How Many Online Casinos Cheat?

[peteyweestro]

well my friend got shot and told me it wasn't bad so i tried it and shot myself to see how bad it really was

[lojo]

Cuckoo is to believe (=be 100% sure!) that most casinos dont have the software to cheat any time they choose to.

Dude, consider the $ volume at most casinos, now take 5% of that. wtf? that's enough money. They don't need to cheat.

[Janek12]

Dude, consider the $ volume at most casinos, now take 5% of that. wtf? that's enough money. They don't need to cheat.

I think that's exactly why they might need to cheat (or, speaking precisely, why any software may be rigged without the casino knowing - it is in the interest of the software provider to have prosperous casinos in the first place) - to get these 5 %.
I think the casinos cannot do anything about the 1-5% profit they report in their payout reports. But I think it may be possible that the software is not fair at all times to ensure the margin.
It seems suspicious to me that I always see the same statistics like 96% - 99.5%. Once or twice I remember seeing a 101% payout, which, of course, only applies to a one-month period, unless I am mistaken.
Some might say the statistically prevailing house edge accounts for the steady 96%-99% payout but I wonder why high rollers nearly never seem to sway this payout percentage above 100%.
In any case, my philosophy is that if software providers cheat, as long as the player is not a high roller, it is as much a random event of the software cheating him as it is a random event of a player getting some unfavourable outcomes in fair games.
In other words, I think that it might be possible that as long as lot of people lose their money and the software does not detect any danger of the payout increasing above a desired level, it may provide fair games; once the risk of loss to the casino starts to impend, I think it may be possible that the software makes sure the payout does not exceed 101% or something like that and makes sure that next month it is again 96%-99%.
This is, of course, just a speculation but I think it may easily be so - because there is also no great conspiracy involved and some of the software developers who might know this might be able to live well with it because it is no big fraud - just a little safeguard to make sure no casinos, which are customers of the software providers, go out of business because of some luck on the players' side. And the software developers might think that after all, this safeguard does not actually alter the long-term statistical result so it is actually nearly no fraud at all... Ha, ha, I think I can imagine how twisted one's way of thinking may get and how one can find excuses for all kinds of things.

As I said it is just a speculation but I think it makes sense and for my part, I can say I would be surprised if there were not some kind of safeguard like this and if the games were REALLY absolutely fair.

[aka23]

To see payout audits of above 100%, you need to look at really small casinos that don't get a lot of wagers. The most variation I have ever seen in MG payout audits was at the casino Old Samurai. It closed recently, likely because of making little profit. I recall seeing a payout earlier this year of 170% for slots and ~60% percent on table games. The overall payout was over 100%. On the other end of the spectrum, if you look at the biggest MGs, their payout audits rarely deviate much from expected. I believe the main reason for the difference is simply the number of bets. Millions of moderate-sized bets average out a few really high rollers.

One exception to this generalization is Grand Virtual. They are small, yet their payout audits are quite consistent. For example, the audits show a slot payout of 95.3 +/- 0.5% in every quarter since 2004. I suspect two reasons:
1. All Grand Virtual casinos are grouped together for the purpose of the audit. So the payout data includes all play at grand virtual casinos over a 3-month period.
2. Grand Virtual slots have a more consistent house edge and/or lower variance than other SWs. I haven't played Grand Virtual slots enough to know if this is the case or not.

[ThodorisK]

For my arguments to be "taken seriously", I have to present stats in a casino which imply cheating with a more than 95% confidence?!!! I will repeat myself: Most of the casinos, if they want to hide their cheating, do not want to cheat that much so that the stats of a player would imply cheating with a more than 95% statistical confidence.

And since they only cheat 2 out of 100 hands (when one flatbets small), the 5000 bets max of a bonus wagering is not enough to give such a high statistical confidence that this 2 out of 100 is such far away from the statistical average. And they only have reasons to cheat when a bonus is involved (or when one is winning enough).

[happygobrokey]

how do you identify "a cheating hand"? and if you know they cheat 2% of the hands, just factor that in when you solve for the expected loss. only play bonuses where you still make money when they cheat their 2% of the time. or do they cheat more if the bonus is still profitable?

[lojo]

For my arguments to be "taken seriously", I have to present stats in a casino which imply cheating with a more than 95% confidence?!!! I will repeat myself: Most of the casinos, if they want to hide their cheating, do not want to cheat that much so that the stats of a player would imply cheating with a more than 95% statistical confidence.

And since they only cheat 2 out of 100 hands (when one flatbets small), the 5000 bets max of a bonus wagering is not enough to give such a high statistical confidence that this 2 out of 100 is such far away from the statistical average. And they only have reasons to cheat when a bonus is involved (or when one is winning enough).

Dude if they are rigged, they are rigged.

Don't play.

If 5% is an okay risk for you, over time, play.
Otherwise, wtf? I'm down. Show me how they fex you.

I tend to think that your inquiry was a poorly shrouded attempt to divine the programs that communicate with so called RNG.

What is your motive? I don't buy it so far.

[KasinoKing]

Not aimed particularly at you Janek, but at all players doubting fairness;

<ramble, ramble, cheat, protect profit, etc, etc... >
Ha, ha, I think I can imagine how twisted one's way of thinking may get and how one can find excuses for all kinds of things.

As I said it is just a speculation but I think it makes sense and for my part, I can say I would be surprised if there were not some kind of safeguard like this and if the games were REALLY absolutely fair.

Take this example - a single-zero Roulette wheel;
Can anyone anywhere provide a system to guarantee beating the wheel in the long term?
No.
Why not?
Because it has a house edge of 2.02727% - no matter what you do.
Suppose some guy walked into a casino & stuck $1000 on 32-Red , it came up, he took his $36,000 and walked out.
Would the roulette wheel then have to cheat to get it's money back to ensure it's long term profit?
Of course not!
Over time other players will suffer big losses and in the long run the roulette wheel will make (near enough) exactly 2.027% profit - not more, not less.
The same can be applied to all casino games - they are all guaranteed to make their income due to the defined house edge, not because they cheat.

In casinos there will always be people who lose more often than not, and those who more frequently win. This is not down to 'rigging', it's due to the individuals good or bad luck, playing style & self control. The times I've been to a B&M and seen idiots playing blackjack without the first clue of basic strategy..

I'm not saying that no casinos cheat (that would be very naive), but I am saying they don't need to cheat to guarantee their income.
Personally I am happy that the reputable ones (like those endorsed by CM) do not cheat.

Just my 2.027c

[Janek12]

Thank you for your response, KasinoKing.

Ha, ha, this could be a never ending discussion since it is all pure speculation.
And I think you cannot have any way of knowing that "reputable ones (like those endorsed by CM) do not cheat" - it is a speculation, too, IMO.
Also, I do not think that casinos would ever cheat (except with the software described at Wizzard of Odds, by a marginal software provider) - too many people would be involved and the word would soon spread out, etc. and they would be guaranteed to go out of business; I think it might be the software developers.
And, of course, I know that IN THE LONG the profit for the casinos is guaranteed. I am not that dumb.

And just a last point for consideration: I accept that the 96-99% payout reports may be a result of the inevitable long-term statistics but it also seems suspicious to me that the casinos never have anything like 90% or 85% payout. I think a lot of players simply bust their bankrolls and leave much more to the casinos than just the house edge. I think there are not many players who deposit, say, 1000 USD and then play for a few hours and leave the casino with 960 USD in their account.
It is obvious, I think, that a 85% payout report would discourage players.

So, conversely, I think it might be possible that the software can be rigged to GIVE some UNFAIR WINS to players to ensure the statistical payout for most of the months in order not to discourage players.

And that would make sense, too, IMO, because as someone else said and as you said and as we all know the profit of the casinos is GUARANTEED IN THE LONG-TERM so they can easily satisfy with a few percent every month - it still must be a nice profit; they do not need to take 10 or 15 percent - that would be counter-productive.

But we will never know for sure...

But I think it is always good to be on guard and if a particular software seems suspicious, it is reasonable to admit the possibility it might be rigged in some more or less subtle way and to stop playing with this software.

And to end on a "positive" note, my experience is that MG software is OK so now I stick to MG casinos.

[lojo]

My siggy isn't showing and it ain't no joke. Look at my avi I AM HONORING