…may not be the best idea in the world.
I have only ever done it with backing from sponsors who
believed that because competition is do intense, online pseudo-casinos can’t
afford to be crooked.
Years ago, I had a profitable experience with William Hill
and Labrokes, but their virtual tables were locked out when tougher internet
gambling laws were introduced in the US and relatively respectable outfits in
Britain and elsewhere blocked American IP addresses from participation.
Proxy addresses are always an option, but I confess I am a
lot more comfortable when I can see real cards coming out of a real shoe, real
dice hurtling down a real table, and a real ball clicking around a real wheel!
No, really…
Living in Nevada, I’m under no pressure to risk money at
fake casinos, whether they are honest or not, but sometimes when I’m traveling
I will dabble just a little bit to avoid withdrawal symptoms.
I really don’t recommend it.
In my experience, online game simulations appear to be
programed to recognize and counteract progressive betting, or any other method
that responds consistently to win-loss patterns that are frequently repeated.
I have seen house edges—actual values or AVs as opposed to
expected values or EVs—that are so far out of whack with the norm for the games
being imitated that there cannot be an honest explanation.
There’s nothing suspicious about an AV of, say, 60% in the
house’s favour when the sample is small (20 rounds or less) but once the overall
number of decisions in a logged session climbs into three digits, it is
reasonable to question negatives that don’t reflect real games.
Remember, blackjack played according to the book has less
than a 1.0% house edge, baccarat has about a minus 1.35% (negative) expectation,
single-zero roulette is around -2.63%, and craps/field with 6,6 paying 3x is
about the same as roulette.
If you see negative numbers in double digits after a
reasonable number of decisions, chances are you’re being stiffed!
Unfortunately, this remains true even when the games
available online are said to be regulated.
I spent some time in England recently, and the Brits have
their own Gambling Commission, which is theoretically a watchdog over most
online “providers” and subcontracts some oversight to similar operations in the
Isle of Man, Alderney (in the Channel Islands), Gibraltar and Malta.
I’m here to tell you that oversight means absolutely nothing
other than the collection of fat fees from licensees in exchange for official
permission to rip off gullible gamblers.
My own bad experiences were relatively bearable because I
quickly backed off when I saw the way the wind was blowing, but I have heard
and read several horror stories from people who don’t have a real casino close
by and don’t have the option of flying home to Nevada.
Let’s face it, even the Nevada Gambling Commission is a watchdog
in about the same way as a wet noodle has power against a loaded gun, but at
least for operators of brick casinos, cheating is much harder than it is for
their online rivals.
If you feel that you’re willing to trust online games for
the sake of convenience or because you like to gamble in your underwear, the
safest bet is to open several “tables” at once—at least three at a time—and hop
from one to the other so that your betting pattern is much harder to spot.
You might also consider making the first game a $1 to $10
proposition, the second $10 to $50, and the third for high bets only.
Software for all these games is written to at the very least
pump up the house edge by several percentage points when a large bet is made
after several much smaller wagers, the assumption being that it’s best not to
get caught cheating, and if every large bet was an automatic loser, the jig would
be up in a big way.
Britain’s worst scourge isn’t online but in High Street
(town center) betting shops where sophisticated machines mimicking popular
casino games—mostly roulette and blackjack—will accept bets of up to £100
(about $150) and now account for more than half of the record profits achieved
by the major bookmakers (Ladbrokes, Coral, Betfred, William Hill and Paddy
Power).
The machines have an actual house edge exceeding 4.0%, which
is easily 4x the player disadvantage for blackjack and about twice as hard to
beat as single-zero roulette in a real casino.
Worse, it is widely believed that, like online games, the
machines are programed to react to wide swings in bet values by switching to a
less friendly algorithm whenever necessary.
The big bookies deny that, of course, but the machines are
programed by the same company that provides most online software, and the
phrase dog’s hind leg comes up in any discussion about the long-term honesty
and fairness of their games.
My advice is DON’T.
But if you must, spread your bets across at least three
virtual casinos, shake things up as best you can to hide what you are doing,
and follow the rules of Target 3-Play.
A quick refresher: After
an opening loss in a new series or sequence of bets, bet at least 3x, then bet
2x after a second loss before falling back to 1 unit and freezing at that level
until a win triggers a bet worth your total loss to date (LTD) plus 1 unit per
losing round. Example: -1, -3, -6, -1,
-1, -1, -1, +1, -21, -42, +84. The
simple rule: three losses, then retreat until the next turnaround opportunity
is signalled by a mid-recovery win.
After an opening WIN
in a new series, double the bet twice, then freeze, doubling twice after a loss
before falling back to damage control until the next win.
You need to be fully aware that no one can hope to win in
the long run without a very substantial bankroll capable of sustaining disciplined
betting through infrequent but
inevitable prolonged downturns.
It is madness to challenge the house advantage without
substantial resources, especially against online operations which function
without oversight (or, in the case of the UK, toothless non-intervention by a
bunch of Wallies, to use the British vernacular!).
Good luck, one and all.
(c) 2015 Seth Theobeau and Wordsmiths Syndicate
