Online black jack crazy low % bust hands

Mickyia

Dormant Account
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Location
Birmingham england
Hi, this is my first post, and have for long time suspected online blackjack is not random,has anyone ever looked at the % bust hands the dealer gets against expectation, and particularly the ammount of bust hands dealer gets when holding a "stiff" first card , I have just recorded 17 sessions of a total of 2600 single hands and the results are unbelievable, any comments would be great

Mike
 
Can you be a little bit more specific please? Tell us the number of hands busted, hands-won%, hands-lost% the name of the game you played and so on.

I've played "Blackjack" (not Blackjack Surrender, Perfect Blackjack, etc.) in August about 20,000 hands and came out over 100% RTP. It's fairly save to say the game is "within expectation".
 
Okay I calculated a little bit:

Sample Size: 2600
Sample Observed Mean: 0.281921
Standard Deviation: 0.45002
Desired Confidence Level (%): 99.9

Results: Confidence Interval: +/- 0.03 (range 0.25 to 0.31)

So the probability of your result (0.212) is far, far below 0.01.


A little bit too early for me to be suspicious though. I had far better results.
 
Hi thanks for that reply , these results were just the last few days , it's very similar on every session, I stopped playing this game for 2 years after losing A LOT of money on Playtech at William hill, these are the only results that seem to prove something not right, in one session of 163 hands the dealer had a 2 or 3 21 times , it only busted once !!
 
Those streaks you are reporting are not at all uncommon. I had them with basically all major game-providers and a small sample size like 21 hands is just not enough to prove anything.

Did you count dealer blackjacks as "non-busted" too ?
 
Hi, these are the results of the past few days playing one hand black jack using 6 decks, my bets were usually £5 or £10
With very occasional increase.

These figures are aimed at the % bust that the dealer has, and in particular the soft cards 2,3,4,5,6

Hands. Dealer bust. Dealer 1st card. Average % bust
Not bust against bust
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.


175. 39. 10/1. 12/4. 8/7. 4/8. 6/6. 22.2%
168. 35. 8/3. 10/2. 6/2. 5/7. 11/8. 20.8%
171. 46. 8/7. 9/7. 3/3. 8/7. 7/10. 26.9%
161. 35. 10/3. 5/5. 7/6. 7/3. 6/2. 21.7%
157. 24. 12/6. 5/1. 8/4. 10/4. 7/2. 15.3%
85. 16. 2/3. 4/3. 2/2. 5/0. 4/0. 18.8%
171. 44. 4/2. 13/4. 8/5. 10/3. 7/3. 25.7%
165. 35. 8/3. 8/2. 5/5. 5/5. 7/5. 21.2%
166. 34. 7/1. 5/3. 3/3. 8/9. 10/7. 20.5%
121. 31. 5/4. 6/2. 2/3. 6/3. 7/5. 25.6%
165. 34. 15/2. 14/3. 1/3. 10/9. 6/3. 20.6%
112. 21. 5/2. 2/5. 3/2. 5/4. 4/1. 18.8%
162. 32. 5/1. 6/4. 7/4. 5/4. 7/3. 19.8%
176. 35. 10/2. 9/2. 5/2. 8/1. 7/5. 19.9%
163. 33. 11/1. 10/0. 7/4. 10/4. 8/6. 20.2%
126. 30. 11/5. 1/1. 5/4. 6/2. 7/4. 23.8%
172. 32. 8/4. 10/4. 4/2. 8/2. 9/5. 18.6%

The actual as per wizard
Of odds is. In %. 35.35. 37.42. 39.58. 41.84. 42.28. 28.19

As you can see out of 17 sessions of 2616 hands not once did the dealer go near the 28.19% needed
My grief has always been with the ammount the dealer does not bust on a stiff card, most of the above % bust
Results on stiff cards are crazily low compared with what it should be.
 
I put your data in a spreadsheet for proper analysis:

MickyiaBJresultsanalysisfinal.webp

Dealer busts against dealer upcards 2 and 3 have been far below expectation. However the amount of hands played is still to low to conclude the game being non-random. The results for upcards 4, 5 and 6 seem fine to me.
 
Thanks I really appriciate that good work, but don't forget the overall % bust on all cards
This must mean the dealer busts against A,7,8,9,10 and picture cards is way low to expectation ?
 
Your calculation basics are flawed.

You have to be aware that the dealer won't draw a 3rd card, hence won't bust if
- You have a blackjack (X) P=0.047
- You bust (Y)

So according to your numbers:

0.212 = 0.282 x (1-(X+Y))

(X+Y) = 0.248

Y = 0.2012

That means you bust yourself in around every 5th hand and the dealer won't hit a 3rd card making it impossible for him to bust. The dealer won't hit a 3rd card in around every 4th hand.

I also tested it at bet365 right now. The numbers seem consistent.
 
Ah yes , I just became aware of that , so I took out the 14 hands that he couldn't take a 3rd card and the % went from 18.5 to 21.4 on the session I chose, so yes take your point and I will do the others but still will be way below 28.2 % I think
 
I recommend you run another test.
Count the amount of busts for each dealer upcard and remove the hands where you have a BJ or bust (also those where the dealer does not stand on 16 or lower). You will have a significantly lower amount of 7-A hands compared to 2-6 because you need to hit more aggressively on those and bust more often so that you need to remove them from your analysis. However your results will be consistent with the 28.2% bust assumption when you weight them 1/13 for each dealer upcard in the end.
 
Last edited:
Ok I will re do the sessions I already done I have noted each specific card so I can take out what's necessary , thanks again much appriciated

Oh man, I think you will need toomuch data! I always figured that if someone's slots, BJ or whatever was rigged, then so must be their "double or nothing" feature. This would be the easiest to verify (even mathematically!).
 
Hi, these are the results of the past few days playing one hand black jack using 6 decks, my bets were usually £5 or £10
With very occasional increase.

These figures are aimed at the % bust that the dealer has, and in particular the soft cards 2,3,4,5,6

Hands. Dealer bust. Dealer 1st card. Average % bust
Not bust against bust
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Hands now

175. 39. 152 10/1. 12/4. 8/7. 4/8. 6/6. 25.6%
168. 35. 147. 8/3. 10/2. 6/2. 5/7. 11/8. 23.8%
171. 46. 154. 8/7. 9/7. 3/3. 8/7. 7/10. 29.9%
161. 35. 145 10/3. 5/5. 7/6. 7/3. 6/2. 24.1%
157. 24. 148 12/6. 5/1. 8/4. 10/4. 7/2. 16.2%
85. 16. 79. 2/3. 4/3. 2/2. 5/0. 4/0. 20.3%
171. 44. 152 4/2. 13/4. 8/5. 10/3. 7/3. 28.9%
165. 35. 148 8/3. 8/2. 5/5. 5/5. 7/5. 23.6%
166. 34. 150 7/1. 5/3. 3/3. 8/9. 10/7. 22.7%
121. 31. 111 5/4. 6/2. 2/3. 6/3. 7/5. 27.9%
165. 34. 160 15/2. 14/3. 1/3. 10/9. 6/3. 21.2%
112. 21. 98 5/2. 2/5. 3/2. 5/4. 4/1. 21.4%
162. 32. 136 5/1. 6/4. 7/4. 5/4. 7/3. 23.5%
176. 35. 151 10/2. 9/2. 5/2. 8/1. 7/5. 23.2%
163. 33. 147 11/1. 10/0. 7/4. 10/4. 8/6. 22.4%
126. 30. 122 11/5. 1/1. 5/4. 6/2. 7/4. 24.6%
172. 32. 156 8/4. 10/4. 4/2. 8/2. 9/5. 20.5%
170. 36. 148 6/3. 9/8. 8/3. 4/1. 7/5 24.3%
162. 30. 148 9/2. 6/3. 6/4. 8/5. 8/3 20.3%
164. 35. 151 13/3. 7/6. 10/5. 4/5. 6/3. 23.2%

I have added 3 new ones at the bottom
 
Your data is still flawed. You have not amended the numbers accordingly as I suggested. You are implying that you never hit a 12 against a 2 or 3. Is that correct?

You should leave this analysis business to people that are really good at it. It's not very intuitive and gets you easily in tin-foil-hat-mode.
 
Most times I stay, but every now and again I will take a card depending on how the card are running ,but not sure what that's got to do with anything, maybe I'm missing something
 
You have not amended your numbers of your first 17 sessions at all regarding the bust/no-busts in your analysis. When you occasionally hit on 12 you would have busted at some of them and you need to remove these hands from the "not-busted" column in EVERY case. I have explained that to you before.

When you bust you have to ALWAYS remove this hand from your analysis.

I wanted to guide you finding the correct solution yourself so that you can see that the game works fine and is in fact random. I don't know if you have ever attended classes in statistics which are very helpful in understanding this kind of stuff.
 
Ok see what you mean, but as I stay 95% of the time , I will check but maybe the odd occasion I have bust on 12 if dealer has between 2-6, no never been to any classes all I know is I lost 16 of those 17 sessions , and 2 years ago on William hill lost every session for 4 monrths and losing huge amounts of money
 
I've been following this thread and I have to admit I'm struggling to understand what the OP's issue is with dealer bust hands.

I would have thought the most important stat is the number of hands you won against the dealers hands in a session. As a player you can win by having better cards than the dealer or by the dealer busting out. That would seem a better metric to analyse and give you a better indication of how close you are to RTP for that session. Remember though that RTP is calculated over 1000's if not 10.0000's hands, so playing less you will see fluctuations against RTP, bot positive and negative.

Varying your initial bet during a session will also have an impact on your bankroll and therefore whether you win or lose in a session. Keeping your stake constant will give a better idea against RTP.
 
I've been following this thread and I have to admit I'm struggling to understand what the OP's issue is with dealer bust hands.

I would have thought the most important stat is the number of hands you won against the dealers hands in a session. As a player you can win by having better cards than the dealer or by the dealer busting out. That would seem a better metric to analyse and give you a better indication of how close you are to RTP for that session. Remember though that RTP is calculated over 1000's if not 10.0000's hands, so playing less you will see fluctuations against RTP, bot positive and negative.

Varying your initial bet during a session will also have an impact on your bankroll and therefore whether you win or lose in a session. Keeping your stake constant will give a better idea against RTP.

He initially complained about the bust-percentage being far below the expected 28.2%. His problem is that his analysis does also include a lot of game-rounds where the dealer will have a bust-probability of 0 (Player BJ and Player bust) and he would need to remove these hands from his analysis.

You would need to do the following:

1) Observe a proper amount of game-rounds (say 1,000, better 5,000 or 10,000), also possible in fun-mode
2) Remove all hands with Player-BJ and Player-bust from your observation
3) Count the remaining game-rounds
4) for every dealer upcard separately: divide the dealer-busts by total hands-played

For example:
Dealer Upcard 8
-500 hands played
-amount of player-BJ 25, amount of player busts 150, remaining hands observed 325, dealer busted 75 times

75/(500-25-150) = 0.2308 = 23.08% dealer-busts against upcard 8

5) repeat this procedure with all dealer-upcards
6) weight your numbers. This is necessary because you will remove proportionally more hands where you play against 7-A (because you need to hit till 16) and to avert distortion.

example (simplified), remaining hands after step 2):
dealer upcard 2: 480
dealer upcard 3: 480
dealer upcard 4: 500
dealer upcard 5: 500
dealer upcard 6: 500
dealer upcard 7: 325
dealer upcard 8: 325
dealer upcard 9: 325
dealer upcard 10/J/Q/K: 325 each
dealer upcard A: 325

Total hands remaining for analysis: 5060

5060/13 = 389.23

example: weighting for upcard 8: 325/389.23 = 0.8350 x 23.08% = 19.27%

This needs to be done for all other upcards.

7) Sum up all weightings and divide it by 13.
8) Your final result should be between 27.2%-29.2% (confidence level 95%) with a sample size of 6,500 (assumption).


I think OP's problem is mainly his playing-strategy. He should consider learning proper basic strategy. I'm sure his RTP-results will improve a lot. And no guarantee that my calculation is correct. :cool: I also assumed basic strategy with the underlying numbers. However the playing-strategy has no impact on dealer bust%.
 
Hi thanks for all your input , but the only thing I disagree with is my Basic strategy I think I have been playing long enough to know what is basic strategy but other than saying I stand on 12 against 2 most times I don't think I gave anything away !
 
Online Blackjack is tougher and the house busts less often.

Yes, the above statement is true. I am specifically referring to any computer game dealt from 2 or more decks randomized prior to each round. The reason the house bust less often is because shoes tend to develop clumps of low cards and clumps of high cards not possible in single deck games.

House is considerably less likely to bust off the top of a 2 - 8 deck game than with a single deck. In theory, each hand dealt by the computer would be the same as a dealer shuffling between each hand and playing off the top on every hand. So, you will see the house bust less in these games. Do you ever see a dealer in a single deck game draw to 21 with 8 cards or even 9 cards?

Another big factor is that you are much more likely to push on a blackjack in multi-decks. If you play online, I recommend you play a single deck game if you can find one that is "random."

Back in the early Os, (the glory days) I used to have incredible runs against the old Microgaming Single Deck game -- deal Euro style/ no hole card. I had many truly unbelievable winning runs at many casinos. I took my share of beatings too.
 
If you play online, I recommend you play a single deck game if you can find one that is "random."

Or play at a live casino where the deck isn't shuffled before each new hand, although you'll only find 6 & 8 deck games at online Live Casinos and the shoe is generally cut about 2 thirds through.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top