Question about Norm (qfit)
Do you know why Norm is very afraid of having conversations about cheating on his forum even with clear evidences ?
What bad could happen to him ? Is it that he is ashamed of having such conversation on his forum ?
Why adopting such behaviour ? I don’t really get it.
This is something I don’t get. I believe that having a serious forum shouldn’t bring personal emotions and should stay impartial and open to every subjects especially when there could really be something going on in some casinos.
Kinds regards
If you do not have such evidence, allegations of cheating can be considered libel.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyIf you have evidence of cheating in a casino it should be shown to the police, as cheating in a casino is a crime.
If you do not have such evidence, allegations of cheating can be considered libel.
link to original post
The responsibility for publishing an allegation is not with the platform. If it was youtube and facebook and twitter would have been sued into oblivion years ago.
IMO, it's much easier to do the top 10, 20, or 100. best sites/casions and let people (or the lawyers as the case may be), figure out the ones you're not mentioning have a less than ideal reputation. Or just not worth it. Or you don't personally care about them. Not much anyone can do about that to say you're attacking them. Though they might try harder to get a popular mention.
But that's just me.
I might remind the forum that Norm is a member here and is covered by insult protection.
Quote: rxwineI figure if he will tell you the reason, that's the reason he does it. Whether it makes sense to you is another thing.
Maybe. Platform owners usually have some kind of formal or informal relationship with casinos or people who work in the casino industry. So it is kind of difficult for platform owners to act as consumer advocates. Even if they consciously wish to do that there are business pressures which will exert a subliminal influence.
I'd add that for a credible claim of cheating to emerge you need quite a lot of physical evidence. You can't just say "I lost n hands". You get insane streaks in perfectly legitimate games.
Quote: billryanIn my opinion, 95% of the time, people think they got cheated, it was a bad variance. Allowing people to post nonsense quickly affects a site's reputation.
link to original post
Perhaps but everyone deserves a fair hearing in order for that to be established as the case or not.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanIn my opinion, 95% of the time, people think they got cheated, it was a bad variance. Allowing people to post nonsense quickly affects a site's reputation.
link to original post
Perhaps but everyone deserves a fair hearing in order for that to be established as the case or not.
link to original post
I'll disagree. Allowing ninety-nine people to vent and post nonsense dilutes the posting of the one good example. If I had a site, I'd be very cautious about allowing such discussions. your mileage may differ.
Quote: Archvaldor1
Perhaps but everyone deserves a fair hearing in order for that to be established as the case or not.
link to original post
I agree 100%. Just post it on your site or create a Youtube about it, why should anyone else have to post your info on their site?
Quote: billryanQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanIn my opinion, 95% of the time, people think they got cheated, it was a bad variance. Allowing people to post nonsense quickly affects a site's reputation.
link to original post
Perhaps but everyone deserves a fair hearing in order for that to be established as the case or not.
link to original post
I'll disagree. Allowing ninety-nine people to vent and post nonsense dilutes the posting of the one good example. If I had a site, I'd be very cautious about allowing such discussions. your mileage may differ.
link to original post
If you mean they should be denied the opportunity to present their evidence I disagree. If you had ever been ignored by law evidence with a legitimate complaint I think you would understand why.
If you mean that someone who says "I lost n hands" and then started shitposting after you explained to them it was a normal statistical event, then I agree the discussion should be removed.
Either way complaining on a blackjack forum mainly populated by boomers talking about minor aspects of card counting theory isn't likely to result in any useful action. You need to go through the proper legal channels first and failing that, a consumer review site will bring any problems to the attentions of others.
EDIT: So in this particular case it turns out from his profile Jean26 is someone who claims to have acquired a one2six shuffling machine and wanted to know how it could be used for cheating. Judging from Jean26's posts he seems to be working on the assumption that the machines can be rigged. This might be true in some way but that's not how you go about forming a hypothesis. Jean26 seems to want other people to prove that the machines are rigged: no one is going to do that for him. In the absence of any known cheating method or new information there's nothing to discuss here.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: AutomaticMonkeyIf you have evidence of cheating in a casino it should be shown to the police, as cheating in a casino is a crime.
If you do not have such evidence, allegations of cheating can be considered libel.
link to original post
The responsibility for publishing an allegation is not with the platform. If it was youtube and facebook and twitter would have been sued into oblivion years ago.
link to original post
Theoretically. But those laws were written by and for billionaires, and I do not like my odds of being treated equitably under them. Life is not fair.
And I'm sure FB and X do get sued all the time. Every large corporation has legal claims against it at any time, ranging from slip-and-falls to discrimination claims to IP infringement. That's why they all have full-time legal departments. If you don't have one of those, the value of behaving preemptively is magnified.
Quote: AutomaticMonkey
Theoretically. But those laws were written by and for billionaires, and I do not like my odds of being treated equitably under them. Life is not fair.
And I'm sure FB and X do get sued all the time. Every large corporation has legal claims against it at any time, ranging from slip-and-falls to discrimination claims to IP infringement. That's why they all have full-time legal departments. If you don't have one of those, the value of behaving preemptively is magnified.
link to original post
I agree there is a massive bias towards corporations in the legal system, but there are a lot of smaller platforms and I don't recall any legal action being taken on these grounds. Had any action been taken a legal precedent would likely have been set.
Large corporations are constantly tied up in legal battles, but the principle that the platform can't have legal action taken against it for the actions of platform users has remained remarkably solid notwithstanding that.
Quote: acesideNorm claimed he had simulated the game of Blackjack for more than 50 years, but I’ve never seen a picture of this man. Judging from his name, I guess he is a typical New Yorker.
link to original post
Norm wouldn't win any beauty contests, but who amongst us would?
In the city that is the biggest melting pot in the country, what do you picture a typical New Yorker looks like?
When I lived in Queens, the local elementary school had students whose parents came from over 150 countries and was said to be the most diverse zip code in the nation.
Quote: John92262Happy new year
link to original post
That seemed a bit odd.
Quote: acesideI told you before. Casinos cheat often. One2Six is the main cheating device.
link to original post
I'm all ears to evidence.
I can provide evidences in private.
My question was just more why is it so painful to talk about cheating on blackjack forums ?
And why are players responsible to prove that cheating is happening anywhere ?
Why you guys, most of the time on the side of casinos for a reason that I ignore, don’t prove to me that one2six cannot be rigged ?
With all my respect
You are welcome to discuss it -- WHEN YOU HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE. None has been provided.
He doesn't need a libel suit.
********************************
Of course getting kicked off the only non-CSM table in the casino is sus.
It sounds pretty clear that he knows (and probably a lot of peoples) that it can happen somewhere in the world otherwise he would have no problem making this program.
Again I believe it’s not happening in the US (or rarely)
Anyway we don’t need to pursue this post.
My question was just why owners of forum don’t want to talk about cheating on their forum ? What do they risk ?
Quote: Jean26
My question was just why owners of forum don’t want to talk about cheating on their forum ? What do they risk ?
Send the Wizard EVIDENCE, in private if you wish, and I assure you he will be happy to discuss it.
I can't get this game to reinstall on my desktop computer now. I have it on my laptop, so I'll have to play there.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: Jean26
My question was just why owners of forum don’t want to talk about cheating on their forum ? What do they risk ?
Send the Wizard EVIDENCE, in private if you wish, and I assure you he will be happy to discuss it.
link to original post
Quote: Jean26And by the way, Norm has refused to make me a program to check sequences of cards. He said “ I don’t want to be involved in cheating”
It sounds pretty clear that he knows (and probably a lot of peoples) that it can happen somewhere in the world otherwise he would have no problem making this program.
link to original post
"Otherwise he would have no problem making the program" is pretty much the strangest and stupidest conclusion one could get out of his statement that he wasn't interested in doing something for you.
I said he said « he doesn’t want to be involved in cheating »
Isn’t it clear enough ?
Think what you want I’m tired of bad faith people navigating on blackjack forum.
Fortunately I found some few very nice and very helpful people too on wizard .
Blackjack forum look more like bored people trying to argue instead of really inform and help each other.
Quote: SidecountQuote: Jean26And by the way, Norm has refused to make me a program to check sequences of cards. He said “ I don’t want to be involved in cheating”
It sounds pretty clear that he knows (and probably a lot of peoples) that it can happen somewhere in the world otherwise he would have no problem making this program.
link to original post
"Otherwise he would have no problem making the program" is pretty much the strangest and stupidest conclusion one could get out of his statement that he wasn't interested in doing something for you.
link to original post
The issue is that your up against old school old money type of people who are good at hiding their secrets or have made their illegal activities legal by having time to argue their points in court. (Ahem bookies)
And he politely declined instead of telling you that your theory was nonsense. He doesn't want anything to do with your weird theories of cheating and he told you so.
If your theories had any merit at all you have since lost any potential credibility just based on the poor logic you used with his rejection of you. It leaves one very doubtful of your ability to draw correct conclusions in other areas including your theories of the cheating stuff.
He said « I don’t want to be involved in cheating »
I have never said he was not polite declining. Why would you say that ?
Also he hesitated to do it, he asked a lot of money for doing it but at the end he declined cause he knows I know a lot about one2six and there is a high chance what I’m claiming can be true.
He even admit that cheating one2six could exist in some countries.
I think you are the one who is loosing credibility here.
I have all my conversation with Norm and you can read that he said clearly “ I don’t want to be involved in cheating”
Period
I will not reply to you anymore.
Quote: SidecountWhat is clear is that you are trying to put completely different words that he very obviously didn't say or intend. And that's justt freaking rude. You owe him an apology for attempting to make that leap based on his statement and politely declining your demand that he make a program for you. Don't drag him into your unproven nonsense and claim that he believes in the cheating stuff and that is the reason he rejected you. He rejected you because he thinks your idea is nonsense.
And he politely declined instead of telling you that your theory was nonsense. He doesn't want anything to do with your weird theories of cheating and he told you so.
If your theories had any merit at all you have since lost any potential credibility just based on the poor logic you used with his rejection of you. It leaves one very doubtful of your ability to draw correct conclusions in other areas including your theories of the cheating stuff.
link to original post
I personally dont want to be involved in creating a program that proves that aliens exist. If you insist I make that program and I refuse then that doesn't mean I believe in the aliens. And you don't get to claim that my refusal and my statement "I don't want to get involved in aliens" is somehow proof that I share the same belief as you. I dont. Norm doesn't either.
Quote: ChumpChangeThere were several topics in the original forum about clumping of cards so there'd be a run of so many low cards, then a run of high cards. People not coming back to certain high limit rooms after the machines were installed. I mean deserted HL rooms instead of full HL rooms with a hand shuffle. Casinos may want to save money on dealer work but the customers may not trust the machines anymore, like a bad ATM. Others say they can't get their winning streaks going on a machine like they can on a hand shuffle. All of that talk is in yellow on that forum, so it was deemed nonsensical. But I think they've got some points made.
link to original post
I'm thrilled so many people believe in this nonsense because I don't want CSM games to proliferate anyway. So them not trusting them and thus essentialpy forcing many casinos to avoid them is good for me. But it is also very obviously nonsense.
Players who talk about "their winning streaks aren't the same on a CSM" or deluded and experiencing a combination of paranoia and self-confirmation bias. I'm happy for the forums to be appropriately monitored to deem such stuff as nonsensical. Im disappointed in the number of people who believe they can tell when that is happening just because they won 6 in a row on a non-CSM game or lost 6 in a row on a CSM.
"See? That type of 21 is something you only see on a CSM!! You can just tell. I can FEEL the difference."
No. You can't. Your own human instincts to attempt to identify patterns and essentially your natural survival instincts to be on the lookout for anything that feels wrong so you don't get eaten by a bear are involved with misleading you on this. The people making such points that they can "feel" a difference ij how the cards come out and how the streaks run are fooling themselves. And it ends up magnified when they all compare notes with each other about how the dealer kept not busting and you "could just tell" something was wrong. LOL.
Of course, when I'm at the actual table I'll pretend to sort of hear what they're saying to a certain extent. I need to stand on that 15 vs. 10 because the cards seemed off coming out of the shuffler or because I feel the astrological card karma in the air...or whatever. But that superstitious table-stuff that some people believe has no business in a proper blackjack forum and discussion and should not be entertained. Real ways to cheat do exist. You and others supposedly identifying it because "that CSM just felt wrong" is obviously not one of them.
Quote: Jean26I will repeat again :
He said « I don’t want to be involved in cheating »
I have never said he was not polite declining. Why would you say that ?
Also he hesitated to do it, he asked a lot of money for doing it but at the end he declined cause he knows I know a lot about one2six and there is a high chance what I’m claiming can be true.
link to original post
link to original post
I'm not really sure what your goal is here.
You have to provide evidence as to your claim. If the evidence is credible then I'd post it here or somewhere people will read it. You can't expect other people to substantiate your claim.
It doesn't really matter what Norm thinks. I doubt he has very much influence to do anything about it even if he supported your claim. That forum is mainly frequented by a tiny group of people who want to count cards-they aren't going to be playing csm's anyway.
One thing I'd add: it is very easy to cheat players at hand-shuffled blackjack. I could do it in front of you, and tell you what I'm doing, and you wouldn't be able to tell when I was doing it. I'm not sure why any one would bother with buying an expensive lease of a device like the one2six in order to cheat people.
Not sure it is "very" easy for some of the methods. Not everyone can take a peek and deal seconds and do it well. But there are some methods that would be easy to pull off. Just adding a few low cards to a shoe would be achievable for an additional edge.
Finally, most CSM players are terrible anyway. A CSM game with a 0.5% house edge is probably rolling at a 1.5% or 2.0% edge overall I suspect just based on the players making poor mistakes. LOL at the guy who doesn't know to hit or double on his soft 18 and then loses and then starts complaining about how he can just tell that the cards aren't running "how they should and my streaks are all different on this game" immediately after he wasn't playing right anyway.
It's easier and faster in this case to have a machine cheat someome vs a human. Humans can talk and they might spill the beans.Quote: Archvaldor1I could do it in front of you, and tell you what I'm doing, and you wouldn't be able to tell when I was doing it. I'm not sure why any one would bother with buying an expensive lease of a device like the one2six in order to cheat people.
link to original post
Also, the casino might have some plausible deniability if a machine were cheating since they didn't create the machine, it's easy to say it malfunctioned, they didn't know, or that it just came that way.
And NO, I'm not claiming these machines are cheating, I have no clue. If the machines have the ability to cheat, then I would say someone somewhere is using them to cheat.
I say, If you have the proof, speak up and provide the proof right here out in the open, or just keep it to yourself.
I play a lot of stuff online and I come across a lot of stuff where I'm dead certain that it's not random(rigged)
I either avoid it, figure out how to exploit it, or just move on. Occasionally, I might give a warning that I believe something is gaffed. If people want to believe me they can, and if they don't that's their loss because I'm usually right when I make those types of allegations.
Feels like there is some amount of "I don't want to explain it because people smarter than me will see how flawed my theory is and I.just want to keep thinking that I really did solve this" type of philosophy with the types who claim they have identified cheating but won't discuss it. LOL.
A person has to set the machine to cheat as well so somebody spilling the tea about that is still a possibility. You can't set up a machine to cheat without anyone knowing about it at all.
Who was this addressed to?Quote: SidecountWhat kind of cheating do you think you have uncovered? Did you figure it out just based on your own observation that you didn't think it felt right? Think the real situation here involves "The self-confirmation bias is strong with this one." But if you have identified cheating on multiple occasions then go ahead and give some explanation of one such situation.
Feels like there is some amount of "I don't want to explain it because people smarter than me will see how flawed my theory is and I.just want to keep thinking that I really did solve this" type of philosophy with the types who claim they have identified cheating but won't discuss it. LOL.
A person has to set the machine to cheat as well so somebody spilling the tea about that is still a possibility. You can't set up a machine to cheat without anyone knowing about it at all.
link to original post
Quote: AxelWolfIt's easier and faster in this case to have a machine cheat someome vs a human. Humans can talk and they might spill the beans.Quote: Archvaldor1I could do it in front of you, and tell you what I'm doing, and you wouldn't be able to tell when I was doing it. I'm not sure why any one would bother with buying an expensive lease of a device like the one2six in order to cheat people.
link to original post
Also, the casino might have some plausible deniability if a machine were cheating since they didn't create the machine, it's easy to say it malfunctioned, they didn't know, or that it just came that way.
And NO, I'm not claiming these machines are cheating, I have no clue. If the machines have the ability to cheat, then I would say someone somewhere is using them to cheat.
I say, If you have the proof, speak up and provide the proof right here out in the open, or just keep it to yourself.
I play a lot of stuff online and I come across a lot of stuff where I'm dead certain that it's not random(rigged)
I either avoid it, figure out how to exploit it, or just move on. Occasionally, I might give a warning that I believe something is gaffed. If people want to believe me they can, and if they don't that's their loss because I'm usually right when I make those types of allegations.
link to original post
I see what you mean. I was thinking of an interaction between the machine and dealer-but you are right, they could design the machine so that the cheating was inbuilt somehow.
A designer could put some kind of backdoor in so that certain specific sequences weren't shuffled properly. This would be easy to exploit for the designer or a confederate. This could be done without the company's assent. Very difficult to detect.
This actually happens quite frequently with slot machines, there are verifiable cases.
Quote: Sidecount
A person has to set the machine to cheat as well so somebody spilling the tea about that is still a possibility. You can't set up a machine to cheat without anyone knowing about it at all.
link to original post
unless your name is Ron Harris
Quote: AxelWolfWho was this addressed to?Quote: SidecountWhat kind of cheating do you think you have uncovered? Did you figure it out just based on your own observation that you didn't think it felt right? Think the real situation here involves "The self-confirmation bias is strong with this one." But if you have identified cheating on multiple occasions then go ahead and give some explanation of one such situation.
Feels like there is some amount of "I don't want to explain it because people smarter than me will see how flawed my theory is and I.just want to keep thinking that I really did solve this" type of philosophy with the types who claim they have identified cheating but won't discuss it. LOL.
A person has to set the machine to cheat as well so somebody spilling the tea about that is still a possibility. You can't set up a machine to cheat without anyone knowing about it at all.
link to original post
link to original post
Sorry for misunderstanding. This was addressed to you and your claims of having uncovered cheating.
You do realize that I'm talking about offshore online casino slots correct? It's not like finding a unicorn.Quote: SidecountQuote: AxelWolfWho was this addressed to?Quote: SidecountWhat kind of cheating do you think you have uncovered? Did you figure it out just based on your own observation that you didn't think it felt right? Think the real situation here involves "The self-confirmation bias is strong with this one." But if you have identified cheating on multiple occasions then go ahead and give some explanation of one such situation.
Feels like there is some amount of "I don't want to explain it because people smarter than me will see how flawed my theory is and I.just want to keep thinking that I really did solve this" type of philosophy with the types who claim they have identified cheating but won't discuss it. LOL.
A person has to set the machine to cheat as well so somebody spilling the tea about that is still a possibility. You can't set up a machine to cheat without anyone knowing about it at all.
link to original post
link to original post
Sorry for misunderstanding. This was addressed to you and your claims of having uncovered cheating.
link to original post
Is gaffed or non-random software technically cheating? I've even found software that was gaffed in my favor.
There are examples on this very forum of gaffed/non-random.
That's exactly what brought me to this forum around 2012, I had suspicions of Casino Bar and another casino, so I did a Google search, and sure enough, if I recall correctly, Casino Bar was already on The Wizard's radar for being gaffed.
The other Casino's software I suspected was also deemed gaffed.
I probably useing the word gaffed wrong, but that's what a lot of us have we're calling software that wasn't random.
Yes, oftentimes I did just figure it out just based on my own observation and I didn't think it felt right.
But we are not talking just because I lost or ran bad or something that's only off a few percent. I'm talking about things that seem very abnormal over many trials.
If I'm playing a slot that has a similar payables payback and variance to something like Double Diamonds and I lose 85% over 350 spins, I'm damn certain it's not random. If I can successfully pick a VP double-up situation with 90% accuracy over and over, I'm certain it's gaffed/not random. I don't need someone mathematically smarter than me to tell me what I am damn certain of. I know when I need someone smarter than me to figure out the exact mathematical probabilities of something, and I know when I don't need them to confirm what I know.
FYI even when I do run across something gaffed/ non-random online 99% of the time I don't come shouting and crying about it on the forums, I usually keep it to myself and a small circle of friends. It's just a reality of playing online and you deal with it and then make sure your advantage is bigger than their gaffing.
Does this look gaffed to you? Somewhere, I have a picture of that same machine paying 4k($1 five coin RF payout) for a Lowball natural str8flush.
Quote: AxelWolf
Somewhere, I have a picture of that same machine paying 4k($1 five coin RF payout) for a Lowball natural str8flush.
link to original post
So this chose the smallest possible hand given that it pays out less for that particular hand? It could have been the low end of a straight flush but it chose to say that it’s 4 of a kind?
As you can tell from the pay table this is full pay Deuces Wild as to why I was playing it in the first place.Quote: heatmapQuote: AxelWolf
Somewhere, I have a picture of that same machine paying 4k($1 five coin RF payout) for a Lowball natural str8flush.
link to original post
So this chose the smallest possible hand given that it pays out less for that particular hand? It could have been the low end of a straight flush but it chose to say that it’s 4 of a kind?
link to original post
I won't say that it chose to pay the lowest, but it was miss-programmed to pay that as a four-of-a-kind payout instead of a straight flush. IIRC That only happened when you specifically had three deuces and an ace.
I have a feeling that the person programming it wasn't too keen on how Deuces Wild video poker worked. As I said, they also misprogrammed it to pay out a natural lowball straight flush as a Royal Flush.
Quote: Sidecount
You can't set up a machine to cheat without anyone knowing about it at all.
I disagree with that statement.
