Frank Kneeland is taking on the "fair and random" question on LVA

It was pointed out to me that Frank Kneeland, who no longer posts here, is asking the LVA board (of all places) to provide information about how to determine if VP machines are fair and random.

He is asking about how to test the machines, sample size, standards, etc.

But he has missed the main point of the discussion that Rob first started. Rob says he has been told by a programmer.engineer/insider that the machines are not random.

So Frank seems to be attacking the wrong question. The question really is can anyone provide the "inside info" that the machines are not random?

Singer is lying. The source code in all VP machines is reviewed internally and by the gaming commission.

I think Frank is probably just pulling another McGuffin -- nobody has played enough hands on any given machine and noted the results, to be able to establish anything. he's probably fishing for subjective interpretations and insights into how people evaluate what they consider to be evidence, or how they define such evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Singer is lying. The source code in all VP machines is reviewed internally and by the gaming commission.

---

I don't think Rob is "lying." I think he is really convinced and really believes what he says. He might be wrong -- but he's not "lying."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I think Frank is probably just pulling another McGuffin -- nobody has played enough hands on any given machine and noted the results, to be able to establish anything. he's probably fishing for subjective interpretations and insights into how people evaluate what they consider to be evidence, or how they define such evidence.

---

On the surface, I think most video poker players would say the games are rigged so that they lose. I think that's a natural response when you are dealt four to the royal X number of times and keep losing. I really have no evidence that the machines are not rigged, and I have absolutely no evidence that they are rigged. And so, I trust what I believe to be honest statements by the gaming regulators and the companies.

The way I look at the entire situation is this: if indeed the games were not random, someone -- somewhere, would provide the proof. And the proof would be solid, and not just private comments made about secret handshake and backroom deals between the manufacturers and the regulators. Something as big as that could not be kept secret for very long.

Now, Frank might be researching another book, or another of his psychology theories. Who knows? But it seems to me that the task he is presenting would be a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I don't think Rob is "lying." I think he is really convinced and really believes what he says. He might be wrong -- but he's not "lying."

---

That may have been an excuse year ago. However, he has been presented with the facts many times. He continues to lie which can only mean it is intentional. Not only that, he has been caught lying almost every time he makes a comment. It's obvious he's a pathological liar. I suspect when he sees you claiming that he's not lying he gets a real kick out of your naivety.

Frank Kneeland is a douche.

I will direct Arci and Alan to the post by melbedewey at LVA early on in the thread. He basically states the argument I've been making here (and everywhere for years).

He asks:

1) can they be gaffed?
2) have they been gaffed?
3) what have been the consequences of casinos being caught cheating the customers?

His answers echo mine.

I'm not sure what kind of Disneyesque mind responds to his post with the feeling that we're all safe and protected in our gaming regulation world.

Frank's been in touch with me and I've relayed the info I obtained from testing the machine I had for 3 months. I have all the data stored in a storage facility with my Corvette in Casa Grande, Az. It's the same info I offered to show the Wizard Michael Shackleford--who oddly enough makes it a point on his website to investigate any and all proven suspicions of non-random machines, which I have conclusively done--yet when I tried to do a show & tell to him and his math extremist expert along with a fellow calling himself Michael Bluejay, they patently declined. Not so curious is how Mike took the safe route rather than face the facts that would probably rock his world beyond repair--the same obvious fear arci has as he proclaims "he's a liar" without ever asking to see the data.

I doubt Frank will want to see anything because he had a chance to see the developmental guts of my SPS, but never followed thru on it. I know it's 400 miles from here but if I am willing to make the trip one of these critics should also. With the Wizard, I offered to bring the entire file to him in LV, but all I got in response is "pay all our airfares, food, hotels and miscellaneous expenses and we'll be there". In other words, the purist community will do whatever it takes to kill the proof. I'd expect that type of response from a sufferring hack like arci, but SHAME on the Wizard.

As for melbedewey and his insight, obviously the casino industry is a big-buck industry, and what suit in that business wouldn't do whatever it takes to keep his cushy job in a world gone Obama-awry? I already know the machines are not and do not have to operate 100% random, but it's entirely possible and very probable that there's even more going on than any of us know. And as for arci and his "source internally (chuckle chuckle) reviewed and also by the Gaming Commission" or for his obsession that "casinos would never risk anything that would shut their doors?" That tells you what a sheltered world he resides in, and how having to sit in one room in the house for 6 hours at a time monitoring gauges has taken him out of the mainstream of what real life is really all about. It has truly molded him into being neurotic and naiive about whatever makes hearts beat. But then again, that's exactly what he has asked for. One might say that's the reason he's watching the news all week, and why we're headed to Phoenix, Lake Tahoe, and SF for the next 9 days.

Rob, we discussed your data before and I offered you the opportunity to publish it all here on this site. But you told me that it involves reams of paper or something like that. So, just to be clear: can you publish your data here for all to see?

Personally, we live in a James Volk world, and I wouldn't be too keen on publishing anything unless I had a suit of armor like Tony Stark.

You will never see Singer publish anything. Let's consider the unlikely case that he actually wrote down some results in his garage. What would it mean? It would only be a small sample. Alan went through about 170K hands last year without a RF. I've gone over 200K in the past. Writing down the results of a few thousand hands is almost meaningless.

Of course Singer is laughed at by the math guys. He is a complete moron about math and his comments demonstrate that fact.

Arc, I am happy to give Rob the opportunity to publish his results here. In fact, we discussed it last night.

I don't agree with his belief that the machines are not random but I think it is important that his information is presented.

I also agree that testing one machine is too small of a sample. But, Rob also says he observed his fifth card phenomenon on other machines. I have not. But then, I wasn't looking for it.

What I am more concerned with, and I told this to Frank, is whether or not one card royal draws really do hit 1/47 times? If I were to rig the machines, I wouldn't bother tampering with small wins like full houses and straights and flushes... I'd want to rig the royals. Besides, rigging royals gives me a smaller shot at being noticed.

And in fact, in the big Vegas slot fixing case it was royals that were rigged not to hit.

Well, that makes a lot of sense, Allan. Since royals account for 1% of payback, and they occur on a minimal number of hands, the way to gaffe results and not be noticed would be to simply make the one-card royal draw fills underrepresented. People do not get enough one card royal draws to be able to give a statistical argument that they are being cheated. Completely logical, elegant, and the simple way to do it.

The case I spoke about was the American Coin case. Their video poker machines on their slot route were gaffed so that if max coins were played the royal could not be hit.

Ha! If arci wasn't out of the punch card era and didn't quit working to chase his video poker habit earlier than he now realizes he should have, he'd know (and this is so funny) that I didn't HAVE to write down anything in my garage. You see my technically challenged friend, the new wave of test equipment available in modern times actually records, prints, summarizes, and correlates whatever you command it to do! Or was that just too much for you....

I know what machines can do. I just figured, knowing your technical skills, that it would all be above your head. Now, if you had any real skills at all you'd connect the machine to a PC and log the results directly where they could be analyzed. But then, I already know this answer.

Arc, I asked a similar question of Rob and his response was he did give us the "results." What I was asking for was some form of raw data, if there is such a thing, such as a print out of all of the individual hands where the fifth card flip over backed up his position.

Actually this whole debate is moot. What if Rob had a rigged machine or a defective machine? And can one machine's results tell the story?

I still believe that if there is a conspiracy to rig machines that someone would have blown the whistle by now. I also believe that if someone wanted to rig machines they wouldn't risk doing it on "common" hands but would do it for hands such as royals and quads with kickers.

Players aren't dealt 4 to the royal enough times in a session, or in a week, or in a year, to come up with any kind of tally sheet that could seriously challenge the 1/47 draw odds. By the way, I would find it very hard to say that the machines are rigged at Caesars. Jason and I just got back from a Saturday/Sunday stay. I didn't hit any royals, but Jason got THREE of them: one at 25-cents, and two at dollars. But on the way up, we made a "pit stop" at the Gold Strike on the I-15 about 30 minutes south of LV, where Jason put one $100 bill into a dollar progressive and hit the progressive that paid $4300+. That's four royals in less than 48 hours.