Most intelligent posters would be more impressed if your were to post some "elegant" math to support your "elegant" patterns. [smiley]aes/erm.png[/smiley]

QuoteNot seeing into the future does not prevent Elegant Patterns from occurring. And fundamentalism does not enlighten anyone but the easily impressed. So please ignore my comments if they differ from any beliefs that you might find too ignorant.

I have a question:  Do these elegant patterns ebb and flow?  [smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley]

Sorry, but the facts are not "elegant", and they do not "ebb and flow".  Flamboyant terms and made up jargon is amusing at best and will not dazzle anyone. There are no patterns in the ECs that you can exploit, since you have no way of knowing whether a trend is likely to continue or end. 



-Xander
 

QuoteI thought that there were no patterns?  Now every thing is a pattern. -Garnabby

There are no exploitable patterns in ECs.  I simply used the word "patterns" to describe all of the possible outcomes.
There's no way of knowing whether a pattern will likely continue or end.  To believe otherwise is part of the gambler's fallacy.

-Xander

Victor,

Thanks for the offer.     But no, I'd rather not have a section.  Someone else will have to mentor Albalaha.

QuoteRandomness does have a virtual limit. It is not possible to get infinite variance. Those who haven't observed the game enough and merely read a few lines like, "every spin is independent of all previous ones" or "a million monkeys can type a work of Shakespeare" or " it is possible to get even 100 reds in a row" are misinformed people and they never bothered to see the randomness' reality.
            Have a look to see the virtual limit of randomness: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-different-bets-of-roulette#.U5RPtHKSxhUAlabalaha

Variance is only limited by the size of the sample.  For example, 101 reds, obviously, can't hit in a row if the game is only 100 spins.

Now to correct Albalaha  [smiley]aes/wink.png[/smiley]:  If the wheel did not have a zero, in a game of 100 spins, 100 reds in a row could hit.  In such a game, there would be 2^100 possible patterns that could occur.  And all red is one of the possible patterns.  All black is also one of the possible patterns.  The reason that you will likely never witness all red is because there is only a 1/2^100 chance that the unique red pattern will hit.  However, there's a 1 - (1/2^100 ) that another pattern will hit.  In other words, there are a gazillion possible patterns, other than red that can hit, but all red is only one of them. In the end, that one pattern that does hit could be considered an extremely rare event to the person that was perhaps looking for it from the very first spin.   




In the end, the wheel is a rare event generator.

-Xander

QuoteIf every spin is independent of past decisions, why on the earth, since roulette got invented, none has seen 50 consecutive hits of an EC?
Why no 10 consecutive his of a number ever came? -Albalaha

The probability of seeing a number hit ten times in a row is (1/37)^10.   Maybe someone has for all we know, but the odds of it hitting that many times in a row are very low since there are 36 other numbers on the wheel. 

Quote
                                      Independence of a single spin does not mean that every spin is free to generate any outcome till infinite. It only means that looking at past outcomes, u can't decide any better bet in one single spin.
        Collective probability of many consecutive spins and probability in one spin, are different. -Albalaha

On any spin, regardless of what has hit in the past, any one of the 37 numbers can hit.  For example: If you've just witnessed nine consecutive hits on the number four, the probability of it hitting on the tenth spin is still 1/37.  Randomness has no limits.

QuoteIt seems people enjoy to be mislead. -Albalaha

Yes, I'm part of a vast conspiracy along with other experts and mathematicians to hide the true nature of roulette and basic probability from people like you.  We all secretly coordinate and plan to mislead you all.  We have secret meetings, and we even have a top secret handshake.   

On a more serious note, there are plenty of people on various math and physics forum, like myself, that could teach and mentor you on roulette and basic probability for free.  Also try the wizardofvegas forum.

-Xander

QuoteXander,
                Either you did not get my question or trying to avoid it.
         two probabilities:  1.Getting 9 reds in a row
                                       2. Getting 18 reds in a row


                If every spin is independent, both should be equally likely. Are they?-Albalaha

What would you like to hear? 

Why on earth would you think that both would be equally likely?

And yes, every spin is independent.

QuoteMy question for Xander,
              Is it as much likely to get 9 more reds in a row after 9 already have hit and a successive hit of 9 reds?-Albalaha

After nine reds in a row have hit, the probability of hitting another nine reds in a row is (18/37)^9. 
After nine blacks in a row have hit, the probability of hitting nine reds in a row is (18/37)^9.

Why should it be any different?

Afterall, after nine reds in a row have hit, the probability of them hitting is 100%, since they already have hit!  Why would what has hit in the past affect the future?  Does the dealer block each number after it has hit to prevent it from hitting again?  Answer:  NO
Do the same number of numbers remain on the wheel from one spin to the next?  Answer: YES

What really matters is the probability of the spins that have yet to happen.  This is why virtual losses and virtual bets are a waste of time.


-Xander

Exposing the Gambler's Fallacy


"You're playing roulette, and red has just come up eight times in a row! Is black more likely on the next spin? No, it is not. Both red and black are equally likely. If you thought otherwise then the casinos love you, and you need to read this article right now.

In this article we'll show here is why past events have no influence over future events. To understand this you need to know just a teeny tiny bit of math, and just one term, probability. Probability describes how likely it is that something will happen. There are three ways to refer to it: by fraction, by decimal, or by percentage. For example, say there are four cards, face-down, and you get to pick one. Three of them are aces. What are your chances of picking an ace? You have three chances out of four to get an ace. We can express this in any of these ways:

3/4    (fraction)
0.75   (decimal)
75%   (percentage)
Each of these is just a different way of talking about the same thing. Notice that they're pretty easy to convert, too. If you punch 3 divided by 4 into a calculator you get 0.75. And to convert a decimal to a percentage all you have to do is move the decimal two spaces to the right and add the percent sign. 0.75 is the same as 75%. What could be easier?

Okay, so now that we know how to refer to probabilities, let's look at what they mean. Something that definitely will happen has a probability of 1 (or 1/1, or 100%, if you prefer). There's a 100% chance the sun will come up tomorrow. Well, it's not really a "chance" since it definitely will happen, but you get the idea. In our example of four cards, if all four were aces then your chances of picking an ace would be 4/4 = 1, it would definitely happen.

Something that definitely will not happen has a probability of 0. And in between 0 and 1 (or 0% to 100%) are all the things that could happen.

Your chances of winning some bet or series of bets might be 22%, 39%, 57%, or 83%. The higher the number, the more likely it will happen. Events over 50% will probably happen, events under 50% will probably not happen.

So far so good. So now let's look at probability when an event happens many times, like flipping a coin over and over. The probability of getting heads on one flip is 1 out of 2 -- one way to win out of two possible outcomes. We can call that 1/2 or 0.50 or 50%. But what are the chances of flipping the coin twice and getting heads both times? To figure this we multiply by the probability of each event:

First Flip
Second Flip
Probability

                                                                                                                                                                                                             1/2             x      1/2            =     1/4




Of course, another way to express this is 50% x 50% = 25%.

Okay, so what are the chances of getting ten heads in a row?

1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/1024





Not very likely, of course.

So here's where the gambler's fallacy comes in: Say you've tossed the coin nine times and amazingly, you got nine heads. You figure that the next toss will be tails, because the probability of getting ten heads in a row is one in 1024, which is unlikely to happen!

The problem with this reasoning is that you're not looking at the chances of getting ten heads in a row, you're looking at the chances of getting one heads in a row. The heads that already happened no longer have a 50% chance of happening, they already happened, so their probability is 1. When you flip again the odds for that flip will be 50-50, same as it ever was.

Let's introduce our hero, Mr. P, who will always be looking to the future to see what's going to happen. He's about to make ten coin flips, hoping to get ten heads. Here's his outlook:  1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/1024

And here's Mr. P. after flipping nine heads in a row, getting ready to make his tenth flip:  1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1/2 = 1/2

Now you're saying, Hey, wait! How come all the 1/2's turned into 1's? The answer is that they're no longer unknowns. Before you flip a coin you don't know what's going to happen so you have 50-50 odds. But after you flip the coin you definitely know what happened! After you flip a coin, the probability that you got a result is 1. You definitely flipped the coin. Definitely, definitely. So after you've flipped nine heads, the probability of flipping a tenth head is 1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x 1/2 = 1/2.

Let's have another look at Mr. P:

1 x 1 x 1 (Mr. P enters here)x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/128



Notice that it doesn't matter where on the table you stick him, the chances of his next flip being heads is always 1/2. Wherever he is, it doesn't matter what happened before, his chances on his next toss are always 1 in 2.

How could it be otherwise? When you flip a coin you will get one result out of two possible outcomes. That's 1 in 2, or 1/2. Why and how could those numbers change just because you got a bunch of heads or tails already? They couldn't. The coin has no memory, it neither knows nor cares what was flipped before. If it's a 1-out-of-2 coin, it will always be a 1-out-of-2 coin.

Still not convinced? Then here's another way to think about it. Let's say someone hands you a coin and asks, "What are the chances of flipping heads?" Without hesitation you'd probably say 1 out of 2? But wait a minute -- if it were true that heads were more likely if tails has just come up a bunch of times, then why did you answer "1 in 2" right away when asked about the chances of getting heads? Why didn't you say, "Well, you have to tell me whether tails has been coming up a lot before I can tell you whether heads has a fair shot or not."? It's simple: You didn't ask about the previous flips because intuitively you know they're unimportant. If someone hands you a coin, the chances of getting heads are 1 in 2, regardless of what happened before.

Would it really be the case that you answered "1 in 2," and then your friend said, "Oh, I forgot to tell you, tails has just come up nine times in a row." Would you now suddenly change your answer and say that heads is more likely? I hope not.

One last example: Let's say your friend slides two quarters towards you across the table. He tells you that the first coin has been flipping normally, but the second quarter has just had nine tails in a row. Would you now believe that the chances of getting heads on the first coin are even but the chances of getting heads on the second coin are greater? Given two identical coins, could you really believe that one would be more likely to flip heads than the other? I hope not!

The same concept applies to roulette. An American roulette wheel has 18 red spots, 18 black spots, and 2 green spots. The chances of getting red on any one spin are 18/38. If you just saw nine reds in a row, what is the likelihood of getting black on the next spin?

18/38, same as it ever was."  -Vegas Click written by ©2004 VegasReference.com



Whether it's waiting for a long losing run on the red or black, or a number to have not hit for a long period of time, virtual losses and chasing rare events is still part of the gambler's fallacy.
Both are a foolish waste of time.


-Xander

 

Quote@ Xander,

'why should it work?' Yes that seems like the natural question to ask anyone who proposes a method. I'd like to hear XXVV's answer to it. The physics approach seems best because it works for everything else, that's how we got to this modern technological world. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just practical. Why try to reinvent the wheel (excuse the pun) and posit some strange 'force' as the explanation?

Mike,

What probably drives me the craziest is when people attempt to make up blarney as to why their "system" should work in a vein attempt to sound more intelligent.  Using bs terms such as "eb and flow", "reading randomness", and other real terms like "fluid dynamics" and "quantum movements"  out of context simply makes whatever the person is attempting to share sound ridiculous and amusing.

I wish some of the system players would turn off the metaphysical nonsense and the blarney and return to the real world of cause and effect. 
They need to form a hypothesis as to why a system should work, and then test it,  rather than just making it up as they go along.


-Xander

XXVV,




"It would be refreshing if you did not simply sling mud, but present a case for why you believe that your strategies can work and why my arguments are invalid."-Mike

Mike is correct.  What's with the personal attacks?   

QuoteXander can't even spell the surname even though he has mentioned him now 24 times in the past 3 months.-XXVV

I accidently misspelled MB's name?  Where?  Until you mentioned him, I too had never heard of him or his book.  There are countless roulette book authors out there, and MB isn't one of the well known ones. 

I think you'd add more credence to your work if you'd focus more on cause and effect, and less on trying to dazzle people with words that aren't really applicable to what you're doing.  For example, "fluid dynamics", and "inner derivation" don't have anything to do with why your system should work. 

Mike said it best,  "There isn't any need to refer to such esoteric physics when the results can perfectly be well explained with the old-fashioned variety. And just because something isn't known doesn't give us the right to say that something IS known as a result of it."

-Xander

Hello Mike,

We appear to think alike.  Just recently I was saying the same things.  Before testing begins on a system, there needs to be some kind of hypothesis as to why the system should work in the first place.  Cause and effect matter in the physical world. 

Regarding my thoughts on the XXVV system:  Why should it work?  Meaning, what is the cause that will make it work?  What would cause one trigger to work better than another? 

Regarding money management:  I agree, it's secondary.  Everything that needs to be said about it can fit onto one page.  Really it's not worth discussing over and over.  Actually getting an edge is more important.

Regarding Martin Blakey:  I can't see how he could possibly be a professional roulette player.  His method, at best, is simply an efficient way to lose money.  There's no way anyone could earn a living playing his system.  He's simply someone that wrote a book on system play, and about what he claims are his experiences at the wheel.  In the past, I've also questioned whether or not he's a real mathematician.


-Xander

QuoteLet me point this out.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO HAVE REFERRALS..
As for the Matrix.
The upgrade just puts you into the matrix.
It really is there for the food run for the kids.
You can make money in WWS with out SPONSORING a single soul.
All you have to do. Is purchase Life Jackets.
Make 5% gratitude tokens a week.
5% on your money.
Is better than any bank out there.
WWSz is a REAL business.
With Real products.
Up to you if you wish to do it or not.

You can read about it in the MMG forum.
http://www.moneymakergroup.com/Worldwidesolutionz-Worl-t437266.html&st=3120 -Thomas Grant's gypsy scam

Thomas Grant,

I recently helped bail out a Nigerian prince.  I'm expecting his wire transfer for several million to come in any day now.  So, I'll be buying those life jackets real soon!   



-Xander

QuoteIts reminds me of those hey days of prohibition.
Make something illegal.
And whatever it is.
Finds its way underground.
Onto the black market.
Fortunately most European countries are far more intelligent that what the US is.
They just tax the frak out of Alcohol and other drugs.-Thomas Grant

Thomas Grant,

Here's a little history for you on prohibition:

Czech Republic[edit]

On 14 September 2012, the government of the Czech Republic banned all sales of liquor with more than 20% alcohol. From this date on it was illegal to sell (and/or offer for sale) such alcoholic beverages in shops, supermarkets, bars, restaurants, gas stations, e-shops etc. This measure was taken in response to the wave of methanol poisoning cases resulting in the deaths of 18 people in the Czech Republic.[10] Since the beginning of the "methanol affair" the total number of deaths has increased to 25. The ban was to be valid until further notice,[11] though restrictions were eased towards the end of September.[12] The last bans on Czech alcohol with regard to the poisoning cases were lifted on 10 October 2012, when neighbouring Slovakia and Poland allowed its import once again.[13]

Nordic countries[edit]

The Nordic countries, with the exception of Denmark, have had a strong temperance movement since the late 1800s, closely linked to the Christian revival movement of the late 19th century, but also to several worker organisations. As an example, in 1910 the temperance organisations in Sweden had some 330,000 members,[14] which was 6% of a population of 5.5 million.[15] Naturally, this heavily influenced the decisions of Nordic politicians in the early 20th century.

Already in 1907, the Faroe Islands passed a law prohibiting all sale of alcohol, which was in force until 1992. However, very restricted private importation from Denmark was allowed from 1928.

In 1914, Sweden put in place a rationing system, the Bratt System, in force until 1955. However a referendum in 1922 rejected an attempt to enforce total prohibition.

In 1915, Iceland instituted total prohibition. The ban for wine and spirits was lifted in 1935, but beer remained prohibited until 1989.

In 1916, Norway prohibited distilled beverages, and in 1917 the prohibition was extended to also include fortified wine and beer. The wine and beer ban was lifted in 1923, and in 1927 the ban of distilled beverages was also lifted.

In 1919, Finland enacted prohibition, as one of the first acts after independence from the Russian Empire. Four previous attempts to institute prohibition in the early 20th century had failed due to opposition from the tsar. After a development similar to the one in the United States during its prohibition, with large-scale smuggling and increasing violence and crime rates, public opinion turned against the prohibition, and after a national referendum where 70% voted for a repeal of the law, prohibition was ended in early 1932.[16][17]

Today, all Nordic countries (with the exception of Denmark) continue to have strict controls on the sale of alcohol which is highly taxed (dutied) to the public. There are government monopolies in place for selling spirits, wine and stronger beers in Norway (Vinmonopolet), Sweden (Systembolaget), Iceland (Vínbúðin), the Faroe Islands (Rúsdrekkasøla landsins) and Finland (Alko). Bars and restaurants may, however, import alcoholic beverages directly or through other companies.

See also: Alcoholic beverages in Sweden and Algoth Niska

Greenland, which is part of the kingdom of Denmark does not share its easier controls on the sale of alcohol.[18]

Soviet Union[edit]

Main article: Prohibition in Russian Empire and Soviet Union

In the Russian Empire, a limited version of a Dry Law was introduced in 1914.[19] It continued through the turmoil of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Russian Civil War into the period of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union until 1925.

United Kingdom[edit]

Although the sale or consumption of commercial alcohol has never been prohibited by law, historically various groups in the UK have campaigned for the prohibition of alcohol, including the Society of Friends (Quakers), The Methodist Church and other non-conformist Christians, as well as temperance movements such as Band of Hope and temperance Chartist movements of the 19th century.

In 1853, inspired by the Maine law in the USA, the United Kingdom Alliance led by John Bartholomew Gough was formed aimed at promoting a similar law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in the UK. This hard-line group of prohibitionists was opposed by other temperance organisations who preferred moral persuasion to a legal ban. This division in the ranks limited the effectiveness of the temperance movement as a whole. The impotence of legislation in this field was demonstrated when the Sale of Beer Act 1854 which restricted Sunday opening hours had to be repealed, following widespread rioting. In 1859 a prototype prohibition bill was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Commons.[20]


-------------------

In the US, we've been slow on the online gambling because there's so much corruption abroad within the online gambling community.  Dr. Elliot Jacobson, and others have documented several incidents. 

"Crooks in the Online Casino Industry"

Posted on January 2, 2014 | 8 Comments -Written by Dr. Elliot Jacobson.


"In January, 2012, I was hired by an online casino to audit the online casino software company that provided their software. This casino wanted to get a Certified Fair Gambling seal. I began the audit in late March, 2012. The software company had previously obtained a TST certification for their RNG, which was sent to me together with other documentation, log files and code slices. TST wrote, in part:

"TST has verified, through mathematical and statistical analysis, within a 95.0% confidence interval, that the RNG outcomes exhibit sufficient non-predictability, fair distribution and lack of bias to particular outcomes.

TST's evaluation was limited to outcome-based testing in the laboratory environment, and was performed using a test version of the RNG. TST's evaluation was based on specific information and materials to be outlined within the forthcoming Final Report (including, but not necessarily limited to, source code, software, hardware, configurations, documentation and general correspondence), as submitted to TST throughout the duration of the evaluation."

What does TST certification really mean?

As I audited the log files from the casino, everything came back normal for Keno and Blackjack. I noted that this company's shuffle was non-standard and needed some repair. I also indicated to them that their data format was substandard. When it came to auditing craps, that's when things started to go wrong. The following are my notes as I audited craps:

Craps (log files received 03/24/2012)
◾RTP = 97.62%. Not clear if I computed it correctly.
◾Audit dice #1 (5 DOF, p-Value 0.10373)
◾Audit dice #2 (5 DOF, p-Value 0.32725)
◾Audit dice total (11 DOF, p-Value 0.33259)
◾Dice total correlation tests (11 DOF, p-Values inconsistent).  7 values under 0.05.
◾Dice total correlation tests other direction (11 DOF, p-Values also inconsistent) 6 values under 0.05.
◾Dice correlation for single dice (dice 1 test) for dice value 4 gives (5 DOF, p-value = 0.000035993). That's 35-in-100000. Other values are ok. (5 DOF, p-Values are inconsistent).
◾Dice correlation for single dice (dice 2 test) for dice value 2 gives (5 DOF, p-value = 0.0056).
◾REQUESTED – code that shows how dice values are being generated.

As you see, I was not happy with the results from the correlation tests. One type of correlation test considers the value of one dice if the value of the other dice is fixed. Another form of correlation test considers consecutive rolls. I wanted more details.

I contacted the software company and was sent a code slice that showed how the RNG was used to produce dice rolls. It was clear that the code was incomplete. As I was making additional requests, I received an e-mail from the lead programmer for the company asking if I had a few minutes to talk by phone. What happened next was truly remarkable. I spoke with the coder who confessed everything to me. Here are the notes I took during that call:

CFG_Audit_Rogue_01

Hopefully you get the general idea. The next day, I spoke with the owner of the software company on the phone. Here are my notes from this call:

CFG_Audit_Rogue_03

Later, I got this email, denying the confession:

CFG_Audit_Rogue_02

The owner had culled data from customers who played the version when it was not in "rogue-mode" and wanted me to look at that data and give craps a "pass." The owner wanted me to ignore the phone call from the software developer. The owner apologized for the bad data that had accidentally been sent to me. The owner expected me to go back, look at new clean logs, and continue as if nothing bad had happened.

I spoke with the programmer and owner several more times by phone. The programmer told me that he had asked the owner to stop lying to me. The programmer told me that the owner indicated that the lies would continue in order to protect the company in question.

I spoke with the owner of the software company again on April 13, 2012. The owner indicated that the software company still wanted CFG certification. The owner said that they had paid 50% in advance for it and expected to be certified. I told them no. No certification. No money back.

Later, I got a letter from someone involved who wanted the audit to continue in the face of everything that had come to pass:

"In case you're wondering why I am still going after this so hard, I really don't want this cheat and liar to get away with it.  XXX is a horrible human being and doesn't deserve to be rewarded for their dishonesty. "

In the end I concluded that the casino was totally surprised and caught off guard. They did not know the software was rogue or had a cheat mode. In my opinion, the software company accidentally left a cheat option in place on a  piece of craps code that was deployed to the online casino.  The casino wanted the CFG seal and expected to get it. Needless to say, they no longer use this casino software.

It is simply not the case that every casino software company produces software that is capable of cheating. I know many companies with integrity. I know many companies that are not crooked. There are good guys out there. Hopefully this account shows just how tough it can get as a game fairness auditor. Protecting the good guys means dealing with the bad guys.

This software company continues to have its product in dozens of online casinos worldwide. I am not sure how many of those casinos use its "cheat mode" or are even aware such a mode exists. I am not free to disclose the name of this casino or software company; both were clients and are protected by confidentiality.

I stand by the CFG seal and the casinos and software companies it represents. I'm also relieved to be done with the industry as a game fairness auditor.

[added 1.10.2014]

There has been quite a bit of discussion on some gambling message boards about why I am not willing to disclose this software provider. I was hired by a casino to audit their software provider so that the casino could post the CFG seal. This relationship was not a public audit and was never intended to be public.

I was not hired by a government agency to conduct a public audit. I was not hired by some third-party to publicly investigate a suspected rogue software product.  I was hired as a private business by a private business to audit another private business.  CFG is not affiliated with any jurisdiction or regulatory agency and has no public disclosure obligation. This relationship and all findings were and are confidential. The only public information would have been permission to use the CFG seal, if it was awarded.  It wasn't. My recourse under the terms of the contract did not provide for a public remedy.

As far as the number of casinos that run this software, I did a quick Google search and found 14 casinos. I am not sure of the exact number of casinos that currently use this software.

One of the greatest sources of security and safety are the players themselves. Every instance I know of a casino software company having their products exposed as rogue in the last few years has been initiated from a player complaint. Complaints by players may be taken lightly by the gaming community without significant evidence to back up their claims. Players who suspect rogue behavior need to keep careful records and be prepared to take proactive steps to back up their case. It is important that players continue to bring their issues forward through established portals, like Casinomeister, thePogg and Wizardofvegas.

No audit is perfect. No audit can be guaranteed to catch malfeasance. But, a rigorous fairness audit is better than no audit at all. It is important that players only choose eCogra, TST and CFG certified casinos. CFG certification, in particular, focuses purely on game fairness. These certifications may not be perfect, but a casino software product that fails to have any of these should be played with caution."  -Dr. Elliot Jacobson

It continues at http://apheat.net/2014/01/02/crooks-in-the-online-casino-industry/


-------------------------------


In short, some online casinos have some cheating code within various gaming software RNG that's designed to cheat you in order to ensure that the casino shows a profit each month.

If you don't believe me, then please take the time to read and research the link that I've provided above.   

-Xander

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

Caesar's and Harrah's goons!  This should not surprise anyone considering the casino's debt load and the poor management on the part of the surveillance crews.