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!