Well Here Are The Pirates Logs!!!

portia

Dormant account
Joined
May 2, 2002
Sour Grapes.

Rich is trying to save face, of course. He is a real high rollin' gambler in Life.

He took a gamble on raising the limits hoping the player would lose - Rich lost.

He took a gamble that Pc21 could be intimidated and that his lies and deceptions would not come back and humiliate him - Rich lost that one too.

He took a gamble that he could fool the CMeister until the issued went away - he miscalculated there as well.

He took a gamble that his BS would divide the players and portals in debate to obscure his misdeeds - Rich struck out again.

He took a gamble that his SW provider RTG would not take action in a serious fraud between himself and a player - lost Big Time on that bet, Rich.

And now, probably because there would be some hefty cost if he were to continue to lie about Pc21, he turns to blame his misfortune and humiliation on a bug in the RTG SW.

How come he didn't play that card at the beggining, instead of all the lies and theatrics aimed at Pc21 and us about mouse movements and robots and more lies and tapes?

After all that this guy has done, and posted and all that you heard from him on tape does he strike you as the kind of fellow with enough horsepower between the ears to figure out that a bug exists in the SW?

Time for a nice quiet retirement rich. (Stay away from the dice - you're just unlucky - right?)
 

aceinhole21

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Location
Canada
Is Rich Katz (aka Lewin) still the current manager at Hamptons???? Please tell me he isn't.

Who owns Hamptons? Isn't the owner furious with Katz for his incompetence?
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
aceinhole21 said:
Is Rich Katz (aka Lewin) still the current manager at Hamptons???? Please tell me he isn't.

Who owns Hamptons? Isn't the owner furious with Katz for his incompetence?

He is history. The RTG guys are pretty pissed as to what he did. Rumor has it he took off to California. But this is a rumor.

The owners of Connecto are now the owners of Hamptons as far as I know.
 

aceinhole21

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Location
Canada
casinomeister said:
He is history. The RTG guys are pretty pissed as to what he did. Rumor has it he took off to California. But this is a rumor.

The owners of Connecto are now the owners of Hamptons as far as I know.

This is good to hear. It is probably best to let this matter finally die down and let Pirate have some peace and quiet and enjoy whatever settlement he did get. the whole gaming community (casinos, players, etc.) are probably a little wiser now because of this incident.

Nevertheless, connecto would probably be best off changing the name of Hamptons, as Hamptons got international coverage as a scam-joint. This image might be hard to shake. Since they are under new ownership, I may even give them a try now.
 

cipher

Banned member - being a jerk
Joined
May 15, 2002
Location
Visalia, California
casinomeister said:
He is history. The RTG guys are pretty pissed as to what he did. Rumor has it he took off to California. But this is a rumor.

The owners of Connecto are now the owners of Hamptons as far as I know.

Bryan,

What other casinos are involved in this Connect to Casino bunch?

Cipher
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Wasn't Portofino a sister of Hamptons? Presumably that casino, too has now gone to Connect To Casino management???
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
BTW I don't think that Mr. Katz has too much cred left in the industry after the Hampton affair.

But then Staw's mealy mouthed comments abour self-regulation coming from a software provider with way too many dud operators is also a bit precious!
 

Jblack

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Location
us
jetset said:
Wasn't Portofino a sister of Hamptons? Presumably that casino, too has now gone to Connect To Casino management???

Jetset,

I would assume it, because if you visit there home page they are offering the same ridiculous bonus offers as connecto
 

Clayman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
mary said:
My point is, not that the Pirate has discovered a wonderful winning system that will work for everybody, but that his win was not as impossible or unlikely as was first believed...

It was more likely than an equal win in Blackjack.

Pirate's win was unusual, but not impossible;

Before his logs fade into oblivion, I thought I'd try to put some numbers on his results at Phoenician. Should the Hampton logs ever be made public, I'll do the same stuff on them. I've made no attempt to analyze the quality of his play.

Anyway, at Phoenician, he finished up 102 units, if he had flat bet, about a 1 in 18 chance (1.6 standard deviations) for a 103.36% payback. To be this lucky in regular BJ would be about a 1 in 76 shot. His high point was up 148 units after only 888 dealer-upcards. His low point was down 1.5 units in the first 10 hands.

His high balance (profit) was $37,412.00, reached a mere 89 hands before he cashed-out. So he lost nearly $20,000 in those last hands.

Overall he had 24 Caribbean 21's (1.03%), 1026 wins (43.9%), 973 losses (41.63%) & 314 surrenders (13.44%). His average bet was $170 per dealer-upcard. So, really, his average bet * units won pretty much equals his profit. Which means, I think, he was neither particularly lucky nor unlucky on big bets vs small bets.

Had he bet $1 per dealer-upcard, $1.81 would be put into play with doubles and splits. Exactly like the Wiz said it would.

He won $31,898 on doubles alone which occur about 35% of the time per initial hand. When he doubled once, he had 24 carib21's, 310 wins, 230 losses & 20 surrenders. When he doubled twice, he had 32 wins and 12 losses, 3 times, 4 wins 0 losses and 4 times, 1 win, no losses.

For anyone who cares, his longest "No lose" (win or BJ) streaks were 4 @10, 4 @9 & [email protected] His longest "No win" (Loss or surrender) streaks were [email protected], [email protected], 1 @9 & [email protected]

I ignored the lone side-bet of insurance. I guess the pirate was swashbuckling, as pirates do, when he made this bet!

Good luck to you, pirate, as you sail the seven seas!



Don't know how this will look but results by bet amt follow.

BET C21'S WINS LOSS SUR TOT HDS
$1.00 1 82 78 21 182
$2.00 0 6 8 3 17
$3.00 0 2 2 1 5
$4.00 0 0 0 1 1
$5.00 1 114 98 34 247
$6.00 0 0 1 1 2
$10.00 0 24 24 6 54
$15.00 0 4 2 1 7
$20.00 0 2 1 1 4
$25.00 3 159 157 44 363
$30.00 0 7 10 0 17
$35.00 0 0 0 1 1
$40.00 0 4 5 0 9
$44.00 0 0 1 0 1
$50.00 6 81 99 32 218
$60.00 0 0 3 0 3
$75.00 0 9 12 1 22
$80.00 0 0 1 0 1
$100.00 3 161 139 55 358
$125.00 0 23 14 8 45
$150.00 1 23 19 9 52
$175.00 0 10 2 1 13
$185.00 0 0 1 0 1
$200.00 0 47 43 8 98
$225.00 0 2 0 1 3
$250.00 3 39 27 10 79
$300.00 3 36 47 11 97
$325.00 1 0 3 0 4
$345.00 0 1 1 0 2
$350.00 0 10 12 4 26
$375.00 0 0 0 1 1
$400.00 0 15 8 9 32
$450.00 0 2 0 0 2
$500.00 2 126 119 35 282
$600.00 0 8 0 1 9
$650.00 0 0 0 1 1
$675.00 0 0 0 1 1
$700.00 0 3 1 1 5
$750.00 0 0 1 0 1
$800.00 0 1 2 0 3
1,000.00 0 25 32 11 68

TOTAL 24 1,026 973 314 2,337
 

aceinhole21

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Location
Canada
Clayman said:
Anyway, at Phoenician, he finished up 102 units, if he had flat bet, about a 1 in 18 chance (1.6 standard deviations) for a 103.36% payback. To be this lucky in regular BJ would be about a 1 in 76 shot.

One thing I don't understand. Why would his chances be 1 in 76 if he played normal blackjack vs 1 in 18 in C21? I know C21 has a better house edge, but it isn't that much better than standard blackjack. Or does it have something to do with the higher variance of C21? If so, is this the effect of betting more makes it easier to win bigger (vs playing more hands which grind you down)? I also don't understand that if he finished up 102 units, how is this a 1/18 chance of happening? wouldnt it be LESS than 1/102, accounting for the slight house edge? I mean to turn $1 into $102 would have a 1/102 chance of happening (assuming an even game), right?
 
Last edited:

Clayman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
aceinhole21 said:
One thing I don't understand. Why would his chances be 1 in 76 if he played normal blackjack vs 1 in 18 in C21? I know C21 has a better house edge, but it isn't that much better than standard blackjack. Or does it have something to do with the higher variance of C21? If so, is this the effect of betting more makes it easier to win bigger (vs playing more hands which grind you down)?

All good questions. As to your first question, I assumed a BJ game with the same HA and the difference is due strictly, as you speculated, to the higher standard deviation of Carib21. In other words, it's alot harder to be the same ahead in a game with less variance compared to a game with more variance.
Betting more or less has nothing to do with it - I'm assuming he bet $1 before each dealer upcard and played his hands the same from there. All House Advantage calculations assume flat-betting. If you calculate your payback based on absolute dollars won over dollars wagered, when your bet amounts have varied, you're doing yourself a disservice. In other words, I did not calculate the payback figure by dividing 17,854.50 (what he would've won without insurance) by $516,492 wagered (again adjusted for the insurance bet). The fact that that comes out to a 103.46% payback only means he won about as many smaller bets as larger bets. In this case, he simply won because he had a good session, not because he won alot of bigger bets.

aceinhole21 said:
I also don't understand that if he finished up 102 units, how is this a 1/18 chance of happening? wouldnt it be LESS than 1/102, accounting for the slight house edge? I mean to turn $1 into $102 would have a 1/102 chance of happening (assuming an even game), right?

Basically this depends on the number of trials, or hands, one has played. Naturally, the odds of being up 102 units in 102 hands are less than being up 102 units in 102,000 hands. Also, don't forget that for every $1 he places in the circle before the dealer deals turns into $1.81 at risk with doubles and splits.

Hope this helps.

All I really know for sure is he would have wagered $3,033 at $1/hand and ended up with a $102 absolute dollar profit in his 1680 hands that turned into 2337 hands played after 657 splits. If anyone can confirm that 1 in 18 calculation, given a 0.19% HA & 1.62 SD, that'd be great.
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
Noone has ever questioned the results at Phonecian. Neither is the win there in the slightest comment-worthy - Phonecian has simply attempted to make it look that way and ride the publicity. The logs of interest were the Hampton logs, not the Phonecian ones. There was never any kind of an issue at Phonecian.

Winning 20K, though nice, is no big deal. Noone has ever suggested otherwise.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
Clayman said:
All I really know for sure is he would have wagered $3,033 at $1/hand and ended up with a $102 absolute dollar profit in his 1680 hands that turned into 2337 hands played after 657 splits. If anyone can confirm that 1 in 18 calculation, given a 0.19% HA & 1.62 SD, that'd be great.
Yes, 1 in 18 is correct. There is, however, one problem.1/18 is the probability of winning $102 if you flat bet $1 for 1680 hands AND have a large enough bankroll that you can ignore the probability of going bust. As the Pirate made large bets relative to his bankroll, he could have gone bust quite easily, or at least he would have been forced to make his bets smaller, which would have decreased the probability of winning. As the pirate did not seem to follow a clearly defined, algorithmic betting strategy, the exact probability of winning cannot be calculated.
 

Clayman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
caruso said:
Winning 20K, though nice, is no big deal. Noone has ever suggested otherwise.

Personally, I doubt very much if the results at Hamptons/Delano would be radically different - just a higher average bet and possibly a few more units. Still, it would be fun, for me at least, to see them.
 

Clayman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
GrandMaster said:
Yes, 1 in 18 is correct.

Thanks for the confirmation - I'm never quite sure to use average bet size per dealer upcard (1.81 here) or just the $1 as a unit. Either way I get 66 units in one standard deviation but that sometimes makes me think that there are 66*$1.81 ($120) in dollars in one SD. In which case his results were less than one SD - he was only $102/$1.81 (56) units ahead.

In regular BJ this never bothered me much since the average bet size was never much more than $1.10 due to doubling and splitting and the number of splits was so small that I just counted them as another hand played and never bothered adjusting back to initial dealer upcard as a hand.

Another problem I have is that I recently read somewhere on the Wiz site that HA is always calculated as a percent of one's initial bet. And that when casinos give those payback figures, like 99.3% for BJ, they are including $ wagered thru doubles and splits in the denominator. And therefore this does not really compare to the HA, i.e. it understates the payback figure and shouldn't reallly be compared to the HA. So would you say the pirate's expected loss is $3,033*-0.19% or $1,680*-0.19%? And that his payback is $102/1680 rather than $102/3033?
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
Clayman said:
Thanks for the confirmation - I'm never quite sure to use average bet size per dealer upcard (1.81 here) or just the $1 as a unit. Either way I get 66 units in one standard deviation but that sometimes makes me think that there are 66*$1.81 ($120) in dollars in one SD. In which case his results were less than one SD - he was only $102/$1.81 (56) units ahead.

In regular BJ this never bothered me much since the average bet size was never much more than $1.10 due to doubling and splitting and the number of splits was so small that I just counted them as another hand played and never bothered adjusting back to initial dealer upcard as a hand.

Another problem I have is that I recently read somewhere on the Wiz site that HA is always calculated as a percent of one's initial bet. And that when casinos give those payback figures, like 99.3% for BJ, they are including $ wagered thru doubles and splits in the denominator. And therefore this does not really compare to the HA, i.e. it understates the payback figure and shouldn't reallly be compared to the HA. So would you say the pirate's expected loss is $3,033*-0.19% or $1,680*-0.19%? And that his payback is $102/1680 rather than $102/3033?

House edge or house advantage is the expected loss divided by initial bet. The Wizard :notworthy calls expected loss divided by expected total bet the element of risk.

For most purposes, it is more sensible to calculate thing in terms of the initial bet, because that's what you have control over. If you initial bet is 1, and your payout is a random variable X, then the house edge is the expectation of X-1, the variance of the game is the variance of X. If you want to study the outcome of several of hands, they form a sequence of independent, identically distributed random variables, which is the bread and butter of probability theory. The total bet is another random variable, it is significantly more complicated to calculate things in terms of the total amount bet. The element of risk is important when calculating wagering requirements for bonuses. Let's say you get a $100 bonus with a WR of $2000 which you have to play of Caribbean stud poker. The house edge is 5.2%, so it looks like it is a bad deal, but the element of risk is only 2.555%, so you only expect to lose $51.10 in playing $2000 on Caribbean stud.

Back to C21, the pirate's expected loss is $1,680*0.0019=$3.19. Alternatively,
the element of risk for C21 is 0.0019/1.81=0.00105, so the expected loss can also be estimated as $3033*00.00105=$3.18.
 

Clayman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
GrandMaster Back to C21 said:
Thanks. I guess this means that you would say his payback was 106% if you wanted to compare it to HA.
I bet alot of people would take their total $ wagered and multiply by the HA and think that that number would be their expected loss. ($5.76 in this case).

And I guess it also means, even if everyone played perfect BS in BJ and flat-betted, those % payouts that casinos give out every month, would never be expected to equal the HA of that particular game. It's apples and oranges, isn't it?

The fact the element of risk is only 0.105% in C21 certainly does make it an attractive game.
 

aceinhole21

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Location
Canada
thanks for your answers. It's good to see there are some intelligent people around here who understand math and won't go cry "cheating" if they lose 3 hands in a row. In fact, Clayman, are you some sort of math professor or something?

I always assumed that if I start with $100 and end up with $1000, the odds of this are always going to be 1/10 (assuming an even game), because the amount you bet doesn't change your expectation. Is this not true?

Anyway, this all shows that what happened to Pirate at Hamptons is not that unlikely at all. Although, I have tried to do what he did (at the REPUTABLE RTG's that will pay $100k+), but of course it just ain't happenin.
 

hhcfreebie

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Location
USA
Clayman said:
And I guess it also means, even if everyone played perfect BS in BJ and flat-betted, those % payouts that casinos give out every month, would never be expected to equal the HA of that particular game. It's apples and oranges, isn't it?

The fact the element of risk is only 0.105% in C21 certainly does make it an attractive game.

For a BJ, the element of risk and house edge are not that different because we don't double/split often. For C21 or Pontoon we double/split in a regular basis so the difference is more significant.
The way casino calculate the payout, should be the element of risk because they just divide the total house take in by the total amount wagered.
I am always surprised how low the payout of BJ is on all major casinos. Maybe people don't trust basic strategy for some reasons.
While C21 is a fun game, I myself would prefer Pontoon because the speed is much faster and the basic strategy is easier to memorize.
 

Clayman

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
aceinhole21 said:
In fact, Clayman, are you some sort of math professor or something?

Thanks for making me laugh - you couldn't tell from all my questions that I'm far from that? While you can fully trust what people like Grandmaster have to say, I'm strictly self-taught and still learning.

aceinhole21 said:
I always assumed that if I start with $100 and end up with $1000, the odds of this are always going to be 1/10 (assuming an even game), because the amount you bet doesn't change your expectation. Is this not true?

No, not even close to true. Once again, it depends alot on how many hands you play. Naturally the odds of having ten more heads than tails are pretty small in 10 flips of a coin. But pretty high in 100,000 flips. To analyze the fairness of a game, you always have to convert to flat-betting to take the variance of different bet sizes out of the equation. Maybe reading the questions and answers on the Wiz website would be a good place for you to start learning some of the fundamentals.

Anyway, asking questions is where it all begins.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
aceinhole21 said:
I always assumed that if I start with $100 and end up with $1000, the odds of this are always going to be 1/10 (assuming an even game), because the amount you bet doesn't change your expectation. Is this not true?
You are correct. As long as you follow a strategy that will result either in going bust or in reaching exactly $1000, the probability is exactly 1/10 for any game with 0 house edge.
 

hhcfreebie

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Location
USA
aceinhole21 said:
I always assumed that if I start with $100 and end up with $1000, the odds of this are always going to be 1/10 (assuming an even game), because the amount you bet doesn't change your expectation. Is this not true?

It is true.
Sorry clayman but I have to agree with ace on this one.
When there is no house edge, or the variance of the game is very huge, or you bet as big as possible, then the chance to end up exactly 1000 from 100 is 1 in 10.
Because of the house edge and bet limit, the odds will always be less than 1 in 10.
 
Top