up until last year sometime, weren't there always members who would come in and shoot to shit all the kill switch threads? *i see now a couple chimed in during my following diatribe lol*
if you play 100 into 1000, you have had a remarkably nice run. the fact that you go on to lose it all is easily explainable.
you will have a bad perception of normal, since you just won so many consecutively. a run of cards just as bad as your winning streak is going to seem like a bunch of horse crap to you, but it was a-ok to be winning ten for every one the house does.
and when you got 100 up to 1000 did you continue betting in the same range as when you started with 100? nine losing hands @ $50 is going to dry up your balance faster than when you were winning every hand at the same rate but only @ $5-10 per hand.
you'll always play looser (yes i mean "looser") when you are up considerable money. just always remember how many UNITS at your current bet that you have left, because going minus 15-20 units in blackjack isn't uncommon, especially as online when you're getting hands in at a rate of speed. if you bump up your bet unit, you are more at risk of blowing your stack. go figure...
if you would look at a graph of your balance after each hand, the ups will equal the downs. all you are down is your deposit, everything else washes. you won all that money from the casino, and then you gave it back. that's gambling.
not a plug, but i've found chartwell bj's to be very fair and low variance. they've got single deck and regular rules bj that play very fair imo, although not everyone shares this feeling. and betfair's zero edge bj might make a player more comfortable, because if you play perfect strategy, the only way the house has an edge is if they rig the cards.
oh and the fact that they have infinite bankroll and can afford to take every player's bet until every one of us is broke, so even at a no edge game they still have that advantage. of course the punters have the advantage to pocket a win at any time we choose to stop, but those are the roles we put ourselves in. don't like it, start up your own business and play the other side. tell us if you feel the need to flip a kill switch to pay your rent or even finance that ferrari. i'll bet that non-cheating operations still do quite nicely for themselves, even those on a smaller scale than the likes of virgin or ladbrokes.
start anytime, stop anytime, don't take anything for granted, be reasonable, be cautious, be ready to lose, and appreciate when you win. and quit crying rigged when the negative side of variance hits you.
if it's rigged, a wealthy mathematician gambler would have been able to show it by now. because unless you have a fortune to commit to the project, you can't acquire a large enough sample to prove anything apart from the most obvious of rigs. if it was going to be rigged, it would be so subtle that we definitely could never prove it without billions of hands. and also if they could rig that good, i'm sure we wouldn't be able to just notice it casually, as we all seem to be able to do.
the kind of rigging and kill switches that are described here and in other threads should be easy enough to prove, no? if they are blatantly stacking the deck, shouldn't the numbers support that? have you all got it to a certainty that your real losses are impossibly unlikely?
unlikely.