Mathematical proof that.......ummmmm

pangloss

Dormant account
Now i am trying to figure (see attached screenshot below) if I got real lucky or really unlucky. Wizard of Odds says of Pai Gow, "The probability that the front hands will copy is 2.55%. The probability that the back hands will copy is 0.10%.". Hmmmm......a one in forty event - repeated 10 times straight.

So our friend WOO must have it all wrong because we all know that online gaming software is completely random, don't we?

...

Just a heads up that this group in the "Cautions" section. But if their software is indeed messed up. Then this needs to be modified:
https://www.casinomeister.com/rogue-casinos/

I'll notify the operators to see what's up.

There must be a problem there. If this is not a case of software problems, the odds of it happening are somewhere in the region of one in ten quadrillion......

If this is true, than yes there is something fraudulently wrong here. How come this thread is not getting more action. This should be NUMBER 1 topic of discussion on the forum if a casino software is found to be cheating.

All I can say is:

No way!

That doesn't just defy probability - that is not random in the slightest. If (disregarding the dealer's hands) I had that kind of a run with player hands, I'd be in heaven...

I believe that Wager21 does indeed have a non-random Pai Gow game. I started a thread about this ~1 year ago at https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/suspicious-matching-hands-at-players-vegas.13349/ . Since then other players have mentioned similar experiences to me. One player sent me similar screenshots.

Note that Wager21 is the same SW that states "Our Free Games are programmed for FUN and give higher payouts (than real mode)." in their FAQ. When playing in fun mode, the difference is quite obvious, even in table games like BJ.

If Pai Gow is not random, then I wouldnt believe that any other game is random either.

If this is true, than yes there is something fraudulently wrong here. How come this thread is not getting more action. This should be NUMBER 1 topic of discussion on the forum if a casino software is found to be cheating.

Here's my theory for what it's worth.

I lost something like \$350 over \$3,500 worth of Pai Gow wagers at \$5 per hand suffering in the order of -EV 10% when perhaps -EV 3% was to be expected (I don't think my win/loss ratio was anything spectacularly unusual). In the end I won \$25 over and above my deposit and got paid reasonably promptly without any hassle.

So it is not so much the win/loss of each hand that is so offensive BUT the manner of how the SW brings that win/loss sequence to life in the presentation of dealt cards. The SW is so inadequate it completely lacks imagination in picking cards to facilitate each pre-determined win/loss.

Players are not moaning and groaning writ large because the Casinos using Wager21 are offering large cashable bonus offerings with relatively small WRs thereby offsetting the effects of corrupted SW.

Bottom line is this. Given the choice of a bonus at a Fortune Lounge casino or one from the Wager21 stable which is more amenable to cashable profit?

...

Large bonuses do not excuse cheating. It damages the entire industry when such blatant cheating as shown in this screenshot. We even have the likes of Spearmaster denouncing that sequence on sight.
If this is "real mode", this means that none of the games are fair, as they already admit fun mode is programmed to pay more.
The suspicion is that real mode is programmed to control how much the player is allowed to win, and it could just as well be programmed to suck back a big win while the player gets offered tempting bonuses sucking them further and further into a hole.

If this is proven, "caution" is probably not good enough, and they should join "start your own casino" software as thoroughly rogue.

so what? casinos have always had the power to cheat. they serve the games. but now players can cheat back. go read the link in the nl bots thread here in poker section. ftr, i hate cheaters but when in rome you gotta fight dirty i guess.

Very common programming error...

I have seen errors similar to this come up quite often with the clients I have helped to develop casino software. It is an issue of where the RNG is built into the software; it may be seeded once and used statically, or repeatedly seeded inside a loop, or seeded every time an object is built and created, or something else entirely.

The errors in ways that RNG's can be mis-used in programs is constantly surprising to me. One developer claimed that there must be a mistake in JAVA's Random() class (see the API) and refused to admit his code was wrong. He was convinced that the theory behind the RNG was what was at fault. After I spent countless hours trying to convince him it was his code, he decided to not speak to me, answer my emails, and to NOT pay my invoice. That is the only time I didn't get paid by a client.

This is my 3.14 cents on the matter. Just because a hand comes up 10 times in a row does not mean the code or operator is acting fraudulently. Most often it means there's a bug.

Patience, always patience,

--Eliot

Last edited:
I have seen errors similar to this come up quite often with the clients I have helped to develop casino software. It is an issue of where the RNG is built into the software; it may be seeded once and used statically, or repeatedly seeded inside a loop, or seeded every time an object is built and created, or something else entirely.

The errors in ways that RNG's can be mis-used in programs is constantly surprising to me. One developer claimed that there must be a mistake in JAVA's Random() class (see the API) and refused to admit his code was wrong. He was convinced that the theory behind the RNG was what was at fault. After I spent countless hours trying to convince him it was his code, he decided to not speak to me, answer my emails, and to NOT pay my invoice. That is the only time I didn't get paid by a client.

This is my 3.14 cents on the matter. Just because a hand comes up 10 times in a row does not mean the code or operator is acting fraudulently. Most often it means there's a bug.

Wow. What kind of fools do they have programming these things?

If you re-seed a RNG inside a loop, yes, that's going to cause problems.

But it's hardly rocket science is it. It's the sort of thing a 13-year-old writing a throwaway simulation might get wrong. But not a commercial casino release.

Very scary.

I have seen errors similar to this come up quite often with the clients I have helped to develop casino software. It is an issue of where the RNG is built into the software; it may be seeded once and used statically, or repeatedly seeded inside a loop, or seeded every time an object is built and created, or something else entirely.

The errors in ways that RNG's can be mis-used in programs is constantly surprising to me. One developer claimed that there must be a mistake in JAVA's Random() class (see the API) and refused to admit his code was wrong. He was convinced that the theory behind the RNG was what was at fault. After I spent countless hours trying to convince him it was his code, he decided to not speak to me, answer my emails, and to NOT pay my invoice. That is the only time I didn't get paid by a client.

This is my 3.14 cents on the matter. Just because a hand comes up 10 times in a row does not mean the code or operator is acting fraudulently. Most often it means there's a bug.

Patience, always patience,

--Eliot

Thanks for your input Eliot as your area of expertise is something that will remain baffling to me.

Whatever the flaw in Wager21 SW it takes but 30 minutes of casual play to realise the game is crook. No Casino operator could possibly miss the "malfunction".

...

I don't know anything about programming or RNG, etc... but as a player, that PaiGow looks like it plays like a slot machine. (Slotland type thing, where VP isn't really VP.) It just doesn't feel right, and seeing the screenshots, it certainly doesn't play anything like real Pai Gow. AKA brought it to our attention ages ago, but the software has not been repaired. Perhaps they meant for it to be this way? If so, they owe players some sort of explanation.

One thing I expect in online card games: that they simulate 'real' card games unless otherwise stated.

Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
574