________________


this person from Quora makes a compelling argument
but I'm not by any means sure that he's correct
what is your opinion as to the accuracy of his claims____________?____________obviously his claim probably does not apply to games dealt by a live human dealer



.
" I have played blackjack for decades, all over the planet. From Vegas to Macau, from Atlantic City to Amsterdam, From Barcelona to the Borsch Belt. Read what I am about to write very carefully:

THESE GAMING SITES THAT ARE ON THE INTERNET ARE ALL - EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM - %100 RIGGED

The hosting web sites of Draftkings, Wynn, Golden Nugget, FanDual, MGM, et al, that market behind the glitzy stars and celebrities, without exception, subcontract to the “pseudo random number generating” publicly traded shills such as NetVent and SGP. These subcontracted operatives use algorithms that prohibit the player from winning any hand that is deemed ( by computer and player history ) as “substantial”

What does this mean? Stated simply, all players are profiled by there betting style. The algorithm is then translated to only allow for the lower amount of the player’s bets to win, or “streak”; often accompanied by the software parlance’s congratulatory promos ( ie., “you’ve won 5X in a row”! ). You gain no points for being a valued member, good sport, or whatever con game you run on yourself to rationalize addictive behavior.

Once that same player has been seduced to raising whatever standard bet they make, BANG, the algorithm clamps it’s virtual teeth: Suddenly, the player is steamrolled by BlackJacks and 6 card 21’s. The algorithm is easily discernible by any seasoned player and, as such, the losses can be limited. For example, by avoiding doubling down, regardless of what the dealer is showing as an up card, and avoiding ALL large chase bets, you are less likely to succumb to the avalanche of highly suspect hard beats. You will never win any money.

Those who do manage to stay afloat will, in time, succumb to the exorbitantly high play throughs and the ever expanding risk odds of these algorithms; regardless of how traditional the player is or whatever risk tolerance that’s been acquired. Don’t be stupid enough to believe these site’s insistence that they are “regulated”; to grease any politician costs maybe 100K, let alone some in jin Proudfoot on a tribal land.

Pony up the VIG, folks and stay exclusive to the respective Sportsbook’s. To venture into a virtual casino is an errand solely for the masochistically tolerant.

Good fortune shines no beacon here."


.

They don't need to cheat there is a substantial house edge on house edge games and they get all of the money anyway in the end because the people that play these games are mostly gambling addicts and degens

How is if a "compelling argument"? There is zero substance.

He made a claim about the results on the sites for certain betting patterns. He provided no proof he is correct. You have provided no proof he is wrong so by your standards your argument has zero substance. I doubt the sites allow enough outside access to determine whether he is correct. The simple tests; what is their percentage held vs theoretical percentage for example, all are junk as IF they cheat they simply have bots they own win enough to make the numbers work. Do I feel they are so inherently honest they won't cheat no. Do I( feel it is even that difficult to cheat no. Do I feel they cheat; not enough information to know but see all the ads and glitz; someone is paying for them.

I have provided no argument therefore I need no proof. Conversely, the OP has said some random guy has provided a "compelling argument". It is up to the person providing the argument to come up with, if not proof, then a reasonable explanation backing the opinion.


I am willing to be convinced. But I need more than, "hey guys, they could cheat you if they really wanted to".

Then you deserve to be cheated as your statement is equivalent of saying IF there is a way to cheat you that the site denies you the ability to prove/disprove you will always believe the site isn't cheating. He brought up a reasonable argument; that in his direct observation the site treated bets of different sizes with different results. The explanation that the site will lure you in by letting you win small but hammering you when you bet big is backed by the history of how certain cons work. My view is sites that can be dishonest need to prove they are honest not that I need to prove they are dishonest. Otherwise a fool and their money are soon parted.

Sample size, selective recall, confirmation bias... yada... yada... yada.



If there was rigging going on it would be easy to prove statistically.

Only if the site gives you access to all their statistics. Trivial to cheat and not be detected if the site controls what you get to see.

Lol. So what's the actual ROI for the player in these rigged games then? If the casino cheats, this must be lower than the standard 99,5% or so

Is the argument that they're rigging some accounts, but not others?

Put in the simplest terms, when you gamble with an online casino you are playing a game on a computer program that has been designed and coded to take in more money than it gives away. By posting the odds of the games they offer they make this abundantly clear.

If you choose to believe that they are further stacking the games against you, even after they have already told you that they are going to take all of your money one nickel at a time, I will not try to change your mind. You being paranoid does not prove that they are not out to get you.

I know that everytime I play Ignition blackjack from a deposit bonus I start doing well then when I up my bet I get split 8s that turn into two DDs vs a 6 and the dealer hits 5 times and gets 21.


Must be rigged.

And you being a fool and trusting them does not prove they aren't cheating.

Burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Again, this should be easy to do with publicly available information.

what are you picking on me for? I don't even play on-line casino.

If you were to ask me I would say that the fools are the people who play online casino games against a computer that has been programed to beat them and take their money.

And I would say that those people who choose to play anyway but then think they have been cheated when that computer does take their money, I would say that those people are beyond fools, in fact they are idiots. But you did not ask me, so I won't say those things.

And you and they are both claiming they aren't cheating. Why do you feel your claim has no burden of proof? My claim is they can be cheating and given the only "evidence" they aren't is they claim they aren't feel those that claim to trust them are at best fools but often have less nice reasons to pretend they can't be.

I make no such claim, therefore I need not supply proof. See how this works?

It would make more sense for an online casino to rig a game that has some AP element to it.

In general, they don't need to mess with the RNG, The casino could simply randomly select from a bank of thousands (or millions) of completed hands that favor the house. The games would appear random, but they obviously would be anything but. Change suits and some sequences to obscure the fix. Since the software ostensibly shuffles after every deal there is virtually no way to prove the hands dealt were not random.

No.

Altering an RNG is beyond stupid. Pre programming results is by far the easiest path to riggage. I'm not asserting any online casinos are doing it, but altering an RNG would require so much downstream programming with unquantifiable results it simply would not be worth the effort.

Pre programmed results would be easily detectable.

I'm reasonably certain that I could program it and nobody could prove anything, although some might claim its rigged because they are losing a lot (when have we heard that before?) In Blackjack, for example, in a 52 card deck there are 36,617,944 permutations for a dealer to get 21 (either by natural or by hitting). For a double deck it is in the billions, for 8 decks many trillions.

Now certainly many of those permutations are quite unlikely to appear randomly (e.g. A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A), but even discounting those there are still trillions of permutations in an 8 deck shoe at disposal. And I'm not saying the dealer would get 21 every single winning hand. And it would be unnecessary to rig the player's hand (which would be difficult anyways because of discretionary play), just call up a stored dealer sequence (one of billions) that wins (or loses) at the desired rate. Even analyzing millions of hands (which no one could conceivably perform) it would appear random.

You don't think it would be observable if the house won more than it should?

I'll leave that question to an AP who was still losing after 150k hands.

Besides, the house does not need to win more than it should. The edge is baked in, if their return equals their edge with certainty I'm guessing most places would take that in a heartbeat.

Assuming they have enough sense to have bots that beat the house more than they should no you would not be able to tell that in hands versus real opponents they win more than they should. Only a fool believes an online casino can not cheat in an undetectable manner when they control what they let you see.