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

 

[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).