MG Blackjack

[ShadyPlayer22]

i meant MG software seems fair enough NOT RTG. I corrected myself.

For instance today, I played at Jupiter Club. Deposited $50 and cashed in with $1000.

I didnt count my winning or losing hands, but If I would have taken a guess Id say I won about 3/4's of the hands today.

I like MG software above any other.

[jpm]

meant MG seems fair enough not rtg. Rtg sucks big donkey for me anyway.

LMAO, how do you really feel??

[sw2003]

Personally I find MG's blackjack games sort of weird! Note that I did not say that they cheat or anything like that. It is just that whenever you start the game, there is a tendency for the player to lose a lot of the hands, say 9 times out of 10, straight away. It will of course even out in the long run. But in the short term at the beginning you can suffer quite a bit of losses. If you check the statistics, you will find that the dealer's first card is a 10 constitutes a ridiculous percentage of 40%--60% whereas the theoretical expected value should be at 30.769%. The first card is an Ace can also goes up to as high as 44% when the theoretical value in the long run is 7.69%. This happens a lot, to me anyway. You would expect that roughly half the time at the beginning you would win quite a bit first and half the time you would suffer quite a bit of losses first. I find that this is not the case. Probably 9 times out of 10 you will lose a lot first and it takes a long while before the player has a chance to be able to make up some lost ground.

I don't know if it is designed so that players who bet too big for their bankroll will go bankrupt before they have a chance to pull even? The game is and should of course be fair in the long run. At least I think it is fair in the long run. I mean why not? Why not design a software so that it will kill all the people with too small a bankroll for their bet? It is totally undetectable, at least it is so when you don't know what to look for, because it is fair in the long run. People will always blame themselves or be blamed for using too large bets while all the time unaware that the software is exploiting their careless bet size and helping them to bankrupt themselves.

This is just my two cent worth of a thought based on time spent playing too many MG blackjack!

[GrandMaster]

Save you playcheck logs in a spreadsheet. I am happy to analyze them to verify the percentages you claim.

[Clayman]

I don't know if it is designed so that players who bet too big for their bankroll will go bankrupt before they have a chance to pull even? ... Why not design a software so that it will kill all the people with too small a bankroll for their bet? It is totally undetectable, at least it is so when you don't know what to look for, because it is fair in the long run. People will always blame themselves or be blamed for using too large bets while all the time unaware that the software is exploiting their careless bet size and helping them to bankrupt themselves.

If a player bets too big for his bankroll, he will go bust with completely fair software and have no one to blame but himself.

Of course, what is "too big" is open for debate. How much do you like to bet on how big of an opening bankroll?

Take Grandmaster up on his offer to analyze your logs - we may all learn something!

[DeMango]

One tenth of one percent is fairly safe. Set your session risk of ruin at 33%.

[ftg]

Of course, what is "too big" is open for debate. How much do you like to bet on how big of an opening bankroll?

I really find your posting useful and informative. And I do believe MG is fair in some situation.

My first post actually addressed the "intelligence" the software built in to penalize those with some kind of patterns. I do find I contineously be penalized whenever I increase and keep increasing my bet size for the next couple of bets after a loss. (note that it's a couple of bets.)

This is also true for Baccarat.

Today I just finished a session of Baccarat with the following results:
Player 348
Banker 300
Tie 53

which means very normal. However let's look at closely the last 80 hands.


I am to blam myself as I became crazy at the last 80 hands betting only on Banker and the result is

Player 54
Banker 22
Tie 4

The last 80 hands is 3.9 sd below expection which means 1 in 20K event.

Notice that I have many example of this WHENEVER I increase (and continueouly increasing) bets in a lossing situation, no matter in Baccarat or in BJ.

Notice also whenever I am not betting like that (or varying bet size continueously up and down), that kind of SD have never happened.

[GrandMaster]

Save you playcheck logs in a spreadsheet. I am happy to analyze them to verify the percentages you claim.

I just thought about it and realised that I won't be able to extract the dealer's up card from the logs, so you will have to keep track of this yourself, but I can certainly look at losing streaks at the beginning of the sessions.

[Clayman]

My first post actually addressed the "intelligence" the software built in to penalize those with some kind of patterns. I do find I contineously be penalized whenever I increase and keep increasing my bet size for the next couple of bets after a loss. (note that it's a couple of bets.)

Thanks for your kind words.

I don't really know what to tell you except that I doubt whatever it is your going thru will continue forever.
Notwithstanding your last 80 hands at baccarat, which, btw, really were pretty unlucky to say the least, although 80 hands isn't alot of hands to draw a "rigged" conclusion from (at least in this case) , I find it difficult to accurately define the length of "increasing bets" or when they start, etc. In other words, you need to define your hypthesis a little more precisely.
You say stuff like "my recent loss of 10 or more hands in a straight all happened when I am increasing my bet size. I have never experienced such loss streak when I am flat-betting." Did you actually increase your bet each and every hand of those 10 hands in a row? When you say "But with MG, when I increase bet size, it ALWAYS happens the next 10-40 hands are loss >>>>>> wins. and never wins > loss.", I really wouldn't know how to verify that if I had your logs. Except I'm pretty sure I could find a streak where the next 10 thru 40 hands aren't ALWAYS loss > wins after an increased bet.
If you have logs, we can analyze them as best we can.
In the mean time, since you think the software is fair when you flat-bet, maybe do more flat-betting and fewer negative progressions or at least negative progressions of fewer hands.
Overall, while it may seem like the software is recognizing betting patterns, I still tend to doubt it since I win alot of bets when I increase my bet with MG.
And remember, at least in BJ, you ARE supposed to lose 4% more hands than you win. You only win like 43% of the hands, so don't expect it.

[ftg]

I don't really know what to tell you except that I doubt whatever it is your going thru will continue forever.

This has been continue up to now for months. Whenever I lost patience and increasing bets, the win/loss pattern will always like that:

LLLL
W
LLLLLL
W
LLLL
W
LLLLLLLLL
W
LLLLLLLLLLLL
W
LLLLLLL
.....

Between losse is mostly a signle win.

For my Baccarat reulsts, the last few hands:
LL W L W L W L W LLLLL W LL W LLL W LL WW LLLL W LLLLLL WWWW LLLLLLL WW LLLL W LLL W LLLLLLLL

Notwithstanding your last 80 hands at baccarat, which, btw, really were pretty unlucky to say the least,

The unlucky part is I have quite a lot of similar examples in MG's VSBJ and Baccarat.

In other software platform, with the same playing strategy, I did hit badly sometimes but sometimes I do win but with MG, no, it's a suicide.

Got to leave. will be back and continue some hours later.