Finally the Data to Prove It

[WindyCityNeil]

I recently requested and audited my full 4,460-hand blackjack history from Ignition Casino covering September 5 through September 19, 2026. It was Single Deck.
On the surface, the overall deck metrics look completely standard and mathematically clean:

• Overall Record: 1,925 Wins (43.16%), 2,184 Losses (48.97%), 351 Pushes (7.87%)
• Natural Blackjacks: 219 for player (4.91%) vs. 217 for dealer (4.87%) — right at single-deck expectation (~4.83%)
• Card Frequencies: 10-value cards dealt came out to 30.81% (expected: 30.77%), and Aces to 7.52% (expected: 7.69%)
• Dealer Busts on Stiffs: When hitting hard 12–16, the dealer busted on the first hit 45.9% of the time, compared to 43.7% for the player.

However, segmenting the hands by wager size reveals where the session became unwinnable:

1. Zero Naturals on Wagers Over $20​

• Bets $1.00 – $20.00 (4,402 hands): Dealt 219 natural blackjacks (4.98%).
• Bets $21.00 – $60.00 (58 hands): Dealt 0 natural blackjacks (0.00%), while the dealer caught 2.

2. Massive Realized Edge on Pressed Bets​

• Across all wagers between $1 and $10 (3,582 rounds), the loss rate was normal, averaging -$0.12 per round.
• On the 58 wagers over $20, the win rate collapsed to 36.2% (21 wins, 32 losses, 5 pushes).
• Out of $1,828.00 total action on those 58 hands, the net result was -$358.00—representing a realized house edge of 19.58%.
• These 58 rounds made up just 1.3% of the total action, but generated nearly 30% of the entire session deficit.

3. Double-Down Bet Asymmetry on 11s​

• On doubled 11s that won (85 hands), the average initial wager was $7.04.
• On doubled 11s that lost (57 hands), the average initial wager jumped to $10.04 (maxing out at $34 / $68 total bet).

The bottom line is clear: the overall report is camouflage. Giving me a 4.9% blackjack rate on $5 throwaway hands means nothing when the software serves up a 0.0% blackjack rate and a 20% house take the moment real money hits the felt. You can't win a game where the math magically breaks down every single time you press your bet.

 

[Reelsoffun]

Play another 4,344 hands of $21-$60 and then re post all 8,920 hand data, then we can talk……

Until then you really can’t compare 4,402 hands of x amount with only 58 hands of x amount that’s not how stats and the laws of large numbers work.

How can you compare only 1% of hands to the other 99%?

 

[WindyCityNeil]

Play another 4,344 hands of $21-$60 and then re post all 8,920 hand data, then we can talk……

Until then you really can’t compare 4,402 hands of x amount with only 58 hands of x amount that’s not how stats and the laws of large numbers work.

How can you compare only 1% of hands to the other 99%?

Here is the thing. I have tried for years to get them to release my hand history in their single-deck BJ offering and they always refused. I requested a years worth this time and was shocked when they gave me what they did. But I will bet my life that one would see the exact same thing over 10k, 50k or 100k hands.

If you could have asked me how did I think the game was rigged I would have told you exactly what the data bore out. That as my bet went up my chance of winning went down.

I would love to prove this to you with more hands but they will not give me access. And now that I have seen hard data to back up my suspicions about the game being tilted I have no interest in handing those crooks another penny.

Variance is not variance when it only goes one way.

 

[andysbetting1187]

I would love to prove this to you with more hands but they will not give me access. And now that I have seen hard data to back up my suspicions about the game being tilted I have no interest in handing those crooks another penny.

Variance is not variance when it only goes one way.

It's an interesting post, but you don't have the hard data.

You can't say the variance is not variance with that small of a sample size - you are comparing 1.32% of your hands as they were played at a higher stake compared to the statistics that you have from over 4000 hands.

The 58 hands that you played at a higher stake could just be a bad run.

If the run had been a good run (which is possible) and you had crushed the table, then would you say lower stakes is rigged?