MG BJ figures

[ftg]

The following is the figures that I got in Jan 2006 playing MG Vegas Strip Black Jack (except session 22 and 29 which are European BJ). These figures are from a single MG Casino.

These figures are complied from Playcheck so that actually the total means total no. of entries (which is an underestimation of the no. of hands but I guess it should not be understimate by 10%).

I calcaute the sd which is -3.4.

BTW, I am NOT flat fatting.

Do you have any comments?


8267.00 3662.08 4040.42 (378.33) -4.58%
Total W L Net
1 420.00 186.00 202.20 (16.20) -3.86%
2 574.00 263.33 265.00 (1.67) -0.29%
3 270.00 111.50 140.50 (29.00) -10.74%
4 674.00 313.50 323.33 (9.83) -1.46%
5 86.00 28.17 55.00 (26.83) -31.20%
6 375.00 168.00 188.00 (20.00) -5.33%
7 160.00 78.50 71.00 7.50 4.69%
8 124.00 58.50 56.00 2.50 2.02%
9 261.00 107.67 129.83 (22.17) -8.49%
10 332.00 161.00 152.50 8.50 2.56%
11 202.00 92.50 95.83 (3.33) -1.65%
12 307.00 137.75 149.00 (11.25) -3.66%
13 642.00 284.50 318.68 (34.18) -5.32%
14 148.00 63.00 75.00 (12.00) -8.11%
15 361.00 152.67 179.00 (26.33) -7.29%
16 80.00 34.50 42.00 (7.50) -9.38%
17 251.00 105.50 132.00 (26.50) -10.56%
18 22.00 6.00 15.00 (9.00) -40.91%
19 401.00 166.83 195.33 (28.50) -7.11%
20 118.00 49.50 64.67 (15.17) -12.85%
21 78.00 32.00 35.00 (3.00) -3.85%
22 282.00 132.00 131.00 1.00 0.35%
23 326.00 146.00 156.83 (10.83) -3.32%
24 270.00 113.83 143.50 (29.67) -10.99%
25 155.00 76.00 75.20 0.80 0.52%
26 713.00 310.17 341.33 (31.17) -4.37%
27 168.00 76.50 81.00 (4.50) -2.68%
28 54.00 25.17 21.00 4.17 7.72%
29 60.00 28.00 28.00 0.00 0.00%
30 284.00 125.00 142.67 (17.67) -6.22%
31 69.00 28.50 35.00 (6.50) -9.42%

 

[ftg]

9 more sessions for today:

32 167.00 72.00 82.00 (10.00) -5.99%
33 68.00 34.00 32.00 2.00 2.94%
34 78.00 38.00 33.00 5.00 6.41%
35 30.00 10.50 16.00 (5.50) -18.33%
36 66.00 33.00 32.00 1.00 1.52%
37 98.00 45.17 46.00 (0.83) -0.85%
38 14.00 14.50 1.00 13.50 96.43%
39 189.00 78.50 102.00 (23.50) -12.43%
40 26.00 7.00 18.00 (11.00) -42.31%

1-40 sessions: 9003.00 3994.75 4402.42 (407.67) -4.53%

The SD is now at -3.6

 

[GrandMaster]

I would need the outcome of each hand in order to calculate how you are doing.

 

[mitch]

9 more sessions for today:
1-40 sessions: 9003.00 3994.75 4402.42 (407.67) -4.53%

The SD is now at -3.6

Perhaps you are using Silcnlayc's method :-

"I , myself play exactly OPPOSITE of what is the correct play, when playing BJ online. I have split 10's against a 9, I have doubled down on 6, I have stood on 7's and 8's....I have always stood on 14-16 against 9 or 10 and won 99% of the time, and I actually make out pretty darn good doing what is NOt recommended."

That should explain it!

Mitch

 

[ftg]

I straightly play according to the perfect strategy suggested by Wizofodds.
Of course there will be human errors by clicking the wrong button but that would be less than 20 hands in all the 9000 hands.

Perhaps you are using Silcnlayc's method :-

"I , myself play exactly OPPOSITE of what is the correct play, when playing BJ online. I have split 10's against a 9, I have doubled down on 6, I have stood on 7's and 8's....I have always stood on 14-16 against 9 or 10 and won 99% of the time, and I actually make out pretty darn good doing what is NOt recommended."

That should explain it!

Mitch

 

[ftg]

Let me explain in details how I get the figures.

1. I play perfect strategy for Vegas Strip Black Jack

2. after each session, I go to Playcheck and copy and paste the details to an Excel file. See the attached.

3. The attached shows session 24:
24 270.00 113.83 143.50 (29.67) -10.99%

4. Column G is no. of units win (if the entry/hand is a win).
4.1 When it's a BJ, it will be recorded as 1.5. (see row 7, highlighted in RED). Formula is : G=F/E.
4.2 A double and win will still be recorded as 1 since the payout is doubled that of wagering amount.
4.3 It will get a strange no. (e.g. 0.67) when the hand involves a split and one of the splitted hand get a double.

5. Column H is no. of units lost. It is always -1 for a loss (even for a double).

6. Column I is the accumulated win or loss.

7. G1, H1, I1 is the sum of each column.

 

[dickens1298]

How large a sample is a large enough sample? Theoretically, the house edge is given over millions of hands, not the several thousand you have played.

 

[ftg]

Two more sessions played. See this one.

I copy and past the content from playcheck (deleted date & time column for better visual alignment in the forum). This include a straight 16 unit loss in 15 hands (one hand is doubled). Everyone can see I play Basic Strategy.

For the first hand 17902,
9,6, 3 is the dealer hand
8, 4, 10 / 8, Q is player hand (splitted)


--------------------------------------------------------------------

17902 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 12 6
9, 6, 3 - 8, 4, 10 / 8 Q
17903 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 8
6, Q, 6 - A, 4, A
17904 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 0
K, 10 - 8 5 3 8
17905 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 0
Q 4 - 10 3 K
17906 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 2 0
J Q - 8 9 / 8 4 J
17907 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
A 2 - J 6 9
17908 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
9 3 - 6 10 7
17909 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
8 2 J - 8 A
17910 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
A 4 - 2 2 9 3 J
17911 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
A A - 4 J J
17912 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 0
6 J 3 - 6 5 3
17913 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 8 0
3 9 6 - 9 3 J / 9 5
17914 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 0
8 4 - 3 K Q
17915 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 46 0
A K - A 9
17916 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 46 0
Q K - 9 Q
17917 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 46 0
Q 5 - 5 10 8
17918 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 46 0
2 4 2 2 J - 6 J
17919 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 32
J Q - K 2 9
17920 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 26 26
K J - 8 2 10
17921 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 26 52
7 6 9 - 10 J
17922 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 26 26
Q 9 - 4 5 K
17923 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 26 65
K 9 - A K
17924 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 36 0
17925 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 6 6
17926 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 6 0
17927 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 6 0
17928 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 0
17929 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 0
17930 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 0
17931 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 2
17932 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 2 4
17933 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking at my recent plays, all the straight loss of 10 hands or above happens when I am increasing my betsize. I am not saying that they are rigged but it is very suspicious. As I said some time ago, seems the casino software is doing some trick like that:
the probability ( player loss) is proportional to (the betsize divided by average bet size in the previous x bets)

In the 9,000 hands played in Jan 06, I had seen many losing streak of 10 or above, all of them being when I am inceasing my bet size, but no as much as this one (from $1-$46).

How many of you had tried a losing streak of 15 straight loss? I guess, if you are flat-betting, either you never, or just a few times.

 

[dickens1298]

My girlfriend has just made an interesting observation while I was reading this thread - "what's this guy trying to prove by losing?"

She has a good point. I don't play MG BJ because it has always been a difficult game for me to win. It seems to play "differently" than BJ at B&M and Cryptologic casinos, both of which are casinos of choice. Does "different" mean "rigged"? Not necessarily, but I have certainly been far less successful at MG BJ than other BJ. I don't play MG BJ for this very reason.

In short, if you feel that something is suspicious, why continue to play it? Crying "foul" because of a loss disproportional to the house edge isn't likely to compel MG to revisit its BJ programming, nor is it likely to redirect players from MG sites.

But with your losses mounting, it DOES appear that you would be continuing the self-flagellation.

Two more sessions played. See this one.

I copy and past the content from playcheck (deleted date & time column for better visual alignment in the forum). This include a straight 16 unit loss in 15 hands (one hand is doubled). Everyone can see I play Basic Strategy.

For the first hand 17902,
9,6, 3 is the dealer hand
8, 4, 10 / 8, Q is player hand (splitted)


--------------------------------------------------------------------

17902 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 12 6
9, 6, 3 - 8, 4, 10 / 8 Q
17903 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 8
6, Q, 6 - A, 4, A
17904 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 0
K, 10 - 8 5 3 8
17905 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 0
Q 4 - 10 3 K
17906 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 2 0
J Q - 8 9 / 8 4 J
17907 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
A 2 - J 6 9
17908 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
9 3 - 6 10 7
17909 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
8 2 J - 8 A
17910 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
A 4 - 2 2 9 3 J
17911 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 0
A A - 4 J J
17912 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 0
6 J 3 - 6 5 3
17913 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 8 0
3 9 6 - 9 3 J / 9 5
17914 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 0
8 4 - 3 K Q
17915 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 46 0
A K - A 9
17916 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 46 0
Q K - 9 Q
17917 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 46 0
Q 5 - 5 10 8
17918 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 46 0
2 4 2 2 J - 6 J
17919 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 32
J Q - K 2 9
17920 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 26 26
K J - 8 2 10
17921 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 26 52
7 6 9 - 10 J
17922 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 26 26
Q 9 - 4 5 K
17923 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 26 65
K 9 - A K
17924 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 36 0
17925 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 6 6
17926 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 6 0
17927 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 6 0
17928 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 0
17929 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 0
17930 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 16 0
17931 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 1 2
17932 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 2 4
17933 View Table - Vegas Strip BlackJack 4 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking at my recent plays, all the straight loss of 10 hands or above happens when I am increasing my betsize. I am not saying that they are rigged but it is very suspicious. As I said some time ago, seems the casino software is doing some trick like that:
the probability ( player loss) is proportional to (the betsize divided by average bet size in the previous x bets)

In the 9,000 hands played in Jan 06, I had seen many losing streak of 10 or above, all of them being when I am inceasing my bet size, but no as much as this one (from $1-$46).

How many of you had tried a losing streak of 15 straight loss? I guess, if you are flat-betting, either you never, or just a few times.

 

[Vesuvio]

How many of you had tried a losing streak of 15 straight loss? I guess, if you are flat-betting, either you never, or just a few times.

You see extraordinary losing and winning streaks flat betting $1/£1 on autoplay. Obviously it's more painful if you're playing a negative progression or using high stakes.

 

[ftg]

My girlfriend has just made an interesting observation while I was reading this thread - "what's this guy trying to prove by losing?"

She has a good point. I don't play MG BJ because it has always been a difficult game for me to win. It seems to play "differently" than BJ at B&M and Cryptologic casinos, both of which are casinos of choice. Does "different" mean "rigged"? Not necessarily, but I have certainly been far less successful at MG BJ than other BJ. I don't play MG BJ for this very reason.

In short, if you feel that something is suspicious, why continue to play it? Crying "foul" because of a loss disproportional to the house edge isn't likely to compel MG to revisit its BJ programming, nor is it likely to redirect players from MG sites.

But with your losses mounting, it DOES appear that you would be continuing the self-flagellation.

I didn't say it is rigged, did I? Quite the opposite, if I believe it's rigged like GF casinos, I will NOT play there.

I am putting all the stat here just to share, which is one of the purposes of this forum, right? I really don't see anything wrong posting this.

 

[ftg]

You see extraordinary losing and winning streaks flat betting $1/1 on autoplay. Obviously it's more painful if you're playing a negative progression or using high stakes.

My personal experience is I haven't seen this (lossing or winning streaks) while flat betting. Co-incidence, perhaps.

 

[vinylweatherman]

MG BJ

I once did a big experiment flat betting at 1 on Vegas Strip. I won more than 800 through a large number of sessions.

With a total of 80,000 hands played I was 844 ahead, a payout of 100.933% - this is not what I would expect given the caning I get when I play directly (non autoplay) and on higher stakes.

Following on from this, I upped the stake to 10 to see if the trend would continue (software locked into winning mode somehow). At the higher stake, my winnings of 800 were wiped out in an unnaturally small number of hands. This seems to give credence to the suspicion that stake size alters how the game plays, although it could also be that the 800 was not sufficient to accommodate the variance as it could easily do at the 1 level.

Maybe I should have just carried on flat betting at 1 to see how long it took for the casino to win back the 844! (I'd still have the comp points!).

I have not seen this since (not in that direction anyway!). I was thinking that if I had played those exact sessions, but at the table max of 500, would the result have been the same? (844 lots of 500 ahead!). I doubt it, and I don't think it's an experiment I will ever be running in "real" mode , although maybe for fun someday

I was recently playing at a 10 stake at Atlantic City and Vegas Strip. It seemed that whenever I was dealt 12 I would draw a 10 next, this was happening far more often that it should, but the dealer was drawing low cards on hard hands as often as might be expected, although was getting too many perfect 21 hands from the sequence of low cards as I might have expected. Busting on 12 should be easy to calculate probabilities for as only 4 cards are on the table, three of which are known. There are 4 times as many 10 value cards than any other individual value, HOWEVER, these 10 cards are only around a third of the remaining deck, so only a 1 in three chance exists of busting on a 12, and a similar chance should exist for the dealer busting on a hard hand. If these probabilities don't hold up in the long term, even if the game keeps to the overall house edge in the long term, it suggests some form of control rather than a naturally dealt deck. Perhaps one day Playcheck will be so user friendly that the data can be retieved in "raw" format and can be fed into a piece of software to analyse all these individual issues of particular dealt cards onto particular starting hands.
In the case of MG, it would then be possible to reprogram Autoplay to take advantage of any quirkiness that deviates from perfect strategy, and MG would have one hell of a lot of explaining to do if such a tweak worked!!
Don't think I haven't tried this, I have - but gathering the data is near impossible with the current playcheck without an enormous amount of effort - and to see the actual cards dealt means clicking on view to see the graphic, and there is no "back" from this as the playcheck then crashes and has to be launched again

 

[dickens1298]

I didn't say it is rigged, did I? Quite the opposite, if I believe it's rigged like GF casinos, I will NOT play there.

I am putting all the stat here just to share, which is one of the purposes of this forum, right? I really don't see anything wrong posting this.

I generally use statistics to prove a point.

When you put the time into collecting your information and sharing your losses, then asking if this is "expected" or "normal", it appears that you are implying that the game has a larger negative expectation than the usual BJ game. Otherwise - what IS your point?

 

[ftg]

What is your point to ask my point?

So you expect when a player post an experience here, he should either
1. have proved that the game is rigged, or
2. have proved that the game is normal

??

I generally use statistics to prove a point.

When you put the time into collecting your information and sharing your losses, then asking if this is "expected" or "normal", it appears that you are implying that the game has a larger negative expectation than the usual BJ game. Otherwise - what IS your point?

 

[dickens1298]

What is your point to ask my point?

So you expect when a player post an experience here, he should either
1. have proved that the game is rigged, or
2. have proved that the game is normal

??

Just not sure WHY you would bother to continue posting your experiences, that's all...