1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

For all you math guys out there

Discussion in 'Online Casinos' started by Bruno712, Apr 22, 2004.

Tags:
    Apr 22, 2004
  1. Bruno712

    Bruno712 Banned User

    Occupation:
    semi-retired
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    What are the chances of this occuring in a clean game of BJ?

    Playing single hand BJ, (advertised at 6 decks I believe) playing approximately 100 hands while betting $25/$50 dollars, holding my own then maxing out to $400 and losing 9 straight hands. Not only losing, but losing to either a dealers BJ or a dealer 21. Then doing the same thing the next day and lsoing 6 to a BJ or 21. The next day 7 times (2 pushes) to a BJ or 21.
     
  2. Apr 22, 2004
  3. cipher

    cipher Banned member - being a jerk

    Hi Bruno;

    What Casino was this?
     
  4. Apr 22, 2004
  5. ss911der

    ss911der Dormant account

    Sounds like I have been having similar experiences with the casino I have been using....

    Check my topic.
     
  6. Apr 22, 2004
  7. Clayman

    Clayman Dormant account

    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    I never worry about how I lose just how many times I lose. A loss is a loss is a loss.

    And I'm sure you know one can't tell you how bad your session was without knowing the overall results.

    I think a dealer will get a BJ or 21 about 12% of the time, if that's any help.

    I've never subscribed to the belief that there is a correlation between large bet size and W/L %, if that is your point, but I realize many do. I've often thought, if one believes that, then ... don't make any big bets. Problem solved.
     
  8. Apr 23, 2004
  9. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    The probability of 7 dealer BJs or 21s in a row in 100 hands is somewhere about 1 in 20000 or 30000, so you have indeed experienced some rare events, so I don't blame you for being suspicious. On the other hand, if I were to write cheating casino software, I would do it in more subtle ways.
     
  10. Apr 23, 2004
  11. Bruno712

    Bruno712 Banned User

    Occupation:
    semi-retired
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I agree Clayman, never max out the bet

    According to my logs, the dealer may not have always won, but had 20, 21 or BJ 96% of the time when I maxed out a bet (1109 times in 1156 hands), with the 1156 maxed bets made out of over 35000 hands in total.

    Here's another one for you guys, 17 straight losses in video poker betting $25/hand on single mode. That has never happened to me before. Nothing even close.
     
  12. Apr 23, 2004
  13. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    On average, the dealer should get about 20s, 21s and BJs about 350 times out of 1156. The probability of a dealer getting 20, 21 or BJ 1109 times or more out of 1156 hands is in the range of 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (that's 500 zeros). Are you sure you got this right? If so, save your logs, print them out, maybe even videotape yourself checking the logs on the computer to prove that you did not manipulate the files. This would be solid quantitative evidence of cheating.

    In comparison, 17 losses in VP is quite normal. The exact probability depends on what kind of VP you played. For full pay JoB, the probability is about 1 in 30000, i.e., more likely than a royal flush.
     
  14. Apr 23, 2004
  15. DealerBusts

    DealerBusts Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    Which casino did you play at?
     
  16. Apr 23, 2004
  17. Clayman

    Clayman Dormant account

    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    I read it as 1109 over ~35000 hands. Which isn't so bad. If it's over 1156 hands, as you say, they are cheating. No doubt at all. Do you know how many BJ's, 20's 21's over the 35000 hands? That is, I assume you got some on non-max-bets.

    I gotta say that percentage of BJ's, 20, & 21's on maxed-out bets is certainly making me wonder, even if the overall percentage to total hands is OK. Certainly the most solid evidence I've ever heard of that bet size effects win rate. My "big bets" have never been max-out bets and, as I've always said, my win rate is OK over every bet size. I really don't know what to say about your experience. But get those logs because it kinda smells, even if over 35000 hands. Smells real bad. Any chance you know how many units you lost on your 1156 maxed-out bets? Sounds like it would likely be next to impossible.

    The insidious part is that it would seem to me to be possible to have an overall win rate that would pass all statistical tests by simply forcing wins on big bets and making up for it with more wins on low bets. Which, in a nutshell, is why I record all my hands.

    Are your stats from the logs themselves or your own recordings of results of hands? Assume the latter, get the former.

    Maybe GM can figure out the chances of having 1109 BJ's, 20's or 21's on 1156 maxed-out bets in 35000 hands. Is that what you are saying? I'm a little blown away right now. By both what I think I'm reading and a few hours at the Elks club. See you tomorrow.
     
  18. Apr 23, 2004
  19. Bruno712

    Bruno712 Banned User

    Occupation:
    semi-retired
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    What I used

    I took my game logs directly from the casinos' records of each hand played, not my chicken scratch.

    I did not do the computations personally. I sent them out to a former associate who has a program that analyzes statistical data for poker players but is easily apapted to other games of chance so I can't speak to the accuracy of these figures at this time. According to what he has told me, it will take at least two weeks for a full analysis due to the number of hands that he needs to scan and enter. That is why I refuse to divulge any casino names or make any premature statements. He has only done some preliminary analysis focusing mainly on the $100 and $400 bets and the double downs.

    I will also say that I did not check to see if all the logs the casinos have reflect the complete number of my play sessions. When I went to check one of my sessions yesterday, I noticed that it was not there. I know that I must have played over 1000 hands during that session and won over $3000. I am currently out of town and working from my laptop so I cannot cross check this until I return on Monday.

    The 17 straight losses were in a 9/6 Jacks or Better single hand game betting $25 per hand ($5/5 lines)
     
  20. Apr 24, 2004
  21. Clayman

    Clayman Dormant account

    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Keep us posted. I hope his program works better than True Gambler's did.

    And, I gather, people actually pay for OCA now. Amazing.

    If you think I can help in any way, feel free to PM me.
     
  22. Apr 25, 2004
  23. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    1109 over 35000 would be way too low, that's even less likely, if that were true then the game would be rigged in the player's favour. The only way these numbers make sense if 35000 is off by a factor of 10, and the number of hands is only 3500.

    The probability of the dealer having 20, 21 or BJ 1109 times out of 3500 hands is tricky to calculate, becuase it is depends very strongly on the exact probability of 20, 21 or BJ, which in turn depends on the number of decks and whether the dealer hist soft 17 or not. Taking the probability of dealer's 20, 21 or BJ to be 0.3, the probability of the dealer having 20, 21 or BJ at least 1109 times out of 3500 is about 0.0144 or 1 in 69. If you change 0.3 to 0.305, the probability increases to 0.0618 or 1 in 16.

    Bruno712, can you check the numbers again because they don't seem right to me.
     
  24. Apr 26, 2004
  25. Clayman

    Clayman Dormant account

    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Sorry - of course you're right. I wasn't too good at multiplying 35000 by 30% :)

    Basically not very much makes very much sense.

    I'm sure we'll hear more from Bruno when he gets back to the office next week. Hope so anyway.

    Edited to ask

    OK lets say there were 10,500 BJ's, 20's & 21's in 35000 hands (30%). Let's say he made 1156 max bets in those 35000 hands and that 1109 of those max bets were against a BJ, 20 or 21. Wouldn't that alone be strong evidence that bet size effects outcome? Even though the traditional units won/lost analysis for the 35000 hands might still appear to be OK? Would you think it likely a casino over a long period of time could get away with rigging only max bets in this fashion?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2004
  26. Apr 26, 2004
  27. Bruno712

    Bruno712 Banned User

    Occupation:
    semi-retired
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Clarification

    Clay,

    You are using the 1109 figure as the total number of 20, 21 and black jacks the dealer received out of the 35,000 hands. That is not the total number of those hands. It is the number of those hands the dealer received when I maxed my bet ONLY. I do not have the total amount of ALL 20, 21 and BJs as of yet. I maxed my bet 1156 times. Out of those 1156 hands only, the dealer caught 20, 21 or BJ 1109 times. He, of course, caught those hands on my other wagers, but I haven't received that figure back yet. Another thing I may not have said (or I may have, I'm getting older by the minute here). I did not lose the entire 1109 hands where the dealer caught those hands. I pushed some and won very few.

    I hope that clarifys things and gives you more insight about my concern.

    Dead Tired In Massachusetts,

    Bruno
     
  28. Apr 26, 2004
  29. gamblinboi

    gamblinboi Dormant account

    wow

    wow Bruno, at least tell us what software this was on?
     
  30. Apr 26, 2004
  31. Bruno712

    Bruno712 Banned User

    Occupation:
    semi-retired
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Not without the facts.

    Gambolini,

    In 1973, to my shock, my name appeared in my hometown (a Boston suburb)newspaper as having been arrested for assualt with a dangerous weapon. Not a real good thing to happen to a pre-law student. The problem was that on the day in question, a Saturday in October, I was running for 115 yards against the U of Miami IN MIAMI!!!!!! Some idiot punk who I grew up with got arrested, presented no ID and used my name and the ignorant cops booked him without verifying his identity. Thus, the erroneous police blotter. Even after the newspapers retraction, I was questioned about and looked down upon for a crime I never commited. So you won't catch me casting aspersion at anyone until all the evidence is in and verified.

    I was probably wrong to broach the subject before I had all the answers, but I did. Look at it like a serial, a cliff hanger, LOL. So tune in same Bat time, same Bat channel.
     
  32. Apr 26, 2004
  33. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    Thank you for confirming it. This is conclusive evidence that the software is rigged. You must have lost quite a lot of money. You should have stopped earlier, just 24 out of 25 times (probability 1 in 200000000000) would already make me very suspicious.
     
  34. Apr 26, 2004
  35. Bruno712

    Bruno712 Banned User

    Occupation:
    semi-retired
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    cont...

    Grandmaster,

    Indeed i did! From up $3k to down $3K at one casino. But I had just hit a Royal so I wasn't as concerned as I should have been. A real bad habit I have. I habitually break the rule that says "Any money sitting in my account is My money". I continue to justify my playing with "Their money". But I'm aware of it and I'm working on it. My analyst would be proud.
     
  36. Apr 27, 2004
  37. Clayman

    Clayman Dormant account

    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Bruno - thanks for the clarification - I think I finally understood it right (see after my "edited to ask" above.)

    GM - You are saying that if one randomly picked any 1156 hands from a 35000 hand sample, one would expect about 1156*.3=347 hands that would be a BJ 20 or 21 versus the 1109 Bruno is reporting. This still would be conclusive evidence of being rigged even if the entire 35000 sampled contained the expected number of BJ's 20's or 21's, say 9391 non-max-bet hands. Right? (9391+1109=35000*.3)

    What I find interesting, if this is true, is that True Gambler's OCA software might never have found a rigging like this since he never took bet size into account, assuming it to be irrelevant. Correct? Apparently Bruno had a max bet about 3% of the time but I wonder what % of all bets made at a casino are max bets. I'd guess alot less than 1%. And I'd guess it might be a while before anyone would suspect this since typically I doubt if most bankrolls would survive the loss of much more than a few max bets and therefore it would be difficult to get a sample size. I doubt it is something PWC looks at when issuing those silly monthly payback reports. Is it? If they did, the W/L %age on max bets would stick out like an elephant at a dog show. What is your opinion on the feasibility of a casino rigging only max bets in this fashion? A little too obvious?

    This whole question of "losing more with bigger bets" is something that has often been complained about over the years and something I have found difficult to disprove conclusively. If this is occurring with one of the major software providers, would it be an exaggeration to say something like this could change the entire landscape of internet gambling?

    Bruno - you have the right attitude in saying you may have been wrong in even broaching this before you had all the facts. I think you are aware that you are dealing with TNT here. You also said earlier "I can't speak to the accuracy of these figures at this time". Has that now changed? Is your friend certain of this max-bet analysis? Rest assured, if this is confirmed, many questions will be asked as to his methodology. Will you be ultimately willing to have these logs subjected to other 3rd party analysis? Have you even verified them for completeness yet? I'm curious - were your logs presented to him in a text or database format or as picture files?

    I certainly am staying tuned to this Bat-channel!
     
  38. Apr 27, 2004
  39. case

    case Dormant account

    Bruno, would you mind providing some more details about the bets?

    You mention that the preliminary analysis looked at the $100 and $400 bets. Is the 1109 of 1156 figure $400 bets only (and all such bets), or does it include $100 bets and others?

    Is 1156 determined by a specific bet size (e.g. all bets of $100 or more), or by some other method?

    What is the table limit?

    Do you use a progression to determine your bet size?

    Is the software provider one of the big ones, or a small operation?

    TIA.
     

Share This Page