jeffry22 said:
In my mind the jury is still out on whether ALL online casinos are rigged but I will agree that the house advantage guarantees you will lose money in the long run. Not to make this too academic but I think it is more useful to discuss losses in terms of # of bets lost/standard deviation. (i.e. You lose $500 in 1000 hands at $10/hand equaling 50 bets lost. Subtract number of hands/200, 5 in this example, giving 45 bets lost. Take the square-root of the number of hands (31.6 in this example) and multiply it by 1.14. 36 is the standard deviation. Now divide the number of bets lost by the standard deviation, 45/36 = 1.25). If the number is not at least 3 (1 in 750) then you don't have a very statistically significant event to complain about.
Already been said, but if you play online you are trusting that the software installed that you are playing under is run honestly and set-up to fair standards....
Computers can be set to payout whatever the operator wants to pay out, at least if you are watching a live game of blackjack played with real cards you can count the cards as they come out and have some knowledge as to whether the deck is correct in it's proportion of cards.....
I see people playing computer keno and dumping 20 and 50 dollar bills into a stack of pickle cards, these are the same guys who watch football and are scared to throw a hundred dollars on a football game but cherish the opportunity to play shit odds and turn a $20 bill into $1.50 in a session of pickle cards.....
Same guys, if they do bet sports, remain glued to their local and the two hour betting window he provides along with tweeking the line according to your betting tendencies....I've only gotten one of my gambling buddies to go offshore and like me, he sees a night and day difference between offshore and local.
Computers can be set to payout whatever the operator wants to pay out, at least if you are watching a live game of blackjack played with real cards you can count the cards as they come out and have some knowledge as to whether the deck is correct in it's proportion of cards.....
I see people playing computer keno and dumping 20 and 50 dollar bills into a stack of pickle cards, these are the same guys who watch football and are scared to throw a hundred dollars on a football game but cherish the opportunity to play shit odds and turn a $20 bill into $1.50 in a session of pickle cards.....
Same guys, if they do bet sports, remain glued to their local and the two hour betting window he provides along with tweeking the line according to your betting tendencies....I've only gotten one of my gambling buddies to go offshore and like me, he sees a night and day difference between offshore and local.
:monsters-
jeffry22 said:
Losing 10 hands in a row isn't that rare, it should be roughly a little under 1,000:1 that you lose your next 10 hands, I'm sure it's happenned to me in live games, but 41 is unthinkable.
10-team parlays get hit, never heard of a 41-teamer. Rough estimate of losing 41 straight hands is a trillion to one. I get that by 1,000:1 for 10, lose 10 more for 20 straight... 1,000 times 1,000,that's a million to one, 20 more would be a million times a million ( a trillion).
Makes winning powerball look like nothing ! You'd have to be trying to lose to lose 41 str8. A trillion to one is a bit high of an estimate, but the calculated odds would easily be hundreds of billions to one of losing your next 41 hands of BJ, playing basic strategy.
jeffry22 said:
You can't just dismiss the "BS math" because you don't understand statistics. I know plenty about blackjack, thus my earlier post. The original poster's message did not contain enough detail about the stategy (or lack thereof) the player was using. Assuming optimal basic strategy it is near unthinakable to lose 41 straight but again, what was the strategy, what was the sample size, is the account of the events accurate, etc?
Phigment said:
Is the account of events accurate???? Are you copying these lines out of a textbook or something? If the account of events is inaccurate, then this whole thread is pointless. Everyone is assuming that it is accurate.
What was the sample size???? This came out of a textbook too, I assume. He played 41 hands and lost 41. What he played before or after that is irrelevant.
The chance of this happening -
If we assume the chance of winning a hand is 49%, then the chance of losing 41 straight is 1 in about a trillion
If the assume the guy is a dope/drunk/suicidal and the chance of winning a hand is 25% then the chance of losing 41 in a row is 1 in 132,000 - about the same odds of 17-team parlay.
Phigment said:
This is wrong.
If the chance of wiining a crackjack hand is 49%, then for 1000 hands, you should win 490 hands.
The standard deviation is the sqaure root of 1000*.49*.51 (look up binomial distribution) and that is 15.8
36 is NOT the standard deviation - I am sorry.
Now, if we take a confidence level of 99% then you should win anywhere from 537 to 443 hands (from 490+47 to 490-47 hands). So losing anything more than 57 bets is significant, not 135 as Phigment tries to suggest.
cincy_ said:
No. Amazingly enough I actually penned this entire email from my own head.
cincy_ said:
We both know "sample size" is a common statistical phrase. I certainly didn't coin it but I am comfortable using it. How many total hands he played during this BJ session and EVERY session before and after have EVERYTHING to do with this example. We're attempting to determine the long run possibilty of the event occurring, no? The short run is irrelevent. If I hit a jackpot in my first ever pull of a slot machine the casino is not going to run and adjust the payout on the machine. They know the long run is the only accurate number.
I will review the rest of your rebuttal but it's suspect if you're dismissing the need for an appropriate sample size right off the bat.
