How Many Online Casinos Cheat?

[winbig]

He has my vote.

Mine too. He has now achieved "nothing but crap" status. Hover your mouse over the red blocks

[/derail]

 

[steinhaug]

I would say I win more than i lose at blackjack, sometimes I double up, sometimes I bust the bankroll. I go into a casino with a gambling budget. As soon as i walk in the doors I consider it lost. If I win great, if I lose, no big deal, I just head for the bar

Thanks for your reply, it would be fun to know if you would do the same in online gambling. I have also seen some incredible cards in real casinoes, especially when changing dealer, LOL. On the other hand, going for the bar in an excellent tactic!

 

[EasyRhino]

Wait, Theodoros, the time you lost the 198 units, you said you were varying your bets? .. how much, and how often?

 

[ThodorisK]

usually from 1$ to 3$, I also made a few higher bets. I havent taken it down. But I was assuming I was flatbetting, and I gave these risk of ruin analysis as an indicator only.

Yes, I know, the variance of a 2$ flatbetting is less than the variance of changing bets from 1$ to 3$ (or am I wrong?)

But shoulnd I have some big ups too? Why all the way to the bottom?

And what about my big bets losing much more than my small bets? Isnt that an additional factor that suggests cheating? Shouldnt' we take in account this factor? But how?

It might be that I had a greater risk of ruin compared to the risk of ruin I would have if I was flatvetting, but isn't this difference due to the additional possibility that the 3$ bets losing much more often than the 1$?

Too complicated. I give up for the moment. I am tired and I must do other things too besides being in front of my pc. It has been months now I am doing this.

Go on, I will read the next posts.

 

[GaryWatson]

Thanks for your reply, it would be fun to know if you would do the same in online gambling. I have also seen some incredible cards in real casinoes, especially when changing dealer, LOL. On the other hand, going for the bar in an excellent tactic!

LOL at changing the dealer

There seems no logical reason for it but it does seem to be the case haha.

I try not to sit at the first or end box because players crazy logic.

I hate when someone puts 100 sidebet on my box when I am only playing for 5-10


Question : Is there any statistical gain to increasing or lowering bets online? I would assume that each new deal is automatically resuffled so I cant imagine there being any gains other than having a lucky run at the right time.

Years ago I had some software that allowed me to simulate 2 million hands plus in seconds. All you did was type your preset strategy and let the software do the work. Thats the nearest thing I could get to testing strategy. I would find a strategy that works best and stick to it. Other than checking my wins and losses at the end of a session I wont waste my time working out the stats. IMHO it seems a waste of time once you have worked out your preset strategy.

 

[niklas]

Question : Is there any statistical gain to increasing or lowering bets online? I would assume that each new deal is automatically resuffled so I cant imagine there being any gains other than having a lucky run at the right time.

There is no gain, however if I'm playing with a bonus WR and I've lost too much I'll up my bets to win back some or bust rather than flatbetting to recover maybe half my deposit. But then again I'm a gambler and not a robotic bonus abuser

 

[Sam David]

A good casino

Hi All,
You're right, Many casinos cheat.
After all, casinos relate to our greed, they try to buy us with their bonuses,
and make us not read the fine prints.
But good casinos are measured by a good support team, fairness and honesty.
It's very stupid of them to lose good players because of their cheating and they always get hurt and lose money in the long run.

We should only stick to the good casinos.

Sam David

 

[lojo]

Hi All,
You're right, Many casinos cheat.
After all, casinos relate to our greed, they try to buy us with their bonuses,
and make us not read the fine prints.
But good casinos are measured by a good support team, fairness and honesty.
It's very stupid of them to lose good players because of their cheating and they always get hurt and lose money in the long run.

We should only stick to the good casinos.

Sam David

Sam, how do you know that many casinos cheat? How many? We know of some that do not pay, and we know of more than one brand that can change the program to reduce the odds (but if the odds aren't stated, it isn't really cheating if the house edge is no more than 50% is it?)

I agree that it's stupid of some to eat the goose that lays the golden egg, and the ones that do will eventually fail.

 

[ThodorisK]

Look what I just found: It seems that many players met losses far below the statistical average, at GLOBAL PLAYER.

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

For me the fact that they provide single deck blackjack (with particular house rules) where the player can have an edge, is of itself a little suspicious.
They had a max limit of 1000euros in this game, and by a strange coincedence, just after I accused them of cheating by e-mail, they lowered the limit to 100euros.
One more strange coincedence:When I was playing those sessions of which the stats I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, suddently my screen went BLUE with some yellow software words. This had never happened to my pc before.
I know, nothing prooved, but just mentioning.

 

[ThodorisK]

But there is also another form of cheating, which is not making you lose much. They can just force you not to win much above or lose far below the statistical average. This is impossible to detect (statistically proove-indicate) by reviewing the payouts of all players or of each player. This is what I explain as REASON No3 at the thread: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/do-rngs-produce-random-outcomes.19514/

 

[aka23]

Look what I just found: It seems that many players met losses far below the statistical average, at GLOBAL PLAYER.

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

For me the fact that they provide single deck blackjack (with particular house rules) where the player can have an edge, is of itself a little suspicious.

Global Player was added to that list years ago. At the time Global Player was added, it used its own proprietary software and did not offer blackjack with an expected player edge. Now Global Player uses a different software (Boss Media) and offers different games.

 

[ThodorisK]

Suppose Boss Media provides completelly fair software (which I doubt that too). Are you saying that none of the casinos using Boss Media sotware, are cheating, because they are under the full supervision of Boss Media? Or because it is impossible to add a program on the initial program of Boss Media?
I am not implying anything, I am just asking.

 

[aka23]

Suppose Boss Media provides completelly fair software (which I doubt that too). Are you saying that none of the casinos using Boss Media sotware, are cheating, because they are under the full supervision of Boss Media? Or because it is impossible to add a program on the initial program of Boss Media?
I am not implying anything, I am just asking.

I expect that games are similar between different casinos using the software, and it would be difficult to add a program on top of the software that would modify game decisions. I've never heard of a case in which a software was unfair at one casino, but fair elsewhere.

 

[casplayer]

Suppose Boss Media provides completelly fair software (which I doubt that too). Are you saying that none of the casinos using Boss Media sotware, are cheating, because they are under the full supervision of Boss Media? Or because it is impossible to add a program on the initial program of Boss Media?
I am not implying anything, I am just asking.

The Casinos using Boss Media aren't even able to cheat, because they don't buy the software and host it (IMO the real RNG isn't even implemented in the Boss Media Software).
All random numbers (for every casino customer) are created on Boss Media's server and after the outcome has been determined the data is sent to the casino client software...

 

[BBKPoker]

"... there are sites using rogue software that must be exposed. I list some of which I am aware on my On-Line Casino Blacklist. I had read a couple of his warnings with particular interest. One warning concerned a company offering the chance to establish your own casino. Its advert reveals a nasty can of worms:
Our proprietary random number generator is calculating profit before the winning /loosing (sic) number is sent back to the game. You can set a minimum profit thats always kept for you. This also ensures that you will not wake up with $20,000 debts!
This same company boasts on its own site:
The software is very good, with great control over the profit/winnings. It has the ability to change the winning % per game/table in real-time. Also you can withdraw the profit and limit player's winnings. Games are completely random, if the winning is within the limit. If the bet is causing winning over the set limit, the generator is generating another number until the winning is within the limit (or player loses).
Note the words in italics! This is precisely the experience I have suffered. Having been encouraged by winning, suddenly whatever I do is wrong. I road-tested the game to (my) destruction. Having started playing even chance positions (18 numbers) and losing whatever chance I backed, I kept on increasing the numbers played till I was playing thirty-three a spin. The four other numbers kept hitting! I was then cleaned out. My experience was a precise fit with the boasted ability of the software. ..."

Michael Shackleford (

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

)

Sure, rogue providers exist, and I believe this is referencing Casino1x2, although I'm not positive. Other examples were the software provider for Lucky Trump and Luck N Roll. That does not mean that longtime, RNG-certified, fair payout report-getting software providers like Boss, RTG, Microgaming, Playtech, Chartwell, etc etc are rigged. Quite frankly, if they were, they would not make it very far in an industry that only exists because of the copious amount of oversight of fair play.

 

[BBKPoker]

I lost my whole of deposited money which was 198. But even if I had more in my account, the application of the risk of ruin probability was correct.
When one stops counting his stats at the lowest point of his currect bankroll, HE CAN use the risk of ruin probability to find what was the probability that could happen. And all that based on the number of hands.
I site the theoretical considerations that support this, at:https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/vc-casino-fair-bj.14540/
.

Risk of ruin calculations incorporate house edge, which is only accurate when you play perfect strategy, which you've already admitted, you don't.

Your calculations therefore, are irrelevant, barring recalculating ROR to incorporate the increased edge of your incorrect play.

 

[ThodorisK]

Suppose a player plays 5000 hands in blackjack, and places 1$ on each hand.
What is the average lowest point a player's bankroll will reach, during the course of these 5000 hands?
Or, in other words, what is the average greatest loss a player will meet during a course of 5000 hands?
(this could be, e.g. -100$)
Suppose that the bankroll is infinite.
(I am not talking about the average loss at the end of the 5000 hands)
I want the whole procedure which gives the result.
Do you know any math-blackjack forums I can ask this?

 

[ThodorisK]

I mean that after the end of the 5000 hands, one might end up having lost -40$, but the greatest loss he met during these 5000 hands, was at the hand No 3524, where he was losing -150$. That's what I mean by lowest point of his bankroll during the play of the 5000 hands. So what is the average value for the lowest point? This does not refer to a loss AFTER the 5000 hands are completed. This loss corresponds to the -40$.

 

[ThodorisK]

Always flatbetting 1$, basic strategy, reshuffle after every hand.

Player 1, ends up with a balance of -40$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -150$ at hand No 3524

Player 2, ends up with a balance of -15$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -70$ at hand No 2026

Player 3, ends up with a balance of +17$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -65$ at hand No 3730

... and so on. So when the number of players-samples tends to infinity, the values of the ending balances tend to an average value, and the values of these lowest points tend to another average value.

So how can we find the average value for this lowest point?

I am NOT asking how probable it is for the ending balance (after the completion of the 5000 hands) to deviate that much or that much from the average value of the ending balance.

I think these are two different things.

My problem has the condition that 5000 hands must be completed.

 

[BBKPoker]

Suppose a player plays 5000 hands in blackjack, and places 1$ on each hand.
What is the average lowest point a player's bankroll will reach, during the course of these 5000 hands?
Or, in other words, what is the average greatest loss a player will meet during a course of 5000 hands?
(this could be, e.g. -100$)
Suppose that the bankroll is infinite.
(I am not talking about the average loss at the end of the 5000 hands)
I want the whole procedure which gives the result.
Do you know any math-blackjack forums I can ask this?

Based on your unpredictable strategies as opposed to optimal play, it would be impossible to speculate.

It is also impossible based on your calculations because there is no theoretical limit to a potential loss. Mathematically, it is possible to lose all 5,000 hands although hugely improbable. A more accurate way of looking at hands would be to look at the probability that a specific event occurs and what the standard deviation is:

Buttttttt..........

For the sake of argument:

Assume house edge of blackjack game is ~.5%:

A win/loss of about 60 bets would fall within 1 standard deviation (roughly 68% of all betting sessions would fall under 1 standard deviation of win/loss).

A win/loss of about 135 bets would fall within 2 standard deviations (roughly 95% of all betting sessions would fall under 2 standard deviations of win/loss).

A win/loss of about 220 bets would fall within 3 standard deviations (roughly 99.7% of all betting sessions would fall under 3 deviations of win/loss).

A win/loss of about 400 bets would fall within 4 standard deviations (the chance of something falling outside of four deviations is so improbable it would almost certainly suggest something other than bad luck).

As a general rule of thumb, I'd consider any result within three deviations of expectation to be a reasonable result for a gambling session.

Again though, this only applies to perfect strategy being played, which you've already admitted you do not adhere to.

 

[BBKPoker]

Always flatbetting 1$, basic strategy, reshuffle after every hand.

Player 1, ends up with a balance of -40$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -150$ at hand No 3524

Player 2, ends up with a balance of -15$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -70$ at hand No 2026

Player 3, ends up with a balance of +17$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -65$ at hand No 3730

... and so on. So when the number of players-samples tends to infinity, the values of the ending balances tend to an average value, and the values of these lowest points tend to another average value.

So how can we find the average value for this lowest point?

I am NOT asking how probable it is for the ending balance (after the completion of the 5000 hands) to deviate that much or that much from the average value of the ending balance.

I think these are two different things.

My problem has the condition that 5000 hands must be completed.

All of the above possibilities have a more than 5% chance of occuring.

 

[ThodorisK]

Like I didnt know this was coming!
I REPEAT:

"I am NOT asking how probable it is for the ending balance (after the completion of the 5000 hands) to deviate that much or that much from the average value of the ending balance.

I think these are two different things."

But it seems you're one of them trying to spoil the threads you dont like by inflating them with unecessary quoting. Why did you quote me? The relevant post was just above.

 

[winbig]

Suppose a player plays 5000 hands in blackjack, and places 1$ on each hand.
What is the average lowest point a player's bankroll will reach, during the course of these 5000 hands?
Or, in other words, what is the average greatest loss a player will meet during a course of 5000 hands?
(this could be, e.g. -100$)
Suppose that the bankroll is infinite.
(I am not talking about the average loss at the end of the 5000 hands)
I want the whole procedure which gives the result.
Do you know any math-blackjack forums I can ask this?

I mean that after the end of the 5000 hands, one might end up having lost -40$, but the greatest loss he met during these 5000 hands, was at the hand No 3524, where he was losing -150$. That's what I mean by lowest point of his bankroll during the play of the 5000 hands. So what is the average value for the lowest point? This does not refer to a loss AFTER the 5000 hands are completed. This loss corresponds to the -40$.

Always flatbetting 1$, basic strategy, reshuffle after every hand.

Player 1, ends up with a balance of -40$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -150$ at hand No 3524

Player 2, ends up with a balance of -15$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -70$ at hand No 2026

Player 3, ends up with a balance of +17$ after 5000 hands.
But the lowest point his balance reached, was -65$ at hand No 3730

... and so on. So when the number of players-samples tends to infinity, the values of the ending balances tend to an average value, and the values of these lowest points tend to another average value.

So how can we find the average value for this lowest point?

I am NOT asking how probable it is for the ending balance (after the completion of the 5000 hands) to deviate that much or that much from the average value of the ending balance.

I think these are two different things.

My problem has the condition that 5000 hands must be completed.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....

Why not just post everything in one go, instead of 3+ posts in a row such as above? Again, if anyone is making threads hard to read, it's you.

ps: If you're trying to prove online casinos are all rigged by your rambling posts, give it up already. You're not going to succeed.

 

[SlotsWizard]

The math you seek is something that not even the Wizard of Odds can easily provide. You should read up on his blackjack pages, specifically

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

where he discusses the Risk of Ruin and why it cannot easily be calculated with a simple formula.

I have been asked several times for a general formula for other situations. Unfortunately there isn't any that I know of. Risk of ruin problems are mathematically usually very complicated. It is easier and more convincing to run a random simulation instead.

 

[happygobrokey]

yes it seems he wants to know the probabilities of encountering certain levels of variance within his 5000 hands. but because it deals a random game, you cannot presume to know with any certainty how many losing results are going to come in what order such that you lose a large amount at any point within the trial. sometimes you will lose a lot and bounce back to the expectation. sometimes you will never dip below the starting balance at all. sometimes you will lose more than the expectation and also be far lower than that during the trial.

you cannot "solve for variance". that is why we use the ev formula to get an idea of what general result we expect to achieve over n hands. what happens in between the start and end is called variance, and as you might expect, it varies. not only does he want something like a force gauge that registers the deepest loss applied to it, but he also wants a reliable idea of what the gauge will register in the space of n hands. i agree the only way to get a decent feel for this is to actually do a shitload of trials/simulations.

if there were a way to know what the low point over n hands would be, there would be some bonuses that have ev that we would not attempt because we would know in the course of wagering that the variance would actually render us busto. but we can't know this, nor can we safely assume we would ever dip below expectation in the play. you've never had a winning session, where the math says "for the amount you played, you should have lost x", but you actually had more than you started with since the very first hand? bingo, that's variance for you!

 

[ThodorisK]

happygobrokey what you ask to know for the bonuses is quite easy.
If the bonus is 100$ deposit +100$ deposit, wager req. 5000$ and you want to know the probability of losing 200$ (or 100$, as you like), before the wagering is completed, then you only have to use the risk of ruin formula at

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

(I think the number of hands which corresponds for 5000$ wagering, is 5000/1.13 because of the splits and doubles)

But my problem is more difficult, as it assumes the play goes on until the completing of 5000 hands, whereas the risk of ruin applies when you lose a particular bankroll, and this can happen at any point between the hand No200till the hand No5000

I tried to solve it myself as I sensed that the solution might be simple, but I cant for the moment. Perhaps no mathematician knows it?! That would be funny. Someone must know it. I am not satisfied with the simulation. I want to know the theoretical proof. And if I get it from a mathematician, he will most probably use ununderstandable language, shit!

 

[ThodorisK]

(and when you lose that particular bankroll, game over)

 

[ThodorisK]

At how many red points do I get banned?

 

[happygobrokey]

i didn't ask to know anything for the bonuses. pretend it's post-wager then, and you want to know what's the most you can lose while doing enough hands to make the wagering. how much money do you need to start with to make sure you make it there? that's what you want to know, and that's what i was trying to illustrate.

the bonus may have a positive value, but the number you want to find is how low you are going to dip from the beginning to the end of the required wagering. if you need to deposit at least 100 and after 5000 wagering you get a free 100, how much do you need to deposit to make sure you have enough to get there?

phrase it slightly differently to exclude the notion of a bonus, and you get what is the greatest loss you can expect to suffer while doing 5000 hands, which is what you want to know, no? what you want is a reliable formula for how much variance to expect, but such a thing is impossible. variance varies, no two ways around it.

please don't try to take me to school, when you don't understand what i mean, and when the things after which you search are known by the wizard of odds to be undeterminable. he is a professor of gambling math, so if anyone knows it, he should. you ought to get in touch with him. if you insist on continuing to argue it here, at least say in plain language precisely what you want to find, and how you think you'd start to go about finding it. until then we just yell back and forth onto deaf ears.

and i am thinking the lowest you can expect to be at any point during the 5000 is minus three deviations from the expected loss after hand 5000. before that time, you have played fewer hands and should expect less of a deviation (chance for unlucky variance). that is, if the low point comes at hand 4321, that is less likely to happen than at point 5000, and so at 4321 you are more deviant than the same result occurring at 5000. so tell us what vital point we are missing when we guess at what you mean, because i really don't get what gives you the idea that the variance can be predictable in any way.

any of these can happen for any given session, so how can anyone say with any accuracy what the expected low point should be (the last one seems to be the type that sticks in your mind, but all can possibly occur):

 

[aka23]

I believe you are looking for the equation listed at Old / Expired Link . Treat BJ as a random walk with varying step lengths, and bias with the expected loss.

 

[ThodorisK]

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

rigged ole!

 

[winbig]

Would you please give it up already?

Started with $159.25 (D+B), 15x WR - ~$2400

Keep in mind 4 things:

1. At one point, I was down to $30.

2. I headed over to blackjack, and quickly took my balance up to $179. Then I started hitting everything.

3. I cashed out $900 from another bonus ($100D+$100B WR = $4500) not even a week ago.

4. Withdrawals were processed just fine. Never once did they try to play the "FU" card.

Attach Removed (Old not found)

Attach Removed (Old not found)

Attach Removed (Old not found)

Attach Removed (Old not found)

 

[happygobrokey]

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

rigged ole!

erm, the person was playing stickies, and using large bets such that risk of ruin is huge. you're losing your touch man! you used to at least be able to articulate your opinions. now all you can do is point to cases and mutter. i'm disappointed in you. give up your quest to prove things about casinos, and stick to discovering advancements in physics and medicine. and please post here when your findings are published somewhere, as i'm interested to know what you meant about these aforementioned discoveries.

 

[ThodorisK]

Dont you think its a bit obvious to the average mind that your hurried reactions are nothing but affiliates trying to defend the reputation of their business?

Dont worry, your business will always find new idiots to suck their blood, as there are always lots of idiots who think they can beat roulette in land based casinos.

But this unlimited greed that lead the online casinos to start cheating, will do them more harm than good. Even the 5% rake was not enough for them, they had to take everything. Suppose most land based casinos started cheating. It would be found out sooner or later, and what impact would that have to their future profits? Of course it would be much better if they never cheated. And that's exactly why land based casinos dont cheat. It's not because of morality, its because that's their interest.

It's laughable for me to see affiliates rushing to oppose anyone who claims online casinos cheat. This very act of yours seems to others like one more indication of guilt.

You are asking me for more proofs. I dont have to give proofs. The real laugh will be when all online casinos will stop cheating, but nobody will believe them they dont cheat.

The fact that convinces me the most that they cheat is this: The only thing one has to do to make a profit out of a bonus, (i.e. to have positive expected value), is to play blackjack basic strategy. Everyone knows basic strategy. Therefore the losses casinos make because of the bonuses are not small compared to their profits. Evenmore, they have to pay a lot to affiliates. Scarch your heads to find a satisfactory answer to that. I cant.

 

[thetic]

I have the biggest willy in Europe...

Searched my head and can't help you with an answer Thodorisk sorry.

However to pull up a thread on scalping stickies to prove your point is beyond belief. Your friend from the whores may have 1 out of 8 when he was trying to double his bonus and deposit but he still had enough money in there to bye his GF an engagement ring and more on its' way. He may well have won the previous 7 out of 8 before his bad run or indeed the next 8 after this bad run but you won't hear about that. On any 50/50 game there will be a point when you lose 8 in a row or worse eventually.

Anyone can play $15 a hand on BJ and you can swing +/- $200 in the space of a minute.

Your point on anyone being able to play basic BJ strategy to make a profit on bonuses is perfectly valid. However;

1. The bonuses that let you do this are now becoming rarer
2. Your example is about someone trying to double a sticky bonus using large bets (= large variance).

Yes there are casinos out there that cheat you, although more often than not this is more to do with payment issues rather than cheating software. These quite quickly come out in this forum and others and if you have any sense you avoid them. To say all casinos cheat is just a little cuckoo.
As for not having to give proof, what crap is that. I can say that I've got the biggest willy in Europe but when asked to prove it I can just say "I dont have to give proofs" and that makes it true???

I'm not going to bother looking the info up for you but you will be aware that a number of casinos publish their payout figures and that this is audited by some highly respectable accounting firms and I believe in most cases the payouts are in the 90something% area.

You sound as if you have a huge distrust with the casinos and if this is the case best thing would be to walk away rather than give your money to the cheats.

Please for your own sanity, drop it!

ps. I am not an affiliate for any casino before that is aimed at me.

 

[ThodorisK]

Stop what? I havent touched the sticky bonuses. Hell, no, I didnt trust any casino to place a big bet, even before I met all these cheating-indicating stats in my play. I only played cashable bonuses where even when cheated, I would break even. And this happened to me to many such bonuses, e.g. Betfair, Monthly VC, Private, etc. As for poker, I have stopped and wouldn't dare to play again.

Cuckoo is to believe (=be 100% sure!) that most casinos dont have the software to cheat any time they choose to.

As for the payout reports checked by eCOGRA etc, even ministers of the government DO get bribed. Why not them? Besides that, they can allocate the cheating that way, so that they dont have to pay that much to the "advantage players" because of the bonuses, and still the profits and the overall payout reports can again be the same. Meaning, they can cheat the bonus abusers, but give a little extra luck to the common gamblers who play regularly. No matter how much money you give to a common gambler, the house edge is bound to get it all back.

 

[thetic]

Stop what? I havent touched the sticky bonuses.

Quick answer and then I'm leaving this thread. You may not play sticky bonuses but you earlier used an example of someone busting sticky bonuses by playing aggressively that casinos are all cheats.

How stupid are you if you state categorically that you will not play poker again, yet you are happy to continue to play at the cheating casinos???

 

[ThodorisK]

They usually cheat 1-3 hands out of 100. This is enough to wipe out the bonus profit after the wagering is completed. But at the same time, when playing the minimoum bet, this wagering becomes a large enough statistical sample to indicate this 1-3% cheating. In this case, I break even. If they cheat more than this, the statistical confidence for cheating becomes more than 95%, and if they do it to all bonus players, it will be found out the next day. So, exactly because of this, most casinos dont cheat all bonus players, or they cheat less than 2 out of 100 hands, leaving some profit for the bonus abuser. But anyway, they cut their bonus cost. However, some casinos do take that risk and cheat like nuts , e.g. Skybetvegas cheats 5 hands out of the 100. They made me lose 29 pounds after about 500 pounds wagered (betting always 1 pound), and I run away forgetting about the bonus.

Some casinos do not cheat that much at the sign-up bonus, but they are waiting for the bonus abuser to come back for a monthly, where he can get "unlucky". I do have some cashable bonuses waiting for me at some casinos, but I have already made profits from them, and I dont dare to come back. Three times I did this come back: at VC, 1128, and Global Player, and I experienced the worse "luck" in my life.

Many casinos offer bonuses with small or negative expected value, so they have no reason to cheat, unless e.g. against a high roller on a winning streak, etc.

 

[The Dude]

Dont you think its a bit obvious to the average mind that your hurried reactions are nothing but affiliates trying to defend the reputation of their business?

Dont worry, your business will always find new idiots to suck their blood, as there are always lots of idiots who think they can beat roulette in land based casinos...

FYI, most of the people who are disagreeing with you are players, not affiliates. Give that one a break, okay? That argument is pretty much null and void.

 

[shaunm]

They made me lose 29 pounds

This seriously makes me think you have a problem! no company makes you lose money, they did not make you log into their casino, they did not makeyou deposit money, they did not make you lose money, they are all by your choice! Gambling is all about choice, its about which footy team you back, which horse you back, which number in roulette you chose, no one makes you choose these, i'd suggest you stay away from gambling if you're blaming other people for you losing money

 

[BingoT]

This seriously makes me think you have a problem! no company makes you lose money, they did not make you log into their casino, they did not makeyou deposit money, they did not make you lose money, they are all by your choice! Gambling is all about choice, its about which footy team you back, which horse you back, which number in roulette you chose, no one makes you choose these, i'd suggest you stay away from gambling if you're blaming other people for you losing money

Well said Shaunm
If the kitchen is to Hot get the........out

 

[KasinoKing]

I can say that I've got the biggest willy in Europe but when asked to prove it I can just say "I dont have to give proofs" and that makes it true???

Just one question - does it hang below the bottom of your kilt?

No matter how much money you give to a common gambler, the house edge is bound to get it all back.

A beautiful contradiction!
First you bang on about cheating, then you admit it is the house edge which actually does the damage!

I know you will say I'm biased because I have been an affiliate for 18-months, but before that (and still now) I was a 'bonus hunter' (not abuser) making consistent profits from online casinos for over 5-years!
How did I do that if they all cheat then?
The only bias I have is to fair play, whether from the casinos side or the players side.

You are just a bonus abuser & a bad loser; funny how those two nearly always go hand-in-hand.

KK

 

[ThodorisK]

I will also not answer again about my "accusation" towards affiliates. It was but a reasonable conclusion of mine which I hold as the more probable, until I see other, stronger indications that I was wrong. So far, I have not seen such indications.

I used the phrase "made me" because of my 99.9% certainty that Skybetvegas cheats. I had read this:

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

before I played there. I played there hoping that they dont always cheat that much, and also to see how much they cheat, to get a comparison with the (very probable up to most probable) cheating of other casinos.
And indeed, it helped me see that most casinos, even when they cheat, they avoid cheating more than 2 out of 100 hands. Skybetvegas cheats 5 out of 100 hands.

I will not answer the "contradiction" KK saw. I will not answer questions like "how much is 2+2?" My arguments are directed to protect the clever players. And clever are not the majority. Most players will keep thinking they can beat roulette.

 

[ThodorisK]

What does "FYI" mean, Bryan?

 

[shaunm]

for your information

 

[thetic]

Promised I was done with this thread but seeing as it's moved off topic...

Just one question - does it hang below the bottom of your kilt?

KK

Depends how high up I have the kilt lifted! I have a wedding (not my own) tomorrow :xxx so will try to remember to get a couple of shots as think the Longest Willy in Europe deserves an Avatar to suit! Does willy translate into American by the way, trying to be reasonably polite?

What does "FYI" mean, Bryan?

FYI is a commonly used abbreviation for For Your Information.

ps. Just managed to workout the multi-quote button, made my day that

 

[winbig]

To set the record straight, I'm not an affiliate, nor will I ever be one. Quit making false accusations, it's getting old.

 

[aka23]

They usually cheat 1-3 hands out of 100. This is enough to wipe out the bonus profit after the wagering is completed. But at the same time, when playing the minimoum bet, this wagering becomes a large enough statistical sample to indicate this 1-3% cheating. In this case, I break even. If they cheat more than this, the statistical confidence for cheating becomes more than 95%, and if they do it to all bonus players, it will be found out the next day. So, exactly because of this, most casinos dont cheat all bonus players, or they cheat less than 2 out of 100 hands, leaving some profit for the bonus abuser. But anyway, they cut their bonus cost. However, some casinos do take that risk and cheat like nuts , e.g. Skybetvegas cheats 5 hands out of the 100. They made me lose 29 pounds after about 500 pounds wagered (betting always 1 pound), and I run away forgetting about the bonus.

All of the results that I have checked from your data show results within 2 standard deviations from expected. If you get a result slightly below expected, it does not mean that they cheated on 2 or 5 out of 100 hands. The more reasonable explanation is normal variance. To show a casino is cheating, you need to show results well beyond normal variance. For example, you mentioned losing 29 after wagering 500 at SkyBet. There is about a 14% chance of that occurring, in a random deck. It's ~1 standard deviation below expected. The result was perfectly normal. It certainly does not mean SkyBet cheats on 5 out of 100 hands, nor does it mean cheating with a 95% confidence.

To show software is rigged, you need to show results far beyond the realm of normal. For example, if you lost 100 while wagering 500 with 1 unit bets, then the result would be about 4 standard deviations below normal... only a 1 in 30,000 chance of occurring randomly. That would be enough to get people to take you seriously. If you lost 200 while wagering 500, then you would have a strong case for rigged software. When results are closer to expectations (like your 5 out of 100 theory), then you need to wager more hands to show results are beyond normal variance, often far more than 500 hands. When results are far from expectations, then only a few hands is enough.

 

[aka23]

The fact that convinces me the most that they cheat is this: The only thing one has to do to make a profit out of a bonus, (i.e. to have positive expected value), is to play blackjack basic strategy. Everyone knows basic strategy. Therefore the losses casinos make because of the bonuses are not small compared to their profits. Evenmore, they have to pay a lot to affiliates. Scarch your heads to find a satisfactory answer to that. I cant.

Perhaps you don't understand why casinos give sign-up bonuses and other incentives. In many cases, the key reason for a sign-up bonus is to get new players to join (and hopefully remain) at the casino. These players may remain loyal customers and play regularly without bonuses. They are making most of their profits from loyal customers, not from play on quality sign-up bonuses.

Furthermore, many players do not know/use optimal strategy. If you play at a land-based casino, it is not uncommon for persons to criticize you for playing with basic strategy in bj. Many sign-up bonuses do not allow blackjack, are not cashable, and have other restrictions that greatly reduce or eliminate a player advantage.

 

[pokeraddict]

I had read this:

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

before I played there. I played there hoping that they dont always cheat that much,

I don't know anything about casinos since I usually only play poker but if I had read a story that I believed was true that a casino cheated wouldn't I be a complete fool to go play there myself "hoping that they dont always cheat that much".

Seriously, you need to stop gambling and blaming other's for your gambling losses. If you think they are rigged why do you play them? It does not seem like a bright move to me.