RealTime Gaming and Caribbean 21

[jyde]

IThis is why these two software companies can take care of the players because they control the cash.

That's how Cryptologic works. Microgaming doesn't hold MG-casinos cash. Microgaming take care of players because that's the way they do business. Trust is the keyword - and you can trust MG-casinos.

 

[hhcfreebie]

That's how Cryptologic works. Microgaming doesn't hold MG-casinos cash. Microgaming take care of players because that's the way they do business. Trust is the keyword - and you can trust MG-casinos.

I have different opinion.
While cryptologic remains strong, MG's reputation is degrading over the years. Casino reward group use "bonus xxx" excuses to not pay winners. Magic hall group use fake bonus to lure players, only to force them wager a huge amount and loose them all later. Rivernile group has been slow paying for months.
The same issue goes to playtech.
Although many people have questioned the fariness of BM casinos, I found their casinos do pay and they pay fast.
ps: I am not saying all MG or playtech casinos cannot be trusted. However, I just don't feel 100% safe to deposit at MG or playtech casinos.

 

[jyde]

Rivernile group has been slow paying for months.

You mean years - actually since 2001.
I agree a few of the MG casinos have problems with bonusmanagement - but if they fold you'll get paid with Microgaming money. You'd probably get paid faster by Rivernile if it folded

 

[caruso]

Fond as I'm not of MG software generally, their business practices are impeccable.

RTG's business practices would make Al Capone look like Mother Theresa.

I'm sick to the teeth of RTG. They are one long, endless nightmare. Getting paid by most RTGs is like climbing Mount Everest without oxygen. Apart from two or three exceptions, the entire stable of casinos is one big crook-fest.

I wish all affiliates would just pull all RTGs from their sites and get rid of this online parasite once and for all.

I said this thread was a bullshit public relations attempt from the off - anyone care to disagree with me now?

 

[mary]

According to The Wizard, the Standard Deviation for Caribbean 21 is 1.62

1.62* square root of number of hands = 130 units
130/1.62= square root of the number of hands necessary to be within one standard deviation
130 / 1.62 = 80.2469136
(130/1.62)squared = the number of hands that gave Pirate a 68% chance of being up 130 units
80.2469136 squared = 6 439.56714

Had the Pirate played 6,440 hands of Caribbean 21 at $10k a hand, he had a 67% chance of being ahead or behind 130 units.

My mind is boggled; I beg other mathheads to check my numbers, especially the rep from RTG.


The following article is my source for making the proper calculations:

CardCounter.Com
Main Message Board


"Root mean squared deviation of Blackjack"

Posted By: Adam N. Subtractum
Date: 1/11/03 12:54:56 a.m.

In Response To: Std Deviation (Z)

I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but I'll try to help you out a with a few comments.

If all we need is the Standard Deviation per hand, we can get a good idea from the numbers in table 85 of Wong's PBJ, since the square root of Variance is the Standard Deviation. We see in table 85 the Variance of a single hand of Blackjack ranges from 1.20 to 1.32 (this can actually vary more with rarely found rules), so the Standard Deviation of a single hand of Blackjack will range from approximately 1.1 to 1.15.

Now to calculate the SD over a number of hands, we simply equate Variance * sqrt(n), where n is the number of hands played. So for 500 hands:

1.1 * 22.36 = 24.596

1.15 * 22.36 = 25.714

We see we can expect a swing of up to 24.6 to 25.7 units in one Standard Deviation, which will occur 68.3% of the time. We will see swings of up to double that, an additional 26.7% of the time, and see swings of up to 3 SD's an additional 4.7% of the time on top of that. This tells us that, for our example, we will lose more than 73.8 to 77.1 units, less than .3% of the time.

It's important to note, that like the even money Kelly equation (ev*BR) used by some, this method maybe sufficient for Wong in/Wong out players, but will undoubtedly underestimate the Risk of the play-all Bankroll.

As the Mayor stated a sim really is necessary to get an accurate figure, but I'm sure we can at least get in the ballpark.

Another method is to DIVIDE the SD by the square root of hands played, to get SD in a percentage. For our previous example:

1.1 / 22.36 = 4.919%

1.15 / 22.36 = 5.143%

We could then multiply this with our total action to equal the amount of $$$ in one SD swing. As zg suggested we would need frequency of advantage (or more ideally, frequency of True Count) distributions for the game in question, so we could calculate the frequencies of each of our bet sizes in order to sum to our total action per the 500 hands. This figure would be our $SD$/500 hands (Standard Deviation in cash, per 500 hands), and we could multiply this number by the square root of the number of 500 hand sessions played to compute the SD for any number of sessions played.

Forgive me if I have made any stupid mistakes...it is wayyy past my bedtime |-)

ANS

 

[hhcfreebie]

This is what wizard purposed:

Using Excel type this into any cell, substituting the correct values for h, t, and r:
=normsdist((r+t*h+0.5)/(t^0.5*1.16)).

The 1.16 is the standard deviation per hand. This will vary slightly from one set of rule to another but I feel 1.16 is a good benchmark. Let's take an example. Suppose the number of hands is 1000, the house edge is 0.41%, and the player lost 100 units. The formula for the probability of losing this many units or more is =normsdist((-100+1000*0.0041+0.5)/(1000^0.5*1.16)) = normsdist(-2.600700765) = 0.004651712 .

You can find this under his FAQ here:

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

With this equation (using STD 1.61 and house edge 0.19%), pirate has 13.6% chance to win 1.3 million or more had he bet 10k per hand for 6440 hands. However, for the same chance he could loose 1.55 million or more instead.
The total chance of any outcome within win or loose 1.3 million, would be around 68%.
Of course we all knew pirate didn't start with 1.55 million. Had he started with 20k, his chance of loosing them all within 6440 hands is 53.3%.

 

[GrandMaster]

Of course we all knew pirate didn't start with 1.55 million. Had he started with 20k, his chance of loosing them all within 6440 hands is 53.3%.

It is much larger. These calculations with the standard deviation are only valid if he starts off with a sufficiently large bankroll so that the risk of ruin is negligible. If you bet 10k with a bankroll of 20k, you can very easily lose it on the first two hands, or even on the first hand and then it does not matter if you would have had a spectacular winning streak starting with the next hand.

If I had the complete probability distribution of all the possible outcomes of C21, I could calculate the probability of winning x amount given the initial bankroll and the bet size, taking the possibility of ruin into account.

 

[portia]

hhcfreebie, Mary :

Thanks for bringing the wizards FAQ to my attention.

That is the best written most entertaining FAQ i've ever seen. Great site.

 

[mary]

GM, Freebie,

Pirate says he started that session with a deposit of $1k.
He played a progression, so we can assume that he started with small bets and probably "ratcheted up" when he had a big enough bankroll.
At one point, he was down $300k before it turned around.
Even if the table max is $10k (or $20k), with splitting etc. a player can put more money on the table. (In fact, according to the Wiz, the average bet size is 1.8 bets) I had a $200 bet in C21 become a $1600 bet following the Wiz's strategy, so that was under positive conditions.

What happens when you guys mess about with progressions?

 

[portia]

GrandMaster :

U er right grandmaster.

But we could get side tracked on a most interesting discusion of the best way to come up with the probability of Pc21's win.

If i am not mistaken, RTG and the games creator have run tests on the game (sim runs?) to verify that the game plays straight. It is not rigged in any way, but produces normal results.

AND RTG engineers have verified that their was no outside manipulation of there systems.

Therefore Pc21's win was within normal expectations.

We need the logs.

Robots don't make inconsistent strategy plays.

 

[hhcfreebie]

My calculation is not accurate, just an estimate.
I think I've said it before, if:
(1) there is no house edge.
(false, RTG claim the game is bug free and there is a house edge)
or (2) the variance of the game is very huge such as lottery
(false, the STD of c21 is only 1.61)
or (3) He can bet a huge amount per hand.
Then his chance of winning so much is 1 in 1300. Since he only started with 1k, like GM said he is very likely to bust out early on. I'd say his chance of winning "might" be less than 1 in 10,000. (just a gut's feeling)
People have won lottery with just one ticket, or die in super rare disease. No matter how unlikely pirate could win so much, it is RTG that insist their game is totally random with a house edge built in it.
IMO, we should ignore how likely his winning is and move on. If RTG doesn't care, why should we?
Whether he use bot or not, that's another story. If Hampton et al cannot prove the existance of the "mystic bot" (written in cobol?), they should pay up.

 

[thetest32]

I'd just like to say that I do think big wins are possible with RTG... I once desposited $150 and manged to climb my bankroll to $12,000 playing BJ (with the min being $1 and max being $500 throughout my play). So with limits being raised as they were I do think big, big wins are within the realms of reality.

Ben.

 

[poil84]

You mean years - actually since 2001.

Where did you take this?
According to what I read all over, they slow pay, make you crazy but to the end (....) they pay.

Would be interesting to know the details. Was it a bonus? winnings deposit? what were their claims?

 

[Casinomeister]

Where did you take this?
According to what I read all over, they slow pay, make you crazy but to the end (....) they pay.

Would be interesting to know the details. Was it a bonus? winnings deposit? what were their claims?

This would be great to know, but please stay on topic. Feel free to start a new thread on payout comparisons/details/whatever. Thanks!

Bryan

 

[poil84]

This would be great to know, but please stay on topic. Feel free to start a new thread on payout comparisons/details/whatever. Thanks!

Bryan

Sorry, for deviating from topic. I just find it in contradiction to all that I knew, so I ask. That's all.

 

[jetset]

My calculation is not accurate, just an estimate.
I think I've said it before, if:
(1) there is no house edge.
(false, RTG claim the game is bug free and there is a house edge)
or (2) the variance of the game is very huge such as lottery
(false, the STD of c21 is only 1.61)
or (3) He can bet a huge amount per hand.
Then his chance of winning so much is 1 in 1300. Since he only started with 1k, like GM said he is very likely to bust out early on. I'd say his chance of winning "might" be less than 1 in 10,000. (just a gut's feeling)
People have won lottery with just one ticket, or die in super rare disease. No matter how unlikely pirate could win so much, it is RTG that insist their game is totally random with a house edge built in it.
IMO, we should ignore how likely his winning is and move on. If RTG doesn't care, why should we?
Whether he use bot or not, that's another story. If Hampton et al cannot prove the existance of the "mystic bot" (written in cobol?), they should pay up.

Good post, hhc. Although this is an interesting facet I think that Hampton apologists who have been asking this question from experts like Mary et al were possibly simply looking for ammunition.

 

[portia]

Sure is quiet in here. The lull before the storm?

 

[portia]

Hello Mr McMain :

Reminder of a few questions :

1) Why hasn't the players logs been releaesd by RTG?
The casino website says they are readily available.

2) Who is blocking the release of the playlogs?

3) What could be the motive behind someone not wanting those play logs released?

My guess is that they contain evidence of non-robot like play. Strategy errors, inconsistency in playing same hands different ways. Hunch plays.

 

[cipher]

Sure is quiet in here. The lull before the storm?

I can't imagine

 

[aceinhole21]

Hello Mr McMain :

Reminder of a few questions :

1) Why hasn't the players logs been releaesd by RTG?
The casino website says they are readily available.

2) Who is blocking the release of the playlogs?

3) What could be the motive behind someone not wanting those play logs released?

My guess is that they contain evidence of non-robot like play. Strategy errors, inconsistency in playing same hands different ways. Hunch plays.

the play logs would easily discern whether a robot was used or not by looking at the time between each hand. further, a human could not play consistently for a long period of time without taking some sort of break. Hampton WILL NOT release the logs, therefore Pirate DID NOT use a robot! simple logic. As for RTG themselves having access to them and releasing them, I think RTG should produce the logs themselves (if RTG indeed has access to them).