For all you math guys out there

[Bruno712]

Okay, I'll try to be as specific as possible.

Regarding the 1156 maxed out bets in question. They were made on $1/$100 and $25/$400 tables. I do not have a breakdown of the different size max bets ($100 v. $400) although I do know that, although I played on other limit tables, I apparently did not max out any bets on them.

For all you guys that want to think this was done according to some scientific method, allow me to say that this was not done as an experiement. Consider this more Flemming than Jenner, if you catch my drift. It was merely me playing in the course of my daily life. I did not play with the intention of collecting imperical data with which to prove a theory. I was simply playing black jack as I always do (using basic strategy but no specific betting strategy unless you call 'gut' feeling a strategy). It was not until I noticed that I seemed to be getting screwed on my maxed out bets that I became concerned enough to look into this. Then it snowballed. So before anyone mistakes this for the online casino industries Hiroshima, please relax. The legal rammifications of releasing the results of the analysis is being discussed as I type. Remember, it is not only myself involved, but the person who owns the rights to the analyzing program. I will say this, however. If I can trust the hundreds of emails I have received since posting my original thread (Hats off to you, Bryan. You're portal is, apparently, a real popular place, bro), from people a lot higher up on the gambling and legal food chain than you and I, this little observation of mine was not an Epiphany reserved for me alone!

[GrandMaster]

GM - You are saying that if one randomly picked any 1156 hands from a 35000 hand sample, one would expect about 1156*.3=347 hands that would be a BJ 20 or 21 versus the 1109 Bruno is reporting. This still would be conclusive evidence of being rigged even if the entire 35000 sampled contained the expected number of BJ's 20's or 21's, say 9391 non-max-bet hands. Right? (9391+1109=35000*.3) I certainly am staying tuned to this Bat-channel!

The proportion of dealer 20's, 21's and BJ's should be around 30% in any sample which is chosen in a way that's not correlated to the outcome. You could choose 1109 hands at random, or the first 1109 hands, or the hands where you bet the table max. Choosing the hands you lost would not be OK, because you expect more dealer 20's, 21's and BJ's in your losing hands (but my gut feeling is that 96% is still way too high for a sample of this size).

If the overall proportion of dealer 20's, 21's and BJ's is OK, but it is too high or too low in the sample, then my conclusion would be that the sample was not chosen in a random way, somehow it is correlated to the outcome.

[Bruno712]

I hear what you're saying GM. But it is my contention that if the remaining 34000 (35000 - 1150 or so) or so hands where the max bet is not made contain 30% 20, 21 and BJs for the dealer, it is the max bets ONLY that are the aberation. Maybe I am starting with a presupposed conclusion and making the figures confirm it, but it would still be extremely odd to have that aberation show its face exclusively on the maxed out bets. And I believe that is what Kyle is doing. He is taking random samples of all hands when comparing it to the maxed out bets. In other words, he would take a few samplings of any given 5000 hands, max or min bet, and see what the percentage of dealer high hands are. High hands being 20, 21, BJ.

Speaking of aberations...

I just hit a full house, 4oak, full house, full house and 3oak in a row at Brandy in JoB, single mode.

[GrandMaster]

I have not seen the data, but there are all sorts of things you can do, there are statistical tests you can carry out to see whether the software is rigged at all levels or only at maximum bets.

I have a question. What happened if you busted? Unless you are playing at a multi-player table, in most software versions the dealer won't play out his hand if you bust, so you won't know what would have happened. How were these hands recorded? If the dealer doesn't always play out his hand, counting dealer 20's, 21's and BJ's is probably not the best thing, but I don't think it is a big problem. My gut feeling is that the dealer is slightly more likely to have a high hand when you bust, because more than 1/3 of all high hands come from the dealer showing a 10 or a face card, and ending up with 20, and you have to play more aggressively when the dealer is showing a 10, so you are more likely to bust. This means that probability of dealer high hands when you don't bust is actually slightly less than 30%.

I would look at other things, overall win/loss/push ratio, win/loss/push ratio at each betting level.

You should check out winneronline.com, search for ohdreampop in the forum. She got a 20k royal at Brandy casino on her first hand after getting the sign-up bonus.

[DOHC]

So, is this the first time you play in this casino? If not, has it always been like this? tell us the name to stay away from them

[Bruno712]

I have a question. What happened if you busted?

I only play private games and some if not most of the games were played at casinos that flip their hole card after each hand regardless of whether or not the player busts. Now you have me curious as to how many I busted out on. I emailed Kyle to add this to his analysis. He replied that he already had.

DOHC,

In order to conserve time (mine), please read all the posts.

[GrandMaster]

I only play private games and some if not most of the games were played at casinos that flip their hole card after each hand regardless of whether or not the player busts. Now you have me curious as to how many I busted out on. I emailed Kyle to add this to his analysis. He replied that he already had.

Still the problem remains. If the dealer has less than 17 with the hole card, then you don't know what would have happened if he had finished the hand. The nice thing about the 30% probability of dealer high hands I mentioned is that it depends only on the number of decks and whether the dealer hits or stands on soft 17, not on the player's strategy, but this 30% is calculated over all hands. I think the proportion dealer high hands when the player does not bust would be slightly lower, but even if I am wrong the difference would not be big enough to explain the 96% you observed.

[Clayman]

Now you have me curious as to how many I busted out on.

I think a BS player busts about 16% of the time. (6D Strip Rules)

[Clayman]

What happened if you busted? Unless you are playing at a multi-player table, in most software versions the dealer won't play out his hand if you bust, so you won't know what would have happened. How were these hands recorded? If the dealer doesn't always play out his hand, counting dealer 20's, 21's and BJ's is probably not the best thing,

When we use that 30% number, are we not assuming that those are probabilities of dealer final-hand totals, totals that are only counted when the player does not bust or has a tied BJ? It would seem as if dealer totals are inapplicable when a player busts or has a winning BJ since the dealer does not play out his hand.

I guess it occurred to me I've never seen a dealer final-hand table that had any totals of <17 listed.

On the other side of the coin, we wouldn't count player hand-totals as final-hand totals when the dealer has untied BJ's, would we?

In other words, in 100,000 dealer upcards we wouldn't really expect 30,000 dealer final-totals of BJ, 20 or 21, assuming we could see both dealer cards, would we?

Probably confusing myself after too much 19th hole.

[fortyoz]

Regarding the starting post in this thread, I do not think it is that unlikely.

I live in Costa Rica and play regularly, this happened about three times, I played at 3-4 different casinos, up about $4,000 for the day, go to this one casino were I know I lose but for some reason just want to get them, go in.. they place the 4 decks in front of me, all the cards are there.

Shuffle up and go, there is no dealer hold card so my play "affects" that, but they pull great hands out of crappy ones all the time and I lose all my winnings and then some. I know they aren't cheating, and if you lose at statistical blackjack data, streaks like that are quite common, and i've seen them a lot.

What I find helps in those situations is to have a good bank roll available, I can go down $7,000 and be sure that i'll get it back, as long as I have a few grand in the pocket, but when you spend it all and have to get up and walk away to a loss like that, blows.

I play sort of progressive and the only time I get hurt is not backing down on the losses, i'm good at going up real high after winning, but do the same after losing a few and it goes quickly.

I also have a question, when I play in PlayTech casinos I notice blackjacks come sequentially, could just be something weird but when i'm playing i'll double my bet after getting a BJ and 70% of the time another one comes next, weird