Do casinos rig the games?

[Grey]

I think these companies might not know about this. Why should they? The software provider creates the software; IF the software provider really did put some rigging elements into the software, why should they tell the casino operators?
One of my theories is that since the software providers depend on the casinos for their earnings, they might include some "safeguards" in the software. Otherwise they might dread the day, on which a player hits MAX button on a slot (perhaps even by accident) and get 5 wilds or so... And ruins the casino.
So, to make the business run smoothly, it would be best for the casinos and the software provider IMO, if the casino games COMPLIED WITH THE EXPECTED HOUSE EDGE but also if the software made sure THERE IS NO GREAT VARIANCE FROM THE EXPECTED HOUSE EDGE to safeguard the casinos from huge random wins that could destroy the casino.
In this way, nothing can be detected by the audits as I suppose are done now.
Mind you, it is only a theory, I am not accusing anyone BUT Kimss data and experience seem to support this - if I understand it correctly, he basically says that with the increase of bet, the chance of winning decreases - and IMO this might be to safeguard the casino from huge wins (I apologise for repeating myself ).

Completely agree with you.
We see only the results of the audit.
However, what is meant by the audit?
Audit of code or just payouts?
How can we check if it is possible to change the results after the bets are placed, do the results of the game depend on the size of bets.

Here is a simple example, if manipulation is possible, the casino will allow you to win with small bets and the player will lose more often with high bets, because under such conditions, the risks of casinos are significantly reduced.
Therefore, we cannot verify the fact of independence of the results from the size of the bet.
In this case, the casino will have payouts for auditors according to the rules of games.

[hippo925]

Completely agree with you.
We see only the results of the audit.
However, what is meant by the audit?
Audit of code or just payouts?
How can we check if it is possible to change the results after the bets are placed, do the results of the game depend on the size of bets.

Here is a simple example, if manipulation is possible, the casino will allow you to win with small bets and the player will lose more often with high bets, because under such conditions, the risks of casinos are significantly reduced.
Therefore, we cannot verify the fact of independence of the results from the size of the bet.
In this case, the casino will have payouts for auditors according to the rules of games.

i understand what you are saying. It is my understanding that most audits tend to confirm or evaluate either the casino's payback percentage or integrity of the random number generator. I don't believe i've ever heard of any audits on the "codes" or "algorithm" of a particular software because of the proprietary nature of the software.... though i may be wrong. If that is the case, there would not be any evaluation of the fairness of the software itself, just whether the casino is paying out what it claims or that the number generator is working properly. Obviously, you can have a payout percentage audited and a random number generator confrimed, but still have "questionable" software with "unique" programming or algorithms. A simple one would be an alogrithm that decreases wins when bets are increased while maintaing an "acceptable" payback percentage.

Of course, the counter argument would be as to why would anyone go through all this trouble considering the built in house edge? The big one that comes to mind would be to protect smaller casinos from going bankrupt just because of one player who gets really lucky with a big bet. Though i find it harder to imagine that it would be worth it for the "bigger" companies....

[Janek12]

Therefore, we cannot verify the fact of independence of the results from the size of the bet.

I think Kimss believes he verified the DEPENDENCE of the results on the size of the bet.
But I am no expert in this field and I do not know whether his sample of results is really statistically valid.
But I must say I trust his word for this and I think his findings are quite disturbing, to say the least.
It would be interesting to see this matter pursued further by him but I completely understand and agree with his desire to break away from casinos altogether and I wish him success in this.

And IF it is really true that as the bet increases, the chance of win decreases, it would be a brilliant move on the part of the casinos IMO. Who would want to spend dozens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands to make a statistical point? So the evidence might never be gathered.

And also, IF Kimss is right, then it is in no conflict with KasinoKing's argument that the slots can't be rigged because he has been winning long-term. KasinoKing might have been winning for the very reason that he is a low-roller and does not place high bets often.

I think it all adds up but, as I always say, it is only a theory!
BUT - to repeat a point I mentioned in another thread - WHY DON'T ALL THE CASINOS HAVE RANDOMNESS CONTROL?
I don't understand it completely but I trust another well-established member of CM forum who explained it the other day and his conclusion was that casino with this mechanism CANNOT CHEAT. So why don't all the big software providers make an end to the speculations and don't introduce randomness control, too???!!!

[Wisenheimer]

I don't understand it completely but I trust another well-established member of CM forum who explained it the other day and his conclusion was that casino with this mechanism CANNOT CHEAT.

Wouldn't randomness control have some of the same problems? If I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do), then the payouts couldn't be controlled, as the spin for slots was generated before the bet, but the code could still be tampered with, for lower percentages, no?

[marshy]

I'm not 100% sure how affiliates work but i think they get all the results from their players from sign ups. If this is true and how it works, i would like to hear from affiliates if they have results that don't look right for a casino over many many hands.

Where i have my suspicion casinos could be cheating is sign up bonuses where you have to enter a bonus code. Maybe these codes could then trigger different RNG's.

I guess the only people who really know are the casino operators.

[KasinoKing]

I'm not 100% sure how affiliates work but i think they get all the results from their players from sign ups. If this is true and how it works, i would like to hear from affiliates if they have results that don't look right for a casino over many many hands.

I promote well over 100 casinos and I don't know ANY who provide this level of information to their affiliates.
All we see is how much they deposit & withdraw - we don't even know who the players are.

Welcome to the forum!
KK

[Grey]

So why don't all the big software providers make an end to the speculations and don't introduce randomness control, too???!!!

Good question, Janek12.

I am not sure that Randomness control is not compatible with other softwares.

[susanjbo]

From my experience if i play Megamoola at casino (A) casino(b) And casino (C) the win combinations can be very different. As that game is what i play 90% of the time i can say without any doubt that the combinations of wins for each of A<B<C) casinos are very different. Doesnt mean they are rigded, but in my opinion set for payouts based on the % of players at those individual casinos. many factors id say are considered for each casino, the amount of members who play that game at that casino, the wagering amounts ect ect.

[hippo925]

Wouldn't randomness control have some of the same problems? If I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do), then the payouts couldn't be controlled, as the spin for slots was generated before the bet, but the code could still be tampered with, for lower percentages, no?

As i understand it, in theory, the randomness control we are talking about (betvoyager) would provide the most "random" sort of online gaming possible without the use of true random number generators, which online casinos don't have by the way. By using a well known and trusted algorythm, this system is essentially letting you "jump" around the map of results determined by a pseudo random number generator.

Now here's the interesting part: assuming all these online casinos use similar software, the pseudo random number generator creates a long string of results that are, as i have always suspected, PREDETERMINED using a mathematical formula that fits a certain payback percentage. The betvoyager website actually explains this.

But what they have done is to let a player jump around on this predetermined string of results adding more "randomness" to your gameplay. It is extremely interesting.

Keep in mind, over the long term, the expected payback percentage will still be met, but you would never have to worry that you are "caught" in a forced downswing since you can change your position on the "map" of results.

As an example:

a pseudo random number generator determines that your next 10 spin results are 0 , 0, 0, 2x bet, 3x bet, 5x bet, 0, 0, 1x bet, 50x bet............

after the third spin ( 0, 0 ,0) you decide to "jump" to another set of 10 spins because you "ain't feeling it".

It is a bit of dry reading, but i recommend anyone interested in learning how slots really work (in betvoyager's case, but i assume other casinos too) to read up on the betvoyager website.

I can only think of a couple of reasons why other casinos don't do this....and none are good.

[cbrodley]

Cards that can count: A session of 104 single handed, Blackjack hands played online on 23rd August was analysed. The chart below shows the distribution of cards at various counts for both the Dealer and the Player. The bias in the value of cards drawn by the Dealer is obvious from top right to bottom left. The value of the cards clearly becomes smaller as the count increases. No such bias is evident in the Player’s cards at the bottom of the chart.

The relevant spreadsheets are attached.

Refer to attached *.xlsx spreadsheet, sheet 2.

A chi squared test on the total of the Dealer’s cards returns a result of 0.976, pretty close to a perfect fit, while a similar result for the Players’ cards is 0.702. So statistically the Player cards are the less good fit yet the bias in the upper half of the attached chart is evident to the eye. On a count of 14 the Dealer’s average card value was 7, on a count of 15 it was 5 and, on 16, it was 4. Pretty smart.

The following is taken from a Session of 520 hands on 25th August. The Chi Squared results for this sample are below. The first figure in a pair is the number of cards the second figure is the shi squared result.
.All .Dealt Drawn
Dealer 1450 0.115 1040 0.300 412 0.149
Player 1373 0.012 1040 0.334 335 0.002
Total 2823 0.043 2080 0.314 747 0.048

All these results are well below an average fit and the result of 0.043 for a total of 2,823 cards needs some explanation. The results for the Players Drawn cards are especially bad. The results returned are actually worse than removing all the Aces, Kings and Queens from a deck and replacing them with 2s, 3s and 4s. It is even more surprising when continuous shuffling should, theoretically, minimise variance because the impact of discards is minimised. The only results that look acceptable are those for the first two cards dealt; to me the remainder look suspect.

Here are the drawn cards that gave the result of 0.0026 (1:400) from the table above:
Ace K Q J 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Total
21 28 24 34 21 31 20 21 11 41 20 35 28 335

The attached Spreadsheet page 3 show the detail.

The Player drew on a count of 15 in 33 hands, won 3 and was dealt twelve 3s and eight Queens. The Chi Squared result for this distribution is 3.81E-08 or, odds of 0.0000000381 or 1: 26,315,700. Clearly, whatever controls are in place to ensure a fair game are so broad as to be meaningless. These figures are undoubtedly subsumed into a total for the player or for all players by which time their significance disappears.

Without access to the source code (and the ability to make sense of it) it is impossible to say what is happening but it is impossible to believe that this is random. The totals may look fine but the details look anything but fine to me. If any part of the game is discretionary and not random then the game is no longer fair and should not be called Blackjack.

There are people on this board with experience of online systems and fair gaming audits. Would they care to comment ?

Cheers

CGB