Blackjack online.... Random or rigged

[lots0]

To really prove the cheating here one needs millions of bets.

So why then, are you accusing anyone of cheating without the proof?

Microgaming software is not rigged? Do you have any prove for that? I don't.

No one here made any statement about MG not being rigged.

It is YOUR statement hakapuku that MG is cheating (or was cheating in October) that people are questioning.

It seems to me that if want to go around accusing business of crimes you should be prepared to provide proof or evidence. If you don't want to (or can't) provide the proof or evidence then you should expect people to question you. Especially when you make statements that infer you have proof, then you refuse to provide it.

Absolute Poker was caught cheating with far less than a million hands being analyzed. All it took was a few players that provided their hand histories (logs) for public viewing.

You wanna take MG down for cheating... cool.
But your gonna hafta PROVE IT or at the very least provide some evidence and not just keep ranting about it.

[aka23]

As i told in my previous post- i need millions and millions of dollars ,which i don't have, in order to prove mathematically that microgaming casino software is rigged (not always but sometimes, some periods of time). If my log will contain 10.000 bets on roulette black/red bets- and the house edge will be around 10% in the favor of the house- still it will not be enough to prove cheating. It will be called variance. To really prove the cheating here one needs millions of bets.

You do not need millions of bets and "millions of dollars" to show unfair software. As a credible example, the data Wizard of Odds used to show unfair play at Casino Bar only included a few hundred samples. A few hundred samples was enough to show a 1 in 238 billion chance.

The futher the results are from normal, the fewer samples you need to show unnatural software. In your example with a 10% house edge in roulette (I'll assume single zero) over 10 thousand bets, I estimate near a 1 in 1 trillion chance of the distribution occurring randomly. It could not simply be dismissed as typical variance.

[Eliot Jacobson]

...To really prove the cheating here one needs millions of bets. ....

This is false. All one needs is a chi-squared (or other) statistic that is sufficiently skewed as to make flawed software, cheating, or malice more likely the cause than any other reasonable cause.

For example, Absolute Poker was caught by sampling under 100 hands.

Likewise, if a coin is tossed 100 times and came up heads each time, that would easily be sufficient to assume the coin was "two headed" as the most likely explanation.

Statisticians really do understand when millions or billions of hands are needed (for example, to accurately simulate the edge on blackjack to 2 decimal places), and when just a few thousand hands are needed (to check if the dealer is getting too many blackjacks or the player too few).

It may seem otherwise, but from purely the mathematical perspective, there are lots of highly trained and watchful eyes protecting players and insuring fair games.

--Eliot

[Westland Bowl]

I generally do not trust "chi" numbers to determine whether a fair game is being played. You can do that with brick and mortar casinos but online casinos have software that can draw "random" cards but still you end up losing or pushing way over expected results even with perfect basic strategy.

[Eliot Jacobson]

With regard to your statement:

I generally do not trust "chi" numbers to determine whether a fair game is being played ...

Is there a particular blackjack game at a particular online casino you don't trust, and believe a testing method other than chi-squared testing should be used? I will do this for you, if you like. I agree with your concern about chi-squared.

--Eliot

[Westland Bowl]

Eliot, I ended up with your unedited posting for some reason- the one where you offered to do some testing...so since you edited it, I didn't use that one.

I just joined a new casino and in the first two 40-hand sessions I've played, my winning percentage was just below 27% when mathematically it should be 41-43%. The cards-drawn chi factors were below 5, meaning they were pretty 'random'. I know that the more sessions I play, the more the average win percentage should move up.....if they want to keep their 'reputable' reputation.

[NASHVEGAS]

With regard to your statement:



Is there a particular blackjack game at a particular online casino you don't trust, and believe a testing method other than chi-squared testing should be used? I will do this for you, if you like. I agree with your concern about chi-squared.

--Eliot

I am willing to retain your services (pay you) to test the fairness of a rather new casino's BJ game. I am familiar with your credentials and even caught a minor typo in the first publication of "The Blackjack Zone" approx. 2 years ago. (I did inform the nice lady at the publishing company from which I ordered copies of the book). Thanks,NV

[Eliot Jacobson]

From the forum rules:

1.11 - Please do not exploit this board to promote your own personal agenda...

I just want to point out that if I make an offer here to investigate a specific allegation, that offer is pro bono on behalf of the online community and is not a soliciation for business.

--Eliot

[NASHVEGAS]

Mr. Jacobson, I hope no one would consider your goodwill gesture to the forum in the wrong perspective on account of my post. I have previously retained the services of other well known professionals in the gambling industry as required including attorney Bob Nersesian. If my prior post causes anyone to wrongfully question any other parties intent, then mods please disregard and/or remove my post above. Thank You,Garry!

[GrandMaster]

I generally do not trust "chi" numbers to determine whether a fair game is being played. You can do that with brick and mortar casinos but online casinos have software that can draw "random" cards but still you end up losing or pushing way over expected results even with perfect basic strategy.

Chi^2 is only a statistical method, you can also apply it to the frequencies of hands won/lost/pushed or anything else you wish.