Blackjack game with 0.75% player advantage
i ran 2 400 million round sims in cvdata and both were very close to each otherQuote: WizardI estimated it lower because of the no re-splitting rule and lots of surrenders. I'm all ears as to a more precise value.
player advantage .695%
SD 1.14, so less than what i figured
then it has SD per shoe at 1.1 but i had it shuffle after every round so i do nots know what that is
this software hurts my eyes, just me, the text is so small on my monitor
i do not really use this software a lot so it also took me some time to go thru every tab and make sure i set the rules right
i thinks i did
you should be able to run a sim too if you have cvdata or one of qfit programs
i used all 4 threads and it was fast in me win 7 64-bit Dell laptop
so i was happy about that
IGT machines as well as several reputable online casino's one of which carries
a big endorsement from someone you know and respect.
Maybe I have not suffered 65 units in 222 rounds not sure but it could be close.
I have played millions upon millions of hands on IGT and online. I figure I
average 800+ hands an hour. I have lost 60-80 units within an hour
several times on both IGT and the endorsed casino. My play is usually
broken down into hour blocks so this devastation could have taken
20,40,50 minutes I'm not sure, only sure it happened within an hour.
Variance is an "SOB" these events can and do happen,
A single horrific mathematical event in this game can't prove
anything except that the said event can and does happen.
The frequency at which this horrific cataclysm happens
to you is all telling.
That being said I wouldn't deposit a plug nickel in this
Amateur blatantly deceitful excuse for a professional operation.
Quote: mustangsallySD 1.14, ...
Thank you. I use hand-rolled programs for everything I do.
i doubt you have seen and or played this game B4 with the stated rules that is.Quote: rainmanMaybe I have not suffered 65 units in 222 rounds not sure but it could be close.
60 units in 222 rounds with the stated rules i show abouts 1 in 3400 get ruined
so from 1 billion of the Wizards friends we would expect arounds 300,000 of them to do
just that and some (not most) would be ruined B4 222 rounds
other posters here want it to be known it could never happen
and it is their right to express their opinions too
events like -4.3SD never happens (but maybe 4.3 does) unless it is forced to happen
that is still so funny
my video here
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/21921-blackjack-game-with-0-75-player-advantage/10/#post455143
is the same thing
because i said the BJ game i coded could be rigged against the player
all that play it say it is rigged and one can get that feeling by watching just the first few hands played
still funny too (2 or 1+1 but not 3-1)
nice opinionQuote: rainmanThat being said I wouldn't deposit a plug nickel in this
Amateur blatantly deceitful excuse for a professional operation.
it seems to me the online casinos that offer honest games are the ones some can win at
the ones that they lose at are cheating to some degree
this is so very entertaining i still say
and a very scientific approach to catching an online casino cheating red handed too
some love to catch fish
maybe soQuote: teddysSally got a one track mind ...
how about this
i posted my BlackJack video
is the game honest or did i code it to cheat the player
watching the 1st 4 hands and one should be able to tell, i think
let us make this fun
you bet me $10,000
if you guess right (it could be an educated guess) and you are right
that the Excel game in the video IS cheating the player - because i may have coded it to do just that
I pay you $20,000
if you are wrong
I give you back $5000
and keep $5000
of course, only I know the answer
we could use different units too
Hmmm,
i bet you will never win as i have 4 versions of that game
some cheat and some do not
hahaha
Mully
Quote: teddysSally got a one track mind ...
I'm in love,.. I'm all shook up...
Hm, hm, hm...... Hmm , Hmm,... hey, hey....I'm all shook up!
Has anybody won yet?
Quote: WizardI just lost 33.5 units of $50 each in 189 hands. This is not as bad as some other stories in this thread. Probability of doing this bad or worse is 1.1%. I have it all on video but it would prove nothing to post it.
So now four players have run this bad or close to it at relatively the same time and same place in history whats the probability of that happening?
As bad as your run was I have been on the flip side of that and ran that good or better several times on an IGT with their
crappy no BJ and other rules, have also run this good 3 times on the big B but like I said earlier I have seen millions of
rounds.
Pleas post it, it can't hurt to do so.Quote: WizardI just lost 33.5 units of $50 each in 189 hands. This is not as bad as some other stories in this thread. Probability of doing this bad or worse is 1.1%. I have it all on video but it would prove nothing to post it.
Quote: WizardI just lost 33.5 units of $50 each in 189 hands. This is not as bad as some other stories in this thread. Probability of doing this bad or worse is 1.1%. I have it all on video but it would prove nothing to post it.
EV = $70.86
SD = Sqrt(189)(1.1*50) = $756.12
33.5 units lost is 33.5*50 = $1675
...You're still more than 2 SD out, which isn't impossible, but very unlucky... Guess everyone is very unlucky, right?
Didn't you say you had normal and some winning experiences betting smaller? Now you got o $50/hand and have a 33.5 unit, more than 2 SD, loss.
"The Kelly Criterion is a bet-sizing technique which balances both risk and reward for the advantage gambler. "Quote: WizardI just lost 33.5 units of $50 each in 189 hands. This is not as bad as some other stories in this thread. Probability of doing this bad or worse is 1.1%.
Example 1: A Blackjack player perceives a 0.71% advantage <snip>
If the standard deviation is 1.14, then the variance is 1.14 * 1.14 = 1.2996
The portion of bankroll to bet is 0.71% / 1.2996 = 0.00546321945213911972914742997845
Max bet for Bankroll:
1300: $7.10
1400: $7.65
1500: $8.19
1600: $8.74
1700: $9.29
1800: $9.83
1900: $10.38
2000: $10.93
5000: $27.32
10000: $54.63
key word remains
variance
even with Kelly
"Hi, my name is Kelly. It is so nice to meet you."
how about a proof that your statement is indeed 100% factQuote: Romesbut very unlucky...
your opinions (and there are many) are so entertaining, thank you,
way more than mine (i whistle the same tune... always)
Quote: mustangsally"Hi, my name is Kelly. It is so nice to meet you."
Nice to meet you too.
In my case, while I had $1756 in my account before I lost the $1675, I had plenty more where that came from.
of course, we all doQuote: WizardI had plenty more where that came from.
in other words
you are (or are you - order matters)
trying to say the probability to bust a Blackjack bankroll betting full Kelly is >0
while playing with an advantage
being that the min bet MAY be $1
but it must be less than 1% or is that 10%?
how about doing that again and try Kelly.Quote: WizardIn my case, while I had $1756 in my account
will you be ruined making Full Kelly bets
what are the odds of that?
-2-4 SDs out of expected is not a smoking gun, but having data to show that the cards dealt are not 'fair' would be.
Quote: thecesspitThe Kelly Criterion and wether a game is rigged appear to be orthogonal questions... yeah sure, variance happens, but whether or not you had sufficient bank roll for a game with an edge at your bet size doesn't matter if the edge you expect is incorrect.
-2-4 SDs out of expected is not a smoking gun, but having data to show that the cards dealt are not 'fair' would be.
This is why I kept a hand log (at least that was my intent). The Wizard determines expectation of each choice by hand vs. dealer's up card, then chooses the most advantageous strategy. It seems to me that the easiest way to program a cheat is to change the expected ratio of dealer busts vs. dealer 21's/20's/qualifiers by just a little in order to change the EV enough for us to get these kind of results. A couple of If:then statements in a subroutine that keys by time of day, time of session play, something else, would be enough (I expect it would be a more subtle line or two of code by far). I'm still suspicious of being kicked out both nights, having to sign back in, and having drastically different results among my first 1600 hands. The last 300 were consistent with the bad results of the 1600, so I was in the bad "loss-mitigation" code already at that point.
If it were worth doing, I'd like to see the full EV chart of this particular strategy, and compare my 1900 hands broken down to those categories. However, in that amount of detail, I'm not sure 1900 is statistically significant, so it may not be worth doing. But there could be a smoking gun if a pattern emerged on a few particular hands.
i simulated the game with the stated rules (twice or 2 times)Quote: thecesspitThe Kelly Criterion and wether a game is rigged appear to be orthogonal questions... yeah sure, variance happens, but whether or not you had sufficient bank roll for a game with an edge at your bet size doesn't matter if the edge you expect is incorrect.
and got a .695% player edge
the Wizard calculated a bit higher
when one has the edge what is the best way to bet and maximize profits?
how about something from Ed Thorp (remember him? he has other papers about his concept too, especially about Blackjack)
from a wsj interview
http://www.futureblind.com/2008/03/ed-thorp-over-betting/
"This prevalence of over-betting has caused the downfall of many hedge funds and most recently the collapse of Bear Sterns. As Thorp states above, excessive leverage has a lot to do with it. Of course, you don’t need leverage to over-bet.
Let’s say you knew the exact probabilities and possible outcomes of a certain investment.
Then you use the Kelly Formula
to determine the optimum amount of your portfolio that should be placed in the investment. In this case, it’s 40%. If you keep making this same bet over and over again, a 40% allocation will give you the maximum possible return (which comes with large volatility). If you only put 30% into it, you’ll get a little less return with reduced volatility.
If you over-bet, putting 50% into the investment, you’ll get less return with more volatility. A pretty bad combination.
So basically, you never want to over-bet. If you always knew the exact probabilities like the above example, assuming you don’t mind a little volatility, you wouldn’t under-bet either. But outside the world of gambling, you never know the exact probabilities."
ET rules!
1900 hands of this BJ game looks very normal to meQuote: beachbumbabsI'm not sure 1900 is statistically significant, so it may not be worth doing. But there could be a smoking gun if a pattern emerged on a few particular hands.
so i say it will be way more statistically significant
than just 900 hands (that looks normal too, 2 me)
or even just 90 hands
just admit it girl,
until you find the cheating,
you over-bet your bankroll
and that may have happened on most hands played (without looking)
you were up then down
that = variance
Here is the video of my last session as requested.
Double-down is +EV enough (double the value of a hit in many cases, best EV in all) that it's worth putting more money on the table, right? Ref: WoO Appendix 9
So, in the table below, out of 1900 hands:
147 total double-down opportunities, for 7.7737% of hands.
Record is W=77, L=64, P = 6. Net win is +13, for +26 units.
First 1000 hands: W=54, L=25, P=3.
Second 900 hands: W=23, L=39, P=3.
Net value in dollars for 1900 hands was $1050.00.
However, net value for first 1000 hands was $1330.00.
Net value for last 900 hands was -$280.00. Doubling. Really?
This started roughly when the game booted me and required me to re-sign in. (Which happened twice, but the first night it was in the 5th hundred hands, where I net lost 1.5 unit and quit for about 18 hours.)
The trend values for winning and losing doubles seems to mirror those of winning/losing as well, when if the game were honest, the doubles should not be consistently negative, as they're the most likely wins, and +ev by definition. Sure, a particular hundred hands might be a losing set of doubles, but I think there's a correlated trend indicated.
| Game | Unit $ | Starting $ | Ending $ | Net $$ | Net U | D won | D lost | D push | D net Units |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classic | 10 | 1754.00 | 1804.00 | 50.00 | 5.0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Royal | 25 | 1773.30 | 1910.80 | 137.50 | 5.5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Royal | 25 | 1910.80 | 2360.80 | 450.00 | 18.0 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
| Royal | 25 | 2360.80 | 2635.80 | 275.00 | 11.0 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 12 |
| Royal | 25 | 2635.80 | 2598.30 | -37.50 | -1.5 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 6 |
| Royal | 25 | 2508.30 | 2495.80 | -12.50 | -.5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Royal | 25 | 2495.80 | 2858.30 | 362.50 | 14.5 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 8 |
| Royal | 25 | 2858.30 | 3245.80 | 387.50 | 15.5 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 10 |
| Royal | 25 | 3245.80 | 3483.30 | 237.50 | 9.5 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 6 |
| Royal | 25 | 3483.30 | 3433.30 | -50.00 | -2.0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | -10 |
| Royal | 25 | 3433.30 | 3345.80 | -87.50 | -3.5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Royal | 25 | 3345.80 | 2733.30 | -612.50 | -24.5 | 3 | 4 | 0 | -2 |
| Royal | 25 | 2733.30 | 1533.30 | -1200.00 | -48.0 | 1 | 6 | 0 | -10 |
| Surrender | 15 | 1533.30 | 1075.80 | -457.50 | -30.5 | 5 | 6 | 1 | -2 |
| Surrender | 15 | 1075.80 | 528.30 | -547.50 | -36.5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | -2 |
| Surrender | 15 | 528.30 | 228.30 | -300.00 | -20.0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | -2 |
| Classic | 2 | 228.30 | 132.30 | -96.00 | -48 | 3 | 7 | 0 | -8 |
| Classic | 2 | 132.30 | 96.30 | -36.00 | -18 | 1 | 5 | 1 | -8 |
| Classic | 2 | 96.30 | 25.30 | -71.00 | -35.5 | 3 | 5 | 0 | -4 |
| TOTALS | 1900 h | -$1608.00 | -189.5 | 77 | 64 | 6 | +26 |
Also, adding in the 300 hands at $2 for the 1900 hand total produced the following:
| Game | hands/bet per | Starting BR in $ | Ending BR in $ | Net $$ | Net Units | SD in $ | SD result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOTALS | 1900=19.00 avg bet | -$1608.00 | -189.5 | $209.00 | -7.693780 |
-7.693780 SD's out. I say again, really?
the chance to lose $1600 in 1900 hands flat betting $20Quote: beachbumbabsSo,
-7.693780 SD's out. I say again, really?
is about 1 in 15
1 in 17 if you want the SD to be 1.1 instead of 1.14
So
see
i do not make this stuff up as it seems that i do (DUE)
is this what some call "data mining"
+1Quote: RSDeleted.
hey hey
Quote: mustangsallythe chance to lose $1600 in 1900 hands flat betting $20
is about 1 in 15
1 in 17 if you want the SD to be 1.1 instead of 1.14
So
see
i do not make this stuff up as it seems that i do (DUE)
is this what some call "data mining"
The only argument I have with your numbers (I'm still using Rome's values of 1.1 and .0075, so that differs a little as well) is the win goal. I don't care about $10,000. I only wanted to win $1 on my $200 investment, as the rest was bonus money. But I don't know how much the win goal matters to the RoR calculation - maybe it's just a placeholder you used? But how does it change the RoR, if at all, to change 10000 to $201?
The other caveat, though it would be very instructive to see where my RoR should have been at this point, using 1900 rounds, is:
Assuming my average bet was $20. 20% of that counts towards my bonus requirement playthrough. So it would take 57882/4 = 14471 rounds to get to the playthrough point and convert anything left (including my deposit) to cash. So 1900 is kind of irrelevant, though worth knowing as to my chances of making it this far. I mixed in a couple other games, with different percentages of playthrough value, but I crashed and burned somewhere around 8700 of the 57882 required. (Can't find in account history where it tells my exact amount, if it's available.)
I did, however, earn 3463.10 bonus points, which equals $34.63 in bonus money, that's still sitting there. Considering I only deposited $200.00, that seems a generous accumulation. I could be wrong.
i used the values you wantQuote: beachbumbabsThe only argument I have with your numbers (I'm still using Rome's values of 1.1 and .0075, so that differs a little as well) is the win goal. I don't care about $10,000. I only wanted to win $1 on my $200 investment, as the rest was bonus money. But I don't know how much the win goal matters to the RoR calculation - maybe it's just a placeholder you used? But how does it change the RoR, if at all, to change 10000 to $201?
still 1 in 17 or 1 in 18 on how you round
I) Survival criterion -- 1900 rounds
does not use the win goal value
still not a certainty you can even win $1 before losing $1600 playing with an advantage
it is what it is
math is so fun!
Quote: mustangsally1900 hands of this BJ game looks very normal to me
so i say it will be way more statistically significant
than just 900 hands (that looks normal too, 2 me)
or even just 90 hands
just admit it girl,
until you find the cheating,
you over-bet your bankroll
and that may have happened on most hands played (without looking)
you were up then down
that = variance
MS,
I absolutely over-bet the BR ("my" BR is different from what I was willing to spend on this questionable casino, FWIW). No question in my mind. I was looking to test the game. I don't know if what I found is, in itself, statistically significant; I suspect it isn't. But it's a set of data points for the Wizard to use if he should get enough aggregated to make a case either fair or foul. Which was the point of doing it.
Quote: mustangsallyi used the values you want
still 1 in 17 or 1 in 18 on how you round
I) Survival criterion -- 1900 rounds
does not use the win goal value
still not a certainty you can even win $1 before losing $1600 playing with an advantage
it is what it is
math is so fun!
Thanks, Sally!
Quote: WizardRegarding Kelly, yes, I claim that in a fair game with any player advantage and no minimum bet the probability of ruin is zero. However, I don't have the patience to dink around with $5 bets.
Here is the video of my last session as requested.
I feel like there should be some ominous music playing at the beginning of this video.
Quote: WizardPlease let us know what they come back with. I've never heard of a game where a wild doesn't count in any position. If there must be such an awful rule, it should be disclosed. However, I'd like to give the casino a full opportunity to state their version. Information given via live chat is often incorrect, in my experience.
Update: received 5 returned emails in my inbox last night. Their server refused receipt. The message from my administrator:
Quote: BBB's mailer daemonThis Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
Your message was not delivered because the destination computer was
not reachable within the allowed queue period. The amount of time
a message is queued before it is returned depends on local configura-
tion parameters.
Most likely there is a network problem that prevented delivery, but
it is also possible that the computer is turned off, or does not
have a mail system running right now.
Your message was not delivered within 4 days and 0 hours.
Host mission2game.com is not responding.
So the upshot is, the info they requested by email, they still have not received, though I've tried twice now. Any suggestions?
EDIT: I think I had one character wrong in the first broken-out-pics email address and duplicated the error on the rest; my fault. Sending again.
I'd be interested in knowing whether anyone else has heard from them in the past 5 days (the support via email folks, not the in-game chat). Thanks!
Quote: BoulderDamItWouldn't the slots be at a complete disadvantage if the Wild is not valid on the first reel? That means that any line touching that square is now a completely null line, correct?
Not completely. If the Wild on the first reel has one or more Wilds on adjacent subsequent reels, it wins on whatever Wild lines are formed with 2 or more wilds, but even if those lines win, they only count the value of two or more wilds; they don't act as wilds for any subsequent symbols.
Maybe a better way of saying it: First reel wilds are only wild unto themselves.
This is the only help screen that discusses wilds. They say "Wild symbol substitutes for all symbols except scatter or bonus." They don't say anywhere that if a wild is on the first reel, it's not wild unless it's on a line with another wild on reel 2 (at a minimum), in which case it uses the paytable listed above for any lines (of 25) that use those first 2 spots in a win. It is not wild for the other 9 symbols in the game, all of which need at least 3 on adjacent reels to win.
Also, the Wild has a Multiple possibility of 5 according to that picture. How is that possibile if any Wild on the first reel is null?
Quote: BoulderDamItBut it still drastically drops the odds yes? It's like a blank space.
Also, the Wild has a Multiple possibility of 5 according to that picture. How is that possibile if any Wild on the first reel is null?
I would agree it drastically drops the odds. The wild on reel 1 is not null. It acts as a regular symbol with other wilds only. The wilds on subsequent reels are fully wild, and will act accordingly with all the other symbols.
If 5 wilds appear on all 5 reels on a played line, it will pay the 5 wilds value. If any symbol breaks up those wilds on reel 2, it pays nothing, even with wilds on reels 1,3,4,and 5. If a symbol breaks up the wilds on reel 3, it will pay the 2 wilds only, not 5 OAK of the symbol, or even 3OAK with wild, wild, symbol.
It's not just this machine, it's all of them according to in-game chat cust. svc., and I verified that on 2 other games. Have not heard back from support via email.
Slot is not good pay in the first place, even with the "wild" really being wild.
With this "blank" (which I still think it is, after all your explanation) it must be paying around like 70% or something.
Quote: andysifThis is plain robbery in broad day light.
Slot is not good pay in the first place, even with the "wild" really being wild.
With this "blank" (which I still think it is, after all your explanation) it must be paying around like 70% or something.
Slots are not always a bad play. IE Downtown Grand Loss rebate.
Doubtful it's even 70%.
That doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that the rules LIE at best. How many thousands have they cheated?
Even if the rules stated this, it's at minimum deception.
Anyone who thinks a casino that runs a tricky version of 9/6 Job and a no 1st line pay with a wild isn't cheating at BJ. I have a bridge to sell you.
Quote:20. If you are found to be cheating or attempting to defraud the Game, or if you make untrue and/or malicious comments with regard to the Company's operation, the Company reserves the right to publicize your actions together with your identity and e-mail address, as well as to circulate this information to other casinos, banks, credit card companies, and appropriate agencies.
Some of you are going to be identifiable due to the details posted here of your play sessions. The phrase "malicious comments" is open to wide interpretation and the casino's discretion. Its obviously a scummy term from an unprofessional outfit but you should be cautious anyway, especially if it turns out that the Wizard finds conclusive proof that these guys are cheating.
Quote: CLedThose of you that have played there and are posting about it might want be sure that you are aware of this term in the casino's T&Cs section:
Quote:20. If you are found to be cheating or attempting to defraud the Game, or if you make untrue and/or malicious comments with regard to the Company's operation, the Company reserves the right to publicize your actions together with your identity and e-mail address, as well as to circulate this information to other casinos, banks, credit card companies, and appropriate agencies.
Some of you are going to be identifiable due to the details posted here of your play sessions. The phrase "malicious comments" is open to wide interpretation and the casino's discretion. Its obviously a scummy term from an unprofessional outfit but you should be cautious anyway, especially if it turns out that the Wizard finds conclusive proof that these guys are cheating.
Your point is well taken. However, I stand by what I've reported, both good and bad, about the various games, and if the casino chooses to cause me trouble because of it, I expect they will invite further problems for themselves in doing so.
I think they may well be in breach of what they promised me as a member in not disclosing true information about how their games' paytables are set and, more than that, publishing misleading and false statements on their games. They say a symbol is wild for all symbols except bonus and scatter symbols; they are being dishonest. If they had disclosed the reel 1 exception information somewhere on the games and their paytable info, they would perhaps be within their rights, though I would be disinclined to do business with them. They did not. They took it one step further and actively misrepresented the value.
EDIT: I would mention, in response to their T&C clause above, that the following is on their website under Security.
Quote: mission2game
Mission2Game online casino is here to ensure and guarantee that your personal and financial information remains 100% confidential and secure at all times. We have implemented industry standard security protocols (including 128 bit, SSL data encryption technology) to ensure that all transactions including casino deposits and withdrawals are executed in a completely secure manner.
All financial transactions at the casino are carried out by Mission2Game casino and processed by the most advanced billing platforms available today. These technologies protect you from having your vital information intercepted by anyone while it is being transmitted between you and Mission2Game casino. Under NO circumstances will your details or personal information be passed to third-parties.
(from above) Under NO circumstances. Except...? No, under NO circumstances. 100% Confidential personal and financial information.
http://mission2game.com/fair_gaming.php
Quote: CLedThose of you that have played there and are posting about it might want be sure that you are aware of this term in the casino's T&Cs section:
Quote:20. If you are found to be cheating or attempting to defraud the Game, or if you make untrue and/or malicious comments with regard to the Company's operation, the Company reserves the right to publicize your actions together with your identity and e-mail address, as well as to circulate this information to other casinos, banks, credit card companies, and appropriate agencies.
That clause is really disgusting. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Good first post!
I mentioned I was reluctant to ask for my casino results file because "I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but doing so could lead to my information being spread around" Who knows what they could do or what other places they could be involved with. including software providers.
Great example instead of being physically shut down, fined and jailed they continue to defraud people. Meanwhile we sit and talk about it online. They lose very little not having a few AP's running bonuses compared to what they bring in.Quote: rudeboyoiI've enjoyed following this thread. It's another example of anarchy in action. How to deal with fraud in a stateless society. The other recent example here being the strictlyAP welching incident.
Quote: AxelWolfGreat example instead of being physically shut down, fined and jailed they continue to defraud people. Meanwhile we sit and talk about it online. They lose very little not having a few AP's running bonuses compared to what they bring in.
On the contrary it's a wonderful example. It only takes a few to warn the many about their fraudulent practices urging others to then shun them. If they're determined to be fraudulent then I'm assuming it will most likely be blacklisted on latestcasinobonuses.com. Then those that visit lcb will learn they probably shouldn't play on their site. I have no idea what kind of traffic lcb gets but I'm assuming it's at least in the hundreds of thousands and all it took was a handful of people here to warn those hundreds of thousands.
Quote: rudeboyoiOn the contrary it's a wonderful example. It only takes a few to warn the many about their fraudulent practices urging others to then shun them. If they're determined to be fraudulent then I'm assuming it will most likely be blacklisted on latestcasinobonuses.com. Then those that visit lcb will learn they probably shouldn't play on their site. I have no idea what kind of traffic lcb gets but I'm assuming it's at least in the hundreds of thousands and all it took was a handful of people here to warn those hundreds of thousands.
The guy who owns LCB it the one who bought all the Wizard sites. He is watching this issue carefully.
Wonderful they will only get to cheat less people.Quote: rudeboyoiOn the contrary it's a wonderful example. It only takes a few to warn the many about their fraudulent practices urging others to then shun them. If they're determined to be fraudulent then I'm assuming it will most likely be blacklisted on latestcasinobonuses.com. Then those that visit lcb will learn they probably shouldn't play on their site. I have no idea what kind of traffic lcb gets but I'm assuming it's at least in the hundreds of thousands and all it took was a handful of people here to warn those hundreds of thousands.
The rapists, molesters and thugs will move around and do exactly the same things. Your Idea is nice to think about, but it's not practical and wont work.
We need laws cops and punishment.
Quote: AxelWolfWonderful they will only get to cheat less people.
The rapists, molesters and thugs will move around and do exactly the same things. Your Idea is nice to think about, but it's not practical and wont work.
We need laws cops and punishment.
Fraud isn't a crime. It's just being a jerk to other people. Hence the shunning. Rapists, molestors, and thugs are criminals. And will be defended against the same way they are now. As things are now police can not protect you nor do they have any obligation to. There's been supreme court rulings stating they have no 9th ligation to and if they did indeed decide to show up to protect you their average response time is 11 minutes. Only you can protect yourself or those in close proximity to you such as your family and neighbors. The problem is people have this misconception that police are there to protect them so are less prepared to defend themselves and criminals know this. Without the police they can't hold onto this false belief and will be more prepared to defend themselves and when criminals find out that people are more willing to defend themselves they will be less likely to commit crimes against others.
many others have claimed that alsoQuote: WizardRegarding Kelly, yes, I claim that in a fair game with any player advantage and no minimum bet the probability of ruin is zero.
like Dr. Thorp (how about you coming to Newport Beach, CA and interviewing him. I bet $2.50 he would like that.
Your wife can go shopping and the kids can hit the beach - maybe the Wedge!)
He seems like such a super nice guy
I like him!
where am I
spinning
so that tells me with a min bet the RoR is >0
ding!Quote: WizardHowever, I don't have the patience to dink around with $5 bets.
so the reason(s) you started this thread was
to show a money making opportunity to your readers
at a new and unknown casino, ands MAYbe to see how honest they are while doing just that
so, last question (given the casino games are honest)
IF you really wanted to take money (win) playing the games .6%, .71% and .75% players edge
how would you go about that and with a players edge, when would you stop playing?
(flat betting is a good answer)
the drift is up, i do know that part
do not be shy
and have fun!
Quote: WizardHe is watching this issue carefully.
So far they have suspicious BJ games.
They have a deceptive VP game.
They have slots that don't pay correctly according to their slot rules.
Anytime your game crashes you lose your money that's currently being wagered. That's very 1990's technology.
They have fairly poor support.
They have despicable terms and conditions threatening the distribution of players personal information.
This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
What does it take to put them on a Warning/blacklist list? Why haven't they said anything on LBC? Links on the ODDS site go directly to the casino and give no warning to potential problems.
Someone may not notice they had a pending BJ hand or bonus when game crashes and they lose it.
Shouldn't the guy who owns LCB and the one who bought all the Wizard sites address the situation.
A member on LBC reported this to the comments section of M2Gon March 26th. That's plenty of time to have fixed the issues.
"On Anyway, as a side note this casino has a very bad reputation. Searches online have shown that on many slots the symbols don't pay as they should. There's a video showing wild symbols sometimes paying as they should, but other times not even registering as a wild. Plus people have reported bonus rounds freezing and when they go back to it, the bonus round doesn't exist and they do not get their winnings... Be warned!!!"
