# Thank you Playtech

#### kangamick

##### Dormant account
Thank you bet365 & Goldenpalace. It was nice to play at a casino with real random cards unlike the (*cough cough "bad luck") cryptos (intercasino, littlewoods).

And thank you for another 'I have no evidence to back it up but I am still sure this software is rigged'- post.

Can't get enough of those ones.

And thank you for another 'I have no evidence to back it up but I am still sure this software is rigged'- post.

Can't get enough of those ones.

Tell me what sort of evidence would you like? Maybe post 100,000 hands in here. I'm sure casinomeister would be happy about that lol. Can you provide evidence it's not rigged?

Good question. No I cannot prove that it is not rigged, since proving such a thing is impossible. Therefore, for practial reasons, the burden of proof must lie on the person claiming that the rig exists.

The kind of evidence I need is:
1. Creates a hypothesis (such as "I think that the probability of losing a hand in crypto BJ is larger than it should be in a fair game)

2. Play n rounds of the game. The more blatantly rigged the game is, the less hands needs to be played. 100.000 is certainly overdoing it.

3. Look at the results in step 2. Calculate the probability that this results would occur in a fair game. If this probability is very low, then you have a case.

4. Other people should do the experiment again. If they get the same result then we have some real proof.

If you want to do such an experiment, I am willing to help you out.

playtech is better than cryptologic IMO 2

Thank you bet365 & Goldenpalace. It was nice to play at a casino with real random cards unlike the (*cough cough "bad luck") cryptos (intercasino, littlewoods).
What is your point exactly? Now I must go to my buddies and tell them some casino is rigged because kangamick say so?

. Therefore, for practial reasons, the burden of proof must lie on the person claiming that the rig exists.

You are sadly deluded - it almost laughable. You are just pulling our collective leg are you not?

The onus of providing a fair game rests wholly and solely on the provider of such a game. It is for the provider to furnish proof that the games(s) are random in a comprehensively transparent manner. Such proof needs to be constantly updated and constantly monitored by independant analysis and then published for public perusal.

How on earth is a solitary on-line player going to satisfy himself that the game played is random? By playing as the OP suggested another 100,000 hands? For God's sake you are making me laugh even louder - get a grip man - IT IS FOR THE CASINO TO PROVE THE GAME IS FAIR.

I trust that has sunk in. LOL burden of proof on player - sorry but I can't stop laughing at the lunacy of such a statement.

...

In most cases the burden of proof would not be on the player. However, if any player cries foul without any statistical data to back him up, then how on earth can we claim that a certain software is rigged. The 4 major providers have been around for some time and are large believed to deal fair games although different people people have different views on various games. I always believed that something was wrong with playtech BJ especially their BJ switch but that's opnly my personal opinion and I would refrain from labelling it as rigged. If I do make such a claim one day, I would back this up with empirical data spread over a huge number of hands and show that it defies randomness.

I did not say that the player is responsible for making sure that the software is fair.

I agree that the software need to be tested by independent auditors for fairness. However, it is not possible for them to prove that the game is fair. What they can do is to try everything to disprove that the game is fair, and if they fail we can be sure that the game is at least very very very close to being perfectly fair.

Anyway, my post was a reply to the original poster who asked if I could prove that the game is fair. That, my friend, is not possible either for me or for you, just as we cannot prove that santa does not exist. However, it is possible to prove that the game is not fair, if that is the case. So the best approach for the playerto the problem should be to try to do this, and if you fail - assume that it is fair until you have reason to believe otherwise.

If you know a better way to solve this problem, please enlight me.

Thank you bet365 & Goldenpalace. It was nice to play at a casino with real random cards unlike the (*cough cough "bad luck") cryptos (intercasino, littlewoods).

It's probably best that you don't gamble online anymore. You appear to lack the maturity for it.

It seems like the threads you start are vague cheating accusations. Familiar?

Show us a little proof or a little restraint. Either one would be fine.

Did you not read the 2nd thread. I know its a very little sample but im not going to post 1000's of hands. When the same thing keeps happening again and again you have to wonder.

It's probably best that you don't gamble online anymore. You appear to lack the maturity for it.

i've had shocking results with one software provider and don't feel that they deal a random game, which alot of people on here feel the same but just call it "streaky". I have thanked another software proivider because i enjoyed their games. So this makes me lack maturity. You may disagree with me but i don't think there's any need for insults but thank you for your valuable input into this thread.

I don't believe Crypto's are rigged: if they were you wouldn't get Will Hill and Littlewoods putting their reputations on the line, that's for sure. And anyway, define "rigged": fixed so the casino wins? They really ought to remove the house edge so it's totally fair

Independent testing is the only way of knowing one way or t'other. As long as there are independent monthly audit reports on payouts that I can see, I'm happy to make my own mind up

I'm not sure the "maturity" comment was called for, but I do believe that if you think Crypto is rigged, then you're simply mad to be gambling online because if they are, then everyone is.

I don't believe Crypto's are rigged: if they were you wouldn't get Will Hill and Littlewoods putting their reputations on the line, that's for sure. And anyway, define "rigged": fixed so the casino wins? They really ought to remove the house edge so it's totally fair

Independent testing is the only way of knowing one way or t'other. As long as there are independent monthly audit reports on payouts that I can see, I'm happy to make my own mind up

I'm not sure the "maturity" comment was called for, but I do believe that if you think Crypto is rigged, then you're simply mad to be gambling online because if they are, then everyone is.

Hi simmo,

Maybe i'm just the unluckiest person to ever play at cryptos, who knows. What i wonder about is if say the house edge is 0.49% as shown at WOO, if they have not tweaked it a little so it then becoms 1% or 1.5%. Enough to make more profits but not enough to show any real proof.

When they do the independent audits, does it show the payout % with bonus money or without bonus money?

Thanks Simmo

Thank you bet365 & Goldenpalace. It was nice to play at a casino with real random cards unlike the (*cough cough "bad luck") cryptos (intercasino, littlewoods).

There's a link on InterTop's homepage... '97.5% payouts' if you click this link you will see the Price Waterhouse Coopers report. This is the same auditing that Microgaming and many others use. It has been confirmed as fair. If intertops stinks, all online sites stink, hmm?

Note: The new report isn't out yet, last listed is December 2006. I assume that is due to a lag in reporting time, not a lack of audit.

Note: The new report isn't out yet, last listed is December 2006. I assume that is due to a lag in reporting time, not a lack of audit.

You're right.

Maybe PW is corrupt as well?

Hi simmo,
Maybe i'm just the unluckiest person to ever play at cryptos, who knows. What i wonder about is if say the house edge is 0.49% as shown at WOO, if they have not tweaked it a little so it then becoms 1% or 1.5%. Enough to make more profits but not enough to show any real proof.

If the house edge was changed that much it would not be very hard to prove that the game isn't fair. Sooner or later a player would bust them.

Sure there are rigged softwares out there, and who knows - maybe there is something wrong with crypto too even if I highly doubt it. My point is, that if you want people to take the complaints seriously you need to back it up with some real proof.

Anyway, I hope that you get better luck elsewere. I know how enourmously frustrating those god damn downswings can be.

I know this probably doesn't belong here but............ As an American and a lover of slots.. I sure miss Playtech and Casino Tropez. Not only did I do well and play on my money longer BUT they actually treated me GREAT ~! I can honestly say out of the 4 + yrs playing there I never had bad support nor did I have problems with cashouts. In comparison I have yet to see a MG site allow me playtime on my money let alone any possibilty of a true good win. Maybe I just picked bad site(s) but I did use some post here as references .
Now don't judge me for my opinion ( it is that mine ) but,,, I did do very well with Playtech software while I could.

I BEEN THERE

There's a link on InterTop's homepage... '97.5% payouts' if you click this link you will see the Price Waterhouse Coopers report. This is the same auditing that Microgaming and many others use. It has been confirmed as fair. If intertops stinks, all online sites stink, hmm?

Payout figures are next to useless for proving anything in the context of this discussion.

PWC are merely reporting numbers provided to them by the Casinos themselves - there is no independant verification that any specific game returned X \$\$\$ from Y \$\$ received.

And in any case what does a return of 97.5% mean? In the case of a BJ game is that proof positive that the game is rigged?

Now we know from a recent post on Wagerworks software that the "fun" mode pays out more than the "real" mode with a flick of the switch. And we know from the English Harbour fiasco that any particular game, indeed any particular component of a game, can be adversley tampered with at will.

Given that on-lines games can be temporarily rigged the chances of an aggrieved player being able to "prove" anything are next to zero.

None of the major software providers can supply independant analysis that their games are fair and random. The industry as a whole must move, on it's own initiative, toward a regime of stringent and publically available analysis of on-line gaming integrity. The situation as it stands for the moment is culpable.

...

Now we know from a recent post on Wagerworks software that the "fun" mode pays out more than the "real" mode with a flick of the switch.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think that was wager21, not wagerworks.

Does anyone know of a Playtech casino that offers monthly independent audit reports?

Sorry I misquoted too and said 'InterTops, instead of Intercasino

Payout figures are next to useless for proving anything in the context of this discussion.

PWC are merely reporting numbers provided to them by the Casinos themselves - there is no independant verification that any specific game returned X \$\$\$ from Y \$\$ received....

I was under the impression that they take a more proactive approach than that. Can't recall where I read the process years or months ago though and get nowhere on PWC page right now. Do you have a reference for what you are saying? Of course the individual games aren't guaranteed, just overall.

And in any case what does a return of 97.5% mean? In the case of a BJ game is that proof positive that the game is rigged?

The 97.5 is all games combined, blackjack is like 98.81% I don't see why they would have some occasionally strange 'back-office procedure' to rip anyone off. The end result for a given month is a 1.19% house edge... about right for BJ I would think. I'd play against it.

Now we know from a recent post on Wagerworks software that the "fun" mode pays out more than the "real" mode with a flick of the switch. And we know from the English Harbour fiasco that any particular game, indeed any particular component of a game, can be adversley tampered with at will.

Given that on-lines games can be temporarily rigged the chances of an aggrieved player being able to "prove" anything are next to zero.

I don't see the wager21 as 'temporarily rigged', just giving up some house edge to suck in non-vigilant players. It's used at half a dozen casino I've never heard of. I don't know much about the cryptologic or wagerlogic softwares Intercasino uses, but the casino has been around since 2006 (according to them) and "voted best online casino in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 by gambling online magazine." I think they're okay.

None of the major software providers can supply independant analysis that their games are fair and random. The industry as a whole must move, on it's own initiative, toward a regime of stringent and publically available analysis of on-line gaming integrity. The situation as it stands for the moment is culpable.

I think
analyze and certify.
I agree that the entire industry should be transparent, but some weird little software (wager21) that uses the old bait and switch (not an on off switch ) really doesn't have much to do with the solid software providers and the casinos that use them, in my opinion. I'm confident that between ecogra, PWC, and the watchdogs, my money is safe and I am offered fair games. Maybe that's just me. I just play where I feel comfortable, I wouldn't play otherwise.
Best to ya.

its much, much more simple.
The question ist not, if any software is fair or unfair.
the question is to be reduced to the point, if the original posters original thesis was anything mor than backbiting or defamation against crypto and so on...
#
as we all know or haver to accept, its all a question of luck.
and - dont ask me why: bad luck is a part of luck.
cheers

Payout figures are next to useless for proving anything in the context of this discussion.

And in any case what does a return of 97.5% mean? In the case of a BJ game is that proof positive that the game is rigged?

...

A 97.5% return does give a clear, but general indication of a casino's overall fairness even though it doesn't specifically address the fairness (or not) of a particular game.

In a B&M casino, the exact amount of money wagered and paid on a BJ game can't be calculated (although some day, sensors on the betting areas and 'smart' chips will allow this). Online, exact figures are calculable, but everyone should be well aware that a .49% house advantage is the theoretical figure that assumes perfect playing strategy. Anyone who has ever played the game knows that it is rare to find a player who actually follows this perfectly, so the expected payout for BJ is never 99.51%. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that in overall terms, actual hold on BJ might be 5-10 times the theoretical due to 'unwise' player decisions, thus making the payout % reports of no use for BJ (and other games like Video Poker where playing strategy matters).

Replies
56
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
404
Replies
8
Views
670
Replies
31
Views
3K