Is Crypto rigged?

[ukcroupier]

Be very apologetic and then go in the staff room and laugh my head off.

 

[jinnia]

About delay in RTG, and their slots. I notice in Cleopatra's Gold Slot, that everytime when i get 3 pyramids or more, there is a small delay before that. First i think, it is because my ISP or something like that, but i heard that this happen to others too.

There isn't a small delay when I play Cleopatra, if the pyramid lands on two of the first three reels, the others break loose and spins for a very long time.

 

[Annorax]

There isn't a small delay when I play Cleopatra, if the pyramid lands on two of the first three reels, the others break loose and spins for a very long time.

Their blackjack does it too... anytime you're drawing into a 10 to bust, it will wait a split second... just long enough for you to think CRAP before it shows the 10 and takes your money.

I've often wondered whether this is accidental or if they intentionally added it to get under players' skins and try to put them on tilt.

 

[Simmo!]

They have now won their last 7 games, after losing 6 in a row!! Their results are on a par with crypto BJ

Well done on your bet KK (Bolton were VERY lucky on Saturday)

Ah yes thats right. Pretty impressive considering the opposition too. Betthe fans on 606 who slated Big Sam are singing a different tune now!!

 

[jonevegas]

Crypto

I think Crypto is fine, I have hit 3 royals as well as 4 aces at Inter. Playtech on the other hand I think is rigged, no royals and 4 oak are like pulling teeth and for doubling up forget it.

 

[kmartinusa]

I think that I did a bad job of clarifying my experiences.

The following has nothing whatsoever to do with any scientific or mathmatical analysis. This is my opinon based on tens or hundreds of thousands of hands of playing VP, both online and in land casinos. I've gotten ten to twelve (don't remember and too lazy to try) royals.

I find Crypto VP (Intercasino in my case) to be very realistic in terms of what cards I see dealt and my results. This of course is strictly observation within the limits of my experience.

I find Micro VP to be true to the mathmatical expectation according to the paytables. I also get way too many "almosts" to suit what I feel to be random. Particularly "almost royals." I believe that "almost got it" hands are somehow programmed into the software.

I find Playtech to deal (after discard, as well) too few royals. I've gotten one, but it was years ago. This observation may be influenced by results from others, as well as analysis done by another site a year or two ago. (truegambler?) I will say that I'm pretty sure that I'm ahead of Playtech's VP over the years and using bonuses.

In any case, I thought that I might have misstated my thoughts and didn't want to cast aspersions on someone.

Kevin

 

[mitch]

BTW, well done to Bolton for helping me actually win an 8/1 four-fold footy bet (with Liverpool, Man U & Spurs), nice one!

You are totally unreliable KK!

There I was relying on your football curse, and then I find you actually win some of your bets!!

I took my daughter to the Oldham v Bolton game (her first live game) expecting your curse to deliver the right result and then discover you laid a bet off on Oldham(?).

I hope you feel the appropriate amount of contrition.

Oh BTW guess who won the Intercasino January Las Vegas prize draw.

Mitch

 

[davidtan]

My experiences with Crypto VP...

Having played through a WR of 1250 nearly entirely consisting of games of BJ, finishing 8 up (+ bonus), I'm relatively sure I get a fair game. However, I do find that it does seem to be a little more streaky than in an actual casino.

Being at Oxford University in England, I asked two mathematician friends of mine to watch for a little while whilst I played. They did say that the "feel" to an average punter would be that it is streaky, but in terms of random walks, they did not feel there was enough evidence given what they saw to believe that the game wasn't fair or even programmed to have streaks.

However, they did see one hand (when I was on a "losing streak") where I got dealt a 6,8,6 (20) and the dealer then went on to get a 7 card 21. To quote one of the mathematicians when he saw this... "I've never gambled online, but those things do happen in real casinos. It's a bit pissing off, but I guess you believe it more when there's a real croupier in front of you."

 

[Vesuvio]

That's the problem if Cryptologic (or other) casinos do play 'streakily' - it's very difficult to prove. There's always the response that it's quite normal, and playing on-line you play hands far more quickly so you're more likely to see unusual events (though having said that BJ should be less streaky on-line as the cards are supposed to be randomly dealt each hand - rather than shuffled once in a while). I'd still defy anyone to play BJ at Intercasino each month and not think there's something odd going on

I thought of a test if anyone has the time/money to spare. Play a lot of BJ and then gather together a set of data for hands played after the last, say, 3 hands won, and a similar set of data for hands played after the last 3 lost. Hopefully this should catch things 'mid-streak', and you could easily analyse it to see if cards are dealt with the expected probabilities. Over enough hands it should be fairly conclusive either way.

 

[caruso]

Being at Oxford University in England, I asked two mathematician friends of mine to watch for a little while whilst I played. They did say that the "feel" to an average punter would be that it is streaky, but in terms of random walks, they did not feel there was enough evidence given what they saw to believe that the game wasn't fair or even programmed to have streaks.

I'm afraid this says more about your pals than Crypto. A couple of "mathematicians" figure they can watch a game for a bit and draw conclusions? Then talk about "feels"?

I hope those judgements were fueled by recent intake at the student union bar and not their "qualifications", or I'd worry for their long-term job prospects.

 

[vgyhnji]

I have decided that, whatever my views on the software, Crypto/Wagerlogic (nor any other) needs no 'rigging' at all.

My reasoning is very simple after a few recent sessions on multi-player BJ tables.

I just don't believe many of the plays I have seen, players repeatedly making the same bad plays, totally out of line with BasicS. So until all players make use of BasicS the likes of 'Jane B' (Hi Jane - can I have a bonus! ) are laughing all the way to the bank. With or without 'rigged' software.

I sincerely hope its not you guys I have been watching!!!!!

 

[davidtan]

removed

 

[incognito2]

Dont know if crypto is rigged but ill add my 2c on a pet crypto hate.

That is when playing BJ the dealer busts all the time when I have a good hand ie 20 or 21.

Since 14th November 2004 I have kept an accurate record on this.

Out of 469 times I made/got dealt 20 or 21 the dealer busted no less than 314 times. If I didnt know better I would say it is programmed to bust when it knows you have a winning hand to keep the number of busts overall consistant with a fair game.

Apart from that I have no clue as to whether it is rigged. I tend to think it is not because if it was proved it would ruin them, but the above gives me cause to be suspicious.

The % of dealer busts is about 23% overall. When the player has 20 or 21, this drops considerably. We can just use 23% to get a ballpark figure for the probability that either Crytoo is rigged, nafanny29 isn't as good at keeping records as the Nixon administration, or nafanny29 just made a typo. I will use the normal approximation to the binomial distribution for simplicity.

Number of trials=469
Successes=314
Probability of success = 0.23
Expected number of sucesses = 469 x 0.23 = 108
Standard deviation of success = SquareRoot(469 x 0.23 x 0.77) = 9.1
Z statistic = (observed-expected)/Standard Deviation = (314-108)/9.1 = 22.6
Probability for a normally distributed random variable to exceed the value of Z=22.6 is...
.
Drum Roll please...
.
.
.
.
2.3 x 10 ^ -113

or about 1 chance in 4.3 x 10^112

It seems, then, that the number of atoms in the Universe is at least about 4e78, but perhaps as many as 6e79. I would suggest 1e79 as a reasonable estimate. That is, 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 atoms.

-from Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[nafanny29]

I have to offer an apology here. The 314 figure also includes the hands where I pushed/lost on 20 or 21. Sorry I set my spreadsheet up incorrectly.

I was origionally trying to record the number of times the dealer would bust(When I had 20 or 21) rather than getting a losing 17, 18 or 19 to "help" the overall bust %.

This started when I kept noticing that if I stuck on 12-16 the dealer would make 17, 18 or 19 rather than 20 or 21. However if I had 20 or 21 it would either push, beat me, or bust. (Rather than achieve a losing 17, 18 or 19)

Hope that expains it. Sorry for the confusion :notworthy

Since mid Jan 2005 I have not played 1 hand of online BJ and I dont invisage that changing anytime soon. Its all poker from now on

 

[incognito2]

Sounds about right then.

 

[555YY]

booo, the 10^112 would've made for much more interesting conversations

 

[scrollock]

i think chartwell is just as bad as crypto, on this is there any connection between crypto and chartwell? , because i have noticed on several occasions when their poker sites go down, they both go down at the same time and when the problem is fixed, they both come back on at the same time.

 

[jetset]

To clarify for both them and the reputation of my university... The conclusions they gave were speculation from what they saw. If you were to ask them to devise a test, I'm sure they would be happy to do so for you. What they saw did not seem improbable or obviously bias to them.

I also see no need for your sarcasm. If you re-read my original post, I clearly stated *given what they saw*. Everyone here is drawing conclusions given their experiences with blackjack at various casinos. They were doing likewise.

Nevertheless, your post was in general not really useful or credible and Caruso was justified in drawing attention to its superficiality.

 

[tim5ny]

About delay in RTG, and their slots. I notice in Cleopatra's Gold Slot, that everytime when i get 3 pyramids or more, there is a small delay before that. First i think, it is because my ISP or something like that, but i heard that this happen to others too.

How very true! When playing Cleopatra's Gold Slot, the bonus spins come if you get 3 pyramids in any position scattered within the five reels. EVERYTIME the bonus round is about to hit, the reels spin an extra long time before stopping... insomuch that it takes the excitement out of the game because you know when it's coming, and when it is not. Even when two pyramids slam in quickly on the first and second reels... if the game does not spin excessively before stopping on one of the next three reels, you can be sure that you are not going into the bonus round. This is not an occassional glitche, but a pattern that you can rely on 100% of the time. I've spent many hours on that game, and it has never failed to be a consistant indicator as to wheather or not the bonus round was about to hit. I'm surprised that the software developers would allow such a good game to have such a major flaw before they released it.

 

[eek]

Tests for randomness are not rocket science.

The wiz saw nothing wrong with CasinoBar until he got info. about them dealing seconds.

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

Just record your results on a spreadsheet.
You can analyse it with macros.

 

[dickens1298]

I've noticed a certain trend after a winning streak of 4-5 hands. A hand is usually dealt, which is winnable, but only if you do NOT play basic strategy. I've seen this way too many times for it to be mere coincidence..

That's the problem if Cryptologic (or other) casinos do play 'streakily' - it's very difficult to prove. There's always the response that it's quite normal, and playing on-line you play hands far more quickly so you're more likely to see unusual events (though having said that BJ should be less streaky on-line as the cards are supposed to be randomly dealt each hand - rather than shuffled once in a while). I'd still defy anyone to play BJ at Intercasino each month and not think there's something odd going on

I thought of a test if anyone has the time/money to spare. Play a lot of BJ and then gather together a set of data for hands played after the last, say, 3 hands won, and a similar set of data for hands played after the last 3 lost. Hopefully this should catch things 'mid-streak', and you could easily analyse it to see if cards are dealt with the expected probabilities. Over enough hands it should be fairly conclusive either way.

 

[davidtan]

My sincere apologies for not posting a 'useful' reply.

 

[Vesuvio]

My sincere apologies for not posting a 'useful' reply.

For what it's worth I think you were treated very unfairly on this thread. Caruso can be a bit abrupt, but you get used to it and he usually knows what he's talking about. I'm suprised at Jetset as it's a bit out of character for him.

Anyway, don't be put off posting more on here!

 

[GrandMaster]

I have to side with caruso on this issue. Looking at just one session, probably a few hundred hands at most, is not going to prove anything, unless the casino is seriously rigged (Casino Bar BJ, Netgaming fun mode roulette).

The proper way to do statistics is to formulate a hypothesis, gather data, and then analyze it, rather than trying to fit some hypothesis to the data. For a large enough set of data there will always be some ways in which it deviates from the expectation significantly. You also have to bear in mind that anything with a positive probability can happen (people hit progressive jackpots, win lotteries), but there comes a point where you have to say that the results are so extreme, the probability is so small, that it is a more likely explanation that the casino is rigged.

As for streakiness, a genuinely random process will be streaky. I don't think that shuffling before every hand should make a huge difference, I think biggest difference between online and brick and mortar casinos is the speed, b&m is about 1 hand/minute, whereas online can be as fast as 20 hands/minute. I recommend you follow Vesuvio's advice and record what happens after 3 hands won or lost in a row.

 

[Vesuvio]

Yep, I agree you can't judge anything on the impressions of one session, so Caruso and Jetset were right, but I don't see the need to jump down the throat of a new poster. If all superficial posts on here were to receive the same treatment there'd be carnage