Software random or "rigged" ?

[tombomb]

Yesterday I claimed a buy $50 and geta $50 bonus a a certain MG casino.I started playing the Halloweenies slot with bets of .20 to $1.I must have spun 500 times and not gotten three rabbits once. I emailed CS and asked about this and was told "We're sorry you didnt get the rabbits but the software is random and we have no control over what comes up and what doesnt.Why dont you play some other games? We just had two winners in the last 30 min. on Pollenation and Witches Wealth.For $3000 and $8000 "I was told.Funny I've played this game at other casinos and never had such bad "random" results.I wonder if the software kicks in and starts "randomly"cleaning everybody out for a while after paying a couple of big wins?After depositing a few more times close to $300 I got the rabbits twice. Probably in the neighborhood of 8-900 spins now.Once for 4 rabbits once for 3.anyone familiar with the game knows that 4 rabbits pays 1000 credits plus whatever you win on the free spins.total payout was 1655 credits.For 3 rabbits it was 800 something.Today the bonus was credited and while playing I did hit hit rabbits 6 or 7 times but only when betting .20 to $1.Bet 5 or 10 and nothing.sure is questionable how the "randomness" was so different from yesterday to today.Needless to say the bonus didnt last and I wont be using this casino again.

 

[winbig]

Just bad luck, that's all. Two bad sessions don't = rigged

 

[tombomb]

Just bad luck, that's all. Two bad sessions don't = rigged

Doesnt explain why the randomsoftware was so different one day to the next.
However "rigged" does.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Doesnt explain why the randomsoftware was so different one day to the next.
However "rigged" does.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

So far as I am aware, it's not possible (at least in any way likely) that/for a casino itself to alter the software the provider has written. Payouts maybe be alterable, but the RNG is not. All MGV casinos use the same RNG.

If the slot you are mentioning is "rigged", it would mean that Microgaming has rigged it's RNG.

It's going to take tens of millions of dollars worth in sample size for you to even start to make such a claim about a software that nearly everyone considers to be "fair". However, as I suspect, that if you did have a sample this size, you would find that the software is fair, and that you were mistaken.

Alternatively, you could just listen to what I, and I'd assume nearly everyone else, can tell you about Microgaming software, and that is that it is fair.

The Gunslinger

 

[tombomb]

nah 'l l just keep my tens of millions of dollars

 

[Slotmachine]

It's OK

That's just normal paranoia, tombtomb. It's perfectly all right to feel this way We all get it now and then

Cheers
SM

 

[winbig]

Doesnt explain why the randomsoftware was so different one day to the next.
However "rigged" does.

As it was said above, you can't judge the RNG by such a small sample as the one you played. It's going to be the same at any casino you play at either online or off. One slot may be hitting nothing one day and be red hot the next. Put the shoe on the other foot...if you would have played the 2nd day and won $10,000 on the same slot, your post would have been entirely different, wouldn't it?

 

[tim5ny]

Halloweenies is a very streaky slot. I've sat there and got so many bonus rounds in a short time that I thought it was ridiculous.. and even had it re-trigger 5 times during one bonus round. On the other hand, that game wiped out my bankroll more than once without either bonus round showing up for hundreds and hundreds of spins. My mistake for expecting it to play the same way every time.

 

[juliette]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

So far as I am aware, it's not possible (at least in any way likely) that/for a casino itself to alter the software the provider has written. Payouts maybe be alterable, but the RNG is not. All MGV casinos use the same RNG.

I am not so sure about that ...not saying that MG software is rigged, but being merely a programmer I could imagine that some really smart people could alter the code, that theirs casino software will use thier own RNG insteed of thos one from MG.
...and if casnio say: the first one who give us working rigged software will earn 1 000 000$, is likley some one will hack MG

 

[tim5ny]

I am not so sure about that ...not saying that MG software is rigged, but being merely a programmer I could imagine that some really smart people could alter the code, that theirs casino software will use thier own RNG insteed of thos one from MG.
...and if casnio say: the first one who give us working rigged software will earn 1 000 000$, is likley some one will hack MG

I highly doubt you'd see that happen in a Microgaming casino. Too much at stake if they were caught. The house has a guaranteed edge to begin with, so they don't need to do anything to make oodles of cash. I'm sure that the servers in each MG casino are not totally independent of the master servers at Microgaming which would pick up on a rogue that has hacked the RNG.

 

[Macgyver]

Doesnt explain why the randomsoftware was so different one day to the next.
However "rigged" does.

Isn't something random supposed to be different one time to the next?

random Audio pronunciation of "random" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rndm)
adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

 

[tombomb]

Halloweenies is a very streaky slot. I've sat there and got so many bonus rounds in a short time that I thought it was ridiculous.. and even had it re-trigger 5 times during one bonus round. On the other hand, that game wiped out my bankroll more than once without either bonus round showing up for hundreds and hundreds of spins. My mistake for expecting it to play the same way every time.

Ive experienced that myself at a few other casinos.I reecently had bet a .20 coin size and hit rabbits five or six times. At one point I had 58 free spins.Finished up with 12000+ credits on that one.Casino Grand Bay seems to be on the other end of that scale though.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I will always have my suspicions

If the game is random, as in completely independent spin results, then the following experiment should demonstrate it, but not be a total guarantee.

2 computers logged into 2 MG casinos at the same time playing the same game on autoplay an the fastest possible setting at around 4am US time. This should give the best chance of this experiment generating almost consecutive RNG evaluations through the same game over 2 different casinos. The slot/game should be just as "hot" or "cold" wherever it is played for the same stream from the RNG. If the game consistently plays differently over a sample of several thousand spins, this would indicate some sort of "double process", such that the exact same random number from the RNG can create a completely different outcome in different accounts on the same game. This would mean that the RNG is not the only thing controlling the game, but perhaps some sort of deliberate "streakiness" is applied at the start of the session whereby the game will have a tendency to play "cold", or "hot", which will persist throughout a given session. One easy way would be to use a "seed" to modify the raw random number, such as the result of the last bet or spin, which is stored on the server for weeks, but then suddenly resets to the default coin and clear table. CS often say to leave a game and come back later if a persistent bad run is happening, and I have found that waiting long enough for this table clear does seem to result in the game playing to a different trend afterward.
Pity there is no way to prove or disprove this, and can put it down to paranoia perhaps; but I had a really odd WINNING run on the 3-card poker recently, every other hand being either a straigh or a flush, with a couple of 3 of a kind chucked in for good measure - this streak was of such length that it reminded me of playing one of our UK slot machines in the arcade that save up for a few thousand goes and then go an a "dump" and pay out this separate saved pot as an enhanced series of games, followed by a sudden change of style once this pot has been paid out.
Over the long term, such a game would still meet it's target payout, and in the case of a casino, the auditors would find nothing wrong in the monthly payout summary that would suggest anything other that a truly random event.
We shoud be asking the question of MG "Is the result of any one spin, or turn of the card, governed SOLELY by the result of a number supplied by the RNG, with the same RN in the same game resulting in the same card being turned or the same advance of a slot reel regardless of what happened in the previous bets or spins on that, or any other, casino account for that game".

 

[toofast4u]

the truth is,

You will never truely know.


IMO, all online casino software is rigged in one way or another. It may be random to some extent, but I think its all programmed to gurantee the casino a certain % profit every day. If you get paid, its going to be from someone elses losses. Truely random would mean that under the right circumstances some players could come in and clean house. They have 0 risk of coming out behind at the end of the day.

Who cares anyways, you can't hardly win at any casino, online or land based. They are always trying new ways to make players win less and less. Just throw your $10 at it, if you win YAY!!

If not, screw em, they just made $10, and you lost lunch at McDonalds.

Leave it at that.

 

[cashroom]

hmm rigged

I think that you can but you can write a pseudo random software. I have an assignement in a computer science class I have to do a random generator. Computer Scientists have always been trying to find better ways to make a random generator since a computer is deterministic system. I am in Java and to make a random generator we use a package you can import from sun Java so they really have the generator. If it is a download it is probably in C++ and I have not taken that yet to know (well it is in Active x but that isn't a language you use C++ or VB). Unless the casino owner that bought the software is an experienced computer science they themself can't. The software to some casinos are alot of work and probably have a team working on it (programmers) head by a software enngineer.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Must be some form of control.

I have played for some time now, and I am beginning to get a gut feeling about many of my sessions. These feelings are often proved right. It seems to me that the games are controlled by some sort of subtle weighting factor on top of the basic random processes. This weighting factor determines whether good or bad combinations will be more likely with each go or spin. I find this in Slots, Blackjack and Video Poker. In recent runs of MG Video Poker I have noticed that it is increasingly rare to be dealt 3 of a kind, and even when I am, I seem to never hit a 4 of a kind. When I do, it takes it all back by dealing 4 or 5 hands with no win whatsoever. Further, 2 pair is simply not hitting on Full House, and Jacks or Better does not improve on the exchange. A drop in these lower "bread & butter" hands has a very significant effect on the payout percentage, although can go unnoticed by the player, who remembers the occasional straight flush, pat 4 of a kind, and the odd Royal.
I have run a long experiment on Microgaming 50-up Jacks or Better (play money of course), and it is well short of 99.54%, and this is over several MILLION hands! (albeit 50 at a time). Each run is 220,000 hands, and I have completed the experiment with 30 runs. About 6 and a half million in total. I would expect the "Price Waterhouse" criteria of reaching the mathematical edge in any subset should have been a good deal closer. There is no shortage of Royals in my experiment, so I suspect something is going wrong with the minor hands. I will have to check the results to see what is wrong. It could be an error in the Autohold, as there was in the Blackjack autoplay till corrected recently.

 

[schnozzy]

The human brain is a wondrous thing.

It can recognize specific people at an enormous distance with just a glance at the face or the gait. It can glance at a car, in mixed lighting and know that it's an M5. We put computers to shame, when it comes to spotting patterns.

Unfortunately, when it comes to gambling, this pattern recognition gets in the way. When we believe we recognize a pattern and it comes true, we believe that we've found signal in the noise. When it goes the other way, we usually discount it, or blame external factors (surely I'm not the only person who has blamed themselves for not leaving the table after a nice win, forgetting the times that staying there has lead to an even nicer win!)

The common poker and casino myths (rigged according to session/bet size/recent cashout/phase of moon) are just our minds trying to make sense of randomness.

My solution: Play within my budget, and don't worry about MG's random number generator. I still have silly superstitions, but I let them live because they're fun, not because I really believe them.

 

[Pinababy69]

You know what? Call me naive, but I do not believe that online games are rigged....okay, okay, attack me now, lol. I believe they are exactly what they say they are......random. I have gone through horrible losing streaks playing some of my favourite games at a variety of casinos. I have seen me sit and spin 1000 spins on Thunderstruck without ever seeing one bonus round. Whose fault is it for continuing to pour good money after bad? It's mine..why was the game so cold? Bad timing for me. I've also had days where those rams will trigger 5 or 6 times within 100 spins, and then re-trigger a few times during free spins. I am not sure if I have EVER had one bonus round on Tomb Raider, yet someone like KasinoKing makes out like a bandit with her. Just pure luck and nothing else, IMO. Sometimes a machine may payout at 50%, sometimes it may payout at 150%, but I really do believe that it all balances out in the end. What I lose someone else wins, and so on....

If I really thought the slots were rigged, I'm sure I would never play again, maybe that's why my outlook, lol...

 

[winbig]

...And how is it with blackjack, nobody comes on here boasting about their streaks/wins where the dealer was showing a face card/Ace only to turn up a 2-6 and bust????? Is it rigged then??? LOL

It just seems that people focus on the "unbelievable draws" the "dealer" online gets, and not the common/unexpected wins and the great draws you get yourself during the course. Point in the matter is you're just as likely to get a horrible run online just as much as you are offline.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Why the secrecy then!

If it is all pure random, why the strong reluctance on the part of the software provider in giving out the formula by which the RNG generated the turn of the next card, or the position of the next reel. Simply giving the mathematical construct in isolation will not compromise their intellectual rights as no-one owns the rights to chaos and randomness.
If there is some sort of multi-stage process, in that the same number from the RNG can generate a different outcome for different players in order to give an "exciting" experience in an otherwise flat playing game such as Blackjack or VP, then there is something to keep away from the eyes of the competition.
In MG, why does the server remember the state of the last wagered hand? It is wasteful of capacity, and the player cannot clear the table and make a fresh start as in a B&M casino where one would move to a different table. I can only imagine that the state of the last wager acts as a seed for the outcome of the next. Certainly I have found casinos to "remember" luck on a particular game from one session to the next. Noticeable when the luck is extreme in either direction, and starts off again where it left off yesterday, last week etc.

One day I am sure the code will be leaked from a major provider, and the truth will be out. It will prove that we are just paranoid, or prove that there is a case to answer. It might be that the game we play is not what it seems, such as in the new "Vegas" slots just out in the UK, billed as random slots, but it has been discovered it is "Prize Bingo" in disguise, the RNG generates an amount to pay out from zero to Jackpot with one number, and the software interprets this into a layout on the reels, and where a "pick" bonus is given, it matters not what we pick, as it will cheat and give the predetermined prize and pretend that had we picked differently we would have won something different.

 

[eek]

I have played for some time now, and I am beginning to get a gut feeling about many of my sessions. These feelings are often proved right. It seems to me that the games are controlled by some sort of subtle weighting factor on top of the basic random processes. This weighting factor determines whether good or bad combinations will be more likely with each go or spin. I find this in Slots, Blackjack and Video Poker. In recent runs of MG Video Poker I have noticed that it is increasingly rare to be dealt 3 of a kind, and even when I am, I seem to never hit a 4 of a kind. When I do, it takes it all back by dealing 4 or 5 hands with no win whatsoever. Further, 2 pair is simply not hitting on Full House, and Jacks or Better does not improve on the exchange. A drop in these lower "bread & butter" hands has a very significant effect on the payout percentage, although can go unnoticed by the player, who remembers the occasional straight flush, pat 4 of a kind, and the odd Royal.
I have run a long experiment on Microgaming 50-up Jacks or Better (play money of course), and it is well short of 99.54%, and this is over several MILLION hands! (albeit 50 at a time). Each run is 220,000 hands, and I have completed the experiment with 30 runs. About 6 and a half million in total. I would expect the "Price Waterhouse" criteria of reaching the mathematical edge in any subset should have been a good deal closer. There is no shortage of Royals in my experiment, so I suspect something is going wrong with the minor hands. I will have to check the results to see what is wrong. It could be an error in the Autohold, as there was in the Blackjack autoplay till corrected recently.

This kind of thing is why a truegambler-like client is needed to reassure people who want to play at these internet places.

You play a zillion practice hands and you get a feel for the game while perfecting your strategy.
Then when you play online for real cash you start noticing weird stuff like a lack of two-pair or 3OAKs or whatever.

A simple client that records sessions and saves it into text format for detailed analysis is all that's needed.

Still waiting tho...

tik tok tik tok tik tok

 

[Slotmachine]

How Slot Machines Work

RNG generates an amount to pay out from zero to Jackpot with one number, and the software interprets this into a layout on the reels, and where a "pick" bonus is given, it matters not what we pick, as it will cheat and give the predetermined prize and pretend that had we picked differently we would have won something different.

Smell the coffee That's how slot machines work. You're given a random number or several random numbers which determine the amount of your win.

With some slots, the instant you hit "spin", the RNG churns out a random win from 0 to jackpot for you, and the reels are set so as to reflect that win. Doesn't mean it isn't random or fair.

Some slots work differently: The instant you hit "spin", the RNG churns out a random position for each reel individually. The combination of those positions then determine your win. This is a better simulation of a real mechanical slot machine but it's no more random or fair than the other..

"Pick bonus" games are like this in many slots, I suspect in most slots: The win is predetermined anyway. Even if it's NOT predetermined, it does not matter which one you pick. Before you pick, it does not make a difference which one you choose. The difference comes AFTER the pick. And in the long run, it all evens out. So it just doesn't matter.

Don't be a sucker and think you can influence a game of chance.

This is from the HELP file of an online casino bonus slot:

"The feature game is designed to add "more excitement" to the game, and has no effect on the outcome of any spin.
...
Your choice in the feature game has no effect on the outcome of this game.
...
The feature game is simply a novel way to deliver to you the same win you would have received anyway."

Of course, not all machines work like that, but I prefer Thunderstruck and other "free spin" slot games where there's no pick bonus because the pick bonus is a waste of time anyway.

As for the rigged vs not rigged discussion, in the words of a well-known Casino CEO: "Take it from me, the Casino's do not need to cheat. They are guaranteed to win anyway"

Cheers,
SM

 

[eek]

I have been playing the horses at Betfair over the last couple of months.

The bankroll has been up down and roundabout, up down and roundabout, up down and roundabout, up down and roundabout

A nice refreshing experience in randomness.

Makes a pleasant change from down down down and down.

 

[GrandMaster]

If the game is random, as in completely independent spin results, then the following experiment should demonstrate it, but not be a total guarantee.

2 computers logged into 2 MG casinos at the same time playing the same game on autoplay an the fastest possible setting at around 4am US time. This should give the best chance of this experiment generating almost consecutive RNG evaluations through the same game over 2 different casinos. The slot/game should be just as "hot" or "cold" wherever it is played for the same stream from the RNG.

No, they should be completely independent of each other.

I have run a long experiment on Microgaming 50-up Jacks or Better (play money of course), and it is well short of 99.54%, and this is over several MILLION hands! (albeit 50 at a time). Each run is 220,000 hands, and I have completed the experiment with 30 runs. About 6 and a half million in total. I would expect the "Price Waterhouse" criteria of reaching the mathematical edge in any subset should have been a good deal closer. There is no shortage of Royals in my experiment, so I suspect something is going wrong with the minor hands.

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

I will have to check the results to see what is wrong. It could be an error in the Autohold, as there was in the Blackjack autoplay till corrected recently.

VP autoplay works differently from BJ autoplay. It calculates the expected value of all possible moves, and I am not aware of any mistakes in it.

 

[mderry]

"The feature game is designed to add "more excitement" to the game, and has no effect on the outcome of any spin.
...
Your choice in the feature game has no effect on the outcome of this game.
...
The feature game is simply a novel way to deliver to you the same win you would have received anyway."

Some will never be convinced of this....hit one of those "touch" types at a land based casino awhile back and as I reached for the screen the idiot standing behind me almost knocked me off my stool, saying "no, no, not that one, its no good". (unfortunately he was right on that occasion)

 

[vinylweatherman]

Reply

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!

 

[vinylweatherman]

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)

 

[GrandMaster]

I make the payout 99.164%.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[eek]

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.

 

[GrandMaster]

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.

 

[eek]

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.

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)

 

[vinylweatherman]

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 (This was a fluke though!).

 

[mgibson99]

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!!!