fallacy etc.

About 15 years ago Gary Wong (the original author of GNUBG) wrote a
complaint form for dice when there were very few online servers, but a
lot of people complaining. That form has been saved for posterity here:
http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+546

I have studied the dice on a number of sites including Gridgammon, FIBS,
and Safeharbor games. Many tens of thousands of matches played by a
variety of people. The only sites I have studied that had dice issues
was SHG and its predecessor RenGamesOnline (which is now
http://gamingsafari.com/ ). Both artificially manipulate the doubles to
make the game appear fairer. This doesn't mean these dice are correct
(and statistics can show it)

Dice can be fickle. The best we can do as players is to become more
competent, make fewer error and maximize the luck we do get. But even if
we play our best, the dice can knock us on our ass and make us think "I
hate Backgammon" (see http://www.ihatebackgammon.com/ for the t-shirt).

--
Michael Petch
GNU Backgammon Maintainer / Developer
OpenPGP FingerPrint=D81C 6A0D 987E 7DA5 3219 6715 466A 2ACE 5CAE 3304

[mu...@compuplus.net]

Nothing really interesting in all this pile of bullshit but not a
total waste of time to read either. (I read everything posted in
RGB, other than "position discussion with final deferral to bots).

I always took it for granted that gamblers and gambling web sites
cheat. Nothing interesting for me about some keen eyes detecting
dice abnormalities at some of those sites.

What is and has been interesting to me for a long time, however,
is why those same keen eyes see nothing questionable with FIBS's
dice, certain world-class bots' dice and/or the way they play.

Okay' let's focus on one thing at a time. For example, the Mersenne
Twister that is available in both gnubg and xg-gammon.

If anybody here claims to be a world class player, overly observant
keen eyes bg master, computer software developer, etc. and plays
a number of games against gnubg and xg-gammon using the Mersenne
Twister dice roller, and who claims to not see and easily observable
difference in dice sequences, must simply be a mother fucking faggot!!!

MK

[lan...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:39:09 PM UTC-4, Christopher W. Cavanagh wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
>
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

I am here by Googling "Facebook Backgammon manipulation" because I am sure that they are manipulated in the software.
I have played enough Backgammon games on Facebook to realize that this is actually happening.
It is not only the abundance of doubles, but also the repeated occurrence of perfect rolls - either on the winner side or on the loser side.
Many times when I am in a critical position in the game and it is my opponent's roll, I say to myself "I bet I know what the next roll is going to be" and sure enough I am right most of the time - a perfect roll either in my favor or my opponent's. The odds for the occurrence of such perfect rolls in critical positions defy the rules of probability.
I am not trying to imply that somebody is actually watching the game as it is played but rather it is just a software manipulation.
I have a feeling that an immature software developer has a need to manipulate people and prove how clever they are by shocking players in critical game positions with unwieldy rolls. You know the game is scrutinized because at the end when you're bearing off, it knows exactly what pieces to bear off automatically for you.

BTW, Does anyone know of another Backgammon site where you can feel assured that it is honest and secure.
I would love to switch to another site.

[Tim Chow]

On Monday, October 6, 2014 4:39:33 PM UTC-4, lan...@gmail.com wrote:
> Many times when I am in a critical position in the game and it is my
> opponent's roll, I say to myself "I bet I know what the next roll is
> going to be" and sure enough I am right most of the time - a perfect roll
> either in my favor or my opponent's. The odds for the occurrence of such
> perfect rolls in critical positions defy the rules of probability.

This would be interesting if you have written records to back it up. Instead of just "saying to yourself," write down your prediction in a log book. It counts only if the prediction is written down completely before the roll appears. Furthermore you must pledge that every time you write down a prediction, it stays on the permanent record even if you end up being wrong.

I've never heard of anyone actually doing this, so I have to assume that you're just deluding yourself. I would love to be proved wrong, so please start such a log book and share the results after you have accumulated, say, 500 predictions.
---
Tim Chow

[steven.c...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 11:39:09 PM UTC+1, Christopher W. Cavanagh wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

I totally agree regarding Backgammon Live. I suspect it is more complex than simply multiple doubles. There are too many unlikely throws, generally, baiting weaker players to keep playing, with the effect that skill levels are flattened out as a differential. The algorithm seems designed, ultimately, to funnel players into virtual coin purchases, by flattening out the Bell Curve so more players hit zero more often.

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 2:49:12 AM UTC+2, Michael Petch wrote:

> On a pay site in theory developers could keep the fish playing by
> altering the dice to favour the weaker player just to keep them from
> leaving the site (and I believe that was suggested in many forums) yet
> there was never any concrete evidence of it (that I saw), but it could
> happen if the business has no scruples. Some businesses don't. So when
> it comes to real money play you take your chances.

You will never see such an evidence Michael. Not because it is not true but because developers/site owners are not that stupid to let it become a proven fact.It runs on and off, it's not always pro or against specific players etc etc. Imo they use a tiny program running in the background watching the game.
The rolls needed (for the weaker player to win) are random by nature so you will never be able to spot any "non randomness" in their dice generator.

Actually the biggest problem I personally spotted on online BG sites is not that.It is users that use all sorts of methods to cheat.
And my next biggest problem is that there is absolutely no software (GNU included) that could at least warn you that you were possibly playing Vs a cheater.
I will give an example of a CONFIRMED cheater later.

[michae...@gmail.com]

I 've had this guy "sanspos" blacklisted in all my 6 aliases, yet I forgot to blacklist him on my 7th one. And there he came cheating on me like hell once again. Here's my latest loss. From what I remember I never won any match against him with any of my other 6 aliases.
Btw this guy is highly rated on the site.

Enjoy my latest defeat :-)

7 point match

Game 1
sanspos : 0 Myself : 0
1) 15: 24/23 23/18 44: 24/20 24/20 13/9 13/9
2) 33: 24/21 21/18 13/10 13/10 43: 13/9 8/5
3) Doubles => 2 Takes
4) 53: 8/3 6/3 62: 9/3 6/4
5) 66: 13/7 13/7 13/7 10/4 34: 8/4 8/5
6) 42: 10/6 6/4 65: 9/3 9/4
7) 31: 6/3 3/2 26: 20/14 6/4
8) 53: 7/2 8/5* 43:
9) 15: 6/5 18/13 55:
10) 41: 18/14 14/13 55:
11) 55: 13/8 13/8 8/3 8/3 66:
12) 23: 7/4 7/5 61: 25/24 24/18
13) 24: 8/4 2/0 22: 14/12 13/11 13/11 18/16
14) 63: 6/0 3/0 24: 12/8 8/6
15) 21: 2/0 3/2 53: 11/6 16/13
16) 11: 2/1 1/0 3/2 4/3 14: 11/7 7/6
17) 44: 4/0 4/0 5/1 4/0 66: 13/7 7/1 6/0 6/0
18) 33: 3/0
Wins 2 points

Game 2
sanspos : 2 Myself : 0
1) 14: 13/9 24/23 51: 13/8 24/23
2) 21: 9/7 8/7 33: 8/5 8/5 6/3 6/3
3) 32: 24/21 23/21 62: 13/7 23/21
4) 56: 13/7 13/8 56: 13/7 21/16
5) 16: 21/15 15/14 Doubles => 2
6) Takes 54: 16/11* 8/4*
7) 33: 64: 8/4 11/5
8) 26: 25/23 13: 5/2* 6/5
9) 44: 63: 5/2 13/7
10) 21: 25/24 61: 7/1* 24/23
11) 36: 12: 23/21 21/20
12) 52: 12: 13/11 11/10
13) 31: 25/24* 21: 25/23 23/22
14) 21: 25/24 6/4 16: 22/21* 21/15
15) 35: 46: 20/14 15/11
16) 65: 62: 14/8 8/6
17) 33: 32: 10/7 7/5
18) 44: 14: 11/7 7/6
19) 21: 25/24 7/5 25: 7/2 7/5
20) 55: 13/8 13/8 8/3 8/3 14: 5/4 6/2
21) 56: 24/18 18/13 11: 6/5 5/4 4/3 5/4
22) 66: 24/18 18/12 13/7 12/6 16: 6/0 6/5
23) 62: 8/2 7/5 51: 5/0 4/3
24) 35: 7/4 6/1 12: 3/1* 2/1
25) 12: 11: 4/3 2/1 1/0 3/2
26) 63: 25/19 8/5 26: 5/0 2/0
27) 62: 19/13 8/6 14: 4/0 1/0
28) 44: 13/9 9/5 7/3 4/0 34: 5/1 4/1
29) 22: 2/0 6/4 4/2 2/0 35: 3/0 3/0
30) 43: 3/0 6/2 Wins 2 points

Game 3
sanspos : 2 Myself : 2
1) 51: 24/23 23/18 35: 8/3 6/3
2) 44: 18/14 14/10 13/9 13/9 16: 13/7 8/7
3) Doubles => 2 Takes
4) 62: 13/7 9/7 15: 6/1* 24/23
5) 55: 25/20 20/15 7/2* 7/2 36: 25/22 22/16*
6) 62: 25/23 23/17* 65: 25/20 16/10*
7) 44: 25/21 21/17 13/9 13/9 64: 24/20 10/4
8) 21: 10/9 6/4 33: 7/4 7/4 4/1 6/3
9) 33: 17/14 17/14 14/11 14/11 52: 13/8 13/11
10) 16: 9/3 4/3 51: 11/6 6/5
11) 63: 8/2 6/3 12: 8/6 6/5
12) 43: 9/6 6/2 51: 13/8 13/12
13) 11: 11/10 10/9 11/10 10/9 45: 12/7 8/4
14) 33: 9/6 9/6 9/6 6/3 23: 7/4 4/2
15) 56: 8/2 8/3 42: 20/16 4/2
16) 12: 2/0 2/1 12: 16/14 14/13
17) 11: 6/5* 6/5 2/1 3/2 54: 25/21 13/8
18) 44: 5/1 5/1 6/2 6/2 22: 21/19* 8/6 19/17 17/15
19) 66: Doubles => 4
20) Takes 21: 15/13 13/12
21) 64: 41: 12/8 8/7
22) 54: 54: 7/2 6/2
23) 64: 65: 6/0 6/1
24) 53: 51: 5/0 5/4
25) 51: 25/20 20/19 46: 4/0 4/0
26) 52: 19/14 14/12 41: 4/0 1/0
27) 61: 12/6 1/0 25: 3/0 2/0
28) 45: 6/1 3/0 26: 3/0 2/0
29) 44: 3/0 3/0 3/0 2/0 62: 3/0 2/0
30) 61: 2/0 1/0 16:
Wins 4 points

Game 4
sanspos : 2 Myself : 6
1) 54: 24/20 13/8 63: 24/18 18/15
2) 64: 20/14 13/9 52: 15/10 13/11*
3) 33: 25/22 24/21 21/18 18/15* 61: 25/24 24/18
4) 23: 15/13 9/6 25: 18/13 13/11
5) 51: 22/21 13/8 43: 24/20 6/3
6) 35: 21/16 16/13 44: 13/9 13/9 9/5 9/5
7) 35: 8/3 6/3 35: 8/3 11/8
8) 63: 13/7 7/4 21: 6/4 8/7
9) 43: 13/9 9/6 64: 20/14 14/10
10) 26: 13/7 13/11 31: 8/5 13/12
11) 14: 11/7 7/6 56: 10/4 13/8
12) 61: 8/2 7/6 16: 12/6 7/6
13) 44: 8/4 8/4 8/4 4/0 34: 11/7 8/5
14) 61: 6/0 6/5 26: 8/2 7/5
15) 12: 2/0 6/5 54: 5/0 4/0
16) 42: 4/0 4/2 51: 5/0 6/5
17) 31: 3/0 6/5 65: 6/0 5/0
18) 11: 2/1 1/0 5/4 6/5 42: 4/0 2/0
19) 56: 6/0 5/0 24: 6/2 2/0
20) 33: 3/0 6/3 3/0 6/3 32: 3/0 6/4
21) 62: 5/0 4/2 23: 3/0 6/4
22) 64: 5/0 4/0 51: 5/0 5/4
23) 35: 3/0 2/0
Wins 1 point

Game 5
sanspos : 3 Myself : 6
1) 25: 24/22 13/8 56: 24/18 18/13
2) Doubles => 2 Takes
3) 56: 24/18 18/13 43: 24/20 13/10
4) 44: 13/9 13/9 9/5* 9/5 63: 25/22 22/16
5) 24: 13/9* 22/20 13: 25/22 6/5*
6) 44: 25/21 9/5 8/4 8/4 34: 8/5 10/6
7) 55: 8/3* 8/3 21/16 16/11 24: 25/23 13/9
8) 64: 11/5 5/1 41: 13/9 6/5
9) 22: 13/11 13/11 11/9 11/9 62: 23/17 17/15
10) 55: 9/4 9/4 5/0 5/0 31: 15/12 13/12
11) 64: 6/0 4/0 16: 12/6 13/12
12) 36: 6/0 3/0 64: 12/6 9/5
13) 62: 6/0 4/2 41: 9/5 13/12
14) 64: 6/0 4/0 21: 8/6 12/11
15) 42: 4/0 2/0 24: 12/8 8/6
16) 63: 6/0 3/0 23: 11/8 8/6
17) 66: 5/0 1/0
Wins 4 points and the match

[Tim Chow]

On Friday, October 24, 2014 3:32:26 PM UTC-4, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> The rolls needed (for the weaker player to win) are random by nature so you
> will never be able to spot any "non randomness" in their dice generator.

That doesn't follow; a luck analysis could still detect non-randomness.

If, however, the effect is so subtle that it can't be proven, how do you know that you're not deluding yourself? This is not a rhetorical question. Surely you know that it is easy to delude oneself about this sort of thing.

---
Tim Chow

[Tim Chow]

On Friday, October 24, 2014 4:10:16 PM UTC-4, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> I 've had this guy "sanspos" blacklisted in all my 6 aliases,
> yet I forgot to blacklist him on my 7th one.

Is "sanspos" the confirmed cheater that you mentioned in your other post? How did you confirm the cheating?

---
Tim Chow

[michae...@gmail.com]

Yes that's the one.
I know it is easy to delude oneself.
But I also know one needs thousands if not millions of records of consistent cheating on games/matches to draw absolute conclusions.
You wouldn't want me to suffer a nervous breakdown by playing this guy to prove it statistically would you? My solution is simpler:Blacklist him and forget all about it.

I have played this guy with another 6 aliases.I have him blacklisted on all 6 for exactly the same reason-strong feeling that he is cheating. From what I remember I never ever won any match against him.The guy is a total amateur that's for sure.
I mean look at the match i posted before.That's the very latest one. 6 doubles in 18 rolls, 8 doubles in 30 rolls, 9 doubles in 30 rolls, 4 doubles in 23 rolls, 6 doubles in 17 rolls.

The fact is I asked him "what is going on here, how many more doubles are you going to roll?" He replied with a single word: "program"

When I said "confirmed" I did not mean mathematically, I meant that other online players told me he is cheating.

If you doubt it then create an account on playok.com and play with him. I know you are a strong player, it will be very interesting to hear your opinion.

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 24, 2014 11:23:50 PM UTC+2, Tim Chow wrote:

> That doesn't follow; a luck analysis could still detect non-randomness.

Which program does that???

[michae...@gmail.com]

There is a very simple solution for every online BG server (playing for money or just for fun) to prove itself absolutely free from any interference/manipulation or cheating.And that is playing the rolls from a file.

a)the file is created by any random dice generator or from random.org containing say 1000 rolls
b)Sent in *.rar format, password protected via e-mail to both players,
c)The match starts after both players confirm receipt
d)The password is sent by email only after the game ends.

I 've read somewhere that not even the developer of Winrar can open a password protected *.rar file.

I have proposed that solution once.
It was ... yes you guessed it, REJECTED :-)

[Tim Chow]

On Saturday, October 25, 2014 5:58:14 AM UTC-4, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> But I also know one needs thousands if not millions of records of consistent
> cheating on games/matches to draw absolute conclusions.

Actually, if in this case your hypothesis is simply that this player gets more doubles (lucky or not) than one would expect at random, then you don't need "thousands if not millions" of records. For the example you cited, getting 33 or more doubles in 118 rolls by chance will happen only 1.4 times out of 1000, so if you had stated the hypothesis of "too many doubles" then you would have pretty strong evidence based on this one match alone.

However, you do need to state the hypothesis *first* and then start collecting data. The statistics don't work out right if you wait until after you see the data before you decide what is suspicious about it. (It's O.K. to look at past data to formulate the hypothesis, but then you can't include the past data in your numbers---only future data.)

> The fact is I asked him "what is going on here, how many more doubles are
> you going to roll?" He replied with a single word: "program"

Being able to control the dice is an unusual form of cheating, meaning that either the server is insecure or the cheater is in cahoots with the people who run the site. That's different from, say, using a bot to help you pick moves (much easier to do), or even being able to predict the dice ahead of time because the random number generator is insecure.

> When I said "confirmed" I did not mean mathematically, I meant that other
> online players told me he is cheating.

His comment about "program" strikes me as more incriminating than hearsay from other players.

> If you doubt it then create an account on playok.com and play with him. I
> know you are a strong player, it will be very interesting to hear your
> opinion.

Unfortunately I don't play online.

---
Tim Chow

[MadJayhawk]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 3:39:09 PM UTC-7, Christopher W. Cavanagh wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

For anyone interested here are the dice statistics for ZooEscape.com as published by the website followed by my personal stats. To me it is not so much the frequency of a particular outcome but when it occurs. I, for example, had 3 worthless 66s recently while on the bar. There is no way, I assume, you could statistically measure that. Playing on Facebook, I won a bunch of games, then for some reason lost many consecutive games to terrible players. I had a feeling that the games were being manipulated to encourage purchasing points or something and quit playing. I used to play online poker and did well, but I started feeling that I was playing against bots most of the time. Their betting was insane and couldn't be explained by the old 'I'm just playing against 12 year olds" and I watched my stack of cash dwindle. Anyone who plays any online game for real money should be committed.
============================================================================

BACKGAMMON DICE STATISTICS
Note that in Backgammon, the first roll cannot be doubles, so the number of doubles that occur will be less than expected and other rolls will be more than expected.
Number of dice rolls in all completed games: 115,460,774
Roll Occurrences Rate Expected Difference
66 3,144,259 2.72% 2.78% -0.06%
65 6,444,425 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
64 6,439,472 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
63 6,437,615 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
62 6,442,520 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
61 6,443,718 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
55 3,143,184 2.72% 2.78% -0.06%
54 6,440,638 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
53 6,438,906 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
52 6,441,856 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
51 6,441,564 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
44 3,140,300 2.72% 2.78% -0.06%
43 6,437,625 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
42 6,442,484 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
41 6,437,346 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
33 3,144,258 2.72% 2.78% -0.06%
32 6,439,132 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
31 6,445,285 5.58% 5.56% +0.02%
22 3,144,459 2.72% 2.78% -0.06%
21 6,430,223 5.57% 5.56% +0.01%
11 3,141,505 2.72% 2.78% -0.06%
Number of rated games (excluding canceled and short games) finished: 2,199,592
Total number of times the dice have been rolled in those games: 115,327,762
Average number of rolls to complete a game: 52.43
=============================================================================

Dice statistics for madjayhawk

Number of dice rolls in completed games: 66,192

Roll Occurrences Rate Expected Difference
66 1,829 2.76% 2.78% -0.02%
65 3,641 5.50% 5.56% -0.06%
64 3,817 5.77% 5.56% +0.21%
63 3,590 5.42% 5.56% -0.14%
62 3,620 5.47% 5.56% -0.09%
61 3,607 5.45% 5.56% -0.11%
55 1,823 2.75% 2.78% -0.03%
54 3,726 5.63% 5.56% +0.07%
53 3,650 5.51% 5.56% -0.05%
52 3,650 5.51% 5.56% -0.05%
51 3,638 5.50% 5.56% -0.06%
44 1,835 2.77% 2.78% -0.01%
43 3,690 5.57% 5.56% +0.01%
42 3,650 5.51% 5.56% -0.05%
41 3,701 5.59% 5.56% +0.03%
33 1,788 2.70% 2.78% -0.08%
32 3,770 5.70% 5.56% +0.14%
31 3,744 5.66% 5.56% +0.10%
22 1,768 2.67% 2.78% -0.11%
21 3,761 5.68% 5.56% +0.12%
11 1,894 2.86% 2.78% +0.08%

[Peter Percival]

michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

> other online players told me he is cheating.

Did you ask them how they came to believe that?

--
[Dancing is] a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire,
legitimised by music.
G.B. Shaw quoted in /New Statesman/, 23 March 1962

[michae...@gmail.com]

> BTW, Does anyone know of another Backgammon site where you can feel assured that it is honest and secure.
> I would love to switch to another site.

Msn zone for sure
http://zone.msn.com/en/backgammon/default.htm

[Michael Petch]

On 2014-10-25 2:51 PM, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> Msn zone for sure
> http://zone.msn.com/en/backgammon/default.htm

I hope you don't say that because Microsoft runs it? Prior to MSN moving
to an entirely web based format, it use to be the MSN Gaming Zone (and
formerly MS Internet Gaming Zone). Microsoft's game code was buggy to
say the least and dice manipulation was very possible at the time. I
created a series of exploits for a number of their games, but the
Backgammon dice hack was the most notable. I doubt I was the first
person to discover the flaw, but I was the first person who went looking
for flaws with the sole purpose of sending them to MS to have them
fixed. I did demonstrate the flaws to a public audience.

That was just over a decade ago, and just for shits and giggles I dug up
the email I sent (minus the code attachment) that finally got Microsoft
to start acknowledging and fixing the problems. They did eventually
resolve the dice problem, but I can't tell you if their current software
is exploitable or not. But just because it says Microsoft don't assume
their code isn't exploitable:

Subject: Dice Exploit Program and Info
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:39:22 -0600
From: Michael Petch <mpe...@capp-sysware.com>
Reply-To: mpe...@capp-sysware.com
To: Zurich <webm...@memberplushq.com>, Wendy <zma...@microsoft.com>


Hello Wendy and Zurich,

Attached to this email is a copy of the Dice Manipulation program
as well as the added feature of showing the information that can
be used to cheat in Cribbage as well. My full contact information is in
the ZIP file. Anyone you give this information/file to is free to
contact me.

To use this program create a new program directory anywhere on
your system. The unzip (I use Winzip to create the archives) the
contents of the file into that directory.

You must then follow the instruction in the README file inside the
archive. Failure to follow the instructions will mean the software will
not function. If there is any problem installing and or using this
software, my contact information in the README.txt file (Contained in
the Zip file)

The readme file in the ZIP file also discusses what Messages in the
protocol in Backgammon are being exploited. However below is a more
verbose description designed for non developers that may also be of
use.

Actually if a developer replaces "Message X" with "Message 0x105", and
"Message Y" with "Message 0x106" in the information below, it details
exactly what the weakness is, and how it was exploited. I should point
out that I did two versions of this hack. The first one didn't work as
well, but it was still effective and is also mentioned. The first
version didn't require modification of the DLL.

The DLL contained in the ZIP file (Backgammon.dll) simply disables the
request for the dice (message 0x105).


========================


As for the ease of fixing the dice hack. Actually probably much easier
than you realize. In non technical terms this is how the zone currently
does things:

When a player clicks the dice to roll - Message X is sent
to the server requesting a pair of dice. Message Y is then sent
from the server to BOTH clients simultaneously saying Player[n]
rolled roll1 and roll2.

------

Hack #1) My first hack I made no modification to the zone code (dll's).
What I tried on a hunch was - When I receive Message Y from the server
telling me what my rolls are - what happens if I change the values
before the backgammon client displays (and processes them). In fact this
is exactly what I did. I intercepted Message Y modified the data packet
before delivery to MY backgammon client with the rolls I wanted and
Voila dice hack. The reason the original version showed my opponent the
original roll was because Message Y was sent to his client from the
server (And I could not alter what the server sent). My opps client is
sent a message when I make a move with my manipulated dice, but doesn't
seem to make a validity check that what I was sent from the server as
rolls corresponds to my actual moves.

Hack #1 Fix) When a player makes moves - the opponents backgammon client
should validate that the move made corresponds with the roll from the
server. Error checking and validation is the root cause for hack #1. I
can't believe that such a validation check would be very difficult at
all.

-------

Hack #2) Originally I didn't intend to modify Zone DLL's. People kept
asking me if the dice could be manipulated and have the rolls appear
properly. I wasn't actually interested in pursuing this originally, but
changed my tune when I realized an interesting anomaly regarding Clients
sending Messages to the server. What I learned was that I can send a
message ABCD to the server. This message is not understood by the server
or the clients but I can still send it. When the server receives Message
ABCD from my client it sends that Message back out to all the kibbers
and all the players. It doesn't seem to care what it is sending. This
got me to thinking - what if I send out a message to the server that is
known - and sure enough it blindly (or pretty much) sends it out to all
the clients.

Well imagine this. Imagine modifying the backgammon client to not send
out Message X when the person requests a dice roll. This requires a 1
byte change in the backgammon.dll. So if you run this modified dll when
you click on the dice they just keep rolling and rolling and rolling
(like they do for a while when there is lag). The dice stop rolling when
the server receives the actual dice rolls (Message Y).

Okay, so I have not sent out message X for a dice request. But what I
decided to try is - Send Message Y to the server (This is the message
the server sends telling everyone what a player rolled). I learned how
to create a valid Message Y and populate it (Actually not complex at
all) with the dice rolls I want.

SO what does this mean. Well since the server isn't really checking the
contents of messages and sends them to all the players and kibbers, it
doesn't care that I just sent a hacked Message Y to the server and
happily sends it out to my opp and the kibbers. What this means simply
put is that I avoid asking the server to roll any dice for me, and I
generate the dice rolls and send them to the server which in turn sends
them to my opp and the kibbers.

Hack #2 Fix) I think this is rather simple. Don't allow Message Y (Which
should only be generated by the server in response to Message X) to be
sent from the backgammon clients (of the players or the kibtzers). If
this check were done, then the server would take appropriate action
(appropriate action is usually to boot the player from the room - just a
boot, no grey box - just a boot).

This in my opinion is very simple check and would easily thwart this
hack.

----------

In general The server (and clients) require more validation checks to
make hacking less likely. For instance kibbers can send messages to the
server that get sent out to all the people at the table. At present it
appears you can send a message (as a kibber) to the server that says
player x resigns to player y (This may have been fixed just recently -
as this was one of the attacks by the script kiddies in May). The server
should check that messages from any one are in fact a valid context
(Kibbers should not be able to successfully send messages that only
apply to the players etc)

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:22:17 PM UTC+2, Michael Petch wrote:

> I hope you don't say that because Microsoft runs it? Prior to MSN moving

> to an entirely web based format...

Interesting read Michael, but no it was not because Microsoft runs it but because I played there at their web based format and had no problems at all.
Notice that the watchers option was not available. Also you could not kibitz anything other than predefined messages, like "hi good luck" etc.
It seems they fixed the problems they had 10+ years ago.

Nevertheless here is my list of sites offering free online backgammon for those interested.

http://www.fibs.com/
http://www.playok.com/en/backgammon/
http://ca.play.yahoo.com/games -It seems Yahoo has removed bg from their games check it out
http://www.netgammon.com/index.asp
http://www.gamecolony.com/backgammon.shtml
http://games.flyordie.com
http://www.games.com
http://www.gammonsite.com/download.aspx
http://www.agame.com/game/backgammon

[Michael Petch]

On 2014-10-25 4:24 PM, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.fibs.com/

Fibs has been around for the better part of 2 decades and there are
still a lot of people who think the dice there are rigged.
www.fibsboard.com has some amusing posts. Fibs also appears by name on
Gary Wong's offficial Backgammon complaint from 15 years ago. That cna
be seen here:

http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+546

> http://ca.play.yahoo.com/games -It seems Yahoo has removed bg from
their games check it out

Apparently they are reworking a number of games but Backgammon will
return. Interestign thing about Yahoo and Pogo is that there is a
program for about ~$20USD that will interface with both products so that
GNUbg can play automatically for you. That product is based on an
earlier version of GNUbg.

> http://www.netgammon.com/index.asp

Same as Fibs, been around a while many years of people saying the dice
are rigged and is on Gary Wong's official complaint form (by name)

> http://www.gammonsite.com/download.aspx

Read the reviews of XG and the bot cheats with rigged dice, so it is
likely that Gammonsite also cheats. I say that tongue in cheek because
it is produced by the same developer.

I'll add http://www.safeharborgames.net to the list. Since they created
"yellow" dice rooms I have amassed about 20-30k matches, a few million
rolls and done statistics on them and you'd be hard pressed to
distinguish the dice there from real world dice. Don't play the "red"
dice rooms. The "red dice" appear to be random but the number of doubles
have been artificially deflated. They do not represent what you'd expect
from regular 6 sided dice. Social players seem to like those dice more,
and perceive them as fair. Last time I checked doubles occur about 9.5%
of the time rather than an expected 1 in 6.

Also missing from your list would be http://www.gridgammon.com . It is
free but requires an invite. It is frequented by many world class
players but isn't immune to the belief that the dice are rigged or bad.

[Paul]

Tim,

What you say about statistical methodology is both basic and correct. However, it is possible to look at experimental data that is so extreme that one could be justified in drawing conclusions of non-randomness, even without a prior hypothesis.
To see this, imagine that a player rolled 66 on fifty consecutive rolls. Nothing could dissuade any rational person from concluding non-randomness in those 50 rolls.
Here, the outcome does not seem so extreme as to make formal testing unnecessary. If it was 118/118 doubles instead of 33/118, formal testing would be unnecessary.

Paul Epstein

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:53:11 AM UTC+2, Michael Petch wrote:
>
> Fibs has been around for the better part of 2 decades and there are
> still a lot of people who think the dice there are rigged.

>......>

> Also missing from your list would be http://www.gridgammon.com . It is
> free but requires an invite. It is frequented by many world class
> players but isn't immune to the belief that the dice are rigged or bad.

I would like to point out to those interested to try another online BG site-that as you said- there have been suspicions and accusations against almost everyone.
The point is, one should try to make the best out of his/her participation, and TAKE ACTION FAST if he suspects something. Otherwise s/he will end up sad.
My advice is this:
1)You think the server favors the weak players? a)Don't play weaker players.Or b) abandon the site.
2)You think someone cheats by manipulating the dice? Play him 3-4 matches. Load them on GNU for analysis. Compare yours and his playing strength, plus the luck factor. Don't hesitate to blacklist him if you see something strange.
3)You think someone uses bots? Do as above.
4)Don't play for money online. You will most certainly be ripped off. (Actually my personal ethics say don't play for money at all, be it online or not)
5)For sites that have bots: All human players in there are affected and immitate the playing style of the bots. Try to learn the playing style in there, but if you feel unable to compete or frustrated then abandon the site. In my personal opinion those sites luck the element of fun and excitement anyway. You better download GNUBG and practice with it offline.Thanks to M.Petch and others it is
totally free and equally good as other expensive commercial software.

NB. I left gridgammon out of my list on purpose. Free membership by invite is the rare exception than the rule. It's not really free, you pay indirectly by paying subscription to your national BG Fed ($30-$60 depending on the country), and this has to go on for years.

[Tim Chow]

On Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:13:19 AM UTC-4, Paul wrote:
> To see this, imagine that a player rolled 66 on fifty consecutive rolls.
> Nothing could dissuade any rational person from concluding non-randomness
> in those 50 rolls.
> Here, the outcome does not seem so extreme as to make formal testing
> unnecessary. If it was 118/118 doubles instead of 33/118, formal testing
> would be unnecessary.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice, I find that in the context of backgammon cheating, the vast majority of people have far too low a threshold for "so extreme as to make formal testing unnecessary." You and I see 33/118 and think that formal testing is still necessary, but I believe that most others would regard 33/118 as conclusive. For that reason, I believe it is best, in practice, to adhere to the stricter stance of demanding formal testing.

---
Tim Chow

[Tim Chow]

For example, if you set up a new profile in eXtreme Gammon and put in all the matches from the suspect player, it will compute the overall luck, and give it a verbal description. I'm not sure what the range of verbal descriptions are or what their thresholds are, because I keep only one profile (my own) and it has always judged my luck to be "Insignificant". But anyway, it's there.

I'm not sure if GNU still has the option to create cheating dice. If so, it might be interesting to generate a bunch of matches with the cheating dice and plug them into an XG profile to see if XG can detect it.

---
Tim Chow

[Tim Chow]

On Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:55:50 PM UTC-4, MadJayhawk wrote:
> To me it is not so much the frequency of a particular outcome but when it
> occurs. I, for example, had 3 worthless 66s recently while on the bar.
> There is no way, I assume, you could statistically measure that.

Not quite true. As I just mentioned in another post, you can get the computer to estimate luck, and detect statistically significant deviations from ordinary luck. This may not exactly measure what you want, because the computer's definition of "luck" does not exactly match your intuitive notion of luck, but it's close.

---
Tim Chow

[Tim Chow]

On Saturday, October 25, 2014 9:27:00 AM UTC-4, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> a)the file is created by any random dice generator or from random.org
> containing say 1000 rolls
> b)Sent in *.rar format, password protected via e-mail to both players,
> c)The match starts after both players confirm receipt
> d)The password is sent by email only after the game ends.

This isn't foolproof because how do you, as a player, know that whoever is holding the password in escrow isn't secretly in cahoots with the other player, and leaking the password early?

However, I agree with your main point. It is possible to set up cryptographically secure methods of random dice generation. But it requires extra effort, and even an honest site may feel that it's not worth the trouble.

---
Tim Chow

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:16:11 PM UTC+2, Tim Chow wrote:

>
> This isn't foolproof because how do you, as a player, know that whoever is holding the password in escrow isn't secretly in cahoots with the other player, and leaking the password early?

Which of course would eventually become a standard practice in money games for ripping people off.You are right it can't be applied to money games.

I still think it can be applied to free sites or sites that exclude money bets but require annual subscription fees.

[Tim Chow]

On Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:32:42 PM UTC-4, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> Which of course would eventually become a standard practice in money games
> for ripping people off.You are right it can't be applied to money games.

There's a slightly more complicated protocol that should work.

I secretly prepare a file of dice rolls. I encrypt it with a secret password and send the encrypted file to my opponent. My opponent does the same, sending me an encrypted file of dice rolls.

During the game, whenever a dice roll is needed, either for me or for my opponent, I reveal the next dice roll in my pre-prepared file, and my opponent does the same. The *actual* dice roll is computed by adding together our dice rolls, subtracting 6 if necessary to bring the total down to something between 1 and 6. For example, suppose the next dice roll in my file is 64 and the next dice roll in my opponent's file is 21. We add these together to get the roll 85, but since 8 > 6, we subtract 6 from 8 to get a final answer of 25 as the actual roll.

When the game is over, we exchange secret passwords so that the opponent can verify that the dice rolls that I revealed during the game are indeed the same as the ones that I decided upon in advance.

In this scheme, I just have to trust that the cryptography is strong enough that someone can't send me a fake password after the game that causes the previously sent encrypted file to decrypt to something other than the original file that was encrypted.

---
Tim Chow

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:01:32 PM UTC+2, Tim Chow wrote:


> There's a slightly more complicated protocol that should work.

....
Hmmm brilliant! And should work on money games too! I understand you add each figure separately.Thus for a 61 56 combination the real roll will be 51. And any roll even doubles come up from a combination of other 6. e.g 66--> out of 66+66, 51+15, 24+42, 42+24, 15+51, 33+33.
Not very complicated really if the server undertakes the dizzy work.The users would only need to punch in their numbers.

[Michael Petch]

On 2014-10-26 7:12 AM, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> you pay indirectly by paying subscription to your national BG Fed ($30-$60 depending on the country), and this has to go on for years.

Most people I vouched for on GriGammon don't belong to any
organizations. It isn't required to belong to a group that has
memberships to get accepted at Grid Gammon.

[renti...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 3:39:09 PM UTC-7, Christopher W. Cavanagh wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

the dice rolls are blatantly bogus. no doubt at all in my mind. some times in my favor, more often not.

[agi...@gmail.com]

yes they are manipulating the games 100% I am very good in statistic and probability
they have some players that starting the game like they never play doubling and doubling and in one game you lose lot of points

I have 10 times cases that I lost 50K points and the chance for it to happen was less then 1:500!!!!

some try to discover if they manipulating by counting the doubles... well this is wrong way because they will give you doubles but in the wrong moments
I stop to play they care cheaters

[agi...@gmail.com]

this is not the way to check !!!
if you want to check you need to record many gamas and look how some players get the same bad luck again and again and again
counting the doubles is wrong because doubles in wrong moment is really bad number....
THEY ARE MANIPULATING THE GAME


On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 9:49:12 PM UTC-3, Michael Petch wrote:

> On 03/08/2013 4:39 PM, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> > Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris
> >
>

> I am a developer of GNUBG ( www.gnubg.org ), and have written code for
> years that generate dice and randomized card deals. Is it possible for a
> developer to write bad routines to generate dice? Yes it is, however
> there are so many well known and well tested pseudo random generators
> that are indistinguishable from real randomness that you can't tell them
> apart.
>
> On a pay site in theory developers could keep the fish playing by
> altering the dice to favour the weaker player just to keep them from
> leaving the site (and I believe that was suggested in many forums) yet
> there was never any concrete evidence of it (that I saw), but it could
> happen if the business has no scruples. Some businesses don't. So when
> it comes to real money play you take your chances.
>
> You bring up a social game in the mix. Social sites have less incentive
> to have doubles. If a social site appears to have too many doubles in
> your opinion, it is probably more than likely that the rolls are good.
> In fact some sites actually realize that random dice don't make it a fun
> game, so they bias the generator against longer sequences or clusters of
> doubles.
>
> One such case is Safeharborgames (www.safeharborgames.net). A number of
> years ago Neil Robbins discovered an issue on a small sample set of
> matches on SHG. Will Womack and I collected hundreds of thousands of
> rolls originally and discovered that Neil was correct. Safeharbor games
> had placed a de-clustering algorithm on the rolls to help prevent longer
> sequences of doubles from appearing. The dice were random, but they no
> longer reflected the distribution expected from properly weighted 6
> sided dice.
>
> I played on this site for the better part of a year and wasn't aware
> that there were too few doubles. What I should have picked up on though
> was that on SHG there were far fewer people complaining about the dice.
> The lack of complaints should have sent up a red flag.
>
> SHG removed the de-cluster algorithm they were using and the statistical
> study of the dice after that (millions of rolls worth from actual
> matches played) showed the dice were now fine. Unfortunately, it had the
> side effect that people now complained that there were too many doubles
> and they would leave the site. To make a long story short SHG decided to
> appease their social player base and created red dice and yellow dice
> rooms. Red dice rooms are the bastardized dice with fewer sequences of
> doubles (Mersenne Twister + de-cluster algorithm), and the yellow ones
> are based on rolls generate by Mersenne Twister algorithm (see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister ). If you wish to read
> more about that saga and the user backlash Will Womack's blog is still
> aailable to read:
> http://backgammoncamp.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/safe-harbor-games-dice/ .
>
> SHG is no longer alone, and thanks to Christopher Yep for contacting me
> a couple days ago (I forgot to respond to him until I saw your post)
> about another site who offer mobile Backgammon and they make it quite
> clear that they too bastardize the dice. The product is FaceMe mobile
> backgammon: http://www.quatrian.com/FMBGFAQ.html . Read the section "How
> does the Random dice rolling algorithm work?". What they do is take a
> random source and then apply a filter to it to reduce occurrences of
> clusters of doubles. This doesn't make the dice closer to real life
> dice, it makes them much different in a statistically bad way.
>
> On GNUBG (GNU Backgammon, a world class playing program) we make all our
> source code fully available (It is open source GLPv3). No one has yet
> found in the code where the dice are manipulated when you use the normal
> dice options (GNUBG does offer a dice cheating option). Nor have they
> found the code that looks ahead at a next roll to make a better decision
> on the current roll. No one has found the code where the bot alters the
> dice with normal dice options.
>
> The real problem is that people's perception of what randomness looks
> like or how many doubles should appear, or how many in a row you should
> see is most often flawed. There are many articles on this, and then of
> course there is the gambler's fallacy etc.
>
> About 15 years ago Gary Wong (the original author of GNUBG) wrote a
> complaint form for dice when there were very few online servers, but a
> lot of people complaining. That form has been saved for posterity here:
> http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+546
>
> I have studied the dice on a number of sites including Gridgammon, FIBS,
> and Safeharbor games. Many tens of thousands of matches played by a
> variety of people. The only sites I have studied that had dice issues
> was SHG and its predecessor RenGamesOnline (which is now
> http://gamingsafari.com/ ). Both artificially manipulate the doubles to
> make the game appear fairer. This doesn't mean these dice are correct
> (and statistics can show it)
>
> Dice can be fickle. The best we can do as players is to become more
> competent, make fewer error and maximize the luck we do get. But even if
> we play our best, the dice can knock us on our ass and make us think "I
> hate Backgammon" (see http://www.ihatebackgammon.com/ for the t-shirt).
>
> --
> Michael Petch
> GNU Backgammon Maintainer / Developer
> OpenPGP FingerPrint=D81C 6A0D 987E 7DA5 3219 6715 466A 2ACE 5CAE 3304

[jwpry...@gmail.com]

They definetely cheat. The opposing player doesn't play and they don't run out of time so even when I am ahead by 60 points i lose. It sends me back to the "lobby" fuck this game you assholes!!!

[g.mck...@pvslocates.com]

On Friday, October 24, 2014 at 5:25:11 PM UTC-4, Tim Chow wrote:
> On Friday, October 24, 2014 4:10:16 PM UTC-4, michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I 've had this guy "sanspos" blacklisted in all my 6 aliases,
> > yet I forgot to blacklist him on my 7th one.
>
> Is "sanspos" the confirmed cheater that you mentioned in your other post? How did you confirm the cheating?
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

tim chow is obviously sucking off the programmers

[dav...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 3:39:09 PM UTC-7, Christopher W. Cavanagh wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

It's a known fact that sites like Facebook, etc. control the "randomness" of the dice in games such as backgammon so that they can increase their revenue.
They monitor the players that visit their sites and also the ones that purchase tokens. The dice can also be controlled by programs not affiliate with these sites. There are sites on the internet that let you download their software that would allow you to manipulate dice rolls, see players cards, or increase your odds in other random numbers games. The problems that arise from instances of random numbers control are a failure in the moral compass of the players or the site owners.

[hbam...@gmail.com]

As we pay for the privilege of playing Backgammon we know how the dice roll and don't want or need any alterations.

[unconscious...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 8:49:12 PM UTC-4, Michael Petch wrote:

> On 03/08/2013 4:39 PM, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> > Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris
> >

> Thank you for that detailed and logical explanation. I do not want to play with manipulated dice because the extra doubles sometimes have meaning for the roller. too bad no one knows about that. xo

[papa...@juno.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 6:49:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Petch wrote:
> On 03/08/2013 4:39 PM, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> > Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris
> >
>

they are still using a cheat program on shg. multiple players get 4 5's right away then gets 2 dubs and reg roll. every game every roll. when you complain you are gagged for 30 days and told it doesnt exist. when the honest players on the site knows it does. this needs to be investigated.

[alanrt...@aol.com]

PlayGem is by far the worse scam site with rolls you can predict most of the time I’ve tried to speak to support many times but no reply when I tell them the site is a scam. Some fun in the game but never buy anything from them it’s a SCAM

[denisew...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-4, Christopher W. Cavanagh wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

I am dumbfounded that such seemingly intelligent people can be so oblivious as to the overall problem, which is not relegated to this site alone, but of the manipulation of Facebook of all of its programs. This is old news! DOH!

[cdearbor...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-4, Christopher W. Cavanagh wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

oh yes definitly!!

[mmck...@keuka.edu]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 5:49:12 PM UTC-7, Michael Petch wrote:

> On 03/08/2013 4:39 PM, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> > Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris
> >
>

1. You cannot create randomness from planning and code. It is a logical impossibility. When you write code, that is human rationality at work. By definition that CANNOT produce randomness. At least by using an inner system. To get around that, see No. 2.

2. If true randomness is going to be approached, you MUST bring in OUTSIDE data that affect the throws or sequences from a non-related outside source.

Here is what I discovered by playing tens of thousands of games on 247Backgammon, a free, non-monied site. It is NOT random, not by a long shot. At times, it is laughable, as in one instance, the computer and I rolled the same exact sequence 3 times in a row!! In other words, it rolled a 5-3, then I rolled a 5-4, and that sequence was repeated 3 times! That is hardly random.

Then, after a few hundred games, I figured out what was going on. First off, you should know that I beat the computer's "expert" setting about 3 out of 4 times, and almost always get ahead. But I started noticing something. When I got ahead the computer's rolls became better and better, allowing it to catch up, and even at times win, even though I was 40 or more points ahead as we entered the final draw-off. To test my observations, I deliberately got behind, and I noticed, sure enough, that now I got the best rolls, the high doubles, and I caught up or came close!! Call this the "Cliffhanger Algorithm," a name I came up with to suggest the company wanted a close (= longer game). But why would they want that? Then I figured it all out.

In this game you are faced with two streaming rolls of ads that pop up--one on the left and one on the right. The longer a game goes means the longer a human is in this portal, and the longer one sees the ads. Bingo! The game of backgammon was only there to hold people as long as possible! Again, I have played the 247Backgammon about 10-15,000 times, and the rolls are ludicrous. I got to the point that I could even CALL the computer's roll before it happened! So this program is not random, nor does it even try to be. It is clickbait, designed to keep the games longer than would normally be, so humans see more ads. I lost track of how many highly, highly improbable rolls the computer would roll if I got far ahead, or I would roll, if the computer got ahead.

Note well: I am only speaking to one company's farcical game, and that it is FAR from random. What other companies do I have no idea about. I suspect many of them, like 247, use this as a scam designed to sell ads.

[bgbl...@googlemail.com]

Am Donnerstag, 18. Juli 2019 17:12:23 UTC+2 schrieb mmck...@keuka.edu:

> 1. You cannot create randomness from planning and code. It is a logical impossibility. When you write code, that is human rationality at work. By definition that CANNOT produce randomness. At least by using an inner system. To get around that, see No. 2.

Are you aware, that modern operating systems have sources of high quality?
Are you aware, that some CPUs have instructions to generate random (from physical processes?
Are you that there are cheap devices producing real random e.g. https://www.tindie.com/products/WaywardGeek/infinite-noise

so having a high quality seed needed to an proved generator is indistinguishable from real random.
And bTW, because there is no fix relationship between roles and quality the demands from Backgammon to a RNG are pretty low.

> Here is what I discovered by playing tens of thousands of games on 247Backgammon, a free, non-monied site. It is NOT random, not by a long shot. At times, it is laughable, as in one instance, the computer and I rolled the same exact sequence 3 times in a row!! In other words, it rolled a 5-3, then I rolled a 5-4, and that sequence was repeated 3 times! That is hardly random.

ROTFL. No this never happened in the whole history of menkind. I remember when on Fibs a decade or two ago one had the proof that the dice where rigged. I don't remember the exact details but it was a sequence of 5 or 6, either 55, 66 or mixture of both in a row. Don't remember whether both player had the set, but more probably one. I guess you agree that this sequence is even more rare.

Then some math guys calculated how of the this will occur on a server with 150 people playing all the time. IIRC it was every two days or so. So much to "hardly random". The best I can say to this: https://www.random.org/analysis/ and look at the cartoon. This is much deeper than you might expect.

>
> In this game you are faced with two streaming rolls of ads that pop up--one on the left and one on the right. The longer a game goes means the longer a human is in this portal, and the longer one sees the ads. Bingo! The game of backgammon was only there to hold people as long as possible! Again, I have played the 247Backgammon about 10-15,000 times, and the rolls are ludicrous. I got to the point that I could even CALL the computer's roll before it happened!

This is an interesting point, I've heard several times before in several contexts. To bad no one could do it when I'm attending. Must be my bad vibes.

>So this program is not random, nor does it even try to be. It is clickbait, designed to keep the games longer than would normally be, so humans see more ads. I lost track of how many highly, highly improbable rolls the computer would roll if I got far ahead, or I would roll, if the computer got ahead.

It might be the case that dice are manipulated. Sometimes to calm up people with an unbiased non random also that appears to be more random to humans. On one websites it might be to make weaker players to loose less. It might be to make games longer so people may see more ads. In this special case I guess this would not the best idea. Take it to the extreme, when you know each game takes at least 30 minutes, will you come back?

So only very few people will know whether the dices are rigged, but 6 times 5-3 in a row is nothing. That you have played thousands of games, without doing statistics, is no proof. So IMHO that's just one more "dice are rigged" complaint as there have been thousands before. And next the the SHG site only one other site I remember had been proven to have rigged dice.

[ronh...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-5, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

What does this tell you: https://www.facebook.com/100021710013670/videos/583171892416473/UzpfSTEwMDAyNTY1MDUwMTE1Mzo1MTYzNTk3NjkyMjkwMzU/

[ronh...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-5, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

It's become pretty blatant lately, almost as if it's a display of hate. The games can come down to one roll of chances being better to be hit by lightning and the opponent will roll it. Unbelieveabe. Because this is a game for profit and their disclaimer claims dice are random BGL should be investigated for fraud for lying.

[gsignor...@gmail.com]

Il giorno lunedì 6 ottobre 2014 22:39:33 UTC+2, lan...@gmail.com ha scritto:

> On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:39:09 PM UTC-4, Christopher W. Cavanagh wrote:
> > Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> >
> > Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris
>

> I am here by Googling "Facebook Backgammon manipulation" because I am sure that they are manipulated in the software.
> I have played enough Backgammon games on Facebook to realize that this is actually happening.
> It is not only the abundance of doubles, but also the repeated occurrence of perfect rolls - either on the winner side or on the loser side.
> Many times when I am in a critical position in the game and it is my opponent's roll, I say to myself "I bet I know what the next roll is going to be" and sure enough I am right most of the time - a perfect roll either in my favor or my opponent's. The odds for the occurrence of such perfect rolls in critical positions defy the rules of probability.
> I am not trying to imply that somebody is actually watching the game as it is played but rather it is just a software manipulation.
> I have a feeling that an immature software developer has a need to manipulate people and prove how clever they are by shocking players in critical game positions with unwieldy rolls. You know the game is scrutinized because at the end when you're bearing off, it knows exactly what pieces to bear off automatically for you.
>
> BTW, Does anyone know of another Backgammon site where you can feel assured that it is honest and secure.
> I would love to switch to another site.

I TOTALLY AGREE ON WHAT YOU SAY. HERE (THERE IS A REASON WHY I AM HERE) EVERYBODY QUESTIONS THE DOUBLES. WHO PLAYS BACKGAMMON KNOWS THAT IS NOT MATTER OF DOUBLES IN ORDER TOI WIN, A DOUBLE CAN BE ALSO VERY BAD. IT IS ALL MATTER OF "PERFECT ROLLS", AS IN BACKGAMMON @ FACEBOOK. YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL IF YOU ARE PLAYING VS A REAL PLAYER (SOMETIMES) OR A BOT

[bgbl...@googlemail.com]

Am Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2020 17:31:27 UTC+2 schrieb gsignor...@gmail.com:
YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL IF YOU ARE PLAYING VS A REAL PLAYER (SOMETIMES) OR A BOT

So you can tell from the dice whether you are playing a real person or a bot?

I don't know Facebook BG but this seems to me an questionable statement....

[roger Colling]

On Monday, October 6, 2014 at 4:28:20 PM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:

> On Monday, October 6, 2014 4:39:33 PM UTC-4, lan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Many times when I am in a critical position in the game and it is my
> > opponent's roll, I say to myself "I bet I know what the next roll is
> > going to be" and sure enough I am right most of the time - a perfect roll
> > either in my favor or my opponent's. The odds for the occurrence of such
> > perfect rolls in critical positions defy the rules of probability.

> This would be interesting if you have written records to back it up. Instead of just "saying to yourself," write down your prediction in a log book. It counts only if the prediction is written down completely before the roll appears. Furthermore you must pledge that every time you write down a prediction, it stays on the permanent record even if you end up being wrong.
>
> I've never heard of anyone actually doing this, so I have to assume that you're just deluding yourself. I would love to be proved wrong, so please start such a log book and share the results after you have accumulated, say, 500 predictions.
> ---
> Tim Chow
I too beleive that some of the occurances and timing and the amount of time these rare PERFECT things happen that it cannot be random, if you are an accpomplished player you are going to win 60 plus percent of the time facebook would never be able to sell you coins. I was talking about this to my wife who said that i was just a sore looser soi I started taking notes and in 100 games the times one of my checkers is captured and was rolling to get back on the board and only the 6 spot was covered by my apponent, I rolled double 6 23% of the time and the actual odds of rolling double 6s are 1/36 or 0.028. If I threw a pair of die a hundred times would 3 (0.028 * 100) be The amount of times (3) I would get a double-six and that does not take into account that ths only nappend when the 6s cannot at the 100% rate which would make the odds multitudes higher, and added to that, I had never rolled double six when captured if I could play it, durring my 100 game test, One game my apponent rolled doubles 11 times !! If you roll double 6 the double 5 thats 44 spaces, the average roll is 6 so the doubles get you 32 spaces ahead that enough to move 5-6 peices off the board bin the end.Its too bad a very well designed game but facebook does not offer anything if they cannot manipulate it withouit telling you up front and sell something because of it, proove me wrong !

[badgolferman]

This happens frequently on Backgammon Galaxy as well. Perfect rolls to
escape near primes and hit, or trying to enter on a one or two point
board and the first roll being on those covered points.

[badgolferman]

Evan Reyes wrote:

>On Monday, February 1, 2021 at 7:04:30 AM UTC-8, badgolferman wrote:
>> This happens frequently on Backgammon Galaxy as well. Perfect
>>rolls to escape near primes and hit, or trying to enter on a one
>>or two point board and the first roll being on those covered
>>points.
>

>I agree, Backgammon Galaxy is really bad for this. I had to stop
>playing there. I've found myself in multiple strong positions where a
>single specific die roll is needed, and thought to myself "Here comes
>the 4" (or whatever the case may be) and sure enough, the opponent
>gets it on the very next roll. Very suspect.


Where do you play that seems fair? The other one I use is PlayOK.

[Nasti Chestikov]

On Tuesday, 23 February 2021 at 20:56:03 UTC, badgolferman wrote:

> Where do you play that seems fair? The other one I use is PlayOK.

I'm finding similar things happening at ZooEscape.

I was playing one guy there in 12 simultaneous games and he rolled 6-6 in 7 of those games at the same time.

Almost certainly a script kiddie injecting some code to fiddle the dice but how can you tell?

[Dimitris Minakakis]

Στις Κυριακή, 4 Αυγούστου 2013 στις 1:39:09 π.μ. UTC+3, ο χρήστης christophe...@gmail.com έγραψε:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

i have played 35000 games .......and i tell you allof you that its the game with the worst software..........

[Glenn Rhoads]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 at 12:49:12 AM UTC, Michael Petch wrote:
> On 03/08/2013 4:39 PM, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> > Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris
> >

The Mersenne Twister is overkill for a social backgammon game but it definitely an excellent generator with an extremely long period.

You're right that most people do not have an intuitive idea of what a random sequence really looks like. When people write out a random sequence of coin flips, they tend to alternate between heads and tails too much. A test I did on a class of my students was have each of them write out a random sequence of 64 coin flips except for one student who would generate the list by an actual sequence of coin flips. They would write some random 6 digit number (I tell not to use something like 123456 or 000000) on their list so I couldn't tell who wrote which list. Then I gather up all the lists. I pick one of the lists claiming it is the randomly generated one. Without fail it is. How do I perform this seemingly improbable tasks? For each list, count up the longest streak of heads or tails. The sequence with the longest streak is the random one. With a sequence of 64 flips, you are going to get a streak of length 5 or 6. Nobody ever wants to pick that long of a streak.

[peps...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 at 12:28:20 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On Monday, October 6, 2014 4:39:33 PM UTC-4, lan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Many times when I am in a critical position in the game and it is my
> > opponent's roll, I say to myself "I bet I know what the next roll is
> > going to be" and sure enough I am right most of the time - a perfect roll
> > either in my favor or my opponent's. The odds for the occurrence of such
> > perfect rolls in critical positions defy the rules of probability.
> This would be interesting if you have written records to back it up. Instead of just "saying to yourself," write down your prediction in a log book. It counts only if the prediction is written down completely before the roll appears. Furthermore you must pledge that every time you write down a prediction, it stays on the permanent record even if you end up being wrong.
>
> I've never heard of anyone actually doing this, so I have to assume that you're just deluding yourself. I would love to be proved wrong, so please start such a log book and share the results after you have accumulated, say, 500 predictions.

This reminds me of a really frustrating argument I had around 1994 with a guy who claimed that FIBS rolls were not at all random, and that, if someone made a mistake,
the chance of that mistake being immediately punished was far more likely than with purely random dice. I was sure this was nonsense so I said "Ok, let's watch some Fibs games then.
If your theory is right, you're going to be really good at predicting the rolls! So let's go ahead!" He then consistently failed to predict the rolls, with his failed predictions being completely
consistent with a random hypothesis. However, far from conceding that he was right, he actually became very excited and was actually far more convinced of his theory than he was before
the experiment. Why?? I'll illustrate by example, the type of thing that happened. My friend (and he was a friend) would say: "Ok, that was a blunder not escaping! I predict he'll crunch with a 44!"
Then he would roll a 55 and crunch. "You see!! You see!!" my friend would say excitedly. "It's always a roll that punishes the bad play. Just as I predicted!"
So he was able to convince himself that he won the argument because there was no objective scientific examination of his claim. Note that his predictions were not resricted to predicting single
rolls. He could make any testable prediction --- predicting that something in a set of rolls would occur was fine. However, if something was outside his set, he would often say that it still proved his point
because although the roll was outside the set, it belonged in the set because it exposed the weakness of a bad play. So the type of thing that would happen is that he would say:
"Ok, now he's going to roll 21 or 31". We then see a roll of 32. "Yes, or 32! or 32! The same type of roll as I said. You see I'm right!"
I was unbelievably frustrated by this argument.
This guy went on to become a star grad student in mathematics, got a Ph.D in mathematics but I don't think he did all that much as a research mathematician.
He then went into industry.

Paul

[MK]

On November 18, 2022 at 12:58:16 PM UTC-7, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

> On October 7, 2014 at 12:28:20 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:

>> .....

> This reminds me of a really frustrating argument.....

The one prior post in this thread was from
Nov 17, 2022 but you chose to quote and
reply to an eight years old post from Tim!?

A perfect proof that you are his ass-kisser
and one of the pack of sick dogs of RGB. :(

The only thing that should matter in this old
thread is that the first person who replied to
the original post was Michael Petch who did
post several more times, at length about the
rigged/bastardized dice in Safeharborgames,
FaceMe and rigged/riggable in MSN Gaming
Zone; and that he posted links to his daddy
Wong's infamous "official complaint form";
but that he never filled and filed a complaint
to his assholic daddy Wong about the dice at
Safeharborgames, FaceMe and MSN Gaming
Zone, etc.!

Everytime I see a mention (or an snide insider
reference) of it, I will roll it up and shove it up
his and his ilks' arrogant assholes, until Wong
publicly retracts his "official complaint form"
and apologizes for it...

MK

[Tim Chow]

On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 2:58:16 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Ok, now he's going to roll 21 or 31". We then see a roll of 32. "Yes, or 32! or 32! The same type of roll as I said. You see I'm right!"
> I was unbelievably frustrated by this argument.

Interesting. Not that you're likely to get into such an argument again,
but one possible tactic you could have tried would be to have the guy
state rolls that are *not* going to happen. If he says that a roll is
definitely not going to happen and then it happens, that's harder to
weasel out of than if he predicts a particular roll and then a "similar"
roll happens.

If that sounds too complicated, you could restrict to simpler predictions,
such as dance/enter, or doublets/non-doublets.

---
Tim Chow

[Nasti Chestikov]

On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 21:56:55 UTC, Tim Chow wrote:

> Interesting. Not that you're likely to get into such an argument again,
> but one possible tactic you could have tried would be to have the guy
> state rolls that are *not* going to happen. If he says that a roll is
> definitely not going to happen and then it happens, that's harder to
> weasel out of than if he predicts a particular roll and then a "similar"
> roll happens.
>

> Tim Chow

Can we flip that on its head? If I announce that the bot is going to roll x-y and it does (as many times as the developer chooses, 1, 10, 100, no difference to me), how does the developer of the program "weasel out of it"?

Particularly, and especially, when I've disassembled his code (even though he's hidden it behind ProGuard) and so I know exactly when his bot is going to "roll" bullshit dice?

[Timothy Chow]

On 11/20/2022 11:36 AM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> Can we flip that on its head? If I announce that the bot is going to roll x-y and it does (as many times as the developer chooses, 1, 10, 100, no difference to me), how does the developer of the program "weasel out of it"?

I might answer that question if you tell me where you attended
law school.

---
Tim Chow

[Nasti Chestikov]

Just as soon as you admit to hawking fast cars around the strips of Vegas.........

[Gary Atkins]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 at 3:39:09 PM UTC-7, christophe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody playing Backgammon Live or the new incarnation of Play65,PlayGem Social?
> Some of us find that the games must be being manipulated by the developers and or admins.It is pretty blatant stuff. Multiple doubles again and again,game after game. Anybody have any knowledge of this kind of manipulation? I'm not interested in opening a discussion of whether this exists or doesn't exist. I'm not going there again. I would like to hear from people who have played there or in other arenas or have worked in online gaming. Thanks in advance,chris

I agree, games are rigged so people buy chips or they let you win for a while and hope you are hooked so when they swipe it, the player will buy more chips. Neva gonna pay to play! LOL Many times when i'm up 5K I just play to give it back. I'll get another 600 tomorrow for free by spinning the wheel. Doesn't matter if your playing a 100 chip board or a billion chip board.. Backgammon is only played one way and I can enjoy the plain 100 chip board.