| Posted by: dirtystockbird2 at May 5, 2005, 12:29 pm | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Hello all and thanks for the feedback.....
Hmmm....Well the good news is that Cypher's results came back within normal limits. Trust me this is what I wanted to hear as I really have no recourse as the money is already spent. My initial posts were to question the streaks of bad hands that I encountered. The 750 hands came into play when I sent the entire history to Cypher. So I guess my question should really be is it within normal limits to only win 1 in 17 hands or 2 out of 25? Apparently, after reading posts, the consensous is "YES it is normal". I can live with that.
Gamble Girl, I do not think the losses are related to the raised amount of bets. Look at Cypher's session #4, he has a run of just 1 win out of 17 hands at low bets. Yes I have seen this type of run in land based casinos before, but not as often. I guess I need to accept these runs with online gaming and learn to bet $1 when it gets that bad.
Some of you have said that this was a worthless post... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Greek Viking at May 4, 2005, 8:47 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by dirtystockbird2
Yeah, it may be normal to have 44-45 winning percentage, but what about the two streaks I posted? That is the question that I want answered.
Enjoy
Maybe I have misunderstood you. But as I understand your posts, you played about 700 hands. At a time you had a bad streak where you won 5 games and lost 21 games, while 2 resulted in a push. The next day you had another bad streak with 4 games won, 19 lost and 1 push. Now you ask if that is normal.
It's certainly frustrating when it happens, but yes, it's completely normal. If you play 700 games and search for the worst streak of 25 games in that session you must expect to find a streak as bad as 5 won and 20 lost. Often you will even find a bad streak with 4/21 or 3/22 and occasionally you will find even worse streaks.
Looking for such bad streaks is not the way to expose rigged software. The reason is that it is completely natural to have such bad streaks in a... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: cipher at May 4, 2005, 5:32 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by hhcfreebie
Cipher, I read your forum and a title named:
What would have been a CLASSIC DUMMY DOUBLE-DOWN.
Did you hit on 11 s dealer's 7 because you are in a losing streak?
Just curious.
Hi hhcfreebie:
In that instance there had not been a multiple win for the player in some 23 hands. The wager that was placed at line 33 ($342.00) was more than enough to cover the accumulated losses from line 10 forward, so in effect I was more than doubling down on that hand as it was. In such cases as that when I'm faced with a double down opportunity that really does look to good to be true I'll pass on the double down and more times than not it turns out to be the right decision. Have a good one.
Cipher
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: thelawnet at May 4, 2005, 2:18 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by dirtystockbird2
Ok gang...The previous thread showed 25 questionable hands which everyone pretty much says is impossible to happen. OK, so i love punishment. I had 500 left in my firepay this morning and said wtf, lets see what happens for the record. Hey, this casino claim to be fair and hones and passess all the audits! HA! Wait until you see my last 27 hands there ultimately wiping out my next bankroll! Even if you throw out the last 25 unbelievable hands of the street, is it possible to have a similar run the ery next morning in a truly random game? Take a look at these 27 hands! I have included the other 25 from the former thread for your reference as (Session 1) http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=19733. Thank you so much for finally getting me out of online gaming. I am intrigued by this though and want to get the word out. I am still withholding the name until I get some more feedback from you. I will probably disclose it today on here and forward ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: cipher at May 3, 2005, 3:19 pm | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
First off, there are no bad guys in this scenario. About a week ago, I was asked to do a CIPHER workup on the Blackjack system at CASINO ON NET. Initially and without Dirtystockbird2 and/or Casino On Net’s knowledge, I deposited $1,000.00 of my OWN money at CASINO ON NET. Over the past 4 to 5 days, I’ve played a total of eight sessions of Blackjack at Casino On Net, the first session being a Free Play session and the remaining seven sessions all being real play sessions, all of which were winning sessions with an average net win per session of $149.85 on the real play sessions.
I found absolutely nothing untoward whatsoever about the Blackjack at CASINO ON NET. All of the aforementioned sessions of play have been recorded on CIPHER strands and scrolls and those individual session html files for each separate session has been preserved and those files are available for iewing at The Gambling Edge website at:
http://www.thegamblingedge.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10
Additionall... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: dirtystockbird2 at May 2, 2005, 10:48 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Hey Miami and Bonus lover....
I disagree about the post being worthless without posting the name (temporarily). The post was initially designed to receive input and feedback on other unbiased opinions on the run of cards I had. I am indeed emotionally attached to what transpired because I'm the one that lost money. There is no ego trip or anything like that and I just don't want to specify the name unless I get conclusive results that something highly irregular happened. I guess I'm too caught up in this "What If" scenario. "What if" I was the casino and someone made accusations about my business without facts? Sure it happens all the time, but I try to be ethical about the way I approach these type of things. I did post the facts with some of the logs and could post them ALL, which I have for the most part. I put the questionable runs up at the top of the thread and disclosed the winning % over 700 hands.
Please understand that I have my reasons to hold the nam... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Miamivce at May 2, 2005, 9:10 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
I thought this is an open forum?
You know, like sharing news with the members. Nobody has to declare the "secret" onliner as being honest or rigged, just relate all the facts to the members. What good is looking over the hands log and all the blah, blah, blah, without mentioning the name of the place? We're big boys and girls and we (me) really don't need to waste time reading posts that are meaningless.
Forget the ego trips.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: bonuslover at May 1, 2005, 12:48 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
This whole thing is a waste of time:
1, those of us who have been around know online casinos are rigged, end of story. There are always people coming up trying to analyze this analyze that - simply waste of time.
2, if no casino names are mentioned the post is even more worthless
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dirtystockbird2 at April 30, 2005, 9:10 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
HK Gambler....The true analysis isn't complete yet. I am not sure if that is what you are referring to? Yeah, it may be normal to have 44-45 winning percentage, but what about the two streaks I posted? That is the question that I want answered. Cipher will perform the analysis and I will respect that answer. This is great for the players to be equipped with this analysis.
If you are referring that I should know better that the system goes on these runs when I raise my bets? - then yes that is I true statement. However, if the game is fair and truly random, then the size of my bet should not matter. I play the game at this casino because I am operating under the assupmtion it is indeed truly random. What do ALL the numbers suggest?
We'll see....This is why I am not blabbing that Casino name X is cheating and the sky is falling until we ascertain the results. If it comes back fair, I don't think we will list the name.
I hope they come back as a fair game to be honest for t... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: dirtystockbird2 at April 29, 2005, 7:32 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Bethug....I sent the hand history in separate emails at 6 mb each. The overall player winning % was around 44-45 % which is in line with normal play over 700+ hands. However, the question still remains about those two lousy streaks and the probability that could possibly happen (especially during the big bets). We will just go with the analysis and trust the numbers. Again, we will give them the benefit of the doubt to the Casino and let the stats tell the story.
Thanks everyone.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dirtystockbird2 at April 28, 2005, 10:10 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Yeah I rarely stand on 16's s 10. I am sending my entire detail play log with all card units to demonstrate that basic strategy was mostly followed.
Anyway a little update....I am sending my last 700 hands to the bethug to route to cipher to do statistical analysis that includes those two questionable runs.
Again, I am giving the Casino the benefit of the doubt and will only present facts.
I do have my theory on what transpired, but I have no facts yet.
Thanks
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Gamblegirl at April 28, 2005, 8:47 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
16's s 10, presumably. Standing 16 s other cards (7,8,9, Aces) is not a good play at all because the dealer will bust far less frequently.
Your result looks to be about 3.7 SD's off. I say "looks" because this is based on strict basic strategy play and flat-betting so don't take that with more than a grain of salt.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dirtystockbird2 at April 28, 2005, 6:28 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Thx bethug...Actually I will do print screens of all the history I can get as well and zip it up. It may take a bit.
BTW...I play pretty basic strategy. There are times where I'll stand on 16's based on the feel, but not usually. That's about as crazy as I get...
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Bethug at April 28, 2005, 5:59 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
We will disclose the name after cipher run a few session. And it will be a big surpise. I hope not.
dirtystockbird2, please email everything you got to playerunion@gmail.com
for some reason my exployer is tripping when i get to the office.
This might be ery sad.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: HKGambler at April 28, 2005, 5:31 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Dirtybird- assuming you’re just playing normally, needless basic strategy, your result indicates the game is rigged. Disclose the name of the joint, otherwise your writing this thread is meaningless.
Sidenote:- your result is slightly better than what I played at Casino Bar four years ago, where I could only won 4 and pushed a few, out of 33. I complained to the Internet Gaming Commission (an organization which I found out later to be totally incredible) because it accredited Casino Bar and some others like gamble.com.au (have you heard of this casino? what a joke!) The IGC defended in its reply that my sample was too small to be statiscally significant. Because of that, I quitted playing 90% of online casinos.
My point: I don’t need to wait the wizard of odds to prove for us Casino Bar Is Rigged, I can conclude for myself who are rigged and decide for myself where to quit playing.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: MrWolf at April 28, 2005, 3:44 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Quote: Originally Posted by The Original Mary
If you're getting these results on a Microgaming, Cryptologic, Boss Media, Cassava Enterprises, Playtech, Wagerworks or Chartwell site I'd be surprised.
Mary,
Why would you be surprised by these results on Playtech and Chartwell? I can't remember exactly when I stopped playing them, but I haven't played blackjack at either for at least two years because of attrocious results which made me highly suspicious that the games weren't random.
Let me add that this isn't a case of sour grapes because I lost (I played dozens of sesssons on both softwares). I've played tens of thousands of hands online over around five years, particularly blackjack and ideo poker. And I can take my losses - for example recently, on Saturday I was £500 behind after two deposits playing JorB VP at 32Red, before ending £500 up for the day following my third deposit; again £500 behind yesterday at 32Red before managing a modest £100 win following... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: The Original Mary at April 27, 2005, 4:54 pm | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Boy, DSB, you are being punished.
There are some casino software packages out there known to be rigged. They usually look cheap. You could be playing one of them.
If you're getting these results on a Microgaming, Cryptologic, Boss Media, Cassava Enterprises, Playtech, Wagerworks or Chartwell site I'd be surprised.
If it's Casinobar, Iglobalmedia, Gambling Federation, Starluck, Diamond Lounge and anybody on the Casinomeister Rogue list, I wouldn't be surprised.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: CasinoNow at April 27, 2005, 1:58 pm | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
I dont know if it is enough to say with absolute certainty that they are rigged, but it certainly looks suspect.
It would be interesting to know what casino it is so that maybe others can also contribute play results so that we have a larger sample to look at.
It is just really hard to judge something based on 50 hands. It gives you a good indication, sure, but the casino will always come back and say that this was just a short-term outcome/streak, and if there had been longer play the results would have evened out. Who can argue when it's a 'what if' description.
I will say dsb is certainly a more aggressive player than I am. If my bankroll was $500, I would not be going over $5/hand - certainly not bold enough to start tossing out $50-100 at a time. I usually try to keep my bankroll at 150-200x the amount of my wager so that I have a good shot at rolling through any bad streaks.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Bethug at April 27, 2005, 12:13 pm | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
dirty,i can tell u. there alot of politics. You have webmasters that get paid big bucks to discredit your data, you have casino owners, and other greedy people that will try and pay you off.
Show your data to cipher. He is straigt forward and to the point. he has track alot of data.
he does not get paid by a casino or kiss a casino butt.
This what i thinki its simple common since. take 100 people the first 40 hands played the same way, you know good and well that casino is not dealing a random game.
but you will have this people tell u, u have to play a billion hands to u if it fixed or not. Most of them in the casino pocket.
email me your data i will pass it along to cipher or isit his spot
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dirtystockbird2 at April 27, 2005, 11:00 am | | Topic: If that wasn't enough to scare you? Look at this! Forum: Winner Online |
Ok gang...The previous thread showed 25 questionable hands which everyone pretty much says is impossible to happen. OK, so i love punishment. I had 500 left in my firepay this morning and said wtf, lets see what happens for the record. Hey, this casino claim to be fair and hones and passess all the audits! HA! Wait until you see my last 27 hands there ultimately wiping out my next bankroll! Even if you throw out the last 25 unbelievable hands of the street, is it possible to have a similar run the ery next morning in a truly random game? Take a look at these 27 hands! I have included the other 25 from the former thread for your reference as (Session 1) http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=19733. Thank you so much for finally getting me out of online gaming. I am intrigued by this though and want to get the word out. I am still withholding the name until I get some more feedback from you. I will probably disclose it today on here and forward these results to their auditor. Oh, and I am promptly c... | | Read Entire Entry |
|