Rigged machines, programmed cold cycles, and server based technology??

OK. Got it and thanks for the explanation. I have also wondered about this scenario: What if there is a program that allows two choices and one of them goes against the math but has the higher payout. For example, I recently was dealt mixed suits A,K,Q,J and held just the A for four aces and $200. Would the other decision have caused any future outcomes because the payout was there but I chose not to pick it? In other words, in an investigation, could a programmer say that the payout was there and too bad, that's just the casino's extra. Is this making any sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

OK. Got it and thanks for the explanation. I have also wondered about this scenario: What if there is a program that allows two choices and one of them goes against the math but has the higher payout. For example, I recently was dealt mixed suits A,K,Q,J and held just the A for four aces and $200. Would the other decision have caused any future outcomes because the payout was there but I chose not to pick it? In other words, in an investigation, could a programmer say that the payout was there and too bad, that's just the casino's extra. Is this making any sense?

---

First, an explanation about the "edit" in your post above. I accidentally hit the "edit" button and then posted my response. I did not change your original post. Here is my response:

In your example, you chose the A and got quad aces. This is luck -- or the act of the randomness of the game working.

You also could have held the A and hit the draw button a fraction of a second later an the RNG could have given you a royal flush -- or nothing.

Most Casinos today use what is called a "continuous shuffle" which means you are randomly dealt the first five cards and then the 47 replacement cards are continuously being shuffled until the draw button is pushed, and the replacement cards are dealt.

There are older machines where there was "one shuffle" and the first five cards were dealt, and then the replacements came from the top of the remaining deck.

In the original version of video poker, ten cards were dealt: the top five original cards, with their replacements dealt underneath as "shadow cards" or "under cards."

While there is some skill in video poker, there is a tremendous amount of "luck in the draw."

Trust me on this -- and this is why Rob's entire concept of "special plays" makes a lot of sense: when you play video poker it is not a test of knowing correct strategy. It's a matter of putting yourself in the best position to get lucky with the cards you are holding.

As you know, the "advantage players" will swear up and down that this is hocus pocus. But the hocus pocus is that they believe 100% in their correct strategy.

Well, after watching hundreds of people sitting there and "waiting" a split second or several seconds for the "right" time to push the button, I have to say this theory, to me, is hogwash. Sorry, it's easier for me to believe in programmed results than that. I may be wrong but that sounds purely ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Well, after watching hundreds of people sitting there and "waiting" a split second or several seconds for the "right" time to push the button, I have to say this theory, to me, is hogwash. Sorry, it's easier for me to believe in programmed results than that. I may be wrong but that sounds purely ridiculous.

---

I'm afraid it is true. With today's random number generators that use the "continuous shuffle technique," when you push the button affects what cards you are given by the deal and by the draw.

Read this: http://www.onlinecasinoinsider.co.uk...o-poker-myths/

And read this: http://robison.casinocitytimes.com/articles/5884.html

Then do your own Google search about continuous shuffle in video poker. One thing you will discover is that the RNG is constantly choosing cards even when no one is playing the machine. As long as the machine is "on" and hasn't been "locked" because of a handpay, that RNG is shuffling the virtual deck.

As I said before, there is more luck in video poker than the so-called advantage players will concede there is. You can play by the best strategy in the world, but unless the machine cooperates you will not win.

This is why some of Rob's "controversial strategies" make so much sense. He will forego the "optimal play" and sometimes increase his chances for a lesser pay because -- as we all know -- the RNG doesn't always give us the cards we want.

By using the term "secret regulations" instead of the professional & official term "confidential/proprietary regulations" you're only displaying your lack of knowledge and lack of wanting to learn anything about the system in place that takes so much of your hard earned money that you always complain about.

An investigator uses the tools he has available and goes as far outside the box as possible without an odds-on chance of criminal or civil prosecution. After an in-depth discussion with a programmer, I tested machines inside Mg. casinos, I found the pre-programmed cycles to "probably" be as he had said, so I found a back door way of getting a brand new machine into my home for 3 months, I purchased a $1500 Rohde & Schwarz test equipment suite, I set it up on BP, and I set it to play what 86 days later was almost 2.7 billion hands. I have nearly 3400 pages of data that confirm what I was told far beyond that which I tested on casino-based machines.

I offered to show this report to the wizard in person and another hot shot gaming expert named Math Extremist from his forum, at a public debate that I would set up and pay for in LV along with a bet they were asking for on that as well as me playing my strategy while they witnessed. Then the usual pile of excuses began; this venue instead of that one; "oh, we believe you do win most of your sessions but you won't be able to play enough for us to see you lose"; Math Extremist wanted me to pay his airfare to LV in addition to my offer I already put out to pay for his room & food. On & on until they got the termination they wanted.

You're basically doing the same thing with no stakes involved. You know there's no official written proof from the casinos, manufacturers or authorities, you make believe you don't know what a confidential agreement means or even exists, and you don't even WANT to believe this is valid because it would interrupt, if even ever-so-slightly, your video poker play and then make you start to get irritated over why you actually paid $14 per gallon for gasoline you got with those slot club gas cards & quadruple what all those "free" Harrahs Great Gift "Giveaway" go for retail. THAT'S what makes no sense to me, as well as why you'd refuse to let me train you in my play strategies.

You need to put in some work on this in addition to rational thinking. Of course I'd post anything that would help but it's impossible. So I share the knowledge I've gleaned from years as a professional in various capacities. But if keep allowing yourself to be led by the regs you pull from the Internet and continue to want to believe in what AP's want to be true, then really, why do you even sit at vp machines??

Rob, why are you being so defensive? If you've "got the goods" publish them!!

You wrote: I have nearly 3400 pages of data that confirm what I was told far beyond that which I tested on casino-based machines.

While I don't think anyone needs to see 3400 pages of data (which I believe would be the print out of the individual hands played), give us your summary sheet. If there are patterns of cold cycles, show us what they are?

You said before that cold cycles can be detected after certain "misses" and you should be able to show those patterns as well and how long the cold cycle continued for.

Just a brief and obvious note: If I had the statistical goods to demonstrate these cycles, I wouldn't share that with anyone. Why? I don't see the percentage in doing so.

People who actually win betting sports don't go around sharing the wealth. And why would they?

Now AP's, on the other hand, seem remarkably noble, but only now that the vp opportunities are predominantly a wasteland. Being an advantage player is kind of like being a minister -- no credentials are required, no results are required, and anybody can claim to be one. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see what's so great about it unless there's proof out there that so-called advantage players actually wind up AHEAD OF THE CASINO (not vp) when the smoke clears. The casino is an entity -- vp is just a subset. Beating vp doesn't mean you beat the casino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Just a brief and obvious note: If I had the statistical goods to demonstrate these cycles, I wouldn't share that with anyone. Why? I don't see the percentage in doing so.

People who actually win betting sports don't go around sharing the wealth. And why would they?

Now AP's, on the other hand, seem remarkably noble, but only now that the vp opportunities are predominantly a wasteland. Being an advantage player is kind of like being a minister -- no credentials are required, no results are required, and anybody can claim to be one. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see what's so great about it unless there's proof out there that so-called advantage players actually wind up AHEAD OF THE CASINO (not vp) when the smoke clears. The casino is an entity -- vp is just a subset. Beating vp doesn't mean you beat the casino.

---

And this is exactly why I made a challenge out of the data I would've provided to the Wizard and his hackman. I did all the work, I spent tons of time and thousands of dollars to confirm what I was told, and I used it totally to my advantage when playing.

Alan, if you were familiar with what test equipment spits out for data reporting, you'd understand thatit's pure data and there is no summary other than that which I compiled from all those pages--which I've been explaining for the past few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, if you were familiar with what test equipment spits out for data reporting, you'd understand thatit's pure data and there is no summary other than that which I compiled from all those pages--which I've been explaining for the past few days.

---

Rob, now we're getting somewhere. You were convinced by the data to come up with certain conclusions. Please tell us what made you reach those conclusions. Some things in the data must have stood out to tell you that the machine was not random. What was it? Thanks.

The 5th card flipover I talked about for a year. It's also mentioned in the interview Wizard did with me. The math says it should occur about 6% of the time. I kept claiming that wasn't the case after my own casino testing which began after other players brought it up to me. I saw 2% to 50% on machines, but there were hardly enough hands played for it to be meaningful. But on the machine I tested, the occurrence rate was just over 12% in those 2.7 billion hands.

Time and again the cold cycles appeared just as advertised. Other cold cycles also appeared and some were far more devastating than the pre-programmed ones. But that's randomness for you.

The 5th card flipover I talked about for a year. It's also mentioned in the interview Wizard did with me. The math says it should occur about 6% of the time. I kept claiming that wasn't the case after my own casino testing which began after other players brought it up to me. I saw 2% to 50% on machines, but there were hardly enough hands played for it to be meaningful. But on the machine I tested, the occurrence rate was just over 12% in those 2.7 billion hands.

Time and again the cold cycles appeared just as advertised. Other cold cycles also appeared and some were far more devastating than the pre-programmed ones. But that's randomness for you.

Rob, does 2.7 billion hands constitute long term or short term play? If 2.7 billion is long term (and in my book it is long term) to show this "occurrence" can the rest of us "short term players" take comfort in that we are not likely to see it?

But I am more interested in your findings about cold cycles and triggering of cold cycles. Can you give us any supporting data?

For example (and I am just creating this and don't know that it is relevant) --

After you see two one card royal flush draws does the machine enter a cold cycle? And how long will that cold cycle continue? And what triggers the end of the cold cycle?

I was discussing this concept of cold cycles with a friend who is also VP player. And he told me that his belief is all video poker machines are in cold cycles.

I would like to ask Rob a question I think is important-to me, anyway. If a cold cycle is in the making, would it really do any good to change games on the SAME machine? In other words, is the starting cold cycle going to be present in all the games on that particular machine or is there any info on this. It seems that if the machine is due it's cold cycle, it would present itself in all the games at that particular denomination. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, does 2.7 billion hands constitute long term or short term play? If 2.7 billion is long term (and in my book it is long term) to show this "occurrence" can the rest of us "short term players" take comfort in that we are not likely to see it?

But I am more interested in your findings about cold cycles and triggering of cold cycles. Can you give us any supporting data?

For example (and I am just creating this and don't know that it is relevant) --

After you see two one card royal flush draws does the machine enter a cold cycle? And how long will that cold cycle continue? And what triggers the end of the cold cycle?

I was discussing this concept of cold cycles with a friend who is also VP player. And he told me that his belief is all video poker machines are in cold cycles.

---

1. I'd also say 2.7 billion hands is long term because no human can ever achieve it. Can players ever see it? See what--2.7 billion hands?

2. The data from my machine testing on cold and hot cycles is within the 3400 pages I mentioned. For days I monitored testing, and the patterns were continuously there. I summarized it and explained it. Are you saying you want to go to Az. where I have that stored along with my Corvette and other things, to see and have me explain those results to you? In the event you understood it would you then proclaim your belief in the cycles or would you come up with more silly excuses why you just can't get yourself to believe that which you've seen because "the Internet" doesn't say that and "10 experts" haven't said it?

3. No, after 2 RF failed draws that means nothing unless it occurs within approximately 100 hands that also includes that which I've told you at least 10 times. It also means those failed RF draws did not yield any type of winner of any kind. When you have a four card straight or flush draw, they have to yield losers and not high pairs. Te only exception is the FH draw which will always yield a 2-pr winner while not improving upon that.

4. Is your friend one of those experts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

I would like to ask Rob a question I think is important-to me, anyway. If a cold cycle is in the making, would it really do any good to change games on the SAME machine? In other words, is the starting cold cycle going to be present in all the games on that particular machine or is there any info on this. It seems that if the machine is due it's cold cycle, it would present itself in all the games at that particular denomination. Thanks.

---

I just saw a discussion of this on vpFREE between the geniuses, and as usual most of them guess wrong.

A multi-game machine has multiple RNG's running multiple programs. It depends on the games and paytables. You can have one program running for 7/5 BP on 25c & 50c, and another for 8/5 BP $1/$2/$5. Then you'll have another for JoB, etc. It's very simple. If there were just one RNG/program dealing all the numbers (cards) then the last hand showing on JoB would automatically be the last hand showing on all games. Since the "deck" is constantly shuffling whether in play or not, all final hands would continuously change based on the game that's being played. DW and JW have different seeds, and they have nothing to do with the other games just as none of the other games have anything to do with one another--with the exception I gave on the denominational differences.

So if you run into a cold cycle on 25c 7/5BP, it is not going to be part of the 8/5 game or any other except the 50c BP game.

Rob, I think you proved my point. Your original statement was: "But on the machine I tested, the occurrence rate was just over 12% in those 2.7 billion hands."

Then you went on to confirm that this is long term play and what is the basic belief that both you and I and your followers believe? That no one is a long term player -- right? So your research into cold cycles appearing is moot, because it appears in a test of long term -- right?

Rob, if you think I'm giving you a hard time about this cold cycle business it's because I don't believe you can predict or determine when cold cycles start, run, or end. And if it takes 2.7 billion hands to prove that you can predict or determine when cold cycles start, run or end then it's pretty much useless information.

In all of 2011 I played approximately 170-thousand hands of video poker-- and that includes hands played on multi play machines. So how many more years would I have to live to play through 2.7 billion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

A multi-game machine has multiple RNG's running multiple programs. It depends on the games and paytables. You can have one program running for 7/5 BP on 25c & 50c, and another for 8/5 BP $1/$2/$5. Then you'll have another for JoB, etc. It's very simple. If there were just one RNG/program dealing all the numbers (cards) then the last hand showing on JoB would automatically be the last hand showing on all games. Since the "deck" is constantly shuffling whether in play or not, all final hands would continuously change based on the game that's being played. DW and JW have different seeds, and they have nothing to do with the other games just as none of the other games have anything to do with one another--with the exception I gave on the denominational differences.

So if you run into a cold cycle on 25c 7/5BP, it is not going to be part of the 8/5 game or any other except the 50c BP game.

---

Rob, I'm not challenging you on this, but I would like to see some confirmation from a manufacturer because I am sure this info is public.

My understanding has always been that there is one RNG that deals the cards. And then there is a separate program that applies those dealt cards to the particulars of the game being played. So, you have one RNG on a machine with, for example, six different games on it, and then the cards chosen by the single RNG are applied to the various games such as Bonus or DW of TDB, etc.

Would you mind just checking this? And if someone else knows for sure please advise us. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, I'm not challenging you on this, but I would like to see some confirmation from a manufacturer because I am sure this info is public.

My understanding has always been that there is one RNG that deals the cards. And then there is a separate program that applies those dealt cards to the particulars of the game being played. So, you have one RNG on a machine with, for example, six different games on it, and then the cards chosen by the single RNG are applied to the various games such as Bonus or DW of TDB, etc.

Would you mind just checking this? And if someone else knows for sure please advise us. Thanks.

---

I've already checked this over the years and have kept up with it to date--including confirming what I said on the new vp machine I had in 2010. I.have no need to check it again, or even listen to supposed experts who only tell what they want to believe in without having ever actually looked at the operational parameters of a machine.

[QUOTE=Alan Mendelson;2502]Rob, I think you proved my point. Your original statement was: "But on the machine I tested, the occurrence rate was just over 12% in those 2.7 billion hands."

Then you went on to confirm that this is long term play and what is the basic belief that both you and I and your followers believe? That no one is a long term player -- right? So your research into cold cycles appearing is moot, because it appears in a test of long term -- right?

Rob, if you think I'm giving you a hard time about this cold cycle business it's because I don't believe you can predict or determine when cold cycles start, run, or end. And if it takes 2.7 billion hands to prove that you can predict or determine when cold cycles start, run or end then it's pretty much useless information.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You're making this more difficult than need be only because you prefer to believe in something other than what I'm trying to educate you on--probably out of fear and/or being too lazy to do the necessary work. For someone who can only read and listen to what others say in order to form your beliefs, you seem dead serious about doing whatever it takes to keep losing. That's the part I have a hard time with, because it makes no sense to me for anyone to want not to do whatever they can in order to improve on an aspect of their life.

Your comment on 2.7 billion hands being long term that players never attain, so you'd also never experience the results compiled thru then only shows how little you understand about the statistics of the game.

All playing more hands does is allow you to approach the long term--and therefore come closer to expectation of the game. As far as cold or hot cycles go, there are statistically close to as many in the first 100,000 hands as there are in the final 100,000 of the 2.7 billion hands. Why you think results will be different I have no idea. It simply depends on what the hold is at or nearing and what it will take to keep it within legal operational limits at all times throughout the life of the machine.

Okay Rob, I give up. Now you say "As far as cold or hot cycles go, there are statistically close to as many in the first 100,000 hands as there are in the final 100,000 of the 2.7 billion hands." Well, Rob, in all of 2011 I played about 170-thousand hands. And while you say a cold cycle might come about within 100 hands, even within the cold cycle you could still have big winners including quad Aces. I admit it Rob-- I'm totally baffled. But from now on I am going to hope that I keep getting cold cycles that deal me quad Aces. I'm finished with this discussion. The floor (and the continuation of this subject, if you like) is yours.