Casino wants to know my salary

[Nifty29]

He's talking about system or strategy play Vinyl.

You can't advantage play a game with a house edge without a bonus....unless you exploit a game malfunction, in which case its cheating not advantage play.

[Markus]

He's talking about system or strategy play Vinyl.

You can't advantage play a game with a house edge without a bonus....unless you exploit a game malfunction, in which case its cheating not advantage play.

No I'm not talking about system or strategy play. I'm talking about playing a game with a player edge. Of course this player edge is not very obvious and a little bit more complicated, otherwise someone else would have found it much earlier. But it is not a game malfunction, because the game behaves in exact the same way the programmers intended it. It is a design misconcept which results in a player edge in certain circumstances. So I didn't cheated at all, I just did some advantage play.

[vinylweatherman]

No I'm not talking about system or strategy play. I'm talking about playing a game with a player edge. Of course this player edge is not very obvious and a little bit more complicated, otherwise someone else would have found it much earlier. But it is not a game malfunction, because the game behaves in exact the same way the programmers intended it. It is a design misconcept which results in a player edge in certain circumstances. So I didn't cheated at all, I just did some advantage play.

I did some research on the Wizard of Odds, and suspected Blackjack Switch to be the culprit, however the maths didn't stack up. Even with comps taken into account, the house still has a wafer thin edge. If the game CAN be beaten, then the WIZARD has got his maths wrong in his "perfect strategy" calculations.

However, it now seems that Playtech have begun removing this game, so it looks like this IS the game in question, and it must have been programmed with a slight variation to the intended rules that leads to this player edge.

This also proves that all this asking about salary and occupation was BULLSHIT from the start. Playtech had just found out what was going on with this game, and operators were getting rid of players who had been clever enough to spot it in case they were clever enough to exploit something else.

Since this was a rule error in a game, or at least an implementation error, Playtech didn't want this known, so operators needed to concoct excuses to get rid of players, and dared not void winnings in case the players went to adjudication which would force the operator to "come clean".

Unfortunately, mass removal of the offending game tells all, as it did back in 2006 when Microgaming had a similar +EV situation misprogramed into two of it's "classic" 3 reel slots. Operators concocted excuses to void winnings them and were even prepared to be thrown in the rogue pit rather than admit to Bryan the REAL reason they were voiding winnings. In the end they paid up to stay out of the pit, refusing to say any more than it being "illegitimate play that was not fraud", even though in many cases NO bonuses had been involved. The subsequent mass removal of the game most vulnerable to the exploit indicated what was REALLY going on, which turned out to be a new account initialisation error that meant the first session on the game was more or less guaranteed to be highly +EV.

I believe RTG once offered a Deuces Wild VP game on "full pay" which was slightly +EV, and took it down once too many players had learned the correct strategy.