Impossible 843 of 3200 wins
October 30th, 2011 at 8:42:08 PM
permalink
Great stuff, BM! I can't wait for all the data ... zingo ... I'll have fun with this tomorrow, after I've finished watering the dirt ...
Come out roll
Roll # EXP CHI
2 2 5.56 2.28
3 4 11.11 4.55
4 16 16.67 0.03
5 27 22.22 1.03
6 25 27.78 0.28
7 39 33.33 0.96
8 19 27.78 2.77
9 29 22.22 2.07
10 15 16.67 0.17
11 15 11.11 1.36
12 9 5.56 2.14
200 17.63
p-value 0.0616
Rolls after point
Roll # EXP CHI
2 13 14.78 0.21
3 31 29.56 0.07
4 57 44.33 3.62
5 66 59.11 0.80
6 80 73.89 0.51
7 45 88.67 21.51
8 77 73.89 0.13
9 77 59.11 5.41
10 40 44.33 0.42
11 31 29.56 0.07
12 15 14.78 0.00
532 32.76
p-value 0.00030
Rolls after point of 9
Roll # EXP CHI
2 4 3.08 0.27
3 6 6.17 0.00
4 14 9.25 2.44
5 12 12.33 0.01
6 14 15.42 0.13
7 8 18.50 5.96
8 17 15.42 0.16
9 21 12.33 6.09
10 5 9.25 1.95
11 7 6.17 0.11
12 3 3.08 0.00
111 17.14
p-value 0.07143
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
October 30th, 2011 at 9:08:42 PM
permalink
The site contracts out the casino to another site which I believe is BLR Technologies. This is an email that they sent to my agent.
Hi Yaki,
We checked the document and is really poor understood, there is a lack of instructions for a better understanding.
We checked the player configuration and it's normal.
Also our casino uses mathematical functions to calculate random numbers to select the dice, and does not interfere in the results to affect the player.
Regards,
BLR Support
BLR Technologies, Inc.
Hi Yaki,
We checked the document and is really poor understood, there is a lack of instructions for a better understanding.
We checked the player configuration and it's normal.
Also our casino uses mathematical functions to calculate random numbers to select the dice, and does not interfere in the results to affect the player.
Regards,
BLR Support
BLR Technologies, Inc.
October 30th, 2011 at 9:12:48 PM
permalink
Following BM's lead, I discovered ...
The name of the casino is "World Wide Wagering" with URL http://www.wager.dm
The casino software is created by BLR Tech -- it is rogue, to be sure.
Here is their contact info from Whois -- looks like they are proxies ...
BLR TECHNOLOGIES INC.
xr7k29j366c@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
ATTN BLRTECH.COM
care of Network Solutions
PO Box 459
Drums, PA 18222
US
Address: 201.199.227.147
That IP address is out of Costa Rica. Here is the contact info on them I found
Headquarters
Physical Address:
Centro Comercial Plaza Mayor
2da Etapa 3er Piso, Rohrmoser
Pavas, San José
Costa Rica
Mailing Address:
PO Box 2040-2050
San Pedro, San José
Costa Rica
Contact:
Phone: +506 2 210 7980
Fax: +506 2 210 7985
Upper Management:
Mr. Javier Pereira, Chief Executive Officer
Javier@blrtech.com
Marketing:
Mr. Andrew Leetz, International Business Development
andrew@blrtech.com
This is a funny document
Wow ...
--Ms. D.
The name of the casino is "World Wide Wagering" with URL http://www.wager.dm
Quote:
World Wide Wagering is licensed, bonded and approved by the Government of Dominica, West Indies, Our clients make bets on sporting events through our toll-free 800 numbers or online with our Online Sportsbook with the confidence in knowing that all transactions are both safe and legal!
Where We Are
Our offices are located on the beautiful Eastern Caribbean island of Dominica, which is not to be confused with the Dominican Republic, our neighbors to the north. The Island is located between the French islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, about an hour's flight to Antigua to the north. Dominica is about 30 miles long, it has mountains rising to almost 5,000 feet, and is famous for its Boiling Lake, one of the largest of its kind in the world. Dominica is known as The Nature Island of the Caribbean because of its lush rainforest. It is also gaining a reputation as one of the best dive sites in the region.
The casino software is created by BLR Tech -- it is rogue, to be sure.
Here is their contact info from Whois -- looks like they are proxies ...
BLR TECHNOLOGIES INC.
xr7k29j366c@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
ATTN BLRTECH.COM
care of Network Solutions
PO Box 459
Drums, PA 18222
US
Address: 201.199.227.147
That IP address is out of Costa Rica. Here is the contact info on them I found
Headquarters
Physical Address:
Centro Comercial Plaza Mayor
2da Etapa 3er Piso, Rohrmoser
Pavas, San José
Costa Rica
Mailing Address:
PO Box 2040-2050
San Pedro, San José
Costa Rica
Contact:
Phone: +506 2 210 7980
Fax: +506 2 210 7985
Upper Management:
Mr. Javier Pereira, Chief Executive Officer
Javier@blrtech.com
Marketing:
Mr. Andrew Leetz, International Business Development
andrew@blrtech.com
This is a funny document
Wow ...
--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
October 30th, 2011 at 9:18:55 PM
permalink
I now have 6 videos posted on youtube and am uploading number 7
October 30th, 2011 at 9:51:13 PM
permalink
By going here, clicking on "Classic" casino (on the bottom tab, under BOSS Casino), then clicking on "Craps" you get to the casino that Clem played. So, that's it, right there ...
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
October 30th, 2011 at 11:20:45 PM
permalink
I appears to me that if they want you to lose they can set the program for you to lose. I won in the practice mode.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:50:12 AM
permalink
MY bandwidth is such that I can only go through 3 videos per day. I'll tackle videos 2, 5, and 6 tonight.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 7:42:03 AM
permalink
For the 200 rolls made recorded by boymimbo (cute name!) ...
--Ms. D.
Points made on the Don't
Point Total Won p(Win) Exp Chi
4 16 7 0.6667 10.7 1.260
5 27 9 0.6000 16.2 3.200
6 25 6 0.5455 13.6 4.276
8 19 8 0.5455 10.4 0.539
9 29 8 0.6000 17.4 5.078
10 15 3 0.6667 10.0 4.900
19.254
p-value 0.00172
--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
October 31st, 2011 at 9:54:14 AM
permalink
For 2600 Don't Pass RESOLUTIONS recorded by Clem (note 2 samples in the last set of 100 showed a 7 as a win -- I left the results that way):
Thoughts:
(1) The negative variance on the 2 and 3 is being entirely replaced by the positive variance on the 7 and 11 as the come out roll variances are not far from expected values on the point numbers. Total Chi Squared on the come out roll is 111.719 with 9 degrees of freedom for a P value of <.0001
(2) The shooter is absolutely getting swindled when the point is made, across the board.
My theory is that: come out roll is rigged to replace 2s with 11s and 3s with 7s (from time to time) and to leave point numbers the same.
Once the point is established, 7s are rigged to not come out nearly as often as they should, but a roll by roll look would verify this.
| Number | Lose | Win | Total | Exp CO Roll | Chi^2 | Exp Win Pt | Chi^2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | - | 34 | 34 | 74.3 | 21.8 | - | - |
| 3 | - | 52 | 52 | 148.6 | 62.8 | - | - |
| 4 | 124 | 83 | 207 | 222.9 | 1.1 | 138.0 | 21.92 |
| 5 | 218 | 103 | 321 | 297.1 | 1.9 | 192.6 | 41.68 |
| 6 | 263 | 109 | 372 | 371.4 | 0.0 | 202.9 | 43.46 |
| 7 | 528 | 2 | 530 | 445.7 | 15.9 | - | - |
| 8 | 247 | 105 | 352 | 371.4 | 1.0 | 192.0 | 39.42 |
| 9 | 223 | 105 | 328 | 297.1 | 3.2 | 196.8 | 42.82 |
| 10 | 135 | 98 | 233 | 222.9 | 0.5 | 155.3 | 21.16 |
| 11 | 171 | - | 171 | 148.6 | 3.4 | - | - |
| Totals | 1,909 | 691 | 2,600 | - | 111.67 | 1077.6 | 138.72 |
Thoughts:
(1) The negative variance on the 2 and 3 is being entirely replaced by the positive variance on the 7 and 11 as the come out roll variances are not far from expected values on the point numbers. Total Chi Squared on the come out roll is 111.719 with 9 degrees of freedom for a P value of <.0001
(2) The shooter is absolutely getting swindled when the point is made, across the board.
My theory is that: come out roll is rigged to replace 2s with 11s and 3s with 7s (from time to time) and to leave point numbers the same.
Once the point is established, 7s are rigged to not come out nearly as often as they should, but a roll by roll look would verify this.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 10:32:33 AM
permalink
For 600 Pass RESOLUTIONS recorded by Clem, we see the complete opposite results
Thoughts:
(1) The negative variance on the 7 is being entirely replaced by the positive variance on the 3 and 12 as the come out roll variances are not far from expected values on the point numbers. Total Chi Squared on the come out roll is 82 with 10 degrees of freedom for a P value of <.00000001
(2) The shooter is absolutely getting swindled when the point is made, across the board.
My theory is that: come out roll is rigged to replace 7s and 3s with 12s (from time to time) and to leave point numbers the same.
Once the point is established, 7s are rigged to appear much more frequently.
| Number | Lose | Win | Total | Exp CO Roll | Chi^2 | Exp Win Pt | Chi^2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 23 | 23 | 16.67 | 2.4 | - | - | |
| 3 | 59 | 59 | 33.33 | 19.8 | - | - | |
| 4 | 50 | 9 | 59 | 50 | 1.6 | 19.7 | 5.79 |
| 5 | 43 | 18 | 61 | 66.67 | 0.5 | 24.4 | 1.68 |
| 6 | 60 | 19 | 79 | 83.33 | 0.2 | 35.9 | 7.96 |
| 7 | 45 | 45 | 100 | 30.3 | - | - | |
| 8 | 71 | 25 | 96 | 83.33 | 1.9 | 43.6 | 7.96 |
| 9 | 63 | 17 | 80 | 66.67 | 2.7 | 32 | 7.03 |
| 10 | 35 | 5 | 40 | 50 | 2 | 13.3 | 5.21 |
| 11 | 24 | 24 | 33.33 | 2.6 | - | - | |
| 12 | 34 | 34 | 16.67 | 18 | - | - | |
| Grand Total | 438 | 162 | 600 | 600 | 82 | 168.9 | 35.63 |
Thoughts:
(1) The negative variance on the 7 is being entirely replaced by the positive variance on the 3 and 12 as the come out roll variances are not far from expected values on the point numbers. Total Chi Squared on the come out roll is 82 with 10 degrees of freedom for a P value of <.00000001
(2) The shooter is absolutely getting swindled when the point is made, across the board.
My theory is that: come out roll is rigged to replace 7s and 3s with 12s (from time to time) and to leave point numbers the same.
Once the point is established, 7s are rigged to appear much more frequently.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 10:34:36 AM
permalink
I just reviewed video 7 - "Why internet gambling should be regulated May 20th #7"
There were 25 winners. Three wagers were accidentally placed as don't pass, and incidentally, they all three were winners. Clem says in the video that he won 22, but I think it's due to the pass/don't pass discrepancy. Also, his credit balance drops 50 credits from start to end, so 25 winners it is.
There were 25 winners. Three wagers were accidentally placed as don't pass, and incidentally, they all three were winners. Clem says in the video that he won 22, but I think it's due to the pass/don't pass discrepancy. Also, his credit balance drops 50 credits from start to end, so 25 winners it is.
bet type outcome
pass w 7
pass l 3
pass l 12
pass l 3
pass l 12
pass l 6 11 4 4 9 3 7
don’t w 4 3 8 7
pass l 3
pass w 7
pass l 8 7
pass w 10 3 10
pass l 9 6 7
pass l 6 7
pass w 11
pass l 2
pass l 4 7
pass l 9 4 8 6 5 2 7
pass l 12
pass l 9 8 6 6 7
pass w 8 10 6 10 10 3 5 6 6 10 8
don’t w 5 9 7
pass l 10 7
pass l 2
pass l 5 9 7
pass l 4 2 7
pass l 5 7
pass l 2
pass l 2
pass w 4 10 3 4
pass l 8 12 3 3 7
pass w 9 9
pass l 12
pass w 7
pass l 5 7
pass l 6 3 9 7
pass l 3
pass l 3
pass l 10 9 8 5 5 4 6 7
pass l 8 7
pass w 8 8
pass l 5 8 4 7
pass l 8 9 10 6 6 6 6 7
pass l 10 7
pass l 8 7
pass l 6 5 7
pass l 8 9 3 9 6 7
pass l 4 6 7
pass l 9 6 7
pass l 8 5 7
pass w 9 11 9
pass w 5 5
pass l 9 3 10 8 11 7
pass w 4 9 9 5 4
pass l 5 4 12 7
pass l 2
pass l 9 5 7
pass w 11
pass l 4 7
pass w 4 6 4
pass w 7
pass l 6 7
pass w 11
pass l 3
pass l 6 5 7
pass l 6 8 10 7
pass l 5 4 7
pass l 2
pass l 4 9 10 7
pass l 8 7
pass l 10 7
pass l 8 3 11 6 6 10 9 4 4 7
pass l 5 6 7
pass l 8 7
pass l 8 7
pass l 9 4 2 6 8 4 3 10 6 7
pass w 11
pass l 8 11 7
pass l 6 8 3 7
pass w 11
pass l 6 8 11 3 3 7
pass l 3
pass l 8 6 2 6 2 7
don’t w 9 8 10 7
pass l 8 12 6 10 11 9 7
pass l 2
pass l 3
pass l 5 8 9 2 10 7
pass l 12
pass w 6 6
pass l 4 7
pass l 9 11 7
pass l 6 8 8 7
pass l 5 11 11 10 8 8 3 9 9 7
pass w 7
pass w 7
pass l 8 7
pass l 9 5 3 6 3 11 3 6 6 7
pass l 5 8 7
pass w 8 8
pass l 4 6 6 7
I heart Crystal Math.
October 31st, 2011 at 10:39:56 AM
permalink
Quote: CrystalMathI just reviewed video 7 - "Why internet gambling should be regulated May 20th #7"
At what point do we feel comfortable declaring this software rogue? I am comfortable with it ... it's not huge, I mean, it's nothing like the UB/AP scandal, and the malware is so obvious ... but it should be enough to get this vendor (and all the casinos that use their software) put on a rogue list, like that at Casinomeister, don't you think?
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
October 31st, 2011 at 10:44:48 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboMy theory is that: come out roll is rigged to replace 7s and 3s with 12s (from time to time) and to leave point numbers the same.
Once the point is established, 7s are rigged to appear much more frequently.
Clempops4 is absolutely right in that it is possible to rig gaming software to make a player lose when the site wants that to happen. Several of my earliest clients used a "risk mitigation" algorithm to do exactly this.
However, it's very, very, very dangerous to do with craps because you can bet on both sides. If you can discover the pattern in how the game is tweaked to be unfair (and boymimbo may be right above), then it should be possible to place small bets to trigger that unfair distribution and then place large bets to take advantage of it after the comeout roll.
Here's one, just to get started: make a standard-amount bet on the passline. Then, after a point is established don't take any odds but instead make a lay bet on the point for 5x or more of the line bet amount. If the game stays rigged in the same way, you'll absolutely clean up.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 31st, 2011 at 10:47:23 AM
permalink
I'd feel quite comfortable with rogueing this casino and all those that use their software, as it's obvious that the casino is cheating given the non-random results, especially when the bet turns from don't pass to pass.
I'd like to hear the wizard's thoughts on all of this. Is there any recourse for Clem to recoup his money ($1,500)?
I'd like to hear the wizard's thoughts on all of this. Is there any recourse for Clem to recoup his money ($1,500)?
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 10:50:47 AM
permalink
I'd love to see the distribution of the dice with a doey-don't (what would the frequency of 12s increase to)? I'd love to see as well what would happen with the solution as described above by Math. If the software is sophisticated enough, it would calculate the rolls needed to make you lose and then come up with a much higher frequency of that roll.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 10:58:07 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboIf the software is sophisticated enough, it would calculate the rolls needed to make you lose and then come up with a much higher frequency of that roll.
I highly doubt the software is that sophisticated. Here's what I'd do to test it:
1) Play $5 each pass/don't pass without a bet on midnight for, say, 200-300 decisions. Check to see if the distribution changed. There are a few ways it could:
2a) If it favors 12 greater than p=1/30 but keeps everything else even, try another 200 decisions with 5/5 + $1 on midnight.
2b) If it favors one side over the other, try another 200 decisions with 5/5 and just take odds on the favored side.
If 2a or 2b show different results than 1, stop playing - the software is adaptive. If not, play enough to make back your money, cash out, and then file the report. But try to get your money out first...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 31st, 2011 at 11:02:04 AM
permalink
It could have as simple a trigger as "if the player plays only the pass or don't, then turn on the bias, any other bets, turn the bias off" ... that's not sophisticated ... as the OP noted, it played fair in practice mode and it played fair when he first started ... the on/off switch can be pretty dumb and still make a fortune for the house ...Quote: MathExtremistI highly doubt the software is that sophisticated. Here's what I'd do to test it:
1) Play $5 each pass/don't pass without a bet on midnight for, say, 200-300 decisions. Check to see if the distribution changed. There are a few ways it could:
2a) If it favors 12 greater than p=1/30 but keeps everything else even, try another 200 decisions with 5/5 + $1 on midnight.
2b) If it favors one side over the other, try another 200 decisions with 5/5 and just take odds on the favored side.
If 2a or 2b show different results than 1, stop playing - the software is adaptive. If not, play enough to make back your money, cash out, and then file the report. But try to get your money out first...
--Ms. D.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
October 31st, 2011 at 11:05:40 AM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleIt could have as simple a trigger as "if the player plays only the pass or don't, then turn on the bias, any other bets, turn the bias off" ... that's not sophisticated ... as the OP noted, it played fair in practice mode and it played fair when he first started ... the on/off switch can be pretty dumb and still make a fortune for the house ... .
Only if nobody figures out what it is...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 31st, 2011 at 11:15:00 AM
permalink
Let's suppose my goal is to independently prove the software is cheating. I don't need to figure out exactly just how it is doing it, I just want to prove the existence of it. Does the alleged cheating seem to be more egregious for the pass or don't pass bettor? Suppose I'm testing just pass results after the COR, which were said to look normal. Would it be a robust test to compare results against the following expectations?
Or, do you think some other test would make the case better?
| Event | Prob |
|---|---|
| Point 4 win | 4.17% |
| Point 5 win | 6.67% |
| Point 6 win | 9.47% |
| Point 8 win | 9.47% |
| Point 9 win | 6.67% |
| Point 10 win | 4.17% |
| Point 4 loss | 8.33% |
| Point 5 loss | 10.00% |
| Point 6 loss | 11.36% |
| Point 8 loss | 11.36% |
| Point 9 loss | 10.00% |
| Point 10 loss | 8.33% |
| Total | 100.00% |
Or, do you think some other test would make the case better?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 31st, 2011 at 11:27:40 AM
permalink
See my analysis at the bottom of page 6 for pass vs don't pass. The "cheating" has been tested on both sides.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 11:27:56 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistIf you can discover the pattern in how the game is tweaked to be unfair (and boymimbo may be right above), then it should be possible to place small bets to trigger that unfair distribution and then place large bets to take advantage of it after the comeout roll.
...Then, after a point is established don't take any odds but instead make a lay bet on the point for 5x or more of the line bet amount..
This is what kept me from sleeping last night. I don't want to prove the casino wrong, but I'd love to see someone clean out the casino.
I was thinking of making $1 wagers on the don't pass, then make larger place bets on the point number.
While the rest of the conversation was going on, I reviewed video 5. (In hopes of someone cleaning this place out)
don't l 4 11 12 5 2 3 2 9 9 8 9 6 3 4
don't l 8 6 9 8
don't l 9 11 8 6 11 3 9
don't l 7
don't l 9 9
don't l 4 4
don't l 6 2 4 8 10 4 9 4 5 10 6
don't l 11
don't l 7
don't w 6 5 9 8 7
don't w 4 8 5 9 9 8 9 7
don't w 9 4 8 2 4 5 7
don't l 7
don't w 10 6 6 6 7
don't l 5 9 9 6 6 6 8 6 5
don't l 9 9
don't l 8 3 6 5 9 6 12 8
don't l 7
don't l 9 5 5 10 12 9
don't l 5 6 6 10 10 11 9 8 8 5
don't w 2
don't l 5 12 6 9 11 5
don't l 7
don't l 8 3 8
don't w 4 6 5 3 12 5 7
don't l 12 10 5 9 9 3 2 11 8 6 9 5 10
don't w 8 11 4 11 4 7
don't l 8 10 9 8
don't l 7
don't l 9 9
don't w 8 10 6 6 10 5 9 5 6 11 9 10 10 6 10 3 6 9 10 7
don't l 4 4
don't l 8 8
don't w 9 12 11 7
don't w 2
don't l 6 10 6
don't l 10 10
don't l 7
don't w 8 9 7
don't l 9 6 5 6 9
don't l 7
don't l 10 4 10
don't l 6 10 5 5 6
don't l 7
don't l 7
don't l 7
don't l 9 9
don't l 4 5 6 3 8 8 4
don't w 9 6 10 7
don't l 5 8 9 11 4 6 11 10 5
don't l 4 9 6 5 9 4
don't l 11
don't l 12 11
don't l 6 5 10 6
don't l 10 10
don't l 11
don't w 9 7
don't l 6 9 8 6
don't l 10 5 10
don't l 5 11 9 6 4 9 9 5
don't l 4 8 8 3 5 5 5 4
don't l 6 10 6
don't w 4 3 8 6 2 6 7
don't l 7
don't w 8 6 3 7
don't l 7
don't l 11
don't l 4 9 2 6 8 10 6 8 9 4
don't w 9 7
don't l 7
don't l 5 10 12 3 11 8 11 9 10 8 10 5
don't w 9 6 3 5 4 6 10 2 5 5 7
don't w 5 6 9 7
don't l 6 3 6
don't l 8 10 10 8
don't l 11
don't l 7
don't l 7
don't l 7
don't l 12 7
don't l 4 4
don't l 8 4 6 8
don't l 8 6 10 9 8
don't l 10 6 2 5 4 10
don't l 9 4 6 4 3 5 4 9
don't l 8 10 8
don't w 8 7
don't l 7
don't l 4 4
don't w 9 10 7
don't l 8 11 8
don't w 3
don't l 10 10
don't l 6 4 6
don't l 5 10 6 10 9 8 3 9 8 9 5
don't l 6 8 6
don't l 8 9 9 9 6 9 8
don't l 5 3 3 5
don't l 6 10 2 4 5 11 5 5 5 6
don't w 5 7
I heart Crystal Math.
October 31st, 2011 at 12:14:05 PM
permalink
With that data, $1 don't + $6 each 6 and 8 always working yields -56 on the line, +356 on the place bets, net +300. Go for it.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 31st, 2011 at 12:56:29 PM
permalink
Video 5, in table format:
After the come out, 19 sevens in 320 rolls! Features 5 4 point fires and a five point fire to boot!
Impressive.
| Video 5 | Result | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 401 | L | 4 | 11 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||
| 402 | L | 8 | 6 | 9 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 403 | L | 9 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 11 | 3 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||
| 404 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 405 | L | 9 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 406 | L | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 407 | L | 6 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 6 | ||||||||||||
| 408 | L | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 409 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 410 | W | 6 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 411 | W | 4 | 8 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||
| 412 | w | 9 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||
| 413 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 414 | W | 10 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 415 | L | 5 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 5 | |||||||||||||||
| 416 | L | 9 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 417 | L | 8 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 12 | 8 | |||||||||||||||
| 418 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 419 | L | 9 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 12 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||
| 420 | L | 5 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 5 | |||||||||||||
| 421 | W | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 422 | L | 5 | 12 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||
| 423 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 424 | L | 8 | 3 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 425 | W | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 5 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||
| 426 | L | 12 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 10 | ||||||||||
| 427 | W | 8 | 11 | 4 | 11 | 4 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||
| 428 | L | 8 | 10 | 9 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 429 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 430 | L | 9 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 431 | W | 8 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 7 |
| 432 | L | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 433 | L | 8 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 434 | W | 9 | 12 | 11 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 435 | W | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 436 | L | 6 | 10 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 437 | L | 10 | 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 438 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 439 | W | 8 | 9 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 440 | L | 9 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 441 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 442 | L | 10 | 4 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 443 | L | 6 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 444 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 445 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 446 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 447 | L | 9 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 448 | L | 4 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||
| 449 | W | 9 | 6 | 10 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 450 | L | 5 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 10 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
| 451 | L | 4 | 9 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||
| 452 | L | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 453 | L | 12 | 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 454 | L | 6 | 5 | 10 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 455 | L | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 456 | L | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 457 | W | 9 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 458 | L | 6 | 9 | 8 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 459 | L | 10 | 5 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 460 | L | 5 | 11 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 5 | |||||||||||||||
| 461 | L | 4 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | |||||||||||||||
| 462 | L | 6 | 10 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 463 | W | 4 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||
| 464 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 465 | W | 8 | 6 | 3 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 466 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 467 | L | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 468 | L | 4 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 4 | |||||||||||||
| 469 | W | 9 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 470 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 471 | L | 5 | 10 | 12 | 3 | 11 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 5 | |||||||||||
| 472 | W | 9 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 7 | ||||||||||||
| 473 | W | 5 | 6 | 9 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 474 | L | 6 | 3 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 475 | L | 8 | 10 | 10 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 476 | L | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 477 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 478 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 479 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 480 | L | 12 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 481 | L | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 482 | L | 8 | 4 | 6 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 483 | L | 8 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 484 | L | 10 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||
| 485 | L | 9 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 9 | |||||||||||||||
| 486 | L | 8 | 10 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 487 | W | 8 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 488 | L | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 489 | L | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 490 | W | 9 | 10 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 491 | L | 8 | 11 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 492 | W | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 493 | L | 10 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 494 | L | 6 | 4 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 495 | L | 5 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 5 | ||||||||||||
| 496 | L | 6 | 8 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 497 | L | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||
| 498 | L | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 499 | L | 6 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | |||||||||||||
| 500 | W | 5 | 7 |
After the come out, 19 sevens in 320 rolls! Features 5 4 point fires and a five point fire to boot!
Impressive.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 1:16:03 PM
permalink
Video 7, in table format. Note that these are pass bets with the exception of the WD rolls where the OP won on the don't.
Frequency of Craps at come out: 18/100 (should be 11.11). Frequency of 7, 11 at come out 6 (should be 16.67) and 5 (should be 5.56) out of 100, respectively.
Frequency of 7 after point (when betting pass): 55 times in 197 rolls (27.92% - should be 16.67%). Wow, that's a turn.
| Video 7 | Result | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2801 | W | 7 | |||||||||
| 2802 | L | 3 | |||||||||
| 2803 | L | 12 | |||||||||
| 2804 | L | 3 | |||||||||
| 2805 | L | 12 | |||||||||
| 2806 | L | 6 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 7 | |||
| 2807 | WD | 4 | 3 | 8 | 7 | ||||||
| 2808 | L | 3 | |||||||||
| 2809 | W | 7 | |||||||||
| 2810 | L | 8 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2811 | W | 10 | 3 | 10 | |||||||
| 2812 | L | 9 | 6 | 7 | |||||||
| 2813 | L | 6 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2814 | W | 11 | |||||||||
| 2815 | L | 2 | |||||||||
| 2816 | L | 4 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2817 | L | 9 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 7 | |||
| 2818 | L | 12 | |||||||||
| 2819 | L | 9 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 7 | |||||
| 2820 | W | 8 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 8 |
| 2821 | WD | 5 | 9 | 7 | |||||||
| 2822 | L | 10 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2823 | L | 2 | |||||||||
| 2824 | L | 5 | 9 | 7 | |||||||
| 2825 | L | 4 | 2 | 7 | |||||||
| 2826 | L | 5 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2827 | L | 2 | |||||||||
| 2828 | L | 2 | |||||||||
| 2829 | W | 4 | 10 | 3 | 4 | ||||||
| 2830 | L | 8 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 7 | |||||
| 2831 | W | 9 | 9 | ||||||||
| 2832 | L | 12 | |||||||||
| 2833 | W | 7 | |||||||||
| 2834 | L | 5 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2835 | L | 6 | 3 | 9 | 7 | ||||||
| 2836 | L | 3 | |||||||||
| 2837 | L | 3 | |||||||||
| 2838 | L | 10 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 7 | ||
| 2839 | L | 8 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2840 | W | 8 | 8 | ||||||||
| 2841 | L | 5 | 8 | 4 | 7 | ||||||
| 2842 | L | 8 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | ||
| 2843 | L | 10 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2844 | L | 8 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2845 | L | 6 | 5 | 7 | |||||||
| 2846 | L | 8 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 7 | ||||
| 2847 | L | 4 | 6 | 7 | |||||||
| 2848 | L | 9 | 6 | 7 | |||||||
| 2849 | L | 8 | 5 | 7 | |||||||
| 2850 | W | 9 | 11 | 9 | |||||||
| 2851 | W | 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 2852 | L | 9 | 3 | 10 | 8 | 11 | 7 | ||||
| 2853 | W | 4 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 4 | |||||
| 2854 | L | 5 | 4 | 12 | 7 | ||||||
| 2855 | L | 2 | |||||||||
| 2856 | L | 9 | 5 | 7 | |||||||
| 2857 | W | 11 | |||||||||
| 2858 | L | 4 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2859 | W | 4 | 6 | 4 | |||||||
| 2860 | W | 7 | |||||||||
| 2861 | L | 6 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2862 | W | 11 | |||||||||
| 2863 | L | 3 | |||||||||
| 2864 | L | 6 | 5 | 7 | |||||||
| 2865 | L | 6 | 8 | 10 | 7 | ||||||
| 2866 | L | 5 | 4 | 7 | |||||||
| 2867 | L | 2 | |||||||||
| 2868 | L | 4 | 9 | 10 | 7 | ||||||
| 2869 | L | 8 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2870 | L | 10 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2871 | L | 8 | 3 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 7 |
| 2872 | L | 5 | 6 | 7 | |||||||
| 2873 | L | 8 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2874 | L | 8 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2875 | L | 9 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 6 | 7 |
| 2876 | W | 11 | |||||||||
| 2877 | L | 8 | 11 | 7 | |||||||
| 2878 | L | 6 | 8 | 3 | 7 | ||||||
| 2879 | W | 11 | |||||||||
| 2880 | L | 6 | 8 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 7 | ||||
| 2881 | L | 3 | |||||||||
| 2882 | L | 8 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 7 | ||||
| 2883 | WD | 9 | 8 | 10 | 7 | ||||||
| 2884 | L | 8 | 12 | 6 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 7 | |||
| 2885 | L | 2 | |||||||||
| 2886 | L | 3 | |||||||||
| 2887 | L | 5 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 10 | 7 | ||||
| 2888 | L | 12 | |||||||||
| 2889 | W | 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 2890 | L | 4 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2891 | L | 9 | 11 | 7 | |||||||
| 2892 | L | 6 | 8 | 8 | 7 | ||||||
| 2893 | L | 5 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 7 |
| 2894 | W | 7 | |||||||||
| 2895 | W | 7 | |||||||||
| 2896 | L | 8 | 7 | ||||||||
| 2897 | L | 9 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| 2898 | L | 5 | 8 | 7 | |||||||
| 2899 | W | 8 | 8 | ||||||||
| 2900 | L | 4 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
Frequency of Craps at come out: 18/100 (should be 11.11). Frequency of 7, 11 at come out 6 (should be 16.67) and 5 (should be 5.56) out of 100, respectively.
Frequency of 7 after point (when betting pass): 55 times in 197 rolls (27.92% - should be 16.67%). Wow, that's a turn.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 1:30:28 PM
permalink
I have not read every post, but if the OP has not identified which online "casino" has perpetrated this crime, then he should. ME has implied that there may be a specific software program which might be exploitable.... I think there may be a $2 an hour guy just choosing numbers..... And, OP, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.... After 3100 such 'rolls', what did you think would happen from roll 3100 to 3200?
October 31st, 2011 at 1:34:44 PM
permalink
The name of the casino is "World Wide Wagering" with URL http://www.wager.dm. The software is from BLR TechQuote: SOOPOOI have not read every post, but if the OP has not identified which online "casino" has perpetrated this crime, then he should. ME has implied that there may be a specific software program which might be exploitable.... I think there may be a $2 an hour guy just choosing numbers..... And, OP, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.... After 3100 such 'rolls', what did you think would happen from roll 3100 to 3200?
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
October 31st, 2011 at 2:52:47 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistWith that data, $1 don't + $6 each 6 and 8 always working yields -56 on the line, +356 on the place bets, net +300. Go for it.
I don't understand why you guys are so sure this is exploitable. All the program needs to do is, after the bets are made, calculate which number if rolled will maximize the loss for the player, and then inflate the probability of that number, correspondingly decreasing the probabilities of others. What's "sophisticated" about it?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
October 31st, 2011 at 2:55:47 PM
permalink
As an experiment, the OP should wager on both Pass and Don't simultaneously and see how often 12's come up 8-)Quote: weaselmanI don't understand why you guys are so sure this is exploitable. All the program needs to do is, after the bets are made, calculate which number if rolled will maximize the loss for the player, and then inflate the probability of that number, correspondingly decreasing the probabilities of others. What's "sophisticated" about it?
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
October 31st, 2011 at 4:22:06 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanI don't understand why you guys are so sure this is exploitable. All the program needs to do is, after the bets are made, calculate which number if rolled will maximize the loss for the player, and then inflate the probability of that number, correspondingly decreasing the probabilities of others. What's "sophisticated" about it?
I'm not sure it's exploitable, but based on my knowledge of online casino software developers, I doubt they spent too much time on their craps implementation. Craps is a remarkably low-revenue game online. As a result, while I can't rule it out, I would doubt that the engineers spent much effort on their risk-mitigation software. The test I proposed above should yield a relatively low-cost answer.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 31st, 2011 at 4:35:37 PM
permalink
Online casinos are in buisiness to make money. The only thing they can't control is the outcome of sports games (unless they have the refs and players on payroll, which isn't out of the question). The softwares uses are extremely sofisticated and ensure that the house will win. Random my ass! I dont trust them for a second. They don't have any ramifications for cheating and who would audit them anyway. Save your money and dont play casino games online. It is a no win situation. They will suck you in an let you win a few at first..... then the assault ensues.
'Winners hit n run... Losers stick around'
October 31st, 2011 at 4:44:45 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not sure it's exploitable, but based on my knowledge of online casino software developers, I doubt they spent too much time on their craps implementation. Craps is a remarkably low-revenue game online. As a result, while I can't rule it out, I would doubt that the engineers spent much effort on their risk-mitigation software. The test I proposed above should yield a relatively low-cost answer.
I agree, it might not be exploitable. But, these same people thought that at 25% win rate on a pass/don't pass would go un-noticed. I'd be willing to bet they didn't think too far into this.
I heart Crystal Math.
October 31st, 2011 at 4:55:29 PM
permalink
Quote: CrystalMathI agree, it might not be exploitable. But, these same people thought that at 25% win rate on a pass/don't pass would go un-noticed. I'd be willing to bet they didn't think too far into this.
I just don't see how what I described is "too far" ... I think, it is the first thing that comes to mind. Way simpler than trying to devise some kind of a "universally rigged" distribution, that would increase the house edge only in some cases, but in others.
Besides, it seems to go opposite to the OP's experience, who was losing both pass, and don't pass line bets. So, it seems that the software is indeed aware of where the money is.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
October 31st, 2011 at 5:03:57 PM
permalink
Keeping in mind of course that a gaming site that has rigged its games is even going to pay anyone who finds a way to win...
Happiness is underrated
October 31st, 2011 at 5:15:02 PM
permalink
Quote: TheNightflyKeeping in mind of course that a gaming site that has rigged its games is even going to pay anyone who finds a way to win...
Bingo. If I could trust them, I'd deposit $500 today. So, I'm really hoping the OP tries some different suggestions. I'm happy to watch videos and record data to help him out.
I heart Crystal Math.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:14:10 PM
permalink
Without knowledge of the site, I am almost willing to bet that a person cannot bet both sides of the dice. You won't be able to play doey-don't. And if you bet pass, you then can't lay a point, and vice-versa. That way, the software doesn't have to be too particular sophisticated, simply adjust the possibility of certain rolls based on whether the person is playing on the do or don't side.
October 31st, 2011 at 6:59:11 PM
permalink
Here are the results of 328 pass line bets on a BLR-Tech software casino, according to the type of win/loss.
The lower right cell shows a chi-squared statistic of 89.61, with 13 degrees of freedom. The probability of results this skewed or more are 1 in 6,036,452,793,441.
If that isn't convincing enough for you, let's look at just the wins and losses.
Total wins = 81
Total losses = 247
Total bets made = 328
That is a win rate of 24.7%. How unlucky is that?
The standard deviation of 328 throws is 18.11. Over 328 rolls the expected loss is 4.64 units. My actual loss was 166 units. That is 161.36 below expectations. The number of standard deviations south of the expected loss of 4.64 units is 161.36/18.11 = 8.91. The probability of results that unlucky or worse in a fair game are 1 in 3,940,183,270,432,190,000.
The prosecution rests. I plan to publish my results on my Odds site in the next day or two. First, if anyone can find a flaw in my case, have at it.
| Event | Probability | Actual Results | Expected Results | Chi sqd |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Come out roll win | 22.22% | 33 | 72.89 | 21.83 |
| Come out roll loss | 11.11% | 66 | 36.44 | 23.97 |
| Point 4 win | 2.78% | 4 | 9.11 | 2.87 |
| Point 5 win | 4.44% | 10 | 14.58 | 1.44 |
| Point 6 win | 6.31% | 7 | 20.71 | 9.07 |
| Point 8 win | 6.31% | 11 | 20.71 | 4.55 |
| Point 9 win | 4.44% | 10 | 14.58 | 1.44 |
| Point 10 win | 2.78% | 6 | 9.11 | 1.06 |
| Point 4 loss | 5.56% | 26 | 18.22 | 3.32 |
| Point 5 loss | 6.67% | 25 | 21.87 | 0.45 |
| Point 6 loss | 7.58% | 39 | 24.85 | 8.06 |
| Point 8 loss | 7.58% | 38 | 24.85 | 6.96 |
| Point 9 loss | 6.67% | 31 | 21.87 | 3.81 |
| Point 10 loss | 5.56% | 22 | 18.22 | 0.78 |
| Total | 100.00% | 328 | 328.00 | 89.61 |
The lower right cell shows a chi-squared statistic of 89.61, with 13 degrees of freedom. The probability of results this skewed or more are 1 in 6,036,452,793,441.
If that isn't convincing enough for you, let's look at just the wins and losses.
Total wins = 81
Total losses = 247
Total bets made = 328
That is a win rate of 24.7%. How unlucky is that?
The standard deviation of 328 throws is 18.11. Over 328 rolls the expected loss is 4.64 units. My actual loss was 166 units. That is 161.36 below expectations. The number of standard deviations south of the expected loss of 4.64 units is 161.36/18.11 = 8.91. The probability of results that unlucky or worse in a fair game are 1 in 3,940,183,270,432,190,000.
The prosecution rests. I plan to publish my results on my Odds site in the next day or two. First, if anyone can find a flaw in my case, have at it.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 31st, 2011 at 7:34:55 PM
permalink
I have absolutely no doubt in your findings, and sorry that you lost $166.
The five casinos that support BLR are:
5Dimes Casino and Sportsbook, Heritage Sports, Legend Sports, WorldWide Wagering, and Loose Lines Casino and Sportsbook.
CasinoMeister has picked up this thread.
The five casinos that support BLR are:
5Dimes Casino and Sportsbook, Heritage Sports, Legend Sports, WorldWide Wagering, and Loose Lines Casino and Sportsbook.
CasinoMeister has picked up this thread.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
October 31st, 2011 at 7:38:22 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboI have absolutely no doubt in your findings, and sorry that you lost $166...CasinoMeister has picked up this thread.
I asked the casino to return the money, let's see if they do. I'm glad Bryan has taken notice.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 31st, 2011 at 8:46:19 PM
permalink
Wiz, did you make any attempt to bet both sides?
Happiness is underrated
October 31st, 2011 at 8:51:02 PM
permalink
Quote: TheNightflyWiz, did you make any attempt to bet both sides?
No. In my opinion, showing they cheat on the pass side was enough. There is already other evidence they cheat the other way as well.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 31st, 2011 at 8:56:31 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardNo. In my opinion, showing they cheat on the pass side was enough. There is already other evidence they cheat the other way as well.
I thought the real question was how their algorithm adjusts when it sees bets in more than one spot. I.e. is it exploitable or not?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
October 31st, 2011 at 9:05:47 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistI thought the real question was how their algorithm adjusts when it sees bets in more than one spot. I.e. is it exploitable or not?
I'm more interested in warning others players before they waste their money playing at a rigged casino.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 31st, 2011 at 9:11:15 PM
permalink
Greetings all,
I have a cash account on a casino that runs the BLR Tech software.
I first ran 100 rolls on the DON’T; my results were consistent that I was playing a rigged version.
I decided to create a simple test to force the software to exhibit an extreme bias. I exclusively played the pass line. If a point was established, I then bought every number 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, meaning that a 7 was the killer number to get if the software was rogue.
In 100 rolls, I established a point on 74 of them. After establishing a point, the first roll was a “7” on 41 out of those 74 points. The expected number is 12.33 with a standard deviation of 3.21, putting this result 8.94 standard deviations above expectation, or about 1-in-5130000000000000000.
Out of the total of 135 rolls made once a point was established, 63 of them were “7”. The expected number is 22.5 with a standard deviation of 4.33, putting this 9.35 standard deviations above expectation, or about 1-in-4500000000000000000000.
A chi-squared test on the distribution of rolls after the come out gave a result that was 1-in-142000000000000.
I did not record these results on video.
I strongly advise not playing at any casino that operates this software.
I would like to personally thank the OP Clem for all he did to bring this issue to light. He deserves much praise for his persistence and conviction.
[edit. I lost about $200 in 100 rolls playing this strategy, at $1 per wager]
I have a cash account on a casino that runs the BLR Tech software.
I first ran 100 rolls on the DON’T; my results were consistent that I was playing a rigged version.
I decided to create a simple test to force the software to exhibit an extreme bias. I exclusively played the pass line. If a point was established, I then bought every number 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, meaning that a 7 was the killer number to get if the software was rogue.
In 100 rolls, I established a point on 74 of them. After establishing a point, the first roll was a “7” on 41 out of those 74 points. The expected number is 12.33 with a standard deviation of 3.21, putting this result 8.94 standard deviations above expectation, or about 1-in-5130000000000000000.
Out of the total of 135 rolls made once a point was established, 63 of them were “7”. The expected number is 22.5 with a standard deviation of 4.33, putting this 9.35 standard deviations above expectation, or about 1-in-4500000000000000000000.
A chi-squared test on the distribution of rolls after the come out gave a result that was 1-in-142000000000000.
I did not record these results on video.
I strongly advise not playing at any casino that operates this software.
I would like to personally thank the OP Clem for all he did to bring this issue to light. He deserves much praise for his persistence and conviction.
[edit. I lost about $200 in 100 rolls playing this strategy, at $1 per wager]
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
October 31st, 2011 at 9:28:05 PM
permalink
So, doesn't anyone who is a member here have an account with such a casino and feel up to testing whether the biases can be exploited? Perhaps try teliot's technique but lay the 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 instead of buying them. If the trigger to make the 7 come up after the point is set is just that you have bet the pass line, it shouldn't take long to clean up and recover past losses. Or you can observe whether the software adjusts. However, the fact that teliot saw the 7 on the very first post-come-out roll so often suggests that the software recognized the buy bets in addition to the pass bet; it might adjust the other way for too many lay bets.
October 31st, 2011 at 9:44:44 PM
permalink
Quote: teliotI would like to personally thank the OP Clem for all he did to bring this issue to light. He deserves much praise for his persistence and conviction.
Thanks Eliot for doing your own test and confirming that indeed the software is not playing a fair game of craps.
Agreed, OP Clem is deserving of praise for alerting the public about his very suspicious results. The videos spoke for themselves.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
October 31st, 2011 at 10:00:24 PM
permalink
I knew I was being cheated but my main concern was keeping others from being cheated and closing down the rogue BLR software sites. I certainly found the right site to do this and I appreciate what everyone has done. I also learned a few new terms that I had previously been unfamiliar with "raw data'" being one of them. Thanks to the Rodney King incident I knew there was nothing better than video taping which I believe had I not done this most readers would have been extremely skeptical of my claims.
P.S. I still don't understand what chi-squared is or how it works.
P.S. I still don't understand what chi-squared is or how it works.
October 31st, 2011 at 10:20:16 PM
permalink
So who owned this rigged casino and how much money were they making by running a rigged craps game?
November 1st, 2011 at 6:11:14 AM
permalink
Chi Squared is simply a statistic: It is the sum of ((Observed - Expected)^2)/Expected.
You combine this with the number of degrees of freedom (number of outcomes - 1) to get a measure of the probability (a p-value) of the independent events happening.
In the case of the dice, you add up all of the Chi-Squared values, stick it in a calculator to get the p-value. A fair game will have low Chi Squared Values (<2). An unfair game will look like yours.
Math: Given that the experiment went MORE extreme (7 on 41 rolls of 74) when Eliot placed the numbers, there must be software in place to detect this and act accordingly.
I agree that the rogue casinos should be shut down after some heavy advertisting against them. Given that the Wizard appears near the top of most Google searches (you need more revenue, Wizard!), I think we simply need to open up a thread with the names of the 5 BLR casinos and an announcement that they're rogue. That should get their attention. I really don't think there's any way to exploit this.
BLR's website hasn't been updated in more than 2 years and I wonder if they are still in active business.
You combine this with the number of degrees of freedom (number of outcomes - 1) to get a measure of the probability (a p-value) of the independent events happening.
In the case of the dice, you add up all of the Chi-Squared values, stick it in a calculator to get the p-value. A fair game will have low Chi Squared Values (<2). An unfair game will look like yours.
Math: Given that the experiment went MORE extreme (7 on 41 rolls of 74) when Eliot placed the numbers, there must be software in place to detect this and act accordingly.
I agree that the rogue casinos should be shut down after some heavy advertisting against them. Given that the Wizard appears near the top of most Google searches (you need more revenue, Wizard!), I think we simply need to open up a thread with the names of the 5 BLR casinos and an announcement that they're rogue. That should get their attention. I really don't think there's any way to exploit this.
BLR's website hasn't been updated in more than 2 years and I wonder if they are still in active business.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
November 1st, 2011 at 7:30:46 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboChi Squared is simply a statistic: It is the sum of ((Observed - Expected)^2)/Expected.
That is correct. However, to dumb it down a bit more, the chi-squared statistic is useful in comparing actual results against expected results when there are multiple outcomes possible. For example, the outcome in roulette or video poker.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
