BJ Streak at SandsOftheCaribbean

[two_card]

Sands of the Caribbean BJ.

At the end of the session - 2 pushes - then 22 losers in a row.
Checked the playlog details.

New record for me (Land base or online)

Flat betting $5

 

[caruso]

That's a nice 104,000,000 to one probablity.

Post those logs, TwoCard.

 

[sw2003]

I thought 22 losses was like a 1 in 4.19 million event! More probable than 1 in 100 million but still not likely.

 

[caruso]

My mistake, I was looking at the win figure.

Try again: just under 1 in 11,000,000.

 

[nafanny29]

1 in 11 MILLION!!!!! that = RIGGED in my book!!!

I had a similar experiance on "Super" vegas casino where the dealer did not bust in 52 hands. Must be well overdue to win the lottery hey??

 

[two_card]

Sands BJ Logs

Hand # 425
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 10 Clubs, King Hearts (20)
Dealer's cards showing: Queen Spades
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: Queen Spades, King Diamonds (20)
The result was: push
Your new balance: 431.50 USD

Hand # 426
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 5 Clubs, 2 Spades (7)
Dealer's cards showing: Ace Diamonds
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 5 Clubs, 2 Spades, Queen Hearts (17)
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: Ace Diamonds, 6 Spades (7/17)
The result was: push
Your new balance: 431.50 USD

Hand # 427
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: Jack Spades, Jack Hearts (20)
Dealer's cards showing: Ace Diamonds
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: Ace Diamonds, 5 Diamonds, 5 Hearts (11/21)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 426.50 USD

Hand # 428
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 8 Clubs, 6 Hearts (14)
Dealer's cards showing: 5 Clubs
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 5 Clubs, Queen Diamonds, 2 Spades (17)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 421.50 USD

Hand # 429
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 7 Clubs, 3 Clubs (10)
Dealer's cards showing: 6 Diamonds
Your response: DOUBLE DOWN
Your new hand: 7 Clubs, 3 Clubs, 3 Clubs (13)
Dealer's hand: 6 Diamonds, 3 Spades, Ace Hearts (10/20)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 411.50 USD

Hand # 430
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: Queen Clubs, 7 Diamonds (17)
Dealer's cards showing: 9 Diamonds
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 9 Diamonds, Queen Clubs (19)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 406.50 USD

Hand # 431
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 9 Hearts, 10 Diamonds (19)
Dealer's cards showing: 4 Diamonds
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 4 Diamonds, 9 Clubs, 2 Hearts, 5 Diamonds (20)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 401.50 USD

Hand # 432
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 9 Clubs, 8 Clubs (17)
Dealer's cards showing: Queen Diamonds
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: Queen Diamonds, 10 Spades (20)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 396.50 USD

Hand # 433
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: Jack Clubs, 2 Clubs (12)
Dealer's cards showing: 9 Diamonds
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: Jack Clubs, 2 Clubs, Jack Hearts (BUST)
Dealer's hand: 9 Diamonds, 7 Spades (16)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 391.50 USD

Hand # 434
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 5 Diamonds, 2 Diamonds (7)
Dealer's cards showing: 6 Hearts
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 5 Diamonds, 2 Diamonds, 9 Hearts (16)
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 6 Hearts, 3 Hearts, 10 Spades (19)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 386.50 USD

Hand # 435
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 2 Spades, Jack Spades (12)
Dealer's cards showing: 7 Hearts
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 2 Spades, Jack Spades, 2 Spades (14)
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 2 Spades, Jack Spades, 2 Spades, 8 Clubs (BUST)
Dealer's hand: 7 Hearts, 9 Hearts (16)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 381.50 USD

Hand # 436
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 6 Clubs, 6 Hearts (12)
Dealer's cards showing: Ace Hearts
Dealer's hand: Ace Hearts, Jack Clubs (BLACKJACK)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 376.50 USD

Hand # 437
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 7 Clubs, King Hearts (17)
Dealer's cards showing: King Spades
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: King Spades, 3 Spades, 5 Spades (18)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 371.50 USD

Hand # 438
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 5 Hearts, Ace Diamonds (6/16)
Dealer's cards showing: 8 Diamonds
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 5 Hearts, Ace Diamonds, 6 Spades (12)
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 5 Hearts, Ace Diamonds, 6 Spades, King Diamonds (BUST)
Dealer's hand: 8 Diamonds, Jack Spades (18)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 366.50 USD

Hand # 439
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 6 Hearts, 8 Spades (14)
Dealer's cards showing: 4 Hearts
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 4 Hearts, 6 Diamonds, 3 Spades, 2 Spades, 6 Spades (21)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 361.50 USD

Hand # 440
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: King Spades, 5 Diamonds (15)
Dealer's cards showing: 2 Clubs
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 2 Clubs, Ace Hearts, 8 Diamonds (11/21)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 356.50

Hand # 441
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 6 Diamonds, Jack Clubs (16)
Dealer's cards showing: 10 Spades
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 6 Diamonds, Jack Clubs, King Clubs (BUST)
Dealer's hand: 10 Spades, 4 Hearts (14)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 351.50 USD

Hand # 442
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: King Clubs, 6 Clubs (16)
Dealer's cards showing: Jack Spades
Dealer's hand: Jack Spades, Ace Hearts (BLACKJACK)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 346.50 USD

Hand # 443
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: Jack Spades, 9 Hearts (19)
Dealer's cards showing: 3 Clubs
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 3 Clubs, 10 Diamonds, 8 Hearts (21)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 341.50 USD

Hand # 444
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: Jack Clubs, 8 Spades (18)
Dealer's cards showing: 3 Hearts
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 3 Hearts, 7 Hearts, King Spades (20)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 336.50 USD

Hand # 445
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 10 Spades, 7 Diamonds (17)
Dealer's cards showing: 6 Diamonds
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 6 Diamonds, 5 Diamonds, 9 Hearts (20)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 331.50 USD

Hand # 446
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 3 Clubs, 3 Diamonds (6)
Dealer's cards showing: 10 Diamonds
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 3 Clubs, 3 Diamonds, Ace Spades (7/17)
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 3 Clubs, 3 Diamonds, Ace Spades, 6 Hearts (13)
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 3 Clubs, 3 Diamonds, Ace Spades, 6 Hearts, 3 Clubs (16)
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 10 Diamonds, 8 Diamonds (18)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 326.50 USD

Hand # 447
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 8 Diamonds, 7 Spades (15)
Dealer's cards showing: 8 Clubs
Your response: HIT
Your new hand: 8 Diamonds, 7 Spades, 9 Spades (BUST)
Dealer's hand: 8 Clubs, Queen Clubs (18)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 321.50 USD

Hand # 448
Your bet was: 5 USD
Your cards: 10 Hearts, 6 Diamonds (16)
Dealer's cards showing: 4 Clubs
Your response: STAND
Dealer's hand: 4 Clubs, 3 Spades, Jack Hearts (17)
The result was: dealer won
Your new balance: 316.50 USD

 

[mitch]

Sands of the Caribbean BJ.

At the end of the session - 2 pushes - then 22 losers in a row.
Checked the playlog details.

New record for me (Land base or online)

Flat betting $5

Wow! two card that is unlucky! Never hit such a bad beat in my whole time gambling. You must be at the far end of the unlucky curve. Good job you were flat betting I would have lost way more.

You had better be careful crossing the road for the next few days mate.

Decided to go into the Sands and play a few hands of Bj after this post ( I am a VIP member there and it's one of my favorite casinos) sorry to tell you mate I ended up winning so it looks like you are soaking up the bad luck for the rest of us.

Mitch

"win don't gamble"

 

[DealerBusts]

Thats one hell of a losing streak. My worst was 18 with pushes in between. Incidentally i lost 22 units this month at Sands but it was over 350 hands rather than your 22

I noticed that on hand #446, you didn't hit your multi-card 16 vs dealer 10. With the luck that you were having, i doubt it would have made much difference

 

[sw2003]

I am surprise that he had the patience to wait through it! I would have logged off half way through with that kind of nonsense rather than staying to discover how long the losing streak was!

Does Sand of Cabb use OddsOn software?

 

[mitch]

I noticed that on hand #446, you didn't hit your multi-card 16 vs dealer 10. With the luck that you were having, i doubt it would have made much difference

I noticed that as well but it's one of the very few situations where it doesn't matter very much if you deviate from BS, especially if you have a few cards out there. I dont blame "two card" too much when he is trying to beat such a bad streak.

Mitch

 

[two_card]

Originally Posted by DealerBusts
"I noticed that on hand #446, you didn't hit your multi-card 16 vs dealer 10. With the luck that you were having, i doubt it would have made much difference"

Stanford Wong's book says to stand on 16 v 10 if the count per deck is >= zero.

 

[DealerBusts]

I am surprise that he had the patience to wait through it! I would have logged off half way through with that kind of nonsense rather than staying to discover how long the losing streak was!

Does Sand of Cabb use OddsOn software?

It uses Crypto. Cryptologic still has the fairest internet BJ imo and like all internet BJ, it tends to be streaky. I played Crypto BJ regularly for the past 3 years and have seen it swing both ways. Those monthly bonuses are still my bread and butter for income. My largest loss and longest losing streak online have been on Crypto BJ, which maybe is not so surprising since i play it more than any other casino software.

 

[sw2003]

Originally Posted by DealerBusts
"I noticed that on hand #446, you didn't hit your multi-card 16 vs dealer 10. With the luck that you were having, i doubt it would have made much difference"

Stanford Wong's book says to stand on 16 v 10 if the count per deck is >= zero.

But don't they shuffle the cards after every round? What is the use of counting cards here? Of course it won't change your 22 losing streak either way!

 

[DealerBusts]

Originally Posted by DealerBusts
"I noticed that on hand #446, you didn't hit your multi-card 16 vs dealer 10. With the luck that you were having, i doubt it would have made much difference"

Stanford Wong's book says to stand on 16 v 10 if the count per deck is >= zero.

Do you mean >0?

It doesn't matter much anyway and I don't mean to takes anything away from what was an incredible losing streak.

I also count at the tables and from my experience, there is hardly any noticeble difference whether the count is 0 or 1-3. I do try to leave the table when the count is -1 to give myself a bit more assurance and counting does take away some of the boredom of flatbetting and justify the occasional raise in bet (which i seem to lose more than my fair share). Anyway i'm digressing.

 

[two_card]

"Professional Blackjack" - Stanford Wong -Pi Yee Press - 1994
P.43 - Table 8

Hard 16 v 10

Stand if the count per deck equals or exceeds the number (in this case the number in the table is zero); hit if the count per deck is less than the number.

On hand #446 the count is +2 as this is the first hand of a new shuffle.

I just play as best I can.

 

[frafi]

count?

I wonder why some of you count on an online casino.
Is this not worthless? Do they not shuffle of each round?

 

[GrandMaster]

Thats one hell of a losing streak. My worst was 18 with pushes in between. Incidentally i lost 22 units this month at Sands but it was over 350 hands rather than your 22

I noticed that on hand #446, you didn't hit your multi-card 16 vs dealer 10. With the luck that you were having, i doubt it would have made much difference

According to the BJ analyzer at

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

, the expected value of standing is -0.5429, the expected value of hitting is -0.5430, so standing is just a tiny bit better.

 

[KasinoKing]

Sod the maths! That run was DIABOLICAL!

Better luck next time, Two_card

 

[Stanford]

According to the BJ analyzer at

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

, the expected value of standing is -0.5429, the expected value of hitting is -0.5430, so standing is just a tiny bit better.

What a neat site, GrandMaster. Yes, player had his stuff together.

I read an article a long time ago where a study was done that said if a non counting player would just hit 16 v 10 any time his multi card 16 contained a 4 or a 5, then he would be a bit better than Basic Strategy. A tiny bit.

That makes sense that this particular hand would be very sensitive to 4s and 5s.

If I was the player, I would send those logs to the Wizard of Odds for comment.

Stanford.

 

[CJack]

Please show the math to get the probability of this happening.
Is it the probabilty of no wins in 24 hands or 22 losers in a row or both ?

What is the probability limit to determine a BJ game is non-random ?
1 in a million - 10 million ??

A non-random game does not always mean a cheating casino - but could be an error in the programming they are not aware of.

 

[bethug]

What casino was this

 

[two_card]

What casino was this

SandsOftheCaribbean

 

[caruso]

Please show the math to get the probability of this happening.
Is it the probabilty of no wins in 24 hands or 22 losers in a row or both?

The prob. of 22 losing hands is the prob. of one losing hand X prob of 2nd, X 3rd etc. - which should be 0.479^22, which is a little short of one in eleven million.

What is the probability limit to determine a BJ game is non-random ?
1 in a million - 10 million??

None. What is "realistically probable" is a better guideline. If it's 3 SDs out, it's horrible but acceptable; four: you can raise a legitimate eyebrow; five: something is almost certainly wrong; six: rigged beyond any question.

The Casino Bar experiment was, I believe, about 6 SDs out.

My own Gambling Federation experience was 5 SDs out.

And FTR, Two Card's 22 hand dry run comes in at just over 4 SDs.

 

[eek]

I thought that Casinobar was nailed by a specific procedure for determining whether they were dealing seconds.


I'm sure I recall the Wiz writing about it.

 

[kangamick]

The prob. of 22 losing hands is the prob. of one losing hand X prob of 2nd, X 3rd etc. - which should be 0.479^22, which is a little short of one in eleven million.

That is unreal