BJ and statistics

[Flavio4321]

Every time someone says that online BJ is rigged, it is mostly because of a bad streak. After this person says ...." I lost 40 units in 300 hands ".... , someone in this forum tells this guy that losing 40 units in 300 hands is less than losing 2 SD so it is just bad luck. So a question came to my mind, how many hands do I need to lose to say that BJ is rigged at this "cheat" casino?. And I started to make numbers.
Let "cheat" casino have a BJ wich is supposed to have a house hedge of 0.49%. But the evil manager of "cheat" casino decides to make a little change on his software, so their BJ game has now a house edge of 1% (double profit for the casino), and SD of 1.2 like regular BJ. I deposit my money on this "cheat" casino and I play 10000 hands of BJ ( $1 dollar each hand for simplicity). I will lose normally something like (10000*0.01=100) 100 units. After losing I will post in this forum and someone like me will reply one more time.. You lose 100 units in 10000 hands, that´s just 0.5 SD below spectations ( this smart guy is doing math with house edge 0.49% ). So I decide that it was just bad luck and I continue playing at this place that it is cheating and stealing money.
My point is, even with 10000 hands which is a lot for 1 person I think is very difficult to decide if a casino is rigged, So how do you decide where to play? where is the limit to the kind of answers .." just 2 SD below expectations"..?
Do you trust in the numbers that big software providers tells us in their websites?

(of course my math maybe wrong and don´t judge my english, but I think my ponit remains valid)

[nafanny29]

I think it is very hard to detect cheating even with a large sample of hands if the casino is only adding 0.5% to their profit.

Im not convinced there are many casinos that deal truely random blackjack out there. Every different software seems to play differently and you get used to seeing the same sort of things on each type.

I cant figure out exactly why they "feel" non random but over many hands of blackjack online I can honestly say its not the same as real live play. I know its 10 times faster online hence many more hands/streaks etc but IMHO online blackjack is "controlled" in some way at most casinos.

Just my 2c

[caruso]

Do you trust in the numbers that big software providers tells us in their websites?

If you're mentally deficient, yes.

There is no way to prove anything unless the game is so heavily fixed that a relatively limited amount of data yields compelling figures, and this is quite a rarity. If you want a fair game, gamble at bricks & mortar casinos. You have no protection whatsoever online. Assume you are being cheated, because you probably are. In the olden days, Microgaming most certainly cheated at their blackjack game (there was MUCH player consensus on this), and I have compelling word of mouth evidence (uncorroboratable) that RTG were stone cold certified as cheating a few years back. Although my own results have been acceptable, I have seen such idiotic results from Crypto players as to be very convinced that the software can be manipulated. In my own unproveable opinion, Boss Media cheats beyond question and Playtech is not far behind. I have evidence (ie. proveable) that Gambling Federation cheats which is almost beyond question (5 SDs - Casino Bar was 6.8).

Considering the absurd risks involved, why anyone would gamble online for the sheer hell of it is an absolute mystery to me.

[Flavio4321]

Both, caruso and nafanny29, have their reasons to believe that casinos are rigged. But non of them can PROVE or ar least give mathematical evidence of this. ( keep Gambling Federation aside ). I am looking for ideas on how to prove this, because if we can´t show some evidence there are a lot of people that are going to continue gambling online and loosing money.

I don´t like to say something that I can´t prove, and as a science student It is my " way of life ". So I don´t want to say this casino is rigged if can´t put evidence on that.

( Of course I can´t prove that casinos are honest either, but you know, everybody is innocent until they are proven guilty )

[caruso]

The best possible thing that could happen to the online gambling scene in terms of player protection against cheating software would be the development and implementation of the Fairdice project. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be something which is going to happen any time soon since it's a part-time venture for the folk running it. I've tried to get an idea of the stage they're at currently, but communication with them has been patchy to say the least.

There was discussion at WOL:

http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=17131

Their website: http://fairdice.sourceforge.net

Until they get up and running (if they ever do), one is left with the PriceWaterhouseCooper "software audits" - and I cannot think of any better reason than that to push for the Fairdice project's successful implementation and acceptance. It would be an enormous move in the players' favour.

[Freudian]

You don't need a huge sample size to show something is off, since the results have to be so extreme to show a deviation of 3+ SD (which is when you should start paying attention) if you have a smaller sample size. All a statistical analysis tells us is how likely something is. We ourselves have to make up our minds on how to interpret an unlikely event.

And of course I don't trust the numbers the operators tell me. I may be more inclined to trust the numbers of a specific operator based on my own and others experience with them, of course. But even the biggest scum among operators will tell you numbers that look fine.

[nafanny29]

Another discussion on the riggedness or not of online gambling. Im a firm believer of the fact that "nothing online is exactly as it seems" but I frequently gamble on the net!!

I am with Caruso on the Fairdice project, or any conclusive study/proof that online casinos/software are rigged or not.

I fear that when a detailed analysis is made of the major players/software platforms, it will result in a unanimous "yes its rigged" verdict.

On a UK side note, once online gaming is regulated and allowed in the UK no casino registered here will be able to get away with cheating thats for sure, the one thing the Brit government are VERY good at is regulation and control.

[Clayman]

I don´t like to say something that I can´t prove, ... So I don´t want to say this casino is rigged if can´t put evidence on that.

Me neither.

When I first started playing a million dollars ago I had no idea what to expect. I knew nothing, absolutely nothing, about probability, standard deviations, etc. I barely understood house advantage.

I'm so paranoid, I recorded the actual cards dealt because I figured they could doctor the logs with different cards.
I was so paranoid I considered video taping the monitor because no one would believe me if what I said differed from the logs.
I'm still so paranoid if I don't see all 8 decks spread out at a table before I play I'm likely to think a couple of 5's have fallen on the floor.
After a while I realized the logs always agreed with what I said and they at least weren't changing the logs on me. So I just stuck with recording the results of hands since I had to know how much I wagered anyway. It was the only defense I could figure for when they would cheat me. And, believe me, I knew they would. I figured in this way at least I could prove they cheated me when they did.

So I just kept writing down my W's & L's and, as the column grew longer and longer and I picked a little up here and there off the Internet, a funny thing happened. I slowly noticed, much to my surprise, things were pretty darn close to how they were suppposed to be.

This, while nice, proved nothing to me. Even so, I could be just lucky or, if by some chance they weren't cheating, they could start at any time and I wanted to know when they did. So I continued writing my W's & L's. And my column grew longer and longer.

Eventually I got more sophisticated and made separate columns for each different software provider and for the different BJ games within each. This way I figured I'd know better exactly which provider was cheating me and in which game. Unfortunately, even then, every game came out pretty close to where it should. Sure I'm over 3 standard deviations to the good in Micro single-deck but I'm over 2 SD down in Crypto multi-deck. It still proves nothing but it's all I have.

The only reason I record a hand at all is so I can catch them cheating me when they do. I don't really care what Price Waterhouse or True Gambler or ecogra says, what the casino says, or, for the most part, what other people say, though hopefully I listen to all of them with an open mind. Ultimately, it's an act of faith what you choose to believe but a little evidence can't hurt.

So my column continues to grow one hand at at a time, and, while I will never know whether someone else is ever cheated or not, I hope at least I will know when I am.

[jetset]

QUOTE I listen to all of them with an open mind UNQUOTE

Clayman, this is one of the reasons why I always read your posts with close attention and respect - they are invariably balanced, reasoned and based on experience and recorded fact over time, rather than unproved but confidently voiced assertions and *gut feels*.

The concept of effective, independent and ongoing monitoring and analysis of gambling softwares, preferably through an unbiased, properly administered, practical and thoroughly tested player input system has real value, if only to reassure players baffled by the often conflicting opinions of posters. There is obvious player appeal in showing that particular softwares meet acceptable standards of fairness over time in a system that obviates any perceived conflict of interest i.r.o. operators or software suppliers.

However, it does not appear that this is going to evolve just yet. We have seen the TG system languish after some pretty alarming faux pas and underfunding, and the Fairdice system (which I introduced as a topic on WOL I believe) does not seem to have advanced much beyond the realm of enthusiastic amateurs in development, verification or implementation.

Bethug of the OPU has now come forward with a presumably contracted and qualified expert using undisclosed methods to carry out a technical study that will eventually be presented by Bethug, allegedly to obviate operators "buying it out" (and btw I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that industry people have *bought out* testing initiatives to keep them off the market, attractive as that idea might be to those who want to believe that online gambling is one huge scam.)

I think I will continue for now to rely on the opinions of recognised and trusted experts who back conclusions with detailed evidence, and the results of professional analysis of massive amounts of data on every single transaction to which PricewaterhouseCoopers put their not inconsequential name and international reputation.

[Vesuvio]

I must admit all inclination I had to believe that Bethug, however misguided, really had the player's best interests at heart disappeared when I saw the new website for his 'system' which asks for credit card details & charges a 'processing' fee. It also seems to have some sort of guarantee system which will encourage players who've been successful to donate part of their winnings - a common scam with progressive systems as players will more often that not win money in the short term. Unfortunately giving money to someone else just increases the long term losses.

Getting back to the fairness of on-line BJ - except for one or two providers I think you do get long term results in the expected range, but I don't trust any of them to deal random cards each hand. It must be possible to somehow test the true randomness of RNGs - it always annoyed me about the PWC reports that all they looked at was the correct results long term and over a 'reasonable' shorter period of time. Couldn't they hire a computer programmer (or statistical analyst) to look at the actual functioning of the RNG?

What we really need is for someone in the know to spill the beans on exactly how casino software functions - something which the majority of casino owners probably don't have a clue about. Perhaps the closest we got was when one group of casinos defected from Microgaming claiming concerns over the RNG. They did defect to Playtech, though