sportsbookreview.com
The Easy Street Casino Dispute; a mathematical investigation into the scam sportsbook. Michael Shackleford also known as the Wizard of Odds, follows up with Judie Russell on the EasyStreet Casino dispute. Since the interview with cory1111 on April 6th, TheRX Head Moderator Wilheim published his final report with the help of an unnamed third party expert. The conclusion advised EasyStreet not to pay cory the $46,000 he won at Easy Street Casino playing Jacks or Better. The findings were criticized as being badly worded and worse, inconsistent with probability theory as well as the facts supporting cory's case.
Michael Shackelford is a professional actuary who has made a career of analyzing casino games. He runs the numbers on new games for casinos and game developers and has helped design many of the popular slot machines on the Internet. He is currently a contributing writer for Casino Player magazine, formerly an Adjunct Professor of Casino Math at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the author of the book Gambling 102. You can visit his website and forum at wizardofodds.com . Below are the questions that were asked in the interview.
Question 1: So The RX "expert's" report seems to be misusing mathematics to confuse the general public. It stated that "Cory1111 defied all odds and hit three royals in 8862 hands." However when further investigated it is obvious that the Rx were selective sampling by excluded all days where cory did not hit a royal and starting the hand log on his first royal and closing the hand log after his last. The reality looks more like almost 22 thousand hands -- so can you tell us what the true odds are for hitting 3 royals in 22,000 hands?
Question 2: How do you approach calculating these odds? Do you use Poisson distribution or Binomial Distribution and why would you use one over the other?
Question 3: Cory has been accused from the beginning of playing with "perfect strategy". It seems as though perfect strategy has been pre defined for the game Jacks or Better but the RX suggested that perfect strategy is subjective. Can you tell us what perfect strategy is and did you see anything proving that the player used perfect strategy?
Question 4: If EZ offered some proof that the player used perfect strategy, how difficult would it be for an average player to achieve perfect strategy?
Question 5: Can you tell us about what other information that has been shared with you to date, who it was shared by and what mathematical conclusions you were able to build based on the data?
Question 6: Let's talk more about the "The RX expert" who apparently has 6 years experience as a Gaming Engineer and Software architect in the US. Now the reason I'm saying apparently is because the RX will not name this expert, they have stated that the expert came to Costa Rica and analyzed the situation without any financial compensation and then in his final report he dubiously used the term "statistically impossible" to describe an improbable or unlikely situation. So do you think this expert is a phantom, if not do you know who this expert is and do you have any ideas as to why his finding seemed badly researched?
Question 7: The RX have bolding claimed that the use of a script or bot overwhelmed the random number generator or RNG somehow causing the odds to turn in favor of the player - is this possible and can you explain to us why ?
Question 8: SBRforum poster Legitbet had a good point: If Cory had simply adjusted the rate of play ( him or a bot) to a couple of seconds more per hand, would this entire sit be any different?
Question 9: Just so we can try grade this specific case, can you tell us what is the closest you've seen to a dispute like this one or even a case that was more improbable and how did it end?
Question 10: What do you expect to happen next?
Category:
