Saturday, January 16, 2010

Hey, Your Game Cheats!

So I have debated for a while now about writing this post, as it can be perceived negatively by some. However, over the last few days we have seen a lot of downloads of the Cribbage Pro game on the Android phones, which is really awesome, and at the same time there has been a rise in the number of comments and emails we have been fielding from players who seem to insist the computer is cheating on the various levels of play. I think the vast majority of players realize this is not the case, as many of them we can see in the statistics are winning against the computer an incredibly large number of times. Similarly, we get emails and comments from others that say the computer is simply too easy to beat and they never lose on any level. I think something inside of us (and yes, I mean "us" as some on our staff have honestly asked the same question) want to accuse a computer of cheating when it beats us soundly in a game. This I suppose is one of the draw backs of creating a game that is indeed challenging to win at.

Initially, I found the accusations funny, because I wrote the game and I know every line of code and piece of logic that is in it inside and out. The funny part is that it would have taken me longer and more code to write a game where the computer is cheating then what we actually did in spending our time researching game play strategy and writing a game that simply knows the rules of cribbage very well and how to win. So let's start with a clear and straightforward statement - I stake my personal reputation and that of the entire Fuller Systems Inc. staff, brand and name on everything we make, and this game is no different. With that in mind, I can say with extreme and utter certainty that the game in no way shape or form is cheating. The computer play is playing a completely "fair game" in every sense of the phrase.

With that said, let me explain what is going on in the game a little, and how it works. If you have received an email from me on this topic, this will look familiar.

First, the hands dealt are done so exactly the same way for each and every difficulty level, with the only difference in the levels of play being which cards the computer may choose to hold or discard. This is why on advanced, the hands the computer ends up with tend to score significantly higher then on the other skill levels. The code for the game runs in such a way as to do the deal of cards exactly the same way each time and the shuffle is as natural as possible for each hand. I fully understand that sometimes the computer can/will achieve hands that are consistently higher in the advanced mode, but this is due to the level of computations it goes through in determining what the best possible holding of cards could be. It is in no way doing anything other then just that - working with the cards it is dealt. This is not to say that the computer can not go "on a run", just like a human player might, and get a series of good hands dealt to it - that is just as likely for the computer as it would be for a human player if that human player were to make the same discard decisions. Just as we don't manipulate the deal or play to give the computer an advantage, we don't handicap it either.

To go a step further, here is the exact code used during the dealing of the cards from the deck which is a simple object that holds an array of cards that have been shuffled prior to this step.

// 6 cards for each player - 12 total
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
  //Deal to pone player first, then to dealer
  if (isP0Deal) {
    player1Cards[i] = deck.nextCard();
    player0Cards[i] = deck.nextCard();
  } else {
    player0Cards[i] = deck.nextCard();
    player1Cards[i] = deck.nextCard();

If you know code structure, or can read through and derive the basic thought from this, you can see that it has no consideration for the computer player (player0) then the other player and that it deals out the cards as per cribbage rules based on who is the dealer. Unfortunately there is not much more I can add here, short of sharing the entire game code with everyone, which we can not do for obvious reasons. So one could claim that this code is not the real code, or that later in the game code changes are made or something. Please understand, there would be absolutely no value for Fuller Systems to have a game that we give away for free, cheat in any way. In the future releases of features we add, you will see more on why that is (yes, think multi-player). In those future versions it becomes even more critical that we ensure no player has any advantage in the deal over any other player.

Lastly, we are working on finding an independent authority to audit and review the game to prove it is fair and accurate in it's play, which we hope will remove some of these concerns. As of yet, we have not found an independent organization that is capable of doing this, so if you have suggestions, please let us know by email or in the comments here.

Thank you for letting me take the time on this blog to respond to some of the accusations, and if you have any thoughts, suggestions or questions, please don't hesitate in letting us know.

-- Josh


  1. Josh,

    While I've seen some pretty awesome play from the CPU player, it's not a million miles away from a very skilled human (IMHO). And that's on normal too.

    Sure - I've been disappointed by losing so heavily some times, but I've also come to realise that my play in those games was sub-par to say the least.

    I'm happy that this is one of the better Cribbage games that I've played on a computer. All you need to do now is fix the recording of double-skunks - yes, I double skunked the CPU. :D

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Ah, so it's based on an simplified ELO-like algorithm; I get ya. If the advanced player is 3500, what are the ratings for the other levels - just out of curiousity.

    As far as code goes, only share what you feel comfortable sharing, afterall, it's your IP and you shouldn't feel like you need to justify anything.

    I haven't played cribbage since I was young, so any implementation is sweet. Your implementation is rocking. I find it odd that we have had so many advances in technology, yet we always go back to the basic game-play games, chess, cribbage, patience et al.

  4. Thats right, sounds like you get the idea and understand it quite well.

    The three point levels for the computer players are (and apologies, this all should have been in the help file and is not):

    Advanced: 2500
    Intermediate: 2000
    Novice: 1500

    Thanks again, and if you have any suggestions at all, or see anything strange, do let me know.


  5. Great game.
    My only comment is about scoring for unfinished games. It looks like lot of players in top 50 have an inordinately large number of unfinished games. This leads me to think some people simply abandon games instead of taking a loss. In fairness there should probably be some pretty heavy penalty for unfinished games over a certain percentage of total games, especially since it is so easy to save and restart. After all if we were playing in some kind of competition,I couldn't simply abandon losing games.

  6. Thank you for all the hard work.

    I have not played since I was a child... about 30 years ago.
    I was a little sceptical about how well the computer played at first. I soon remembered better how to play and realized the game was spot on..

    Cheers mate.

    I look forward to the multiplayer version..

  7. Thanks "DanceDemon", I appreciate your comment and feedback. We try very hard to make the game competitive and fair and it is great to hear.

    We are really excited about multiplayer as well, and it is getting really close. We ran into a few hiccups along the way and had to switch our hosting strategy, etc, but we are hoping to have it ready in the next month or so.

    -- Josh

  8. OK, I could get behind the game being really smart in the actual play of the game, i.e. pegging.  However, the computer seems to always have (before the cut)  at least 8 points or more- usually 12+.  Again, BEFORE the cut. I know its futile to argue, but it sure seems like the pro level always has superior holding hands.

  9. Josh, your bias is clear...of course you are going to defend your baby. But, I agree with others who have actually taken the time to post after experiencing the "unreal" aspects of playing your game. If, I suspend reality and accept for a moment that all is fair in your game... How is it - the computer deals itself 3 - 12 plus point hands in the first 3 hands of a game? While i have an average of 6 points per hand... If I count the last 2 hands of the computer in the game just previous to this one I am referring to - the computer had 5 hands in a row with 12 plus points. That - Josh is just NOT realistic.

  10. I am convinced this game was designed by Josh to drive people insane. I am going to un-install the app for Cribbage Pro... It sucks.

  11. There are a few aspects of your comment that relate to how the game works that I can clarify for you.  The first is about the how the "computer deals itself" the cards.  As we have given in this post and shown in the others (like the one on shuffling and the deck that you have also commented on) the computer is using random data to populate a deck of cards and dealing them out in the correct pone then dealer sequencing.  It is not adjusting the position of cards in the deck to favor any side and it is not manipulating the random data.  It is is simply dealing out the cards and each has an equal chance of getting those cards.  This is not me defending a bias, it is simple fact.  Not only have we shown it in these blog posts, but I am willing to let anyone willing to sign a simple waiver actually view the code itself to prove it.  If you want to take us up on that offer, just let me know.

    Your other comment about it being "NOT realistic" is something that we have never tried to prove to anyone.  I am not saying the game will match what you expect games to be like in the real physical world, because nobody can say that about a computer generated game.  A physical world game simply has too many other factors from how fully randomized a deck of cards is (most people do not shuffle enough or correctly to achieve that between hands) to the obvious fact that most players make calculation mistakes that a computer simply does not.  However, just because the game may not be what you expect would happen in a physical world game, it in no way means it is not being fair to every player.

  12. LOL, you found us out.  We are trying to make a game nobody enjoys playing :-)

    We are of course trying to make a game that people of many different skill levels will find fun and challenging.  Some can't, and some can.  If you can not and need to move on, that is fine. I'm not trying to frustrate anyone, and a game of cribbage is not worth that.

  13. In the "brutal" setting, does the computer "opponent" always make the optimal play? Thanks.

    1. The short answer is likely "no", as optimal is very hard to define in some cases and there are at least a few areas where we know it could be made harder. What it tries to do is calculate all possible outcomes of all possible cards and select the one with the highest score potential. That strategy is also not always optimal.

  14. Is this game fair? I've played about a hundred games in "brutal" mode,my win% is 51, I've been skunked 5 times,and I've skunked the computer 9 times.
    Yes it's fair.

  15. In my shortnte playing i have never seen more 16 to 24 hands in a game. Last night I played a real game in person and there was only 1 16 point hand not 5 or 6. The algorythem is wrong or sometthing.


Keep all comments clean, appropriate, and only post if it moves the conversation forward. All others will not be published. All comments are moderated/reviewed before you will see it publicly. If you have a support request or a comment not related to this blog topic, please email us at instead.