My input on Software concerns - including Playtech

[GrandMaster]

I was rather surprised by the lack of publicity about the OCA client that was released so I checked it out myself. I paid $30 for three months access to their statistics. You can download the software from truegambler.com.

For MG single deck:
1.57 million hands collected before 2003, HA = 0.216%
1.66 million hands collected since start of 2003, HA = 0.029%

Playtech BJ:
211,000 hands collected, HA = 2.06%

The HA is calculated on the total bets, not just the initial bets. All the hands above are the ones that have been played optimally. Note that something is fishy with the HA of MG before 2003 and after. Almost 10 times the HA!!!

Playtech is just rigged.....and i am angry because they have ripped me off.

The probability of such a difference between the MG averages is about 7%, this is not statistically significant. Since there is not going to be more pre-2003 data, you will never get anything out of it.

 

[bethug]

grandmaster and jetset, like i said, truegambler results prove, what i been saying and others , about playtec casino and old micro casino software. I play to much to be fooled.

people that say it not fixed , dont even play blackjack, and that is crazy

that like someone telling me crack is good for u. and the person never seen what it does to people.

blackjack21, i agree with you rtg is the best software

 

[caruso]

Given a discrepancy of 1.54% for the Playtech figures, my shaky maths makes that over 6 SDs down. That's impossible.

 

[jpm]

And in reply to jpm, whose question I didn't respond to (sorry jpm) - my comments relate pretty much only to blackjack or the variant games. And, they remain my opinion only.

Thanks Caruso.

I'd have to agree with the opinion that the 'old' MG BJ was not dealing a fair game. I was sure it was cheating me every time. The new version plays much differently from the old, I've actually been able to win some $$ at it! Like night and day.

 

[banno]

Reponse from Bet Casino for Playtech Logs

After being refused in my first attempt to obtain my Blackjack logs from the beginning of the year, betcasino has sent me the following response after my 2nd request:

The information which you have requested below with regards to your game logs for blackjack are available within the attached document, please bear in mind that we will only supply you with information for the month of May.

Clayman, or anyone else: If you would like to take a look at these let me know. I'm still trying to open them at the moment so I'm not sure how many hands there are.

More later.

 

[jetset]

"All my comments are my own opinion, based on my own play. I had a session at Gambling Federation which lost to the tune of five SDs. This is not conclusive. It does, however, tell me to my own satisfaction that GF deal a rigged game. I don't have that same extreme evidence against either Playtech or Boss, but I do NOT believe that either deal a random game. I believe MG, Crypto and RTG currently DO do so."

Thank you for that answer. I am assuming that your comments on knee-breaking were intended to be frivolous and can be disregarded.

For those of you who think I am taking the side of the casinos in this issue I make the point that this is not the case.

This may not be a popular position to take, but what I do question is unproven allegations casually thrown about that this or that software is/was rigged. But perhaps I should in future save myself the hassle by simply assuming that these are personal opinions and leaving them lie. Then there is the OCA initiative...but that is an old if passionate debate on both sides of the question that has been pretty much exhausted here and elsewhere, and readers can look it all up in the archives in order to form their own opinions.

I still personally believe that the OCA has enormous potential, but it needs to be properly backed and managed in a professional way if it is ever to deliver full and unbiased value, and there needs to be a cooler, more considered approach in its promotion. That imv includes ensuring that all errata have been sorted out before any publication going forward, and having the confidence to stand behind it's statistics and draw firm conclusions.

 

[Clayman]

Playtech BJ:211,000 hands collected, HA = 2.06%
The HA is calculated on the total bets, not just the initial bets. All the hands above are the ones that have been played optimally.

Back when OCA couldn't tell a pair of 6's from a BJ, deriving a HA was impossible. Actually, it was impossible even if you assumed they could tell a pair of 6's from a BJ. How do they purport to do it now? What do you mean by "total bets"?. Hopefully they have somehow removed bet size from the equation. Do they now give a W/L/T record on doubled and split hands? Does OCA actually state the HA or are you deriving it from presented data?

What are the initial hand chi-square results of Playtech BJ, if he is still doing that?

Are subscribers not allowed to make public any hard data? I'd be alot more worried about getting ripped off by OCA than by Playtech BJ.

As for Micro, how many different BJ games are they tracking? Pre-Viper, I imagine most games would have been single-deck. Post-viper, there's at least 6 different games and not too much SD left.

 

[Clayman]

Given a discrepancy of 1.54% for the Playtech figures, my shaky maths makes that over 6 SDs down. That's impossible.

Of course it's impossible. That's why it didn't happen. Have some faith man!

 

[Clayman]

Clayman, or anyone else: If you would like to take a look at these let me know.

While I'm disappointed they won't send your entire gaming history, I guess May would be a start anyway.

I guess this way they force every player every month to ask for last month's logs. Oh well, no one ever said you had to be bright to run a casino.

Anyway, PM me and we'll figure it out. Maybe I'll just PM you, come to think of it.

 

[DealerBusts]

What do you mean by "total bets"?.

The software gives the House Advantage for the initial bet and overall bet (ie doubles and splits included --> The Wiz calls it the Element of Risk).

Do they now give a W/L/T record on doubled and split hands?

Not as far as I can see.

Does OCA actually state the HA or are you deriving it from presented data?

The software calculates the HA automatically. You can specify the betting size range and the hands that have been played optimally or not.

What are the initial hand chi-square results of Playtech BJ, if he is still doing that?

Players initial hand:
Chi Squared = 112.424, Degree of freedom = 90, Probability = 0.0547


I'm not really sure how they are doing the Viper games. I don't really share your optimism regarding Playtech BJ. Many players find it to be unfair. If you have time, maybe you could play a few thousand more hands of Playtech BJ and tell us what you think.

 

[Clayman]

The software calculates the HA automatically. You can specify the betting size range and the hands that have been played optimally or not.
Players initial hand:
Chi Squared = 112.424, Degree of freedom = 90, Probability = 0.0547
I don't really share your optimism regarding Playtech BJ. Many players find it to be unfair. If you have time, maybe you could play a few thousand more hands of Playtech BJ and tell us what you think.

Sounds to me that what OCA is calling HA is really a payback %. Otherwise specifying a bet range would not be relevant. Chris used to maintain that calcualting a HA from his data was impossible. One of the few things he was correct about. Can you tell how he defines/calcs HA from an extracted sample? Is it dollars lost divided by dollars wagered?

For the fun of it, try specifying an initial bet range that is all exactly the same and see what it comes up with. Not that it matters anyway.

Certainly the chi-square result, while not great, isn't enough to call it rigged.

And, should I ever play a few more thousand hands of Playtech BJ, I will certainly let you know. Although, as you know, I prefer BJSwitch at Playtech.

I can't help it that the only facts that I know are true is that I am down 2 units in 1107 hands of BJ. Also, while in a paranoid fit playing BJS, certain that the dealer was getting too many Aces, I logged about a thousand dealer initial upcards. I was a little disappointed the distribution came out completely normal. And I guess the fact my BJS results are also extremely close to expected value leads to me believe that BJS is fair and, while they might choose to rig another game, I'm not sure I see why they would bother.

In the mean time, I still hope to get some logs that can be analyzed and see where the data takes us.

So, if anyone has any, let me know.