Blackjack online: Random or Rigged?

[lojo]

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

I'm down

 

[winbig]

@ 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!

To be honest, I would LOVE to find out the *true* HA when it comes to them shuffling after every hand. Sure, you have the same odds/probabilities as if they didn't, but IMO it raises their advantage.


I know I'm getting up there in years, but didn't it NOT used to be this way? I seem to remember (I forget which software) online casinos that DIDN'T shuffle after every hand. Hell, the software would even pipe up when it was time and announce that they were shuffling!!

...was it Playtech?

 

[NASHVEGAS]

To be honest, I would LOVE to find out the *true* HA when it comes to them shuffling after every hand. Sure, you have the same odds/probabilities as if they didn't, but IMO it raises their advantage.


I know I'm getting up there in years, but didn't it NOT used to be this way? I seem to remember (I forget which software) online casinos that DIDN'T shuffle after every hand. Hell, the software would even pipe up when it was time and announce that they were shuffling!!

...was it Playtech?

I have not played online long enough to know other than Playtech offers the "as the world turns slow" live dealer games

 

[lojo]

@ 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!

Emulate a deck or be found wanting

 

[aka23]

To be honest, I would LOVE to find out the *true* HA when it comes to them shuffling after every hand. Sure, you have the same odds/probabilities as if they didn't, but IMO it raises their advantage.

The standard way of listing house edge for a blackjack game is for the first hand off the deck, which corresponds to shuffling after every hand. Shuffling after every hand decreases the house edge for a basic strategy player. The size of the decrease can be quite significant... 0.11% for a 1-deck game. Wizard of Odds has specific numbers at

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

. However, shuffling after each hand obviously does not favor a card counting player.

 

[aka23]

I know I'm getting up there in years, but didn't it NOT used to be this way? I seem to remember (I forget which software) online casinos that DIDN'T shuffle after every hand. Hell, the software would even pipe up when it was time and announce that they were shuffling!!

...was it Playtech?

There are still some that don't shuffle after each hand, but offhand I am not certain which ones. A few days ago, Kismet/Cantor Gaming released the game "Statjack", which isn't shuffled after each hand. Instead the game reports the cards remaining in the deck after each hand and related statistics about the player's odds for the next draw.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

The standard way of listing house edge for a blackjack game is the first hand off the deck, which corresponds to shuffling after every hand. Shuffling after every hand decreases the house edge for a basic strategy player. It obviously does not favor a card counting player.

If only the logs files and recorded playcheck videos I have supported this a la a 2-card 20's for the house and player ya know like tossing a coin......how many standard deviaiations over how many total hands does this have to be off....................................................................................................Wanna put your money where your stats are? I will..........10,000 hands per session,any MG,RTG or proprietary I have played software platform that reshuffles (casinos will be determined at commencement of play and there can be no prior contact with the casino regarding this proposition), 10,15 sessions you name it......you win if the total number of initial 2 card 20's for the player exceeds the dealer's in more than 25% of the 10000 hand sessions played (1 session =10000 hands dealt),no spliting 10's,lol,you lose otherwise and I will donate all winnings to charity in the event I win.....easy money for you stats guys that assume fair gaming........tell me when and where and I will be whereever for as long as required at my own expense......you name the bet amount (minimum $10k) and I will send (to a mutual trusted third party) a check to verify funds and hold asap!

 

[lojo]

Now the statits have their probables and possibles. But I assure you, a Deck, may not be proven in math. Not even 52 cards, and certainly not a "swing" that lands on the note sometimes to adjust for the house. It is statistically IMPOSSIBLE to make a fair blackjack game, even on the beast that ciphered the human genome, occur on a computer.

 

[GaryWatson]

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Its a bit old but shows what the auditors take into account

 

[sparkz]

im not sure with this but some of the patterns that emerged were very weird...

i had a bonus on a casino... so obviously i couldnt cash anything out until i had played a certain amount of times.

i played blackjack when i had nowhere near met my bonus requirements and i would win 9 out of 10 times... i got blackjack at 1 point 4 times in a row and even if i stuck on 12 its likely the dealer would bust.. i got to about 10x my original deposit

but then i went to some slot games and played through my bonus.. so i was about 15x my original deposit and could cashout the lot..

but then i went back to blackjack... and my luck had totally reversed... i stuck on 20 and it was likely he got 21... a few times i had blackjack and so did the dealer. until i lost the majority of it and realised i would not win anymore.

 

[aka23]

If only the logs files and recorded playcheck videos I have supported this a la a 2-card 20's for the house and player ya know like tossing a coin......how many standard deviaiations over how many total hands does this have to be off....................................................................................................Wanna put your money where your stats are? I will..........10,000 hands per session,any MG,RTG or proprietary I have played software platform that reshuffles (casinos will be determined at commencement of play and there can be no prior contact with the casino regarding this proposition), 10,15 sessions you name it......you win if the total number of initial 2 card 20's for the player exceeds the dealer's in more than 25% of the 10000 hand sessions played (1 session =10000 hands dealt),no spliting 10's,lol,you lose otherwise and I will donate all winnings to charity in the event I win.....easy money for you stats guys that assume fair gaming........tell me when and where and I will be whereever for as long as required at my own expense......you name the bet amount (minimum $10k) and I will send (to a mutual trusted third party) a check to verify funds and hold asap!

In the post you quoted, I said the standard way to list house edge is on the first card off the deck, and reshuffling favors the basic strategy player. If you doubt that reshuffling favors the basic strategy player, I'd make a large bet to that effect. However, it sounds like you want to bet something that is completely unrelated to my post.

I didn't say all online blackjack was fair. I do believe that some softwares have non-random elements; but the ones that have shown statistics beyond normal variance have almost always been small softwares that are not well known. Examples include COA, Wager21, Casinova, B3W, and Start Your Own Casino. I think there is a good chance that something is off at Party, Progressive Gaming, and Casino770/Casino Riga (don't know name of software). Many people seem to believe Chartwell has issues as well. However, I have not seen supporting evidence. See the poll on my forum for specific numbers.

Regarding your bet, If I can pick the software, I'd bet that rate of dealer 20s or player 20s will not be 4 standard deviations or greater from the expected rate. I'd require fewer standard deviations for a smaller bet.

 

[GaryWatson]

AKA, hopefully the meister cane merge the threads

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/oh-my-god-god-d-mn-cheaters.21721/

I am interested

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Regarding your bet, If I can pick the software, I'd bet that rate of dealer 20s or player 20s will not be 4 standard deviations or greater from the expected rate. I'd require fewer standard deviations for a smaller bet.

I guess you do not accept since you do not understand the bet and no you as an affiliate you would not be able to determine the casinos. They would be determined by a blind draw and new accounts if necessary opened. Reread my post and it says total number of 2 card 20's per session, really simple!

 

[aka23]

I guess you do not accept since you do not understand the bet and no you as an affiliate you would not be able to determine the casinos. They would be determined by a blind draw and new accounts if necessary opened. Reread my post and it says total number of 2 card 20's per session, really simple!

I'd bet that 2-card 20s, any 20s, or any other card combination would be within 4 standard deviations of expected. However, I would need to pick the software, or at least give a pool of a few well-known softwares to choose from.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

I'd bet that 2-card 20s, any 20s, or any other card combination would be within 4 standard deviations of expected. However, I would need to pick the software, or at least give a pool of a few well-known softwares to choose from.

We are talking about 2 different issues...I am only concerned with actual totals or skewed results that favor the house but are within the wiggle room of expectation thus allowing the software to be declared statistically fair eventhough it may be statistically and consistently skewed (NUMEROUS OTHER WAYS ALSO BUT I ONLY USED ONE SIMPLE FACTOR) in the house's favor but still fair.......fool me once shame on you, twice still shame on you!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Furthermore as I posted in another thread to make the above easier for some to understand:

A poster said he won $17K online playing BJ----I said WINNING DOES NOT EQUATE TO FAIR GAMING. MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE WON $57237.69.........I am done for today, mind is exhausted and I have a hard time trying to keep up anyway!

 

[aka23]

We are talking about 2 different issues...I am only concerned with actual totals or skewed results that favor the house but are within the wiggle room of expectation thus allowing the software to be declared statistically fair eventhough it may be statistically and consistently skewed (NUMEROUS OTHER WAYS ALSO BUT I ONLY USED ONE SIMPLE FACTOR) in the house's favor but still fair.......fool me once shame on you, twice still shame on you!

Even a small 0.01% difference from the outcomes expected in a random distribution will be >4 standard deviations from expected, if you play enough hands. If a software isn't random, it should fail some type of statistical measure (not necessarily the ones we have discussed), being far outside the range of normal variance.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Even a small 0.01% difference from the outcomes expected in a random distribution will be >4 standard deviations from expected, if you play enough hands. If a software isn't random, it should fail some type of statistical measure (not necessarily the ones we have discussed), being far outside the range of normal variance.

I will respond later as I have one but I am peace out for now!

 

[casino]

i cant comment on sttistics but an interesting question might be, like a survey:

how many people on here (excluding casino related parties) have actually won anything at online BJ and remain winning?

Maybe a better question for asinos, is what % of your customers if any have actually won anything at online BJ?

The only thing payout percentages demonstrate is the the casinos arewnning consistently.

My experience of MG in particular, but not only them, says that to win anything at online blackjack would take some kind of miracle? I am happy to accept 10000$ of MG money to prove it, if I win it all goes to charity? If I lose, MG get to pay me back the money I have lost them in the past. Sounds fair?

 

[sparkz]

agree with casino...

after today i have quit gambling..

was playing blackjack again and at 1st i was doing great... won a fair bit... but then started losing lots, played higher bets to win some back but lost and lost it all

blackjack is a very nasty game in my opinion.. you can play low amounts for hours and win lots... but then when the losing streak kicks in you are tempted to double/triple bets until its all gone

 

[NASHVEGAS]

agree with casino...

after today i have quit gambling..

was playing blackjack again and at 1st i was doing great... won a fair bit... but then started losing lots, played higher bets to win some back but lost and lost it all

blackjack is a very nasty game in my opinion.. you can play low amounts for hours and win lots... but then when the losing streak kicks in you are tempted to double/triple bets until its all gone

reoccuring streaks is another issue I wish I could grasp...........maybe the explanation is that you play so many more hands per hour online than a B & M so therefore the streaks are more noticeable and occur quicker over time.....just do not know in my own mind the answer but the sometimes mathematical mind boggling streaks are there but is it an explainable perception issue that is normal and fair??????

 

[GaryWatson]

To cut a long story short.

none of it matters.

Play or dont play

 

[lojo]

To be honest, I would LOVE to find out the *true* HA when it comes to them shuffling after every hand. Sure, you have the same odds/probabilities as if they didn't, but IMO it raises their advantage.


I know I'm getting up there in years, but didn't it NOT used to be this way? I seem to remember (I forget which software) online casinos that DIDN'T shuffle after every hand. Hell, the software would even pipe up when it was time and announce that they were shuffling!!

...was it Playtech?

I remember that too... what was it? There weren't enough cards left in the deck and it would bring on a new one, or shuffle if you could split... what the heck was it? It was before I played at all seriously online... Thanks for the memory... I can almost see the table (polaroid memory out of film)

 

[lojo]

I'd require fewer standard deviations for a smaller bet.

aka23

Please explain, because if you can get different results per bet size we are looking at something other than RNG, aren't we?

 

[aka23]

aka23

Please explain, because if you can get different results per bet size we are looking at something other than RNG, aren't we?

I was referring to Nash's proposed $10k bet, not bet size per hand. With a large sum like that, I'd wouldn't want to lose simply because my bet was on the wrong side of variance. I'd insist on a large number of standard deviations from expected, such that there would be little chance of the results occurring in a truly random distribution. And if the results did occur, it would more conclusively show non-random software. I wouldn't have such a requirement for a smaller bet (against Nash, not bet size per hand).