Software random or "rigged" ?

Reply

GrandMaster said:
No, they should be completely independent of each other.


Do you have a record of the numbers of the various outcomes? How much have you lost?

My point about the 2 casino sessions is that the luck should be shared evenly between both accounts, and one accountshould not continually get the good hits and the other the bad. To elaborate though, this experiment would need to be run a number of times, and consistently show one session being favoured with good hits over the other. Although this will happen at random, it is equally likely that both sessions will be the same. Several runs should show no trend in the long term on a per session basis, as well as the slot approaching the same house edge in each account. This will probably not provide a rigorous scientific proof unless huge numbers of sessions are run. I suspect the only way to prove this argument either way is to start from the viewpoint that it is completely random, and attempt to prove that it is random. It should be possible, given a big enough sample, to show the results to be independent of any of the "paranoia", such as wager size, time of day, playing with bonuses etc.

As for the VP experiment, I have tabulated the numbers of each outcome from Royal Flush to Sweet FA. According to wizardofodds, the house edge is the same for the multihand variants provided the paytable is the same. Deuces Wild differs due to paytable differences between single hand and multi-hand versions. I will render my results into a form that I can post here, and that you all can read clearly too!
 
Results

Here is a summary of the 50 hand Jacks or Better experiment:-


Total Hands Played......= 6600000
Initial Deals................= 132000
Total Wagered............= 330000
Total Lost..................= 27599.50
Payout......................= 91.6365%


Royal Flush.................= 133 (Expected = 163 Shortfall = 30)
Straight Flush..............= 641 (Expected = 721 Shortfall = 80)
4 of a Kind..................= 15830 (Expected = 15593 Shortfall = -237)
Full House...................= 74879 (Expected = 75981 Shortfall = 1102)
Flush..........................= 72631 (Expected = 72696 Shortfall = 65)
Straight......................= 77147 (Expected = 74114 Shortfall = -3033)
3 of a Kind..................= 488382 (Expected = 491361 Shortfall = 2979)
2 Pair.........................= 854668 (Expected = 853241 Shortfall = -1427)
Jacks or Better............= 1417834 (Expected = 1416261 Shortfall = -1573)
Losing hands...............= 3597855 (Expected = 3599869 Shortfall = 2014)
 
Noted.

Point taken. Calculator duly chastised:)

Total Hands Played....= 6600000
Initial Deals..............= 132000
Total Wagered..........= 330000
Total Lost................= 2759.95
Payout....................= 99.16365%

Not quite so bad, but does not explain the trend for banning this game in WR yet allowing Blackjack with just a weighting factor! Surely casinos would be better off allowing Jacks or Better as players believe it is good for 99.54%, but a portion of this value is locked in the highest hands of Royal and Straight Flush. In terms of initial deals, 750,000 should yield a pat Royal on average, which would make one hell of a difference to this experiment, reducing the loss from 2759.95 to around 760. No pat Straight Flushes were recorded, although numerous pat 4 of a Kind deals were given.
I suspect that increasing the number of simultaneous hands increases the risk factor (either way). In some ways, this plays like a mini progressive, with a pat Royal resulting in 50 simultaneous Royal Flushes. In single hand, a pat royal is equal in value to one gained on exchange.
What I have noted is a shortfall in the Straight, but I notice that 4 to an inside straight is thrown away (I think my terminology is correct - 2,3,5,6 would be thrown away rather than held for the 4). Some strategy guides say to hold for this if nothing better is possible, such as a low pair. I also notice that Joker Poker will cast aside Joker,Jack preferring Joker,7 - going for normal Straight Flush rather than Joker Royal which pays more. I can understand not holding Joker, Ace but surely Joker, Jack is better than Joker, 7 - perhaps the maths is finely balanced.
 
rf 800 133 106400
sf 50 641 32050
4oak 25 15830 395750
fhouse 9 74879 673911
flush 6 72631 435786
straight 4 77147 308588
3oak 3 488382 1465146
2pair 2 854668 1709336
job 1 1417834 1417834
nil 3597855 6544801 coins won
6600000 coins played
0.991636515151515152

looks okay.
 
vinylweatherman said:
Point taken. Calculator duly chastised:)

Total Hands Played....= 6600000
Initial Deals..............= 132000
Total Wagered..........= 330000
Total Lost................= 2759.95
Payout....................= 99.16365%

Not quite so bad, but does not explain the trend for banning this game in WR yet allowing Blackjack with just a weighting factor!

It makes a huge difference! You are down by about 0.9 standard deviations, the probability of losing this much or more is about 18%. A return of 91.6% on a sample of this size would mean being down by nearly 19 SD, which would a conclusive proof of cheating. It is beyond me why some casinos allow BJ but not JoB for bonuses, I stopped looking for logic in casino promotions a long time ago.
 
This is a great example of the kind of thing that ecasinos should be able to produce for any player with a simple text (.txt) download with detailed and summary sections on demand.
It might consume server power and bandwidth but for a place thats playing a straight game this kind of stuff is gold dust if you want to advertise for potential players.

$100 bonuses are a waste of time if people think things are rigged.
6 million hands with over 99% return is hard data...and that's from a single player, and it kills any doubts in the minds of the sceptical.


vinylweatherman said:
Here is a summary of the 50 hand Jacks or Better experiment:-


Total Hands Played......= 6600000
Initial Deals................= 132000
Total Wagered............= 330000
Total Lost..................= 2759.950
Payout......................= 99.16%


Royal Flush.................= 133 (Expected = 163 Shortfall = 30)
Straight Flush..............= 641 (Expected = 721 Shortfall = 80)
4 of a Kind..................= 15830 (Expected = 15593 Shortfall = -237)
Full House...................= 74879 (Expected = 75981 Shortfall = 1102)
Flush..........................= 72631 (Expected = 72696 Shortfall = 65)
Straight......................= 77147 (Expected = 74114 Shortfall = -3033)
3 of a Kind..................= 488382 (Expected = 491361 Shortfall = 2979)
2 Pair.........................= 854668 (Expected = 853241 Shortfall = -1427)
Jacks or Better............= 1417834 (Expected = 1416261 Shortfall = -1573)
Losing hands...............= 3597855 (Expected = 3599869 Shortfall = 2014)
 
Not cheating

This does not support the "rigged" theory in respect of total result, however paranoia about "rigged streaks" within the long run will still be around - and I feel there is substance in it. As a 50-UP game, the monster pat-royal, when it eventually happens, will boost the payout back to the 99.54% it should be. In only 132000 initial deals, it is not too likely to happen. It should happen once in every 750,000 initial deals, but with a huge margin of error. It seems the big multi-hand tables have a higher degree of risk in the long term when it comes to meeting WR on a bonus. The Spin Palace group forbid this game (any J or Better in fact), yet I can play Vegas Strip $1 (1) BJ at 10% weighting, and Roulette $ Craps at 33% weighting. They are clamping down on the wrong game.
Curiously, according to mathematical tables, the next best 50 hand game for meeting WR is NOT Aces and Faces but Deuces Wild (MG multi hand paytable). Those casinos that ban all VP Except Deuces Wild need to get their calculators out! Unlike BJ though, VP makes it easy to work out how much has been wagered in an MG casino.

This was the original reason for this experiment; why ban Jacks or Better and allow BJ? Incidentally, I did wager 80,000 on BJ as J or B was banned, and WON 800:D (This was a fluke though!).
 
I'm always amazed.....

by the posts about rigged software. Some people "swear" that on line casino software is rigged, or it can be rigged. If you really believe this......then don't play!!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top