Complaint #171
BetOnline Casino
Blackjack Software Is Blatantly Rigged
3 years ago
Here are just a few of the most salient data points (co-analyzed by a retired professor of statistics at the University of Washington, he concurring 100% with my conclusions):
1. The dealer averages about one blackjack per 10 hands. ("He" will go in spurts where he gets maybe four or five in the space of nine hands, which is utterly absurd and nothing I've ever experienced in a brick-and-mortar casino, but obviously it's the long-term trend that's statistically significant.) In a fair and honest game, the ratio would be closer to 1 in 20 (4.73%) - not even quite half what we witness in BOL's BetSoft bj games.
2. Stunningly, the dealer shows a face card as his "up-card" approx 65%(!!!) of the time, when of course the actual figure should be about 38.5% (5/13). This, of course, essentially forces the player to hit countless hands he might otherwise stand on. Not coincidentally, I'm sure, most of those hands tend to be 12-16.
3. In conjunction with #2, above: of all the hands where the dealer shows a face card as his up-card, not including aces, he turns over a face card a whopping 58% of the time! This is almost twice what the percentage would be in a fair game, i.e., approx 31% (or 4/13)
4. The dealer achieves a total of 21 in 14.3%(!!!) of all hands. This is roughly double what the figure would be in a fair, honest, non-rigged game: approx 7.4%.
5. As mentioned above, regardless of the # of hands played, the player receives an inordinate number of "stiffs," i.e., hands initially totaling between 12-16. Stiffs account for roughly 55% of all player hands, when the actual figure should be closer to 33%.
6. While I certainly won some large ($100-200) bets here and there along the way, there was a striking, unmistakable correlation between bet size and outcome. After applying the relevant formula, I found that the player is about 19.4% more likely to lose a bet of $50 or more than he is a bet of $10 or less (all things being equal).
7. Perhaps most blatant of all, while a 12 should bust on the first card drawn in just under 33% (4/13) of cases, on BOL's rigged BetSoft games, a player's 12 will bust on the first card drawn a STAGGERING 73.2%(!!!!!!) of the time. It's as if the algorithm the software runs on had a sort of hiccup whereby it just can't help itself from laying a brick on almost every player 12.
8. Across the 25-30k hands I played, the dealer won an ASTOUNDING 64% of them! The actual figure should be around 55%. This difference may not seem terribly vast, but in fact it equates to a RTP *substantially* lower than the 98.5% or so inherent to a fair and honest game, and thus oodles of lost wagers which otherwise would have pushed or won. Beating a game, even in the short term, in which the dealer wins almost 2/3 hands is virtually impossible; you'd probably have much better luck with a slot machine or even video Keno!
All in all, I noticed that, for brief stretches, it was almost as if the dealer were programmed to bust on any two cards, and to deal the player a decent string of 20s and blackjacks. This would last just long enough for the player to feasibly double his or her money. Problem is, once this "spell" wore off, the dealer would start winning about 6/7 hands, mostly with 21s and blackjacks. This "boss mode," as I came to dub it, would last for a good 50-100 hands, thereby not only erasing all of the player's winnings, but almost certainly wiping out his initial bankroll as well.
And this happened session... after session... after session... after session... after session. Again, across the span of several months and over 25k hands. KEY POINT: That is *more* than enough hands to constitute a statistically significant sample, i.e., one from which meaningful data, like #1-8 above, can be derived.
Conclusion? I am reasonably certain, to a 95% degree of confidence, that BOL's BetSoft bj games are rigged.
1. The dealer averages about one blackjack per 10 hands. ("He" will go in spurts where he gets maybe four or five in the space of nine hands, which is utterly absurd and nothing I've ever experienced in a brick-and-mortar casino, but obviously it's the long-term trend that's statistically significant.) In a fair and honest game, the ratio would be closer to 1 in 20 (4.73%) - not even quite half what we witness in BOL's BetSoft bj games.
2. Stunningly, the dealer shows a face card as his "up-card" approx 65%(!!!) of the time, when of course the actual figure should be about 38.5% (5/13). This, of course, essentially forces the player to hit countless hands he might otherwise stand on. Not coincidentally, I'm sure, most of those hands tend to be 12-16.
3. In conjunction with #2, above: of all the hands where the dealer shows a face card as his up-card, not including aces, he turns over a face card a whopping 58% of the time! This is almost twice what the percentage would be in a fair game, i.e., approx 31% (or 4/13)
4. The dealer achieves a total of 21 in 14.3%(!!!) of all hands. This is roughly double what the figure would be in a fair, honest, non-rigged game: approx 7.4%.
5. As mentioned above, regardless of the # of hands played, the player receives an inordinate number of "stiffs," i.e., hands initially totaling between 12-16. Stiffs account for roughly 55% of all player hands, when the actual figure should be closer to 33%.
6. While I certainly won some large ($100-200) bets here and there along the way, there was a striking, unmistakable correlation between bet size and outcome. After applying the relevant formula, I found that the player is about 19.4% more likely to lose a bet of $50 or more than he is a bet of $10 or less (all things being equal).
7. Perhaps most blatant of all, while a 12 should bust on the first card drawn in just under 33% (4/13) of cases, on BOL's rigged BetSoft games, a player's 12 will bust on the first card drawn a STAGGERING 73.2%(!!!!!!) of the time. It's as if the algorithm the software runs on had a sort of hiccup whereby it just can't help itself from laying a brick on almost every player 12.
8. Across the 25-30k hands I played, the dealer won an ASTOUNDING 64% of them! The actual figure should be around 55%. This difference may not seem terribly vast, but in fact it equates to a RTP *substantially* lower than the 98.5% or so inherent to a fair and honest game, and thus oodles of lost wagers which otherwise would have pushed or won. Beating a game, even in the short term, in which the dealer wins almost 2/3 hands is virtually impossible; you'd probably have much better luck with a slot machine or even video Keno!
All in all, I noticed that, for brief stretches, it was almost as if the dealer were programmed to bust on any two cards, and to deal the player a decent string of 20s and blackjacks. This would last just long enough for the player to feasibly double his or her money. Problem is, once this "spell" wore off, the dealer would start winning about 6/7 hands, mostly with 21s and blackjacks. This "boss mode," as I came to dub it, would last for a good 50-100 hands, thereby not only erasing all of the player's winnings, but almost certainly wiping out his initial bankroll as well.
And this happened session... after session... after session... after session... after session. Again, across the span of several months and over 25k hands. KEY POINT: That is *more* than enough hands to constitute a statistically significant sample, i.e., one from which meaningful data, like #1-8 above, can be derived.
Conclusion? I am reasonably certain, to a 95% degree of confidence, that BOL's BetSoft bj games are rigged.
Screenshot
