Software random or "rigged" ?

[GrandMaster]

Point taken. Calculator duly chastised

Total Hands Played....= 6600000
Initial Deals..............= 132000
Total Wagered..........= 330000
Total Lost................= 2759.95
Payout....................= 99.16365%

Not quite so bad, but does not explain the trend for banning this game in WR yet allowing Blackjack with just a weighting factor!

It makes a huge difference! You are down by about 0.9 standard deviations, the probability of losing this much or more is about 18%. A return of 91.6% on a sample of this size would mean being down by nearly 19 SD, which would a conclusive proof of cheating. It is beyond me why some casinos allow BJ but not JoB for bonuses, I stopped looking for logic in casino promotions a long time ago.

[eek]

This is a great example of the kind of thing that ecasinos should be able to produce for any player with a simple text (.txt) download with detailed and summary sections on demand.
It might consume server power and bandwidth but for a place thats playing a straight game this kind of stuff is gold dust if you want to advertise for potential players.

$100 bonuses are a waste of time if people think things are rigged.
6 million hands with over 99% return is hard data...and that's from a single player, and it kills any doubts in the minds of the sceptical.

Here is a summary of the 50 hand Jacks or Better experiment:-


Total Hands Played......= 6600000
Initial Deals................= 132000
Total Wagered............= 330000
Total Lost..................= 2759.950
Payout......................= 99.16%


Royal Flush.................= 133 (Expected = 163 Shortfall = 30)
Straight Flush..............= 641 (Expected = 721 Shortfall = 80)
4 of a Kind..................= 15830 (Expected = 15593 Shortfall = -237)
Full House...................= 74879 (Expected = 75981 Shortfall = 1102)
Flush..........................= 72631 (Expected = 72696 Shortfall = 65)
Straight......................= 77147 (Expected = 74114 Shortfall = -3033)
3 of a Kind..................= 488382 (Expected = 491361 Shortfall = 2979)
2 Pair.........................= 854668 (Expected = 853241 Shortfall = -1427)
Jacks or Better............= 1417834 (Expected = 1416261 Shortfall = -1573)
Losing hands...............= 3597855 (Expected = 3599869 Shortfall = 2014)

[vinylweatherman]

This does not support the "rigged" theory in respect of total result, however paranoia about "rigged streaks" within the long run will still be around - and I feel there is substance in it. As a 50-UP game, the monster pat-royal, when it eventually happens, will boost the payout back to the 99.54% it should be. In only 132000 initial deals, it is not too likely to happen. It should happen once in every 750,000 initial deals, but with a huge margin of error. It seems the big multi-hand tables have a higher degree of risk in the long term when it comes to meeting WR on a bonus. The Spin Palace group forbid this game (any J or Better in fact), yet I can play Vegas Strip $1 (£1) BJ at 10% weighting, and Roulette $ Craps at 33% weighting. They are clamping down on the wrong game.
Curiously, according to mathematical tables, the next best 50 hand game for meeting WR is NOT Aces and Faces but Deuces Wild (MG multi hand paytable). Those casinos that ban all VP Except Deuces Wild need to get their calculators out! Unlike BJ though, VP makes it easy to work out how much has been wagered in an MG casino.

This was the original reason for this experiment; why ban Jacks or Better and allow BJ? Incidentally, I did wager £80,000 on BJ as J or B was banned, and WON £800 (This was a fluke though!).

[mgibson99]

by the posts about rigged software. Some people "swear" that on line casino software is rigged, or it can be rigged. If you really believe this......then don't play!!!