Betislands BJ dealer hits 79% *Hand History

[Fire in da hole]

I played 169 hands of switch blackjack at Betislands. Of those hands the dealer made a hand 133 times, busted 22, and pushed (got 22) the remaining 14 hands. The dealer constantly showed a ten or ace when I had busting hands and low cards when I had opportunities to double. In addition, the dealer made more 20s and 21s than I did being able to switch my cards. I would've played more hands but it woudl've been pissing in the wind. At one point I played 23 hands without the dealer busting and they hit blackjack 6 times.

[Hareeba!]

.... and people continue to play at online casinos! ....

[ApricotSinner32]

Another victim of rigged play. SBR just turns their head to the casinos being rigged. As long as they get their cut they don't give a fuk who gets raped in the process.

[Emily_Haines]

.... and people continue to play at online casinos! ....

Anybody playing at an online casino has some serious gambling issues or just plain hates money.

[Mikail]

Another victim of rigged play. SBR just turns their head to the casinos being rigged. As long as they get their cut they don't give a fuk who gets raped in the process.

what can they say? Their casino is rigged too.

[big joe 1212]

shocking

[chingo]

U deserve to lose if u play online bj lol....

[DoubleRedDragon]

no, you don't deserve to lose. You deserve a fair game.

[michael777]

all online casinos are rigged,just depends how rigged

[Fire in da hole]

I admit, I shouldn't have played. However, once I started paying for a small amount of money and I could tell something was up I kept going to see if it would turn. When it didn't I decided I had enough evidence and quit. SBR is always talking about having enough hands and the statistics about it. Well, tell me how the attached hand history could happen.

[FourLengthsClear]

There is nothing at all extra-ordinary about the dealer's busting percentage. That is very close to the mean.

There sure are a lot of high value hands though, and 22s.

There is nothing SBR can or will do for you, the sample is very small and your results are within about 2.3 standard deviations (assuming correct strategy which I have to say, I did not check). This would fall under the category of very unlucky but not anything more than that.

I don't play any casino games but would especially avoid any online casino which is regulated in a jurisdiction that does not require the RNG/software to be independently audited.

[Fire in da hole]

You think that the dealer makes a hand 79% of the time? How is that close to the average?

[FourLengthsClear]

You think that the dealer makes a hand 79% of the time? How is that close to the average?

The average should be 71% (will vary slightly depending on the exact rules).

For your game, I calculated it to be 126 games from 164 (the games where both of your hands were bust are excluded) which is 77%. When I said your game was close to the mean, I meant taking into account the dealer's hole card.

[LordVodka]

I know the Blackjack is fixed but I want to know if there are times when they purpose tone down the difficulty of the software.

[Monte]

I admit, I shouldn't have played. However, once I started paying for a small amount of money and I could tell something was up I kept going to see if it would turn. When it didn't I decided I had enough evidence and quit. SBR is always talking about having enough hands and the statistics about it. Well, tell me how the attached hand history could happen.

Nothing unusual, i've seen streaks like that going against and for me when i bonus whored casinos back in the days...
Instead of making a thread why something is maybe rigged, fix your gambling problems.
"I shouldn't have played" doesn't cut it, just like "today i took a bit of heroin" wouldn't cut it.

[Fire in da hole]

Nothing unusual, i've seen streaks like that going against and for me when i bonus whored casinos back in the days...
Instead of making a thread why something is maybe rigged, fix your gambling problems.
"I shouldn't have played" doesn't cut it, just like "today i took a bit of heroin" wouldn't cut it.

Thanks Dr. Phil!

[downsouth]

Thanks Dr. Phil!

[taxer]

So you think 179 hands is enough to prove something.

You need at least 1500 hands to get enough data.

You sir lost in the online casino and now have a baddddd case of sour grapes

[Fire in da hole]

Funny how wizzard of odds used 300 hands as enough proof that the other software was rigged, yet now we neet at least 1500 hands?

[TugBoatCapt]

The average should be 71% (will vary slightly depending on the exact rules).

For your game, I calculated it to be 126 games from 164 (the games where both of your hands were bust are excluded) which is 77%. When I said your game was close to the mean, I meant taking into account the dealer's hole card.

FLC, where do you get your hold averages? The house has a traditional hold of 2% that has been inching up over the last few decades. Don't give him math unless you can back it up. Check out the wizard of odds as a good example of what to expect, unless you mean he lost 77% of the time.

[FourLengthsClear]

FLC, where do you get your hold averages? The house has a traditional hold of 2% that has been inching up over the last few decades. Don't give him math unless you can back it up. Check out the wizard of odds as a good example of what to expect, unless you mean he lost 77% of the time.

This is not the hold. The hold in Switch Blackjack is 'only' 0.7% assuming optimal play.The player's results in terms of wins/losses were around 2.3 standard deviations from the mean.

The 71% figure is the likelihood of the dealer hitting 17, 18, 19, 20 or 21 on any given hand. For the player in this game, that figure was 77%.

[FourLengthsClear]

Funny how wizzard of odds used 300 hands as enough proof that the other software was rigged, yet now we neet at least 1500 hands?

I can only assume that the results were literally 'off the chart' for them to reach such a conclusion.

[lukahh]

I can only assume that the results were literally 'off the chart' for them to reach such a conclusion.

indeed, if results are enough off the mark, smaller sample can prove it.

able or unable to prove it, i wouldn't be playing online casinos for any serious money (or any casinos, for that matter, but especially online ones).

[JennyNakos]

Stay away from casinos

[JennyNakos]

I almost learned the hard way

[mtneer1212]

If you are going to play BJ online, at least use a Live Casino - where you have a chance. 5dimes and BetPhoenix have them that I know of.....

[tommygun]

If you are going to play BJ online, at least use a Live Casino - where you have a chance. 5dimes and BetPhoenix have them that I know of.....

and Bet365

[Microphone]

and Bet365

and Legends

[chachi]

and William Hill, Ladbrokes, and most other major UK / Euro books these days

[Rollins08]

I've played in their casino as well, knowing full well the odds were way against me. Normally I stick to sports. I will say that in online casino's you can go on unreal winning streaks as well, but the winning streaks may only last for something like 13 or 14 out of 15 hands or in that range. The losing streaks last much longer and will wipe you out, once your on one there is no way to get out of it except for close the casino session. In all the times with Betislands casino I have never made out a winner in a long term session. In every other casino I've played in, which there have been about 3 others, I've had nice winning streaks.

[5mike5]

really very embarassing players dont realize its a scam at any online casino