[daneblazer]

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/0...tria-17455.htm

Europe’s complicated relationship with online gambling monopolies reached a new stage as Austria’s Supreme Court (OGH) asked for a revision of the entire national gambling legislation.
As online portal derStandard.at reported, the court's decision came after the unusual case of an online gambler who sued a casino room trying to get his losses back.
The player, whose identity was not revealed, decided to take legal action against a casino room after losing over €1,000,000 playing online roulette games. His decision is based on the fact that, as the casino operated in conflict with Austria’s monopoly on gambling, all its operations were conducted illegally.
While the first two instances of the court case supported the player’s action, Austria’s Supreme Court decided to overrule the previous verdicts and somehow accept the defense of the casino room, which claimed that the national gambling law established in Austria was a monopoly against European treaties on the free movement of services.
After an examination of the verdicts from the two first instances and the European regulation on services and gambling, the Supreme Court decided to send the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for further evaluations.
Should the ECJ decide to reject players' requests and endorse the idea of gambling monopolies being against European rules, the court case would have major consequences outside Austria’s borders, as already on November 20, 2013, the European Commission sent Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania an official request for information on national legislation restricting the supply of gambling services.
What is unclear, however, is what would happen if the ECJ will decide in favor of the player’s requests and rule against the casino. If on one side this would in fact legitimate the existence of a gambling monopoly in Austria as in other European countries, it could trigger a legal battle between European players and international operators of unseen proportions.

[pavyracer]

I'm about to sue SBR Casino too. Keep losing my points on Blackjack. How many times can the dealer get a blackjack in one session?

[Triple_D_Bet]

I'm about to sue SBR Casino too. Keep losing my points on Blackjack. How many times can the dealer get a blackjack in one session?

Excellent question! Why don't you show off those engineering skills and do the math for us?

[mpaschal34]

For me it's zero times...wouldn't be stupid enough to play their black jack.

[TheMetsSuck]

i used to play blackjack with points just for kicks. amazing how rigged that software is....

[pavyracer]

Excellent question! Why don't you show off those engineering skills and do the math for us?

You may be the only person on the planet who thinks online casino Blackjack win probabilities are based on math and not rigged software.

[jjgold]

SBR casino is strictly regulated and audited by the casino gaming control commission out of Malta

It's a game of chance and there's many streaky runs

[manny24]

i love folks who say things are rigged and set up but CONTINUE to participate

repeating mistakes expecting a different result is actually the definition of Craziness

i mean at some point each one of us has to look in the mirror and eventually just say to ourselves, "Hey no more NBA"

[Triple_D_Bet]

You may be the only person on the planet who thinks online casino Blackjack win probabilities are based on math and not rigged software.

Very doubtful, but that's the neat thing about right and wrong: it doesn't matter how many people falsely believe as you do, it doesn't make you right. The only thing that can make you right is proof; every time it's asked for, all you rigtards can do is ignore the question and cling to your ignorance of basic math. Then again, a few (like yourself) are even more aggressively incompetent, by claiming that they expect to win a game with a house edge every time.

While it's generally true in most aspects of life, it's even more so in games involving chance: the greater your ignorance, the less chance you'll be successful. Why don't you start a poll asking who thinks blackjack and poker are rigged here? Then separate the responses into categories of who wins points and who doesn't...I think the pattern will be clear enough for even you to grasp it

[reigle9]

insanity but close enough

[pavyracer]

Very doubtful, but that's the neat thing about right and wrong: it doesn't matter how many people falsely believe as you do, it doesn't make you right. The only thing that can make you right is proof; every time it's asked for, all you rigtards can do is ignore the question and cling to your ignorance of basic math. Then again, a few (like yourself) are even more aggressively incompetent, by claiming that they expect to win a game with a house edge every time.

While it's generally true in most aspects of life, it's even more so in games involving chance: the greater your ignorance, the less chance you'll be successful. Why don't you start a poll asking who thinks blackjack and poker are rigged here? Then separate the responses into categories of who wins points and who doesn't...I think the pattern will be clear enough for even you to grasp it

What you call house edge I call rigged software. In Vegas the house edge is small hence no rigging required. In online casino the house edge is large and is applied with software manipulation.

[Triple_D_Bet]

What you call house edge I call rigged software. In Vegas the house edge is small hence no rigging required. In online casino the house edge is large and is applied with software manipulation.

A game with a house edge always beats you in the long run. If you expect to win every time in such a game, or even not to lose everything you wager in the long run, you're an idiot. And surely you can't blame us for not believing an idiot when he cries "rigged!"

[pavyracer]

A game with a house edge always beats you in the long run. If you expect to win every time in such a game, or even not to lose everything you wager in the long run, you're an idiot. And surely you can't blame us for not believing an idiot when he cries "rigged!"

I have taken Vegas to the cleaners in Blackjack. I can afford losing points on the SBR rigged software.

Have you ever wondered why the Harvard college kids took Vegas to the cleaners playing BJ but no one ever won playing online even geniuses? The answer is rigging.

[Triple_D_Bet]

I have taken Vegas to the cleaners in Blackjack. I can afford losing points on the SBR rigged software.

Have you ever wondered why the Harvard college kids took Vegas to the cleaners playing BJ but no one ever won playing online even geniuses? The answer is rigging.

The answer lies in the difference between the games. Are you even familiar with the basic premise of how someone can reliably beat blackjack? I'll give you a hint: in the situation you referred to, the Harvard kids played in a manner that shifted the odds in their favor. Subsequently, they were able to win...as a result, Vegas and many other places tightened up their policies and made it much more difficult to copy their success. Online blackjack has a much easier time nullifying their strategies, and they don't need to "rig"; they just have to shuffle and deal randomly (ya know, not-rigged-like).

Based on the raw ignorance you usually spew about these parts, it doesn't seem likely you've got the capacity to even follow what the MIT crew did, let alone copy it and stay undetected. In other words: real engineers have the grasp of math and brainpower for this stuff; you on the other hand...

[thechaoz]

Very doubtful, but that's the neat thing about right and wrong: it doesn't matter how many people falsely believe as you do, it doesn't make you right. The only thing that can make you right is proof; every time it's asked for, all you rigtards can do is ignore the question and cling to your ignorance of basic math. Then again, a few (like yourself) are even more aggressively incompetent, by claiming that they expect to win a game with a house edge every time.

While it's generally true in most aspects of life, it's even more so in games involving chance: the greater your ignorance, the less chance you'll be successful. Why don't you start a poll asking who thinks blackjack and poker are rigged here? Then separate the responses into categories of who wins points and who doesn't...I think the pattern will be clear enough for even you to grasp it

Buried

[Chipup]

I don't know why people say the SBR casino is rigged. I just won probably 1000 bet points in there. And probably 2k+ in this last week. Playing 3 card SBR BlackJack.

SBR CASINO WHERE DREAMS COME TRUE BOYS. I don't know about you but I think you should join me in playing there right now. I'm going to play some more while the bank vault is open!

[unluckysob]

casino dealers and pit bosses do not refer to the game as blackjack---they call it 21.

[RealMadrid]

I'm about to sue SBR Casino too. Keep losing my points on Blackjack. How many times can the dealer get a blackjack in one session?

Correct answer - unlimited times.


But what is the difference between to lose 20 Vs BJ or 17 vs 18?

[sweep]

The answer lies in the difference between the games. Are you even familiar with the basic premise of how someone can reliably beat blackjack? I'll give you a hint: in the situation you referred to, the Harvard kids played in a manner that shifted the odds in their favor. Subsequently, they were able to win...as a result, Vegas and many other places tightened up their policies and made it much more difficult to copy their success. Online blackjack has a much easier time nullifying their strategies, and they don't need to "rig"; they just have to shuffle and deal randomly (ya know, not-rigged-like).

Based on the raw ignorance you usually spew about these parts, it doesn't seem likely you've got the capacity to even follow what the MIT crew did, let alone copy it and stay undetected. In other words: real engineers have the grasp of math and brainpower for this stuff; you on the other hand...

Game, set, match

[Noleafclover]

LOL. If there were any justice, the court would rule that the rest of his money be donated to charity before he could blow it as well.