Hi guys, I've been playing on global poker for about 2 years now. I know that sometimes you get unlucky, and I don't think I blame anyone but myself for the bad habit of gambling.

For the last year or so, I've been alternating between texas hold'em and blackjack. And I've noticed that most my poker games are fair and I don't suspect any "cheating" there. But for the last year, when I play blackjack, and follow basic strategy, I haven't been able to really make money, not once. The dealer always goes on crazy streaks and pulls out insane 21s. I've just put this screenshot here as a reference.

I'm posting here to get your opinion and see if anyone has had some luck playing blackjack on global's website, or if it's just me that's been incredibly unlucky over all this time.

Thanks

they didn't put it there for you to make money

I've played blackjack for over 15 years following basic strategy both online and brick and mortar. I've used all types of betting structures. I even kept a spread sheet. Online casinos edge is unbeatable in the long run. You'll never be +EV online. Perhaps with card counting, favorable blackjack payouts, and bankroll management in brick and mortar some "pros" can have a minor edge.

Just stating from my experience

You understand playing the basic strategy is just the least losing strategy of all the potential losing strategies right? It's a game with a house edge, on a long enough timeline everyone but the house loses, unless you're counting cards, which is probably literally impossible with online blackjack. (Feel free to correct me on that last bit, pure assumption but if casinos eject people for counting I can't imagine an online site would make it possible for you to do so.)

Several years ago and I am not a blackjack player, this is something I noticed here locally, they made a slight adjustment to the payouts. I assume to increase the house edge enough to overcome a card counter's slight advantage.

I truly believe, they no longer care if you count cards.

I can't imagine an online casino leaving very many opportunities for an advantage player.

Why play games that are -EV?

So far, none of the posters have even come close to addressing your question. They have all said that playing blackjack is a losing proposition, which you probably know.

I haven't played a lot of blackjack on Global, but I have played. I have seen the dealer get the miracle card - and I've also gotten the miracle card. I don't have any data on it - but I'm pretty confident that they aren't rigging anything (they don't need to to make money). I have had stretches where I might get blackjack 3 times in 10 hands; I've won 8 hands in a row; and I'm sure I've lost 8 hands in a row.

All in all, it plays like it does at a casino. So, yes - you should expect to lose in the long run. But you should also expect to win on occasion. There are some quirks about the software, but these shouldn't have any impact on your results. Somehow I doubt that you are just an incredibly unlucky loser in the Global blackjack world.

If you want to continue to play, I suggest you play maybe 100 hands of the lowest stakes, and track your results. I'm guessing that you will end up within spitting distance of the house edge.

LOL!

For a living, not a great idea.

For entertainment, they're actually fun.

If you've ever hit some nice slot payouts, you know the fun feeling.

You just have to keep your entertainment feelings in check.

In the least confrontational way possible, I think people aren't answering the question because it's a silly question. Playing a game with -EV over and undisclosed sample size, and questioning the fairness of the RNG, using a screenshot of a few hands doesn't make any sense. The idea that you can play 100 hands and it would likely be close to the house edge, or would be in any way indicative of the fairness of the RNG is nonsense. You could literally lose 100 hands in a row of blackjack and it wouldn't prove anything. You need samples of millions of hands before meaningful statistical insights can be made.

It's my mistake for just showing a couple of hands, but I showed them just to emphasize that the dealer pulls out crazy 21s.
I just counted all my history and I got these stats on 724 played hands:
wins - 289 (~39.9%)
push - 34 (~4.7%)
losses - 401 (~55.4%)

Is that considered okay for online Blackjack?

At least the internet can provide a good laugh. I hope you didn't pay much for your statistics class, because you clearly didn't learn much. If you really think samples in the millions are required for anything, you really need to go back to a chapter on sampling.

Certainly not a statistics major, but if you think a few hundred or a few thousand hands prove something definitively I don't know what to tell you. Good poker players making +EV plays go on downswings for tens of thousands of hands on a regular basis, does that mean the sites are rigged? Definitely not.

you're running bad, but still within expectation. The other guy saying you could lose 100 in a row and it doesnt mean anything is an idiot. you should end up winning around 45-48% of our BJ hands over long-run.

100 hands is not even kind of the long run lol

I read an article detailing how the NJ online casinos make far above what percentage they should on their online BJ games. Much higher a % than they do in their brick and mortar.

The theory is that the online players are not using basic strategy. Having played the infinite live and seeing dozens of players split tens and hit when the dealer is showing a 5 and 6 that seems plausible.

It's also plausible they manipulate the deal and that government regulators are incompetent and would never detect such a thing. If they were caught, what would happen anyway? They pay a fine and its business as usual.

Anyone who is interested in this or any rng discussion should read up on the EA Sports, "Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment". It is possible to manipulate results real time in very complicated gaming. Poker and BJ are not complicated.

Play a few hands for fun online if you want, but save your $ for Vegas.

Comparing blackjack to poker is comparing apples to oranges. If two people played heads-up, wagered $1 on each hand, and all hands were dealt to the river, you would find the results converging on 50/50 (with a few chops) within a reasonable number of hands. And this would be a fair comparison to blackjack.

But poker isn't played that way. Of 10,000 hands, probably 90% of them end in a personal result of between 0 and 3 BB won or lost. Most of the rest might be between 3 and 20. The big hands that result in wins or losses of 100 or more BB come around very infrequently. So if you only get a small percentage of those, and the cards go against you, you could easily have a big downswing - and contrary to all the riggie theorists, it wouldn't mean anything except "that's poker".

If you are betting the same amount every hand in blackjack, you are not likely to experience any wild swing if the deck is dealt fairly. You don't need anywhere near the sample you are talking about when it comes to poker.

Again, I'm not a statistician, but I don't think you're right about the swings in blackjack. I was definitely exaggerating saying that losing 100 hands in a row would mean nothing, it's highly improbably, but entirely possible. Think about it on the scale of a whole casino, if you tracked every hand simultaneously, you don't think the house wins/loses 20, 50, 100 hands in a row?

In the context of proving or disproving an RNG is fair or unfair, I'm fairly confident you would need a huge sample size for it to be meaningful.

No. For the house to win 20 in a row (not counting pushes) is in the neighborhood of 360,000 to 1 . So, sure, it could happen, and probably has. But that doesn't mean that it is very likely to happen if you decided to take a sample and right off the bat that happened (50 or 100 in a row has probably never happened). Someone could flip a fair coin in a fair manner 20 times and get 20 heads - but if I saw someone flip a coin and get 20 heads in a row I would suspect it wasn't a fair coin or they weren't flipping fairly.

You are right that doing something 100 times is not going to prove anything. But statistics never prove anything, they simply provide probabilities and therefore can support hypotheses. I suggested a sample of 100 (not knowing he could get his history that was more than 700) because it would be a low risk opportunity to see that he was probably not really doing as badly as he had perceived.

Fair points. Also surprised he can get a hand history that far back considering how bad the hand history system is for poker on Global

losing 100 hands in a row assuming 45% win rate per hand is .55^100 or about 0.00000000000000000000000000010870986%.

Meaning, in the history of casinos, no, it probably has never happened.

No.

You're never going to prove its fair to everyone's satisfaction without disproving hundreds or thousands of different theories. As for proving it's unfair, that entirely depends on what you're trying to prove. If it's trying to prove that in poker, recreational players are hitting their draws too often, that would probably take a huge sample. If it's trying to prove that in a simple game like blackjack (where we know everyone's hand and the best strategy) that we're losing too often, the requirement would be far smaller. And if one were to come up with something as straightforward as a streak of losing hands that are a coinflip, I expect the number that one would need as proof to be as low as 30-40 as that's when I believe we start to get into less than one in a billion odds. So I expect there might be some disagreement whether 30, 35, or 40 in a row was enough proof, but 50 or especially 100 is well past that level.

But this is kind of silly. Your points about 100 or 1,000 hand sample sizes were all spot on; you just went a little astray with 100 losing hands in a row not proving anything.

That all makes sense, figured I was probably exaggerating at some level at least lol

I know I shouldn't be playing any online blackjack, that being said global pokers black jack has to be the most crooked out of any online blackjack I have ever played. That being said i have lose 42 out of 50 hands playing for $25 or more. Playing $5 hands it was basically back and forth. I played many more hands but the last 50 I really wanted to pay attention to because usually I go in and play 5-10 hands and anytime it was $25 and over I lost every session.

Has anyone else noticed how terrible it is? I mean I play a lot of online casinos but the blackjack on global I definitely will never play again. Even the slots are pretty bad playing 2.50 a spin on that western slot I must have hit the bonus 30 times and never won over $40

I just seen this thread after making my post, but there is no way the blackjack on global is legit. Nearly every time I have a 20 for a good amount of money the dealer pulls a 20 or 21 even when I pull a 21 the dealer always finds a way to chop it.
When I'm playing $5-10 it usually isn't so bad but when I'm playing $25-50 I literally have never had a winning session. Its actually stunning.

once u learn how to detect when a shoe ends u can starting beating global blackjack