1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Dismiss Notice

Winner Screenshots July 2018: Most liked Screenshot of the Week

Hiya Guest!, This is the current most Liked Screenshot of this Week:

By KasinoKing.
View more Amazing Screenshots here, 'cast' your vote!!.

stay away from Victor Chandler / Chartwell SD BJ

Discussion in 'Online Casino and Poker Complaints - old section' started by Lukas85, May 2, 2005.

    May 2, 2005
  1. Lukas85

    Lukas85 Dormant account

    having played about 3,000 hands at Victor Chandlers SD BJ (powered by Chartwell) I can only advise you not to try the same! This goes for the entire group! The results are far away from whats expected from a Single Deck Blackjack game, house edge being rather .8 than .2 or .3 % .

    Although I dont have sufficient proof it appears to me that the SD BJ game at Eurobet/Coral is much more random and fair than at VC casinos.

    As far as Im concerned Ive wasted time and money at this place for the last time today
     
  2. May 2, 2005
  3. DealerBusts

    DealerBusts Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    Couldn't agree with you more. I've played SD BJ at Eurobet and Coral Casino and it ain't funny.
     
  4. May 2, 2005
  5. GrandMaster

    GrandMaster Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Mathematician by day, online gambler by night.
    Location:
    UK
    How were you able to come up with such a precise estimate based on 3000 hands?
     
  6. May 2, 2005
  7. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    Complete agreement here also.

    Over currently 2500 hands, my house edge on SD BJ is 5.5%, from a theoretical of just over 0.2%.

    No question of any kind in my mind that Chartwell is fixed.
     
  8. May 2, 2005
  9. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Agreed. Surely 50,000 or 100,000 hands would be a much fairer number to judge on before accusations of cheating.

    I think also suggest you reconsider the thread title - dragging a famous brand name into it, especially VC who are a highly respected one (in the UK at least) with some 46 years experience in the gambling industry, is possibly not a sensible move IMHO.

    If the issue you have is with Chartwell software, then thats where the thread title should aim if you feel you have the proof to take them on. If you are able to prove they are cheating, then its likely that any licensors would be totally unaware of it anyway.

    But at least its not a "bonus" accusation in this forum for a change :D

    Cheers

    Simmo!
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2005
  10. May 4, 2005
  11. Dirk Diggler

    Dirk Diggler Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Company Secretary
    Location:
    UK
    My last 517 units have me down -19. That gives me a house edge of about 3.7%. This is on the back of many dubious results over the years.

    I'm FAR from convinced that Chartwell is completely random.
     
  12. May 4, 2005
  13. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    Agree with the general "rigged" consensus here - and that seems to be the opinion of most who play there regularly (for the bonuses, of course, before anyone asks!).

    Simmo, I'm against giving otherwise reputable companies that use dodgy casino software an easy time. Putting a little pressure on them (which they can then apply to the software companies) might be the best way to get the software companies to take the fairness of their games seriously (& not just in the sense of tweaking things to make it more profitable for their clients! :) ).
     
  14. May 5, 2005
  15. amandajm

    amandajm Experienced Member

    Occupation:
    Watch
    Location:
    London
    VC are not beyond criticism, even though they started the ball rolling towards getting the 9% betting levy dropped in the UK highstreet bookies.

    That said :: I am sure if Chartwell were proven to be rigged, VC would drop them yesterday.
     
  16. May 5, 2005
  17. thelawnet

    thelawnet Dormant account

    Occupation:
    programmer
    Location:
    UK
    Perhaps if you said 8%, I would be more surprised, but .8%? That is just normal variance. I have played 3,000 hands at another casino and ended up down about 100 units (3.3%), and I'm not claiming that is anything other than normal variance.

    3000 * .008 = 24. 24 units down in 3000 initial bet? That translates as rigged?

    Wow.....

    You know about variance? That's the thing that allows people to win $5,000 while others are losing.

    3000 hands has a variance of about 64 units. So anything between 3000 * .0025 +- 64 = -71.5 to 56.5 would be ONE standard deviation. That only accompanies about 2/3 of the distribution. So 1/3 of results would be outside even that. If we were talking about 3 sigma, that would be roughly -200 units, which is nearly 7%, and even that, although much more suggestive, would not be proof of cheating.

    So your results are not even vaguely suggestive of cheating. Not even a tiny sniff.

    I personally know how hard it can be to believe that things aren't rigged against you when you have lost big, but 99% of the time it's not true.

    The problem is that even it were true, it's actually very hard to prove these accusations without vast samples, unless the casino is cheating very blatantly. Things could be rigged to give the casino an extra 0.2%, and it would be nigh on impossible to ever prove it.

    Your comments about Victor Chandler being bad and Eurobet/Coral being good?

    Well I could present my 'evidence' that it's the contrary. I lost quite a bit at Coral, and have won every single time I have played the VC Chartwell skins.

    Totally ridiculous.
     
  18. May 5, 2005
  19. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Interesting and valid POV vesuvio :thumbsup: However i felt in this instance the thread (title in particular) was unfair based on such a small sample. Thelawnet's post above is very valid IMHO. This thread goes absolutely nowhere near proving the accusations made and is thus misleading.
     
  20. May 5, 2005
  21. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    Rubbish.

    I have 2500 hands giving a house edge of 5.5%, on a theoretical of 0.2%. That is flat-out "ridiculous".

    Chartwell is rigged and the thread is accurately titled. I also firmly advocate that the community as a whole stay away from Chartwell.
     
  22. May 5, 2005
  23. Vesuvio

    Vesuvio Dormant account

    Location:
    UK
    Yes, I'm sure the posters here are quite aware of variance! It's almost impossible to prove software's rigged based on limited samples (unless it's catastrophically rigged). That doesn't mean it should be trusted because "why should they rig things when they've got a house edge anyway?" (an argument I've seen you make before). There are all sorts of reasons.

    I think calculating SDs doesn't really account for the perceived unfairness of casino software. It's usually not the number of units lost in a session that's suspicious (& easily quantifiable), but the pattern of wins and losses, "streakiness" etc., which is much more difficult to assess - and of course software can return overall results in line with expectations while still being rigged. I'd say the doubts about this software are based on a huge amount of play by a large group of experienced players, so they can't be dismissed so easily.

    I do agree with you it's very unlikely that Coral and Eurobet run the software any differently than the VC skins. I'd be inclined to put that perception down to the wagering requirements being twice as high at VC.
     
  24. May 5, 2005
  25. thelawnet

    thelawnet Dormant account

    Occupation:
    programmer
    Location:
    UK
    I would guess they are, but not the OP who seems to be making conclusions based on a 24 unit loss. This is ridiculous.

    That's very true. Using standard deviations of losses to prove things is a very hard way to do things, because by the time you are getting to levels that can mathematically be considered proof, you are looking at having lost thousands of pounds/dollars. Better ways are looking at cards dealt, and the likelihood of results given certain upcards, etc. But it's expensive and difficult to test.

    The less subtle cheats have been caught (that do so repeatedly and verifiably), but there's many ways that you can cheat.

    For instance you could win 30 every month for 3 months, and then the next month there could be a 'win-back' switch, which wins back your previous winnings. This would be quite sufficient to make the casino happy, without being provable as cheating.

    Caruso's results, -138 in 2500, while bad, doesn't present sufficient evidence to prove that they are cheating. The following formula in Excel =NORMDIST(-138,-6.25,SQRT(2500)*1.16,TRUE) gives the odds as 1.2%. So this kind of bad luck would happen to 1 in 80 players at every casino.

    Sucks if you're the 1, and of course it doesn't mean they are NOT cheating, but it doesn't prove that they are either.
     
  26. May 7, 2005
  27. scrollock

    scrollock Senior Member

    Occupation:
    google
    Location:
    boro, uk
    VC- respected- dont make me laugh!

    to prevent my reply being censored i will post up some links for you to read from someone who is respected- the BBC

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    i'll let you make up your minds, but for someone uses a form of bribery to find out info for insider dealing on horse races in which 100,000's are gambled would not be to perturbed at fixing a 1 hand of BJ if he was given the chance, something he most certainly has.
     
  28. May 7, 2005
  29. sirius

    sirius Senior Member

    Location:
    UK
    That is normal variance flat betting but I thought you had given worse figures than this before? These are around 2.2 SD's below average but before you mentioned something closer to 3 SD's which is still nothing to be concerned about. 3 SD's is about 1 in 370 chance in a fair game of losing as much. 2.2 SD's is about 1 in 36.

    That 5.5% loss level is almost equivalent to the player advantage you have with 20xB bonus requirements (5% advantage minus house edge on each bet) so if you played the monthly bonuses you should end up almost level. For a 3SD's degree of certainty of being ahead for the 20x bonus requirements level you will need to play 7000 hands.
     
  30. May 7, 2005
  31. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Occupation:
    Casino apologist
    Location:
    England
    Too funny, Sirius.

    So the fact that they offer a monthly bonus makes it OK for Chartwell to cheat, because I'll get some of it back?

    OK.

    That's the most bizarre justification for cheating I've ever heard. What sort of an affiliate deal have you got with them?

    My current results are just under 3 SDs, and show a house edge of exactly 6%, with perfect play. This certainly isn't "normal variance". In addition to that, the gameplay is absurd: constant dealer blackjacks and 10/10 hands, constant suckouts to 21, excessive player busting on stiffs. If I could ever get hold of my full Chartwell playlogs (they make this VERY difficult based on the one occasion I tried) there's little doubt I could prove they cheat.
     
  32. May 7, 2005
  33. sirius

    sirius Senior Member

    Location:
    UK
    I prefer to look at it in terms of the chance of losing as much given that you have lost more than average, so you need to double those odds. The 'bad luck' only happens half the time and the other half is above expectation. You never do that test when you are winning! Your calculations will never give more than a 50% chance of happening in a fair game because the other 50% you are winning above expectation.
     
  34. May 7, 2005
  35. sirius

    sirius Senior Member

    Location:
    UK
    I don't have an affiliate deal with them. I was just saying that it was the risk you take with the 20x bonus requirements.

    I explained that you need to play 7000 hands to be sure of being ahead (to 3SD's) at that 20x bonus requirements level.

    The result in terms of units won or lost is the best test in most cases for the simple reason that you aren't looking to find something unusual. There are so many possible things that could happen in a blackjack session that would make it look rigged that just because one particular thing is unlikely will not be able to prove anything.
     
  36. May 7, 2005
  37. sirius

    sirius Senior Member

    Location:
    UK
    I should add that a 6% edge is totally normal (to 3SD's) until you play the thousands of hands required. After 7000 hands you won't show more than a 5% edge to 3SD's (or something like that). The 20x bonus equates to a 5% extra advantage on each bet but you need to play 7000 hands to be sure that even with extreme bad luck, you still stay ahead.

    There is no evidence they are cheating!
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2005
  38. May 7, 2005
  39. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Those are interesting links actually even if they are 3 years old. May be right, may be wrong but 3 things stand out though:

    1) The program states that VC didn't actually break the law
    2) They remain unproven accusations
    3) The theory that "if a trainer didn't back their own horse it was not likely to win" is probably not very reliable anyway :)

    BBC / Iraq / Hutton Inquiry. Everyone has ghosts in the closet ;)
     

Share This Page