[Optional]

Do you understand how insignificant a 1 in 388 odds streak is in the world of variance? Your claims of a non legitimate game based on the information you provided is ridiculous. Offer the EXACT amount of hands you played, and the result of those hands. You admitted you bet more for some hands than others which will expand your variance in regards to monetary profit/loss even more. A expected house return of 100.01% can be less than 99.5% in a legitimate game over a LOT of hands.

I did an actual study on an online casino game for similar reasons. Years ago, I opened an account at Bovada to play poker after PokerStars left the US because I was a semi-professional poker player. While I was there to play poker, I also dabbled with their horse book, sportsbook and casino because I like action too. Back then (they no longer have it), they had tremendous bonuses for casino players with reasonable rollover requirements and I noticed they had a video poker game called Pick'Em Poker that had an expected payback of 99.95%. With bonuses, that was a player advantage game, so I wondered if the game was legitimate, thinking it might not be and quite frankly, expecting it not to be. Long story short, I ended up keeping track of every session, exact hands, results, etc..... After 1.8 million hands, it had paid back 100.07% and I had made a profit of $28,000. (Since I blew at least 15k of that in their horse book, I don't think they minded too much). However, there were LONG cold spells of real bad runs along the way, and there were some ridiculous hot spells too. I can tell you there were 250,000 hand segments that paid back less than 99% (which resulted in losses even with bonuses). And conversely, I had long stretches that paid out over 105%. Here's just a few notable hot and cold streaks.

HOT STREAKS

I once got 5 straight flushes in 12,700 hands. Chances of a straight flush on any hand is .000026 (38,460-1). The chances of having 5 (or more) straight flushes in 12,700 hands is .000025 (40,000-1). That was a fun 2 days.

I once got 4 of a kind twice in row. Chances of 4 of a kind is .000424 making the chances of back to back 4 of a kind 5.5 million to 1

I once got 3 Royal Flushes in just under 60,000 hands. Chances of a royal flush is .000003. Making 3 in 60,000 hand is 1175-1

COLD STREAKS

I once got no straight flushes in 280,000 hands. 1266-1 odds

I once went 14,000 hands without 4 of a kind. 378-1 odds

In Pick 'em poker, the chances of making quads when you are dealt live trips is 4.16%. I once went 154 dealt live trips in a row without making quads. That is odds of 694-1. At the end of the study I ended up making 341 out of 8,632 overall for a slightly less than norm 3.95%.

I also had ridiculous hot and cold runs of more common hands like straights, flushes, and full houses. Obviously, the point is that extreme variance happens in legitimate random applications.

Since you're playing blackjack, where the results are usually close to 50% every hand of success, why don't you share the EXACT number of hands you played, the EXACT number of hand wins, EXACT number of blackjacks, and then, and only then will you be sharing any data that's worthwhile.

Personally, my own threshold for suspicion of something being illegitimate over a large sample is at 500,000-1 or worse odds. Anything under that is simply not worthy of suspicion to me. Hence, the reason I scoffed at your 388-1 odds as being "proof" of something.

Great post Indio

Anyone who has ever felt like creating a thread about a casino being rigged should read that first.

[Johnboy85]

Do you understand how insignificant a 1 in 388 odds streak is in the world of variance? Your claims of a non legitimate game based on the information you provided is ridiculous. Offer the EXACT amount of hands you played, and the result of those hands. You admitted you bet more for some hands than others which will expand your variance in regards to monetary profit/loss even more. A expected house return of 100.01% can be less than 99.5% in a legitimate game over a LOT of hands.

First off, thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I do at least enjoy a good back and forth. To answer your question, yes I understand that 1 in 388 odds are nowhere near enough definitively prove anything. I was clear about that in my complaint.

Since you're playing blackjack, where the results are usually close to 50% every hand of success, why don't you share the EXACT number of hands you played, the EXACT number of hand wins, EXACT number of blackjacks, and then, and only then will you be sharing any data that's worthwhile.

Personally, my own threshold for suspicion of something being illegitimate over a large sample is at 500,000-1 or worse odds. Anything under that is simply not worthy of suspicion to me. Hence, the reason I scoffed at your 388-1 odds as being "proof" of something.

I'm happy to share the log file with you if you'd like to perform your own analysis on it.

But let me just address an issue with most of the people in here who are criticizing me are.

Without getting too philosophical here because this is a sports betting form, in philosophy and logic courses, there is a concept of the logical fallacy, or more specifically the argument from ignorance, where "ignorance" means "a lack of contrary evidence". To put it simply, most of you are saying that Pinnacle's game must be fair because I can't definitively prove it isn't. And it's a logical fallacy because it's a false dichotomy. There is a third option here, which is that it's currently unknown, or as Wikipedia says "there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition [to] be either true or false".

Throughout this whole thing, I've been trying to push for SBR, The POGG, and others to at least get the attention of Pinnacle in this matter so there can be a more thorough investigation of what happened. Because in all of this, there is only one truth that cannot be questioned - and that is that the rules stated on the site were different from those in actual gameplay. That's it. You can argue that my hand history is proof that the game wasn't unfair, but you've already conceded that it isn't enough hands to prove one way or another. And - Pinnacle have gone and amended the rules now, so it's not like I can continue playing the game until it is definitive.

This is why I believe that Pinnacle need to be held accountable to at least address the issue, and offer some kind of proof on their end other then meaningless Ecogra certifications and RTP percentages which aren't proof of anything at this point.

[evo34]

I don't think I've ever actually rooted for someone to lose $40k...until I read this guy's story.

[Optional]

yes I understand that 1 in 388 odds are nowhere near enough definitively prove anything. I was clear about that in my complaint.

So WTF is your problem then?!?


This shows why the person screening complaints is so good at their job. They can spot an angle shooting scumbag like yourself from a mile and ignore them, whereas I try to act reasonable and be left looking like a fool.