How many rounds of the game need to be played
so that the data of the percentages of number of hands won, lost, blackjack draws etc... are close to those of the simulators ....
Depends on how close. I've never calced standard error for those stats. I've only once noticed an online casino with an obviously out of whack percentage of blackjacks in nearly every shoe. They used nonstandard software and went out of business. That was in the early days of online casinos.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Interesting what you say Norm of course surely at the beginning of online casinos there must have been little control of RNG systems.
I tell you something there is an online game called NON STOP BLACKJACK of pascal gaiming is the provider.
it is a non live dealer game.
however it is a game
I would say that of all the online casino blackjack games the best or the one that can generate the greatest expectation of play ...
and it is the one I am doing the analysis of it.
of course the game provider mentions RNG system etc. etc.
I have been playing it for more than 200 hours and the truth is that it has not been bad.
I would like and I would appreciate your opinion of it
you can enter the page of the provider pascal gaiming and play for free.
the game is like the typical blackjack unlimited games.
that you can play in real time etc...
I am sure that you will be able to play the game in real time, but I am sure that you will be able to play in real time.
greetings let me know
yes regarding the number or percentages of blackjacks
of this game I am telling you about
I have the following information
for TC>= 3.5 THE PERCENTAGE OF BLACKJACKS IN the simulator is above 5% if not I am wrong
in data I have from real game 21000 rounds is between 4,23% that's why I was wondering if it is a short term effect.
OK, let's do a little math. Consider an event with probability p of success, 1-p = q of failure, and n number of hands dealt. Then the mean for such an event is np and the standard deviation is sqrt(npq). Let's say the probability of getting a natural is 5%, so p = 0.05, q = 0.95, n = 21,000, the mean = np = 1,050, and the SD = sqrt(21,000 x .05 x .95) = sqrt(997.5) = 31.6.
But you said you recorded 4.23% naturals, or 888. As the mean is 1,050, you are (1,050 - 888)/31.6 = 5.12 SDs below the mean. Such an event, if random, would occur with probability so infinitesimally small that, for all intents and purposes, it is zero.
Conclusion: You're being cheated.
Don
Not so quick! Bayesian probability leans towards the data not being correct. That is, the person is not faithfully recording all BJs in the sequence.Originally Posted by DSchles
If 900 out of 1000 of people do not consistently record every single BJ, and 1% of people report a severe (> 5 SD) shortage of BJs, what is the probability that anyone is being cheated?
In my experience, most people would under-report events like this when there is no strong incentive to be 100% accurate. I am one of those people.
I love playing online because I have recourse to the transaction logs (details of each hand at the better sites) and I can do an accurate postmortem of a session or a full year. I do not need to rely on my memory or note-taking discipline.
so based on your analysis
there is no possibility of a short-term effect of the number of BLACKJACKS.
maybe someone can help with the statistics.
of average BLACKJACKS hands for TC >=3.5 IN A GAME OF 8 BARAJAS 4/8 BARAJAS PLAYED....
And more importantly in case they are cheating on the number of blackjacks for the player
how does that affect the percentage of the player's VE?
You're just pulling this number out of thin air, right? You have no way to justify your assertion, do you? Why do you think there's no strong incentive to know if you're being cheated or not? I wouldn't touch online blackjack with a 10-foot pole for exactly that reason. And you can be damn sure that, if I did, and tried to assess its honesty by logging data, I'd do it as accurately as humanly possible. I just don't get your point.
Don
Don
I have no idea whether the data cited in this case is good or has omissions. C_AUREO21 has not said how much confidence he has in his data.
I also find that a large fraction of gamblers feel they are being cheated based on faulty data or faulty analysis. (At an OTB, 80% of the old timers think they are being cheated on a daily basis.)
My point is that if I start with a few reasonable assumptions and do the Bayesian analysis, I find it much more likely that the data is faulty than that there is actual cheating going on. Yes, I am pulling numbers out of thin air, but you are not assigning any probability that the data are faulty.
This is my point. If I assume:
(1) The probability of a random player claiming they are being cheated is 20%.
(2) The probability of any given player actually being cheated is 1%.
Apply Bayes' Theorem. P(C|A)=P(A|C)*P(C)/P(A).
The conditional probability that a player claiming to be cheated is actually correct about this claim is approximately 4.81%.
You can plug in whatever numbers you choose, but I it doesn't seem right to accept the claim as 100% reliable without further information.
I have no experience with offshore casinos, but I have almost complete faith in US regulated casinos. If I am being cheated, I am getting very wealthy while being cheated. Damn, I must be good.
So, what's the next step? When he tells us his information is 100% reliable, are you going to dazzle us with Bayes' Theorem to analyze what the probability is that someone who tells you his information is 100% reliable is actually correct in that assumption?
Don
If I gain further information, I will change my probability estimates. I already assign a very high probability that the data are correct. I will still never get remotely close to 100% based on how I see the world.So, what's the next step? When he tells us his information is 100% reliable, are you going to dazzle us with Bayes' Theorem to analyze what the probability is that someone who tells you his information is 100% reliable is actually correct in that assumption?
Don
I live in a world where I play online thousands of hours a year and I have never seen evidence of cheating. I also live in a world where a fairly large fraction of people try to convince me that they are being cheated.
I have been victimized by disconnects, game glitches, faulty promotional implementations, and even an improper handling of the daylight-savings time change. Nothing that would remotely threaten my business model.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks