Is there a stop to Internet Backgammon cheaters?

That's nice, Azam, but Microsoft isn't accepting feedback for MS Backgammon, nor will it.

As a frequent player, I've often suspected cheating, but have concluded that it doesn't occur.

I've read that even the best masters lose about 20% of matches, due to bad luck. My winning percentage is 81-82% at Expert mode, and I know I'm not cheating. That includes some "waiting out" rude players who refuse to move, though. (If s/he makes me wait 2 minutes/move, I do the same.) I've lost as many as 5 in a row, and won 29 in a row -- and I've NEVER cheated. When I'm losing lots of games, it's my strategy at fault. I correct it, and the winning returns.

Players get lucky. They get lucky rolls, and even very lucky sequences. I've seen many doubles in a row, many "perfect" rolls in a row, and even a game where opponents kept getting doubles for 7-9 rolls in all. I only can know that I'm not cheating.

Could a 3rd person -- someone running the server -- be playing with the rolls, for kicks? It's possible, but who would bother?

Players can suspect cheating (or incredible luck) since they don't know the true odds. If your opponent needs a 6-4 to hit your blot, then 1 out of 18 times (2/36) they're going to get a 6-4, not 1/36. Psychologically, you make think yourself invulnerable if they're on the bar and need double 4s to hit, but you're not invulnerable if you leave a blot open that a 4-4 will hit. If your opp. needs to roll a 6 to hit, then 30.56% of rolls (11/36) will hit that blot -- assuming you're not on the bar and there aren't blocked points to stop it.

Lucky opponents sometimes lose, in the end. Sometimes they quit, after you get good rolls. Why would they do that, if they were cheating?

The stats guy who recorded rolls forgot to consider that the winner of the first roll is likely to have a higher roll than the loser. So the likelihood of getting a 6 for the winner is greater than 16.7%. Other possibilities: the sample is too small, or that the guy is lying.

It occasionally seems like my opponent is cheating, but I suspect it really isn't. It almost always seems like my opponent is luckier than I am, even when I'm trouncing them. It's a psychological thing.

Sir, the probability of rolling ONE 6 from ONE die is 1/6 because it is an independent event.  If you don't know what an independent event is, the read a book.  I didn't ask you to believe my stats.  If you don't believe them, then count them yourself and don't call call me a lair.  If you do once more, I will report you for abuse, Sir.

For reference visit...

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/probability/calcdice.htm

markkbell661 is correct about the stall bug. I've had it done to me repeatedly. Why isn't the information about how to run the clock on your opponent public knowledge? Only once everyone knows the exact process on how to cheat their opponent in this regards will Microsoft do anything about it. Many high 2100+ players know how to cheat you by running you out of time. They can do it very quickly on demand in just a few seconds!! Why doesn't one of them have a conscience and make it public knowledge on how it's done?

Here are the reasons that it is prima facie evident that Microsoft is complicit in this cheating.

(a) It's common knowledge that this cheat has been going on for years.  It is unreasonable to think that Microsoft is unaware of this cheat.

(b) Cheaters are using the Microsoft clock implemented with Microsoft code. In fact the entire game is played with Microsoft code, in the Microsoft browser, on the Microsoft operating system, and with Microsoft servers. It is unreasonable  to think that Microsoft has no idea of how the cheating is performed.

I respectfully ask Microsoft to respond directly to this post. (1) Does Microsoft deny the cheat? (2) Why has Microsoft allowed this cheat to exist for years? I don’t want to sound belligerent but Microsoft has some hard explaining to do.

I would appreciate it if any Microsoft employee responding to this post do so in an official Microsoft capacity and give honest answers to my two questions by carefully checking the facts. I am not interested in any personal opinion by a Microsoft employee who doesn't definitively and absolutely know the specifics regarding this issue.

Of course they can fix them. You can fix a lot of things utilising a piece of software called 'Cheat Engine'. I used it once( to test) in an online game...

I didn't 'cheat' though. Nobody suffered as a result of this - I'm not one of the evil hackers that make people miserable. All I did was make myself walk a bit faster in a non-fighting game.

The problem is, IB is a Windows game and I don't think it has a live team of moderators patching every single cheat.

I tend to agree with most of your post (Shackle).

When I argued that there was cheating, I was only referring to the stall bug used, ie: opponent moves then rescinds move, does this a few times then stops; the next thing that happens is you are told that you are delaying your move and are eventually timed out.

I doubt anyone playing on msn has not come across this, and we will all agree that it is cheating, and I just wanted to know if there is a way around this.

WIth regards to the dice: there is no doubt that they are not random, and in some way react to what is needed, but I doubt the opponent can fix them. I have frequently lost 12 on the trot, and sometimes won 12 on the trot.  When on your side you frequently throw the perfect throw needed, and vica versa when on losing streak.

My only disagreement with Mr Shackle is saying odds on any paritcular throw are 18-1. Obviously I agree they are not 36-1, that is obvious, but the correct odds are 21-1, as there are 21 different thriw combinations. Look at the table below. I may be incorrect, and please tell me if I have missed something, but I don't think so. I do remember when I first started playing Backgammon (30 years ago) reading a book, and they commented on the 36-1 myth, and used the table below to explain the 21-1 odds

1-1     2-2      3-3     4-4     5-5     6-6

2-1     2-3      3-4     4-5     5-6

3-1     2-4      3-5     4-6

4-1     2-5      3-6  

5-1     2-6 

5-1    

6  +     5    +    4    +    3    +   2    +   1      =    21