Casino Reps Please Respond Here

[X-Raided]

Much respect to Mr. Nicolas Johnson for having the Grapes to take
on the responsibility of stepping up to the plate and to take
on everybody's questions without getting to aggravated.

All this talk about numbers and RTP is giving me a headache.
IMO, I still say "ya win some, ya lose some" when I talk about gambling.

 

[spearmaster]

The RTP assertion made by Sega is not correct across the board for all Playtech games.

 

[just play]

Can your casino regardless if it could be done at the back-end or needed to be requested and approved via your software provider; change the HOUSE EDGE PERCENTAGE Setting on Video Poker?

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand most of the comments on this thread.

Question to you 4OAK...why does this matter? (your quote above)

If I am understanding this correctly, couldn't they do this for slots as well?

 

[slotjunkie]

Whether the software is on their servers or ours, doesn't matter much from my understanding. The thing is, the casino licensees don't have the source code to change things. If casinos had all the source code, they could simply stop working with the software providers.



As far as I'm concerned: No, not with RTG or Rival. I can't guarantee that though, I'm not a casino owner, I don't have master access. But in general, if that would be the case, I'd more than likely know about it.



Well, assuming they didn't use different rules, different number of decks, etc, then from my understanding you would be right. But again, keep in mind this is my understanding.

I'm not an expert on the topic. This is getting awfully technical, and I'd like to have more answers, but I think it would be good to invite some casino odds expert like Wizard Odds people to really help you all get down to the bottom of this. :notworthy

I can explain the concepts of RTP and RNG, but the level of technical understanding that we are headed into is starting to go over my head to be honest, sorry.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager

Nicolas, I have a great deal of respect for you, but I know for a FACT that any sophisticated, savvy software engineer/operator(I am married to one) can change anything to anything at will, no private/special code needed!

 

[Rusty]

Whether the software is on their servers or ours, doesn't matter much from my understanding. The thing is, the casino licensees don't have the source code to change things. If casinos had all the source code, they could simply stop working with the software providers.



As far as I'm concerned: No, not with RTG or Rival. I can't guarantee that though, I'm not a casino owner, I don't have master access. But in general, if that would be the case, I'd more than likely know about it.



Well, assuming they didn't use different rules, different number of decks, etc, then from my understanding you would be right. But again, keep in mind this is my understanding.

I'm not an expert on the topic. This is getting awfully technical, and I'd like to have more answers, but I think it would be good to invite some casino odds expert like Wizard Odds people to really help you all get down to the bottom of this. :notworthy

I can explain the concepts of RTP and RNG, but the level of technical understanding that we are headed into is starting to go over my head to be honest, sorry.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager

The problem is you can not tell people that the games are definitely fair and start making definitive statements about the software and then say you don't have the technical knowledge to back this up.
I'm not saying anything you said is wrong though and fair play for coming in to bat on a sticky wicket.

Personally I have not played much VP online but I am sure it is just as fair as the slots if not more so and I guess the theoretical RTP is based on perfect strategy, max coins as well.

I guess I could go and scour all the online casinos that divulge the RTP of their games and see if they match exactly - which if what you say is true they obviously should (caveats aside) - but I wont.
Someone else who plays VP can do that if they wish.

 

[4 of a kind]

Can your casino regardless if it could be done at the back-end or needed to be requested and approved via your software provider; change the HOUSE EDGE PERCENTAGE Setting on Video Poker?

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand most of the comments on this thread.

Question to you 4OAK...why does this matter? (your quote above)

If I am understanding this correctly, couldn't they do this for slots as well?

Exactly my point...

 

[just play]

Well then you are never getting a true answer to your question.

I remember when I first joined here maybe a year or so later...people were talking about "rigging" "changing odds" what have you...and I said almost exactly what Slotjunkie just said, but worded it like....it's a machine, it can be programmed however you want to program it.

 

[love2winalot]

Hiya: Many years ago there was a casino called Global Player Casino. It use to run a full back page cover add on a gambling magazine called, "Chance".
I had bought that magazine at a store here in Vegas, and then played at the Casino. I got paid prompley. They are not around anymore.

Just like today, players do not trust the, "well know" RNG providers, and the like. So, Global Player created their own RNG. Were they embraced for it? Of course not. They were battered to Hell & back. "Why not use one of the RNGs that all the other casino's are using"? Everyone assumed the logical answer was, "So they know the source code, and can cheat players, an manipulate any game, at any time they see fit".

So, adding this to the current thread here, "What is a casino to do"? It just seems you are Dammed no matter what you do?

 

[4 of a kind]

Can your casino regardless if it could be done at the back-end or needed to be requested and approved via your software provider; change the HOUSE EDGE PERCENTAGE Setting on Video Poker?

As far as I'm concerned: No, not with RTG or Rival. I can't guarantee that though, I'm not a casino owner, I don't have master access. But in general, if that would be the case, I'd more than likely know about it.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager

I'm glad you stated you can't guarantee your personal believes or what you more then likely should know. Personally these comments are making you sound like a person hedging his bet (reputation) against the future.

Why is such basic information being withheld from us? The question above is what this whole thread is about, and after all this hoopla is still unanswered. No one is asking about how you throw the dice or flip a coin, or probabilities, nor is anyone asking for what you personally believe or about 3rd party audits or the wizard of oz.

Is the video poker software programmed to give results based on 100% random 52 card deck draw, or are the results being based on pre-determined house edge percentage settings?

This question has nothing to do with rigged, cheating, conspiracy's, or anything even slightly similar.

It's obvious we're not in a position to rub elbows with any owners, or are able to talk directly with RTG. Besides I thought you were going to bring this question forward to RTG, so why bother the owner, or explain to us what you believe.

This is the response from the New Jersey Gaming Commission when asked the same question:

"video-poker machines must conform to the same payback percentage range as any other slot machine, that is 83% to 99% return, "they are considered slot machines" and that there are no separate requirements for them"

No one's asking or care if, when or how the house edge could be adjusted. We just want to know the type of video poker game your asking us to gamble against.

I give you credit Nicolas for even having the balls to make an appearance here, and that alone says a lot for the trust you must have for Bet Phoenix. Your efforts and loyalty I hope are being noticed.

 

[funeral979]

4 of a kind....

As I play an absurd amount of blackjack online, I am obviously more interested in the truth about table play, but since you are the video poker expert....let me just make sure I understand what you are asking:

And this should maybe make it simple for other reps to just answer this one question:

Full pay jacks or better (9/6) has a theo return to player of 99.54%
Can the casino change the payout of this game to, say 96%, while leaving the paytable the same?

This is the crux of this thread, yes?

 

[Nate]

But then, if you really wanted to go off on conspiracies you could say Vegas casinos don't shuffle the cards, roulette wheels have stop buttons, dice are weighed in the casino's favor, etc. If you are going to go off into deep, totally unproven, baseless conspiracies, why stop online?

Nicolas,

First and foremost, I Applaud You for taking the decision to avail yourself and participate in this debate.

Based on the above quote - I would say that no such conspiracies exist for B&M Casinos merely because there are manual shoes on tables or shuffling machines in full view of the public.

Roulette wheels are visible and in some instances (in the case of serviceable wheels) serviced in full view of the public. It’s obvious there are no electronics here

In light of a previous statement: B&M Casinos are subject to stringent Rules and Regulations. They are audited by the respective board who grants them a licence and subject to further internal and external audits. They are required to abide by certain licence conditions in order to operate.

With the above being said, when a B&M casino purchases a specific game type (Insert Manufacturer Here), the Casino has the option of setting the RTP from 3 possible manufacturer specified RTP's. Once the RTP has been set, the licensing authority signs those machines off for play.

In the event that a game change or setting change has to occur, the Casino may alter the RTP on its own without the permission of the Software Provider - These are settings that are provided. With the amount of Casinos in operation, it will be a laborious task for each manufacturer to be able to grant permission or send a technician to change settings.

Well, in getting to my point - I believe that Online Casinos are able to adjust the RTP as they see fit, without the intervention of a software provider.

When settings are changed / setup on a new casino begins: Does the relevant licensing authority ensure that the setup complies with standards?

Nate

 

[3Dice]

Hiya Guys,

First off, there seem to be a few misunderstandings and people using the same terms to talk about different things in this thread. A coupe of pointers for those who are interested in having a clear picture for themselves.

The first issue I would like to address is the confusion caused by statements as 'on RTG software, the RTP for slots can be set to 3 different values'. Putting it like that creates a wrong idea. I would suggest the following wording 'on RTG software, the reel strip layout can be set to three different setups, each resulting in a different RTP'.

On the slots, pokers and table games you all know (minus the AWP games some operators offer), the RTP can never be set directly. Instead the RTP is simply the expected value for a certain reel strip layout, paytable and or ruleset.

To make an explicit comparison between slots and video poker, imagine the simplified single reel slot with a reel strip layout of 52 slot symbols that happen to be playing cards. Imagine a paytable where only the queen of hearts pays (lets say 50 times stake).

Also imagine the equivalent famous single card video poker game with a paytable where the queen of hearts pays 50 times stake.

For the slot, a typical casino server would draw a random reel stop position between 1 and 52, the slot machine would hit 50 on average 1 in 52 times. (50/52 = 96.1% RTP)

For the video poker, a typical casino server would shuffle a 52 card deck and draw a single card. It would also pay 50 on average 1 in 52 times. (50 / 52 = 96.1% RTP)

A software manufacturer that wishes to offer his casino clients the possibility of different RTP's can do this really easily on the slot machine by adding an extra say 2 of diamonds anywhere in the reel strip. This would mean a strip of 53 symbols resulting in an RTP of 50/53 = 94.3% - alternatively he could also change the paytable to simply show a different amount .. e.g. 51. The RTP would then become 51/52 or 98%.

On the videopoker the only option he has is to change the paytable. (since a deck of cards - unlike a reel strip - is well defined.). Therefor if you find a VP game with a well-known paytable advertising a different RTP - then either their advertising or their software is fubar.

For a game like blackjack the RTP is determined solely by the ruleset. There's a handy calculator on the wizard of odds that will show you what the house-edge is for a particular set of blackjack rules.

So to summarize, the RTP of a slot machine is determined by the reel layout and the paytable, the RTP of a video poker by the paytable only. For all these games however RTP is a derived number, a result of the specifics of the game - and not an 'input'.

Important to realize is that for these types of games, the casino needs to maintain a float. It is perfectly possible that the first spin on a slot machine or the first hand of VP ever played pays out the top win - about 50% of the cases machines that are started start off with bad luck for the casino meaning it can take months before the house-edge catches up to early big hits.

This is not the case for what is commonly called AWP machines (also fruity's) .. AWP games are programmed quite differently. They are setup to never pay out above a preset percentage. For the old UK fruity's the technique commonly used was to have a machine that pays naturally over 100% and redraw spins that would put the current RTP over a set percentage. The net result of this is a machine that never pays out more than the total stake made on it. Experienced players would be able to play these machines and get a feel of whether or not hits were being capped. (i.e. with enough play you would be able to notice if the machine had room for a payout). This forum has some players who's hobby it used to be to drive from pub to pub cashing out on the machines that were 'hot'.

There are software providers out there that offer AWP games, afaik they mention it clearly - failing to do that would be extremely unethical in my book. 3Dice offers no AWP games.

Ok, I hope that clears a few things up - in particular why the statement in the first paragraph might not be the best way to put it.

Now, as far as 3Dice is concerned. All of our slot games use perfectly random distributed reel stop positions (third party verified) - and the payout is determined solely by the reel layout and paytable. None of our reel layouts has ever changed and there are no options to do so.

Our video pokers payout is solely determined by the paytable and the decks used are perfectly normal random shuffled decks (also third party verified). The RTP's for all our VP games can be found simply by looking up the RTP for the paytables. (one of the members here has a great overview at

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

)

The RTP's of all our other games like blackjack, craps etc are all determined by the game rules and can also easily be found online.

To put it in a single-liner :

All of the games offered at 3Dice are driven by a third party verified RNG, and the RTP is never a setup value but rather the result of a uniform distribution with the specific reel layouts, paytables and rule-sets of the games.

Kindest Regards,

Enzo

 

[4 of a kind]

4 of a kind....

As I play an absurd amount of blackjack online, I am obviously more interested in the truth about table play, but since you are the video poker expert....let me just make sure I understand what you are asking:

And this should maybe make it simple for other reps to just answer this one question:

Full pay jacks or better (9/6) has a theo return to player of 99.54%
Can the casino change the payout of this game to, say 96%, while leaving the paytable the same?

This is the crux of this thread, yes?

Exactly correct...

Within the article I keep referring to about the discussion with the New Jersey Gaming Commission, when these questions were asked:

When I asked him if video poker must be based on a totally random shuffling of the cards, and that each hand must theoretically appear with its expected frequency, he (NJGC) stated that there were only two criteria for the machine. The first— “that it falls within the payback scheme” (83% to 99%) and the second that "every sequence be in the programming."

"But that means," I said, " that if a natural royal flush is a 40,000 to one shot, the machine could be programmed to pay it once in every 300,000 hands or more?"

"Yes," he said. "The machine has to have the royal flush sequence in the programming just as a slot machine would have to have for example the triple 7's but the frequency is up to the programming."

The game will be random, yes, but random the way a slot machine is random—that is, based on a program that dictates the probabilities and not based on the probabilities in a 52 (or 53) card deck.

Hence the pay table being displayed on Video Poker machines would be no different then viewing the pay tables on slot machines. If the hands displayed are hit they will in fact pay accordingly with what is displayed. But the expected probabilities of these hands being drawn with random 52 card deck draws would be non-existent instead based on a program that dictates the probabilities.

Personally I don't think the question is all that complicated or any need requiring these endless explanations. Just like Atlantic city when everyone assumed video poker machines were the same criteria has in Las Vegas (random 52 deck draw) until somebody asked.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

4 of a kind....

As I play an absurd amount of blackjack online, I am obviously more interested in the truth about table play, but since you are the video poker expert....let me just make sure I understand what you are asking:

And this should maybe make it simple for other reps to just answer this one question:

Full pay jacks or better (9/6) has a theo return to player of 99.54%
Can the casino change the payout of this game to, say 96%, while leaving the paytable the same?

This is the crux of this thread, yes?

Ofcourse not. If you changed RTP to 96% the paytable would be inaccurate. So it couldn't be done legally.

IMO the Casino reps are not the right people to ask because their level of knowledge varies enormously. Nicolas and Enzo are very good but clearly the SEGA information is misleading and inaccurate.

4OAK if you want your question answered you are better off asking the Wizard. Or you could right to either Gibralter or the Alderney gambling commission. Or even write to Playtech or someone direct.

 

[Rusty]

Enzo
The first issue I would like to address is the confusion caused by statements as 'on RTG software, the RTP for slots can be set to 3 different values'. Putting it like that creates a wrong idea. I would suggest the following wording 'on RTG software, the reel strip layout can be set to three different setups, each resulting in a different RTP'.

Ah, this old chestnut.
And any Casino has to write off to RTG and ask politely if they would mind ever so much uploading the 93% version of a slot and then a few days later they will upload the new version of the slot - but of course they very, very rarely change the slots and the lowest possible setting is 91% and we all lived happily ever after.

I have to ask where you got this in depth working knowledge of the RTG software Enzo, was it the same place as me - RTG?

For sure the reels strips can be changed but the feature trigger frequency is also weighted, unless the reels strips are altered in real time (which pretty much amounts to the same) but you are not saying that are you?
Not to mention that the bonus round wins do not maintain the same probability each round.

Anyone who has played RTG and other software slots a great deal will know that the coincidence of infrequent scatters, less wins and poor paying bonus rounds all happening together occurs with supernatural frequency and a high paying slot can turn into a dead slot in a moment - not up and down, up and down.
strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreak...strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreak.

For example I recently made a decent cashout at a Playtech Casino which put me in front.
How do you think those same hot slots played over my next dozen deposits and week of gaming?
From a dozen slots not one paid over 91% and the majority paid closer to 50% or even less - in all my RTP over that period was close to 55% all games.

Just another coincidence right?
The same coincidence that I have repeated a thousand times before?
Bollocks.

They may conform to industry standards and have an overall RTP of 95% or whatever but no way on this Earth are RTG, MGS, Playtech slots not weighted. Period.

 

[nisosbar]

They may conform to industry standards and have an overall RTP of 95% or whatever but no way on this Earth are RTG, MGS, Playtech slots not weighted. Period.

A question related to the question of weighted returns (which I presume means the software is written to return to the player an amount proportional to what they have fed):

If you believe that online casinos 'weight' their games, then does that mean a smart gambler declines to use a loyalty card when they are at bricks&mortar casinos? Has anyone played substantially both with and without a loyalty card, and if so, have they detected a difference in terms of their B&M RTP?

 

[aceking123]

If you believe that online casinos 'weight' their games, then does that mean a smart gambler declines to use a loyalty card when they are at bricks&mortar casinos? Has anyone played substantially both with and without a loyalty card, and if so, have they detected a difference in terms of their B&M RTP?[/QUOTE]

this is not a derail just adding some info ive often wondered bout hope you dont mind )
B&M in uk show the 95% or 97% somewhere on the front of the machine , loyalty over here in uk is another story whilst playing in your favorite casino though i may say B&M have treated me far better from gambling points & returns though this has no difference in being treated well or rtp ( thats luck on what machine i play) but i shall say from over ten years of playing online i can pick up the odds of machines knowing that youve had a very good run , we all know this does not continue & all of a sudden , almost like a switch you get to a point then bang your returns go so low its a joke , theres something behind this almost as if the software knows to a penny how much youve spent, what youve played where your good run was how much you won ,how much your above in totals from deposits & how much your winning from a casino ,if like many of you point out the software was random then im thinking this would not happen over maybe a 1000,s of times over the years,no one could be that unlucky all the time , if the software was purely random then we wouldnt see this all the time ,im trying to look at this as odds & this isnt about losing either ,i just think that it maybe set @95% but if youve some monies somewhere its going to take you down & thats the point where i would like answers of tracking ? as i was speaking to rusty the other day in the forum he too picked up the same points i was thinking , well we may live in the uk but were both from different parts , how is it that a long standing players know how this happens ? it doesnt say that the rtp% is wrong at all just kind of funny that it happens so much yet @ B&M i cannot say it has & thats in 18 years of playing, would like peoples thoughts on this i know its a hard one to comment on but if everyone could add there little bit we could at least break it down slightly,

 

[rouletteguy]

It'd be a bit of a pain in the ass but maybe some of these casino's would be willing to post winners and amounts cashed out for a given month. I think alot of people aren't winning because alot more people are playing. and as 3 dice said fairly often a new machine forks out wins early and then it takes month's for the house edge to catch up. That makes me logically believe the machines go tight

 

[love2winalot]

Hiya: Some Casino's, in their news letters, do tell you who the Big winners were that week/month, and so on. I remember a Casino had it in their T&C, that they reserved the right to use your screen name for promotional purposes. Kind of like the Local casino's here in Vegas that have a entire wall of slot machine winners holding up the cash they won.

 

[rouletteguy]

Hiya: Some Casino's, in their news letters, do tell you who the Big winners were that week/month, and so on. I remember a Casino had it in their T&C, that they reserved the right to use your screen name for promotional purposes. Kind of like the Local casino's here in Vegas that have a entire wall of slot machine winners holding up the cash they won.

sorry i should have been more clear i don't mean just the big winners but all winners. if they bring in a million show us where they paid out 950 grand. The more I think of 3 dice statement that the machines can pay out big and then take months for house edge to catch up the more i wonder.

Say xmen paid out 100 grand to joe blow it is then programmed to take in 105 grand before it is at 95% RTP again. BUT it also would still be considered legit if it took in 200 grand before spitting any back so long as it shelled out 95 grand somwhere along the way from the second 100 grand.

if done as small wins say 10-15 bucks nobody cashes these but plays em back. The machine is paying out according to rules etc. but the money is not leaving the casino. If set up like this with a long enough reel strip (say 5 years) the casino could close or sell (causing a reset of reel strips to begininng) and though the machines were legit and verified etc. The owner never had to pay shit because he got out before the big RTP's happened.

This is a plausible conspiracy theory IMO

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

How can I help here

Greetings,

How can I help here?

I did change my opinion on the matter of 3 Dice Blackjack from an initial assessment, but this was due to an error in my procedures. My original opinion was that their game required further auditing (and they did eventually get that audit). My later opinion was that the game was fair as-is. I believe to this day that their game was fair at the time. I found no problems whatsoever with Three Dice blackjack after reconsidering my audit. Initially Nash sent payment for this work. After I determined my errors, I returned his fee.

Nash and I had several long conversations in the fall of 2007 about this, and I thought he understood my situation. I lost both parents in 2007 and was in bad shape in many ways. My work was sloppy and I apologized to him personally and on this board. I corrected my work and sent the corrections to him. He accepted them gracefully at the time, and I thought we had an understanding on the matter. It appears that is not the case.

I am not sure what else to say on the matter. I thought it was long gone. Understanding that certain matters must be kept confidential, please let me know if there are any other questions,

--Eliot

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Greetings,

How can I help here?

I did change my opinion on the matter of 3 Dice Blackjack from an initial assessment, but this was due to an error in my procedures. My original opinion was that their game required further auditing (and they did eventually get that audit). My later opinion was that the game was fair as-is. I believe to this day that their game was fair at the time. I found no problems whatsoever with Three Dice blackjack after reconsidering my audit. Initially Nash sent payment for this work. After I determined my errors, I returned his fee.

Nash and I had several long conversations in the fall of 2007 about this, and I thought he understood my situation. I lost both parents in 2007 and was in bad shape in many ways. My work was sloppy and I apologized to him personally and on this board. I corrected my work and sent the corrections to him. He accepted them gracefully at the time, and I thought we had an understanding on the matter. It appears that is not the case.

I am not sure what else to say on the matter. I thought it was long gone. Understanding that certain matters must be kept confidential, please let me know if there are any other questions,

--Eliot

The whole audit with it's multiple Statement of Findings was a joke and still is as you continue to avoid full transparency.

One betrayal I forgave. (I knew of you and your outstanding reputation long before I ever visited this site. In fact, I had even ordered twelve of your BJ books directly from your publisher before I ever visited this site). What you did in later January and February of 2008 after you begged me via PM and phone to allow you one more chance (to clean up the audit but with no changes to the data, only wording), hell I could no longer forgive you nor trust you professionally. Yet, have I not honored to this day your multiple requests to keep most details pursuant of the audit (fiasco) and imo your possible malfeasance off the public forums despite you willfully deceiving me for the benefit of yourself and I must assume 3 Dice?

That said, instead in the past (including on this forum) I have requested that you be the one to become fully transparent on all the issues pursuant to the entire audit and even moreso your final conclusions via your final 5th or 6th SOF whereby imv and based on the evidence there are multiple malfeasances and/or deceptions.

A few preliminary questions Eliot per your post today:

Do you recollect saying to me before the audit, auditors can not simply afford to make mistakes? You made one minor insignificant mistake on your initial Statement of Findings pursuant to Aces, correct?

Did Enzo cooperate in providing the hand histories initially in the way the hand histories were professionally requested in a professional manner for an auditor? In what form were the requested hand histories sent initially. Were they sent in full? In your professional opinion could the hand histories possibly have even been manipulated? If so, did any of your multiple SoF's ever note this?

Were you intimidated by the outrageous and belligerent behavior (ftr, not towards me but towards you Eliot) of Enzo and I also believe Bob upon your presenting to them your initial audit Statement of Findings? If so, how often were you intimidated by them??

Were you simply massaging my ego both before and during the audit when you said on several occasions via the phone that with exception of some card counters and Bob N., that my knowledge of the game of Blackjack was superior to anyone you had ever discussed the game with?

Did you submit an invoice for the subject audit after you made your minor corrections to the initial SoF on or around Dec. 10, 2007? Did this invoice state "ALL WORK COMPLETE" ? Did I email a copy of my online banking confirm to you as a courtesy that confirmed that I made payment in full within 24 hours of receipt of your "ALL WORK COMPLETE" invoice?

Therafter, did I ever request a refund of your paid in full invoice? If so, when? Upon receipt of my check, did I have any knowledge that you chose to refund it in full and also via overnight delivery. During this period and thereafter, were you still engaging in conversations (that is plural) with Enzo and perhaps Bob?

To Be Continued!! Get your popcorn!!

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

You made one minor insignificant mistake on your initial Statement of Findings pursuant to Aces, correct?

Yes, I did not originally account for splitting aces in the distribution of aces in the first two cards.

Did Enzo cooperate in eventually providing the hand histories initially in the way the hand histories were requested in a professional manner for an auditor?

Yes, Enzo and 3 Dice cooperated.

In what form were the requested hand histories sent initially.

I just double checked. I received a CSV file.

Were they sent in full?

The log I received covered play from 09/30/2007 through 12/05/2007. The log was complete for that period of play.

In your professional opinion could the hand histories possibly have even been manipulated?

No.

I think it is important to understand the big error I made, the one that needed to be corrected. This is due to a phenomena called "hindsight bias." See

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

. The way this works is that one analyzes some data, and then finds those data points that are furthest away from normal and claim this is proof of bias. Among any data, some points will be more "average" than others -- that's the nature of the bell curve. One can't select the events along the tail of the curve after-the-fact and claim bias based on those points. This is a common error in statistical analysis, and is one I should have avoided. The numbers I arrived at through my data processing were correct (after the issues with Aces was fixed), but it is my conclusions that were in error.

I will be happy to answer other questions directly related to the fairness of the blackjack game at 3 Dice at the time of the audit. I also ask that you not provide personal information about our conversations, phone calls, payments or e-mail exchanges in the guise of questions. Matters of confidentiality must be respected if you want to have your questions answered about the audit. I ask that you edit your post and remove those questions.

Kind regards,

Eliot

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Yes, I did not originally account for splitting aces in the distribution of aces in the first two cards.


Yes, Enzo and 3 Dice cooperated.


I just double checked. I received a CSV file.


The log I received covered play from 09/30/2007 through 12/05/2007. The log was complete for that period of play.


No.

I will be happy to answer other questions directly related to the fairness of the blackjack game at 3 Dice at the time of the audit. I also ask that you not provide personal information about our conversations, phone calls or e-mail exchanges in the guise of questions. Matters of confidentiality must be respected if you want to have your questions answered about the audit. I ask that you edit your post and remove those questions.

Kind regards,

Eliot

Can you not tolerate the truth? Confidentiality , my ass, I suppose you can explain the confidentiality of Enzo posting your bogus final (5th or 6th) SOF aka audit to the 3Dice server as well as provide it to his player's with my personal information included. Dark Mage would post it "ditto" here also.

As to your answers above that you culled for reply (I edited via deletion the word "eventually" prior to your reply, fyi) most are not complete answers so perhaps I should be even more specific in my questions if you can tolerate them.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Yes, I did not originally account for splitting aces in the distribution of aces in the first two cards.


Yes, Enzo and 3 Dice cooperated.


I just double checked. I received a CSV file.


The log I received covered play from 09/30/2007 through 12/05/2007. The log was complete for that period of play.


No.

I think it is important to understand the big error I made, the one that needed to be corrected. This is due to a phenomena called "hindsight bias." See

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

. The way this works is that one analyzes some data, and then finds those data points that are furthest away from normal and claim this is proof of bias. Among any data, some points will be more "average" than others -- that's the nature of the bell curve. One can't select the events along the tail of the curve after-the-fact and claim bias based on those points. This is a common error in statistical analysis, and is one I should have avoided. The numbers I arrived at through my data processing were correct (after the issues with Aces was fixed), but it is my conclusions that were in error.

I will be happy to answer other questions directly related to the fairness of the blackjack game at 3 Dice at the time of the audit. I also ask that you not provide personal information about our conversations, phone calls, payments or e-mail exchanges in the guise of questions. Matters of confidentiality must be respected if you want to have your questions answered about the audit. I ask that you edit your post and remove those questions.

Kind regards,

Eliot

No way but you have been sucessful in the past in having my posts removed. You are in the States and if I have damaged you, you can attempt to prove it.

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

No way but you have been sucessful in the past in having my posts removed. You are in the States and if I have damaged you, you can attempt to prove it.

Nash,

You have the opportunity to have a conversation with me. Finally, after several years, I am here for you, willing to answer you directly, and in public.

If you have questions about the audit, it's mathematics, the tests that were conducted, or the methodology for the final conclusions, I will do my best to answer those questions. Others may find a lot of benefit by going through the process.

In the past, huge issues with casinos have been brought to light by considering statistics in a public forum. The Absolute Poker issue would have never been discovered, let alone resolved, were it not for the hard work over at two-plus-two. The log files for your play are still at hand. Perhaps you should seek a public remedy if you believe 3 Dice did not offer you a fair game at blackjack. I believe they did.

If you want to have this conversation, I am willing, but the tone must be civil. If you want a fight, it's going to be one-way.

Kind regards,

Eliot

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Greetings,

How can I help here?

I did change my opinion on the matter of 3 Dice Blackjack from an initial assessment, but this was due to an error in my procedures. My original opinion was that their game required further auditing (and they did eventually get that audit). My later opinion was that the game was fair as-is. I believe to this day that their game was fair at the time.I found no problems whatsoever with Three Dice blackjack after reconsidering my audit. Initially Nash sent payment for this work. After I determined my errors, I returned his fee.

Your timeline per se of the above mentioned all occured give or take a day during the second week of Dec. 2007 with the exception of the bolded (in blue) which is not clear as stated. If that bolded blue statement above should be included as part of the same time interval you clearly reference above then it is clear that you should have mentioned (as you have previously posted), this determination you mention is the 180 you pulled by just reversing course without any basis at that time that neither I nor 3DICE could have known your reason why. Later you would reveal you chose to bail for your own reasons as maybe you could not deal with my need for the truth and with the smack down of pressure from 3D. Otherwise the blue bolded statement is not applicable to the second week in Dec. 2007.

Nash and I had several long conversations in the fall of 2007 about this, and I thought he understood my situation. I lost both parents in 2007 and was in bad shape in many ways. My work was sloppy and I apologized to him personally and on this board.

This all occurred in early January 2008!!

I corrected my work and sent the corrections to him. He accepted them gracefully at the time, and I thought we had an understanding on the matter.

If you are referring to early January 2008 then it is a fair statement.

It appears that is not the case.

That is correct after your second 180 and final SOF (the 5th or 6th) fully published at 3 Dice in early February 2008 or so. Perhaps you should check your long prior PM(s) to me whereby you pleaded with and begged me for another chance to make this last audit right as you stated the ethics and terms (not me) you would follow. Enough said!!

I am not sure what else to say on the matter. I thought it was long gone. Understanding that certain matters must be kept confidential.

There was no confidentiality agreement or any other type of restrictive agreement(s). I hired and paid you in full. You never mentioned confidentiality as I recollect until after you over-nighted my payment back to me, then you started telling me what I could and could not do, not that I ever asked. And that is not all you did!

--Eliot

Screw transparency as if I can not support it.......So let it be how you and whomever wants it to be or proclaims it is. Just don't inhale.......FINIS!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Nash,
Perhaps you should seek a public remedy if you believe 3 Dice did not offer you a fair game at blackjack. I believe they did.

LOL , remedy?

Obviously I hired you to determine if 3D's BJ was fair as I had my doubts to fairness (which you also had your own doubts with caveats after visiting their site before I officially hired you). My doubts were no secret. I do not believe I have ever made the direct conclusion that 3D's BJ was unfair as a fact. I could have implied as an opinion.

How would I have known based on your's and 3D's actions if their BJ was fair or unfair?

Not knowing and left with even more doubt based on the entire audit fiasco, I have never played another hand of 3D's BJ again (since Dec. 2007).

Touche!!

 

[funeral979]

These last series of posts are a bit cloudy and quite troubling to me.

Obviously I am not privy to probably a majority of what is being alluded to here....but I doubt I will play another hand of blackjack at 3Dice until the rest of this (whatever it is) plays out.

What IS clear to me is that there are certain things about 3Dice blackjack that certain people want kept secret.

 

[jod5413]

Sometimes in life, there are things we have no control over. We can talk and talk until we are blue in the face.

We can either accept things as they are, or we can keep trying to find out the real truths.

I do not believe there is anything to be gained by continuing to "go down this road".

Nash, I really am sorry that this ended up the way it did for you. Without knowing all the bits and pieces, I have to say, some of us will understand and believe you, others not so much.

You have more than made your point, Nash. Please let it go. Nothing can be gained by raking Elliot over the coals, or making not so subtle "hints" that things weren't as they seemed.

JMO

(Your favorite frenenemy)

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Sometimes in life, there are things we have no control over. We can talk and talk until we are blue in the face.

We can either accept things as they are, or we can keep trying to find out the real truths.

I do not believe there is anything to be gained by continuing to "go down this road".

Nash, I really am sorry that this ended up the way it did for you. Without knowing all the bits and pieces, I have to say, some of us will understand and believe you, others not so much.

You have more than made your point, Nash. Please let it go. Nothing can be gained by raking Elliot over the coals, or making not so subtle "hints" that things weren't as they seemed.

JMO

(Your favorite frenenemy)

Well said and honestly the bolded had already occurred to me as today's posts unfolded!

 

[The Dude]

Hi Nash,

do yourself a favor and chill out a little bit. Life is too short to get so riled up over all of this. I think Elliot explained perfectly well what went down during his audit. There is no need to start hammering away at what you feel was wrong with the entire thing. A lot of what you posted could have been kept to a private correspondence. Why get so bent out of shape?

 

[4 of a kind]

Hi Nash,

do yourself a favor and chill out a little bit. Life is too short to get so riled up over all of this. I think Elliot explained perfectly well what went down during his audit. There is no need to start hammering away at what you feel was wrong with the entire thing. A lot of what you posted could have been kept to a private correspondence. Why get so bent out of shape?

People are getting so bent out of shape because of threads like this. After 2,613 views (at this point) 41 days passing and 82 posts not one rep. stepped forward and confirmed one way or the other how Video Poker or Black Jack games are factually being dealt to us suckers.

Sixteen active reps. were pm'ed and asked to respond here. Just two did, who thought they could derail the question with bullshit. Unfortunately at this stage of online gaming's existence the bullshit don't work anymore for most.

Whatever is going on here with Nash, Enzo, and Elliot for some reason the actual details aren't being exposed.

Whenever transparency is being challenged with online casinos, for some reason the topic always turns sneaky, squirmy, snakey, stinky, and private.

Thanks to this site many players are getting educated with whats going on. Does anyone else here recognize when it comes to online casino discussions, the threads have become 99% about players being robbed in one form or another.

This issue with Video Poker and Black Jack was never settled in this thread. All the people that stay clear of threads like this one, were relived this thread completed the fade away along with all the other important unanswered threads in the past that are long gone, and are probably reading this bump in disgust.

I'm rather impressed I haven't been rid of by now consistently trying to stand up for what's right and fair.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Hi Nash,
I think Elliot explained perfectly well what went down during his audit.

Hello Bryan,
Really?,, like you would know what went down during the audit with Eliot??.... May sombody have mercy on your souls and Enzo's too.

 

[Nifty29]

After reading this thread and the latest replies, an image has formed in my mind of a brain-damaged greyhound with a rubber boot.

Nash - have you considered finding another auditor? Surely Eliot isnt the only person capable in the world? Actually, I believe as you do that online BJ is not random and should never be considered to be the same as 'real world' BJ. In fact, in many instances I believe it is programmed very much like (or even as) a slot.

I sometimes have a few hands at my local B&M Casino for enjoyment, but never spend a dime these days online (at BJ). The kind of results I see online as opposed to 'real' BJ are too far apart to be considered 'the same'.

BTW Im not talking about 3Dice specifically but all online casinos.

 

[just play]

People are getting so bent out of shape because of threads like this. After 2,613 views (at this point) 41 days passing and 82 posts not one rep. stepped forward and confirmed one way or the other how Video Poker or Black Jack games are factually being dealt to us suckers.

What are they going to say? Yup, BJ/VP are fixed?

Sixteen active reps. were pm'ed and asked to respond here. Just two did, who thought they could derail the question with bullshit. Unfortunately at this stage of online gaming's existence the bullshit don't work anymore for most.

I have to disagree here...I think the bullshit works just fine for most.

Whatever is going on here with Nash, Enzo, and Elliot for some reason the actual details aren't being exposed.

Very strange, wonder what's missing?

Whenever transparency is being challenged with online casinos, for some reason the topic always turns sneaky, squirmy, snakey, stinky, and private.

Again...what does one say? It's all fixed?

Thanks to this site many players are getting educated with whats going on. Does anyone else here recognize when it comes to online casino discussions, the threads have become 99% about players being robbed in one form or another.

Yes sir.

This issue with Video Poker and Black Jack was never settled in this thread. All the people that stay clear of threads like this one, were relived this thread completed the fade away along with all the other important unanswered threads in the past that are long gone, and are probably reading this bump in disgust.

I'm rather impressed I haven't been rid of by now consistently trying to stand up for what's right and fair.

Life is too short to get so riled up over all of this

I'm sorry to disagree Casinomeister, but if Nash thinks something isn't on the up and up, he should get riled up, he is spending his money just like the rest of us. Like 4OAK, said important questions go unanswered...wonder why?

Do I believe online gambling is fixed...yes I do...and no one will ever change my mind, and I just cashed out a nice sum, but I STILL think online gambling is fixed. This thread is just one of the reasons I feel the way I do.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Nash - have you considered finding another auditor?

I now do my own audits. They are usually incorrect though but I have no problems with "hindsight bias". It's that freaking
"frontsight bias" I suck at.

Seriously, I trust no auditor with good reason. Think about it as in who really keeps buttering their bread, not player's. Actually an auditor in the Absolute Poker thread says it better than I (will post t-row). Thus, I actually started doing and/or did my own BJ audits. At first I needed a some Excel set-up and how to help which the forum and a few forum members helped. Then I set up all test/audit templates. The software platforms do not cooperate by formatting the data as requested and thus the grunt work.

 

[3Dice]

Hi Guys,

I have always chosen to stay out of this discussion as much as possible - I have very few nice things to say about other parties involved and always saw little use in beating a dead horse.

When Nash in 2007 asked for csv versions of his logs to be audited I thought it was rather funny. His lifetime blackjack stats showed 98.66% RTP, with a net loss of 164 bet units on +-12000 games. (an SD of +-0.9, odds between 1 in 5 and 1 in 6).

Big was my surprise when I was sent the audit report - that first version, for those not aware, did not conclude anything was wrong - but it expressed Nash's run as 'extremely bad luck' (excuse me ?? 1 in 5 !!), a quick review immediately showed a number (not just 1) of counting mistakes, all producing a negative bias, and a series of conclusions based on exactly those numbers. The final conclusion, where Mr Jacobson expressed that he felt a full audit, with the side note that he could be the one to do that, would be a good idea.

Obviously, 3Dice did not agree that a flawed report would be considered final (what would you do ??) - and so after pointing out the counting mistakes I was confident the situation would be rectified swiftly.

When the second 'final' version simply had the counting numbers changed - but left all the conclusions the same that ticked me off more than a little bit. After ample discussions (Nash : the leverage I used is called MATH !!!!!) I feel Dr Jacobson dropped the ball even more by stripping most all conclusions from his SOF - and weakening his full audit statement to one of 'general advice' .. i.e. that he felt everyone should have a full audit done.

At least that report did not contain any obvious mistakes anymore - it was still a long shot from what it should have been. That is a clear statement that Nash's run in no form shape or way was anything but expected and that none of the numbers found even remotely suggested anything could be wrong.

(i.e. the same conclusion i-tech labs reached when later on independently verifying the 3Dice software, 3Dice card shuffling, and its application in the games).

By that time Nash had become so paranoid - I don't blame him for that - he didn't understand any of the math - and must have been more than a bit confused with the out-of-line and ever changing comments of Dr Jacobson. He has since decided I'm the incarnation of evil. We're talking the full deal of conspiracy theories here including myself, CM and Dr Jacobson playing crucial roles in some type of I don't know what.

Since that point this has turned into a true Don Quichotte scenario - why don't you make sense for once Nash and post the csv's of your play out in the open - I'm sure there's plenty people on here who can perform the simple math involved (a chi squared is no rocket science). There's no hard feelings on my side Nash, even tho you've done your best to damage me and 3Dice as much as possible - I can't blame you since its simply to obvious you don't understand.

Post the data - set yourself free.

Kindest Regards

Enzo.


p.s. 4 oak, every casino on the accredited list here is third party verified, all of those casino's offer blackjack and VP games purely based on naturally shuffled deck(s) of cards. All those reports are published and free for you to download and look into. It would be _tremendously_ easy to find evidence of anything otherwise. For example in a multihand VP scenario (say 50 hands) - it would only take a couple of hundred games at most to be able to calculate a reliable stat on the division of cards.

There's a number of forums out there (I suggest aka23's beatingbonuses.com), that have ample tools and skilled math people available to help you out - time spent much more useful than through making vague suggestions and allegations without even the slightest hint of proof.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Hi Guys,

I have always chosen to stay out of this discussion as much as possible - I have very few nice things to say about other parties involved and always saw little use in beating a dead horse.

When Nash in 2007 asked for csv versions of his logs to be audited I thought it was rather funny. His lifetime blackjack stats showed 98.66% RTP, with a net loss of 164 bet units on +-12000 games. (an SD of +-0.9, odds between 1 in 5 and 1 in 6).

Big was my surprise when I was sent the audit report - that first version, for those not aware, did not conclude anything was wrong - but it expressed Nash's run as 'extremely bad luck' (excuse me ?? 1 in 5 !!), a quick review immediately showed a number (not just 1) of counting mistakes, all producing a negative bias, and a series of conclusions based on exactly those numbers. The final conclusion, where Mr Jacobson expressed that he felt a full audit, with the side note that he could be the one to do that, would be a good idea.

Obviously, 3Dice did not agree that a flawed report would be considered final (what would you do ??) - and so after pointing out the counting mistakes I was confident the situation would be rectified swiftly.

When the second 'final' version simply had the counting numbers changed - but left all the conclusions the same that ticked me off more than a little bit. After ample discussions (Nash : the leverage I used is called MATH !!!!!) I feel Dr Jacobson dropped the ball even more by stripping most all conclusions from his SOF - and weakening his full audit statement to one of 'general advice' .. i.e. that he felt everyone should have a full audit done.

At least that report did not contain any obvious mistakes anymore - it was still a long shot from what it should have been. That is a clear statement that Nash's run in no form shape or way was anything but expected and that none of the numbers found even remotely suggested anything could be wrong.

(i.e. the same conclusion i-tech labs reached when later on independently verifying the 3Dice software, 3Dice card shuffling, and its application in the games).

By that time Nash had become so paranoid - I don't blame him for that - he didn't understand any of the math - and must have been more than a bit confused with the out-of-line and ever changing comments of Dr Jacobson. He has since decided I'm the incarnation of evil. We're talking the full deal of conspiracy theories here including myself, CM and Dr Jacobson playing crucial roles in some type of I don't know what.

Since that point this has turned into a true Don Quichotte scenario - why don't you make sense for once Nash and post the csv's of your play out in the open - I'm sure there's plenty people on here who can perform the simple math involved (a chi squared is no rocket science). There's no hard feelings on my side Nash, even tho you've done your best to damage me and 3Dice as much as possible - I can't blame you since its simply to obvious you don't understand.

Post the data - set yourself free.

Kindest Regards

Enzo.


p.s. 4 oak, every casino on the accredited list here is third party verified, all of those casino's offer blackjack and VP games purely based on naturally shuffled deck(s) of cards. All those reports are published and free for you to download and look into. It would be _tremendously_ easy to find evidence of anything otherwise. For example in a multihand VP scenario (say 50 hands) - it would only take a couple of hundred games at most to be able to calculate a reliable stat on the division of cards.

There's a number of forums out there (I suggest aka23's beatingbonuses.com), that have ample tools and skilled math people available to help you out - time spent much more useful than through making vague suggestions and allegations without even the slightest hint of proof.

LOL on the stretch!.......I may post the original 600 +/- hands that you originally sent as my entire set of hand histories from memory as a text or html file despite the very clear instructions you ignored on what and how (XLS) to send the data, and then repeated and then repeated, hummm for the math guy!!.........Why would I trust your delayed data that you falsely claimed you had sent (as I requested) on more than one occasion, why????........it's that paranoid conspiracy thing similar to all those that must falsely accuse you of sending shills to this forum, LOL!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

When the second 'final' version simply had the counting numbers changed - but left all the conclusions the same that ticked me off more than a little bit. After ample discussions (Nash : the leverage I used is called MATH !!!!!)......

Another former auditor's two takes and/or posts on audits from the "Absolute Poker is absolutely rigged....." thread (link and one post below) pursuant to the questionable behavior of the audited and auditor(s) and thus, imo , another reason audits a farce and not worth the paper they are on.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...evidence-near-certain-proof-its-rigged.20630/

They promissed to inform the public within 2 weeks. It is now 26 days ago, since this statement was made. However, there are a lot of holidays included. Therefore, we should still wait a couple of days. From my experience as a former auditor I know that it happens relatively often in such cases, that the auditors are asked to change the wording of the report. And then it depends, whether the auditor has enough backbone to ignore such requests.

Paranoid conspiracy theories, moi not understanding , biases , my ass Enzo and Eliot........"MATH", dependent upon whether legit data , then yep Enzo would have had a right to question!!

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Hi Guys,

When Nash in 2007 asked for csv versions of his logs to be audited I thought it was rather funny. His lifetime blackjack stats showed 98.66% RTP.

Kindest Regards

Enzo.

Funny to have commissioned an audit at my own expense, EH???, based on the statistic of RTP alone in 3 Dice's new proprietary software game of Blackjack, not stats btw , whereby maybe in a truly fair game that statistic should have been 98.96% or whatever%, yes???? And of course I am assuming only for the sake of arguement there is/was not anything fraudulent with the Blackjack hand history logs.

Hey Enzo just so you know (as if you did not) , if Blackjack software is not random and/or fair, it will or should fail some type of the multiple types of statistical measures available and applicable to the game of Blackjack that includes a computer et al determining each and every distribution of the cards. Furthermore in and of itself the single statistical measure of RTP in the referenced game of Blackjack above does not by any means determine fairness nor randomness as you imply. Shame on you!!.

Of course, I believe we will both agree that in order for any one or more of the multiple types of possible statistical measures to be considered or labeled a failure via an unbiased and fair audit or other reasonable and fair means, it must deviate far enough from the applicable statistical expectation.

Regards!!

 

[hitobito2005]

p.s. 4 oak, every casino on the accredited list here is third party verified, all of those casino's offer blackjack and VP games purely based on naturally shuffled deck(s) of cards. All those reports are published and free for you to download and look into. It would be _tremendously_ easy to find evidence of anything otherwise. For example in a multihand VP scenario (say 50 hands) - it would only take a couple of hundred games at most to be able to calculate a reliable stat on the division of cards.

There's a number of forums out there (I suggest aka23's beatingbonuses.com), that have ample tools and skilled math people available to help you out - time spent much more useful than through making vague suggestions and allegations without even the slightest hint of proof.

Finally, a voice of sense and reason!

 

[funeral979]

These last series of posts are a bit cloudy and quite troubling to me.

Obviously I am not privy to probably a majority of what is being alluded to here....but I doubt I will play another hand of blackjack at 3Dice until the rest of this (whatever it is) plays out.

What IS clear to me is that there are certain things about 3Dice blackjack that certain people want kept secret.

Unfortunately I didn't take my own advice. Decided to put some cash into 3Dice tonite....and, as usual, lost almost all my blackjack bets I placed that were $50+

Well, I decided enough is enough and finally had the account closed....and I really feel that a big weight has been lifted off my shoulders. For some reason things were starting to get a little personal for me with my account there. The Ego Vs. The Skeptic.

At any rate, there is something quite fishy with the blackjack game at 3Dice, apparently there always has been....and its been covered up quite well.

 

[klh374]

Unfortunately I didn't take my own advice. Decided to put some cash into 3Dice tonite....and, as usual, lost almost all my blackjack bets I placed that were $50+

Well, I decided enough is enough and finally had the account closed....and I really feel that a big weight has been lifted off my shoulders. For some reason things were starting to get a little personal for me with my account there. The Ego Vs. The Skeptic.

At any rate, there is something quite fishy with the blackjack game at 3Dice, apparently there always has been....and its been covered up quite well.

question for you-do you keep track of every hand that you play in a land-based casino?? I am an avid bj player in land-based casinos and have had both good and bad runs of luck on tables. Now I have played at 3dice as well, and i have absolutely NO reason to think that anything fishy is going on there. 3Dice blackjack treats me the same as land-based, I feel it is more along the lines of player decisions which lead to losing.
This is my opinion and from my experience, as well.
Also, I do not agree with this quite bold negative talk you seem to like to do about 3dice, obviously your experience was not good, and from what I know, you are rare!
So I will continue to stand behind 3Dice Casino-the games, the management, the support, and I will continue to support them and highly recommend new players to join and check it out for themselves!!!

 

[funeral979]

question for you-do you keep track of every hand that you play in a land-based casino?? I am an avid bj player in land-based casinos and have had both good and bad runs of luck on tables. Now I have played at 3dice as well, and i have absolutely NO reason to think that anything fishy is going on there. 3Dice blackjack treats me the same as land-based, I feel it is more along the lines of player decisions which lead to losing.
This is my opinion and from my experience, as well.
Also, I do not agree with this quite bold negative talk you seem to like to do about 3dice, obviously your experience was not good, and from what I know, you are rare!
So I will continue to stand behind 3Dice Casino-the games, the management, the support, and I will continue to support them and highly recommend new players to join and check it out for themselves!!!

Well I stated my opinion and my experienece as well. I am free to do that same as you.

And its not just 3Dice, its pretty much all softwares.....none of them deal a real game of blackjack....which is the crux of this thread, not singing the praises of such and such casino.