Surely "streaky" is rigged!?!

steadman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Location
Robertsbridge, East Sussex
Obviously I'm not a big poster. I don't have much to say which isn't already taken care of on here by some great contributors but I'm constantly reading about how games are not rigged but are "streaky" which doesnt make much sense.

How can a person believe that a game isn't rigged if they believe it is streaky? I'm talking here not about slots, keno, etc but the standard card games. Even it is still paying the same percentages in a streaked fashion then that is still manipulated thus "rigged".

I only mention it because I've had a streaky day on Pai Gow - I'm always amazed how many you can lose in a row in that game - especially as the chance of a loss is far less than on say a blackjack game!

Cheers guys.

Cheers Simmo.
 
Last edited:

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
I'm not a table games player but I'd guess (like slots etc) its down to "high variance" rather than any dubious activity causing the streaks, in particular when multiple decks are used. Just a hunch though. The audited payout percentages might also hold a clue to this too where published.

Cheers

Simmo!
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
Hi Steadman,

What software do you play on?
I play quite a bit of PaiGow and know what you mean about the streaks. It's easier to think it's rigged than just having a bad run.
On Crypto's I have years of stats which shows me in the long term I get a fair game there.
But with MG & RTG I always seem to have terrible luck - MG is actually the worst for PaiGow I've ever played!
Boss & Playtech seem OK to me.

I guess the above is just my gut feel - it could all just be down to luck.
 

steadman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Location
Robertsbridge, East Sussex
Hi guys,.


I'm not really suggesting that the games are - more commenting on a some of the posts in the forum - I notice on multiple posts there are the "not rigged just more streaky" comments which just doesnt make sense.

KK - I play at quite a few different casinos only if bonuses are involved. I'm personally just amazed at the amount of Pai-Gow hands you can lose in a row - even get a "feel" for whats happening before it happens sometimes but I'm not suggesting anything odd - I've had those feelings at a live table but Pai-Gow, unlike BJ, should not really contain many of these multiple loss streaks.

Cheers.
 

bpb

Banned User - repeated violations of rule 1.14 (tr
PABnonaccred
PABnorogue
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Location
Haverhill
Hi guys,.


I'm not really suggesting that the games are - more commenting on a some of the posts in the forum - I notice on multiple posts there are the "not rigged just more streaky" comments which just doesnt make sense.

You are correct, streaky but not rigged comments make no sense. But people like to make up these kind of arguments to justify their gambling losses. It gives them hope that they can win in the long run if they just identify a streak early and up their bets.
 

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
You are correct, streaky but not rigged comments make no sense. But people like to make up these kind of arguments to justify their gambling losses. It gives them hope that they can win in the long run if they just identify a streak early and up their bets.
Gambling losses? I gain more than statisically expected almost every time I use progressive betting with SW I believe is streaky. The results for casinos where I have used progressive betting this month are below:

--Parlay--
Winward: +$950 on $500 bonus
Casino Vega: +$160 without betting or cashing bonus

--Real Time Gaming--
Shark: +$820 on $400 sticky bonus (or +$1220, if including bonus)

--Cryptologic--
Intercasino: +$200 on $100 bonus
Littlewoods: +$195 on 25GBP bonus
William Hill: +$75 on $40 bonus

--Grand Virtual--
Casino Lux: +$200 on $100 bonus (should have been more, lost nearly all bonus bets, as is typical with this SW)

--Random Logic--
888.com: +$165 on $100 bonus
 
Last edited:

tencardcharlie

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Location
The playboy mansion.
I'm personally just amazed at the amount of Pai-Gow hands you can lose in a row - even get a "feel" for whats happening before it happens sometimes but I'm not suggesting anything odd - I've had those feelings at a live table but Pai-Gow, unlike BJ, should not really contain many of these multiple loss streaks.

Yeah it's easy to feel that way when the game seems to be against you ;)
But as you understand, theories about 'streaky' software doesn't make sense.

Not only is it theoretically implausible that casinos should rigg their games in such a wierd way, also the lack of empirical evidence speaks for itself.

To my knowledge noone have ever shown that there should be higher risk to lose after a loss and higher chance to win after a win - which would be true if the SW was programmed to be 'streaky'. Such a test would not be hard to perform. Still we see nothing but anecdotes to back up those claims.
 

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
Yeah it's easy to feel that way when the game seems to be against you ;)
But as you understand, theories about 'streaky' software doesn't make sense.

Not only is it theoretically implausible that casinos should rigg their games in such a wierd way, also the lack of empirical evidence speaks for itself..
There are several casino advantages to "streaky SW." Two of the big ones are

1. Increasing odds that a player will bust before completing wagering requirements

2. Increasing odds that a player who tries to make up losses by increasing bet size will bust (for example double bet with each loss)

It is also possible that the streakyness is more of a side effect than a desired effect.

To my knowledge noone have ever shown that there should be higher risk to lose after a loss and higher chance to win after a win - which would be true if the SW was programmed to be 'streaky'. Such a test would not be hard to perform. Still we see nothing but anecdotes to back up those claims.
Some of the anecdotes are extremely improbable situations. Yesterday I mentioned two roulette streaks that occurred minutes apart from each other , each of which is expected to occur once per 1.8 million spins. The chances of two such streaks within a few hundred spins of each other is for all practical purposes 0.
 

frufrugirl

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
NorthWest USA
AKA23, I noticed you list some of your bets in GBP. Arnt you a us player? If so, have you had any trouble from the casinos regarding using non resident currency?
And, back to the thread, I have to tell you I spent over $250 on a downward streak that wouldnt reverse itself, I cant believe I was such an idiot and continued hoping it would, the play was super fast -which, I had notice before when playing at this casino means a losing session...maybe its just in my mind but I had won on the previous deposit( no bonus),it was playing slow, cashed out $75 , came back the next day and deposited the $250 and pffft gone with variable betting without such as a howdy do! Now I pay attention to the speed in return play, if fast, it seems, I say "seems" to indicate a losing streak and I will stop. Saved my butt the other day!:)
 

steadman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Location
Robertsbridge, East Sussex
Yeah it's easy to feel that way when the game seems to be against you ;)
But as you understand, theories about 'streaky' software doesn't make sense.

.

Well it does make sense to an extent - streaking the game does appeal to the gambling instinct at it's most base level. A bad streak causes a faster bust and a good streak can ensure a player will play it out resulting in a longer session which can ultimately break those gamblers without a self-control reflex, so to speak. It's difficult for most people to leave when winning. Maybe not Casinomeister readers.

Take those scratchcard games you see on some sites - they are far from random - how many of them have 2 of the 3 required jackpot or other big win symbols? They are engineered to make people play more, so there are reasons to engineer games to be more appealing.

But basically my point was merely if players believe that a game like BJ/PG/CW is streaked in any way and not random - then they have to believe it is rigged. You cannot think one and not think the other.
 

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
AKA23, I noticed you list some of your bets in GBP. Arnt you a us player? If so, have you had any trouble from the casinos regarding using non resident currency?
The GPB bet mentioned above was at Littlewoods. Littlewoods requires all players to use GPB. Most of the other casinos that a play GBP or Euro at require this currency as well. Of the 2 or 3 where I selected GBP as an optional currency, none have given me any problems, including one where I have gained over $2500 over the past 2 months.

There are other casinos which have have special clauses about using foreign currency in their T&C. This might involve increasing wagering for bonuses, banning bonuses, or forbidding using a foreign currency alltogether (you can lose in a foreign currency, but you can't cash out winnings).
 

tencardcharlie

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Location
The playboy mansion.
There are several casino advantages to "streaky SW." Two of the big ones are

1. Increasing odds that a player will bust before completing wagering requirements

2. Increasing odds that a player who tries to make up losses by increasing bet size will bust (for example double bet with each loss)

It is also possible that the streakyness is more of a side effect than a desired effect.

Actually, 1) increasing the odds for a player to bust before reaching the wagering requirements (by making the game streaky and not changing the HA) would benefit the player. And 2) would also benefit players who up their bets when they win, which would most probably make more people bet higher on winning streaks, giving them an advantage. I almost feel a bit sorry for casinos - if people have bad runs - it's rigged. If people have good runs - it's rigged. If there are runs that doesn't really affect the players results - it's definitely rigged.


Some of the anecdotes are extremely improbable situations. Yesterday I mentioned two roulette streaks that occurred minutes apart from each other , each of which is expected to occur once per 1.8 million spins. The chances of two such streaks within a few hundred spins of each other is for all practical purposes 0.

While this is extremely freaky, I would be more concerned if someone who made a proper experiment with the parameters decided before calculating probabilities and observed a 1 in 10.000 probability for a fair game. When thelawnet presented his test that showed how English harbour VP was unfair, I believed it immediately.

Freaky things will happen, and those will often be reported on boards. I've had my fair share of craziness to, like getting quads in holdem with both hole cards twice within three hands etc. etc. But looking at those events and then calculating the probabilities will always result in extremely significant results.
 

aka23

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Location
Planet Earth
Actually, 1) increasing the odds for a player to bust before reaching the wagering requirements (by making the game streaky and not changing the HA) would benefit the player.
Not if it was a typical player using a reasonably constant bet size. Larger streaks increases variance. A higher variance increases the chance of busting before completing wagering requirements. The remaining players who do complete the wagering have an increased chance of continuing to play and lose their winnings.

While this is extremely freaky, I would be more concerned if someone who made a proper experiment with the parameters decided before calculating probabilities and observed a 1 in 10.000 probability for a fair game. When thelawnet presented his test that showed how English harbour VP was unfair, I believed it immediately.
How much of a "proper experiment" do you need? A player posted two screenshots of the same number being hit 5x in a row (occurred minutes apart from each other). Unless he played a billion spins before this without seeing this issue, it occurred far more often than expected.

As mentioned in that thread, I have also observed the same streakyness in that game several times. While I haven't seen a number 5x in a row, I have seen 5x in 6 spins multiple times, which has odds of 1 in ~37^4/5 = 1 in ~400,000.
 
Last edited:

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
Dunno about the "streaky" bit Steadman but 3 of the posters in this thread live on the 1066 line - spooky :eek:
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Interesting.

Although the games are said to be random, there have been a number of posts from players who have won big with progressive betting and been denied the payout on grounds ranging from "robots" to "manipulating the game" (which takes place on the users PC, doesn't it:D ).
I have also seen "playing too fast".

Surely, if an operator is prepared to consider progressive betting as "abuse" they know something about the game software that is less than random and suspect the player has discovered how to ride the crest of the streaks.
Looking at audited payouts will NOT show whether the game streaks or not, it will simply show it pays out an amount that is consistent with its paytable and structure.
It is entirely possible to streak the output from an RNG by including feedback processes in the programming where the RNG output is resolved into game results. Only long term analysis of individual game outcomes will shed any light on this, and it is near impossible to extract data from most game logs in a machine readable form that can be bulk processed by an analytical program (unless the player is prepared to manually transcribe a blow by blow log into Excel, or cut & paste many short sessions).
 

mgibson99

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Location
Washington DC
But basically my point was merely if players believe that a game like BJ/PG/CW is streaked in any way and not random - then they have to believe it is rigged. You cannot think one and not think the other.
You are way off base here. Losing (and winning) streaks have absolutely nothing to do with a game being rigged. I have played blackjack in casinos all over the world and have experienced many odd streaks. I have had dealers get 5 blackjacks in a row. I have had streaks where everytime I hit 19 the dealer hits 20, and everytime I hit 20 the dealer hits 21. I have also had streaks where I couldn't lose for extended periods of time. That's just the nature of the game. I have never thought that the games were rigged.

Same goes for on line casinos. There are streaks, but that does not mean that the games are rigged. Now, I certainly can't say that no online casino is rigged. A particular casino very well could be. I have no idea. I just know that it is a completely false assumption to state that if you believe blackjack can be streaky (which it most certainly can), then you also must believe that the game is rigged. Absolutely no correlation between the two, unless you play an incredibly large number of hands and can empirically prove that the results are statistically unacheivable.
 

steadman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Location
Robertsbridge, East Sussex
You are way off base here. .

You have missed the original point of my post.

I didn't say that if a game is streaky it is rigged!

I was making a comment on various posts which comment, for example, that "casino A BJ is streakier than casino B". My point was that if someone believes this to be the case then that person is making an assertion that either casino A or B is manipulating the game and thus that person is also asserting one of them is rigging the game.

I was just looking for discussion on this point.
 

mgibson99

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Location
Washington DC
You have missed the original point of my post.

I didn't say that if a game is streaky it is rigged!

I was making a comment on various posts which comment, for example, that "casino A BJ is streakier than casino B". My point was that if someone believes this to be the case then that person is making an assertion that either casino A or B is manipulating the game and thus that person is also asserting one of them is rigging the game.

I was just looking for discussion on this point.
Fair enough, but if that was your original point, you weren't very clear. This is how you started your post:

I'm constantly reading about how games are not rigged but are "streaky" which doesnt make much sense.

How can a person believe that a game isn't rigged if they believe it is streaky?
To me, the implication that you made initiallly is that any game that is streaky must be rigged. That is a different than saying that if one casino is more streaky than another, then it must be rigged (which I still say would be hard to prove without a large sample size and rigorous statistical analysis).
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
You are way off base here. Losing (and winning) streaks have absolutely nothing to do with a game being rigged. I have played blackjack in casinos all over the world and have experienced many odd streaks. I have had dealers get 5 blackjacks in a row. I have had streaks where everytime I hit 19 the dealer hits 20, and everytime I hit 20 the dealer hits 21. I have also had streaks where I couldn't lose for extended periods of time. That's just the nature of the game. I have never thought that the games were rigged.

Same goes for on line casinos. There are streaks, but that does not mean that the games are rigged. Now, I certainly can't say that no online casino is rigged. A particular casino very well could be. I have no idea. I just know that it is a completely false assumption to state that if you believe blackjack can be streaky (which it most certainly can), then you also must believe that the game is rigged. Absolutely no correlation between the two, unless you play an incredibly large number of hands and can empirically prove that the results are statistically unacheivable.
100% agree; Streaky does not mean rigged.

Hey Simmo! - who's the 3rd 1066er here then? :confused:
Not you is it?
 

EasyRhino

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Location
San Diego
I think it's really a two-stage question:

1) Is the online casino more streaky than real life?

And there's real debate about this. Play at an online casino is so much faster than brick and mortar, and because people can do it in their pajamas, you're going to see a ton more hands online than you will in real life. And of course, the more you see of anything, you're going to see more real streaks. I mean, in aka's gambling log... imagine how many blackjack hands and roulette spins he's seen?

However, I personally think there is a decent chance that the random number generators used by online casinos are slightly defective. In that they may produce longer streaks than real life usual does. Heck, I've worked with a computer programmer who had to "improve" a random number generator he was coding because it seemed too streaky.

2) If the software is streakier, than was it made that way on purpose, or is it a "bug"?

For reputable casinos, this is a bug. Audited payout percentages are an example of this being the case. In most cases, the payouts you see for each family of games hover around the range that you'd expect.
 

nafanny29

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Location
London, England
Heck, I've worked with a computer programmer who had to "improve" a random number generator he was coding because it seemed too streaky.

Oh you mean the English Harbour guy right :lolup:

Anyway my experiance of online BJ is that some casinos/software deal BJ that feels like its emulating real cards from a shuffled deck, and some deal BJ that feels like the RNG has decided the outcome and picks whatever cards it needs to achieve that result.

The "streakier" ones fall into the 2nd tpye.

Hope that makes sence.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top