VC Casino -- Fair BJ?

[ThodorisK]

Regarding my prevous posts at my VC casino stats, I did not have a starting bankroll of 123. I was supposing I had infinite bankroll. I also had more money in my account balance. (So, you were rightly confused about this particular aspect). I stopped counting my stats at the 5607 hands played (I already have explained why I did not include any previous hands), when I found out this thread, which I was searching for and I could not find for days, and by a strange coincidence someone wrote a recent post in it, so I saw it in the recent posts section! Therefore that sample was not biased by my decision to stop the counting of the stats at a point where my balance was the lowest, and actually I was even more down at a point which happened many hands before the 5607th. Therefore, it would be wrong to use the risk of ruin probability of losing 123 units in 5607 hands, and I had to use the that low or below probability-method, for the reasons I explained above.

I am not trying to show myself as profecient. That gives me nothing in deepening my knowledge. Most of the above are recent conclusions of mine. Not previous knowledge that I want to teach others.

 

[happygobrokey]

yes, with infinite bankroll the risk of ruin would approach or even reach zero, or be 1/infinity or something. and if sigma is less than ~35, then you appear to have a very unlikely event, since you are ~-105 from the mean. please finish your calculations and report back; i can't fall asleep without knowing the truth.

 

[ThodorisK]

You didnt understand my previous conclusions.

If one has 100$ starting bankroll - balance, flatbets 1$, and loses it all, IT IS CORRECT to use the risk of ruin formula (based on the number of hands) to proove cheating. But in this case it is wrong to use the probability -hypothesis test I call "ending up that low or below" (an example of which I give in post No19 of this thread). Because the "ending up that low or below" result, pressuposes that you had predetermined the number of hands you played, and that you did not go broke until you finished these hands, and therefore pressuposes that you may have passed, crossed the -100$ point many times, as your balance goes up and down. And if you end up at the -100$ point after this number of hands, then you have almost certainly had fallen below the -100$ point many times and raised above the -100$ point many times. But this is impossible since you only had 100$ and lost it all.

On the other hand, if you complete a predetermined number of hands, and end up at -100$ whereas you never went bankrupt, it is wrong to use the risk of ruin, and you must use the probability given by the hypothesis test:
"ending up 100$ low or below". Because the risk of ruin probability presupposes that during these hands, you have never fallen below the -100$ point.

Am I repeating myself? perhaps it is necessary.

I have finished my calculations of the new stats at VC. Now the number of hands is 7470, and I had pre-decided to stop at this number of hands (it was a bonus wgering requirement involved). I want to deepen the matter theoretically before I post them and my conclusions on them.

You really want the truth regarding cheating? It is simple. If some "rogue" casinos use cheating software, then ALL casinos HAVE this software and have the CAPABILITY to cheat. Small casinos have it and big casinos dont?Poor big casinos! Therefore they all can cheat any time they want. But they are hesitating to cheat because even if they cheat 1 out of 100 hands, this is shown statistically in a few thousands of hands. So the situation is quite interesting. The cheating that PERHAPS cannot be prooven is when they let you end up close to expected loss, but prevent you from having winning streaks above your starting balance. But if they let you end up close to the expected loss, then they have to pay the bonus!

 

[happygobrokey]

yes but the risk of ruin still gives a true figure of the likelihood you would ever fall that low. the "or lower" isn't covered, but i think the lone fact of losing 123 ("or even more") when the expectation is 15 is not a good result no matter what formula you use. and i said that all you have to do is calculate/discover the std.dev. and see how many away from the mean you are, and what the chance of that large a deviation is. but the risk of ruin would still tell you what fraction of the time you get as low as 123 bets below your initial stack. it's not the formula you want for the occasion, but it's not entirely useless.

also i like how you start off that last post flossing your maths knowledge, and then go on to state your claim of all casinos being cheaters, like the former would give you some kind of credibility.

there is such thing as a high road. just because a thing exists and is useful although wrong, does not mean if one person uses it then anyone can feel free to and is expected to. nuclear weapons for example. they have been used to great effect and gain for the users, but to date only a handful of nations have acquired/developed nuclear arms, and never since WWII were any used (apart from testing). because they are wrong. it is bad to use them, and your reputation will be sullied if you do. same goes with card rigging, it gets you what you want, but does not do much for your image in the public eye.

 

[ThodorisK]

I now think that Shacklefords analysis that casinobar cheated , is MISLEADING IN A RESPECT! Because an advanced cheating software can equally distribute cheating in all variables of the game, and not just in the variable of dealers bust rates (another variable is e.g. that the dealer gets 10-10 when the player gets 10-9). Therefore the foremost stat that a player should observe, is the profit/loss results and the swings of the current bankroll, and NOT busting rates etc.

 

[winbig]

I now think that Shacklefords analysis that casinobar cheated , is MISLEADING IN A RESPECT! Because an advanced cheating software can equally distribute cheating in all variables of the game, and not just in the variable of dealers bust rates (another variable is e.g. that the dealer gets 10-10 when the player gets 10-9). Therefore the foremost stat that a player should observe, is the profit/loss results and the swings of the current bankroll, and NOT busting rates etc.

Why don't you email him this post, and then let us know what he has to say

 

[ThodorisK]

I did that yesterday:

"To Michael Shackleford

IF you are REALLY interested in exposing the cheating online casinos, I would love your contribution, and you will find most interesting my posts at Casinomeister. I write there as ThodorisK. Read my posts in the thread:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/vc-casino-fair-bj.14540/.
I will most probably write in other forums too (they might soon bann me form Casinomeister). There you will see my effrots to statistically analyse my data which imply cheating, as well as some theoretical ideas on how to advance the mathematical identification of cheating.
I would love your comments and counter-arguments in any way of communication (either post at casinomeister, or e-mail me, etc)

After having played thousands of hands (yes, I am a poor bonus hunter -"bonus abuser"), I think that, most probably, since some casinos have the ability, the software to cheat, then they all do have this ability-software. Now when they use it, is a matter of superior management. So I think that they usually cheat by adding about 2% to the house edge in blackjack sometimes, e.g. when they confront too many "bonus abusers" or when a high roller is on a winning streak, etc. You say that some softwares are safe and trustworthy, e.g. RTG, but my opinion is that the initial program that the software provider gives to the casinos might be ok, but a cheating program can be added afterwards, so e.g. it might be that some RTG casinos cheat and some others dont, or even that they all cheat sometimes, whereas at the same time it might be that the RTG software provider company has nothing to do with these cheating programs.

It is amusing how affiliates are rushing to defend the online business with unintelligent arguments and posting too much nonsense to mess up and fill the threads in the forum rooms. I know you are an affiliate (at least to Bodog, and that is why I said in the beginning "IFyou are REALLY interested in exposing..."

Also, I have a theoretical (not mathematical) proof that a random number generator can never produce truly random sequences of outcomes. This discovery of mine can produce a small edge for the player (or even up to 2%), so I have kept it secret. But it is useless if all casinos cheat whenever they choose to, so I might reveal to the public soon. If I do, then the casinos will have to cheat MUCH to prevent many players from winning constistently. But if they start cheating much, their cheating will be exposed and they will lose money.

I have been banned in 2 London land based casinos for card counting.

I have much unknown knowledge about physics and medicine, but I keep it secret for the moment. I said this so that you get a rough idea about me.

Theodoros Kiriakopoulos
Athens, Greece."

 

[ThodorisK]

So, obviously, I will most probably quit bonus hunting, not only because they cheat or they can cheat me if they want to, but also because the casino representatives are watching my posts in here. And I know that I might soon be banned from Casinomeister.

But money is not the purpose of my life you know, there are other values higher than money. Why they are higher? Because by practicing these values can give you the permanetnt POWER to both become rich and become immortal.

 

[ThodorisK]

I forgot to mention: see my new (and perhaps last) thread on the subject:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/how-many-online-casinos-cheat.19491/

 

[winbig]

I forgot to mention: see my new (and perhaps last) thread on the subject:

Do you promise?

 

[swampwitch]

I did that yesterday:

"To Michael Shackleford

IF you are REALLY interested in exposing the cheating online casinos, I would love your contribution, and you will find most interesting my posts at Casinomeister. I write there as ThodorisK. Read my posts in the thread:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/vc-casino-fair-bj.14540/.
I will most probably write in other forums too (they might soon bann me form Casinomeister). There you will see my effrots to statistically analyse my data which imply cheating, as well as some theoretical ideas on how to advance the mathematical identification of cheating.
I would love your comments and counter-arguments in any way of communication (either post at casinomeister, or e-mail me, etc)

After having played thousands of hands (yes, I am a poor bonus hunter -"bonus abuser"), I think that, most probably, since some casinos have the ability, the software to cheat, then they all do have this ability-software. Now when they use it, is a matter of superior management. So I think that they usually cheat by adding about 2% to the house edge in blackjack sometimes, e.g. when they confront too many "bonus abusers" or when a high roller is on a winning streak, etc. You say that some softwares are safe and trustworthy, e.g. RTG, but my opinion is that the initial program that the software provider gives to the casinos might be ok, but a cheating program can be added afterwards, so e.g. it might be that some RTG casinos cheat and some others dont, or even that they all cheat sometimes, whereas at the same time it might be that the RTG software provider company has nothing to do with these cheating programs.

It is amusing how affiliates are rushing to defend the online business with unintelligent arguments and posting too much nonsense to mess up and fill the threads in the forum rooms. I know you are an affiliate (at least to Bodog, and that is why I said in the beginning "IFyou are REALLY interested in exposing..."

Also, I have a theoretical (not mathematical) proof that a random number generator can never produce truly random sequences of outcomes. This discovery of mine can produce a small edge for the player (or even up to 2%), so I have kept it secret. But it is useless if all casinos cheat whenever they choose to, so I might reveal to the public soon. If I do, then the casinos will have to cheat MUCH to prevent many players from winning constistently. But if they start cheating much, their cheating will be exposed and they will lose money.

I have been banned in 2 London land based casinos for card counting.

I have much unknown knowledge about physics and medicine, but I keep it secret for the moment. I said this so that you get a rough idea about me.

Theodoros Kiriakopoulos
Athens, Greece."

That's great. Insult the guy while asking his opinion.
Get a reply yet?

 

[ThodorisK]

Why do you keep quoting-copying what I have written? Stupid question: you are trying to fill up the thread so it becomes unreadable.

 

[swampwitch]

Just making a comment about what you wrote.

 

[winbig]

Stupid question: you are trying to fill up the thread so it becomes unreadable.

Stupid answer on your part. You need to take a chill pill, xanax, or whatever you take to chill out.

It's quite common practice to quote other people's posts so that ones reading it can actually follow along as to who/what the poster is talking about.

If anyone is making this thread impossible to read, it's you. You make 50 posts saying pretty much the same exact thing. If you want to make it more readable, INCLUDE EVERYTHING IN ONE POST.

Most casinos have no reason to cheat, when they have players like you as clients.

 

[ThodorisK]

here comes the Waaaaaaaaaaar (New Model Army)

 

[winbig]

here comes the Waaaaaaaaaaar (New Model Army)

No war. I'm through replying to your ramblings. Have a good one

 

[bpb]

I could go play 10,000 hands @ $1 a hand at a B&M casino and be down $2000 easily.

This statement is absurd. Figure out why and give us a report.

Or, as an alternative, resolve to not use numbers in posts if you don't know how to use them.

 

[happygobrokey]

This statement is absurd. Figure out why and give us a report.

Or, as an alternative, resolve to not use numbers in posts if you don't know how to use them.

B&M's don't let you bet that low? have i cracked it?

oh or maybe because if you're playing $1/hand, it would be unlikely you'd buy in for $2000 or even willing to risk that much in a session/day/weekend?

 

[ThodorisK]

I completed the first two of the VC monthly bonuses.
Final stats:

wagered= 9100$
hands=7483
averege bet=1.216$
(most of the bets were 1$, very rarely 2$, and if I remember well, less than 20 times 3$)
profit/loss=-148$

I made only 8 violations of basic strategy (by mistake), 2 of which prooved to be a better choice than basic strategy. I think the cost of these violations is not greater than 0-2$.

The lowest point my bankroll reached (the greatest loss I met) during this wagering, was at hand No 6696, where the stats were:

wagered=8150$
hands=6696
average bet=1.217$
profit/loss=-220.5$

I also found this today about VC:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[ThodorisK]

(the first two monthly bonuses of August, I meant)

 

[ThodorisK]

I played one box only, during the whole wagering of these stats.

 

[happygobrokey]

sweet. now what?