 |
FRONT PAGE - Back to THE ADVISOR PAGE Dear Sir, I gambled at some RTG casinos and I know this software.
I must warn all Black Jack players . TheCasinoonline.com which uses the
RTG software
has special tuned Black Jack with very strange patterns. It is completely
unpossible to win
in this Black Jack . I observed that pattern for two days and it's
evidently not random.
( Always all dealer Ace is Black jack; Always all 10 is 20 when player has
18-19 etc ).
I gambled this casino some months ago and there was not such problems but
the new
version is evidently tuned for a very big casino advantage. Maybe other
players also observed such situation.
Hello, Radoslaw,
Let's look at your situation for the moment. You say that the dealer
"always" has a Blackjack when he is showing an Ace. Now, "always" means
"every time, without fail", but are you talking about 10 hands or 200 hands
or 2000 hands? In a sample of five hundred hands, the dealer can expect to
show an Ace 1/13th of the time, or about 38 times. Of those 38 times, the
dealer will have a 10 or face card in the "hole" 4/13ths of the time. That
computes to roughly 31%, so of the 38 opportunities, the dealer can expect
to have about 12 Blackjacks. However, in an honest game, an Ace as the
upcard could easily occur 50 times and the 10 or face in the hole could
occur 15 or 16 times, so when you add it all up, it may appear as though
the dealer "always" has a Blackjack, especially when the sample size is
small.
Now, let's consider the cheating casino for a moment. One of the easiest
events to track in the game of Blackjack is the number of dealer blackjacks
or 'naturals', as we call them. In a large sample, that will occur about
4.8% of the time; roughly once every 21 hands. If a casino is going to
cheat by giving their dealers too many blackjacks, they are just plain
stupid, because it's so obvious. While I agree that crooks are usually
pretty stupid, but there are better ways to cheat than that. So, if the
dealer gets two or three naturals in a row, does that automatically mean
it's cheating? It does not, so long as the percentage is close to 4.8%
over a large sample. Strange things happen in the game of Blackjack and
most people aren't prepared for them, so they assume they're being cheated.
You mentioned that the game appeared "normal" when you played it in the
past. I'm willing to bet (and I'm not a gambler) that you won in your
previous visit there and you obviously lost on your most recent
visit. I've said it before: Winning is not proof that the game is honest
and losing is not proof that the game is "rigged". Have you kept accurate
records of your play at this casino? If you did, proper analysis requires
you to add the results of the two sessions together.
As an example, if you played 500 hands the first time with an average bet
of $6 per hand, your total bets were $3000. Let's say you won $100. Now,
in your second visit, let's say you played 300 hands with an average bet
of $6 and you lost $200. For the total play, you bet $4800 and lost
$100. Since the RTG software shuffles the cards after every round of play,
you cannot get an edge over the casino, but I'll assume that you play
perfect Basic Strategy, so the casino has an edge of about 0.50%. Your
mathematical expectation is to lose at this game, no matter how well you
play, so even the best player can expect to lose $4800 x 0.005 = $24. But
that number is an average and the actual result will vary within certain
mathematical boundaries. For 800 hands of play with an average bet of $6
per hand, one Standard Deviation is about 31 bets. You already expect to
lose 4 bets, so it wouldn't be at all unusual for you to lose 35 bets
($210) in 800 hands of play and it's actually possible to lose as much as
97 bets ($582) in an honest game. If I were to see some data that
indicated a player lost more than $600 (assuming a flat bet of $6 per hand
and 800 hands of play), I'd be very, very suspicious of that game.
Please understand that I'm not taking the casino's side in this discussion
- our Blacklist Page shows that we have caught more than our fair share of
cheaters - but facts, not suspicions, are called for when proving
cheating. Give me the facts and if they are cheating, I'll be the first to
tell the world about it. Please see the article, "Is This Game Rigged?" in
the GameMasters Secrets section of my Website for more information.
Yours for winning, GameMaster, I find it to be fun but people tell me that is stupid, do you have an
opinion on this? B/c when you play alone and if you know what you are doing then it would
seem the strategy of playing Blackjack is in your favor, yes or no..
Hello, Josh.
The primary advantage in sitting at "third base" is that you get to see
more cards before you play your hand and that's of value only if you are
counting cards. For the non-counter, it doesn't matter where you sit and
even as a counter, it's not that big a deal. As for the way others play
their hands, what they do will not help or hurt you, in the long
run. While it's true that someone may play their hand in a way that causes
the table to lose to the dealer, there will be just as many times where
what they do will "save" the table.
I prefer to play one-on-one with the dealer, not because I avoid other
players' mistakes that way, but because I can play more quickly and the
more hands per hour that I get, the more $$$ I make. But let me caution
you; that is true only because I have a long-term advantage in the
game. If you are playing a game where the casino has an edge over you,
then it stands to reason that you should play as slowly as possible, so
that your $$$ last longer. Many non-counters think it's very dangerous to
play one-on-one with the dealer but that's not the case, other than the
fact that you might play 200 hands an hour, versus the 60 or so hands per
hour you might get at a full table.
Your edge (or lack thereof) is not determined by how many other people
there are at the table. It is determined by how you process the
information made available to you, i.e., counting the cards. You cannot
get an edge by just playing alone, regardless of how well you know Basic
Strategy. Some other tool of "advantage play" is also needed.
Yours for winning, GM,
Thanks for any advice on this.
Hello, Brad.
While there is something to be gained by playing the hand differently when the count is very low, it is more than offset by the increase in the casino's edge. Don't forget that the casino's edge may be 0.50% due to the rules, but that's when the count is 0. At a True Count of -6. the casino's edge is closer to 3%.
Yours for winning, GameMaster,
Hello, Robert.
Yours for winning, GM,
Hello.
When you get a chance, take a look at my article, "I Am Not a Blackjack Fanatic" that is archived on the Blackjack page of my site. In there you'll find a simple, yet effective method of counting the cards and it includes a money management plan that can actually work.
Yours for winning, GameMaster,
In Australia we have Super Sevens. Arnold Snyder
refers to it very briefly in his Blackbelt in
Blackjack and was hoping that someone there might be
able to help. No other books that I have mention it.
Probably because it's such a long shot.
I know it is a long shot, but...
I am keeping a side count of Aces by tracking their
imbalance as the deck progresses rather than
"counting" the actual number. This means I don't have
to do 2 separate running counts. I know within 13
cards whether I am short or rich in Aces and by how
many, and it's not that hard. I reckon, given time and
practice I can use the same principles for tracking
7's at the same time (or instead), as, obviously there
are the same number of 7's as Aces, so the skill is
transferable (unlike 10's). Whilst my system doesn't
allow me to track the suit of the 7's (yet), I figure
the payoff still might be worth it if I can find out
from someone what the numbers are.
The payoffs for $1 down are:
Obviously the imbalance of sevens will be affected by
decks remaining as well as number of players.
The answers need to be translatable to the following
sorts of questions. For example, how many 7's need to
be "overdue" before the bet is worth taking, either as
a raw quantity or true count converted? Is there a
formula for this? How many players at the table
before it just isn't worth considering, and is there a
formula for this? Is it best to spread to two hands
when the 7's are likely to fall - does this increase
or reduce the odds for the player?
I would appreciate very much if someone could help me
with this. I know for me it's worth a serious look,
especially at Star City (Australia), where I've been
told by you people that the odds are too much in
favour of the house to even warrant playing.
The Super Sevens may be just the edge I need to play
there, and I know that I can do it if I can find the
right answers.
Hope you can help. I've really appreciated your
assistance in the past.
Bye for now.
Hello, Alan.
All of your questions are answered in an article I did called "Making Side
Bets for Fun and Profit - Part 1" that is archived on the GameMaster's
Secrets page of my site. While I did not specifically address the number
of players at the table, it doesn't really matter how many there are.
That's because with more players, the "richness" factor increases more
rapidly, so you have the same number of opportunities in the long run. As
for spreading to two hands, I would do that only if the original Blackjack
bet warrants.
Yours for winning, GM, Hello, Frank.
Yours for winning, |