1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice

Poll:Best Screenshot of the Month?



Candidates Revealed...Cast your vote!.
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Is this software fixed (SD calculation needed)

Discussion in 'Online Casino and Poker Complaints - old section' started by scrollock, Feb 12, 2006.

    Feb 12, 2006
  1. scrollock

    scrollock Senior Member

    Occupation:
    google
    Location:
    boro, uk
    ive been contacted by someone who has a bad run on baccarat, ive seen the logs and can verify the figures are accurate.

    so whats the S.D. of a -44 units over 127 hands
     
  2. Feb 12, 2006
  3. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    I make it a little over 4.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Feb 12, 2006
  5. scrollock

    scrollock Senior Member

    Occupation:
    google
    Location:
    boro, uk
    thanks caruso

    i make that a 0.003 % chance or a 1 in 33,000 chance

    have some new figures, dont know of they make it worse or better.

    but are -60 over 212 hands of baccarat

    if anyone is interested the software is chartwell
     
  6. Feb 12, 2006
  7. paul1

    paul1 Dormant account

    Gosh, that's a pretty bad run of guessing on a coin flip. Bad guesser, I guess.

    So what does this mean and what Caruso said? Scrollock, maybe you should drop a note to The Wizard of Odds.
     
  8. Feb 12, 2006
  9. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    As usual, a statistical test is only valid if the parametres are established first, as in the Casino Bar experiment. In this case, assuming 33,000 to one is correct, you'd expect a result like this over 127 hands once every 33,126 hands if my recollection of the process is correct - you need to "reset" the test on each subsequent hand when you do it retrospectively like this.

    If the player had set out to play 127 hands with intention of establishing proof of a fix, he'd have landed on a four million to one event. Pretty good evidence. As it is, this is just painful, not conclusive.

    All of which is to say: don't go bothering Mike with this, 'cos it'll lead nowhere.

    I've never played Chartwell baccarat, but I've played plenty of blackjack and have not the slightest doubt that the game is not randomly dealt. Can't prove it, nor am I much inclined to try. Just horrible software.
     
  10. Feb 13, 2006
  11. paul1

    paul1 Dormant account

    Sh*t happens. :lolup:
     
  12. Feb 17, 2006
  13. BBKPoker

    BBKPoker halfway to busto PABrogue3

    Occupation:
    None
    Location:
    Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
    You are close.

    You'd expect -44 units *or worse* over 127 hands....etc etc rest of your post.

    This is alarming but not entirely impossible. If this is a casino that uses independent software rather than one of the major software providers (Microgaming, Playtech, RTG, Boss, Wagerlogic, etc) I'd personally chose to avoid any further play there.
     
  14. Feb 17, 2006
  15. Dirk Diggler

    Dirk Diggler Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Company Secretary
    Location:
    UK
    I had a run at Wagerworks BJ where I was 81 units up after 400 hands/units.

    Works out to be over 3.5 SD.

    Just goes to show these 'bad sessions' can go both ways.
     
  16. Feb 21, 2006
  17. crovax4444

    crovax4444 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    going all in with 72o
    SD doesn't mean anything if you can't give me a confidence interval. Who cares if you get a SD of 50 if your CI is only 2%. Give me something that is 99.5% CI and tell me the SD and then tell me Charterwell is cheating.

    Crovax
     
  18. Feb 21, 2006
  19. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    What do you mean?
     
  20. Feb 22, 2006
  21. crovax4444

    crovax4444 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    going all in with 72o
    I'm basically asking for a larger, overall sample size. Anything small doesn't cut it. It's like flipping a coin 4 times, getting tails all 4 and claiming the coin is rigged.

    Crovax
     
  22. Feb 22, 2006
  23. tencardcharlie

    tencardcharlie Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Bureaucrat
    Location:
    The playboy mansion.
    The thing is that you don't get 4 standard deviations from your expected result by flipping a coin four times - ever. When you already know the SD, you don't really need the sample size. The number of events is already taken into consideration when calculationg the standard deviation.

    However, as someone posted before, you need to set the parameters before you make the test. Either that or get a ridicoulusly improbable result, like 50 SD down.

    I don't think chartwell is cheating either. But, man is that guy unlucky?...
     

Share This Page