PLAYTECH BJ

[universexf6]

Don't some people feel they are tougher than any other platform
BJ, ex, MG or RTG??

I don't and won't say they are the twisted platform, on the contrary
I like Playtech and think and believe they are regulated by correct
random mechanism, nonthless I feel they are tougher than others...

And I am more prone to lose than others...

 

[RebelDearg]

Hi
I'm a complete novice at internet casinos and I have started with five playtech casinos. I started using a betting strategy that I found on line and it would be sucessfull for the first 30 minutes, after that the software seemed to understand my strategy and reacted accordingly. I then switched startegy and the same thing happenned. successful at first, then completely flop. I have since learned 4 different stratgies and I alternate between them every second go, this method has so far been successful.
Does anyone else experience this 'software intelligence' problem with playtech casinos?

 

[GrandMaster]

Don't worry about software intelligence. No system can beat a negative expectation game, you will lose sooner or later. See also

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

 

[RebelDearg]

This is not what I'm looking for, but thanks.

As I said I'm a novice at this, what I want to find out is, has anyone else suspected playtech software of intelligence. If these programs are designed to look for specific paths in your betting and alter their outcome accordingly then there is no point in playing them.

It just seems strange to me that when I stick to one strategy it will work for the first 15 minutes or so and then fail miserably. However I am now using 3 systems combined with 5 different betting strategies that are interchangable and I alternate for every bet. My only explanation for this working is that the software is not designed to identify this method.

My theory is that the software counts continuous bets, when a specific number of similar strategic bets are placed it will counter strike. The trick is not to reach that specific 'counter strike' number. Changing strategies keeps the counter strike number low as the system restarts its count at every bet.

It's only software after all. 1's and 0's.

What do you think????

 

[paul02085]

I have no idea myself, but if you do a search of playtech bj on here you will get alot of opinions i believe.

I just dont trust Playtech overall.

 

[bpb]

This is not what I'm looking for, but thanks.

As I said I'm a novice at this, what I want to find out is, has anyone else suspected playtech software of intelligence. If these programs are designed to look for specific paths in your betting and alter their outcome accordingly then there is no point in playing them.

It just seems strange to me that when I stick to one strategy it will work for the first 15 minutes or so and then fail miserably. However I am now using 3 systems combined with 5 different betting strategies that are interchangable and I alternate for every bet. My only explanation for this working is that the software is not designed to identify this method.

My theory is that the software counts continuous bets, when a specific number of similar strategic bets are placed it will counter strike. The trick is not to reach that specific 'counter strike' number. Changing strategies keeps the counter strike number low as the system restarts its count at every bet.

It's only software after all. 1's and 0's.

What do you think????

I think you're on to something. Wager a few hundred thousand and let us know how it goes.

 

[Westland Bowl]

No need to play a hundred thousand hands; you can tell from playing a few thousand that something is not right. Myself, I do believe that online casino software "adjusts" to your play and is different from playing on a land-based casino. Interesting thought regarding 'counter strike', RebelDearg. I believe all casino software is like this, not just Playtech.

 

[johnsteed]

***

Westland Bowl

I believe all casino software is like this, not just Playtech.

While I would certainly concur with the fact that BJ carries a "negative expectation", I wouldn't necessarily brush this particular theory aside.


I used to have TONS of success with PlayTech BJ (multi-hand) from '02-03, and sticking with a couple of strategies seemed to work (literally all the time). However, it seems that my experience with their software (for BJ) from '04 to early '05 would suggest a similar experience to what "RebelDearg" is talking about. That is, the more you play a certain strategy, the more it'll be nullified over time. From what I've seen specifically with PlayTech, I think your alternating strategies on the fly is THE best way to approach their BJ.


These days, if I wanted to play any online BJ, it would have to be at Casino-On-Net, Harrods, and live BJ that's being offered at various PlayTech casinos (I have played it many times over at Bet365). A couple of years ago, I'd say that PlayTech multi-hand BJ would have been #1. All good things must come to an end (sigh).


Side note: Completely off topic here, but if you ever want to see a very poor random generator (for dice), look no further than RISK (Hasbro Interactive), and to a much lesser but still noticeable extent, Axis & Allies. The same configuration of dice come out, where there are maybe at most 10 different combinations.


Steed

***

 

[Slotmachine]

...If these programs are designed to look for specific paths in your betting and alter their outcome accordingly then there is no point in playing them.

...using 3 systems combined with 5 different betting strategies that are interchangable and I alternate for every bet. My only explanation for this working is that the software is not designed to identify this method.

...
It's only software after all. 1's and 0's.

I don't see why the software would need that sort of "intelligence". 1) If the software is rigged it's damned well free to beat you on any given hand by dealing itself any damn card it wants anyway, no need to learn your strategy, 2) there's no need for that kind of software in a negative expectation game, the player is always the loser in the long run - even card counting doesn't work online because of the number of decks and reshuffling (as far as I know - and I don't know jack 'bout BJ but that's what I've read), 3) last but by no means least, it would be complicated and costly to program such BJ software (as opposed to just random neg. expectation or even just programming a simple cheat feature), hence lowering profit margins for the software vendor and casino

=> it's completely illogical to produce such "intelligent" BJ software

Just my HO

What do you think????

You asked for it

Cheers,
SM

 

[Westland Bowl]

If the software is rigged it's damned well free to beat you on any given hand by dealing itself any damn card it wants anyway, no
need to learn your strategy

It can't appear "openly" rigged. It has to be "covertly" rigged to prevent it from being too obvious and raising all kinds of hell from the players

there's no need for that kind of software in a negative expectation game, the player is always the loser in the long run - even card counting doesn't work online because of the number of decks and reshuffling (as far as I know - and I don't know jack 'bout BJ but that's what I've read)

BJ is a negative expectation game in itself so with flat betting, yes, in the long long run all variations and deviations even out to a slight negative overall result. But with various ways to wagering, you can make up for the losing hands, provided you have a large enough bankroll (no, I'm not talking about negative progression).

last but by no means least, it would be complicated and costly to program such BJ software (as opposed to just random neg. expectation or even just programming a simple cheat feature), hence lowering profit margins for the software vendor and casinoi. It's completely illogical to produce such "intelligent" BJ software

I have no idea if it would be complicated or costly. I wouldn't think it would, because there are already software in virtual reality games that uses algorithems (sp?) to adjust to the input it receives. And given your input, there exists computer software that can think of what object you are thinking about within maybe twenty questions. Soooo, I wouldn't think it would be costly for MG, Playtech, etc to modify their software.

This is a problem with online casinos. Land casinos, you can see the cards and know if they are being tampered with from the shoe. Online, you can't see the virtual cards to know if they are being changed after your cards are drawn. On another forum, an idea came up about independent 3rd party card dealers that will deal the cards with no bias one way or another, hence random. Might be an idea to explore.

 

[mitch]

BJ is a negative expectation game in itself so with flat betting, yes, in the long long run all variations and deviations even out to a slight negative overall result. But with various ways to wagering, you can make up for the losing hands, provided you have a large enough bankroll (no, I'm not talking about negative progression.

Ah another person looking for the end of the rainbow.

The simple answer to your assertion is no you can't.

I will illustrate as simply as possible. You have already correctly stated that flat betting will cause you to end up, in the long run, very close to or exactly on probability.

Your system must therefore involve changing the size of your bets in some pattern.

Therefore, if you were involved in a coin tossing competition you could win money from your opponent by using your method.

Suppose you made a million tosses, probability says the result should be very close to 50% wins. ie 500,000 units.

However you decide to vary your bets in some way and end up making 500,000 bets of 1 unit, 100,000 bets of 2 units, 50,000 of 4 units, and 10,000 bets of 10 units.

Probability says you still win 500,000 units ie 250,000 1 unit bets, 50,000 2 unit bets, 25,000 4 unit bets and 5000 10 unit bets.

You apparently are saying you can alter probability in a way that causes your bigger bets to win more often than probability says they should. Good trick that! ( Of course the exact same betting pattern is causing your opponent to lose his bigger bets!! The method therefore apparently only works for you )

If you are still convinced after reading this that you can do this, perhaps you can describe the theory that underpins this amazing feat. You don,t have to post your actual method just the underlying logic.

Mitch

 

[GrandMaster]

BJ is a negative expectation game in itself so with flat betting, yes, in the long long run all variations and deviations even out to a slight negative overall result. But with various ways to wagering, you can make up for the losing hands, provided you have a large enough bankroll (no, I'm not talking about negative progression).

Let me repeat: there is no way to turn a negative expectation game to a positive expectation game by any kind of betting strategy however large your bankroll, as long as there is a table limit.

 

[Westland Bowl]

First three hands lost at $1 wager each. Fourth hand win $1. Fifth hand wager would be double what I lost so far $2x2=$4. I win the fifth hand- gain of $2.

What if I lost? Sixth hand back to $1- lose. 7th thru 10th hands- lose $1 each. 11th hand win $1. Up to this point I've lost $10 so double that means I wager $20 for my 12th hand. If I win, I won $10 overall on only winning 25% of my hands.

If I don't get two-in-a-row by the fourth time, I quit. It happens often enough to have a stop loss plan. I usually play only 30 to 50 hands each session.

When the play just goes on and on of one win then another losing streak, I may quit then or keep on betting minimum until I get some wins then try one more time. I believe this happens more often than it randomly should. Especially compared to land-based casinos.

 

[paul02085]

Even though i do not believe most legitimate casinos rig their BJ as stated above, I will say that if a casino has no need to rig a game because they will win in the long run, why do they go to all of the trouble they go to to disallow legitimate player wins and the like? Makes a body wonder.

 

[winbig]

Even though i do not believe most legitimate casinos rig their BJ as stated above, I will say that if a casino has no need to rig a game because they will win in the long run, why do they go to all of the trouble they go to to disallow legitimate player wins and the like? Makes a body wonder.

Because they're greedy, plain and simple.

 

[winbig]

I believe this happens more often than it randomly should. Especially compared to land-based casinos.

How can you compare one non-random game to another non-random game? If ones streaks equaled each other, then I'd start to worry; not if they were totally different.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Even though i do not believe most legitimate casinos rig their BJ as stated above, I will say that if a casino has no need to rig a game because they will win in the long run, why do they go to all of the trouble they go to to disallow legitimate player wins and the like? Makes a body wonder.

EXACTLY Paul! Thank you! That is obviously a disconnect that should be screaming obvious to everyone! There are certainly people winning time after time at blackjack (and baccarat) to realize they know something is up. Land-based casinos don't bar non-counters so why should online casinos bar people if you can't count cards at online casinos and it's a negative expectation game???? With the lower minimum bets at online casinos compared to land-based casinos, it's easier to win online with various wagering strategies. Hence, the tweaked casino software. In my opinion, at least.

 

[RebelDearg]

My original question has side tracked into something else.
Allow me to elaborate.

When I play on-line casinos I don't think about it as a casino nor do I operate any recognised strategies. The reason is because it's not a casino its a computer program designed by a guy who learned how to program in college.
All land based casino strategies go out the window. They are well known and easily prevented from success.

When Gary Kasparov played IBM's Deep Thoughts in 1989 he wiped the floor with it, again in 1996 he played the updated Deep Blue and scored a less then comfortable victory. In 1997 IBM gathered 10 of the world greatest grand masters that had studied Kasparovs many, many strategies and created what they personally called 'Deeper Blue'. It beat Kasparov 3.5 to 2.5. On hearing the lengths that IBM went to he asked IBM for a rematch with the condition that he would be allowed to study 'Deeper Blues' strategies.
The chess world is still waiting for IBM to respond.

IBM's problem is simple for them to explain but hard for them to solve. 'A computer cannot be programmed to understand sacrifice.' This is the sentence spoken by an IBM programmer that I base my strategy on.

Poster have mentioned BJ on this thread but I have only been playing Roulette. I started out with 5 playtech casinos and after possibly 2000 bets I noticed a series of occurances that were suspect. I am now playing at one where I started yesterday with 200 and within 1 hour 30 mins I'm over 500. This is from using a 'computer based strategy' that I have been fortunate enough to discover. I will not be sharing it.

All I will say is that, the programs are designed to combat sequences and that they do not understand sacrifice.

My question was: Has anybody else noticed this anomoly? Anybody?

 

[Westland Bowl]

How can you compare one non-random game to another non-random game? If ones streaks equaled each other, then I'd start to worry; not if they were totally different.

I'm not quite sure I get what you mean. I'm making an assumption that land-based casino blackjack is random through the shuffling and being regulated and all that. So I expect and do experience more of a mixed win/lose outcome. Online is very streaky in comparison, in my view.

 

[Westland Bowl]

My original question has side tracked into something else.
Allow me to elaborate.

Sorry for hijacking your thread. Sacrifice? As in your bankroll?

 

[RebelDearg]

Scarifice???

Read my previous post about 'counter strike'. I'm working on the theory that the software is designed to count reoccurring strategy based bets and adapt accordingly. So far I'm successful.

Basically, if the program is counting a particular bet and is designed to invoke a series of 'counter strike' commands when that count reaches a certain number, then you sacrifice a bet to confound the programs 'counter strike' number.

I don't know the way these are programmed, if I'm correct in this theory then its possible that the 'counter strike' number is reset to zero when a sacrifice is made.

As I said before.
Ever notice how a startegy suddenly stops working?

 

[mitch]

RebelDearg

Your "system" undoubtably involves altering the size of your bets and hoping the bigger ones win more often than probability. ( See my previous post for the theory)

Unless you can figure out conclusively why this is happening it's just one of the millions of other crap systems out there.

That's not to say that progression betting is a bad thing overall on internet gambling ( I think it is a good thing overall ) but I suspect our objectives and motives are not the same. I know I am still under the thumb of probability no matter what I do.

Mitch

 

[Slotmachine]

Basically, if the program is counting a particular bet and is designed to invoke a series of 'counter strike' commands when that count reaches a certain number, then you sacrifice a bet to confound the programs 'counter strike' number.

None of this makes any sense to me. Why would they program a sophisticated strategy-detecting program with such a weakness that it could be counfounded by some counter-strategy or sacrifice bets?? They could just as well program into it a feature that notices when the player is defeating the program (simply the program would notice that it's not winning) and then just toss in the odd blackjack for the dealer, or just a slightly better hand.

Anyway, you are saying that the program cheats, i.e. deals itself non-random cards when it "learns" the player's strategy. I mean, the program itself has no strategy beyond stand on 17 or whatever so it cannot alter its own strategy. Very simple.

Nobody answered the original question: What be the point of designing such complex cheating software when fair software already has a guaranteed house edge??

As for the question about why the casinos should deny winnings and such if the games are fair, it's pretty obvious: The house edge is so small that a skilled player will have an edge in a fair game if he uses bonuses, even small ones. That's why they need to exclude the advantage players from receiving winnings. (it's stupid, but then I'm all against sign-up bonuses anyway)

I don't think any of these theories make any sense whatsoever. Absolutely no offence meant ad hominem, it's just how I feel about the issue at hand.

Cheers,
SM

 

[RebelDearg]

None of this makes any sense to me. Why would they program a sophisticated strategy-detecting program with such a weakness that it could be counfounded by some counter-strategy or sacrifice bets?? They could just as well program into it a feature that notices when the player is defeating the program (simply the program would notice that it's not winning) and then just toss in the odd blackjack for the dealer, or just a slightly better hand.

Anyway, you are saying that the program cheats, i.e. deals itself non-random cards when it "learns" the player's strategy. I mean, the program itself has no strategy beyond stand on 17 or whatever so it cannot alter its own strategy. Very simple.

Nobody answered the original question: What be the point of designing such complex cheating software when fair software already has a guaranteed house edge??

As for the question about why the casinos should deny winnings and such if the games are fair, it's pretty obvious: The house edge is so small that a skilled player will have an edge in a fair game if he uses bonuses, even small ones. That's why they need to exclude the advantage players from receiving winnings. (it's stupid, but then I'm all against sign-up bonuses anyway)

I don't think any of these theories make any sense whatsoever. Absolutely no offence meant ad hominem, it's just how I feel about the issue at hand.

Cheers,
SM

For a start, I'm referring to Roulette only.
I'm just asking has anyone else, while playing Roulette only, noticed that various strategies worked at first and then, for no reason, completely fail.

I also don't want a barage of 'strategies don't work' posts as that is not what I'm asking. For me, comparing Land based casinos to internet casinos is like comparing football to ballet dancing.

I don't play startagies against probability, I play startagies against a series of codes that have been designed by a programmer. like all computer games, half life, metal gear solid, tomb raider, if you stick at them long enough you'll beat them, but, do not think of them as anything else but computer games. Playing age old strategies that were developed in land based casinos will not work.

I do not double my bets, this is too easily identified.
I do not stick to strategy, the people at playtech have easy access to all of them and can adapt design features to suit.

I'm just asking has anyone else seen the weakness that I think I've spotted, if I post it the person who works for playtech thats paid to peruse these site will see it and report it.

All I am willing to say is this...again
'Computers do not undestand sacrifice.
This sentence will make sense to you if you know what I'm referring to.

 

[mitch]

rebel

Look at the posts of Cipher who was a long time contributor to this forum ( he is currently banned but posts on other forums).

Cipher had the same theory as you and devoloped software to take advantage of it.

Frankly I consider it a load of old tosh. Why risk your whole business if it came out that you were cheating? Casinos have the advantage and can just sit back and watch the money come in from the house edge.

How could all the software programmers be kept silent, have they assassinated them? Also if the software is non random how could they prevent these very same programmers from taking them to the cleaners?

Don't get locked into the idea that you can beat the house edge by betting different amounts in some pattern, believe me you can't and you can lose a lot of money finding this out for yourself. You can beat the Casino but only by the obvious method.

Mitch