[Johnboy85]

Edit by SBR: Your casino complaint was received and responded to. Please check your email.

Hi,

I sent through a complaint related to the Pinnacle Casino on June 13 to help@sportsbookreview under account JA27xxxx. Followed up on Jun 17. Did not hear back.

Sent an email to forum@sportsbookreview on Monday. No response. Spoke with a live chat agent who said she would nudge whoever handles it. Sent Oblivion a PM through this forum. Still haven't heard back from anyone.

I'd rather not air this dirty laundry publicly. Can someone confirm it's being looked into and where that process might be at?

John

[Optional]

Did you receive a copy of your complaint form by return email after submitting it?

If so, replying to that is the best way to ask for an update.

If not, please try submitting the form again using a different email address for SBR to reply to.

[Johnboy85]

Did you receive a copy of your complaint form by return email after submitting it?

If so, replying to that is the best way to ask for an update.

If not, please try submitting the form again using a different email address for SBR to reply to.

Yes I did receive a return email. I even responded to that return email a few days later to verify that it was received.

The email I sent it from is a regular Gmail address. It shouldn't be blocked from your spam filters. I also spoke with a live chat agent who saw the email and said she would follow up. Perhaps you can reverify that it isn't already there?

Edit: I also sent you a PM, did you not receive that? I could copy the complaint there...

John

[dealer wins]

Would be interesting to have an idea of what the complaint is about, we dont see many pinnacle complaints (Pinbet88 excepted lol)

[Johnboy85]

Would be interesting to have an idea of what the complaint is about, we dont see many pinnacle complaints (Pinbet88 excepted lol)

I received a response from SBR this afternoon, but they don't yet seem to fully understand the basis for my complaint, and don't seem terribly interested in pursuing it thus far. I've responded to hopefully clarify for them so that they understand the severity of the situation.

Without giving too much away here since I still hope to resolve this with Pinnacle privately, I will say that it involves one of their casino games having been programmed with a set of rules that was different from the rules stated on their website, and which provided a built in edge to the player. In other words, they gaffed their own game.

[tsty]

so what are you complaining about?

[Johnboy85]

so what are you complaining about?

Lost tens of thousands playing the game. Results very close to being outside 3 standard deviations. Calls into question whether the game was returning results according to stated rules or actual gameplay rules.

[SBR Forum]

Lost tens of thousands playing the game. Results very close to being outside 3 standard deviations. Calls into question whether the game was returning results according to stated rules or actual gameplay rules.

Hi Johnboy85,

We can confirm that Pinnacle's casino has been independently audited for fairness and had their RNG inspected. We're afraid we can't ask them to credit you for past losses.

[Johnboy85]

Hi Johnboy85,

We can confirm that Pinnacle's casino has been independently audited for fairness and had their RNG inspected. We're afraid we can't ask them to credit you for past losses.

I'm sorry SBR feels that way. I suppose we can let the court of public opinion decide then. Here is my full complaint to SBR.


Around February 2016, I noticed that the Pinnacle RNG casino offered a multihand blackjack game that had a built-in player edge.It centres around the fact that the actual gameplay rules were different than those stated on the website. In a nutshell, the blackjack multi hand game I played offered full early surrender instead of late surrender, or no surrender at all. According to Michael Shackleford (Wizard of Odds), the player edge on this game with ES was a measly 0.01%. However, the Pinnacle casino offered an instant 0.3% rebate on all casino wagers (win or lose), thus upping the total player advantage to 0.31% - certainly a worthwhile game for any advantage seeker.

Knowing this, I began feverishly playing this game as often as I could. Unfortunately for me, luck was not on my side, and the losses began to pile up. There were a few occasions where I would run up a sizeable sum, and would increase my bet size to recoup previous losses, however, it always resulted in a net loss, rather than a profit. For a long time, I reconciled these losses with the fact that my bankroll management was not optimal, I was not playing according to the Kelly criterion or any other bet sizing strategy. I probably wasn’t playing completely error-free blackjack either, however my errors would never have been frequent or significant enough to negate the player advantage.

The losses continued to mount over time, to the tune of over $40,000 and by May 2017, I had seriously begun to doubt the integrity of the game I was playing. I asked the Pinnacle customer service dept. to send me a log file of all hands played for over a year and 4 months. After some back and forth, they finally obliged, however the file was sent in such a format that was not easy to decode, and therefore difficult to accurately calculate SD or prove any sort of cheating or otherwise. With that being said, Michael Shackleford analyzed the file and to the best of his ability determined the odds of my results to be 1 in 388, or 2.79 SD’s away from EV. Understandably, this is not enough to prove cheating without a doubt, however due to file format provided (a txt file), one cannot be certain of the accuracy of these numbers.

About 1 week after the Wizard of Odds posted his findings in his online forum, see this thread... http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambl.../7/#post591196 , Pinnacle restricted access to the casino for my account. It is important to note, that nowhere in mine or Michael’s posts was Pinnacle mentioned by name. After much back and forth, Pinnacle finally allowed access back to the casino, except the blackjack multihand game no longer had early surrender, in fact, it didn’t have any surrender possibility at all. Worse yet, Pinnacle had quietly (without announcing to players) amended their casino rules, stating that the RNG blackjack game was no longer eligible for the 0.3% cashback. Effectively, the game that used to have a player edge of 0.31% under optimal strategy had now turned into a house edge of 0.61% - almost a full percentage point which is an enormous swing for a blackjack game. And while it’s obvious that the casino should expect to the hold the edge in any game they offer, these rule changes appear to be a knee-jerk reaction to the realization that they had gaffed their own game, and perhaps more nefariously, an attempt to tip the scale back in their favor without anyone realizing.

It’s impossible for me to know if the amending of the rules was related to someone at Pinnacle recognizing the flaw in the game and making corrections randomly, if Michael’s post had something to do with it, or some other reason. In any case, it’s clear that Pinnacle realized their mistake, and took steps to correct it. And quite frankly, the timing and circumstances of the changes are quite suspect in my opinion. I have always known Pinnacle to be the most robust, player friendly, and honest sportsbook around, so I hope this is just an honest mistake.The question that remains though is, during the period where early surrender was offered, was the game being dealt fair, or was it programmed to return a range of plausible results that were in line with the house edge implied in the rules stated on the website (and not those in actual gameplay). Is it ethical that Pinnacle changed the rules without any prior notice? Is it evidence of hiding something? These are all questions that need to be answered, and I believe call into question the integrity of Pinnacle.I hope that you as a third-party can help investigate this matter. My hope is that Pinnacle will explain the error and offer compensation as a result. I am more than happy to sign an NDA in order to settle this matter privately, promptly, and without further drama or public exposure.

Keep in mind, it makes NO sense for Pinnacle to offer a game with a player edge as large as 0.31%. I don’t believe there’s any way they KNOWINGLY did this. The only other possibility (in my opinion) is that they, or the game creator (Multislot) did this accidentally and without malicious intent. As an aside, I am disappointed that it has had to come to this. I tried on several occasions to get past the Pinnacle customer service gatekeepers to speak with someone in management directly, but each time they ignored my request and deflected.If you need documentation, or hand histories that show the game was programmed the way I say it was, I will be happy to provide it.

[Johnboy85]

SBR's response to my original complaint...

"Thanks for writing to SBR.



We appreciate your sharing your experience with the online casino at Pinnacle.



We’re a little confused about what you would need to sign a non-disclosure agreement for. Pinnacle is within their rights, as you noted, to adjust their promotional giveaways related to the casino or modify the structure of the game. What about this do you think is nefarious?



The run you went on sounds like a tough one, but we can confirm that Pinnacle is licensed by the MGA, and independently audited by eCogra: https://secure.ecogra.org/certification/ddca2853-51ac-4f56-90e4-46fa227b46fe"

And then my response to SBR...


"I can appreciate that the wall of text was badly formatted in this email string and you might have missed the salient points which are the basis of the complaint. Forget the NDA and all that business for a moment. Here is the crux of the problem:

Pinnacle's RNG Multi-hand blackjack game was programmed during this time period with early surrender that (in conjunction with) their rebate program, gave a player edge (off the top) of 0.31%. I can almost guarantee that this was a mistake. There is not an online or land based casino in the world that would intentionally program a game with such an edge without card counting.

The official rules on the Pinnacle website never listed the early surrender rule. In other words, the fact it was programmed into the game was probably by mistake.
Furthermore, there was a discrepancy between the STATED gameplay rules according to the website and the ACTUAL gameplay rules. This alone should be concerning - and evidence of error on Pinnacle's part for not accurately disclosing the actual gameplay rules for the game in question, or for gaffing their game by accident.

Therefore, I am also concerned that the game was programmed to return a certain range of the results according to the STATED rules on the site, and not the ACTUAL rules that I was playing with.

Moreover, when I express concern publicly on the wizard of Vegas site, have my results audited and posted online, Pinnacle turn around and remove the surrender rule completely and the rebate, thereby increasing their house edge by almost a full percentage point (suspicious timing for the changes, no?)

Finally, you've directed me to the ecogra website with audited results posted, however, they simply amalgamated all of the RNG table games into one number. The blackjack game I was playing does not have an isolated payout report.

Regardless of whether Ecogra did isolate the RNG BJ game in their report, it's completely meaningless since it includes ALL play from a variety of players with different skill sets. The RTP long term is always worse than the house edge because the majority of players do not play perfect basic strategy."

[Optional]

"I can appreciate that the wall of text was badly formatted in this email string and you might have missed the salient points which are the basis of the complaint. Forget the NDA and all that business for a moment. Here is the crux of the problem:

Pinnacle's RNG Multi-hand blackjack game was programmed during this time period with early surrender that (in conjunction with) their rebate program, gave a player edge (off the top) of 0.31%. I can almost guarantee that this was a mistake. There is not an online or land based casino in the world that would intentionally program a game with such an edge without card counting.

The official rules on the Pinnacle website never listed the early surrender rule. In other words, the fact it was programmed into the game was probably by mistake.
Furthermore, there was a discrepancy between the STATED gameplay rules according to the website and the ACTUAL gameplay rules. This alone should be concerning - and evidence of error on Pinnacle's part for not accurately disclosing the actual gameplay rules for the game in question, or for gaffing their game by accident.

Therefore, I am also concerned that the game was programmed to return a certain range of the results according to the STATED rules on the site, and not the ACTUAL rules that I was playing with.

Moreover, when I express concern publicly on the wizard of Vegas site, have my results audited and posted online, Pinnacle turn around and remove the surrender rule completely and the rebate, thereby increasing their house edge by almost a full percentage point (suspicious timing for the changes, no?)

Finally, you've directed me to the ecogra website with audited results posted, however, they simply amalgamated all of the RNG table games into one number. The blackjack game I was playing does not have an isolated payout report.

Regardless of whether Ecogra did isolate the RNG BJ game in their report, it's completely meaningless since it includes ALL play from a variety of players with different skill sets. The RTP long term is always worse than the house edge because the majority of players do not play perfect basic strategy."

Johnboy, what is it you want Pinny to do for you? Pay you back for casino losses as you wanted to take a shot at a game you say yourself would have obviously been in error if it did payout like that?

Or try to demand they honor rules you say are obviously wrong yourself as well?

You sound like a smart guy who understands how this gambling thing works. Congrats on spotting the +EV in the rules description. But next time maybe try advising Pinny of what you have found rather than trying to exploit an error and then act like THEY are the ones in the ethical questionable position.

[Johnboy85]

Johnboy, what is it you want Pinny to do for you? Pay you back for casino losses as you wanted to take a shot at a game you say yourself would have obviously been in error if it did payout like that?
Or try to demand they honor rules you say are obviously wrong yourself as well?

Well first of all, SBR could have at least communicated my complaint with them to see what their preference for dealing with it was before arbitrarily deciding that it wasn't legit.

From a PR and fairness perspective, I actually think compensating me makes a lot of sense, especially given Pinnacle's reputation for welcoming sharks and winners. It would be an insignificant sum to them, and it would show goodwill to the rest of the community. Remember, there's no way for them to prove that the RNG was behaving according to the actual gameplay rules, and not the stated rules. If we agree on that, then who's taking shots on who, right? I've proven there was a mistake in the way the game was operating. I've also shown my results are pretty unlikely. The burden should be on them to prove fairness now, not me. I've already raised reasonable doubt.

You sound like a smart guy who understands how this gambling thing works. Congrats on spotting the +EV in the rules description. But next time maybe try advising Pinny of what you have found rather than trying to exploit an error and then act like THEY are the ones in the ethical questionable position.

Perhaps you've misunderstood the situation. The stated rules were not +EV. The actual rules programmed into the game were.
Your suggestion of letting Pinnacle know is absurd from the player's point of view. How do I benefit from that? By alerting them to the error and hoping they pay me some kind of finder's fee out of the kindness of their hearts? By telling them there's an error in their game and extorting them? Were Pinnacle going to reimburse every player who touched the game because their rules were wrong?

You make me out to be some kind of thief. I didn't cheat the game. I wasn't counting cards. I could have been a square player with a strategy card in front of me who made the right decisions 99.9% of the time. Would that have made me ethically questionable too? Forget the fact that I'm smart enough to spot the error. There are others players out there who might have lost money unfairly and not been smart enough to know it. I speak for them now too.

As you can see from my original complaint, I had HOPED to settle this with them privately, but it's out of the question now.

[michael777]

Your suggestion of letting Pinnacle know is absurd from the player's point of view. How do I benefit from that? You would benefit from taking a shot at them son for a flaw in their system,stop taking shots at books,you look very foolish in this thread,wise up

[thomorino]

I think your complaint is legit - if you had and edge and managed your bankroll accordingly you would make money or at least come close to breaking even - but we all know the software for internet blackjack even when audited and independently verified is not legit - I lost 13 straight hands on bovada playing blackjack a month ago. The reality is that you just can't make money long-term in internet casino's because the software is not fair to players even if its not rigged - I can guarantee playing at a real casino I will never lose 13 straight hands - the odds o f that are ridiculous. Playing offshore leaves you without recourse -this is the price of playing online.

[Johnboy85]

Your suggestion of letting Pinnacle know is absurd from the player's point of view. How do I benefit from that? You would benefit from taking a shot at them son for a flaw in their system,stop taking shots at books,you look very foolish in this thread,wise up

I don't even understand what you're saying. Care to elaborate?

[Optional]

Well first of all, SBR could have at least communicated my complaint with them to see what their preference for dealing with it was before arbitrarily deciding that it wasn't legit.

From a PR and fairness perspective, I actually think compensating me makes a lot of sense, especially given Pinnacle's reputation for welcoming sharks and winners. It would be an insignificant sum to them, and it would show goodwill to the rest of the community. Remember, there's no way for them to prove that the RNG was behaving according to the actual gameplay rules, and not the stated rules. If we agree on that, then who's taking shots on who, right? I've proven there was a mistake in the way the game was operating. I've also shown my results are pretty unlikely. The burden should be on them to prove fairness now, not me. I've already raised reasonable doubt.



Perhaps you've misunderstood the situation. The stated rules were not +EV. The actual rules programmed into the game were.
Your suggestion of letting Pinnacle know is absurd from the player's point of view. How do I benefit from that? By alerting them to the error and hoping they pay me some kind of finder's fee out of the kindness of their hearts? By telling them there's an error in their game and extorting them? Were Pinnacle going to reimburse every player who touched the game because their rules were wrong?

You make me out to be some kind of thief. I didn't cheat the game. I wasn't counting cards. I could have been a square player with a strategy card in front of me who made the right decisions 99.9% of the time. Would that have made me ethically questionable too? Forget the fact that I'm smart enough to spot the error. There are others players out there who might have lost money unfairly and not been smart enough to know it. I speak for them now too.

As you can see from my original complaint, I had HOPED to settle this with them privately, but it's out of the question now.

I was only suggesting telling them the advertised rules differed from the game play as a different (better) option than doing it this way. Not as a way to make money. As this way makes you look like a shot taker no matter how good or bad your intent is.

To put it in a sportsbetting context, it sounds similar to a player who spotted a bad line, took the shot, it lost, then goes to the bookmaker to report that bad line and ask for a refund.


But it appears the main crux of your problem is not the website version of the rules anyway? But that the +EV you expected from the way the actual game worked in practice did not play out in your sample? And the numbers calculated (by you and/or WoO?) seem very close to being too far out of the expected range?

In my experience Pinny would want to know about this if there is tangible proof. They genuinely don't want to run unfair games. But they may not have listened to you as books see many players sending messages that the casino is rigged when they lose yours was likely just lost in the noise.

Bottom line is players don't get anywhere with Pinny threatening them and in this case SBR doesn't think you have a complaint worthy action either. So you'll need another angle if you seriously want to pursue this further. Wizard has credibility in these things. If he agrees the game genuinely looks suspicious of being run unfairly then I think he will be happy to communicate that to Pinny and I'd also think Pinny would be interested to see the reasoning. But even then, unless it's really blatent/obvious I don't see them issuing you a refund. Maybe throw you a reward for finding it but I would not be expecting it personally.

[dealer wins]

Through all my years of playing online Blackjack at many different place I am totally convinced its not random. I play a lot of blackjack in land casinos and the feel of the online game is completely different.

[Johnboy85]

I was only suggesting telling them the advertised rules differed from the game play as a different (better) option than doing it this way. Not as a way to make money. As this way makes you look like a shot taker no matter how good or bad your intent is.

1. In effect, I did, just not in a direct way. Remember, they changed the rules about a week after WoO's post in his forum. It's likely they made the association to their game and made the switch.

2. It's a moot point now. Again, SBR had the opportunity to alert them to this situation and deal with it outside of the public eye. In fact, it was my preference, but you guys decided it wasn't worthy of a complaint which is why we're discussing it in the public forum now.

To put it in a sportsbetting context, it sounds similar to a player who spotted a bad line, took the shot, it lost, then goes to the bookmaker to report that bad line and ask for a refund.

I appreciate you trying to frame this in a sportsbetting context, but you've left out an important part. A better analogy would be a player who spotted a bad line, took a shot, his side lost, and went looking for a refund when the game was suspected of match fixing.

But it appears the main crux of your problem is not the website version of the rules anyway? But that the +EV you expected from the way the actual game worked in practice did not play out in your sample? And the numbers calculated (by you and/or WoO?) seem very close to being too far out of the expected range?

That's a good part of the problem. But the question of whether the RNG behaved according to the website rules or the gameplay rules would still be in question regardless of my results. It just so happens that I have a pretty significant sample size to lend credence to my argument.

In my experience Pinny would want to know about this if there is tangible proof. They genuinely don't want to run unfair games. But they may not have listened to you as books see many players sending messages that the casino is rigged when they lose yours was likely just lost in the noise.

Ok fine. They are still free to investigate this on their end now. I've offered some proof in the form of over 350,000 hands worth of results and over 40k in losses. But again, there's literally no way (IMO) for Pinnacle to show their game was legit here. They can't simply point to RTP or hold% for that game over the same period of time because that would be assuming that all players played a perfect game. There's literally no way I can think of for them to definitively prove their game was operating fairly in this scenario. And so if their (and your) position is to not refund me for those losses, than I think that's stonewalling something that's worthy of investigation, and pretty shady practice from a book that I'd expect better from.

Bottom line is players don't get anywhere with Pinny threatening them and in this case SBR doesn't think you have a complaint worthy action either. So you'll need another angle if you seriously want to pursue this further. Wizard has credibility in these things. If he agrees the game genuinely looks suspicious of being run unfairly then I think he will be happy to communicate that to Pinny and I'd also think Pinny would be interested to see the reasoning. But even then, unless it's really blatent/obvious I don't see them issuing you a refund. Maybe throw you a reward for finding it but I would not be expecting it personally.

I agree (about the threatening part), but I don't think I ever threatened Pinny. If you refer back to my original complaint, I was actually pretty clear about the fact that I felt it was probably an honest mistake. But then Pinnacle went and changed the rules (most likely after seeing my thread on the WoO). Michael has already stated that his assessment was based on his "best guess" given the way the data was sent to him (us). Pinnacle's way of logging hands makes it difficult to accurately decipher how many hands were played per deal, so his assessment is not a fact, it is his best guess. The actual likelihood of my results (if they can ever be ascertained) may point to my results being more unlikely than he currently pegged them at.

Again, I ask, why don't you at least notify Pinnacle of the existence of this thread and then let them make a statement?

[Optional]

Again, I ask, why don't you at least notify Pinnacle of the existence of this thread and then let them make a statement?

What you have is just not clear enough, and it would take something really blatantly and obviously unfair for SBR to advocate for return of lost funds that had been risked in a casino. It's not our specialist area.

In the past I have taken advice from the owner at The Pogg trying to solve a technical casino dispute and found him extremely knowledgeable. Shoot him an email with a link to this thread and see what he thinks. I suspect he might tell you it's too line ball to be expecting a refund too though. Or go back to WoO and have him contact Pinny for you if he thinks it's clear enough? Both of them have sufficient credibility in casino issues for books to take notice.

I'm just trying to be open minded though. I really don't think there is much chance anyone is going to think you should be refunded based on the current evidence.

[Johnboy85]

What you have is just not clear enough, and it would take something really blatantly and obviously unfair for SBR to advocate for return of lost funds that had been risked in a casino. It's not our specialist area.

In the past I have taken advice from the owner at The Pogg trying to solve a technical casino dispute and found him extremely knowledgeable. Shoot him an email with a link to this thread and see what he thinks. I suspect he might tell you it's too line ball to be expecting a refund too though. Or go back to WoO and have him contact Pinny for you if he thinks it's clear enough? Both of them have sufficient credibility in casino issues for books to take notice.

Thanks for referring me to the POGG. I've sent him a note separately, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I will also reach back out to Michael, although I don't know that he has any interest in it at all beyond doing an internet stranger a favor. What I find troubling about your position in all this is that even given proof that Pinnacle had a discrepancy between the rules on their website, and the rules in gameplay, you don't seem to think Pinnacle has any responsibility to prove their game was operating properly. How large is the burden on the player to prove negligence to get a complaint filed in a situation like this?

[Optional]

I'm not saying they have no responsibility to ensure the games they offer are fairly programmed. That's the point of paying for independent RNG verification services to provide proof for players. But apart from that I believe they consider it to their own benefit not to be caught out offering a bad product anyway. Some smaller books would see unfair games as a way to make more money but for Pinny, it would be the opposite.

Personally, I am not seeing the relationship between them having the wrong game rule description on the website and if the game was operating properly that you are drawing. It doesn't suddenly make me suspicious of the game operation if a website had not been updated properly, particularly when the actual pay table is better than than advertised.

Anyway, maybe I am missing something about your argument due to lack of casino knowledge. See what Pogg thinks.

[Johnboy85]

Personally, I am not seeing the relationship between them having the wrong game rule description on the website and if the game was operating properly that you are drawing. It doesn't suddenly make me suspicious of the game operation if a website had not been updated properly, particularly when the actual pay table is better than than advertised.

Let me use a legal analogy then. In a court, all the defense needs to do is prove reasonable doubt. Have I not proven reasonable doubt in your mind given the empirical (hand history findings), and circumstantial evidence (game being modified a week after findings are posted online)? Isn't it entirely plausible that a small error in the developer's coding of the game could have caused an issue like this?

You might say, well actually you're the one prosecuting. Ok, fine. But in that case, let there be "discovery". Except it's going to be hard to discover what that code looked like 10 months ago since it's been rectified now. And with all due respect to the SBR, The Pogg and anyone else, it's not like we have the FBI's forensic team to look at this.

Which is why, at the end of the day, I just think it would be easier for Pinnacle to own up to the fact that they messed up, regardless of whether it was in the player's favor, and turn this into a more positive PR situation for them. Refunding me is such an insignificant sum to them versus what it would mean to the community to know that they acknowledged the error and did something about it. Right now, all they've done is modified the game rules to give themselves a huge house edge that's not even close to being competitive in the online space. It's lose-lose all around now.

[Alfa1234]

If I'm not mistaken here, the rules said the game was programmed a certain way...you noticed it behaved differently compared to the stated rules...but the actual outcome was exactly like the rules said. Correct? So the only real thing you have to complain about is the fact you interpreted the gameplay was different and thought you had an edge while in fact this edge was not there (or was there but you just got very unlucky)?

I honestly don't see how Pinnacle or the game messed up badly simply because you thought you noticed an advantage that in practise wasn't there. You can only blame them for having a slight error in their rules that made you think you had an edge...

Also, you should have calculated and noticed there was a problem long before you reached +2 standard deviations...at least you should have tracked your plays better and that way you would have noticed the losses were in fact probably much in line with the actual casino edge.

[Johnboy85]

If I'm not mistaken here, the rules said the game was programmed a certain way...you noticed it behaved differently compared to the stated rules...but the actual outcome was exactly like the rules said. Correct? So the only real thing you have to complain about is the fact you interpreted the gameplay was different and thought you had an edge while in fact this edge was not there (or was there but you just got very unlucky)?

Even +EV games have extended, and expensive losing streaks, which is why I wasn't raising alarms until now. The game was always +EV or else I wouldn't have been playing. It's like a land based casino stuffing a few extra small cards into the shoe. It's not immediately apparent.

I honestly don't see how Pinnacle or the game messed up badly simply because you thought you noticed an advantage that in practise wasn't there. You can only blame them for having a slight error in their rules that made you think you had an edge...

Also, you should have calculated and noticed there was a problem long before you reached +2 standard deviations...at least you should have tracked your plays better and that way you would have noticed the losses were in fact probably much in line with the actual casino edge.

Why do you say the advantage wasn't there? One has to assume that the results will be in line with the rules programmed into the game. The edge was always there in theory - but in practice? Well that's what we're debating.

Being 2SD's away from EV isn't a strong enough indicator of a rigged game. Most people would chalk it up to bad luck.

[cornmeal]

To me this seems very simple, if the game is showing a + player advantage, and your playing perfect strategy , for the number of hands and hours it seems boy85 has played per day he shouldnt be down anywhere near this amount (even if you add in badluck and badstreaks). How many hands would you say you played , since realizing it had + player advantage?

[Johnboy85]

To me this seems very simple, if the game is showing a + player advantage, and your playing perfect strategy , for the number of hands and hours it seems boy85 has played per day he shouldnt be down anywhere near this amount (even if you add in badluck and badstreaks). How many hands would you say you played , since realizing it had + player advantage?

I knew right away, which is why I played it for so long...

John

[Microphone]

I stopped reading at "Michael Shackleford (Wizard of Odds)." He supposed audited 5 Dimes casino some years back and what was a pretty good casino has never been the same.

[cornmeal]

I tend to agree with you just from the information you are giving in your post. I dont know if you where playing perfect strategy or not , I just re-read your post 350k hands to me is a very solid sample size in bj
I view it this way with the information you posted with + player advantage of .01% plus their rebate , something was clearly either misprinted or misprogrammed, and with you giving your results to Michael, that gentleman does not make mistakes at all...
Pinnacle should be questioning their software provider about this situation, maybe their was a mistake at the time in the printing or setup of the software...

Again this is just an opinion if perfect strategy was played

[Johnboy85]

I tend to agree with you just from the information you are giving in your post. I dont know if you where playing perfect strategy or not , I just re-read your post 350k hands to me is a very solid sample size in bj
I view it this way with the information you posted with + player advantage of .01% plus their rebate , something was clearly either misprinted or misprogrammed, and with you giving your results to Michael, that gentleman does not make mistakes at all...
Pinnacle should be questioning their software provider about this situation, maybe their was a mistake at the time in the printing or setup of the software...

Again this is just an opinion if perfect strategy was played

Well, I appreciate the support. SBR don't even think it's worthy of a complaint though so we'll see what happens...

[thomorino]

This isn't really SBR's specialty - the S in SBR stands for sports - so I think your focusing in the wrong place. I have always wondered why this independent verification of casino software makes them credible - who audits the auditor and when are these audits done - they aren't done in public.

[inthedesert]

You knew going into the game something wasn't right with the situation. You decided to play into it anyway. You said the game had an advantage and you knew that.

I doubt if you would have had a good run and took them for 40k you would have told them. You would have never said a word.

In the end you lost. Now the game is gaffed and you want your money back. You want it both ways.

You took a shot and lost. If it is your intention to keep this going in hopes that they pay you your losses you're wasting your time.

[littlekona]

I think OP he has a valid complaint...if odds/payout % are wrong there is an issue...If you wager on a 6/5 shot and only got paid even money everyone would cry foul...kinda same thing isn't it?

[Johnboy85]

I doubt if you would have had a good run and took them for 40k you would have told them. You would have never said a word.

Of course I wouldn't have. When the Sportsbook offers odds at +250 instead of +150 and then grade it a win cause it was their fault and they didn't catch it, do you tell them of the error?

In the end you lost. Now the game is gaffed and you want your money back. You want it both ways.
You took a shot and lost. If it is your intention to keep this going in hopes that they pay you your losses you're wasting your time.

Except it's not having it both ways. I lost, probably because the game being dealt wasn't fair in some way, shape, or form.

[indio]

. With that being said, Michael Shackleford analyzed the file and to the best of his ability determined the odds of my results to be 1 in 388

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.

[Pinocchio]

Take Pinnacle to court over this. SBR won't help you. More likely than not, they'll help Pinnacle.