Surely "streaky" is rigged!?!

[ace4suited]

firstly i would just like to thank those that have contributed to this thread so far - very interesting even if my brain is hurting a bit.

Much of this thread is about empirical evidence running against detailed RNG theory.

It is clear that it would be really hard to have any sort of satisfactory proof of whether a game has greater varience than what it should. It is also the case that "streaks" are hard to interpret by the player even if they did exist.

I am a BJ and Poker player primarily although i do dabble in VP and slots now and then but when it comes to streakiness I have only really got enough playing time to look at BJ.

If we take the software AND the RNG and take the combined effect of them then impirically there are some sites that seem "as a player" to be streaky.

I will say that 99% of talks of streakiness are about people complaining about losing. I do not see streakiness if it really exists as a bad thing but rather something that the player can exploit.

On some softwares myself and several other BJ players I speak to have experienced apparent streakiness on several sites. When we are in these negative streaks we bet less and in the positive streaks we bet more. Over the course of wagering 20,000 in bets on such a site between 1-20$ the "streakiness" factor does seem on some providers to have a positive player effect. This seems to be the strongest basis for supporting the idea that streakiness is real that some players (myself included) seem to be able to exploit in on certain sites for profit.

If it exists is it something that casinos do deliberately? I would say probably not but whilst casinos etc are often audited for the extent to which they are paying out appropriate amounts I do not think that much of the effort goes into checking that the varience is 100% as expected.

The combination of the RNG and the software that creates a BJ hand is not the same exactly from one software provider to another. If we say streakines does exist (it is highly debatable that there is sufficient proof) then it could be argued that it makes the software "imperfect" but this is akin to a roulette wheel not being 100% balanced. It is something that can only really affect a knowledgable player in a positive way.

Finally as a player i would say that streakiness is a bit like the "god gamble" i.e. if it doesnt exist then it has not done me any harm but if it does exist....

What this means is that if you sense the casino is really streaky then it does no harm to adjust your bets accordingly. It cannot effect your EV in a negative way. If however there is some merit in the notion of streakiness on a small number of sites then you have improved your EV.

[steadman]

Yes, it is an interesting discussion.

My point was in the original post (and explained further about three posts down) is that a player cannot say that one casino's set-% game is streakier than another casinos equivalent game - by default you are saying one of them is rigged. Doesnt matter whether you can take advantage of the streaky nature, doesnt even matter if one is actually streakier or it is just perception, doesnt even matter if one of the games is set to payback 200% - you are saying one of the games is rigged "in your opinion".

If I run a totally above board BJ simulator you can show Ramsey in the results, if I run a smart BJ simulator, say dealing smart seconds based on the player betting strategy, you will still find Ramsey in the results. This is what I understand!