Awful results playing Boss Media single deck

[Caruso]

3.35 SDs is certainly bothersome. Do you have other recent experience at the game, or is this your sole set of data?

Ken, I have an awful lot more data. This was simply my last chunk. I'll be away a few days, but will post some more thorough results subsequently.

BTW, I wouldn't bother retesting - I imagine your account has a big red cross next to it with "absolutely do not fuck with on pain of death" scribbled in.

 

[KenSmith]

You could certainly be right. On the other hand, that last day was brutal in my blog of 10 days of Pharaohs play.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Sorry, it seems you are looking for a reply but what you wrote makes no sense.

Well I mean what is the difference between his experience and Intercasino? What is the determining factor that throws up a red flag to makes Intercasino so obviously rigged?

 

[Gregory]

Well I mean what is the difference between his experience and Intercasino? What is the determining factor that throws up a red flag to makes Intercasino so obviously rigged?

I'll shake up the Magic 8 Ball and find out:
"I doubt it"
Hmmm, mysteries on top of mysteries.

 

[ScottH]

I'll shake up the Magic 8 Ball and find out:
"I doubt it"
Hmmm, mysteries on top of mysteries.

Your 8-ball is rigged too!

 

[Gregory]

Your 8-ball is rigged too!

No way, it's only off by ten standard deviations. Isn't it the two of you who find that perfectly acceptable? :joker:

 

[Caruso]

OK:

There is one comparable positive run, where over 788 ititial hands I won 92.5 units, or 2.7 standard deviations. FTR, this is less severe than the combined losing sessions I posted above.

Out of all my 200-hand recorded sessions, one recorded a win of 46 units, to compare with my last session, a loss of 50 units. That 46 unit win is not a part of those 788 hands I mentioned above.

My total return is currently 99.94%.

Ken, aside from the bare stats, I would like you to take a look at the three screenshots I posted. Look at the spectacular concentration of winning and losing runs (the "streaks"). On the second page, look at the seven-hand sequence of six winning doubles.

Does that look like a single deck game's results to you, or does it look like a slot machine? I'd like an honest opinion on this (not that I'd expect you to be dishonest, LOL). Do you believe those results come from a random single deck?

 

[KenSmith]

I looked at the graphics you provided, but without actually delving into the math required, I don't feel that I can make any useful observations from them.
My initial reaction is that I don't see anything out of the ordinary here.

However, to be clear, I don't pay nearly as much attention to winning or losing streaks as most people probably do. Perhaps that comes from years of dispelling the many money-management myths that are so common among blackjack players. I tend to just ignore recent results almost entirely while playing, whether land-based or online. So, perhaps someone who agonizes more over streaks is better suited to pass judgement on your experience.

I will say one more thing... I should be getting results from an anonymous tester soon on this game. I'll let you know.

 

[Caruso]

That will be interesting, Ken, but will it tell you anything my own play doesn't? I have a huge amount of play recorded, and as I say the overall return is 99.94%, 0.28 of 1 SD down. That is miles within expectation.

FTR, I'm not remotely interested in "streaks" and the theories thereof, until such a time as they become so ludicrous as to raise possible questions.

If your tester's play will be examined in all details, frequency of upcards, cards on doubles etc etc, it will tell you something my play doesn't. If it's a straight run to examine the overall return, then my play already proves the game "fair". And I am not convinced of this.

 

[Caruso]

I decided to go back in with my remaining 14 units on deposit.

All gone within 29 hands. Same bullshit. Same constant, unrelenting 21 dealer draws. Same constant stiffs.

Give me a break.

 

[KenSmith]

OK, I'm way confused now. After you earlier complained about the game, I decided to fund someone else's play to research without being tied to me. Now you say the game is well within expectation, yet you continue to imply there's a problem. I give up. Hopefully I can stop my tester from wasting time and money on this.

I suggest you stop playing online Caruso.

 

[Caruso]

Ken, as I said earlier the total overall return is 99.94%, which is 0.28 SDs from expectation. The session I reported above, -93 units over 570 odd initial hands and 3.34 SDs down, constitutes the most recent play.

I went back in and lost another 14 units over 29 initial hands. A redeposit and completion of that session lost overall just 4.5 units.

I hope your tester isn't taking too hard a beating, it would be valuable to have a full analysis over a decent sample. I have conducted various "tests" along the way, such as frequency of cards on doubles, two-card 20s, bust cards etc, but these are tedious and I aborted them all. The results didn't show any obvious anomalies, but they were too short to be meaningful.

 

[ScottH]

Ken, as I said earlier the total overall return is 99.94%, which is 0.28 SDs from expectation. The session I reported above, -93 units over 570 odd initial hands and 3.34 SDs down, constitutes the most recent play.

I went back in and lost another 14 units over 29 initial hands. A redeposit and completion of that session lost overall just 4.5 units.

I hope your tester isn't taking too hard a beating, it would be valuable to have a full analysis over a decent sample. I have conducted various "tests" along the way, such as frequency of cards on doubles, two-card 20s, bust cards etc, but these are tedious and I aborted them all. The results didn't show any obvious anomalies, but they were too short to be meaningful.

You're only down 0.28 standard deviations and you suspect the site of being rigged? Is that correct? Man, 0.28 standard deviations is absolutely nothing, and is a VERY common occurence.

 

[Caruso]

The thread was in relation to that last session, not the entire experience.

Suppose for the sake of argument that last session had been a completely impossible 100 units worse, at -193 out of 590. That would have been an equally impossible 7 standard deviation loss and catagoric evidence of foul-play, yet the overall results would still be WITHIN one standard deviation, and you would trot out exactly the same response: "it's within expectation".

There can be severe anomalies within overall acceptable results which are clear indications of foul play. You cannot say "overall it's OK" as proof of a clean game. It isn't that simple or convenient. It would be the easiest thing in the world, in such an evenly-balanced game, for the software to throw up the smallest anomalies and turn a player edge over to the casino - or casino edge into a bigger one in the case of the vast majority of games.

 

[Caruso]

The loss rate continues uninterrupted.

Over the last 1376 hands I've lost 125 units. That's a 9% loss rate, and 3 standard deviations. The last 195-hand session lost 33.5 units. There is no comparable winning run, not even close.

Overall return is 99.85% over in excess of 30,000 hands. The expected return is around 100.15% with perfect play.

 

[ScottH]

The loss rate continues uninterrupted.

Over the last 1376 hands I've lost 125 units. That's a 9% loss rate, and 3 standard deviations. The last 195-hand session lost 33.5 units. There is no comparable winning run, not even close.

Overall return is 99.85% over in excess of 30,000 hands. The expected return is around 100.15% with perfect play.

Does anyone know the N0 for this game?

Even after 30,000 hands the overall results seem to be within reason.

 

[Sonny]

Even after 30,000 hands the overall results seem to be within reason.

I think we all agree that the overall results are reasonable. It seems like Caruso is more concerned with the severity of his recent session(s), not his overall results. The magnitude of his recent losses are reasonable in the long run but quite extreme in the short run.

-Sonny-

 

[Sonny]

Suppose for the sake of argument that last session had been a completely impossible 100 units worse, at -193 out of 590.

That's not impossible at all! You keep confusing things that are unlikely with things that are impossible.

That would have been an equally impossible 7 standard deviation loss and catagoric evidence of foul-play...

Again, a 7 SD loss is rare but definitely not impossible. There is always a tiny chance that something that bad (or good) will happen. I’ll agree that it is possible evidence of foul play, but certainly not proof.

-Sonny-

 

[mickpk]

Does anyone know the N0 for this game?

At 1 sd, it's 565,000 hands.

 

[ScottH]

At 1 sd, it's 565,000 hands.

Haha, so 30,000 hands of results doesn't mean too much.