God bless stake.com and eddie and take care

[BlackyJacky]

@nutildah: The casino collects the house edge from every bet.

That's not what I said at all.

I asked you how the casino collects the house edge and your answer contained "every bet".

How can they "collect a house edge" from a bet if the player wins a Blackjack?

Good question to clownfish @AHOYBRAUSE!

He says that at Black Jack the casino collects the house from bets won:

House edge numbers just guarantee a min profit for the casino because of the reduced % in payouts. Instead of 2.0 you get 1.98 in odds for a 50/50 chance, that's where the house edge is.

You don't even stop to think whether or not what you're writing makes any sense.

Thank you for confirming that @AHOYBRAUSE doesn't even stop to think whether or not what he is writing makes any sense!  

The house edge is the average loss of each bet across several bets.

I did not ask what the house edge is!

I asked how the casino collects the house edge at Black Jack.

"Collects" means how does the house edge move from the player account to the casino account.

[Rickperry69]

Hey wouldn't you guys be better off investigating the infinite deck and extra 10 cards on the draw? Stakes computerized blackjack is not actually blackjack in the strictest sense as it has modulated the rules to allow for an even greater chance of the dealer drawing a pair of 10s. It's only really truly blackjack in name, they should modify the name to reflect that it is basically unique in the implementation of its code and rules.

You won't get anywhere on the fraud claims with a win/loss analysis even if you had 10x the data, except to find that stakes automated blackjack (non live) favors the house more than traditional or live table blackjack. Likewise there is no necessary card burn, and the player has no idea the composition of remaining cards in play.

I've never seen an actual casino that has these specific blackjack rules btw. That being said, I don't see your current line of argument gaining traction unless you can prove a flaw with their "provably fair" system or, argue on the lines of the modulated rules not being fair.

You can ostensibly drive players away from the automated blackjack to the table blackjack until stake itself changes the rules on the automated bj to match the same mechanics as the live table. And, the live tables are generally hosted across many different apps, and tend to be credible.

I think mostly this boils down to, the infinite deck makes it unfair even for the most experienced blackjack players. But that isn't necessarily fraud or manipulation. The infinite deck and increased chance of the dealer drawing a 10 is a mechanical issue with the game as provided but that information is given to you.

Another line of thought would be to show the probabilities of the dealers hands versus traditional blackjack to prove the automated bj on stake is a different beast altogether.

Imo the house edge has nothing to do with any of this and is a distraction from the claim you are trying to advance, which I could be sympathetic to and agree with if formulated in a more cutting and provable way.

But, we won't get and don't have the information to advance that claim. So, you may want to try another angle.

Think about if this thread was about how dumb the infinite deck rule actually is, with math to back it up. People on Google searches stumbling across this thread and being convinced, right or wrong, that the mechanics of the automated blackjack are even more lopsided against them. Then you are on the path to where you want to be. Right now, with the devolvement into talking about house edge for 10 pages, the math and rhetoric are going nowhere.  
 
At the end of the day, if you're an experienced blackjack player and you see the rules around the stake original version of blackjack, you just don't play it because you understand it's an entirely different game than at the table. And they also offer live table blackjack, so you just play that.

Additionally you may get somewhere by fomenting that the sweepstakes casino category of companies as a whole is committing fraud in a sense by sidestepping US state gambling regulations via tokens and redemptions. Which is an industry-wide thing at this point. Try looking at how draftkings operates in a state like oregon with both DFS and their sportsbook, and compare it to the obvious skirt-the-regulations methodology of sweepstakes casinos. That side of things, almost definitely has a time limited lifespan before something comes crashing down. Is like they learned from Japanese pachinko parlors.

Fwiw i love playing blackjack, and it's the only game I play across any of these apps, but my primary use for stake is that, there are offers from other companies that provide 30% bonuses on transfers, which have no playthrough requirements, and then I can transfer the money out of stake immediately into a wallet. I also collect the free dollar a day when I remember because why the fk not. I'm probably not alone in providing them with that sort of pass through revenue, which just inflates their accounting books and provides them no real benefit aside from the 1$ or so transfer fee.

But yes, I agree stake originals blackjack is trash and shouldn't be played. If you do, assume every face down card you see is a ten. You can't play with traditional blackjack rules and expect to win at the same rate when the rules are different.

[BlackyJacky]

@Rickperry69

Nice story, but to prove that a game is not fair is very easy and simple:

If the experienced house edge is higher than the advertised house edge plus the maximal possible deviation = not fair!

In my case, 0,5% advertised house edge plus 0,4% maximal deviation = 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge.

Compared with my experienced 4,6% house edge, this is 100% proof that the game (or the system) is not fair!

[AHOYBRAUSE]

@Rickperry69

Nice story, but to prove that a game is not fair is very easy and simple:

If the experienced house edge is higher than the advertised house edge plus the maximal possible deviation = not fair!

In my case, 0,5% advertised house edge plus 0,4% maximal deviation = 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge.

Compared with my experienced 4,6% house edge, this is 100% proof that the game (or the system) is not fair!

You're an idiot, period.
Your result is NOT 4.6% house edge, you just lost 4.6% of your games. That's even good because you are supposed to win only 42% of hands. On infinite blackjack you know exactly what you are getting. You playing it and then wine just shows how stupid you are.
I don't know if I should feel sorry for you because it's apparent you have some issues. Nah I think it's fair and ok to just laugh at you, just for the kind of person you are.

[Rickperry69]

@Rickperry69

Nice story, but to prove that a game is not fair is very easy and simple:

If the experienced house edge is higher than the advertised house edge plus the maximal possible deviation = not fair!

In my case, 0,5% advertised house edge plus 0,4% maximal deviation = 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge.

Compared with my experienced 4,6% house edge, this is 100% proof that the game (or the system) is not fair!

Actually it looks like this was addressed by this guy 10 years ago. Infinite deck blackjack vs 8 deck blackjack. https://youtu.be/wJsGnXgrGvg?feature=shared

[noviesol]

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding about the Infinite Deck.

For example, the chance of drawing a ten-value card in an 8-deck game is:

128/416 = 30.77%

In an Infinite Deck game, the chance of drawing a ten-value card is:

16/52 = 30.77%

The probability of drawing a ten-value card is the same in both the Infinite Deck and an 8-deck game. The key difference is that, in an Infinite Deck, the probabilities remain constant as cards are dealt because the deck is essentially infinite. On the other hand, in an 8-deck game, the chances shift as cards are dealt and the deck is depleted.

Therefore, the Infinite Deck offers consistency with fixed odds for every hand, whereas in a traditional 8-deck game, the odds change as cards are drawn.

This is why 8-deck games are often cut halfway through: if many negative cards for the player are removed from the deck, the shoe can become more favorable for the player. In contrast, with an infinite deck, there's no need to cut and reshuffle because the deck is reshuffled after every hand.

I think OP should spend their time more usefully, as I keep seeing the same messages over and over. It also seems clear that you're not open to the opinions of others and only believe in your own numbers. Anyway, good luck with your witch hunt against Stake and their so-called puppets

[BlackyJacky]

It also seems clear that you're not open to the opinions of others and only believe in your own numbers.

His own numbers or my numbers are facts, opposed to opinions.

What is the sense of opinions if the opinions have nothing to do with the facts?

What is the sense of declaring hallucinated nonsense as facts, while it is not?

Example:

Your result is NOT 4.6% house edge, you just lost 4.6% of your games. That's even good because you are supposed to win only 42% of hands.

The hallucinated nonsense opinion of this sickhead is that my experienced house edge of 4,6% instead of the advertised 0,5% is good, because the chance to win a hand is only 42%, while the chance to win a hand has nothing to do with the house edge!

Psychological abuse of online casino victims has nothing to do with opinion.

[holydarkness]

Some interesting info from @holydarkness

Info 1)

Stake scans this board!

They do,

[...]
PS: I'm the one in charge of forwarding them, in case Staff misses these topics, therefore every Stake.com Scam accusation will be viewed / analysed very soon.

Info 2)

If you did nothing wrong, Casino Guru will make a fair ruling Stake will follow!
[...]
Wait, Casino Guru closed my complaint about Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack!  

This is your case - https://casino.guru/stake-casino-player-suspects-casino-s-in-house-blackjack ? Have to dig CG to find the best match. Though the username is difference with the one used here, the writing style indicate it is yours.

They closed your case because you can't provide supporting evidence to back up your claim.

It's no one's fault but yours if you can't present a case with compelling basis for a rebuttal. Case on point, you come to the police and say your neighbor stole 30,000 USD from you. When they ask for evidence, you gave them an opinion of what you think should be happening instead of evidence-backed-fact.

[Rickperry69]

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding about the Infinite Deck.

For example, the chance of drawing a ten-value card in an 8-deck game is:

128/416 = 30.77%

In an Infinite Deck game, the chance of drawing a ten-value card is:

16/52 = 30.77%

The probability of drawing a ten-value card is the same in both the Infinite Deck and an 8-deck game. The key difference is that, in an Infinite Deck, the probabilities remain constant as cards are dealt because the deck is essentially infinite. On the other hand, in an 8-deck game, the chances shift as cards are dealt and the deck is depleted.

Therefore, the Infinite Deck offers consistency with fixed odds for every hand, whereas in a traditional 8-deck game, the odds change as cards are drawn.

This is why 8-deck games are often cut halfway through: if many negative cards for the player are removed from the deck, the shoe can become more favorable for the player. In contrast, with an infinite deck, there's no need to cut and reshuffle because the deck is reshuffled after every hand.

I think OP should spend their time more usefully, as I keep seeing the same messages over and over. It also seems clear that you're not open to the opinions of others and only believe in your own numbers. Anyway, good luck with your witch hunt against Stake and their so-called puppets

Yeah you're right. I discovered this after my first post. There's a slight difference in pairs probabilities, and counts don't work, but not really enough to matter.

[BlackyJacky]

Some interesting info from @holydarkness

Info 1)

Stake scans this board!

They do,

[...]
PS: I'm the one in charge of forwarding them, in case Staff misses these topics, therefore every Stake.com Scam accusation will be viewed / analysed very soon.

Info 2)

If you did nothing wrong, Casino Guru will make a fair ruling Stake will follow!
[...]
Wait, Casino Guru closed my complaint about Stake's provably rigged in-house Black Jack!  

This is your case - https://casino.guru/stake-casino-player-suspects-casino-s-in-house-blackjack ? Have to dig CG to find the best match. Though the username is difference with the one used here, the writing style indicate it is yours.

Yes, this is my case.

They closed your case because you can't provide supporting evidence to back up your claim.

https://talkimg.com/images/2025/02/27/qgQ7w.jpeg

I gave them screenshots of my Stake bets statistics and it is a lie that I had no proof of my claim.

Below is proof that the Stake in-house Black Jack system is rigged!

Info 1)

The advertised house edge for the Stake in-house Black Jack is 0,5%, which means longterm I will lose 0,5% of all bets placed.

However, if you take a look at my statistics here https://ibb.co/Hxf8NpR you can see the following total numbers:

Bets: 180,904

Wins: 78,285

Losses: 86,612

If we reduce the number of wins from the number of losses, we can see that I lost 8,327 bets (86,612 minus 78,285 = 8,327)

Losing 8,327 bets out of 180,904 bets placed = 4,6% of the bets lost.

0,5% house edge out of 180,900 bets placed I should lose 900 bets + a possible small deviation.

8,327 bets lost - 900 bets I should lose = 7,427 bets too much lost.


Info 2)

Bets

After 180,900 bets, the technically maximal possible deviation is 0,4% from the expected outcome according to the law of large numbers (See Info 3).

180,000 bets x 0,4% = 720 bets I could maximal additionally lose on top of the 900 bets I will lose based on the 0,5% house edge.

7,427 bets too much lost minus 720 bets I can additionally maximal lose = 6,707 bets = additional 9,3 times on top of the maximal possible deviation!

House edge

0,5% house edge = 900 bets plus 720 bets I can maximal additionally lose = 80% additional maximal possible deviation from the house edge.

0,5% house edge plus 0,4% (80% additional maximal possible deviation) = 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge!

Experienced house edge 4,6% minus 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge = 3,7% additional experienced house edge!

3,7% additional experienced house edge : 0,4% additional maximal possible deviation = additional 9,3 times on top of the maximal possible deviation!

Stake's own statistics is 100% proof that their in-house Black Jack system is rigged!


Info 3)

When the house edge is 0,5% and you placed 180,900 bets, you will lose 900 bets and the remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips.

The remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips, because they are neutral and you will win 50% = 90,000 bets and lose 50% = 90,000 bets.


Now let's take a look at the technically maximal possible deviation for 180,000 coin flips:

A) Standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 212 coin flips = 0,12% (In 68% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0,12%)

B) 3 times standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 0,36% (In 99,7% of all attempts, the deviation is up to 0.36%)
 
What does 99,7% mean?

When you make 333 times a serie of 180,000 coin flips, then 332 times the deviation from the expected outcome will be up to 0,36% and only one time the deviation will be higher than 0,36%.

I was not able to find how much the deviation could be in this one case where it is higher than 0,36%, but likely not more than 10% of the 0,36% = 0,4%.


Even Stake is too stupid to understand what the law of large numbers means:

The user has reached out to the complaints department more than 30 times for the same inquiry.

We have provided the user with the requested information and guided them on validating the license in accordance with Antillephones' preferred procedures.

The User has also been attempting to claim that the 8048/JAZ license is invalid for cryptocurrencies.

Our system allows users to access their complete bet history from the date of registration, and there is no limit on the data storage.

All data stored under the "bet archive" and other sections of your account, are protected by our License, which we strictly adhere to.

For the Blackjack game, users can easily filter data in their bet archive spreadsheet.

Our licensing information and regulations have been transparently available on our website since Stake's inception.

Upon registration, the User acknowledges and accepts our Terms of Service which provide information the above and also provides this clearly.

Prior to using our services, it's crucial for users to comprehend the inherent risks associated with gambling, as winning cannot be guaranteed.

Regarding RTP, it's important to note that this figure is based on a calculation involving at least 1 million bets.

In short sessions with a few hundred or thousand bets, variability is expected, it is impossible to make accurate calculations based on these sessions.

Overall, the frivolous claims made by this User have been explained to them many times by Support and other members of the community:

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=2178857.400.

It is clear to us that there are no ground for reimbursement.

While the exact house edge applies indeed only after 1 million bets, the law of great numbers determines the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome based on the number of attempts.

And the higher the number of attempts is, the lower is the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome!

And after 180,900 bets, the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome is 0,4%.

0,5% advertised house edge plus 0,4% maximal possible deviation = 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge after 180,900 bets!

My experienced house edge 4,6% - 0,9% maximal possible experienced house edge = 3,7% ADDITIONAL technically not possible house edge!

It's no one's fault but yours if you can't present a case with compelling basis for a rebuttal. Case on point, you come to the police and say your neighbor stole 30,000 USD from you. When they ask for evidence, you gave them an opinion of what you think should be happening instead of evidence-backed-fact.

It is not my fault if Casino Guru is too stupid to understand what a 0,5% house edge means and that the law of large numbers determines the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome based on the number of attempts!

To compare Casino Guru with the police is misleading and a court will never appoint them as an expert witness!

[noviesol]

But u comparing Blackjack with a coinflip now. A coinflip is 50/50 but Blackjack isn’t. The numbers u use just don’t work and u can calculate the house edge with this.

[BlackyJacky]

But u comparing Blackjack with a coinflip now. A coinflip is 50/50 but Blackjack isn’t.

No, I do not compare Black Jack with a coin flip!

The house edge is not a coin flip, only the remaining bets after the house edge is reduced are coin flips.

So if the advertised house edge is 0,5% and you made 180,900 bets, then you will lose 0,5% of the 180,900 bets = 900 bets and the remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips, because you will win 50% of them you will lose 50% of them.

The numbers u use just don’t work and u can calculate the house edge with this.

The numbers I use work perfectly and are verified by international renowned mathematicians and staticians.

[noviesol]

No, I do not compare Black Jack with a coin flip!

The house edge is not a coin flip, only the remaining bets after the house edge is reduced are coin flips.

So if the advertised house edge is 0,5% and you made 180,900 bets, then you will lose 0,5% of the 180,900 bets = 900 bets and the remaining 180,000 bets are coin flips, because you will win 50% of them you will lose 50% of them.

Just for your knowledge. I put your statement on 3 different AI bots and these are the answer they gave me.

Google Bard:


ChatGPT:


Deepseek:


I gues the all the 3 AI's are wrong and you are right? Since u don't listen to people I thought this might give you some sense.

[BlackyJacky]

@noviesol

Thank you for showing that I am more intelligent than 3 AI software.

ChatGPT

Quote: "The house edge applies to every bet, not just an initial portion."

So it says that the casino reduces the 0,5% house edge from every bet?  


Quote: "Each bet still has the same house edge, so the expected loss is 0.5% of the total amount wagered, not a fixed number of lost bets."

So when I finish my Black Jack session, the casino calculates my total amount wagered and then reduces the 0,5% house edge?  


Deepseek

Quote: "The house edge represents the average percentage of each bet that the house expects to win over time."

Correct, but this statement has nothing to do with how the casino collects the house edge!


Quote: "It doesn't mean you lose a fixed number of bets upfront"

Correct, but this statement has nothing to do with how the casino collects the house edge!


Quote: "In your example, you don't lose exactly 900 bets out of 180,900;"

Correct, the 900 bets out of 180,900 bets is only the number of bets you are expected to lose plus the up to 0,4% deviation.


Quote: "instead, you expect to lose 0.5% of the total amount wagered over time."

So when I finish my Black Jack session, the casino calculates my total amount wagered and then reduces the 0,5% house edge?  


Quote: "The outcomes of individual bets are still subject to variance and probability, not strictly "coin flips."

This statement clearly confirms that Deepseek did not understand my statement, because I never said that individual bets are coin flips.

I clearly said that the house edge is not a coin flip and only the remaining bets after the house edge is reduced are coin flips.

The house edge is not a coin flip, only the remaining bets after the house edge is reduced are coin flips.

[holydarkness]

It is not my fault if Casino Guru is too stupid to understand what a 0,5% house edge means and that the law of large numbers determines the maximal possible deviation from the expected outcome based on the number of attempts!

To compare Casino Guru with the police is misleading and a court will never appoint them as an expert witness!

Hmm... must be fun to live in the world inside your head where you're always right and when someone pointed out that you're not, either ignore the fact [because you're always right, so you shouldn't address the matter where they show that you're not] like when you try to point out my "fun fact" that stake routinely scan this board, which I then show the full statement made by the rep herself, which prove that the "fun fact" is actually a, well, "fact", or, when an ADR refuse to mediate due to the lack of evidence, they're stupid.

Comparing CG to police is misleading... is it, though? Try to go to the police and accuse someone without concrete evidence, see if they'll take your case seriously. By "your concrete evidence", I believe we all [but you] understand that what you served them --if we compare to what you tried to serve to CG on your thread there, as well as here in those wall of text and numbers-- are not valid as a compelling prima facie because well, your understanding of how the system works is wrong, but then again, in the world you're living inside your head, you're the one who always right. Even three AI and other people are wrong.

"Fun fact": this phrase kept repeating in my head while I write this post, "off with his head!", I guess I know why, LOL.

[BlackyJacky]

@holydarkness

How does the casino collect the house edge?

A) Reduce 0,5% from every bet

B) Reduce 0,5% from the total amount wagered

C) Via the number of bets a player loses


The "Fun fact" will come to an end for Bijan and Edward in the foreseeable future!

Who laughs last laughs best and hallucinated nonsense can not prevent that I will be the one who will laugh last!  

[nutildah]

ChatGPT

Quote: "The house edge applies to every bet, not just an initial portion."

So it says that the casino reduces the 0,5% house edge from every bet?  

No, that's not what it said. You are clearly trying to twist its words in a dishonest fashion to support a fallacious argument that has been debunked multiple times, in multiple ways.

Here's another in-depth deconstruction of your questions, provided via Grok:





I mean, its pretty obvious to me what you're doing, and you won't get away with it. Not here, anyway.

[BlackyJacky]

ChatGPT

Quote: "The house edge applies to every bet, not just an initial portion."

So it says that the casino reduces the 0,5% house edge from every bet?  

No, that's not what it said.

If the casino does not reduce the 0,5% house edge from every bet, how does the casino collect the house edge?

A) Reduce 0,5% from every bet

B) Reduce 0,5% from the total amount wagered

C) Via the number of bets a player loses


Someone who does not know or who is not able to understand how the casino collects the house edge, is not qualified to post in this thread!

[Zwei]

Someone who does not know or who is not able to understand how the casino collects the house edge, is not qualified to post in this thread!

<insert a mirror here>

guys, i said this before, and i'll say it again.
never ask a woman her age, a man his salary, and @BlackyJacky to explain to you how the house edge work.

[BlackyJacky]

@Zwei

How does the casino collect the house edge?

A) Reduce 0,5% from every bet

B) Reduce 0,5% from the total amount wagered

C) Via the number of bets a player loses