Blackjack online: Random or Rigged?

[lojo]

Thanks for clarifying.. I was

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Thanks for clarifying.. I was

He changed the whole intention of the proposed bet, just refuse the proposition if you were not comfortable with it,simple enough!.....funny thing is a casino exec. and software writer understood exactly what I may or may not have proven.... Gary Watson is indirectly correct ("none of it matters")....these stats guys are master manipulators and that is the kindest thing I can say....My audit and documentation is now on its way to a much higher authority than this forum and let the chips and truth fall where they may.........end of discussion for moi!.....oh the hubris!!

 

[aka23]

He changed the whole intention of the proposed bet, just refuse the proposition if you were not comfortable with it,simple enough!.....funny thing is a casino exec. and software writer understood exactly what I may or may not have proven.... Gary Watson is indirectly correct ("none of it matters")....these stats guys are master manipulators and that is the kindest thing I can say....My audit and documentation is now on its way to a much higher authority than this forum and let the chips and truth fall where they may.........end of discussion for moi!.....oh the hubris!!

My proposed bet has the same intention. If the ratio of player to dealer 2-card 20s is abnormal, then either the number of dealer 20s or the number of player 20s will be statistically abnormal, possibly both. Phrased in terms like I proposed, the test will truly show if there is something non-random going on with player or dealer 20s. The original terms were more ambiguous, would be slightly biased in favor of your bet with typical card display on BJ rules, and would be far more difficult to carry out. Think about how many sets of 10,000 hands would need to be done for statistically significant results.

The whole concept is bizarre. After I explained that reshuffling after each hand reduces house edge for the basic strategy player, you proposed that we bet at least $10,000 on the ratios of 20s with unclear software that shuffles after each hand. When I seemed interested in carrying out the bet with specific conditions, you kept mentioning reasons to cancel the bet. You've gone on about how you have evidence of casinos cheating many times, yet have posted no specific numbers or supporting data of any kind. You said you'd PM me this information many pages back, but did not send any. Does any data exist? Or do you mean that you have log files which you think show rigged software, but they haven't been analyzed yet (you mentioned issues getting an auditor to review them). The odd bet proposal follows a similar pattern... talking big, but little follow through.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

My proposed bet has the same intention. If the ratio of player to dealer 2-card 20s is abnormal, then either the number of dealer 20s or the number of player 20s will be statistically abnormal, possibly both. Phrased in terms like I proposed, the test will truly show if there is something non-random going on with player or dealer 20s. The original terms were more ambiguous, would be slightly biased in favor of your bet with typical card display on BJ rules, and would be far more difficult to carry out. Think about how many sets of 10,000 hands would need to be done for statistically significant results.

The whole concept is bizarre. After I explained that reshuffling after each hand reduces house edge for the basic strategy player, you proposed that we bet at least $10,000 on the ratios of 20s with unclear software that shuffles after each hand. When I seemed interested in carrying out the bet with specific conditions, you kept mentioning reasons to cancel the bet. You've gone on about how you have evidence of casinos cheating many times, yet have posted no specific numbers or supporting data of any kind. You said you'd PM me this information many pages back, but did not send any. Does any data exist? Or do you mean that you have log files which you think show rigged software, but they haven't been analyzed yet (you mentioned issues getting an auditor to review them). The odd bet proposal follows a similar pattern... talking big, but little follow through.

Yeah it is all fabricated, I'm busted!.....Nice try at baiting......taking it from you just like a fish......oh,the hubris!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

My proposed bet has the same intention. If the ratio of player to dealer 2-card 20s is abnormal, then either the number of dealer 20s or the number of player 20s will be statistically abnormal, possibly both. Phrased in terms like I proposed, the test will truly show if there is something non-random going on with player or dealer 20s. The original terms were more ambiguous, would be slightly biased in favor of your bet with typical card display on BJ rules, and would be far more difficult to carry out. Think about how many sets of 10,000 hands would need to be done for statistically significant results.

The whole concept is bizarre. After I explained that reshuffling after each hand reduces house edge for the basic strategy player, you proposed that we bet at least $10,000 on the ratios of 20s with unclear software that shuffles after each hand. When I seemed interested in carrying out the bet with specific conditions, you kept mentioning reasons to cancel the bet. You've gone on about how you have evidence of casinos cheating many times, yet have posted no specific numbers or supporting data of any kind. You said you'd PM me this information many pages back, but did not send any. Does any data exist? Or do you mean that you have log files which you think show rigged software, but they haven't been analyzed yet (you mentioned issues getting an auditor to review them). The odd bet proposal follows a similar pattern... talking big, but little follow through.

You mind showing me that specific statement I made!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

My proposed bet has the same intention. If the ratio of player to dealer 2-card 20s is abnormal, then either the number of dealer 20s or the number of player 20s will be statistically abnormal, possibly both. Phrased in terms like I proposed, the test will truly show if there is something non-random going on with player or dealer 20s. The original terms were more ambiguous, would be slightly biased in favor of your bet with typical card display on BJ rules, and would be far more difficult to carry out. Think about how many sets of 10,000 hands would need to be done for statistically significant results.

The whole concept is bizarre. After I explained that reshuffling after each hand reduces house edge for the basic strategy player, you proposed that we bet at least $10,000 on the ratios of 20s with unclear software that shuffles after each hand. When I seemed interested in carrying out the bet with specific conditions, you kept mentioning reasons to cancel the bet. You've gone on about how you have evidence of casinos cheating many times, yet have posted no specific numbers or supporting data of any kind. You said you'd PM me this information many pages back, but did not send any. Does any data exist? Or do you mean that you have log files which you think show rigged software, but they haven't been analyzed yet (you mentioned issues getting an auditor to review them). The odd bet proposal follows a similar pattern... talking big, but little follow through.

Oh really?

 

[aka23]

You mind showing me that specific statement I made!

I am referring to post #59 of the thread. I wrote:

"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..."

You replied:

"...Will consult my legal counsel and PM you!"

 

[aka23]

Oh really?

A sreenshot of your email subject headers is not what I meant by "specific numbers". Readers of the forum already know you hired Elliot to review your data, as you made a point of asking to hire him in an earlier post of this thread, rather than by private message or email.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Well now lets just let the posts stand for themselves as my statement in #59 says what it says and not what you posted it said and unless I am hallucinating you seem to be consistently contradicting yourself but you win and I am sure you will need the last word. It is all yours,SHALOM. Once again, the hubris!.....GO TITANS

 

[aka23]

Well now lets just let the posts stand for themselves as my statement in #59 says what it says and not what you posted it said......GO TITANS

I interpret the statement as meaning you would PM me regardless of the result of talking to your legal council. So am I to believe your legal council thought it would be a bad idea to give numbers or any kind of data to support your claim in a private PM. But, he has no problem with you repeatedly saying you have proof on a large public forum, posting email screenshots which indicate who did the review, or making odd and well-publicized bets about rigged software?

and I am sure you will need the last word.

Which one of us wrote "end of discussion for moi!", then continued posting because he needed to get the last word?

 

[ThodorisK]

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/how-many-online-casinos-cheat.19491/

 

[winbig]

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/how-many-online-casinos-cheat.19491/

*clap clap clap* Way to resurrect an otherwise dying thread.

 

[ghost888]

have also received emails from casino support defending their RNG. Their explanations seem to make sense. Still there are plenty of players who join as new players, deposit $50 to start and walk away with $1500 cashouts.

This is the ultimate proof that the games are rigged and the casinos use this argument to defend their games. Is this a joke???? LOL

The casinos steal the money from the well established players to give it to the new players. So, they don't change the average player return and they are not caught by the audits.
But they retain their new players this way and the more players they have, the more money they make, especially as their games are 100% rigged to maintain a 3 - 5% benefits. And the audits just believe it is the house edge...

Everybody knows that the new players are much luckier than the other ones (we all have experienced this) while there is absolutely no reason to that. When we are new players, we are winning so easily that it is so obvious games are rigged.

But then before we notice, there is just no way to win and if we don't stop, all the winnings disappeared even faster they appeared.

 

[ghost888]

Based on the post by aka23, I decided to log on to my Party Gaming account and play blackjack to investigate "first card" bias.

I played their Blackjack - Single Player (Las Vegas Downtown Blackjack) game, in practice mode

Is this a joke from someone supposed to do the audits???? LOL

We all have noticed that the results are totally different whether we play in practice mode or with real money... There is absolutely no reason to that, this is the 2nd proof that the games are 100% rigged. When you play in practice mode, you win so easily that you just want to test with real money.

3rd proof: try to play progressive bets.
Statiscally, if you are ready to lose an amount of money, you should lose this amount only once before winning this same amount. But try and tell me the results. You will give up well before reaching this amount.

And now try in practice mode or simulate you are playing progressive bets while you are playing fat bets, you will have the feeling that it would be so easy to make money with progressive bets.

 

[Casinomeister]

Is this a joke from someone supposed to do the audits???? LOL

We all have noticed that the results are totally different whether we play in practice mode or with real money... There is absolutely no reason to that, this is the 2nd proof that the games are 100% rigged. When you play in practice mode, you win so easily that you just want to test with real money.

3rd proof: try to play progressive bets.
Statiscally, if you are ready to lose an amount of money, you should lose this amount only once before winning this same amount. But try and tell me the results. You will give up well before reaching this amount.

And now try in practice mode or simulate you are playing progressive bets while you are playing fat bets, you will have the feeling that it would be so easy to make money with progressive bets.

This thread is nine years old. Please don't necropost in the forum. If you have a topic you want to discuss, please start a new thread.