UB/Bet21 Seating Assignments: feeding the conspiracy theorists

Excellent Point. I saw a special on Vegas Cheats.

They had an ex-dealer who knew slight of hand and could deal a BJ whenever he wanted to. To watch this man manipulate the cards was really astonishing.

So you're right it could happen in a live match too. That's why I wouldn't play in a shadey joint. If a casino, like the Gold Nugget in Las Vegas, which makes millions of dollars annually would risk having crooked dealer to skim off thousands would they risk it?

I doubt the pit bosses would stand for it, nor would the owners, especially since both would be implicated and possibly do jail time. Now in the virtual world - who are the bit posses, who are the owners, so you see the difference?
 
Colin said...

"There undoubtedly hasn't been enough data collected to refute a claim of non-randomness in the cards, but the real question is - has there been enough to warrant making the claim in the first place?"

I agree there is no proof to show non randomness and no proof to show that the deal is random...

As for is there enough to warrant doubt? Maybe not ...however this sites good will has been diminished to a very low point by their own hand...why should I trust anything about a game offered when the business treats me with such distain? Broken promises, refusal to explain anything, silence when words are in order.... ???
'

"I've experienced the same - "I don't f*#!ing believe it! This game must be rigged." - response to wild downward swings in my fortunes at various casinos, both online and real-world. I'm sure I'm not alone in that."


Yes of course ...bad beats are normal and amazing wins are normal...

But the over all reputation of this company and all the unresolved issues of the past dont help them to create trust and good will towards their site...in fact they bring extra doubt upon themselves by they way they treat customers...everyone is starting to watch things with a more focused eye.

This doubt is deserved ..they bring it on themselves and now they MUST prove honesty and fairness....

Frankly....not all that hard to do unless of course you have something to hide....
 
Last edited:
slightly delayed response to the lunatic fringe of tbj

I haven't posted for a couple of days - as I have been sick - and not up to either posting or even reading posts - but do want to throw my two cents in again - on several points

first: I previously posted on sample size needing to be based on what question you are really asking - and the difference between hypothesis testing and simply fishing through a data set for unusual hand sequences - or developing a basic strategy - this and some other comments on sample size evidently weren't clear or were misunderstood -

second - again - no one has posted anything which even comes close to being hard data which would indicate UB/Bet21 games/cards are biased - anecdotal 'bad beat' stories don't cut it -

so - here goes -

point one: I posted data on another thread tracking more than 4,900 player hands - this is hard data over a sizable sample size - usable for testing certain simple clear hypotheses - the reason I sampled this way was to determine three things 1. Am I being disadvantaged by receiving more stiffs than the other players?; 2. Am I being disadvantaged by receiving fewer blackjacks than the other players?; and 3. Are the hands being dealt the players in in the same proportions (bjs, stiffs, other hands) as expected through random chance? The sample size was indeed sufficient to answer these questions - and the answers affirmed that what we are seeing on UB/Bet21 conform to the expected probabilities - the small deviations from the known probabilities of the all player percentages and the difference between my hands and those of the other players are simply too small to be significant - if you aren't familiar with sampling size criteria and hypotheses testing and statistical significance - try surfing through Wolfram MathWorld or even Wikipedia for their articles on these topics - a sample of more than 4,900, with the results obtained, is plenty sufficient to establish that on these parameters, there is no reason to suspect non-random factors being involved. Feel free to conduct appropriate significance tests on the data I posted - there are several web sites where you can do this stuff on-line

point two: the 'concern' about dealer hands is bogus - tbj/ebj is a competition amongst the players, not between player and dealer - even if there are non-random factors affecting the dealer hands - it is irrelevant - as all players face the same dealer cards and all are affected equally - only non-random factors that affect the PLAYERS differentially, favoring one player over the others, or disadvantaging a particular player and not the others, are meaningful- as long as all players are affected equally - dealer cards are not a factor - the issue with seating assignments was VERY RELEVANT - as seating assignments affects betting position, and that does has a differential impact on players - and that can directly affect outcomes - that was a very serious issue as far as I am concerned - it also apparently has been resolved - my more recent seating assignments have seemed pretty random

point three: you can not apply the same probabilities to single discovered incidents of unusual card sequences that you would apply to a sample used for a hypothesis test. That was the gist of my posts/comments on sample size and hypotheses testing versus fishing expeditions - I will try to explain why - and why 'fishing' data is worthless -

we all know that the probability of getting a bj is 0.04751, right - so the odds of the dealer, or any player, getting 6 in a row are 0.000000242 (1 out of 4,132,231), very rare and a very unusual occurance - so, if you are playing one of the tables you have played on UB/Bet21, and you see such a rare event - you would rightfully be concerned, as to how fair the game is, right? - no, actually, wrong - because that 'expected probability' doesn't apply in that situation - the probabilities that do apply can be calculated as follows:

I have played about 1,200 tables on UB/Bet21 to date; figure that in the 61 tables I tracked for the data I posted, I tracked 4,932 hands for myself and the other players, with myself receiving 983 hands - so I played an average of 16.016 hands per table - apply that to 1,200 tables - and I have played about 19,219 hands - so have had 19,213 opportunities to see the dealer get a six or more hand sequence of bjs - so - the probabilitiy that I would - somewhere in those 19,213 opportunities see one or more such sequences is: 0.0046388675! not common - but not so rare at all - but - I am also watching not just the dealer, but my own cards and those of 6 other players - so there are actually 8 series of 19,213 hands that I am observing - so the probability that I will see at least one six-hand or more bj sequence amongst all the players and the dealer - are actually: 0.03650!!!! over 3% - so should I panic over observing an occurance that has a 3.6% probability of happening by random chance, for someone at one of my tables?? even worse for the meaningfullness of anecdotal bad beat 'data' - I am talking about only a single 'bad beat' scenario - there are obviously many hand sequences which are very improbable and would trigger off my paranoia - what if I am dealt 18 stiffs in a row? -that's a 0.000000457 probability - or the dealer shows a ten as an upcard 12 times in a row - that can't happen by random chance - can it? - that's only a 0.00000072 probability - but those sequences are actually more likely to occur than the sequence of six bjs in a row - so the probability that I will observe each of them AT LEAST ONCE in the hands I have played is higher than 3.5%!!! For 'fishing expeditions', where I am simply observing play - and 'seeing' these remote probabilties occur - the real probability I need to know is 'what is the probability that I will, in all the hands I have played, observe one or more of all the many possible various 'bad beat' sequences?' - not just the probability that I will observe a particular one - as I will identify and react to any that occur - well - I don't know how many such sequences there are - and couldn't even begin to calculate them - but there are very many that would qualify as 'bad beats' and be very long odds to happen - in a live tournament game at the Avi in Laughlin - I saw another player at my table get 5 bjs in the first seven hands - a 0.00000468893 probability - definitely an impossible bad beat - since it was the drunk-all-in-guy - and he won the two hands he didn't bj -

so lets, very very conservatively, say that there are 250 'bad beat' sequences we would detect, as experienced players - then the probability that I would see at least one of these sequences ocur in the 19,213 opportunities for each of seven players and the dealer on UB/Bet21, using the probability for six bjs in a row as the base, is: 0.9999079 - virtually certain to see at least one - and a 0.4293503 probability that I will see TEN or more of them occur!!! Those are the relevant probabilities for your observations - when you are scanning a large data set for any of very many possible long odds sequences - which is exactly what you are doing - you are certain to find several, or even many - by random chance - that's how it works - finding such sequences means NOTHING - if you didn't observe such sequences happening - THAT would be unusual - and a matter for real concern - because they are expected to happen - by chance - and you would then be observing a serious deviation from random results if you didn't see any - they would have to be rigging the game to avoid them happening!

if you want to establish that these low probability sequences have any relevance or suggest in any way they are not simply expected artifacts of random chance - you need to track over massive numbers of tables - and show they fall into a non-random pattern and/or relate them to regular, non-random, external events, - such as : ' whenever my account balance goes over $1,000 at the next table the dealer gets six bjs in a row, and this has happened three times' - now that would be worth suspicion, and further testing as a hypothesis - but highly improbable bad beat anecdotes are simply interesting stories and provide no reason to suspect non-randomness.
 
Ta

Thanks RKuczek for this informative post. I have read it and although I want to read it again more closely my initial inspection of it makes sense to me and I can understand your points. I won't comment further until I have read it again and hopefully some of the other more learned members of the forum will have responded.

I'm glad you are feeling better.

Cheers

Reachy
 
RKuczek said:
point two: the 'concern' about dealer hands is bogus - tbj/ebj is a competition amongst the players, not between player and dealer - even if there are non-random factors affecting the dealer hands - it is irrelevant - as all players face the same dealer cards and all are affected equally - only non-random factors that affect the PLAYERS differentially, favoring one player over the others, or disadvantaging a particular player and not the others, are meaningful- as long as all players are affected equally - dealer cards are not a factor - the issue with seating assignments was VERY RELEVANT - as seating assignments affects betting position, and that does has a differential impact on players - and that can directly affect outcomes - that was a very serious issue as far as I am concerned - it also apparently has been resolved - my more recent seating assignments have seemed pretty random
Click to expand...

RK, I’m glad to see that you are feeling better as I wondered why you had not contributed for awhile. However I suggest you pick up your thermometer and check to see that you don’t have a fever. I happen to disagree with you regarding the dealer’s cards NOT affecting a BJT.

Now I may be totally off the deep end here. I may be part of the lunatic fringe as you have categorized me, however, I’ll post my “logic” so you can see where I’m coming from and tear me to shreds ok? Statistically it may not seem relevant to you, however from my perspective it is CRUCIAL to determine in the dealer’s cards are within the expected norm. WHY?

As you accurately pointed out the competition is among the players with regard to CHIP totals. In order to do that we, as players, must play against the DEALER. If the dealer is drawing to 19-21 in a higher than expected probability it DEFINITELY affects the player outcome. WHY?

Let us assume that all players are using Basic Strategy (BS) and doing it correctly/according to the book. So we would stay with a 13 versus a dealer 3, 4, 5 or 6 because, statistically, the odds of the dealer busting would be more favorable than hitting or surrendering. However if the dealer is busting 5% fewer times than expected or drawing to 19-21 5% more than expected it will affect our chip totals.

Another example: as a player you have a 10 or 11 and the dealer is showing a 4 or 5. Most players would double down (DD) at this juncture. It’s the right play according to BS right? Why? When the dealer shows a 4 there is a 39.7% chance of them busting. With an 11 up, I have a 46% chance of getting a 19-21. So statistically I’m inclined to DD. What happens if draw an 8 or less (61% chance of that occurring) and the dealer now draws to 20 or 21? I’ve lost. Statistically the dealer should only draw to 20-21 (with a 4 showing) 23% of the time. However if there is a flaw in the number generator and that increases to 33% of the time…do you see where I’m going?

Final example of how DEALERS cards affect TBJ players more than you have indicated. Dealer getting BJ. The odds of this occurring are 4.7%. So it’s hand 5 and the dealer gets a BJ. Hand 6 – dealer gets a BJ. Hand 7 – what are the odds of 3 dealers BJ in a row? 0.01%. So we go all in and BAM dealer BJ wipes us out.

Those are just 3 examples of how, in my opinion, the dealer outcomes strongly influence BJT. So now RK, statistically prove to me that I’m a lunatic…
 
I hope he includes himself in the lunatic catagory.

I keep hearing his words and Im sure his math is correct yet he fails to look at problem realistically....

If there is not enough evidence in the numbers and trials to prove that there is a problem then there is ALSO not enough evidence to prove the opposite!

Common sense would explain this issue yet RK keeps explaining that there is no problem .....all Im saying is PROVE IT!

The example of trails he shows is no different and in fact a "fishing" expidition itself...only he is fishing for the opposite result.

The time has come to stop talking and prove your asertion with the numbers...

I can just as easily say I have checked 4,000 hands Ive played and I find a problem....I would expect you to say prove it or show me....and that is what I say to you.....SHOW ME THE NUMBERS....arent you in fact preaching from the "Lying with Statistics" text book?

The fact remains that a RNG is a misnomer and impossible invention ...Its a program written by a person and subject to any code the writer includes...
There certainly is a test that proves the numbers fall into reasonable norms....I dont see how you can say you have tested anything with such certainty as to declare a troube free deal...

I bet you didnt think there was a seating issue either....???

No one fully trusts computer based games and there is good obvious reason for that... the data is easily maniuplated, the programs are designed by folks who are motivated by money.

You are asking us to trust your sample ....a small sample of a game that comes from a site with a poor reputation of handling issues in a forthright and promised manner....

Your focus on the one unburning tree doesnt mean there isnt a forest fire...step back and look again...

You could be 100% correct.....but you certainly must realize that you dont have proof yet...actually I dont think you do though.
 
thoughts

I have re-read RKs post I have to say that I understand and agree with most of it. However I do take issue with him and agree with FGK on the dealer issue. If the dealer is getting an inordinate amount of stiffs/busts then that will favour more aggressive players and vice versa. Therefore a skewed dealer outcome pattern will affect the outcome of a TBJ.

If I explain how I understand what RK is saying on the other points then maybe it may help others. I can understand Randos POV; if we don't have enough data to prove that the improbable events that we witness are as a result of a non-random bias in the dealer mechanism then how can we prove that the dealer algorithm is in fact random? The way I understand it is this - the fact that we see a game where the dealer and 3 players all get a BJ is highly improbable but it's not impossible, therefore we can't immediately assume that the RNG is off, it's got to happen sometime right? I can't remember the numbers for that particular scenario but let's say that our particular improbable event is so unlikely that we may only see it every 1,000,000 hands. Now if bet21 has 100 games per day that on average go to 25 hands then we are likely to see that 1 in 1,000,000 event occurring every 60 days!!! In addition, if you played 5 games a day everyday then your chance of witnessing the 1:1,000,000 event is 5%. That's not a big number I know but I think you'll agree that it's not small either.

What this says to me is that we are likely to see highly improbable events far more than we intuitively expect to - in the above abstract but realistic scenario we have a 5% chance of seeing something that only occurs every 1,000,000 hands. And that, I would argue, is not grounds for suspecting the RNG is dodgy.

I expect the onslaught soon......

Cheers

Reachy
 
Just a footnote to Reachy's response. He used 1 in 1,000,000. The actual number is much lower. Using an infinite deck it's closer to 1 in 194,481 (21 * 21 * 21 * 21). Of course they are not using an infinite deck so after card removal, I would put the number closer to 1 in 300,000. So multiplying Reachy's "percentages" by 3 would give a more accurate answer.
 
I certainly agree that one example of every player plus the dealer getting BJ is not indicative of anything....nor is Kami seeing a 8 card under 21 hand once in a while....but what about the fact that he has seen several?

I see the dealer getting an ace up multiple times in the first 8 hands....I think this is not normal. I see it enough times to make me say to myself ..."Hey is this odd?"

In a random deal the dealer should show an ACE up how often?

I dont think anyone disputes that any combination can or will be seen....but certain combos or cards are noticable and I happen to watch dealer Ace up in the first 8 hands...and I say the dealer shows Ace up far more than an honest and random million hand run would show.

I can easily say that Ive played enough games and hands (multiple thousands certainly) to be sure of it....now what?

A quick check of this could be made by comparing the average length of live action EBJ games vs internet EBJ games...

Its a rare internet EBJ game that goes to 30 hands...why is that?

Im hearing the math experts say there is no reason to believe the RNG is anything but random...Im asking if you can prove it?

There was a show called Beating Vegas that profiled a software designer that manupilated the RNG of a certain group of Slots that he designed and he took millions before being caught...If I remember correctly they actually never had enough to prosecute him...

This isnt a case of innocent until proven gulity....when the mafia ran Vegas it was determined that almost w/o exception every game was fixed...
Then came gaming commissions and audits and things changed. This game is unregulated and it is beyond me how trusting the mathamaticians are and how quickly they claim all clear....when I cant see how anyone can prove that claim. At least I havent seen anything that proves honesty...

Explaining away odd combinations is one thing but the fact that somethings can happen doesnt prove a fair and random deal...

Im asking if you can prove it?

I know one thing ....almost every computer game is designed with a easy, hard , and expert mode. Since the unexplained seating issue recently (lets hear about that math wizzes;-)) Im satisified that audits of the whole game are in order....If I owned this game and I wished to promote my honest and fair game you can darn well know that I would have my game tested and publish the results over and over again...Wouldnt any smart owner do this??? Why do these sites fail to quash the questions? I would do it if I was running a fair game....and if I was running a rigged game then I would NOT do it....

Run the numbers on that one and see if it holds up.;-)
 
Last edited:
dueling with the lunatic fringe part two

Rando - to respond to your pseudo-issues -

my data on hands was not the result of a 'fishing expedition' - I carefully formulated the questions/hypotheses I wanted answered in advance, and collected my data in precisely the categories and form needed to resolve those questions - and yes the sample size is sufficient for that - I can't give a full course on basic applied statistics through this forum - but would seriously recommend anyone interested in understanding the underlying probabilities of tbj and how to determine the significance of data at least go down to their local community college and sign up for a basic stats course - or better yet - a course in probability and combinatorics, if available - my data was indeed sufficient to answer the questions asked - which I clearly explicated in my post - and the results were 'no significant deviation from random chance' - again - if you choose to ignore fact - go run your own test - of clearly stated hypotheses and post the results - feel free to run significance tests on my data that was posted -

that does not answer every possible question or issue about fairness - but does show that in one aspect of the game - players hands and if individual players are being singled out for receiving biased cards - the hard evidence says otherwise - you can close your eyes to straight forward factual results - afterall - there are still a lot of people who believe Iraq had WMDs - but those are the 'lunatic fringe' -

as far as the seating issue - your post is a blatant distortion - I posted the initial post on this thread - dealing with that issue and giving data from 50 tables - and that was indeed a 'fishing expedition' as I was simply reviewing seating assignments for anomalies - but the number of possible seating assignment groupings is quite limited - and the probabilities we were talking about were very extreme - 1 out of 2 billion - so even accounting for the full range of possible seating assignments - which I did in a later post - we still got a solid indication the seating assignments were non-random -

as far as RNGs are concerned - good grief man - you simply don't know anything about this subject - you are confusing a true hardware RNG with a psuedo-random number generator which is a software program - a software psuedo-RNG, like your Excel spreadsheet has - generates a string of non-random numbers that mimic a true random sequence - they are NOT good enough for this type of use - a hardware RNG is a physical device that plugs into a computer port - and generates a true random signal from an underlying physical process - and the software then converts that physically generated sequence into a true random number sequence - this process can be distorted and non-random factors enter into it - from external sources - such as a strong radio signal can interfere with a zener diode's output - which is why these devices are shielded and a set of software routines are used to test their output - and why two streams of output are used and mixed - and why conversion routines usually include a whitening process - to assure randomization - these hardware devices and associated software are used in research labs world-wide - and accepted - with regular monitoring - as true random number generators - from the description of their RNG and shuffling, etc. processes, which you can find on the UB site if you bother to look - and don't mind a few facts interfereing with your paranoid fantasies - UB/Bet21 uses a twinned zener diode RNG - this is industry standard for research labs - and they use an industry standard and academically accepted software suite to assure randomness - and the tribal gaming commission tests that RNG and the software on a regular basis -

now maybe UB/Bet21 is lying, and maybe the tribal gaming commission is lying - maybe the whole world is lying to just set you up to lose money on-line? - so reasonable to test and question - which is what I did when I tracked hands - and why I have done a lot of detailed hand tracking - nothing I have seen suggests anything but a random process for dealing the cards - and - the hardware set up they cliam to use - is - well - cheap - you can do it on your home computer for less than $500 -

in fact, maybe you should do this =- get fgk to share the cost with you - pay for it out of your tbj winnings - then you can generate your own hands from an RNG you trust - and see what random results actually look like -

also - are you sure that UB/Bet21 has their own computer? - they are licensed out of a Canadian Indian reservation - like many other online gaming sites - and that tribe runs a very sizable computer center which provides servers and services to their gaming sites, and to other users - my bet would be that's the setup UB/Bet21 uses - the tribe is running the games on their servers - using the UB/Bet21 software -

Finally - Rando - and any others that are interested in reality as opposed to paranoid fantasies - you simply don't understand probability - probabilities are not predictive - the fact that 4.751% of hands dealt are blackjacks does not mean that if I deal you 100,000 hands you will get 4,751 blackjacks - what 4.751% means is that if I deal you an infinite number of hands - as we go down that sequence of hands - the CUMMULATIVE percentage of blackjacks will cycle around, and edge closer to, (converge) on that number - and you need to run maybe 100,000,000 hands to get a reasonable convergence -

you can not use the 'expected probabilities' for blackjack to predict what cards you will receive - nor what proportions of your hands will be stiffs, etc. - over a short sequence of hands - random chance will assure that the hands you receive and the cards you draw will vary from the expected probabilities - sometimes wildly - and will also assure that over the very long term - the cummulation of divergent results will start to converge to the expected results -

Rando - all your 'junior high debate class' posturing about "prove it' doesn't change the fact that neither you, nor fgk, nor anyone, has posted any valid data to give anyone a reason to think that the UB/Bet21 game is unfair - nor the fact that I did indeed post such data - examining certain aspects of the game - and the result - from a statistically adequate sample - was there was no divergence from the expected probabilities - if you want to disagree with those results - PROVE IT - by posting a valid statisical study of hands dealt - testing clearly stated hypotheses (which is exactly what I did) - and showing counter evidence - until then - you indeed occupy the lunatic fringe of tbj
 
WMD, Irak and Bet.21com

So, if I understand your post Ruczek, Bush and Cheney, being part of the lunatic fringe, also run Bet21.com through Joep, Rando being Saddam Hussein.:joker: :joker: :joker:

(25 words, Kam!!!)
 
Last edited:
asylum

RK

I tend to agree with you on the issue of the fairness/randomness of the dealer at Bet21. However I am concerned about Kaminari's experience of seeing 5 dealer 7 card charlies in a 50 round sequence (which probably equates to around 300 hands) which he says he saw on more than one occasion. I don't have the expertise to do anything meaningful with this information but you do. Can we "prove" anything with this data?

Cheers

Reachy
 
inhabiting the lunatic fringe

Reachy - others - if you want some heavy reading and to get a little freaked out - go to

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/

which is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's introduction to probability theory - as they point out there is not one but FIVE probability theories, all of which are incompatible with the others - and all of which are 'flawed' logically to the point of most likely being invalid :eek:

problem is - that a single observation really can't be used to prove anything - I have seen many weird sequences on UB/Bet21 too - but whenever I start tracking hands - etc. - the cummulative results eventually settle in to reflecting random chance expectations - even though for short periods - the results can be wildly divergent -

I think the key here - is that while we are all seeing highly improbable sequences happen - they are not the same sequences, and they don't reoccur - so we end up with observations of things that don't repeat - there are two explanations for this - ONE: we are simply playing a very great number of hands very quickly - and so are noticing the odd events that happen by random chance - but that's what it is - just the normal results of probability working on short sequences as part of a very long sequence of hands - at the Yuma tourney this past Thursday - at the final table - the dealer swept the table 8 straight hands - drawing to 20 or 21 or BJing every time - and we only play 15 hands per table - no one won even one hand during this eight hand sequence - and there were only three pushes in these eight hands - with at first 6 of us, then reducing to 4, as players went out - this is more than a little improbable - but s**t happens - we just don't usually see it once a week - but we don't usually play 100 tournament tables a week either -

TWO: we are seeing the result of an intermittant non-random influence - something that pops up every once in a while - and skews off the probabilities in a very non-random result - but with different effects every time - so one time the dealer gets an ace up every hand - the next time - dealer hits every stiff to 21 - the next time - every player is dealt a stiff for 10 straight hands - etc. - always a different impact - so when we start looking for the odd sequence to happen again, it doesn't - something like this could be caused by an intermittant radio interference and a poorly shielded hardware RNG - power noise in their computer - software flaws - whatever - and is not necessarily intentional - but with good monitoring should be detected and prevented - and should result in the skewing favoring the players as often as the dealer

what is needed is for people to check for specific events - such as - how many times the dealer shows an ace up during the first 8 hands - or - what proportion of the time does the dealer have 20 when he shows a ten up - and record this data - over about 50 - 75 tables - then report it back - are we seeing random chance over the long run or not? - whenever I have done this - it just keeps coming out random chance - so I have decided that as far as I am concerned - I'll buy that this is just chance - until I see some hard evidence otherwise -

I'll also point out - that a lot of players on this site have reported making profits on UB/Bet21 - I have a profit at this point - hell - I deposited $25 in September and am still going - so its hard to feel that they are deliberately cheating me -
 
"I'll also point out - that a lot of players on this site have reported making profits on UB/Bet21 - I have a profit at this point - hell - I deposited $25 in September and am still going - so its hard to feel that they are deliberately cheating me -"


Ok egghead....

First I never claimed to be expert.....that would be you....in fact I explained I have little knowledge....it is you claiming expert status! But for the life of me I still dont see ONE BIT of proof of your theory...only your words that you formulated a test and received positive results....you made the same sort of unproven claim a while back stating some wild claim about betting bigger in the first 8 hands vs other hands....and when asked by the more knowledgeable math people here you never were able to explain yourself or prove your theory....

I think I understand your problem... you are so wraped up in the numbers as to completely miss the issues....

The issue of a non random deal (at least for me ) was never that I was being cheated...in fact I have only ever stated that the site deals certain cards to end the game quicker thus increasing rake rate per hour....

Now I'll ask you again....because you still have SHOWN nothing but you have talked alot....(actually I know you cant do it because I can smell BS from a mile away) but if you indeed asked a question ...then show that question along with the results that convinced you so certainly that you feel the need to insult us and speak from such a higer level ....with all your knowledge this should be a easy task...

I personally Im not very intelligent so if you would be so kind as to "dumb it down" for me....I would appreciate it..

You are correct ...I know nothing about RNG...but I wonder how you know that Bet 21 uses zinner diodes or whatever for this particular game....are you sure or are you guessing again?

I say you could be right....but you could just as well be wrong....

Tell me this ...have you ever heard about RNG being corrupted to a cheaters advantage in the slot machine industry?

Would it be possible to control results of a game such as EBJ at Bet 21?


Finally I hear you bragging all the time about your great success at the game but I have played pretty often there and I never see you...so unless you play under an assumed name then you simply dont play very much...

BTW....I bet my win rate is better than yours....;-)...

You think this is about winning and losing ...and you couldnt be more wrong...

Let me re-ask the question and please try to answer it with actual numbers as proof...not paragraphs of insults or unproven statements. Give us hard proof that this is a fairly dealt totally random game....not assumptions, not unproven commentary.

Can you do it or not?
 
Rando, no need to stoop to name-calling and personal attacks. Or, maybe you were GHermanski all along?

Anyway, back on topic, I'll make two points...

1) Any non-random behavior at an online casino is very likely to have nothing to do with the RNG, whether the random numbers are the result of a pseudo-random number generator algorithm, or captured from some sort of hardware device that provides entropy.

Instead, the real importance comes from the what the software does with the random numbers after they are generated.

As an example, my online Basic Strategy Trainer had a flaw for a couple of years. The problem and its fix are described here:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/news/bj022.htm#bst

2) "Proving" that the game is randomly dealt is much more difficult than proving that a game is non-random. Assume a game is non-random: Now you just need to find a particular attribute of the game that can be tracked and demonstrated to fall far outside reasonable probabilities. Proving a game is fair on the other hand would require you to examine and disprove every possible way of manipulating the results.

Asking RK to prove the game is fair is much like asking him to prove that a coin flip never lands on its edge. And without RK having backend access to all the data, your request is truly pointless. The burden of proof must lie on the accuser, to find a data sample that proves the game is non-random.
 
inhabiting the lunatic fringe part two

thanks Ken - that was well said - and appreciated

I think the main point that I have tried to get across is that in a very long sequence of hands - it is actually highly probable that you will see highly improbable things happen - such as long sequences of dealer blackjacks, the dealer drawing hard thirteen to 21 seven times in a row - and so forth - while a particular event may be a 1 out of 100,000,000 chance - there are thousands of opportunities, over the maybe 20,000 hands some of us have played, for such an event to happen, and 7 players and a dealer that it could happen to; and - very importantly, there are thousands of such long odds events which could occur - and which would be unique and dramatic enough to notice if you are an experienced player - so seeing several such events happen as you play your thousands of hands on UB/Bet21 is to be expected -
and can not be taken as an indication of unfairness in the game -

to calculate the probability that 1 out of 100,000,000 events will occur to any of eight players (7 players and a dealer) over 1,000 plus tables - with an average of maybe 16 hands per table - the equation would be

Probability of at least one occurance= 1- (((0.99999999^8)^16,000)^X) where X is the total number of 1 out of 100,000,000 different improbable sequences that could happen - assuming you have played about 16,000 total hands on UB/Bet21 - assuming that there are 1,000 sequences you would notice as being highly improbable - that computes out as 0.9999972392
, meaning that it is a virtual certainty that you will see at least one such improbable event in your play - even if you would only notice, say, 250 such sequences, out of all the possible highly improbable 1 out of 100,000,000 sequnces that could happen, - it still is odds on you will see a few -

what would be a sign of an unfair game would be to see the same improbable event repeated and/or occurring to different players in different games - and this type of thing has not been reported -

another would be to formulate a single hypothesis - such as : "the dealer receives an ace as an up card during the first eight hands more often than random chance would predict" - then track maybe 100 to 150 tables - recording the first eight hands at each - and showing that the results prove the hypothesis - and the dealer is actually receiving more than expected ace-ups - no one has done this type of thing -

finally - if someone could link a repeated rare event to an unrelated-to-play external circumstance - such as: the size of your bankroll - the day of the week - etc. - this would be very supicious - but no one has done this either -

I am not a big UB/Bet21 fan - I have gone on record as saying I think it is a carnival game which emphasizes luck over skill - we all know that they have customer service problems - they still owe me my tiny little deposit bonus - but it is the only site I can play for now - and I have not seen evidence - despite all the postings made about how unfair the cards are - that it is a rigged game - citing unique events - no matter how improbable - is not such evidence -

for the record - my user names at the on-line sites are REK1744, REKuczek, and RKuczek - on Bet 21 and UB it is REK1744
 
Last edited:
Ok, I’m gonna put my .25 cents here because, well I guess I started the whole “conspiracy, non-random” brouhaha.

For the public record, while I may have said that Bet21.com was “rigged”, it was a poor word choice, written in haste, frustration and anger (thanks given to Ace for pointing that out to me)

What I intended to write is that I believe that the dealing of the cards is not “random” in the sense that the way the cards come out is not the same that I would see in a “live” shoe game.

It was my belief, contention, hypothesis, that due to programming changes that a bias or skewing was introduced into the mix. Furthermore I believe that this occurred at approximately the same time that the seating snafu occurred.

Why am I “changing my tune” about this? Was it due to a final table appearance? NO, emphatically NO. My stance on this issue hasn’t changed in that I believe a slight skewing of the cards had occurred and may, to this day, still be occurring. However since I no longer track play/hands, etc., anything would be pure speculation and anecdotal rather than based upon actual data.

Why do I feel a need to write this? Very simply the link that Ken Smith provided with regard to the “non-randomness” of the cards with the BJ simulator, in my mind, is somewhat akin to what I believe was occurring at Bet21.com.

In addition the word, rigged, implies an intent to purposefully deceive, mislead and defraud. In retrospect that was the wrong word to use. I should have written that based upon the data that I had collected I felt that the distribution of the cards during the first 8 hands was distorted and biased, when compared to the second 8 hands and the 3rd 8 hands.

RK stepped into the fray with his much greater knowledge about probabilities and randomness explanations. While I appreciated his explanations to be honest he and I weren’t talking about the same phenomena and for that misunderstanding I take full blame.

Based upon my sample sizes I formulated a hypothesis but went about attempting to prove or disprove that hypothesis in the wrong manner. To make matters worse was the entire issue of the deposit bonus which just added fuel to the fire.

What I think it all boils down to is this – you either have faith in a system or you don’t. To this day there are still people who are adamant in their belief that the United States didn’t land men on the moon and no manner of evidence will convince them otherwise. Are those people right or wrong? Personally I don’t care because it isn’t within my power to change other people’s thoughts nor do I want to. I’ll leave that to the politicians!

My whole point with Bet21.com is this – the company is new (only here since August 2006) and like all new companies it encountered “bugs” since its inception. The passage of the UIGEA in November 2006 was something that broadsided the company, along with Global Player, Golden Palace, etc… However, the response team at Bet21.com has been pitiful. Their silence on these issues, such as the bonus deposit, canceling of big money tournaments, non-random seating assignments and the “whisper” of non-random cards only further fuels the guessing and rumors.

Without any other possible venues to play (thanks to UIGEA) Bet21.com has a captive audience. I now play at Blackjack21.com, however its player pool is miniscule compared to the UB player pool. Nevertheless I’ve learned that the journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.

The issue of playing EBJ is very alluring. It is fast, action paced; it allows one to accelerate their learning curve exponentially. But in the end it really does come down to the cards and luck. Is skill involved – yes but all the skill in the world can’t overcome another player receiving 3 blackjacks in the final 5 hands! (Fill in your own “bad beat story”).
 
Dude, its a mind virus

I was reading that guy's web page that won the big video poker pots. He is in to mid virus thru the new avenue of Memetics or sumpin like that. I for one dont believe the dealing mechanism at bet21/ub spits out natural cards, but I base this on playing live games that dont reshuffle all the time. I doubt the game is rigged and it sounds FGK doesnt either. But, we all know bet21 has failed to deliver promised goods including Play to Win books and bonus deposits. This very thing of -be inaction- has prompted mistrust in many players minds. Why should you trust bet21 who has proven to not be trustworthy? The company has planted a mind virus in your head! Also, that Brodie guy has planted a mind virus in my head, he has me wondering if I can have an 18 year old girlfriend when Im in my mid 50s......;)

http://www.memecentral.com/votm.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top