Gaming software, simulators give false impression?

[eagle4x]

My game is online European roulette, and I started using a simulator from the wizardofodds website and the software is BetSoft. Most of the time I play, no matter what strategy I use, most of the time the ball hits on an uncovered bet. Examples,

1) Betting red/black using what is called a "follow the winner strategy", if I choose red, and if the ball lands on red, I then bet red each time the ball lands on red, most of the time the ball lands on black. Then if I bet on black and stay on black, then the ball lands on red consecutively (and opposite happens when I bet on red and stay on red).
2) Alternating bets between red and black on each spin, then most of the time, there are many consecutive hits on the opposite color that I bet on.
3) Bet on any 2 dozens and 2 columns at the same time, most of the time the ball lands in the column and row (or -0-) where there is no bet or a small loss.
4) Using a strategy where all but 2 numbers are covered, ball soon lands on one of the 2 uncovered numbers or -0-.

Then I tried a simulator that utilizes NetEnt, and so far, I am having the opposite experience than with BetSoft.

The wizardofvegas website is a sister website of wizardofodds. Someone posted in a thread and that the online casino games are rigged, and someone replied to "show me the data". I don't need to play 1000's of times and write down the data to prove it. I've read that some software companies in their patents state in so many words that their games are not really random.

I read the following thread on this website regarding favorite gaming software, but it is closed for comments, so I'll post my question here:

What is your Favorite Online Gaming Software? Pick three! - Page 3 - Casinomeister Forum

BetSoft has one of the lowest survey ratings and NetEnt one of the highest, however, from reading the comments, most of the members didn't say why they chose their favorite software. Some did mention graphics, but if the game is not fair but not using a truly random number generator, in my opinion, no other metric matters.

My thinking is that if BetSoft wanted people to gamble with real $ at an online casino that uses their software, they could at least make it look good and let the players of their simulators win more often, but with NetEnt, could it be that they're simulators give false impression with more winnings but when gambling with real $, they lose more often? I would assume the answer is no because of the high user survey ratings for NetEnt, but I want more information before opening an account.

 

[snorky510238]

No point beating around the bush.

It is 100% rigged, simple as that. Try any strategy with roulette that should give you the best chance of winning/minimal loss.

What you will notice is the game takes a much bigger edge than is likely over large sample or sessions and spins.

Providers and Casinos are having a field day just like they did with FOBT’s. It’s time the cheating *^*}%+s are called out and regulating bodies put to shame for their inability to control it.

 

[KasinoKing]

I don't need to play 1000's of times and write down the data to prove it.

Unfortunately... yes you do.
I don't play online roulette any more (used to - a VERY long time ago), but I do know that it is MUCH easier to prove if the software is creating than it would be for slots, for example. Or virtually any other game that I can think of.

With Roulette it is very simple to work out the exact probability of any number, group or colour occurring.
So a relatively small sample (compared to other games) would give you the data to see if there is something off.
So I would say it would take a few 1000 spins, but not tens of thousands.

I have no idea if Betsoft (or any other software) Roulette is "rigged", but I would think it's unlikely for two reasons:
1. It's probably the easiest game to analyse (as described above), so they would never get away with it.
2. Why would they cheat on a game where they are guaranteed to make 2.7% of every bet placed in the long run?
The variance is MUCH lower than slots - the max win is only bet x36 - so roulette is a low-risk money-maker for the casinos.

KK

 

[dunover]

Unfortunately... yes you do.
I don't play online roulette any more (used to - a VERY long time ago), but I do know that it is MUCH easier to prove if the software is creating than it would be for slots, for example. Or virtually any other game that I can think of.

With Roulette it is very simple to work out the exact probability of any number, group or colour occurring.
So a relatively small sample (compared to other games) would give you the data to see if there is something off.
So I would say it would take a few 1000 spins, but not tens of thousands.

I have no idea if Betsoft (or any other software) Roulette is "rigged", but I would think it's unlikely for two reasons:
1. It's probably the easiest game to analyse (as described above), so they would never get away with it.
2. Why would they cheat on a game where they are guaranteed to make 2.7% of every bet placed in the long run?
The variance is MUCH lower than slots - the max win is only bet x36 - so roulette is a low-risk money-maker for the casinos.

KK

I was taking this seriously until I saw 'Betsoft' mentioned, they of game supply to every rogue and scam casino out there and progressive jackpot fraud...

 

[MahoneyKnows]

I would think it's unlikely for two reasons:
1. It's probably the easiest game to analyse (as described above), so they would never get away with it.
2. Why would they cheat on a game where they are guaranteed to make 2.7% of every bet placed in the long run?
The variance is MUCH lower than slots - the max win is only bet x36 - so roulette is a low-risk money-maker for the casinos.

I’m not a big time roulette player by any means - can count on less than two hands the amount of times I’ve played. Hitting the same number twice in a row is around 1/1300+. I’ve played probably 100 spins of the wheel….
Playing red/black one night on an online joint and there’s a bit of up down but inevitably started trending down… got to the point I was pissed off enough I increased my bet to a ridiculous amount after landing the opposite probably 8 or so times in a row… at the time it was my single largest bet on any casino game to that point and 1/3 my entire balance…. Green. Now I’m smoking hot - place the remaining 2/3 of the balance on the same color as prior - Green…. Smashed that laptop into pieces and never wagered at that site again. Back then it was like the Wild West - everything was offshore and who’s going to hold the site accountable…? The government whos getting paid to let the thing operate in the first place? To this day to assume things are on the up and up is naive. So long as the right palms are greased the money keeps flowing. Wasn’t long ago gambling was looked upon in the same light as extortion, racketeering, drug distribution, etc. Now you can’t go 5 minutes without seeing an advert offering a sign up bonus for some random gambling site. The sites / house has become so wealthy there’s not much they can’t buy / lobby.
There’s an old story that apparently continues to this day - once a year a guy with a brief case will go into the Oval Office to meet the US President. Shortly after he leaves without a briefcase. The next day the price of milk goes up 5 cents a quart.

 

[KasinoKing]

Hitting the same number twice in a row is around 1/1300+.

Actually, the odds of the same number hitting twice in a row is 1 in 37 (or 1 in 38 if you're silly enough to play double zero roulette!).
The odds of one single number that you pick hitting twice in a row is 1 in 1,369 (37x37) - so I assume that's what you meant!

KK

 

[Reelsoffun]

Exactly what I was gonna say but KK beat me to it

 

[MahoneyKnows]

Thought that’s what I implied but thanks for the obvious correction ??‍??
Edit…

How is the “same number landing twice in a row” 1/37 and the same number “I chose” 1/1369 any different unless we are making fun here…. I went from thinking “these guys are lacking sanity” to “I could have a beer with these guys” in a minute

 

[KasinoKing]

Thought that’s what I implied but thanks for the obvious correction ??‍??
Edit…

How is the “same number landing twice in a row” 1/37 and the same number “I chose” 1/1369 any different unless we are making fun here…. I went from thinking “these guys are lacking sanity” to “I could have a beer with these guys” in a minute

Not making fun at all - what I said is correct.

If you place your bet on just one number that you have chosen, the odds of it landing are 1 in 37.
The odds of it hitting again on the very next spin is still 1 in 37. So 1/37 x 1/37 = 1 in 1,369.
Mine's a Kronenbourg!

KK

 

[MahoneyKnows]

Not making fun at all - what I said is correct.

If you place your bet on just one number that you have chosen, the odds of it landing are 1 in 37.
The odds of it hitting again on the very next spin is still 1 in 37. So 1/37 x 1/37 = 1 in 1,369.
Mine's a Kronenbourg!

KK

It’s weird how I half understand yet half left confused - so I pick “6”, it hits (1/37) I leave my chips on the 6 again - it hits. The likelihood of hitting any number on any spin of the wheel is indeed 1/37, but hitting the same number twice in a row is 1/1369…. So how is what I’ve said incorrect and correct at the same time….? ?

When the wheel is full of black/red spots and the singular defying spot being green to land twice in a row almost seems like the odds of the occurrence should be higher - but a spot being 1/37 is still 1/37 with every new spin of the wheel…. Ahhh think my lightbulb just got electrified