| Posted by: thelawnet at December 6, 2006, 5:01 pm | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by caruso
No, he was faking and didn't realise the outlandishness of the claim. I've seen it before.
Note to fakers: only fake data you KNOW something about, then you don't run the risk of ending up with an extraordinary claim and a lot of interest.
Fake straight BJ losses, that's an easy one. If you get into murky territory like this busting claim, you can get into hot water.
Are you sure about that?
It's a little odd that he hasn't been on either forum since October.
Maybe he got run over by a bus.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: GrandMaster at November 26, 2006, 3:23 pm | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by GrandMaster
At the moment I am getting some weird result at Wagerworks craps. My overall results are in line with expectations, but after sevening out, I get a string of 7's and 11's a bit too often. As I play don't pass/don't come, this is not a good thing.
I don't have any problems with Wagerworks craps any more, in fact the money I have made this week-end will pay for my skiing holidays in America.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: gambler addict at November 16, 2006, 7:26 am | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
I have much expereince playing at land based casinos. At the largest casino property (owned by harrah's entertainment) on a roullet table it went black 27 out of 29 I was on red at $1000 a hand. I ended up losing 100 more bets on top of that. A casino if they did cheat would likely cheat big players. you I always hear alot of complaints from people saying they think casino is cheating because due to short term losing streak. I had losing streaks playing daily that lasted 6 months. sometime unbelievable **** happens and experience has taught me that crazy **** happens. for instance, I had times where the dealer won 30 in a row straight or I had lost 100 sesssions in a row straight because cards were just running real bad. Or times where I place a big bet I lose. (It wasn't becasue I remembered only the big loses. I pondered it and realized that I was tending to bet big when it was going bad)Or in Bacarrat, I lost 30 in a row when it's supposedly a coin toss day after day. It came to the point that it I w... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: GrandMaster at November 16, 2006, 4:59 am | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by caruso
No, he was faking and didn't realise the outlandishness of the claim. I've seen it before.
Surely, nobody would do such a thing.
At the moment I am getting some weird result at Wagerworks craps. My overall results are in line with expectations, but after sevening out, I get a string of 7's and 11's a bit too often. As I play don't pass/don't come, this is not a good thing.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: caruso at November 13, 2006, 11:10 am | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
No, he was faking and didn't realise the outlandishness of the claim. I've seen it before.
Note to fakers: only fake data you KNOW something about, then you don't run the risk of ending up with an extraordinary claim and a lot of interest.
Fake straight BJ losses, that's an easy one. If you get into murky territory like this busting claim, you can get into hot water.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: derelict at October 25, 2006, 4:11 pm | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
It may not have been explicitly asked, but the most meaningful response that is required from both parties pertains to whether or not these results were accurately recorded. To his credit, the last communication from the representative claims that an effort has been made to locate the logs, and surprisingly states that he cannot find record of Nafanny having played the game at Virgin, which was where most of the play in question was said to have taken place. Obviously someone is mistaken.
Hopefully Nafanny will come back from what must be an incredible acation, but until then, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: caruso at October 25, 2006, 4:10 pm | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
No, GM is right. There was no question as such, but an accusation was made. The rep ducked the accusation and addressed another issue. The other issue - the "payout" - was irrelevant to the issue raised by the player. Noone questioned the payout, or for that matter even knew the first thing about it.
I agree however that the "par sheets" chat was a cut above what you get from your average CS monkey (sorry monkeys, no offence).
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: GrandMaster at October 22, 2006, 12:34 pm | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Nafanny posted on casinomeister.com that he was going to Las Vegas, but he did not say for how long. This must be the reason for his silence. It is unfortunate, that so few people come up with the data to substantiate their claims that a particular casino is cheating. I tried to erify nafanny's claims at Virgin Casino, the dealer busted slightly less often than expected, but nothing statistically significant and nowhere near as extreme as nafanny's results.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: derelict at October 17, 2006, 5:55 am | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by caruso
The stats are for those hands where the dealer didn't bust, ie. drew to a non-bust total (17 - 21), not for those hands the dealer didn't complete through a player bust.
I went back and reread the thread and couldn't find much detail on the sampling method, and as you stated, the logs are not available. Clearly the proper procedure would be to throw out the non-counting hands, and nafanny may well have done so.
I was just pointing out a possible error that could cause the bust stats to be lower than normal. If you've erified this to be incorrect then this probably isn't a factor.
Software fairness is a big issue for me, especially with the US playing field being increasingly narrowed to smaller operations. I'm near certain that OddsOn/English Harbour was intentionally cheating, but am not yet certain that this is an accurate recording of the hands played in this case.
Edit: I still believe the results posted w... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: caruso at October 17, 2006, 5:12 am | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by derelict
I don't think you understand what I said. If the player busts and there are no other hands on the table, the dealer does not need to hit...The dealer will never bust without hitting.
The stats are for those hands where the dealer didn't bust, ie. drew to a non-bust total (17 - 21), not for those hands the dealer didn't complete through a player bust.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: derelict at October 17, 2006, 3:51 am | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by bonuslover
Incorrect, in stats what you don't know doesn't count. Unless there is a tiny correlation between a player's bust and the dealer's bust (which I think there should be a tiny winy % as when P draws to bust it usually involve a face card and that decreases the chance of D's busting.) But if that's the case it would actually work against your argument.
I don't think you understand what I said. If the player busts and there are no other hands on the table, the dealer does not need to hit. There is no reason to becuase in standard rules, the dealer wins when the player busts, regardless of the dealer outcome. The dealer will never bust without hitting.
Again, it is too early to say that this caused the result, or that the results are invalid, but counting hands where the dealer did not hit would be one method of bad sampling.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: caruso at October 17, 2006, 3:17 am | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by bonuslover
I am waiting for CM, G2B, possibly Wiz and even our own great GM to come out and ouch for WW. Let's see what they gotta say this time.
Our own "great GM" has already confirmed the analysis that the results are to all intents and purposes statistically impossible.
As to Bailey and Loh: >>SNIP<<
Michael Shakelford had interests in English Harbour which prevented an otherwise good bloke from being objective, in my opinion. That wouldn't happen in this case.
[Max says: per usual C you can keep the itriolic crap to yourself. Normally I'd say put up or shut up but in this case I think you're well past that point.]
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: bonuslover at October 17, 2006, 2:33 am | | Topic: WagerWorks blackjack: conclusive evidence of cheating if the data is genuine Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by eek
I would be interested to hear if the player logged out and then back in on a regular basis, or played the entire sample in a single unbroken session.
I just read the thread over CM, from the tone of nafanny it appears he was chasing losses over a period of time so I am sure the whole thing took more than a single session.
| | Static Link |
|