Rigged Online BJ?

I have noticed what I believe to be a pattern of rigging on digital online blackjack at a certain site (which I will not name at this time).
Specifically, the pattern emerges when there are a few losses in a row at the low unit bets and then when the bet is significantly escalated, the system is rigged so that the odds of winning go down dramatically. Can the Wizard or someone help tell me if this is evident in the hand history I will show below or if I am just having sour grapes here. Note, I will give to examples from today and yesterday but this pattern has occurred MANY times in the past and I have additional hand history samples showing it (if needed I can post these additional samples).

Sample 1: 39 Hands - This is in reverse chronological order (most recent on shows the hand result, and then the amount bet and then the amount won/(-lost). You can see it starts with betting $2 of $3 and then as the bet is raised, the anomaly occurs and the odds of winning plummet. The series of 39 hands results in 31 losses, 5 wins 2 pushes and one win after insurance was paid against an Ace. So 79.48% loss rate, 13% win rate. What are the odds of this happening in a legit game (six deck single hand)?

Player Hand 23 3♦ T♦ K♠ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 19 J♥ 9♦ 5 -5
Player Hand 17 Q♦ 3♣ 2♣ 2♣ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 6♥ 9♦ 2♦ Hit, Stand 5 0
Player Hand 14 7♦ 7♠ Stand Dealer Hand 19 6♥ 2♦ A♦ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 22 7♠ 5♣ J♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 16 6♦ Q♠ 5 -5
Player Hand 20 Q♥ Q♣ Stand Dealer Hand 18 8♣ T♣ Stand 5 5
Player Hand 12 4♠ 6♣ 2♠ Double Dealer Hand 17 Q♥ 7♠ Stand 100 -100
Player Hand 26 J♣ 6♣ J♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 12 2♥ T♥ 50 -50
Player Hand 13 2♠ A♥ T♠ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 4♦ 3♦ J♥ Hit, Stand 50 -50
Player Hand 18 Q♦ 8♠ Stand Dealer Hand 20 4♠ 9♦ 7♦ Hit, Stand 50 -50
Player Hand 18 5♦ 3♦ Q♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 Q♦ Q♦ Stand 20 -20
Player Hand 17 4♠ 3♦ 6♠ 4♥ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 J♣ 8♦ Stand 20 -20
Player Hand 26 Q♦ 6♦ K♦ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 17 9♥ 8♥ 20 -20
Player Hand 20 Q♠ 3♦ 7♣ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 25 3♥ K♠ 2♣ T♦ Hit, Hit, Bust 20 20
Player Hand 18 6♣ A♥ A♠ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 21 4♦ K♥ 7♠ Hit, Stand 20 -20
Player Hand 17 9♠ 8♥ Stand Dealer Hand 18 2♣ 4♥ 2♥ K♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 20 -20
Player Hand 17 9♥ 2♥ 6♠ Double Dealer Hand 19 A♣ 8♠ Stand 14 -14
Player Hand 20 5♥ 3♠ 2♠ J♣ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 Q♥ Q♥ Stand 7 0
Player Hand 26 4♠ 8♠ 4♠ T♣ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 13 5♦ 8♣ 7 -7
Player Hand 12 4♦ 5♣ 3♦ Double Dealer Hand 19 8♣ 6♠ 5♥ Hit, Stand 14 -14
Player Hand 13 J♠ 3♦ Stand Dealer Hand 19 2♦ 6♦ A♠ Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 22 3♣ 9♦ T♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 16 6♠ J♥ 7 -7
Player Hand 18 8♦ Q♣ Stand Dealer Hand 19 K♣ 9♦ Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 19 9♣ 4♣ 6♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 3♠ T♥ 5♠ Hit, Stand 7 7
Player Hand 16 J♦ 6♣ Stand Dealer Hand 17 Q♥ 3♦ 3♣ A♠ Hit, Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 19 A♦ 6♦ 2♦ Double Dealer Hand 23 J♦ 6♦ 7♥ Hit, Bust 14 14
Player Hand 19 4♠ 4♣ 7♠ 4♦ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 Q♦ T♣ Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 18 5♣ 3♥ Q♣ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 J♦ T♠ Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 16 6♥ Q♦ Stand Dealer Hand 17 3♠ 5♥ 7♥ A♦ A♥ Hit, Hit, Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 16 9♣ 7♠ Stand Dealer Hand 21 K♦ 4♥ 7♥ Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 17 7♠ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 23 4♥ 4♣ 5♦ J♥ Hit, Hit, Bust 7 7
Player Hand 14 3♣ 8♥ 3♣ Double Dealer Hand 19 K♥ 2♣ 7♦ Hit, Stand 4 -4
Player Hand 13 9♠ 2♣ 2♦ Insurance, Double Dealer Hand 19 4♦ A♠ T♥ 4♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 18 7♠ A♣ Stand Dealer Hand 20 J♦ J♥ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 13 7♦ 2♣ 4♠ Double Dealer Hand 20 2♦ 5♣ 9♠ 4♠ Hit, Hit, Stand 4 -4
Player Hand 16 Q♣ 6♦ Stand Dealer Hand 21 4♦ 2♣ 5♦ J♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 18 8♠ K♥ Stand Dealer Hand 21 6♠ 9♠ 6♥ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 16 K♠ 6♦ Stand Dealer Hand 17 T♦ 7♥ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 18 9♣ 9♣ Insurance, Stand Dealer Hand 17 6♥ A♦ Stand 3 1
Player Hand 12 6♣ 6♠ Stand Dealer Hand 19 T♥ 2♦ 7♣ Hit, Stand 2 -2

This next series occurred the next day
Sample 2: 19 Hands - again, reverse chronological ain, the pattern emerges while starting out with low units ($2) and escalating to higher bets. Out of 19 bets there were 14 losses - 74%, 4 pushes and 1 win 5%. What are the odds of winning only 1 hand of 19?

Player Hand 18 8♣ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 19 8♣ 7♠ 4♦ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 23 Q♥ 3♣ T♣ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 19 9♥ T♠ 25 -25
Player Hand 22 9♠ 3♠ K♦ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 15 7♣ 8♠ 8 -8
Player Hand 22 7♥ 5♣ K♦ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 18 9♥ 9♦ 8 -8
Player Hand 18 8♦ T♥ Stand Dealer Hand 20 A♣ 2♦ 7♥ Hit, Stand 8 -8
Player Hand 20 J♥ Q♥ Stand Dealer Hand 20 6♠ 5♣ 2♦ 7♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 8 0
Player Hand 15 5♣ J♦ Stand Dealer Hand 17 T♦ 7♣ Stand 8 -8
Player Hand 18 2♣ 8♠ 8♠ Double Dealer Hand 18 9♥ 9♥ Stand 16 0
Player Hand 24 A♠ 4♠ J♠ 9♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 K♦ Q♥ 5 -5
Player Hand 19 T♦ 9♣ Dealer Hand 21 A♠ K♣ BlackJack 5 -5
Player Hand 16 J♣ 6♣ Stand Dealer Hand 21 Q♠ 5♠ 6♦ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 18 8♣ T♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 2♠ 6♥ J♦ Hit, Stand 5 0
Player Hand 15 2♣ Q♦ A♥ 2♥ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 19 9♦ K♣ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 14 6♣ 2♠ 6♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 23 3♥ 2♥ 9♠ 9♥ Hit, Hit, Bust 2 2
Player Hand 17 2♠ 4♣ 8♠ 3♠ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 9♥ 7♠ 2♠ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 18 2♣ 6♦ Q♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 7♥ 8♣ 3♦ Hit, Stand 2 0
Player Hand 22 T♥ 4♦ 8♠ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 19 K♠ 9♦ 2 -2
Player Hand 12 5♣ 7♠ Stand Dealer Hand 20 5♥ 6♦ 9♥ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 14 2♦ 6♠ 6♠ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 2♥ 5♠ J♠ Hit, Stand 2 -2

Again, I have many more examples, some that may even be more egregious (I have to look), and I can post them here if needed. Again, this kind of pattern doesn't happen when I stick to lower units, like $1, $2, but ONLY when I escalate bet to 5, 7, 8, 10, 25, 50 etc., typiially after losing a few lower bet hands. I could understand if this was a rare, or "one off" occurrence, due to variance, but I have at least 8-10 other examples of this pattern occurring...and it seems to just repeat and repeat.

I would really appreciate some input form the forum as to what I am dealing with here.

Thanks!

Quote: plaxplay

Sample 1: 39 Hands - This is in reverse chronological order (most recent on shows the hand result, and then the amount bet and then the amount won/(-lost). You can see it starts with betting $2 of $3 and then as the bet is raised, the anomaly occurs and the odds of winning plummet. The series of 39 hands results in 31 losses, 5 wins 2 pushes and one win after insurance was paid against an Ace. So 79.48% loss rate, 13% win rate. What are the odds of this happening in a legit game (six deck single hand)?

The sample size is too small. This result is unlikely, but it can happen.

Quote: plaxplay

I have noticed what I believe to be a pattern of rigging on digital online blackjack at a certain site (which I will not name at this time).
Specifically, the pattern emerges when there are a few losses in a row at the low unit bets and then when the bet is significantly escalated, the system is rigged so that the odds of winning go down dramatically. Can the Wizard or someone help tell me if this is evident in the hand history I will show below or if I am just having sour grapes here. Note, I will give to examples from today and yesterday but this pattern has occurred MANY times in the past and I have additional hand history samples showing it (if needed I can post these additional samples).

Sample 1: 39 Hands - This is in reverse chronological order (most recent on shows the hand result, and then the amount bet and then the amount won/(-lost). You can see it starts with betting $2 of $3 and then as the bet is raised, the anomaly occurs and the odds of winning plummet. The series of 39 hands results in 31 losses, 5 wins 2 pushes and one win after insurance was paid against an Ace. So 79.48% loss rate, 13% win rate. What are the odds of this happening in a legit game (six deck single hand)?

Player Hand 23 3♦ T♦ K♠ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 19 J♥ 9♦ 5 -5
Player Hand 17 Q♦ 3♣ 2♣ 2♣ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 6♥ 9♦ 2♦ Hit, Stand 5 0
Player Hand 14 7♦ 7♠ Stand Dealer Hand 19 6♥ 2♦ A♦ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 22 7♠ 5♣ J♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 16 6♦ Q♠ 5 -5
Player Hand 20 Q♥ Q♣ Stand Dealer Hand 18 8♣ T♣ Stand 5 5
Player Hand 12 4♠ 6♣ 2♠ Double Dealer Hand 17 Q♥ 7♠ Stand 100 -100
Player Hand 26 J♣ 6♣ J♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 12 2♥ T♥ 50 -50
Player Hand 13 2♠ A♥ T♠ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 4♦ 3♦ J♥ Hit, Stand 50 -50
Player Hand 18 Q♦ 8♠ Stand Dealer Hand 20 4♠ 9♦ 7♦ Hit, Stand 50 -50
Player Hand 18 5♦ 3♦ Q♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 Q♦ Q♦ Stand 20 -20
Player Hand 17 4♠ 3♦ 6♠ 4♥ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 J♣ 8♦ Stand 20 -20
Player Hand 26 Q♦ 6♦ K♦ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 17 9♥ 8♥ 20 -20
Player Hand 20 Q♠ 3♦ 7♣ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 25 3♥ K♠ 2♣ T♦ Hit, Hit, Bust 20 20
Player Hand 18 6♣ A♥ A♠ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 21 4♦ K♥ 7♠ Hit, Stand 20 -20
Player Hand 17 9♠ 8♥ Stand Dealer Hand 18 2♣ 4♥ 2♥ K♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 20 -20
Player Hand 17 9♥ 2♥ 6♠ Double Dealer Hand 19 A♣ 8♠ Stand 14 -14
Player Hand 20 5♥ 3♠ 2♠ J♣ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 Q♥ Q♥ Stand 7 0
Player Hand 26 4♠ 8♠ 4♠ T♣ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 13 5♦ 8♣ 7 -7
Player Hand 12 4♦ 5♣ 3♦ Double Dealer Hand 19 8♣ 6♠ 5♥ Hit, Stand 14 -14
Player Hand 13 J♠ 3♦ Stand Dealer Hand 19 2♦ 6♦ A♠ Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 22 3♣ 9♦ T♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 16 6♠ J♥ 7 -7
Player Hand 18 8♦ Q♣ Stand Dealer Hand 19 K♣ 9♦ Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 19 9♣ 4♣ 6♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 3♠ T♥ 5♠ Hit, Stand 7 7
Player Hand 16 J♦ 6♣ Stand Dealer Hand 17 Q♥ 3♦ 3♣ A♠ Hit, Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 19 A♦ 6♦ 2♦ Double Dealer Hand 23 J♦ 6♦ 7♥ Hit, Bust 14 14
Player Hand 19 4♠ 4♣ 7♠ 4♦ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 Q♦ T♣ Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 18 5♣ 3♥ Q♣ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 J♦ T♠ Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 16 6♥ Q♦ Stand Dealer Hand 17 3♠ 5♥ 7♥ A♦ A♥ Hit, Hit, Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 16 9♣ 7♠ Stand Dealer Hand 21 K♦ 4♥ 7♥ Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 17 7♠ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 23 4♥ 4♣ 5♦ J♥ Hit, Hit, Bust 7 7
Player Hand 14 3♣ 8♥ 3♣ Double Dealer Hand 19 K♥ 2♣ 7♦ Hit, Stand 4 -4
Player Hand 13 9♠ 2♣ 2♦ Insurance, Double Dealer Hand 19 4♦ A♠ T♥ 4♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 18 7♠ A♣ Stand Dealer Hand 20 J♦ J♥ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 13 7♦ 2♣ 4♠ Double Dealer Hand 20 2♦ 5♣ 9♠ 4♠ Hit, Hit, Stand 4 -4
Player Hand 16 Q♣ 6♦ Stand Dealer Hand 21 4♦ 2♣ 5♦ J♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 18 8♠ K♥ Stand Dealer Hand 21 6♠ 9♠ 6♥ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 16 K♠ 6♦ Stand Dealer Hand 17 T♦ 7♥ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 18 9♣ 9♣ Insurance, Stand Dealer Hand 17 6♥ A♦ Stand 3 1
Player Hand 12 6♣ 6♠ Stand Dealer Hand 19 T♥ 2♦ 7♣ Hit, Stand 2 -2

This next series occurred the next day
Sample 2: 19 Hands - again, reverse chronological ain, the pattern emerges while starting out with low units ($2) and escalating to higher bets. Out of 19 bets there were 14 losses - 74%, 4 pushes and 1 win 5%. What are the odds of winning only 1 hand of 19?

Player Hand 18 8♣ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 19 8♣ 7♠ 4♦ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 23 Q♥ 3♣ T♣ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 19 9♥ T♠ 25 -25
Player Hand 22 9♠ 3♠ K♦ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 15 7♣ 8♠ 8 -8
Player Hand 22 7♥ 5♣ K♦ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 18 9♥ 9♦ 8 -8
Player Hand 18 8♦ T♥ Stand Dealer Hand 20 A♣ 2♦ 7♥ Hit, Stand 8 -8
Player Hand 20 J♥ Q♥ Stand Dealer Hand 20 6♠ 5♣ 2♦ 7♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 8 0
Player Hand 15 5♣ J♦ Stand Dealer Hand 17 T♦ 7♣ Stand 8 -8
Player Hand 18 2♣ 8♠ 8♠ Double Dealer Hand 18 9♥ 9♥ Stand 16 0
Player Hand 24 A♠ 4♠ J♠ 9♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 K♦ Q♥ 5 -5
Player Hand 19 T♦ 9♣ Dealer Hand 21 A♠ K♣ BlackJack 5 -5
Player Hand 16 J♣ 6♣ Stand Dealer Hand 21 Q♠ 5♠ 6♦ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 18 8♣ T♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 2♠ 6♥ J♦ Hit, Stand 5 0
Player Hand 15 2♣ Q♦ A♥ 2♥ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 19 9♦ K♣ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 14 6♣ 2♠ 6♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 23 3♥ 2♥ 9♠ 9♥ Hit, Hit, Bust 2 2
Player Hand 17 2♠ 4♣ 8♠ 3♠ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 9♥ 7♠ 2♠ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 18 2♣ 6♦ Q♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 7♥ 8♣ 3♦ Hit, Stand 2 0
Player Hand 22 T♥ 4♦ 8♠ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 19 K♠ 9♦ 2 -2
Player Hand 12 5♣ 7♠ Stand Dealer Hand 20 5♥ 6♦ 9♥ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 14 2♦ 6♠ 6♠ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 2♥ 5♠ J♠ Hit, Stand 2 -2

Again, I have many more examples, some that may even be more egregious (I have to look), and I can post them here if needed. Again, this kind of pattern doesn't happen when I stick to lower units, like $1, $2, but ONLY when I escalate bet to 5, 7, 8, 10, 25, 50 etc., typiially after losing a few lower bet hands. I could understand if this was a rare, or "one off" occurrence, due to variance, but I have at least 8-10 other examples of this pattern occurring...and it seems to just repeat and repeat.

I would really appreciate some input form the forum as to what I am dealing with here.

Thanks!

Are you playing on a CSM, or ASM, or is it hand shuffled?

Are you playing on a CSM, or ASM, or is it hand shuffled?

Quote: plaxplay

digital online blackjack

I'm 100% convinced this is happening at some more well known casinos online, I have noticed it for years, as have others.

I can probably guess what casino group he is talking about.

Wizard has pursued such claims when backed by credible evidence before. I can't speak for him or his schedule or his level of interest.

I suggest you gather everything you have and be ready to send it as documents or spreadsheets. All hand histories, transaction records, etc. I assume you are playing for real money. If you're not, it's probably an entirely different situation as to whether it's worth trying to prove the game is gaffed.

I will PM Wizard to ensure he gets a look at what you've said so far, and then it will be up to him. He will need to know exactly who this company is, probably first, but you don't need to post it in here just yet.

Quote: heatmap

Are you playing on a CSM, or ASM, or is it hand shuffled?

Quote: AxelWolf

I'm 100% convinced this is happening at some more well known casinos online, I have noticed it for years, as have others.

I can probably guess what casino group he is talking about.

Sorry I have no doubt it's what OP would call "rigged", as it is a piece of software, and anything is possible if you can't see the shoe and physical cards in front of you. I say they are all rigged, but I harp on the ASMs because I think they are manipulated easily, and with online software, the hole card is never generated til after the person stays at least from what I understand and that's not kosher with me in any way although I play for fun online to see their capabilies

Sorry for the late arrival.

As someone else mentioned, it is hard to draw any conclusions with such a small sample size. It is also hard on me to just see enormous log files, but I prefer to see the results summarized as well. What I would suggest is see a table, with three columns -- one for the initial bet amount, one for the number of the number of hands played at that bet amount, and the net financial win or loss for just those bets. Then we can easily see the correlation between bet amount and win/loss.

Quote: plaxplay

I have noticed what I believe to be a pattern of rigging on digital online blackjack at a certain site

Again, I have many more examples, some that may even be more egregious (I have to look), and I can post them here if needed. Again, this kind of pattern doesn't happen when I stick to lower units, like $1, $2, but ONLY when I escalate bet to 5, 7, 8, 10, 25, 50 etc., typiially after losing a few lower bet hands. I could understand if this was a rare, or "one off" occurrence, due to variance, but I have at least 8-10 other examples of this pattern occurring...and it seems to just repeat and repeat.

I would really appreciate some input form the forum as to what I am dealing with here.

It sounds like you are losing real money, and lots of it, to what is likely a rigged blackjack game. Why did you keep on playing after losing so egregiously?

The members here will possibly tell you that you do not have enough evidence to affirmatively state it is a rogue site. But I can assuredly tell you you have enough evidence to make it wise to not play there again.

Will try to compile some data in a more summarized format.,,in the mean time.

just had another occurrence today...lost 11 hands in a row (and two pushes) when the bet was raised to 7 (after winning 1st te the streak stopped when I reduced back to 2. Again, not saying one can't lose (or not win) this many in a row, but to pretty much always coincide with the raised bet sequence is the suspicious part.


Player Hand 19 3♥ 5♦ A♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 9♦ 8♠ Stand 2 2
Player Hand 14 6♠ 3♦ 5♣ Double Dealer Hand 21 5♠ 3♥ 7♥ A♥ 5♥ Hit, Hit, Hit, Stand 22 -22
Player Hand 16 6♥ J♠ Dealer Hand 21 Q♣ A♦ BlackJack 11 -11
Player Hand 18 Q♠ 4♦ 4♥ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 19 4♦ K♥ 5♦ Hit, Stand 11 -11
Player Hand 18 J♦ 8♦ Stand Dealer Hand 20 T♣ Q♣ Stand 11 -11
Player Hand 19 9♣ T♥ Stand Dealer Hand 19 A♠ 8♠ Stand 11 0
Player Hand 24 K♥ 4♥ Q♦ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 J♥ Q♥ 11 -11
Player Hand 16 T♥ 6♠ Stand Dealer Hand 21 J♠ 3♣ 8♠ Hit, Stand 3 -3
Player Hand 24 Q♥ 2♣ 3♣ 9♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 18 8♠ K♦ 3 -3
Player Hand 21 A♦ J♠ BlackJack Dealer Hand 21 A♣ K♠ BlackJack 3 0
Player Hand 23 8♠ 5♣ J♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 15 5♥ Q♥ 3 -3
Player Hand 22 6♥ 2♠ 5♣ 9♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 13 3♠ K♥ 7 -7
Player Hand 15 2♠ 8♠ 5♥ Double Dealer Hand 19 T♣ 4♦ 2♣ 3♥ Hit, Hit, Stand 14 -14
Player Hand 19 5♠ A♥ 7♣ 6♣ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 T♦ T♦ Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 15 K♠ 5♥ Stand Dealer Hand 22 5♠ 4♦ 3♦ J♠ Hit, Hit, Bust 7 7

Player Hand 25 5♣ T♦ Q♣ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 T♠ J♣ 2 -2
Player Hand 17 J♥ 7♣ Insurance, Stand Dealer Hand 18 4♦ A♣ 3♣ Hit, Stand 3 -3
Player Hand 19 7♥ 4♥ 8♥ Insurance, Double Dealer Hand 19 8♥ A♥ Stand 5 -1
Player Hand 23 6♣ 7♠ J♠ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 16 6♣ J♣ 2 -2
Player Hand 12 3♠ 9♠ Stand Dealer Hand 23 A♠ 4♠ 9♣ 9♦ Hit, Hit, Bust 2 2
Player Hand 22 7♣ 5♦ K♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 17 T♥ 7♦ 2 -2
Player Hand 21 A♥ T♥ BlackJack Dealer Hand 6 4♥ 2♦ Stand 2 3
Player Hand 22 4♠ A♦ 8♦ 9♠ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 17 7♣ Q♦ 2 -2
Player Hand 20 7♣ 3♥ K♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 2♠ T♣ 5♠ Hit, Stand 2 2
Player Hand 15 7♣ 8♣ Stand Dealer Hand 18 K♦ 2♠ 6♠ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 20 J♣ Q♠ Stand Dealer Hand 17 4♣ 9♠ 4♥ Hit, Stand 2 2
Player Hand 21 6♦ 6♦ 3♣ 6♦ Hit, Hit Dealer Hand 26 9♠ 7♥ K♠ Hit, Bust 2 2

and yes, unfortunately this is real money

The problem is losing 11 rounds in a row can occur while playing a non-rigged game, and it can occur anytime. I wonder how you can prove that it's not because of your bad luck.

I agree that the tables of results would be improved by including the bet size -since your point is that you are getting clobbered when you raise the bet.

Most of the analysts here make the mistake of setting a standard that a data set must prove a hypothesis to within 3-5 SD to declare that it is proven - that you must prove that a game is rigged to within 99.5% statistical confidence before you can conclude that it is rigged. Example: Mike does not not like to denounce a site unless he has irrefutable statistical data

But the fact is that we all know that some internet games are not regulated and may be rigged -and we are trying to figure which of the games are rigged.

So, given this data, I would ask this:

1. what is the statistical level of confidence that this game is NOT rigged, is fair?
2. what is the statistical level of confidence that this game is rigged to change the odds against the player on higher bets?

If we are playing an internet BJ game on a non-verified site and we develop 40 or 50% confidence that the game is rigged, then Holy Mother of God, why the heck should anyone play that game?

Quote: gordonm888

But the fact is that we all know that some internet games are not regulated and may be rigged -and we are trying to figure which of the games are rigged.

I don't think that we should play games that aren't certified.

Quote: gordonm888

I agree that the tables of results would be improved by including the bet size -since your point is that you are getting clobbered when you raise the bet.

I was going to ask the same thing, I'm not sure why that wasn't obvious, I thought I may have been missing something.

Quote: gordonm888

If we are playing an internet BJ game on a non-verified site and we develop 40 or 50% confidence that the game is rigged, then Holy Mother of God, why the heck should anyone play that game?

I cant answer for the OP.

In my situation, at one casino I was playing many good bonuses per week for a long time, I had a significant advantage, it was practically a full time Job. It was actually fun for the most part since I was playing all the different slots with auto-spin until bonus rounds came up. I could watch TV, go on the forums, play poker online, and do whatever I wanted at home. Even Mrs. Wolf got involved.

I started out playing BJ bonuses for a while, so that why I was playing even though I was convinced it was rigged.

I realized it was actually way better to play slots and other games for various reason.

While playing the BJ, time after time I did well playing $1-$4 bets, oftentimes I would beat the BJ straight up after completing the bonus and wagering requirements. This was very time consuming, so I would raise my bets, and of course, I would get crushed, it's as if it was predictable. The bigger the bet the worst the losing streak was. I tried to just chalk it up to selective memory and didn't want to believe it, so I kept doing my thing. At some point I abandoned the BJ. I got a few others involved in the play and they all said the same thing about the BJ.

I swear, NEW accounts betting $1-$4 would always win a few hundred bucks like clock work during their fist bonus. Unfortunately, the effort and time commitment betting that low made it not worthwhile.

I had all kinds of crazy theory's what was going on and how you could take advantage of it. I cant prove I was right or wrong, however, after many hundreds of thousands of spins on slots and other games I was way above EV and its not like I had some monster hit or anything. Unfortunately, overnight the casino made major changes.

Quote: gordonm888

since your point is that you are getting clobbered when you raise the bet.

You need a large sample size to assume that the software is biased. Anyway, everyone who uses a progressive betting system gets crushed at some point when they raise their bets. If not then, when?

Quote: BlackjackLover

I don't think that we should play games that aren't certified.

Not always but sometimes casinos are certified in one jurisdiction but the numbers are generated in another - I could be lying because I’m guessing but I’m confident enough to say it because it’s completely possible to do

Quote: heatmap

Not always but sometimes casinos are certified in one jurisdiction but the numbers are generated in another - I could be lying because I’m guessing but I’m confident enough to say it because it’s completely possible to do

We have several people in here that do this, but my best understanding is, certification comes from a large number of trials against the stated rules and HE. Once it's proven to be a fair game, the software is locked somehow (not my area of expertise - I know in some cases, it involves a seal on a chip on the motherboard) and any updates also have to be tested and reviewed.

Part of that certification is also that the game parameters are in compliance with the governing jurisdiction.


....annnnddd...we've reached the extent of my understanding. But I'm confident one of those who've done it will correct any misstatements I made.

Quote: beachbumbabs

my best understanding is, certification comes from a large number of trials against the stated rules and HE.

I ran Certified Fair Gambling for six years (previously owned by Mike, and currently owned by Charles Mousseau). Certification and testing of game fairness does NOT require a large number of trials. For whatever number of trials are provided, statistical tests are run on that number. The statistical tests tell you the Chi-squared value, the Z-score or whatever test you are using, based on the distribution, standard deviation and expectation for that number of trials. The fallacy that a large number of trials are needed seems to perpetuate itself through threads like this, and I am saying it is nonsense.

Quote:

Once it's proven to be a fair game, the software is locked somehow.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I tested the software every month, and in my opinion monthly statistical testing is needed. These companies are forever updating their software, and all sorts of things can happen.

Quote:

Part of that certification is also that the game parameters are in compliance with the governing jurisdiction.

I am not sure what "game parameters" refers to, but again, this makes no sense to me. These games are offered internationally.

What is true, at least when I ran CFG, is that there are crooks everywhere in the online business. Many of these software companies routinely made "cheat" versions. One software company owner told me that if they didn't have a cheat version, they couldn't be competitive with other companies. I spoke on the phone with a programmer who created a cheating version for a major international company. He explained how his software cheated in great detail, and how the owner of the company pressured him to hide it from me. A few months later, I had a six-figure offer from a company for the CFG seal, if I would not audit their product (I turned it down).

The claims made by the OP are completely reasonable, in my opinion. The software could easily be written to have cheat code that does what he claims. But, what is also true is that the vast majority of online play is fair, and that people are inclined to see patterns and conspiracies where none exist. Mike's approach is a good one, there are many other good approaches.

My personal recommendation is for the OP to contact Charles Mousseau at CFG, with the understanding that he may have to pay for the service.

Quote: teliot

The fallacy that a large number of trials are needed seems to perpetuate itself through threads like this, and I am saying it is nonsense.

What do you mean by a number of trials? I don't think that you mean a number of rounds because it's nonsensical to certify a Blackjack game by testing 10 rounds. I used to ask a very reputable online casino about this, and they told me that the game was tested millions of rounds.

You can certainly find that the software is not fair based on 10 rounds. Imagine roulette, they provide 10 rounds and it's all the same number. Craps -- all the same roll (both dice have the same values). In blackjack, all 10 hands have the same cards. Etc. 10 rounds is plenty to determine that the software is likely unfair.

Fairness is an ongoing process, where you continually look for a single failure. You can never say software is fair. You can only say that it has behaved in a fair manner over the tested period. If the company provides 10 rounds of blackjack and they pass all the statistical tests, then yes, you certify that over the tested period the software has performed in a fair manner.

Quote: teliot

You can certainly find that the software is not fair based on 10 rounds. Imagine roulette, they provide 10 rounds and it's all the same number. Craps -- all the same roll (both dice have the same values). In blackjack, all 10 hands have the same cards. Etc. 10 rounds is plenty to determine that the software is likely unfair.

Fairness is an ongoing process, where you continually look for a single failure. You can never say software is fair. You can only say that it has behaved in a fair manner over the tested period. If the company provides 10 rounds of blackjack and they pass all the statistical tests, then yes, you certify that over the tested period the software has performed in a fair manner.

has there ever been a case where you thought the TYPE of randomization should be banned or made illegal?

Quote: heatmap

has there ever been a case where you thought the TYPE of randomization should be banned or made illegal?

I don't know what you mean by "type of randomization." There is only one type of randomization -- use a PRNG to get a number. There was certainly cheat code built into the part of the programs where the "random" number was selected, for example discarding numbers that lead to a dealer busting in blackjack until a number that lead to a dealer making his hand was generated. But "illegal" and "banned" are weird words here, I don't know what they mean.

Some of the biggest online scores by APs were made exactly by taking advantage of poorly programmed games, where the PRNG or some other feature of the game became predictable. I am sure that several of the top APs here know what I am talking about.

Cheating requires competence. I always presumed incompetence and required extraordinary proof before determining there was malice.

None of this is in reference to "live online" games.

I'm signing out of this thread for now. Cheers.

Quote: teliot

You can certainly find that the software is not fair based on 10 rounds. Imagine roulette, they provide 10 rounds and it's all the same number. Craps -- all the same roll (both dice have the same values). In blackjack, all 10 hands have the same cards. Etc. 10 rounds is plenty to determine that the software is likely unfair.

Fairness is an ongoing process, where you continually look for a single failure. You can never say software is fair. You can only say that it has behaved in a fair manner over the tested period. If the company provides 10 rounds of blackjack and they pass all the statistical tests, then yes, you certify that over the tested period the software has performed in a fair manner.

You gave an extreme example. I don't think that a cheat version of any software operates as you described. If I played 1,000 rounds of Blackjack optimally and won 100 rounds and lost 900 rounds, it should be established that the game is rigged. However, if I select only 10 rounds of the result, how is this 10 rounds plenty to determine the fairness of the game?

Quote: BlackjackLover

You gave an extreme example. I don't think that a cheat version of any software operates as you described. If I played 1,000 rounds of Blackjack optimally and won 100 rounds and lost 900 rounds, it should be established that the game is rigged. However, if I select only 10 rounds of the result, how is this 10 rounds plenty to determine the fairness of the game?

You can't prove a negative. To say a game is fair is to say it doesn't cheat. There are an endless number of ways for a game to cheat, so you can't prove it doesn't cheat. You can only state that it passed every statistical test for fairness you performed over the audited period. Was I unclear?

There are lots of tests that work for a small number of rounds. For a win/loss test, I would expect there to be roughly 9% pushes, 43% wins and 48% losses (I'm sorry, I don't recall the exact percentages). I could conduct a chi-square test on the distribution data. I could also conduct a chi-squared test on dealer final totals. Typically, I'd prefer at least 30 hands for these tests, but people talk about 10,000 hands or some such silly nonsense, and that is just not the case. Reliable statistical tests can be done with surprisingly small sets of data.

Now, the OP has to be careful with "selection bias" -- he goes through all of his hands and picks out the parts that appear to be the most unfair and presents those. In analyzing his case, the first step is to get the totality of data over his period of play where he is challenging the game's fairness. Selection bias is a big problem when individuals make claims.

Quote: teliot

I don't know what you mean by "type of randomization." There is only one type of randomization -- use a PRNG to get a number. There was certainly cheat code built into the part of the programs where the "random" number was selected, for example discarding numbers that lead to a dealer busting in blackjack until a number that lead to a dealer making his hand was generated. But "illegal" and "banned" are weird words here, I don't know what they mean.

Some of the biggest online scores by APs were made exactly by taking advantage of poorly programmed games, where the PRNG or some other feature of the game became predictable. I am sure that several of the top APs here know what I am talking about.

Cheating requires competence. I always presumed incompetence and required extraordinary proof before determining there was malice.

None of this is in reference to "live online" games.

I'm signing out of this thread for now. Cheers.

game theory games disguised as other games

have you ever heard of the centipede game? if so can you replace blackjack with it and would anyone notice the difference?

Quote: teliot

There are lots of tests that work for a small number of rounds. For a win/loss test, I would expect there to be roughly 9% pushes, 43% wins and 48% losses (I'm sorry, I don't recall the exact percentages). I could conduct a chi-square test on the distribution data. I could also conduct a chi-squared test on dealer final totals. Typically, I'd prefer at least 30 hands for these tests, but people talk about 10,000 hands or some such silly nonsense, and that is just not the case. Reliable statistical tests can be done with surprisingly small sets of data.

For a win/loss test, if a company provides you 30 rounds composed of 25 losses, 5 wins, and no push, will it pass your test?

I don’t understand how the fairness of a game could be determined by only 10 hands.

Is a 10 hand winning/losing streak even uncommon?

Had a really weird run on a doubledeck vbj machine. Nine hands in a row, the dealer drew a third card to pull a 20 or 21. Bad but not all that unusual. What made it strange was in every hand, it was borderline if I hit or stay and in every case, the card I passed on would have made my hand.

Quote: billryan

Had a really weird run on a doubledeck vbj machine. Nine hands in a row, the dealer drew a third card to pull a 20 or 21. Bad but not all that unusual. What made it strange was in every hand, it was borderline if I hit or stay and in every case, the card I passed on would have made my hand.

this is how it is at sands bethlehem as in almost every hand

you cant play basic strategy most of the time because you get to the point where its sickening all of the hands that you should have taken and the dealer always seems to have a the same hand as you do and even if you do take the cards, the dealer always has a back up to trump yours

Quote: heatmap

this is how it is at sands bethlehem as in almost every hand

you cant play basic strategy most of the time because you get to the point where its sickening all of the hands that you should have taken and the dealer always seems to have a the same hand as you do and even if you do take the cards, the dealer always has a back up to trump yours

It sounds like you think lots of places/ things are rigged. Not sure why you even attempt to play.

I don't go around putting my finger in random light sockets just to find out if the switch is on or off.

p.s. There is a good game of 3 card Monty over on the strip.

Quote: AxelWolf

It sounds like you think lots of places/ things are rigged. Not sure why you even attempt to play.

I don't go around putting my finger in random light sockets just to find out if the switch is on or off.

p.s. There is a good game of 3 card Monty over on the strip.

ive played hand shuffles, and although it can be worse, the cards at my casino come out completely different and i jump at the opportunity to play a hand shuffle because of that reason. And I keep playing - a physical shoe - because i see the potential for manipulation most of the time. And I don't always lose such as with roulette. I have my lucky times. But to not try to describe the patterns I am seeing would drive myself insane, and i need others to tell me that.

Today's is is the final 18 hands in a round of about 100 hands. The action leading up to this series was relatively normal distribution of wins and losses as I played at low units $1-$4. But after losing several hands I raised the bet, thinking that I can't possibly lose "X" amount of times in a row can I? And sure enough, the dealer becomes virtually invincible. These were the final 18 hands as the money in my account ran out. 15 losses, 1 push, one win and one surrender. What are the odds of winning only 1 hand in 18? What are the odds of this happening this frequently (relative to amount of hands played)? and ONLY when the bet is raised 3X or more? To me it seems very obvious when playing that some sort of counter measure to my pseudo martingale technique is put into the software to avoid the house being subject to "normal" odds versus a series of "abnormally large" bets.

Player Hand 13 3♥ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 20 7♥ 4♥ 9♥ Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 12 Q♠ 2♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 6♣ 2♦ J♣ Hit, Stand 11 -11
Player Hand 20 4♣ 7♠ 3♣ 6♥ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 T♦ J♥ Stand 11 0
Player Hand 18 7♥ 7♦ 4♠ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 6♠ K♣ 4♥ Hit, Stand 11 -11
Player Hand 15 7♥ 8♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 9♠ 3♠ 6♠ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 15 K♥ 5♥ Surrender Dealer Hand 19 9♥ J♦ 5 -2.5
Player Hand 19 9♠ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 17 8♣ 9♥ Stand 5 5
Player Hand 15 5♣ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 20 K♥ 2♣ 8♣ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 6 3♥ 3♣ Dealer Hand 21 J♠ A♠ BlackJack 5 -5
Player Hand 20 6♣ A♦ 3♥ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 21 3♥ 9♦ A♣ 8♣ Hit, Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 23 3♠ 7♦ 3♠ Q♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 T♦ Q♣ 2 -2
Player Hand 17 7♣ T♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 8♦ J♣ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 17 2♦ 5♣ J♥ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 A♠ 9♠ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 25 4♦ A♥ Q♥ K♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 K♠ J♦ 2 -2
Player Hand 15 K♥ 5♥ Surrender Dealer Hand 20 Q♠ T♠ 2 -1
Player Hand 12 K♣ 2♣ Stand Dealer Hand 20 A♦ 4♣ 5♠ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 15 J♦ 5♠ Surrender Dealer Hand 17 7♣ J♣ 2 -1
Player Hand 23 8♦ 5♣ J♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 12 3♠ 9♥ 2 -2

I think that it's quite normal. I suggest that you keep playing without raising your bet. Sooner or later you will encounter a sequence like this.

Quote: plaxplay

Today's is is the final 18 hands in a round of about 100 hands. The action leading up to this series was relatively normal distribution of wins and losses as I played at low units $1-$4. But after losing several hands I raised the bet, thinking that I can't possibly lose "X" amount of times in a row can I? And sure enough, the dealer becomes virtually invincible. These were the final 18 hands as the money in my account ran out. 15 losses, 1 push, one win and one surrender. What are the odds of winning only 1 hand in 18? What are the odds of this happening this frequently (relative to amount of hands played)? and ONLY when the bet is raised 3X or more? To me it seems very obvious when playing that some sort of counter measure to my pseudo martingale technique is put into the software to avoid the house being subject to "normal" odds versus a series of "abnormally large" bets.

Player Hand 13 3♥ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 20 7♥ 4♥ 9♥ Hit, Stand 7 -7
Player Hand 12 Q♠ 2♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 6♣ 2♦ J♣ Hit, Stand 11 -11
Player Hand 20 4♣ 7♠ 3♣ 6♥ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 T♦ J♥ Stand 11 0
Player Hand 18 7♥ 7♦ 4♠ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 6♠ K♣ 4♥ Hit, Stand 11 -11
Player Hand 15 7♥ 8♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 9♠ 3♠ 6♠ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 15 K♥ 5♥ Surrender Dealer Hand 19 9♥ J♦ 5 -2.5
Player Hand 19 9♠ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 17 8♣ 9♥ Stand 5 5
Player Hand 15 5♣ K♦ Stand Dealer Hand 20 K♥ 2♣ 8♣ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 6 3♥ 3♣ Dealer Hand 21 J♠ A♠ BlackJack 5 -5
Player Hand 20 6♣ A♦ 3♥ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 21 3♥ 9♦ A♣ 8♣ Hit, Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 23 3♠ 7♦ 3♠ Q♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 T♦ Q♣ 2 -2
Player Hand 17 7♣ T♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 8♦ J♣ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 17 2♦ 5♣ J♥ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 A♠ 9♠ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 25 4♦ A♥ Q♥ K♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 K♠ J♦ 2 -2
Player Hand 15 K♥ 5♥ Surrender Dealer Hand 20 Q♠ T♠ 2 -1
Player Hand 12 K♣ 2♣ Stand Dealer Hand 20 A♦ 4♣ 5♠ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 15 J♦ 5♠ Surrender Dealer Hand 17 7♣ J♣ 2 -1
Player Hand 23 8♦ 5♣ J♥ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 12 3♠ 9♥ 2 -2

Funny that it didn't go back to "normal" once you dropped back down to 2. I really feel that this is variance. Isn't it always the losing streak that ends a session?

Quote: beachbumbabs

We have several people in here that do this, but my best understanding is, certification comes from a large number of trials against the stated rules and HE. Once it's proven to be a fair game, the software is locked somehow (not my area of expertise - I know in some cases, it involves a seal on a chip on the motherboard) and any updates also have to be tested and reviewed.

Part of that certification is also that the game parameters are in compliance with the governing jurisdiction.


....annnnddd...we've reached the extent of my understanding. But I'm confident one of those who've done it will correct any misstatements I made.

I think this is fair to say for land based gaming. The game is certified and then there are ways to audit the machines to make sure they are running the exact approved software.

Online gaming is a different story.

Quote: CrystalMath

Isn't it always the losing streak that ends a session?

If not then, when?

Quote: teliot

I ran Certified Fair Gambling for six years (previously owned by Mike, and currently owned by Charles Mousseau). Certification and testing of game fairness does NOT require a large number of trials. For whatever number of trials are provided, statistical tests are run on that number. The statistical tests tell you the Chi-squared value, the Z-score or whatever test you are using, based on the distribution, standard deviation and expectation for that number of trials. The fallacy that a large number of trials are needed seems to perpetuate itself through threads like this, and I am saying it is nonsense.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I tested the software every month, and in my opinion monthly statistical testing is needed. These companies are forever updating their software, and all sorts of things can happen.

I am not sure what "game parameters" refers to, but again, this makes no sense to me. These games are offered internationally.

What is true, at least when I ran CFG, is that there are crooks everywhere in the online business. Many of these software companies routinely made "cheat" versions. One software company owner told me that if they didn't have a cheat version, they couldn't be competitive with other companies. I spoke on the phone with a programmer who created a cheating version for a major international company. He explained how his software cheated in great detail, and how the owner of the company pressured him to hide it from me. A few months later, I had a six-figure offer from a company for the CFG seal, if I would not audit their product (I turned it down).

The claims made by the OP are completely reasonable, in my opinion. The software could easily be written to have cheat code that does what he claims. But, what is also true is that the vast majority of online play is fair, and that people are inclined to see patterns and conspiracies where none exist. Mike's approach is a good one, there are many other good approaches.

My personal recommendation is for the OP to contact Charles Mousseau at CFG, with the understanding that he may have to pay for the service.

Really appreciate you providing correct info, teliot. Thanks for taking the time.

Quote: CrystalMath

Funny that it didn't go back to "normal" once you dropped back down to 2. I really feel that this is variance. Isn't it always the losing streak that ends a session?

Basic strategy errors in the mix as well.

Selection bias is a big issue with this poster.

Quote: teliot

Basic strategy errors in the mix as well.

Selection bias is a big issue with this poster.

That might be true, however, that does mean it's not rigged. I could be wromg, but I think hes talking about the Bovada brand.

Quote: AxelWolf

That might be true, however, that does mean it's not rigged.

Of course it might be, but there is no evidence from what is posted. The posted data is nearly worthless. At the very least, the poster needs to post his full data, and not some random selection from when things didn't go his way. If he did what Mike said, and went through EVERY hand he played and grouped the results by wager size, that at least would make the task meaningful. But, the poster appears unwilling to do anything more than ask for other people to do work for him for free.

Quote: teliot

Selection bias is a big issue with this poster.

its a big issue for everyone to consider. floors can form bad opinions based on one or two hands, which is an absurd sample size. players are often akin to fishermen in recalling the size of a fish that got away.

In defense of OP, it requires quite a bit of work to record hands and then enter and format them on this crazy site.

Otherwise, however, I agree with Teliot's comments. I appreciate his authoritative account about how some online gambling sites have "cheat codes." If you didn't notice that, go back and re-read Teliot's posts on this thread.

Teliot's point is correct. It does require many trials to statistically prove something is fair, but only a small number of trials can indeed prove that something is unfair or non-random.

My point was that when you are aware that some online gambling sites do "cheat" then it is not necessary to go to a 5-sigma level of statistical certainty to assume that a site is unfair. Realistically the threshold for concluding that something is "reasonably probable" and not wagering any further on a given game is much lower than the claims of the math nerds on this site.

Quote: gordonm888

Teliot's point is correct. It does require many trials to statistically prove something is fair, but only a small number of trials can indeed prove that something is unfair or non-random.

I disagree. He is wrong. A small number of trials cannot prove that a game is unfair except for nonsensical examples like a Blackjack game that gives the same cards every round. Also, his comment contradicts what you said. He said this:

Quote: teliot

Certification and testing of game fairness does NOT require a large number of trials.

Quote: BlackjackLover

I disagree. He is wrong. A small number of trials cannot prove that a game is unfair except for nonsensical examples like a Blackjack game that gives the same cards every round. Also, his comment contradicts what you said. He said this:

It would take a small number of hands to convince me to quit playing at an online site. Gordon totally right on that point.

I don’t know whether or not to go with the crowd and blindly deny what an expert is saying or believe the expert peer pressure sucks

Quote: heatmap

I don’t know whether or not to go with the crowd and blindly deny what an expert is saying or believe the expert peer pressure sucks

You shouldn't blindly believe anyone. Experts can be wrong. Also, you don't need to blindly deny anything. You can use reasons.

Quote: unJon

It would take a small number of hands to convince me to quit playing at an online site. Gordon totally right on that point.

I would quit playing at the OPs site just based on the evidence he’s posted in this thread.

I don’t care if they are just snippets of much larger hand logs. How many 19 loss, 0 win, 1 push twenty hand runs do I need before I’m convinced?

And if the non-posted portions of the log were good enough positively to make up for these horrific ones, he probably wouldn’t be complaining about anything.

25 hands, 2 wins, 2 pushes 21 losses, as the betting was raised substantially above base unit bet, until the money in the account was run out.

Player Hand 25 3♥ 3♠ 9♥ J♦ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 15 5♠ K♥ 1 -1
Player Hand 17 7♣ J♦ Dealer Hand 21 J♠ A♥ BlackJack 20 -20
Player Hand 24 2♠ 4♦ 3♦ 5♦ J♦ Hit, Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 K♣ J♣ 20 -20
Player Hand 15 5♥ J♠ Surrender Dealer Hand 20 T♥ K♣ 20 -10
Player Hand 23 7♦ 4♥ 4♦ 8♠ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 J♣ K♣ 20 -20
Player Hand 14 4♣ J♦ Stand Dealer Hand 20 4♣ 2♠ 9♠ 5♥ Hit, Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 13 2♠ 9♠ 2♣ Double Dealer Hand 20 K♥ Q♣ Stand 10 -10
Player Hand 18 J♦ 8♥ Stand Dealer Hand 19 9♦ 5♣ 2♥ 3♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 14 4♠ T♣ Surrender Dealer Hand 19 9♣ Q♣ 5 -2.5
Player Hand 21 A♣ T♦ BlackJack Dealer Hand 16 6♦ Q♦ Stand 5 7.5
Player Hand 17 J♥ 7♦ Stand Dealer Hand 21 8♣ 4♠ 9♠ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 18 Q♦ 8♥ Stand Dealer Hand 18 8♠ 3♣ 2♦ 5♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 5 0
Player Hand 24 J♠ 4♣ Q♠ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 17 7♣ K♥ 2 -2
Player Hand 15 J♥ 5♥ Surrender Dealer Hand 18 9♦ 9♣ 2 -1
Player Hand 15 6♦ 9♣ Stand Dealer Hand 20 K♦ 5♣ 5♠ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 19 Q♠ 9♦ Stand Dealer Hand 20 2♣ 8♠ J♦ Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 20 J♥ K♥ Stand Dealer Hand 19 6♠ J♥ 3♥ Hit, Stand 2 2
Player Hand 17 7♠ Q♠ Stand Dealer Hand 22 7♥ 5♣ Q♠ Hit, Bust 15 15
Player Hand 18 9♦ 7♣ 2♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 18 K♥ 8♦ Stand 15 0
Player Hand 17 7♦ Q♦ Stand Dealer Hand 18 Q♠ 8♦ Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 13 4♣ 9♦ Stand Dealer Hand 18 2♣ 6♥ J♥ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 24 3♦ T♠ A♠ K♥ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 Q♣ Q♥ 5 -5
Player Hand 17 A♣ 2♦ 4♠ 6♣ 4♣ Hit, Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 J♣ Q♥ Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 16 6♠ T♠ Stand Dealer Hand 18 2♥ 4♣ 7♥ 5♦ Hit, Hit, Stand 2 -2
Player Hand 16 6♠ Q♣ Surrender Dealer Hand 19 9♣ T♣ 2 -1

23 hands, 1 win, 18 losses, 3 pushes, 1 surrender, as the bet is raised significantly after first several losses until the money is gone from the account.

Player Hand 18 3♥ 7♥ 8♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 19 2♣ 7♣ K♣ Hit, Stand 10 -10
Player Hand 14 A♦ 3♦ K♥ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 J♥ 7♦ Stand 15 -15
Player Hand 12 Q♠ 2♣ Stand Dealer Hand 18 J♣ 5♣ 3♥ Hit, Stand 15 -15
Player Hand 24 3♣ 6♠ 5♠ Q♠ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 20 J♣ T♦ 5 -5
Player Hand 17 7♦ J♣ Stand Dealer Hand 20 Q♦ T♣ Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 18 8♥ Q♥ Stand Dealer Hand 18 7♠ 8♥ 3♥ Hit, Stand 5 0
Player Hand 17 8♦ 4♠ 5♦ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 J♠ 7♣ Stand 5 0
Player Hand 20 Q♠ J♠ Stand Dealer Hand 23 9♦ 4♥ Q♠ Hit, Bust 5 5
Player Hand 23 2♦ 6♣ 3♥ 2♦ Q♥ Hit, Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 14 4♠ Q♠ 5 -5
Player Hand 17 9♥ 8♠ Insurance, Stand Dealer Hand 20 9♥ A♣ Stand 7.5 -7.5
Player Hand 17 T♦ 7♠ Stand Dealer Hand 17 J♦ 4♥ 2♥ A♣ Hit, Hit, Stand 5 0
Player Hand 19 3♦ 2♥ Q♠ 4♠ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 3♣ T♦ 7♦ Hit, Stand 5 -5
Player Hand 12 4♠ 8♥ Dealer Hand 21 A♦ T♦ BlackJack 2 -2
Player Hand 25 8♦ 7♣ Q♣ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 16 5♥ A♦ 2 -2
Player Hand 22 5♠ 9♣ 8♠ Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 13 6♠ 7♠ 2 -2
Player Hand 9 3♠ 6♠ Dealer Hand 21 A♦ Q♠ BlackJack 2 -2
Player Hand 14 4♠ Q♠ Surrender Dealer Hand 20 K♦ J♠ 2 -1
Player Hand 17 A♣ 4♠ 2♠ K♣ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 J♣ K♦ Stand 1 -1
Player Hand 23 4♥ 3♠ 6♥ T♦ Hit, Hit, Bust Dealer Hand 16 6♠ T♠ 1 -1
Player Hand 14 Q♥ 4♠ Stand Dealer Hand 19 J♥ 3♠ 6♦ Hit, Stand 1 -1
Player Hand 18 8♠ T♠ Dealer Hand 21 A♠ K♣ BlackJack 1 -1
Player Hand 13 6♦ 7♣ Surrender Dealer Hand 14 4♦ K♣ 1 -0.5
Player Hand 19 2♦ 8♥ 4♣ 5♣ Hit, Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 20 Q♣ K♠ Stand 1 -1

Quote: plaxplay

... the money is gone from the account.

At long last. Now maybe you will have time to post something worth looking at.

For example, hand #2 from your last post ...

Player Hand 14 A♦ 3♦ K♥ Hit, Stand Dealer Hand 17 J♥ 7♦ Stand 15 -15

You stand on a 14 against a dealer 7 and you complain that you lost the hand?