ChurchVanCrash's Blog
Oct 04, 2017
THE MAGIC WANDOO
- THE MAGIC WANDOO -Today I kept a running count of how many times either me or the dealer made a hand when having to take a hit on a 12 through 16 while playing classic blackjack at BOVADA.
What I mean by a running count is I start even, then if the dealer hits a 12 and gets a 5 for 17 they are up by 1. Then if I hit a 14 and get a 6 for a 20 we are back to even. Hands with multiple hits only count as plus 1 in the tally. Like if you hit a 13 and get a 2 then hit it again and get a 5 to make a 20 it just counts as one.
After 205 hands they are up by 13. I wasn't tracking the over all totals but I think it's like 19 to 6. I mean 15 is not a bad hand for them, they make a lot of winners that start that way.
Remember I am even playing a few more hands over all than they are because of splits. I know I don't have to take a hit and they do, but also they don't play a lot of hands because I went bust already. I also surrender 15 and 16 a lot and stand on a 3 card 16 against a 10 so I guess I don't hit them that often.
Maybe this is normal, I don't know. It seems like it should be the same bust rate and who ever hits more of those hands would have a bigger total. They are just so far ahead. That would mean if I hit those kind of hands 20 times, they would have to do it 64 times to be that far ahead.
I just played a few more hands and within the first eleven there was a string of four In a row that they made a hand hitting a 15 or a 16, then one hand later they did it again for 5 out of 6. They won all six because I hit a 14 and bust on the fifth hand of course.
It seems like it's a joke, like they must be watching and laughing their asses off. And why not, its pay back for keeping track of twenty ones and blabbing about it. They're unlicensed and unregulated so there is nobody to report anything to. Plus the U.S. market especially here in California will most likely be off limits to them soon.
Title Credit to Giants color man Mike Krukow: when a guy gets a lucky hit he says they used "the magic wandoo". The dealer at BOVADA has definitely got one also.
Oct 02, 2017
BOVADA, or any online casino
the last time I played at bovada I lost $100 in 31 hands going 3W- 24L-2P. The time before that I kept track in a running count of how many times me and the dealer got a total of 21. By the time I gave up the dealer was up by 24. It's usually not this bad but I just cashed out before this. If you track anything at bovada you see a pattern where the player will start out behind then will slowly catch up to end up even in the long run. The result of this is that the player can loose or break even but cannot have a big win. The most I was up when tracking hands totaling 21 was 2. It is obvious how they got so far ahead when I was keeping track. They get way more blackjacks and constantly rattle of five or six card twenty ones. You have to know what I'm talking about if you play there. It doesn't just seem like they always have 21, if you keep track they pretty much do.I have read two accounts of talking to the makers of casino software, one by the wizard and one by Arnold Snyder. They both reported the same thing. That the makers said "you don't have to worry about waking up and finding out you owe someone $200,000 because you can set your winnings to what ever you want". It's no different at bovada. With operations overhead, employee wages, license fees, taxes, and paying affiliates for referrals the small half percent advantage would mean Blackjack would be a constant stream of lost money from the minute the opened. So to offer blackjack the dealer needs to get a lot more blackjacks than the player. If your thinking I'm forgetting about the 5.9% fee they charge on deposit and that that makes up for everything I'm ready for that. 100% match bonuses, rewards points, and cash back on all losses adds up to way more than that plus the house advantage without even considering everything I already mentioned.
You can see for yourself how they are trying to cover up how they cheat if you have played any blackjack at bovada. Look at the transaction reports in your player dashboard. There are stings of about twelve hands at a time duplicated throughout the reports. Hit the down arrow on any blackjack session and look at the time stamp. It will go from 3:58 to 3:57 then back to 3:58 where the last twelve hands will start over. And like I said they do this constantly.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Comments
I've not played Bovada, but pretty much all of my play is online with European operators, split 50/50 between live dealer game and RNG simulated.
I've actually won a lot of money at both and still have a decent lifetime profit.
Now, here's something that I've noticed and convinced myself of...
With the RNG game, the house edge is barely 1/2 a percent, when played with perfect basic strategy. But here's the thing: If I'm playing at very low stakes, maybe a 1,2,3,5,5,5 progressive, I usually get the feeling I'm actually playing at an advantage. I don't mean advantage because of the progressive, but because they seem to 'let me win' at stakes below 5 per hand. This month, for example, I turned ONE 200 buy in to over 2000 over the course of 11 days, each time cashing out to a 200 float. But, when I get cocky and up my bets to maybe 5,10,15,25, 25 progressive, I get slaughtered. As you say, the dealer 21s just become laughable. Sticking to low stakes I can VERY OFTEN quadruple or even sextuple my buy in, in ways that seem like they just want me to play to draw me in.
Maybe selective memory on my part, or maybe it's just that I'm underfunding those high roll games, but I have charted my games and the win loss ratio does sure as hell seem to vary with wagering levels.
I've heard it suggested that bovada's rng blackjack does this kind of dirty trick. So it's not just me,
See my recent blog post. When I upped my playing level after that good 2000 run up, I got slaughtered.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/#post1644
Once Dear, you surprise me.
Not that I would ever trust any online casino myself.
Surprise you In what way ODG? Enjoying progressives? losing? Suspecting a gaffed game, Trusting or not trusting an online gaff? being subject to what is likely as not paranoia and cognitive bias?
I'll submit to analysis or experiment. I reckon that my probability of turning £100 into £200 should obviously be less than 50%: Do we agree that?
I'll offer you a tongue in cheek even money wager ODG. : Over 10 consecutive sessions of online rng play, where I start each with £100, I will have 5 or more sessions where I double my money*. It would not constitute any kind of proof, but would indicate where my suspicion comes from.
Then if you cared to play 10 similar sessions at the same game but each with £1000 floats**, I'd wager that you would fail to double your money on at least 5 of those sessions. :o)
I know, it's frivolous, but that is pretty much how it seems to work when I play that game.
* ** Using any sort of betting pattern or strategy.
> with £100, I will have 5 or more sessions where I double my money
> 10 similar sessions at the same game but each with £1000 floats... fail to double your money on at least 5 of those sessions. :o)
oops I forgot to check out what those asterisks mean and I am having a hell of a time getting pages to load, so don't want to go back
anyway, that certainly is the kind of inaccurate analysis that comes from confirmation bias. But you know that!
if there was some way to really do the bet I would be game
Grrrrrr. Replying to posts is a b1tch with current connectivity issues. I had a succinct reply to ODG which got flushed.
Trying again...
odiousgambit wrote
anyway, that certainly is the kind of inaccurate analysis that comes from confirmation bias. But you know that!
if there was some way to really do the bet I would be game
A: I totally agree. I'm putting forward a deeply flawed analysis which is textbook confirmation bias and evidentially very weak and flawed. Yes. I know that! But this is a worthy topic, almost too good for a blog post.
B: I've heard it contended by a well established member here (Foxey, no less :o) ), that Boveda's rng game might be gaffed to 'tighten the screw' when stakes are raised from very modest of say $5 to less modest of say $25 per hand. I contend that it's not beyond the realms of possibility. I can see that it would take masses of staked money into what is already a -ev proposition to establish any statistically strong evidence. Who would do that? I wouldn't.
C: I have, at times used a 25,50,75,75 progressive and seen massive profit, so I have evidence that contradicts even my own experience. Nonetheless, I have equally had recent experience where I've had multiple consecutive double baggers with £200 float that seemed somewhat unlikely, maybe 2 SD away from expectation, but then followed them by a few dreadful sessions where larger stakes saw me topping up and chasing losses like a loon. Confirmation bias is strong when it's recent experience that hurts. $:o)
D: I don't play bovada, so my mileage may vary. I generally trust my European gaff, but I don't put it past them to 'tighten the screw'.
E: playing this out with my own money at ten sessions at £100 would not hurt me. I'd be prepared to do so for a modest sidebet, purely for converstational value. I should reasonably expect to lose 5 or more sessions, but what the heck. It would, of course, prove nothing.
F. I could make this work, with maybe a bit of live streaming or time-stamped video recording. It might be fun.
G: No way would I expect anyone to throw real money at the 10 x £1000 session part of the bet. We already know it's -ev and if its gaffed, we wou;dn't want that to be tenuously demonstrated with our own real money.
H: ODG, I don't currenlt wish to enable my own image sharing facilities, but would love to send you an excel chart that you might find amusing. Email address by pm?
Sorry blogger for hijacking your blog topic. I think this would all have been better out as a forum thread.,
Tee Hee,
I wish ODG had taken me up on that silly wager:
Popped £100 into online account and played RNG Blackjack, strictly 3,6,9,9,9 progressive.
Results:-
102 wagers
Low point 71.50
End point 202.50
Cognitive bias: I will win if I start with 100 and try to double it. LOL!
Off to try it 9 more times.
Comments
well, I don't trust online casinos either, and no telling what each and every one of them might be up to.
but I can tell you that if you ever got, say, the Wizard's attention on your complaints, he would tell you that you are going about the process of getting "them busted" in entirely the wrong way. In the past, the Wizard has been able to take the data presented by someone like yourself and exposed the crooked software providers and the casinos.
So if you and Once Dear are serious and not just whining, I suggest sending a PM to the Wizard and asking exactly what data he needs to see - and the best way to go about recording it. Or find an old thread where just such an inquiry started and led to results [I briefly tried to find one and couldn't, but such exist]