Blackjack online: Random or Rigged?

[gobucs]

I've now played Blackjack for one month on Villentos website. I've called several times to complain about the unbelievable winning streaks that occur way to frequently especially when the wager is increased. I've been told everytime, no matter the time of day, that management is not available and they will have someone get back to me via e-mail. Hasn't happened yet. I've gone back through thousands of hands and have calculated that the house wins right at 50% of all hands played while I win 38%. The other 12% includes pushes and surrenders. This means that as a whole the dealer is experiencing a 12% win/loss advantage over the player. I'm no Wizard of Odds, but that seems high to me. I was told one time that I should consider a push a win. I hope that's not true. What I do know is that I watch the dealer go on long repeated winning streaks, (Let's say 10 hands in a row), where the dealer is unbeatable no matter what. I get 20 the dealer gets 21. I've seen the dealer hit 21 7 out of 10 times. This is not an isolated scenario mind you, this is very frequent. I've also seen how after such a streak, the player only wins sporatically. Certainly no 10 hands in a row. I'm not sure I've ever won 10 hands in a row, but I bet over the last month I can find 15 examples of the dealer achieving just that. Now I'm not naive (at least I don't think I am). I'm not thinking "This should never happen" I'm thinking that it shouldn't happen virtually every session, and that it shouldn't happen every time I increase the wager amount. I've deposited $4000 in one month in $100 increments and have lost all but a $500 cash-out from almost three weeks ago which I haven't seen yet. All without ever getting over $500 in my bankroll which takes days of tedious $5 and $10 bets mixed with $1 bets. Never have I bet $25 and went on a streak. That's when the suck-outs and the pushes begin and then the incredible yet common winning streak. If I keep the bet at $25, I'm wiped out within minutes. During a session it seems so obvious that I'm being cheated. I just want some of my money back and keep thinking at some point it has to turn around and I'll at least get some back, but it seems like they just keep taking and taking, and have no one to answer too. Their last testing was in June of 2006.
Oh and one other thing: The thing that brought me to Villento in the first place. I got something in the mail from them offering a 150% match bonus for my first deposit, and they allowed US Players. I thought "OK let's see". I deposited $100, got my $150 and started with $250. I played very conservatively over the next few days, but I played for several hours during that time. I got to $400 and was sure I had to have met my wagering requirements. After all, I think the worst wagering requirement I'd seen up until then was 15 times the bonus amount. I had wagered somewhere around $5000. Let's see if they pay. What?! I'm not eligible to cash-out yet? Why not? The wagering requirement is that I get credit for 10% of my wager playing Blackjack, and I still have to wager 15 times the bonus amount plus my initial deposit!!! I may not be the Wizard of Odds but I can do the math on this. I'll save you the time. I would have to wager $37,500 in order to cash out anything. That seems a bit high to me too. I think I'm done with the whole thing. I'm pretty confident that I'm being cheated here, and even if I find 100 of you that agree with me, what's that going to pay?
GoBucs

 

[casino]

I agree with some of previous posts, my view is that blackjack online (MG and no doubt all the others) plays like a slot machine, to pay out sometimes and not others. How else do the online casinos manage their risk and maintain their payout percentages? Land based casinos very occassionally have losing nights, do you think online casinos could ever lose?

I have seen runs of losses exteding to 30 consecutive blackjack hands online, never seen in an (unrigged) land based casino. It is the consecutive losses that wipe most players out, then you will always be chasing losses unless you pull a very lucky streak which I would guess most people dont.

Plsy them for fun, but never because you need to make money. Play with money you want to lose as this is the likely outcome.

 

[aka23]

I agree with some of previous posts, my view is that blackjack online (MG and no doubt all the others) plays like a slot machine, to pay out sometimes and not others. How else do the online casinos manage their risk and maintain their payout percentages? Land based casinos very occassionally have losing nights, do you think online casinos could ever lose?

I've seen payout audits of very small casinos who have had losing months (not just losing nights). If all online blackjack is rigged, then why do so many bonuses not allow blackjack play or have far increased wagering for blackjack?

 

[kakata]

I've seen payout audits of very small casinos who have had losing months (not just losing nights). If all online blackjack is rigged, then why do so many bonuses not allow blackjack play or have far increased wagering for blackjack?

Cause, otherwise, it would be like admitting they are rigged..................

 

[NASHVEGAS]

I've seen payout audits of very small casinos who have had losing months (not just losing nights). If all online blackjack is rigged, then why do so many bonuses not allow blackjack play or have far increased wagering for blackjack?

Audits are meaningless and I have the proof and something is rotten currently. Too bad forum rules protect the wrong at times. CM is welcome to all the documentation including e-mails I have and he knows he is welcome to it. Arther Anderson and the other Big 4 have a bunch of audits also on Enron,Worldcom,Adelphia,Healthsouth......shall I go on or better yet, well we will see!

 

[aka23]

Cause, otherwise, it would be like admitting they are rigged..................

Okay, I'll phrase it differently. If all online blackjack is rigged... why do many online casinos initially count blackjack towards bonus wagering requirements, then later drop blackjack as an allowed game, often shortly after many players report playing blackjack and making a gain? Did they drop blackjack as an allowed game because counting it was like admitting they were rigged?

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Okay, I'll phrase it differently. If all online blackjack is rigged... why do many online casinos initially count blackjack towards bonus wagering requirements, then later drop blackjack as an allowed game, often shortly after many players report playing blackjack and making a gain? Did they drop blackjack as an allowed game because counting it was like admitting they were rigged?

CHECK OUT THE RECENT POSTS IN KIMSS'S CHEATING THREAD FOR A MORE BALANCED (IMO) VIEW OF THE ISSUES AT HAND. THANKS!

 

[aka23]

Audits are meaningless and I have the proof and something is rotten currently. Too bad forum rules protect the wrong at times. CM is welcome to all the documentation including e-mails I have and he knows he is welcome to it. Arther Anderson and the other Big 4 have a bunch of audits also on Enron,Worldcom,Adelphia,Healthsouth......shall I go on or better yet, well we will see!

If you have "proof", I'd certainly be interested be interested to see it. If you post specific numbers (with or without names), I'll tell you the chance of the results occurring randomly.

Audits are not meaningless, although I agree that a casino could alter results, pay off the auditors, submit fraudulent data, etc. For example... if there is a rigged switch, a casino could send auditors data from play with the rigged switch off, and not send data from play with the rigged switch on. For the larger softwares with many casinos, they could all be in on the conspiracy and all do the same tampering, so no players would know the true odds with the software.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

If you have "proof", I'd certainly be interested be interested to see it. If you post specific numbers (with or without names), I'll tell you the chance of the results occurring randomly.

Audits are not meaningless, although I agree that a casino could alter results, pay off the auditors, submit fraudulent data, etc. For example... if there is a rigged switch, a casino could send auditors data from play with the rigged switch off, and not send data from play with the rigged switch on. For the larger softwares with many casinos, they could all be in on the conspiracy and all do the same tampering, so no players would know the true data.

Four or Five different SOF's from a highly respected certified fair gaming auditor on the same exact log files ((with a 178 degree turn in the SOF's by an auditor who personally told me upfront that he can not afford to make a mistake, then decides after my meaningless multiple SOF's that only audits will be done for casinos and not individuals (according to his website)..........hmmm)) Not to say, all along the auditor tries using his manipulative manuevers to silence me for ,well you be the judge!. Will consult my legal counsel and PM you!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Audits are not meaningless

Exactly according to Lay(deceased),Skilling,Ebbers,Rigas,and Scrushy........see if the stockholders,lenders,employees (most of whom lost everything),SEC,etc. feel the same as your quote above!.......I do agree with your statement at times and I can be difficult. I should have said "Audits can be meaningless" instead of are!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

although I agree that a casino could alter results, pay off the auditors, submit fraudulent data, etc. For example... if there is a rigged switch, a casino could send auditors data from play with the rigged switch off, and not send data from play with the rigged switch on. For the larger softwares with many casinos, they could all be in on the conspiracy and all do the same tampering, so no players would know the true odds with the software.

Well sooner or later, a video by some intelligent player (with deep pockets) of all play before acquiring the log files may make you a prophet (npi) AKA,,,,,prolly against all t & c's to video play in order to compare both the casino's and auditor's log files used in an audit,,,,,another hhmmm

 

[Komodo]

I see delays in the turn cards when a larger bet is made. Almost like the software is searching for a particular card to turn. It sounds crazy I know.

Ive seen that happen many many times too albeit with same bet. Whats the reason behind that? And im pretty sure its not lag. I never ever have any lag on poker games with this kind of frequency.
It usually happends when I got 19-21 and the dealer got a lousy card.
For sure it feels like its searching for a way to win in a tricky situation

 

[winbig]

Ive seen that happen many many times too albeit with same bet. Whats the reason behind that? And im pretty sure its not lag. I never ever have any lag on poker games with this kind of frequency.
It usually happends when I got 19-21 and the dealer got a lousy card.
For sure it feels like its searching for a way to win in a tricky situation

I've noticed more times than not with RTG software that there's a slight lag right before you bust...pretty much to the point of you knowing that you're going to bust before the card even comes out.

The only online blackjack I consider "fair" is MG blackjack.

 

[Komodo]

This is false. All one needs is a chi-squared (or other) statistic that is sufficiently skewed as to make flawed software, cheating, or malice more likely the cause than any other reasonable cause.

For example, Absolute Poker was caught by sampling under 100 hands.

Likewise, if a coin is tossed 100 times and came up heads each time, that would easily be sufficient to assume the coin was "two headed" as the most likely explanation.

Statisticians really do understand when millions or billions of hands are needed (for example, to accurately simulate the edge on blackjack to 2 decimal places), and when just a few thousand hands are needed (to check if the dealer is getting too many blackjacks or the player too few).

It may seem otherwise, but from purely the mathematical perspective, there are lots of highly trained and watchful eyes protecting players and insuring fair games.

--Eliot

But in the absolute poker case, they had been cheating for years without getting caugth and most likely could have continued for as long as they wished had they not been utterly braindead.
I mean splashing around in the highest games possible, playing big toarnaments and calling all-ins on flops with Ten high, no pair no draw...

Also, the hand histories from the potripper tournament where all hands where shown came from an emplyee who probably where sick and tired of this cheating.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

It may seem otherwise, but from purely the mathematical perspective, there are lots of highly trained and watchful eyes protecting players and insuring fair games.

--Eliot

Well Eliot, then let's put it all on the table (without censorship) from the beginning with only all the documentation,correspondence (no hearsay or similiar) of and/or between the 3 parties involved from Day 1 allowed.....You are a PHD. and I am a whatever, CM let the real truth come out on this forum and then the players can call the series of events,findings,etc. as player's see it themselves for better or worse!......This will be very time consuming but I am willing,ready and able.....Hopefully the other 2 parties are also.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Hopefully the other 2 parties are also.

.....that's ok gentlemen, I'm cool!......others are interested in the issue.....the Absolute issue is opening other doors....I will sail on thus I will be "on a break" very soon......for now it is all good!

 

[lojo]

.....that's ok gentlemen, I'm cool!......others are interested in the issue.....the Absolute issue is opening other doors....I will sail on......for now it is all good!

The Principals aren't responding.

Anyone's common goal would be to prove or disprove that online blackjack is "equal' to a hand dealt (how many decks?)

If a push is to make a standard shoe, it is. We are at the mercy of statistical analysts, but there IS a number that cannot be counted to, and that's kismet.

If anyone has a chaos factor that overcomes five men sitting at a one deck hand, then please show it. Otherwise all of the sa of blackjack is just so much bullshit.

I don't need to know math to know that a hand can be factored.

I ramble, bra, and i challenge blackjack to be 52 cards: There is more than enough mystery there.

 

[winbig]

Not too far off topic, but for those of us that frequent B&M casinos:

Would you actually sit down and play blackjack at a table where they shuffled after every hand? Single deck or 6+ deck shoe, it doesn't matter.

I never really thought of it like that, but now that I have, I think I'll stick to slots when playing online. No more online BJ for me.

 

[lojo]

Not too far off topic, but for those of us that frequent B&M casinos:

Would you actually sit down and play blackjack at a table where they shuffled after every hand? Single deck or 6+ deck shoe, it doesn't matter.

I never really thought of it like that, but now that I have, I think I'll stick to slots when playing online. No more online BJ for me.

A blackjack player who is out to beat the edge looks for every advantage possible... it's tough enough with a single deck and downtown rules. But some of us are gamblers, hell yes I'll double on a twelve online I'm a gambler.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

The Principals aren't responding.

Oh Eliot responded via PM and I do not believe I can quote him......That said, I assume only I of all the parties involved want all the actual documents from Day 1 to be posted, nothing more,nothing less in the best interest of the playing online public....to moi not much different than what 2+2 allowed (although the BJ issue may or may not have significance, no one yet can say for sure pursuant to all the documentation imo).

 

[winbig]

A blackjack player who is out to beat the edge looks for every advantage possible... it's tough enough with a single deck and downtown rules. But some of us are gamblers, hell yes I'll double on a twelve online I'm a gambler.

I love to gamble too, but...throwing money away isn't gambling, at least in my book

On a side note, it's almost impossible to beat the house in Vegas playing single deck anymore. You're not going to find a game that doesn't pay 6:5 for blackjack anymore

 

[NASHVEGAS]

I never really thought of it like that, but now that I have, I think I'll stick to slots when playing online. No more online BJ for me.

I was there at one time and I do not blame anyone but myself for commencing online BJ again on 9-30-07. I take full responsibility for my decision (does/did not mean I did not have a solid basis pursuant to fair gaming to seek an audit as Eliot mentions and agrees in all of his multiple FINAL SOF's except maybe his last one iirc)......Commencing now I will never play another hand of BJ online even experimenting (yes with some good runs also) as I have continued til now!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

@ LJ AND WB.....iirc, Kimss's cheating thread in the last day or so has some good discussion with myself and other knowledgable posters regarding the "RANDOM SHUFFLE" online. Do you think the onlines do not know it is their achilles heel?? Would love more opinions!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

LOJO.......good to have ya back.....Happy Holidays

 

[lojo]

I love to gamble too, but...throwing money away isn't gambling, at least in my book

On a side note, it's almost impossible to beat the house in Vegas playing single deck anymore. You're not going to find a game that doesn't pay 6:5 for blackjack anymore

Yes i can, and yip, I play high variance BJ... just not a plodder.. but hell, you've been there at least twice since I... did you go downtown? You beat the bastards down with hitting on 12, they get squeeky and weak... then you play perfect strat for a while whether the boss is in the pit or not... makes for an interesting game anyway. I split queens somteimes