BetVoyager online casino

[binary128]

Aha. And you call me long winded? You could have just posted:

Yes, seems like what I meant.

And we could have moved on.

Anyway, what I was trying to envision was a game interface where the actions of choosing your, and the dealers, cards was an enjoyable part of the game. Rather than selecting index numbers from drop-down lists, or some such system, the deck would be fanned across the table. (That's why a 6-deck or 8-deck shoe becomes a problem.)

I also thought that it would be nice if, when you clicked on a card in the fan, you saw what the card was at that time. (This part of the game is why it might prove to be a security nightmare.)

In other words, I was trying to design a game that incorporated your system but also approximated a real dealer dealing the cards, where you are the dealer. I think that something like this might actually be fun.

After all, games are supposed to be fun. Selecting 10 index integers from 10 drop down lists does not strike me as a whole lot of fun. As I said, after awhile it's "Enough of this shit, I just want to play some freakin' Pontoon."

The result would be that no matter how the deck was shuffled initially, you would be quaranteed to get a random and fair result, of course provided that you choose the indexes randomly enough yourself.

If the deck was properly "randomized", then I think your system would provide both a fair AND a random game regardless of the randomness of your choice of indexes.

In this slot each reel ...

I really only thought through the table card games and the video poker games, so I'm ill prepared to discuss how your system would best apply to slots. On this I take you at your word.

I hope you are being sarcastic here because this is not exactly rocket science...

I wasn't being sarcastic. It may not be rocket science, but it sure ain't 3rd grade math either. Until instructed otherwise, I will continue to refer to this as Your System.

I am sure all those problem issues above are valid.

Indeed they are, which is why I think that my previously listed "transparency steps" 1 through 5 remain necessary.

... three of the above "exclusions" except the last one are directly related to "bonus abuse", so it's quite easy for you to say that none of those are issues at Galewind because you don't offer any bonuses anyway! So no points from those, Chris!

I disagree. I think the only exclusion which isn't applicable without the "bonus model" is "spirit of the bonus".

I've read that Casinos don't want robots running as a "grind your way through the WR" tool. But I've also read they don't want robots running because of their "perfect play"; they want "human error" behind the client end. Which has nothing to do with bonuses.

(Of course, we've all read that the "robot exclusion" is just an "out clause" to not pay winners. I would have included this as just another chapter in the "Tin Foil Hat" codex but for the undeniable, and ongoing, history of this speculation proving true.)

I've never understood the "pattern betting exclusion" personally, but again I can't see your a --> b connection to bonuses.

So, I'd say that 3 out of the 4 that I listed still stand. I thus nominate Galewind Software for "Level 6 Transparency".

Chris

[KotDaVinci]

As for me, I am just a player like you. I don't work in the industry. I don't get paid for the posts I make about Betvoyager, or any posts for that matter. The stuff I posted is all my opinion as a player so I don't have the "working for competitor" position like SlotMonster or Chris here have, if that makes any difference for you.

I read a lot of yuor posts, Jufo, maybe all of them. They are not only sophisticated but easy to understand, they are also many-sided. Objectivity and fairness of your statements never made me think that you r one of 'them'. And if you still are, you must be one of the most delicate and diplomatic persons I've ever meat.
And, yes, it does make difference to me who I talk to. It is always interesting to learn, thats why I enjoy reading people like Chris or you, for instance. Just some things you take for granted, some things make you think in a new way, some things you get more sceptically. It all depends upon whether you speak to a genuin player or to an interested party.

[KotDaVinci]

Originally Posted by KotDaVinci :
[B] "I could have made a couple mistakes on poker, but Punto Banco and AR - how could I misplay, thus having increased their house edge? And finaly, how could have I lost more than expected on Blackjack where I play better than basic strategy?"

Aren't you exagerating, bloke? How can you possibly play better?

No, I am not exaggerating. Basic strategy is called 'basic' because it can be improved with a card count. Otherwise it would be called optimal or ideal.

[Jasminebed]

I just wanted to thank the participants in this very interesting thread. A lot of it is over my head, but I'm learning quite a bit here too.

[pratikpop]

well....when it comes to betvoyager it is the best casino...they have true randomness control Sha-256 algorithm....and it is the best casino i have ever played at...and it is fair...which is most important..for online gaming