MG Blackjack : I give up

[ftg]

I am playing at Captain Cooks European BJ. I never win a single hand!. Straight 14 loss. over 10 hands bursted because I am increasing my bets from $2 to over $100 per hand. I am still inside the casino looking at the table and surprised at how "Lucky" I am.

Earlier tonight at Vegas Palms, playing Vegas Strip BJ get a -3.2 SD result in less than 40 hands. BECAUSE I am increasing my bets when lost.

 

[grabherp]

Damn BJ

I also played there BJ with 3$ a hand, and with about 250$... The money has gone so fast it was unbelieveable. There somthing has to be wrong, its rather strange...

 

[Vesuvio]

It's probably not because you're increasing your bets - you get the amazing streaks flat betting at $1 a hand. They do go in your favour as well at MG casinos & I'd guess the overall result is in line with expectations.

A few reasons I can come up with for the streaks (which do seem more extreme at on-line casinos when in fact they should be less prevalent seeing as the cards are supposed to be entirely random & not based on previous cards as they are in real-life casinos - hence no on-line card counting):

1) Most people who use 'systems' increase bets when they lose. If the casino is more streaky than expected these people will lose their deposits more quickly.

2) The casinos might be set up to balance the pay-out at any moment, so if one person wins some huge hands lots of others will lose & vice-versa.

3) Some casinos (e.g. cryptologic) are almost entirely based around their bonus systems, so minor adjustments in the way the casino plays could dramatically effect how much money they make/lose from these.

The best argument against the casinos doing this is that people could exploit it, but then I know quite a lot who say they do (though admittedly they usually do so while playing with bonus money, so maybe they're not that convinced!). It might be that any money lost to a few who take advantage is more than balanced out by the increased revenue from those who don't. Also, people probably lose more money playing with perfectly valid systems due to mistakes/bad luck - brick & mortar casinos must make more money from would-be card counters than they lose to the successful ones.

There's also the unlikely hypothesis that on-line casinos are perfectly fair and all this is just paranoia

 

[nafanny29]

great post vesuvio :notworthy , loved the last line best

There's also the unlikely hypothesis that on-line casinos are perfectly fair and all this is just paranoia

 

[Simmo!]

3) Some casinos (e.g. cryptologic) are almost entirely based around their bonus systems, so minor adjustments in the way the casino plays could dramatically effect how much money they make/lose from these.

I tend to agree with the last line V But could you expand on no 3. above - i don't quite follow that one?

 

[Vesuvio]

Ok, some more paranoia then I imagine most of the players at Cryptologic casinos go there once a month & deposit enough to get the full bonus on offer. If the casino plays smoothly these people (or at least the bonus hunters among them) should make a consistent profit & be a steady drain on the casino's profit margins...

If it's somehow rigged to be more streaky then they'll be more likely to lose the bonus quickly - now if they withdraw their deposits then rather than keeping playing the wagering requirement builds up until it becomes ever more difficult to actually withdraw any profit at all (even with a streaky result in their favour in a later month).

Having said that I'm still a huge fan of Cryptologic

 

[Simmo!]

Interesting. Like you i'm a fan of Cryptologic, especially the VP. But i must admit, whenever i get the monthly bonus, i never seem to do quite as well while i'm playing it or so it seems. Not that it bothers me too much as you do get the underlying feeling the software is very fair - on VP at least.

 

[toofast4u]

So what you are saying is that some of these casino does have some sort of back door to adjust the odds in their favor. If it were a truly random game they would not be able to win 13-14 hands in a row all the time, the odds are highly against it, yet it happens all the time. It would be like if you were sitting at a table in a land based casino, all of the sudden the pitboss comes up and removes some aces and 10s from the deck, because 'they had been paying out too much that day'. If they really are capable of doing this(adjusting the odds to offset some payout to another player or bonus) then you are taking a gamble on a gamble, but i guess thats what online gambling is all about, you have no idea what the guy on the other end is up to.

The statement 'if they were rigged then the player could take advantage of it' is totally false. How can you win when its programmed to make you lose?? There is not a definable pattern to it, but the losing streaks drag on for suspicious amount of time. Best thing to do, if you lose 2 hands in a row, reduce to a $1 bet, play about 7-8 hands then bump your bet back up, that strategy seemed to work for me. Increasing your bet on each loss is a stupid way to play, all they would have to do is win 10 hands in a row and you are toast.

 

[bethug]

toofast4u , you right on micro i use a whole differnt betting pattern, cause you will get tore up

 

[Vesuvio]

The statement 'if they were rigged then the player could take advantage of it' is totally false. How can you win when its programmed to make you lose?? There is not a definable pattern to it, but the losing streaks drag on for suspicious amount of time. Best thing to do, if you lose 2 hands in a row, reduce to a $1 bet, play about 7-8 hands then bump your bet back up, that strategy seemed to work for me. Increasing your bet on each loss is a stupid way to play, all they would have to do is win 10 hands in a row and you are toast.

My assumption was that the casinos do try to more or less give out the right amount (so that a crude check of their payout won't be able to spot anything) - so they have to balance out the terrible streaks with some similar good ones for the player. If you can spot these you should be able to increase bets and make some money (after reducing to the minimum during the bad streaks). Having said that winning streaks for the player very seldom seem to rival those for the casino...

 

[nafanny29]

My assumption was that the casinos do try to more or less give out the right amount (so that a crude check of their payout won't be able to spot anything) - so they have to balance out the terrible streaks with some similar good ones for the player. If you can spot these you should be able to increase bets and make some money (after reducing to the minimum during the bad streaks). Having said that winning streaks for the player very seldom seem to rival those for the casino...

In other words their games are not random ie. RIGGED no

 

[Vesuvio]

That's my general impression of on-line BJ - not just MG. I play mainly for the bonuses - I'd say flat betting at low stakes you'll generally be ok at MG as the streaks even out quite quickly. At cryptos it's more extreme and flat betting low stakes is no guarantee of surviving long, but over time (months) you're ok. I don't have too much experience of RTG. I don't trust Playtech at all & don't play any offers on BJ there if I can possibly help it (video poker generally seems fairer, but of course the variance is high enough for the casinos not to need to increase it!)

All this is completely subjective, of course...

 

[toofast4u]

My assumption was that the casinos do try to more or less give out the right amount (so that a crude check of their payout won't be able to spot anything) - so they have to balance out the terrible streaks with some similar good ones for the player. If you can spot these you should be able to increase bets and make some money (after reducing to the minimum during the bad streaks). Having said that winning streaks for the player very seldom seem to rival those for the casino...

Maybe the just give you winning streaks when betting small, then losing streaks when you are betting big. They could do that and play by play ignoring the bet size it could 'appear' as a fair game when infact its not.

 

[KasinoKing]

I agree with all the above comments about Blackjack. When I first started online (about 4 years ago) BJ was my first & favourite game and I did very nicely from it, thank you! But in the last 6-9 months nearly every session I have played has been disasterous. I haven't changed my pattern, or casinos, but my perception is that I am definitely seeing longer and more severe runs of outrageous dealer 'luck'. This has been going on far to long to be a blip and so has saddly led me to believe that the casino's do have the option of ajusting their software to change the house 'edge', and most of them have been doing just that.

Message to the original poster: You are insane!
As is anyone who increases their bet when they lose. This is a recipe for very quick poverty!
I say this with good authority, having sat at a Roulette table in a BM casino and watched that little white ball drop into red 21 times in a row!!
Good luck man - you're gonna need it!

 

[ftg]

Message to the original poster: You are insane!

I hope you read my post before you made any insane comments. I didn't say I can win by a negative progression. I am saying whenever I start to use it, the losing streak always come and the deeper the progression, the longer the losing streak.

Frankly speaking I prefer to use positive progression rather than negative one and I use positive progression more often.

 

[bethug]

i use both depends on the casino software, micro can be beat

 

[sandie51]

MG Wild Jack Casino

I believe MG Wild Jack Casino is not dealing a fair game. I will be posting my exact hands (as soon as I figure out how to put them here) but here is a quick rundown.

Session on 9/12/04
Won 15/54 - I did not win more then 1 hand in a row in this session.

Session on 9/12/04
Won 62/147

Session on 9/13/04
Won 19/60

Session on 9/15/04
Won 23/76

And of course the hands I won were almost always the smaller wagers, not always but 90% of the time.

As I said I will be posting these results here, but it is taking me a while because I am coping and pasting from the playcheck site each and every hand so one can see it is not made up. And keep in mind these are only 4 sessions I am talking about, as its been this way for a while. I know, perhaps you are thinking why keep going back! I ask myself the same question. My answer: I am always hoping things will go back to the way they were a few months ago when I use to win.

 

[ftg]

Are you sure the win/total hands ratio?

Combining them give you a -10sd which means impossible.

 

[bethug]

I will killing micro casinos, now it take everything i got, i think they flip the switch back
you ok if u stay under 10 bucks

 

[DeMango]

Do the math 109 wins, 337 losses total = 446. sqrt = 21. So S.D. IS +/-10.5 Expected wins = 446 * 47.5% OR 212 Wins. Difference is 212 - 109 = 103
Divide 103 by 10.5 = -9.8 S.D. !!!!!!! Wow! The switch is on!

 

[sandie51]

Are you sure the win/total hands ratio?

Combining them give you a -10sd which means impossible.

Yes, I am sure. Here is a quick view of the whole session. I am still in the process of coping and pasting each hand.

Check out the wager amount. I use to be a $25 and up bettor and on many occasions I could win several thousand per session. Now I cant even win $1 hands trying to make 50 bucks.

 

[DeMango]

15 wins 35 losses not good at all!

 

[GrandMaster]

Yes, I am sure. Here is a quick view of the whole session. I am still in the process of coping and pasting each hand.

Check out the wager amount. I use to be a $25 and up bettor and on many occasions I could win several thousand per session. Now I cant even win $1 hands trying to make 50 bucks.

In the two sessions you posted, you are down by about 1.7 SD, the probability of this is about 5%, and you did better at the $11 level than at the $1 level.

 

[ftg]

How about MG's Baccarat

I just had an terrible session on High Limit Baccarat.

Player 18
Banker 54
Tie 3

It's a -4.2 sd for betting player.

 

[DeMango]

I happen to have "72 Days at the Baccarat Table" a record of 600 shoes recorded at Las Vegas tables at Harrah's. The worst recorded shoe for Banker in this set is #447 whereby Player scores 45 to Bankers 21 with 9 ties. This was the worst result in the book, a minus 3 SD event and well to be expected out of 600 shoes, (but obviously only once!). Your result simply is simply off the charts. Were you betting Player and increasing your bets?