How Many Online Casinos Cheat?

[ThodorisK]

Theodoros Kiriakopoulos
Athens, Greece

After having played many thousands of blackjack hands (yes, I am a poor bonus hunter), and considering my overall stats and my stats in each particular casino, I consider more and more probable the obvious and common sense conclusion: Since some casinos have the ability, the software to cheat, then they all do HAVE this CAPABILITY to cheat, they all have cheating software as a tool ready to use IF and WHEN they decide to do so. If small casinos have this weapon, dont the large and reputable casinos have it too? Now when they use it, is a matter of superior management decisions. So I think that when they decide to cheat, they usually cheat by adding a small or large percentage to the house edge of any game, e.g. when they confront too many "bonus abusers" or when a high roller is on a winning streak, etc.

No software provider is safe, as the initial program that the software provider gives to the casinos might be ok, but a cheating program can be added afterwards. It might be that the software provider company has nothing to do with these cheating programs.

But casinos are hesitating to cheat because even if they cheat 1 out of 100 hands, this is shown statistically in a few thousands of hands (which happens to be the wagering requirement for a bonus). So indeed, large reputable casinos who aim at increasing their market share and have no cash flow problems, are less likely to cheat than smaller casinos who have a hit-and-run plan and a chance to run out of cash when a high roller has a winning streak. Also, more dangerous are the casinos which offer bonuses with which one can make a considerable profit if played appropriately. I also think that some casinos want to attract exactly the bonus abusers ! And then of course, cheat them.

I will focus in the problem of proving cheating with statistical analysis. In this thread I will post some stats regarding some casinos, some statistical analysis of these data, and other theoretical considerations in this. I present many theoritical considersations of this problem, also in my posts in the thread: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/vc-casino-fair-bj.14540/

 

[ThodorisK]

BLACKJACK HEAVEN

Stats from 09/08/07, 06:37 to 15/08/07

The first hand of sample No2 is the next hand played after the last hand of sample No2. Therefore these 2 samples can also be regarded as one sample

Sample No1 09/08/07, 06:37

Hands = 290
Average bet = 1.124$ (260 hands*1$, 28 hands*2$, 1 hand*4$, 1 hand*6$)
Loss = 57.5$

Departures from basic strategy that lost = 2, plus 2 stands on a 16 against a dealers 10

(I lost all my bankroll after this sample was completed)

Sample No2 (15/08/07)

Hands = 75
Average bet = 1$ (75 hands*1$)
Loss =22$

Departures from basic strategy that lost = 1

(I lost all my bankroll after this sample was completed)

Having lost my deposited bankroll in both above samples, it is applicable (regarding sample No1, and sample No2, and the combined sample of No1 and No2), to use the risk of ruin probability, and it is not applicable to use a hypothesis test, in order to prove cheating (see theoretical considerations that discuss this at: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/vc-casino-fair-bj.14540/).

Ignoring the hand in which I violated basic strategy, reganding sample No2, the risk of ruin of losing 21$ in 74 hands by placing 1$ on each hand, is 3.336%.
(using the calculator:

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

) The value of standard deviation per 100 hands I put is 11.3)

I e-maled some of the above stats to Blackjack Heaven. They answered:

Theodoros,
Thanks for those stats, but they just seem to measure your number of hands played and your loss (over only 365 hands), and therefore I remain slightly confused as to what you are claiming. Are you trying to say our software is in someway unfair? I can assure you that this is not the case. What it appears you have experienced is a run of bad luck and, while frustrating, this is something which happens from time to time while gambling.
Do you have any other comments or stats?
Thanks,
Neil

I answer here: Very powerful counter-argument indeed. You are saying that I won in some other casinos, so the overall results might fall close to the statistically expected losses.

First of all, the results of any NEW sample OF THE LAST HANDS PLAYED, (according to todays science) are INDEPENDENT from the previous ones, and therefore they should fall close to the average-expected values.

But yes, the more one wagers, the higher the probability of meeting a very long run of bad luck. But the counter-argument to this is that what is the number of hands that should be taken in account? Would that be the whole amount of gambling I have played since I was born? Perhaps also the amount of gambling I played in my previous lives? Therefore you are saying that in order for cheating to be proved or at least indicated, one must present a run of bud luck that had less than 1 in a trillion to happen?

It does not matter if the sample is small or large. What it matters is the probability that is derived from it. The demand for a large sample can only be justified when connected to the argument "yes, but you have had an enormous amount of gambling". So I have to consider the whole amount of gambling I have made since I was born?

Therefore, perhaps, the amount of wagering that should be taken in account for judging the fairness of a casino, is the total number of hands that I played in every particular casino.

Well, since I started playing in your casino, and before the above samples, I had lost another 200$, mostly playing blackjack. So you cannot claim that these previous results counterbalance somehow the above samples.
We can have a further detailed analysis of my results in your casino since the day I started playing there. But this is almost an impossible fact for many reasons, e.g. the boss media hand history is not so helpful in this.

Anyway, if I had to bet my life on the possibilty that you cheated me or on the possiblity that you did not cheat me, I would definatelly bet it on the first possibility.

 

[ThodorisK]

BETFAIR

I deposited 70euros and started the wagering for the 75euros bonus. I played single deck blackjack and without ever by balance exceeding my initial deposit, I kept losing. Lost my deposit and had to reload. Results after I completed wagering:

hands=893
average bet=1.38 euros
profit/loss=-76.5 euros

Also, when I had completed about 750 hands, I was 98 euros down.

I did bet about 10 euros once and lost. If I remember well, all the other bets were of 1 or 2 euros. I also violated basic strategy a few times, but I think this had a small effect. Anyway, for these and other reasons, I do not provide statistical analysis for this casino.

 

[ThodorisK]

VICTOR CHALDER

(see my posts at https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/vc-casino-fair-bj.14540/)

 

[winbig]

To sum it all up for you:

They all cheat.

Quit gambling online.

Save your money and take a trip to Vegas, or any other casino that is somewhat local for you.

I don't know about anyone else, but this is getting very old.

 

[BBKPoker]

BETFAIR I also violated basic strategy a few times, but I think this had a small effect. Anyway, for these and other reasons, I do not provide statistical analysis for this casino.

So you are a bonus abuser who has an actual gambling problem because you don't play optimally, play way more than the established number of hands to clear a bonus, and your upset that you are losing money?

You sound like a whale of a customer to me. If I was a casino, I'd keep offering you bonuses to keep you around, and I'd keep sending you very nice apologies about your luck (along with a few small free bonuses) every time you sent me a laughable email about why the software is supposedly rigged.

Many of the casinos you've named here run on gaming software provided by companies that do not let you edit payout tables. We know RTG lets providers edit slot returns, but I doubt any software provider that is remotely reputable allows you to edit blackjack returns.

So far, you've named casinos that run on:

Chartwell (VCCasino, Betfair)
and
Boss Media (Blackjack Heaven).

Extremely reputable sites such as Bodog, Paradise Poker, Sporting Bet, Wall Street Casino etc, have used Boss. VCCasino is about as reputable as a casino can be without being an eCograd'd Microgaming site.

I think you just need to take a time out from gambling until you can discipline yourself to play properly if your goal is to make money from bonuses.

 

[paul02085]

26 1/2 (one only cheats half the time).

 

[ThodorisK]

GLOBAL PLAYER

I was playing single deck blackjack, a game where using the well known particular basic strategy, gives the player an 0.1% -0.15% edge. But I was not 100% faithful to the basic strategy, so I cannot really give a statistical analysis with the below data. However, the results of my LAST hands in that casino were:

2,175 hands played
4,324 euros wagered
average bet = 2 euros
profit/loss result = -198 euros.

Now (according to the risk of ruin calculator at

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

), if I had used 100% faithfully the basic strategy for Boss Media single deck blackjack, and I was flatbetting 2 euros on each hand, then after 2,175 hands the probability that I would lose these 198 euros, would be 5.58% If my departure from basic strategy resulted in a 1% house edge, then the corresponing risk of ruin probabilty would be 12.3% And if my departure from basic strategy resulted in a 2% house edge, then the corresponding risk of ruin probability would be 22.2%. But I don’t think that the particular basic strategy violations I made, costed me that much.

 

[ThodorisK]

"...… 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 that’s 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.

)

 

[uungy]

Whats that to do with it? its a different software provider and has been named and shamed here about 2 years ago

 

[dealer wins]

I play a lot of BJ online and most seems fair.

The one that really sticks out to me as being well dodgy is paddypower flash BJ (not sure what software as its not a downloaded casino).

I have played loads of sessions (over 50) and I can honestly say I have not had one decent session where I have done well. Yes a couple of small wins here and there, but not 1 really good, dealer busting, hitting 10s on double down, sort of win. (And I have had loads and loads of very bad, even HIDEOUS sessions out of those 50 sessions believe me).


Even when I get to normal land casinos every few trips will net me one or two good wins on BJ, and the same goes for most online places, but I can honestly say at Paddys something just isnt right.

(I am quite loyal to Paddys because its my local bookie and I have been betting there for 15 years) ... stupid me hey

 

[happygobrokey]

don't you guys realise? thodorisk is smarter than all of us here, smarter than bryan, smarter than wizard of odds. he is even smarter than those at the forefront of physics and medicine. so smart in fact that he dares not share his advances in those fields; he must have a good reason to know that we mortals are not ready for the enlightenment he could provide.

but please sir, give us the secrets to cures that the government and pharmaceutical companies don't want us to know about. even if the knowledge you possess is beyond our comprehension, please sir, people are dying! and while you're at it, use your intimate knowledge of physics to create free energy devices, so we no longer have to be slaves to the fossil fuel industry. free the world from the powers that be. help build a utopia!

don't just tell us all how good you are without manning up. jesus didn't go around just saying he can heal the sick and raise the dead, he made it happen! so take your vast and superior knowledge and put it to good use. bragging on a forum will not get you the immortality you desire.

 

[pacers31]

DOH!! BORRRIIIINNNNGGGG!!!

 

[SlotsWizard]

Departures from basic strategy that lost = 2, plus 2 stands on a 16 against a dealers 10

Departures from basic strategy that lost = 1

I violated basic strategy

I also violated basic strategy a few times

I was not 100% faithful to the basic strategy

if I had used 100% faithfully the basic strategy

my departure from basic strategy

departure from basic strategy

I dont think that the particular basic strategy violations I made, costed me that much

No comment necessary.

 

[happygobrokey]

No comment necessary.

he was counting cards, duh!

 

[pokeraddict]

Reputation Points: -81

You get a lot of respect here. Most spammers don't get that low. So you have a long ridiculous rant about poker being rigged, now you're off on casinos. Your number of hands is not enough to mean anything. You've proven nothing more then you are a sore loser. Why have you not stopped gambling?

 

[SlotsWizard]

he was counting cards, duh!

THAT explains it! You're right! He really IS smarter than all of us!

 

[EasyRhino]

Whoah whoah, no need for name calling.

Theodoros, I'm not a statistics expert, but I do play a lot of blackjack, and I've done read a lot of the esoteric stuff about card counting.

First, you sample sizes are far too small. Even a few thousand hands is a very small sample when you're playing a game with such a small advantage (or disadvantage). Someone else would have to bust out standard deviations and means, but I doubt that your results are any big deal. As a reality check, there are a few professional card-counters out there (not many, but a few) who have had negative YEARS playing in the casinos, despite playing with an advantage the whole time.

Second, you misused the risk of ruin calculator over at qfit.com. That's not the proper tool to tell you the odds of losing 198 or more units when starting with 1000. That's a tool to tell you the odds of losing 198 units when you start with 198. Different math.

Third, what's with the basic strategy deviations, man? Unless you're making composition dependent plays, wha'ts the point? No self-respecting bonus whore would do such a thing.

 

[chuchu59]

I really dont know how many casinos cheat but:

Casinos can cheat some players all of the time and
cheat all of the players some of the time but of course they cant cheat all of the players all of the time.

PS: Now just where did I see this quote before?

 

[ThodorisK]

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/
I indeed made a mistake of applying risk of ruin in the past, and this mistake is at my first posts at the above thread. But exactly that mistake lead me to its correction and to more knowledge on the matter. I myself always doubt my so far conclusions with counterarguments. A counterargument immediatelly indicates the next counterargument, and thus one digs towards more knowledge.

I violated basic strategy just a few times, because I was experimenting to find a possibly existent bias in the randomness of the random number generators (and take full advantage of it). In other casinos these experiments were very successful. Yes, in a way, I was trying to find a way to "card count", since if there is a bias, then this bias creates a pattern according to which the groups of high and low cards are clustering in a non-random way. Of course, later I realised that instead of trying to take most advantage of a possibly existent bias, it would be better to make sure such a bias actually exists, and what exactly is. And for this, I had to follow basic strategy 100% and change only the size of my bets. Also, basic strategy can identify cheating, as one has a fixed edge. Finally, I conceived a theoretical proof that it is impossible for the outcomes of a random number generator to be completelly random. The reason they cannot be random is also the discovery and the proof of this discovery. But this discovery is of course quite useless, IF all casinos cheat SOMETIMES. So I might reveal it soon, but not in this thread. And as you see, I cannot start a new thread.
BUT I AM NOT 100% CERTAIN that this discovery of mine and its proof are true. But so far I cannot prove it wrong.

As for my other knowledge about physics and medicine, you will never find it out I guess, not through this site anyway. I did not come to this site to reveal or discuss these. And if you really wanted me to discuss these things (not in this thread, of course), then you would not give me these negative reputation points.

All the other nonsense of you other guys is just affiliates defending their business. So are the negative reputation points you gave me.
"More clever than Bryan and the rest of you"? But my friend, you and Bryan are affiliates. You have common interests with the casinos. Bryan MIGHT have other motives too, as PERHAPS that casinos should not cheat or deny winnings, (either because it is bad for the industry on the whole or because these are his personal principles), I really dont know, but the fact remains that he has common interests with the casinos. Am I wrong? Explain to me why.

 

[winbig]

All the other nonsense of you other guys is just affiliates defending their business. So are the negative reputation points you gave me.

I've never been an affiliate, nor will I ever be one. Be careful of your accusations.

 

[happygobrokey]

you are wrong because many if not most of us are NOT affiliates for casinos. interestingly you did not even attempt to deny your being smarter than all of us, or even be modest about it.

the truly great people in history are often ridiculed, persecuted, etc. look at jesus for christ's sake. they killed him, even when they knew the great things he had done.

however you are correct to think that we here do not think you especially gifted at all. how could you be if you believe what you do about cheating blackjack and deviations from basic to exploit the cheating patterns? you can't beat the cheat, not that one truly even exists.

if you really had stunning theories that would advance the fields of physics or medicine, it is highly unlikely you waste your time playing casinos, then analyzing your results, then posting all about it here (where no one even wants to hear/believe it). any physicist working on innovative research would not spend hours playing blackjack (on super-slow chartwell software no less), especially if they believed the game were not fair.

do us a favour. stop playing casinos (that cheat you anyway) and go save the world with your ground-breaking theories in physics and/or medicine. please come back when you're published in an academic, peer-reviewed journal and tell us the title and issue number. because you're right, this site isn't the place for that sort of discussion. send it to the people who know their stuff and see what they think about your research.

if you do plan on staying around here, at least tell us what kind of degrees you hold, and try to spare us the conspiracy theories. and by the way, your first paragraph of your latest response claims the same thing i was telling you before, that you called me confused about.

 

[shaunm]

look at jesus for christ's sake.

Sorry just had to say how ironic that is

 

[happygobrokey]

pat on the back for stating the obvious. and for taking some of the power from my (imo) excellent post.

 

[shaunm]

well i'd say hit the thanks button but for some reason i think your being sarcastic, and it doesn't take any power out of your post, i read it all and agree it was a good post, but the person your replying to is a self righteous plonker who either won't listen or will find some kind of counter arguement. i agree with all your points

 

[happygobrokey]

i meant the power loss was because you post under it with "small talk". but obviously i'm equally guilty now. it just got my goat because in hobo's thread i made a good post, and then someone chimed in with "well i think 32red is great yada yada (nothing of substance)", and their reply started a new page, so my post might get overlooked by someone clicking straight to the last page. no hard feelings

 

[dazlazz]

Something you might not know if you are a player!

Hi folks, just so you know chartwell, crypto and MG have a 98% RNG - the other 2% is made up of varibales as they say - this could be anything i.e. time of day, most wins etc - however the varibale is supposed only to be used to increase the randomness of the play and not to in anyway influence results in a casino / software provider's benefit!.

If you are not happy with your results, i suggest going to the local bar and getting plastered, maybe gaming is not for you!! Either that or get on a flight to Amsterdam....

Best regards,

Dazzla

 

[steinhaug]

Hi folks, just so you know chartwell, crypto and MG have a 98% RNG - the other 2% is made up of varibales as they say - this could be anything i.e. time of day, most wins etc - however the varibale is supposed only to be used to increase the randomness of the play and not to in anyway influence results in a casino / software provider's benefit!.

98%??? Where did you get that info from, and those variables? What do time of day have to do with anything. I get your point however, but it just sounded wrong.

 

[happygobrokey]

not directed at you daz, as our pal theodore also mentioned he can prove rng's aren't fully random.

you cannot create random. and you cannot create perfection.

every matrix has its neo, if you will. the irrational remainder of an unbalanced equation.

especially when trying to create randomness. if it is somehow formulated, it cannot be random.

the only certainties in life are death and taxes.

forty-two.

 

[dazlazz]

kimss

Hi kimss, ive worked for all 3 the last 10 years, so know the ins and outs, however the 2% variable is down to the software designer / manager's point of view! The chartwell guy is a sap - only play at the BIG chartwell casinos for main games ie. BJ, roulette etc, the smaller ones they treat like rubbish and these are the ones you hit for slots and VP!!!

Best regards,

Dazzla

 

[spearmaster]

Hi folks, just so you know chartwell, crypto and MG have a 98% RNG - the other 2% is made up of varibales as they say - this could be anything i.e. time of day, most wins etc - however the varibale is supposed only to be used to increase the randomness of the play and not to in anyway influence results in a casino / software provider's benefit!.

WTF??

Exactly what was your job description at all three of these software providers?

 

[happygobrokey]

spear you blew a perfect chance to shill playtech, you playtech shill! your post should have been "well i know playtech does not have such a thing, play there for the closest to 100% random."

 

[dazlazz]

Spearmaster

Hi Spearmaster - not with the software providers, but high up in companies that used those softwares...without going into too much detail. I'm sure you forum guys should have known this....especially about chartwell!! Won't be back online till tomorrow now....have a hot date with a Brasilian chick, hope you guys have a good night too!!

Best regards,

Dazzla

 

[spearmaster]

spear you blew a perfect chance to shill playtech, you playtech shill! your post should have been "well i know playtech does not have such a thing, play there for the closest to 100% random."

As I have said elsewhere my participation here is personal, I do not represent my company here and in this particular case the claim that was made is not possible since anything less than 100% cannot be a Random Number Generator.

 

[ThodorisK]

My mistake of not clarifying this: The taking advantage of the bias (non-randomness) of a RNG, that I was talking about, was regarding the bias (non-randomness) of a FAIR RNG, supposing there is no cheating. Cheating cannot be beaten as then the dealer is given better cards no matter what you do.

 

[happygobrokey]

As I have said elsewhere my participation here is personal, I do not represent my company here and in this particular case the claim that was made is not possible since anything less than 100% cannot be a Random Number Generator.

oh spear! i thought the two laughy-faces would be enough to let you know i was kidding. plus, i was on your side when there was heat over this.

if what you say is true, then there are no rng's because it's just impossible to algorithmically create a random value/figure. and even if the thing does seem to create random numbers, you simply can't affirm that every number it ever generates is completely random. it would only take a single counterinstance at any time past or future to refute it.

who was it that posted the challenge of two blocks of seemingly random characters (caps and small letters), one of which was mathematically patterned using some complex algorithm and the other with no reason to the ordering? i should think this would make a good exercise for our pal theodore, and certainly a better way to pass the time than playing a "rigged" casino. and since he studies physics he should know a lot about equations and variables and so forth.

theodore, if you make decisions because you can "read" the way the rng works, then it certainly is not a fair rng. please elaborate on this, and don't worry about our inferior minds, even if it's "greek" to us, we'd at least like to see you using technical words so you sound credible. where were you educated, and what degrees do you hold again? thanks,

 

[GrandMaster]

who was it that posted the challenge of two blocks of seemingly random characters (caps and small letters), one of which was mathematically patterned using some complex algorithm and the other with no reason to the ordering?

It was I. I still have not received a solution from any of those people who claim to know instinctively when a casino is dealing rigged cards.

 

[happygobrokey]

post it here, please. our boy theo can crack it. he claims to be smarter than the wiz.

 

[spearmaster]

if what you say is true, then there are no rng's because it's just impossible to algorithmically create a random value/figure. and even if the thing does seem to create random numbers, you simply can't affirm that every number it ever generates is completely random. it would only take a single counterinstance at any time past or future to refute it.

In computer situations, where no physical element is introduced, these are usually called pseudo-RNGs. And even then these are good enough for non-critical situations because they probably deliver random numbers 99.99999% of the time, so effectively they are RNGs.

However, in at least one instance (Boss Media) they actually use a Geiger-Muller Tube (ie. Geiger counter) to measure radioactivity in the air at any given moment - and that would be truly random unless some other device nearby was blowing radioactive particles into the measurement area at a constant rate

In any case, 98% sure as heck is not random.

 

[aka23]

I've also heard about additional measurements of external events, used to make the P-RNG unpredictable to persons that know the formula used. A Playtech rep on this forum described it as, "additional daily/hourly weather forecast values or values from the stock market (exchange rates etc.) to generate their random numbers this to add additional non CPU related varience to further increase the randomness." However, the ratio of 98% to 2% is new.

 

[happygobrokey]

the 98-2 might just be a strange way of saying they take some data from an external source like those described, and then transform it, in a ratio of 49 times as much transformation as the original data gathered? but even the revelation of this could be sensitive information?

 

[spearmaster]

the external data is used as a seed for the RNG - the process you described has nothing to do with an RNG at all. Any calculation of any sort comes *after* the RNG spits out a number, it cannot happen before.

The use of "external events", again, is merely to provide a seed. Anything which has a discernable pattern is not useful for creating this seed - when Paradise Poker was beaten it was because the seed was discovered to be tied directly to server time. This is essentially what was referred to as "CPU-related".

Daily/hourly weather forecasts are unlikely to play any role because there are only so many degrees that are likely to occur... even values from the stock market have limited value in use as a seed.

In order to achieve any reasonable degree of randomness the seed would have to fall in a range of millions, if not billions, of possible results.

 

[pokeraddict]

Reputation Points: -113

Is this a record for a non spammer?

 

[GrandMaster]

Yes. He must be going for the most annoying poster of 2007 prize.

 

[ThodorisK]

I will not say anything more in this thread about the randomness of RNGs. If someone starts a new thread with the title "Do RNGs produce random outcomes?" or something like that, perhaps I will reveal my discovery there, and discuss all this matter. Anyway, whatever method they use, the results cannot be random because ...
Let me know when you start the new thread, by posting its link here.

I will only discuss cheating in this thread.

 

[GaryWatson]

I play a lot of BJ online and most seems fair.

The one that really sticks out to me as being well dodgy is paddypower flash BJ (not sure what software as its not a downloaded casino).

I have played loads of sessions (over 50) and I can honestly say I have not had one decent session where I have done well. Yes a couple of small wins here and there, but not 1 really good, dealer busting, hitting 10s on double down, sort of win. (And I have had loads and loads of very bad, even HIDEOUS sessions out of those 50 sessions believe me).


Even when I get to normal land casinos every few trips will net me one or two good wins on BJ, and the same goes for most online places, but I can honestly say at Paddys something just isnt right.

(I am quite loyal to Paddys because its my local bookie and I have been betting there for 15 years) ... stupid me hey

Yeah paddy's flash software sucks. A bit unreliable. Im like you, I am fairly loyal to paddys because of their sportsbook section. On the games site I prefer gin rummy. The rake is a bit heavy. Sometimes the traffic is poor so I end up playing their bots. If I skin them a few times, they tend to play like grand masters. I dropped about 50 over the weekend at paddys, was even playing the deal or no deal game. Yeah I suspect the software is a little rigged but i enjoy playing rummy, expect to lose my deposit & just take it as a bit of fun. Rigged or not rigged I consider them like fruit machines

I play blackjack regularly live. Im not keen on playing online, not because I think it is rigged but because it is against a computerized dealer. TH.... if in doubt, dont play the game. No one is forcing us to play. Im not even going to suggest poker to you where the dealer doesnt have an interest on who wins the hand

 

[steinhaug]

Let me know when you start the new thread, by posting its link here.

Here is the link,
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/do-rngs-produce-random-outcomes.19514/

 

[steinhaug]

I play blackjack regularly live.

Just a question, not to start any fires, only since you mentioned it. Do you feel that the cards delivered online matches what you get in a landbased casino? Do you have the same experience? I just wonder, not often you catch people accually gambling in real life in here.

 

[pokeraddict]

Yes. He must be going for the most annoying poster of 2007 prize.

He has my vote.

 

[GaryWatson]

Just a question, not to start any fires, only since you mentioned it. Do you feel that the cards delivered online matches what you get in a landbased casino? Do you have the same experience? I just wonder, not often you catch people accually gambling in real life in here.

Well as each hand is presumably randomly shuffled I feel it takes away any possible advantage other than players trying to stay ahead of a bonus. I have not really played too many blackjack games online to give a real opinion of value. Any bonus I get is usually tied to my poker games so I dont really get the benefit of collecting through my blackjack.

Could online blackjack be rigged? Yes, as it is against the house.

Is it? I couldnt say either way.

Playing live, I have hit some ridiculous runs of bad luck where the dealer seems to land 5 card 21's continuously against my 2 face cards, it works the other way as well. people seem to forget the winning hands because they chase their previous losses & increase their bets until they lose the lot.

My strategy is that i rarely bust my hand
I use splits & double downs only when they are advantagous
When a lot of high cards have come out, I lower my bet a little
when the low cards are out, i raise the stakes a little.

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