32 Red randomness/shoe games

[Nobunaga]

Hey there everyone.Sell me on Red32 casino then.I am Canadian, so I am currently legal to play there and to play most games there.

Perhaps ownership of this casino, a manager, could end the debate on how traditional shoe games are being treated by online casinos.

Baccarat, Spanish 21, Blackjack, games that play out of a shoe in a physical casino.

Why isn't the same happening online?

Shoe games can be randomized, so why isn't this duplicated online, or the decks protected by cheaters in the same way that pokerstars.com has done for poker?

I play shoe games, and so I want more information about the why this online casino has done it differently, with a specific answer.

The people I have talked to offline would join a company like Red32, if they knew that the game would be fair just like their experience in a shoe game, or a non shoe game like craps, roulette, sic bo when played at a physical casino.

The term "randomization" gets thrown around in internet gaming, but there are lots of cons happening in online gaming too that say that there games are "randomized".

I hope that I will get an answer on here.I've even asked Casino Meister too, and he was too busy to comment on the shoe game topic.

I've also been told that these casinos track bets online by the players, so the "randomize" hand comes to clear their bets more often, because the programs is fixing the players situation.

It's like if you are a player who plays follow the banker in baccarat, and the software knew this and made sure that you would lose so much, when a group of player hands would be "randomized" against that player, in order to make that player forfeit their wagers.

A real casino, the shoe is random, their are laws against fixing of the shoes by players and casino, and there comes down to the truth, that the situation was random or not random.

Hope that someone from this company will give me a reply on how they determine randomness.

Thanks.

Nobunaga

 

[path]

Hi Everyone,

Nobunaga raises some interesting points (some of which are much discussed around these parts) and has asked for our comments.

Firstly, dealing with the randomness across all of our games. We are responsible for providing fair and reliable casino games but we have no influence (in any way, shape or form) over the payout percentage that the games deliver; that is the job of the Random Number Generator (RNG). The RNG delivers results randomly, doesnt consider the size of the bet (whether its 1, 10, 1,000 or even free play) nor does it recognise who the player is. It exists purely to churn out an outcome as random as man can make. Indeed, as a condition of our Remote Gambling Licence, we have to provide certification that the equipment used is tested in that it delivers a fair outcome. Given the role of the RNG, I trust that you can see that it is impossible for us to track players and randomise the outcome of any bet in order to make that player forfeit their wagers.

We offer many variants of Blackjack and Baccarat which are played in a range of decks from single up to eight. In an on-line environment the decks are shuffled at the completion of each individual game; an act which actually reduces the house edge in favour of the player (not my statistical analysis, but that of the wizardofodds).

If Nobunaga and his associates are not comfortable with the outcome that the RNG would produce versus that of a physical casino, may I suggest trying Live Dealer (a halfway house, if you like). We offer a number of versions of Baccarat in this format, where you view the Dealer via a live video feed. In this environment, there is a shuffle card placed in each deck and when the Dealer reaches this card, a new deck is then brought to the table. The swapping of the decks is then done in front of the camera for all to see. Each deck is stored and locked in its own case to prevent against any tampering of any kind.

I hope that allays any concerns that you may have but please feel free to PM me if you need any more information on this or any other matter.

 

[SlotMonster]

Great post, path! And what about "invariability" of the outcome?
Will you agree with statement, that even "fair" outcome can be simply changed to any other in favor of Casino? AFAIK, f.e. reel spinning on slots - it's just a visualization of received packets from casino server! And that's why I'm so confident, that every casino shoud implement "Randomness Control" for their games. More about RC option you can find here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Let me quote few questions:

Why is Randomness Control necessary?
BetVoyager uses Randomness Control so that you can be absolutely certain that the cards and their arrangement are completely random and have no connection to the size of your bet. Moreover, your can influence the random series that the server generates by cutting the deck or reordering the cards that are dealt.

What is the checksum and why is it necessary?
The checksum is a unique thread that is computed by applying predetermined mathematical operations to the entered data (for example, a series of letters and numbers that could represent a deck of cards or the numbers that are spun in roulette). Regardless of the size of the data entered, the checksum is always the same size.

A checksum is usually used to confirm the accuracy during data transfers through communication channels It is used in cryptography as a guarantee that a message hasnt been changed.

At BetVoyager RC uses the SHA-256 algorithm to determine the checksum.

What are the principles that are behind the idea of RC?
At the foundation of RC is the principle that the initial deck (for card games) or initial sequence of numbers (for roulette, the Wheel of Fortune and slots) does not change. After the initial deck (or sequence) is formulated and the computed checksum is shown to the player, the deck or the sequence doesnt change. Players can introduce additional randomness by cutting the deck or selecting the order of the deck (for card games) or by using shift option for roulette, the Wheel of Fortune and slots.

The checksum is used in RC for the same reason its used in cryptography: it guarantees that the initial data (the deck of cards or the sequence of numbers) doesnt change.

Can the casino play against to a players bet?
That is categorically impossible.

For card games: First of all, in card games the deck is formulated before you make a bet. After that, it is impossible to change the deck, in as much as it uses a well-known, publicly accessible algorithm to determine the checksum. Any attempt to alter the initial deck would completely change the checksum and be obvious to even first-time players. Secondly, you have the opportunity choose the order the cards are dealt yourself, determining the order cards are drawn.

For roulette, the Wheel of Fortune and slots: In the first place, you can formulate a sequence of numbers that is between 1 and 60 and those numbers cant be changed during the entire sequence. This is because the algorithm that determines the checksum, and, as written above, any slight changes would totally alter the checksum. Furthermore, you have the opportunity to use the shift option, which can be changed for each spin, in order to introduce additional randomness to the servers formulated values.

 

[SteveCut]

Path wrote:

Firstly, dealing with the randomness across all of our games. We are responsible for providing fair and reliable casino games but we have no influence (in any way, shape or form) over the payout percentage that the games deliver; that is the job of the Random Number Generator (RNG).

This is not true. The RNG has no say in the payout percentage. It's task is simply to generate random numbers.

The RNG delivers results randomly, doesnt consider the size of the bet (whether its 1, 10, 1,000 or even free play) nor does it recognise who the player is. It exists purely to churn out an outcome as random as man can make. Indeed, as a condition of our Remote Gambling Licence, we have to provide certification that the equipment used is tested in that it delivers a fair outcome. Given the role of the RNG, I trust that you can see that it is impossible for us to track players and randomise the outcome of any bet in order to make that player forfeit their wagers.

The RNG does not make it impossible to track players or influence the outcome of bets. It's true that it does not do this itself, but that is hardly the point. This is like saying that a car engine set to rev at 3000 r.p.m. guarantees that the car will progress at a constant speed! It ignores the rest of the car (gears, clutch, brakes etc.). You are ignoring the rest of the software where it would be perfectly possible to control these things. A perfect RNG is no guarantee of fairness!

We offer many variants of Blackjack and Baccarat which are played in a range of decks from single up to eight. In an on-line environment the decks are shuffled at the completion of each individual game; an act which actually reduces the house edge in favour of the player (not my statistical analysis, but that of the wizardofodds).

This is a very disingenuous statement. You must know very well that you do not shuffle the pack to reduce the house-edge and to give the players an advantage. You shuffle after every game to thwart card-counting and thereby protect the house-edge.

Regards
Steve

 

[SlotMonster]

Excellent post and comments, Steve!

 

[zuga]

Excellent post and comments, Steve!

i second that !!

 

[path]

Path wrote:

Good to see some lively and informed comments in response to my post.

I have tried to simplify what is a complex subject (take a look at SlotMonsters excellent post to see what I mean by complex) and apologies if my statements have been construed as misleading in any way.

I would just like to clarify the points raised by SteveCut.

This is not true. The RNG has no say in the payout percentage. It's task is simply to generate random numbers.

Fully agree and as I previously stated, the RNG exists solely to churn out an outcome as random as man can make.

The RNG does not make it impossible to track players or influence the outcome of bets. It's true that it does not do this itself, but that is hardly the point. This is like saying that a car engine set to rev at 3000 r.p.m. guarantees that the car will progress at a constant speed! It ignores the rest of the car (gears, clutch, brakes etc.). You are ignoring the rest of the software where it would be perfectly possible to control these things. A perfect RNG is no guarantee of fairness!

I like the analogy and sticking with that theme, if the engine isnt up to scratch then everything else is superfluous and the overall performance is greatly affected. I would just add that any computer equipment that we use to facilitate the gaming transaction is subject to the same Licence Condition as explained. I would re-iterate that we are unable to track and influence the outcome of any bet placed, based on previous outcomes and patterns of play.

This is a very disingenuous statement. You must know very well that you do not shuffle the pack to reduce the house-edge and to give the players an advantage. You shuffle after every game to thwart card-counting and thereby protect the house-edge.

I offered this fact up to illustrate the differences between land based and on line environments and to indicate that it was not necessarily a bad thing for the player excepting, of course, those who card count.

Cheers
Pat

 

[vinylweatherman]

Path wrote:

Good to see some lively and informed comments in response to my post.

I have tried to simplify what is a complex subject (take a look at SlotMonsters excellent post to see what I mean by complex) and apologies if my statements have been construed as misleading in any way.

I would just like to clarify the points raised by SteveCut.

This is not true. The RNG has no say in the payout percentage. It's task is simply to generate random numbers.

Fully agree and as I previously stated, the RNG exists solely to churn out an outcome as random as man can make.

The RNG does not make it impossible to track players or influence the outcome of bets. It's true that it does not do this itself, but that is hardly the point. This is like saying that a car engine set to rev at 3000 r.p.m. guarantees that the car will progress at a constant speed! It ignores the rest of the car (gears, clutch, brakes etc.). You are ignoring the rest of the software where it would be perfectly possible to control these things. A perfect RNG is no guarantee of fairness!

I like the analogy and sticking with that theme, if the engine isnt up to scratch then everything else is superfluous and the overall performance is greatly affected. I would just add that any computer equipment that we use to facilitate the gaming transaction is subject to the same Licence Condition as explained. I would re-iterate that we are unable to track and influence the outcome of any bet placed, based on previous outcomes and patterns of play.
This is a very disingenuous statement. You must know very well that you do not shuffle the pack to reduce the house-edge and to give the players an advantage. You shuffle after every game to thwart card-counting and thereby protect the house-edge.

I offered this fact up to illustrate the differences between land based and on line environments and to indicate that it was not necessarily a bad thing for the player excepting, of course, those who card count.

Cheers
Pat

No individual MG operator can do this, HOWEVER, there is nothing to prevent something like this to happen at the software level on the gaming server.

Often, despite randomness, MG games exhibit "cycles" of behaviour that just seem unvelievable, and looks like the game produces DIFFERENT outcomes from a repeat serving of the SAME random number series from the RNG.

For example, in one game of single deck blackjack, the RNG production of, say 35 would translate into the King of Clubs, but say the NEXT serving of 35 might produce the 3 of Hearts. This means that the RNG may be fully tested and certified random, but that there is another stage in the game engine that ALSO changes, or "randomises" outcomes, and this falls outside of the strict criteria used for certifying the RNG.

The main thing I have noticed myself is clustering. Take the slot Cabin Fever. The sun can sometimes turn up on the first reel every 2 to three spins, but at another time, it can go 100 spins and not appear once. This is what I call a "cycle". Further, when the sun keeps hitting, the chance of getting the free spins is greatly increased, and this indeed is the case. This makes it possible to attribute a "mood" to this slot, and if everything were 100% random, this would be impossible.

I once did an experiment ( I do quite a few of these), and played 80,000 hands of Vegas Strip Blackjack, betting 1 a hand and using the autoplay feature. I complete this in batches of 5000 hands, and at the end I was staring in utter disbelief at a PROFIT of 844
This is incredibly improbable, even more so when you consider that such runs are NOT unique, except that with MG Blackjack they normally proceed in the other direction, and at higher stakes.
Had I been staking 500 (the table max), I would have made a truly staggering profit, and quite possibly dealt quite a blow to the MG casino involved.
While I have never replicated this result, this is because I have not set up the same experiment since, it takes a fair bit of time.

Wager challenge events at some MG casinos however, provide the right environment for this kind of experiment, while at the same time taking part in a race.

Unfortunately, MGS software is too unreliable for long runs, as I am frequently booted from either the games, or the entire casino, which means all results are lost before I can note them down.

 

[Grey]

Firstly, dealing with the randomness across all of our games. We are responsible for providing fair and reliable casino games but we have no influence (in any way, shape or form) over the payout percentage that the games deliver; that is the job of the Random Number Generator (RNG). The RNG delivers results randomly, doesnt consider the size of the bet (whether its 1, 10, 1,000 or even free play) nor does it recognise who the player is. It exists purely to churn out an outcome as random as man can make. Indeed, as a condition of our Remote Gambling Licence, we have to provide certification that the equipment used is tested in that it delivers a fair outcome. Given the role of the RNG, I trust that you can see that it is impossible for us to track players and randomise the outcome of any bet in order to make that player forfeit their wagers.

The interesting point of view, but I have one question.
How we can check your words?

 

[SlotMonster]

The interesting point of view, but I have one question.
How we can check your words?

There is no way to check it, and I more than sure about it.
The only one method to prove, maybe not only randomness, but invariability too, is Randomness Control! And pre-formulated sequence - the best way to prove that your bet size doesn't matter!

 

[Jufo]

There is no way to check it, and I more than sure about it.
The only one method to prove, maybe not only randomness, but invariability too, is Randomness Control! And pre-formulated sequence - the best way to prove that your bet size doesn't matter!

Yes, Microgaming should include some kind of Randomness Control into their software. Listen Path, maybe 32Red could be industry leader in this aspect and be the first one to include randomness verification. I am sure you see from the posts here that this is a very big issue with players. Maybe you could ask Microgaming whether such feature would be possible to implement?

 

[SlotMonster]

Yes, Microgaming should include some kind of Randomness Control into their software. Listen Path, maybe 32Red could be industry leader in this aspect and be the first one to include randomness verification. I am sure you see from the posts here that this is a very big issue with players. Maybe you could ask Microgaming whether such feature would be possible to implement?

It's not only about Microgaming casinos. I truly believe, that Randomness Control should be developed and implemented in every online-casino!
And it's not the case, when Casino Manager come to us say "Our casino is fair because we have great CS, many deposit options, we treat our customers like Kings, and we pay fast". For me good reputation doesn't mean that Casino's RND produce "fair" outcome and Casino cannot change (or doesn't change) game results while play.

 

[aka23]

If a casino were to cheat, I doubt it would have anything to do with a faulty RNG. It would be unnecessarily awkward to change to the core RNG. Instead it's more an issue of how the RNG is used or not used. For example, a software provider could manipulate a blackjack game by programming the software to draw a random card from the deck (using RNG), then discard that card if it caused a dealer bust and draw a new random card (using RNG). A software could also make the outcome of a BJ game like a weighted slot, instead of a deck of cards. The weighted slot would still use a fair RNG, but it wouldn't play like a deck of cards.

 

[vinylweatherman]

If a casino were to cheat, I doubt it would have anything to do with a faulty RNG. It would be unnecessarily awkward to change to the core RNG. Instead it's more an issue of how the RNG is used or not used. For example, a software provider could manipulate a blackjack game by programming the software to draw a random card from the deck (using RNG), then discard that card if it caused a dealer bust and draw a new random card (using RNG). A software could also make the outcome of a BJ game like a weighted slot, instead of a deck of cards. The weighted slot would still use a fair RNG, but it wouldn't play like a deck of cards.

This had indeed happened.

One casino I joined had top notch service, paid faster than iNetBet, and had a 100% bonus on EVERY DEPOSIT. It worked like EZBonus, and released bonus funds at 2.5% and this INCLUDED BLACKJACK.


After a while, I got just a bit suspicions that I could NEVER seem to make WR, even on Blackjack. Interestingly the dealer played like MGS blackjack, forever getting Ace up, 20s and Blackjacks. Further the game had a SHOE!!!! The rules stipulated that there was NO reshuffle until the shuffle card was reached. I calculated the house edge with their rules to be around 0.0045%, far too low to explain NEVER being able to beat it with a 2.5% bonus redemption.
I bought a blackjack strategy program that worked on a shoe game, and tried it, and it seemed the results went the other way. The application suggested strategy based on remaining shoe composition.

I thought I would then gather data to see if I could "bust" them, but sadly I was beaten to it, they WENT BUST

Later, someone pointed out their Deuces Wild VP paid 111%, (and you could use the 100% bonus on it), so clearly something was up.

I just had my ass bitten, that's what was up

Cheating software, yet they went on about their RNG....etc.......

If I now see patterns that just "beggar belief", I think back to this 2004/5 episode, and it can be hard to convince me there is nothing to find.

Episodes like the MiniVegas "illegitimate play" fiasco come along and reinforce this view. This episode would never have happened if the games were perfectly random.

MY curious BJ experiment, 80,000 hands and 844 units ahead - simply beggars belief, and all this happens to ME, a single player.

Because of the secrecy surrounding how games calculate their outcomes, the impression is given that there is something to hide. The "might help our competitors" doesn't wash, since the method of deriving the outcome should be mathematics, not "commercial secrecy", and the mathematics is available at any good university.

 

[SlotMonster]

After a while, I got just a bit suspicions that I could NEVER seem to make WR, even on Blackjack. Interestingly the dealer played like MGS blackjack, forever getting Ace up, 20s and Blackjacks. Further the game had a SHOE!!!! The rules stipulated that there was NO reshuffle until the shuffle card was reached. I calculated the house edge with their rules to be around 0.0045%, far too low to explain NEVER being able to beat it with a 2.5% bonus redemption.

vinyl, I think it's too obvious that casino is cheating. And it's obvious, that any casino should have (and even must have) certificated RNG to froduce "fair" outcome and Randomness Control to prove that "fair" outcome wasn't changed while playing. Combination of these two factors (certificated RNG + Randomness Control) will guarantee hundred-per-cent fairness of the Casino. And it's very-very-very BAD, that there is still ONLY ONE casino, which GUARANTEE that its games totally fair and game results could be easily checked!

 

[Jufo]

vinyl, I think it's too obvious that casino is cheating. And it's obvious, that any casino should have (and even must have) certificated RNG to froduce "fair" outcome and Randomness Control to prove that "fair" outcome wasn't changed while playing. Combination of these two factors (certificated RNG + Randomness Control) will guarantee hundred-per-cent fairness of the Casino. And it's very-very-very BAD, that there is still ONLY ONE casino, which GUARANTEE that its games totally fair and game results could be easily checked!

To be fair, the randomness control only verifies that the outcome is not affected by bet size. The randomness control doesn't guarantee for example that dealt cards are randomly picked.

 

[SlotMonster]

To be fair, the randomness control only verifies that the outcome is not affected by bet size. The randomness control doesn't guarantee for example that dealt cards are randomly picked.

Reread my post again, Jufo. It was clearly said that:

Combination of these two factors (certificated RNG + Randomness Control) will guarantee hundred-per-cent fairness of the Casino.

Not certificated RNG will guarantee this, and not Randonmess Control, but certificated RNG plus Randomness Control.

 

[Jufo]

Reread my post again, Jufo. It was clearly said that:

Hmph, certificated RNG doesn't quarantee fairness like it doesn't at any other casino with certificated RNG. RNG + Randomness control only quarantees that the outcome is independent of what you bet, but the software can still manipulate what the outcome is.

Suppose that the certified RNG in Video Poker gives: Jack (clubs), Queen (clubs), King (clubs), Ace (clubs), Ten (clubs).

How can you be certain that the software doesn't interfere and give you

Jack (clubs), Queen (clubs), King (clubs), Ace (clubs), Ten (spades)

 

[GrandMaster]

vinyl, I think it's too obvious that casino is cheating. And it's obvious, that any casino should have (and even must have) certificated RNG to froduce "fair" outcome and Randomness Control to prove that "fair" outcome wasn't changed while playing. Combination of these two factors (certificated RNG + Randomness Control) will guarantee hundred-per-cent fairness of the Casino. And it's very-very-very BAD, that there is still ONLY ONE casino, which GUARANTEE that its games totally fair and game results could be easily checked!

Do you have some kind of financial interest in that casino or in "Randomness Control"? "Randomness control" only proves that say, in a card game, the order of the cards was not changed from the previously generated shuffle. Even if the RNG is certified fair, it still does not mean that the numbers are converted to cards in a fair way. Furthermore, it is also possible for a casino to select a card at random from the remaining one whenever a new card is needed, without generating the whole shuffle in advance. The only method I l know that guarantees fairness for the player without having to trust external certifying agencies is Fairdice.

 

[SlotMonster]

RNG + Randomness control only quarantees that the outcome is independent of what you bet

Well, first of all, almost all casinos cannot guarantee even this.
The second thing is, even if what you said was true (about changing cards) - I doubt anyone were still playing at casinos.

Edit: GrandMaster, I don't have any financial interest. I have only personal interest to be able to play at casino and be sure, that this Casino doesn't cheat or change play.

Furthermore, it is also possible for a casino to select a card at random from the remaining one whenever a new card is needed, without generating the whole shuffle in advance.

It's impossible. Changing order of cards appearance will cause changing of checksum given before game.

 

[GrandMaster]

Furthermore, it is also possible for a casino to select a card at random from the remaining one whenever a new card is needed, without generating the whole shuffle in advance.

It's impossible. Changing order of cards appearance will cause changing of checksum given before game.

That's not what I meant. The casino does not have to shuffle the whole deck in advance. An alternative and perfectly legitimate way of dealing the cards is to select one card at random from the remaining cards whenever a card is required. It is like having the card in the shuffler, and just stopping the shuffler and taking the top card each time. The randomness control does not work for this situation.

 

[Jufo]

The only method I l know that guarantees fairness for the player without having to trust external certifying agencies is Fairdice.

I browsed through the Fairdice thread back from 2004 (https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/fairdice-game-testing.5342/)

So what happened to this project? Casinos were not interested? I would think that there is a customer demand for such a resolution, if only some casino would be the first one to try it.

 

[SlotMonster]

That's not what I meant. The casino does not have to shuffle the whole deck in advance. An alternative and perfectly legitimate way of dealing the cards is to select one card at random from the remaining cards whenever a card is required. It is like having the card in the shuffler, and just stopping the shuffler and taking the top card each time. The randomness control does not work for this situation.

Yes, you are right, but doing this way will cause too many questions.

 

[Grey]

To be fair, the randomness control only verifies that the outcome is not affected by bet size. The randomness control doesn't guarantee for example that dealt cards are randomly picked.

Your can influence the random series that the server generates by cutting the deck or reordering the cards that are dealt at the card games.

 

[Jufo]

Do you have some kind of financial interest in that casino or in "Randomness Control"? "Randomness control" only proves that say, in a card game, the order of the cards was not changed from the previously generated shuffle. Even if the RNG is certified fair, it still does not mean that the numbers are converted to cards in a fair way. Furthermore, it is also possible for a casino to select a card at random from the remaining one whenever a new card is needed, without generating the whole shuffle in advance. The only method I l know that guarantees fairness for the player without having to trust external certifying agencies is Fairdice.

At BetVoyager the whole deck(s) are shuffled in advance in card games. The complete ordering of the deck(s) can be viewed after each hand. The player can choose an arbitrary cutting point of the shuffled deck. It seems random and fair enough for me to trust it, and my overall results are completely within expectations. However, the randomness control would be even better if in addition to cutting the deck you could choose the indexes of each card picked, for example in Video Poker when having Four to a royal, you could order that card #23 is the replacement card instead of just next card from the shuffled deck.