Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #1  
Old April 6th, 2010, 11:04 AM
DMMx3 DMMx3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 72
Default Possible Unfair shoe at Online Casino?

I have played nearly 50 shoes at a "Live" Online Casino. I can prove statistically that the shoes are unfair at nearly 99% confidence. I plan to track some more to improve this confidence.

Assuming I can (almost) definitively say that the shoes are unfair, what recourse would I have? What could I do about it, aside from just not playing there?

Last edited by DMMx3; April 6th, 2010 at 10:35 PM.
  #2  
Old April 6th, 2010, 12:09 PM
KenSmith's Avatar
KenSmith KenSmith is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,118
Default

I doubt there's any recourse.
I believe that many of the live games offered by online casinos are managed by a separate entity so whatever you find may impact many online casinos. I'd be interested to hear your methodology of tracking and your data so far.

Please keep us updated as you proceed, and of course I'm sure everyone wants to know which casino is implicated.

When I checked the live games years ago, I found it puzzling that the shuffles were never shown on camera. Instead, shuffled shoes were brought into the game. Why bother with a live casino when a key aspect of the process is hidden from view?
__________________
BlackjackInfo.com blackjack basic strategy cards. Latest online casino news in the US: Nevada Online Casinos
  #3  
Old April 6th, 2010, 02:27 PM
SleightOfHand's Avatar
SleightOfHand SleightOfHand is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 943
Default

Also, what did you do to test your hypothesis? Did you start losing and then start taking data or is the beginning losses part of the data (the latter is not a valid test).

PS: With 50 shoes, assuming 6 decks with 4.5 pen (which I doubt for an online casino) playing heads up, you played ~2175 hands. Like you said, you probably need more hands.

Last edited by SleightOfHand; April 6th, 2010 at 02:44 PM.
  #4  
Old April 6th, 2010, 04:00 PM
DMMx3 DMMx3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 72
Default

I am pretty comfortable with statistics and do not think there is anything blatantly inaccurate about my findings or the methods used to collect the data.

I tested from the beginning because I could not believe that the casino as it seemed would offer a fair game. In fact, I never saw a card that I didn't track. (I guess I'm the Will Rogers of card tracking...or something.)

I tested a hypothesis based on the overall RC of all cards seen. I ran 10000 trials of the same number of cards (in the same number of shoes), and got a p value of ~.02 for obtaining a net RC of my result, or lower.

Also, I tracked all cards, not just my hands and the dealers (I am guessing that is what you were getting at with the 2175 hand assumption?) Sometimes I played the dealer heads up, other times it was a fuller table of 5 or more players. I don't have a count for the number of hands I (or the dealer and I) played, but that doesn't seem relevant anyway.

Do I need more trials? Well to be ~2% confident, no. But I would like to increase the confidence, and thus, as I stated, I plan to continue tracking.

Feel free to PM me if you would like to see all of the data. I have it in a pretty simple excel file.

Data Summary:

Cards tracked: 9789
Shoes tracked: 45
Overall RC: -94

Last edited by DMMx3; April 6th, 2010 at 04:06 PM.
  #5  
Old April 6th, 2010, 04:54 PM
Sucker Sucker is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,504
Default

Is this a JOKE post?
9789 cards is NOTHING! 45 shoes is NOTHING! A running count of -94 is also nothing.
And here's the REAL kicker: For the shoes to be unfair, they have to ADD small cards, or subtract large cards from it. The running count would end up POSITIVE, not negative.

One should be VERY careful about throwing around accusations of cheating.
  #6  
Old April 6th, 2010, 05:19 PM
DMMx3 DMMx3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sucker View Post
Is this a JOKE post?
9789 cards is NOTHING! 45 shoes is NOTHING! A running count of -94 is also nothing.
And here's the REAL kicker: For the shoes to be unfair, they have to ADD small cards, or subtract large cards from it. The running count would end up POSITIVE, not negative.

One should be VERY careful about throwing around accusations of cheating.
Yes, it's a joke. Well done.


I probably shouldn't bother responding to your post, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time:

9789 cards is not nothing. Zero cards is nothing. 1 card is something. 9789 cards is 9789 cards. I stated that I was over 98% confident (approaching 99%) that the shoe is unfair. I made no accusations. (If you read my text as accusatory, I apologize, as that was not my intention.) Rather, I simply stated the facts as they are. Also perhaps you noticed I did not specify the casino in question, because I am not confident enough yet in the data to "out" anyone.

As for the negative count, I taught myself years back to count low cards as -1 and high cards as +1, but it really doesn't matter if the result were +94 or -94, it would still be p=~.02. Though with a +94 (by my counting) I probably wouldn't have posted, instead choosing to keep quiet about the issue.

Bottom line: there have been 94 more low cards than high cards so far. The chance of this is around 2%. Well within the realm of possibilities, but it of course raises a flag and suggests more data would be helpful.

I ask you politely to please refrain from posting in this thread if you have little or nothing to contribute. If you have something positive to add (such as math-based analysis, or a theory that could prove worthwhile, etc.), please go ahead -- I posted here because I was interested in hearing thoughtful responses.
  #7  
Old April 6th, 2010, 09:44 PM
blackjack avenger's Avatar
blackjack avenger blackjack avenger is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,267
Default It's Just Not Enough

It's just not enough hands, cards or shoes seen to determine much of anything.

The variance of blackjack is very high. It might take about 10 hrs to play 45 shoes, well the long run number for bj is often measured in hundreds of hours.

In the short run variance can be quite nasty, perhaps it has you looking over your shoulder.

So now a couple have stated your sample is to small, others will probably agree.

If you truly think something is not right, then don't play.
  #8  
Old April 6th, 2010, 09:53 PM
Sucker Sucker is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMMx3 View Post
I made no accusations.
The title of your post was "Unfair shoe at Online Casino". Please don't try to insult our intelligence by pretending that this is not an accusation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMMx3 View Post
I tested from the beginning because I could not believe that the casino as it seemed would offer a fair game.
Admitting that you went into this with a biased attitude.

I'm sorry to have to be so harsh, but I'm sick & tired of people accusing others of cheating, with little or no evidence to back up their claims. Come up with some REAL evidence & maybe people will listen to you.
  #9  
Old April 6th, 2010, 10:36 PM
DMMx3 DMMx3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sucker View Post
The title of your post was "Unfair shoe at Online Casino". Please don't try to insult our intelligence by pretending that this is not an accusation.
I changed it for you.
  #10  
Old April 6th, 2010, 10:49 PM
DMMx3 DMMx3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackjack avenger View Post
It's just not enough hands, cards or shoes seen to determine much of anything.

The variance of blackjack is very high. It might take about 10 hrs to play 45 shoes, well the long run number for bj is often measured in hundreds of hours.

In the short run variance can be quite nasty, perhaps it has you looking over your shoulder.

So now a couple have stated your sample is to small, others will probably agree.

If you truly think something is not right, then don't play.
I don't get this. It is exactly enough hands to determine what I have stated. That is, that the likelihood of such a result is in the neighborhood of 2%. That's what it is enough to do. It is basic statistics.

I'm sort of disappointed in the general responses here. I posted essentially the same thing in a math sub-forum and got a much more analytical and thoughtful response. Many questioning the data and my approach, but in constructive ways. Others offering different methods of testing various hypotheses, etc.

Here, people just say "it isn't enough." What does that mean? It isn't enough to do what? Prove to 99.99999%? Yes, obviously, and I have acknowledged that from post number 1.

I still think something is not right with the shoe, and am still collecting/analyzing data to determine with greater accuracy the specific issue. But the rules, pen, and ability to sit out hands and enter midshoe, and bet size without apparent heat are so tremendous that even if the game is slightly rigged (extra small card or two per shoe, and/or a ten or two fewer per shoe), the game is still extremely beatable, much more than any live game I have ever seen. This is why I am so interested in this.

Anyway, I won't bother you with this topic any further. I see it is unwanted here.

Last edited by DMMx3; April 6th, 2010 at 10:52 PM.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC