Bubble Craps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis McGee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis McGee

tableplay, on the surface I would agree with you, but I would prefer more than 1 test case. With just 1 bad apple, Casinos can always fall back on their standby excuse "Malfunction Voids All Pays and Plays". On the other hand, we do have enough stats to prove there are more than enough machines just in Las Vegas that are well outside the standard deviation of normal RNG. If your particular machine's hold has been cranked up, you will be able to notice the "targeting" the 12 effect especially at the $5 level.

However, the problem with playing only at the 25 cent level is that maybe a very bad craps player (gambler) had come in the day before and lost $100. betting on bad bets like the Horn so now the Casino hold is way ahead and it can afford to let you win or not target the 12 at your low level of play. In other words, the casino has it's profit margin for a few days and can afford to dump or let you win at such small levels.

---

Travis, P-RNG's do not function that way. The subject has been beaten to death in the 12 years I've been in the gambling forums. Can you get one noted expert, repeat NOTED EXPERT, to agree with your opinion on this? Compensated slots are not legal in the United States.

---

mickeycrimm, We have live casino evidence compared to your gambling forum debates. I will offer our evidence as expert testimony. You choose which you wish to believe. I will give you just a tad bit more of deterministic random bit generator (DRBG) proof to ponder - we have a list of casinos in town that will pay back 100+% on freeplay 100 percent of the time on certain slot machines, yet the same slot machines at other casinos (even within same ownership) will pay back closer to ZERO percent of freeplay 100 percent of the time. So is that what you call random or deterministic?

---

When did the shift from bubble craps to slots take place ? I must have missed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

When did the shift from bubble craps to slots take place ? I must have missed it.

---

I think you have to treat Bubble Craps like a Slot Machine. They let me use my card and earn points on it and usually that is how you really get the edge on that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

When did the shift from bubble craps to slots take place ? I must have missed it.

---

I think you have to treat Bubble Craps like a Slot Machine. They let me use my card and earn points on it and usually that is how you really get the edge on that game.

---

I finally seen a Bubble Craps game a couple of weeks ago. I played long enough to see if the game had full double odds. It did. I think that would put the house edge at just .537%. The card in the casino I was in was worth .25% freeplay but I got no points for my wager on the Bubble Craps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

I finally seen a Bubble Craps game a couple of weeks ago. I played long enough to see if the game had full double odds. It did. I think that would put the house edge at just .537%. The card in the casino I was in was worth .25% freeplay but I got no points for my wager on the Bubble Craps.

---

mickeycrimm, With all due respect, your opinions do not count until your experience has made it around the block a few more miles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

When did the shift from bubble craps to slots take place ? I must have missed it.

---

I think you have to treat Bubble Craps like a Slot Machine. They let me use my card and earn points on it and usually that is how you really get the edge on that game.

---

monet is correct! The researcher making the below video also agrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis McGee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Travis, all it takes is to find one rigged bubble craps machine and all dominoes fall.

---

tableplay, on the surface I would agree with you, but I would prefer more than 1 test case. With just 1 bad apple, Casinos can always fall back on their standby excuse "Malfunction Voids All Pays and Plays". On the other hand, we do have enough stats to prove there are more than enough machines just in Las Vegas that are well outside the standard deviation of normal RNG. If your particular machine's hold has been cranked up, you will be able to notice the "targeting" the 12 effect especially at the $5 level.

However, the problem with playing only at the 25 cent level is that maybe a very bad craps player (gambler) had come in the day before and lost $100. betting on bad bets like the Horn so now the Casino hold is way ahead and it can afford to let you win or not target the 12 at your low level of play. In other words, the casino has it's profit margin for a few days and can afford to dump or let you win at such small levels.

---

Travis, P-RNG's do not function that way. The subject has been beaten to death in the 12 years I've been in the gambling forums. Can you get one noted expert, repeat NOTED EXPERT, to agree with your opinion on this? Compensated slots are not legal in the United States.

---

mickeycrimm, why is it that interBlock is securing patents to do exactly what you say is not legal. Just so they can't use them.

Quote:

---

In US patent No: 2014/0015 194 you can see how this rigged type of play is incorporated within the Interblock machine.

---

Let's assume that the same company making the roulette machines also puts the same company tricks into their craps machines. My research suggests they do. His independent research results are very parallel to our research on the craps machines, some made by the same company. Let's look at the following video with close attention starting at minute 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ium...ature=youtu.be

This begs the question:

While patents can be issued for predetermined (rigged) games, are these the devices we actually see in casinos?

I guess I could get a patent for some dice game using boxman controlled magnets, but do I have a chance getting it by the NGC and into a casino? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis McGee

mickeycrimm, With all due respect, your opinions do not count until your experience has made it around the block a few more miles.]

---

Harley, it's time to shit or get off the pot. Could you show us how a non-random generator fits into Nevada Revised Statutes's Regulation 14? Can you show us where The Nevada Gaming Control Board has approved gaming devices where the results are not random? Forget the smoke and mirrors bullshit. Put up some real evidence or you are a con man. And say hello to Mark for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

This begs the question:

While patents can be issued for predetermined (rigged) games, are these the devices we actually see in casinos?

I guess I could get a patent for some dice game using boxman controlled magnets, but do I have a chance getting it by the NGC and into a casino? I doubt it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Harley, it's time to shit or get off the pot. Could you show us how a non-random generator fits into Nevada Revised Statutes's Regulation 14? Can you show us where The Nevada Gaming Control Board has approved gaming devices where the results are not random? Forget the smoke and mirrors bullshit. Put up some real evidence or you are a con man. And say hello to Mark for me.

---

Good points Alan and Mickey. Even if you assume these devices for roulette made it past the NGCB (also requiring that the devices were actually built in the first place and not just patents issued), then there should be patents for e-craps manipulation somewhere. Have you found these patents Travis ? If so could you provide a link. If e-craps rigging follows in lock-step with e-roulette rigging (assuming such exists), then patents should be available for e-craps. Not only just for e-roulette.

Here's an interesting patent (patent owner is ELEKTRONCEK D D, same owner as roulette patent Travis linked to) : http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/CN...5894-A?ft=true

Relevant text: " When said x plurality of virtual dice game according to the result with the claim of surface of the comparison the invention claims a predetermined winning outcome "

talking points:
1. there is no guarantee this device was built
2. if it was, there is no guarantee it got past the NGCB (or other states' gaming control boards)
3. Most importantly, even if the dice or roulette wheel are controlled by the RNG result (and the devices were built), neither the roulette patent nor the one I linked to above indicates that the RNG itself is creating a result to optimize profit even if it then controls the dice. So if it did get past the NGCB, this is why - the RNG puts out random results, not ones that are optimized for profit. Now if I've missed something in these patents indication otherwise, I'm all ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis McGee

mickeycrimm, With all due respect, your opinions do not count until your experience has made it around the block a few more miles.]

---

Harley, it's time to shit or get off the pot. Could you show us how a non-random generator fits into Nevada Revised Statutes's Regulation 14? Can you show us where The Nevada Gaming Control Board has approved gaming devices where the results are not random? Forget the smoke and mirrors bullshit. Put up some real evidence or you are a con man. And say hello to Mark for me.

---

This is Barney,

Gots to give very, very much greatest props to the Mickey C. Not only does he give greatest advices for slut machine devices but is well versed in the world of the game of craps sockpuppets and Uber drivers.



Thank you very much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barney

This is Barney,

Gots to give very, very much greatest props to the Mickey C. Not only does he give greatest advices for slut machine devices but is well versed in the world of the game of craps sockpuppets and Uber drivers.

Thank you very much

---

In other news (or the same news), Rob Singer is such a loser, living in a camper, stealing other people's electricity and internet (IP addresses). Millionaire video poker player my ass.

Don't you agree "barney"?

I found an interesting patent from "Aruze Corp" for Sic Bo: http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/US-20080099988-A1
Here's some interesting text (IMHO) excerpted from the patent linked above:
"Therefore, there are disadvantages associated with unfamiliarity, and the game is lacks excitement, accordingly. On the other hand, the generally well-known SICBO can entertain players because of its familiarity; however, the types of betting are limited. Therefore, there is more room for improvement from the viewpoint of increasing interest. More specifically, in a bet area where an occurrence probability is low and odds are highest (approximately 1:180), a player may place a bet with excitement. However, in this bet area, the player simply predicts dots of the same size that will commonly appear on three dice, namely any one of combinations of the same number such as (1, 1, 1), (2, 2, 2), . . . and (6, 6, 6). For this reason, SICBO does not sufficiently allow a player to feel excited when she places a bet.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
To solve the aforementioned problems, the present invention provides a method of controlling a dice game and a gaming machine allowing a further increase in interest of a player."

IMHO this means that the RNG is not programmed to optimize profit and is totally random (per Nevada statute regulation 14), but that a losing outcome produced totally randomly (i.e. fair and square) is then used to make a dice manipulation that is close to a winning outcome via dice control to bolster excitement. Example: player bets on "4,4,4" (180:1 paid on an event with a 1 in 216 chance of occurring) being rolled on an e-Sic-Bo machine. A PRNG generates an outcome totally randomly (each of the 6^3 outcomes are equally likely) of "1,5,6" (a losing roll). The dice are manipulated to roll "4,3,4" (or at some point during the roll these dice tops are prominent during the losing roll). So a losing bet is made to look like a more exciting losing bet - this is not illegal. So Aruze and Interblock may have done something similar with craps. Nothing illegal.

This assumes that the invention even got built according to the specification in the patent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

So a losing bet is made to look like a more exciting losing bet - this is not illegal. So Aruze and Interblock may have done something similar with craps. Nothing illegal.

---

I'm not so sure about that. Here is an excerpt from a Steve Bourie interview with NGC employees:
https://www.americancasinoguide.com/...es-honest.html

This is the relevant portion of the interview, (a little more than halfway down the page):

(Bourie didn't do a great job of showing who is talking at the time, but when it says "Gale" that is Greg Gale, Chief of the Audit Division for the Gaming Control Board, and when it says "Robinson" that is Mark Robinson, the Lab Manager for the board’s Electronic Services division.

Quote:

---

I saw the recent PrimeTime Live show about slot machines and it implied that many of your machines have a "near-miss" feature. I thought that the “near-miss" was outlawed. Is that correct?

That’s correct. There was a case that involved an attribute that was labeled "near-miss" and that relates back to Universal Distributing Company in 1988. The process that they were using, which was deemed at that time to be a” near-miss" feature, was not in accordance with the regulations. What they would do was after they selected the reels, if you had a losing combination they would present a different losing combination that was more like 7, 7 and 7 just below the line. It was outlawed because it didn’t just independently select the reels and then display the results to the player. It independently selected the reels and if it didn’t like the results that it came up with it went to another table and randomly selected a different set of results to show to the player.

Gale: After it determined that a losing combination was selected then it went out and got different symbols to display to make it look like you just barely missed a jackpot.

Robinson: More frequently than it should.

Gale: But you’re right (about it being outlawed) since regulation14 was amended back in 1989 to prevent that type of activity.

What Gale was referring to here was the section of Nevada’s gaming laws that was completely updated in 1989 and applies to "manufacturers, distributors, gaming devices, new games and associated equipment."

Regulation 14.040 pertains to minimum standards for gaming devices and parts of it specifically state "All gaming devices submitted for approval: must use a random selections process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game. Each possible combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play. The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements. After selection of the game outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary decision which affects the result shown to the player." The wording in those regulations seemed to adequately sum up the state’s position on the "near-miss" scenario: it’s illegal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

So a losing bet is made to look like a more exciting losing bet - this is not illegal. So Aruze and Interblock may have done something similar with craps. Nothing illegal.

---

I'm not so sure about that. Here is an excerpt from a Steve Bourie interview with NGC employees:
https://www.americancasinoguide.com/...es-honest.html

This is the relevant portion of the interview, (a little more than halfway down the page):

(Bourie didn't do a great job of showing who is talking at the time, but when it says "Gale" that is Greg Gale, Chief of the Audit Division for the Gaming Control Board, and when it says "Robinson" that is Mark Robinson, the Lab Manager for the board’s Electronic Services division.

Quote:

---

I saw the recent PrimeTime Live show about slot machines and it implied that many of your machines have a "near-miss" feature. I thought that the “near-miss" was outlawed. Is that correct?

That’s correct. There was a case that involved an attribute that was labeled "near-miss" and that relates back to Universal Distributing Company in 1988. The process that they were using, which was deemed at that time to be a” near-miss" feature, was not in accordance with the regulations. What they would do was after they selected the reels, if you had a losing combination they would present a different losing combination that was more like 7, 7 and 7 just below the line. It was outlawed because it didn’t just independently select the reels and then display the results to the player. It independently selected the reels and if it didn’t like the results that it came up with it went to another table and randomly selected a different set of results to show to the player.

Gale: After it determined that a losing combination was selected then it went out and got different symbols to display to make it look like you just barely missed a jackpot.

Robinson: More frequently than it should.

Gale: But you’re right (about it being outlawed) since regulation14 was amended back in 1989 to prevent that type of activity.

What Gale was referring to here was the section of Nevada’s gaming laws that was completely updated in 1989 and applies to "manufacturers, distributors, gaming devices, new games and associated equipment."

Regulation 14.040 pertains to minimum standards for gaming devices and parts of it specifically state "All gaming devices submitted for approval: must use a random selections process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game. Each possible combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play. The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements. After selection of the game outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary decision which affects the result shown to the player." The wording in those regulations seemed to adequately sum up the state’s position on the "near-miss" scenario: it’s illegal.

---

---

I can only wonder why these companies took the trouble of devising and patenting this technology given what you posted Spock. At any rate you might find this interesting Spock (jump to 3:30):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvgsGfbgItQ&feature=youtu.be&t=210

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

I can only wonder why these companies took the trouble of devising and patenting this technology given what you posted Spock. At any rate you might find this interesting Spock (jump to 3:30):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvgsGfbgItQ&feature=youtu.be&t=210

---

FYI - the type of near miss described in this video (3/10 bars, 3/10 bars, 1/10 bars) is legal. The illegal type of near miss is when you should end up with a losing hand, like Bar-blank-7 then it gets re-mapped to 7-7-blank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

I can only wonder why these companies took the trouble of devising and patenting this technology given what you posted Spock.

---

Maybe because even though many jurisdictions have adopted rules similar to those of Nevada that doesn't mean all do. It could be that Australian or Chinese or Native American casino's don't have a problem allowing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

FYI - the type of near miss described in this video (3/10 bars, 3/10 bars, 1/10 bars) is legal. The illegal type of near miss is when you should end up with a losing hand, like Bar-blank-7 then it gets re-mapped to 7-7-blank.

---

I wonder where this situation:
"(or at some point during the roll these dice tops are prominent during the losing roll)"
here falls. That is, the dice end up in the losing situation described by the RNG, but along the way to their losing final resting position, they show a near miss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spock

It could be that Australian or Chinese or Native American casino's don't have a problem allowing it.

---

This statement puts me in a story-telling mood Spock.
Billy Jack, a newly-retired special forces unarmed combat instructor, gets a call from Old Aunt Sally, Billy Jack's aunt, asking him if he wants to stop by for a visit to see some new additions to her amazing horseshoe magnet collection. He tells here sure. He has a surprise for Old Aunt Sally - he had just bought a large number of horseshoe magnets for her at an off-reservation garage sale to surprise her on his next visit. So he loads up his backpack with the magnets and starts his hour walk to his aunt's on the other side of the reservation. Along the way, Old Aunt Sally calls Billy Jack and tells him that she will be be delayed in returning to her place by an hour. Since Billy Jack is already on his way, he decides to stop in the casino that's along the way to her place to kill an hour before resuming his walk. He sits down at the bubble craps machine and starts to play. A 5-3 is rolled. Then another and then another. Feeling lucky, Billy Jack puts a hop bet on 5-3. Holy smokes, 5-3 is rolled again ?! What the heck, he parlays his bet, and again 5-3 is rolled. He just lets it ride and, in short order, reaches the hop bet maximum since the machine just keeps plopping out 5-3's. Well he needs to leave the casino anyhow, because his aunt should be getting home by now, and he doesn't want to press his amazing luck in any case. He goes to the Everi ticket redemption machine and cashes out his massive winnings. As he is about to exit the casino he noticed the exit is blocked by 4 large men. They attempt to physically subdue him, but to no avail, as he is quite capable.
He arrives at his aunts and she is very impressed with his horseshoe magnets gift. He looks at her own new additions and enjoys some milk and cookies.

Has anyone been part of or been witness to a long profitable roll on one of these machines?

Whenever I sat down to play one, you either get no player points or at a greatly reduced rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Has anyone been part of or been witness to a long profitable roll on one of these machines?

Whenever I sat down to play one, you either get no player points or at a greatly reduced rate.

---

Eddie the way these machines work, from my experience, is that, if the machines give points, it is only on bet resolution. So it does not matter if the "shooter" has a long roll with respect to comp points (but of course with respect to always on place bets or buy bets it's great). Now to answer your question, I think I've been witness to 10 rolls before seeing a seven out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis McGee

mickeycrimm, With all due respect, your opinions do not count until your experience has made it around the block a few more miles.]

---

Harley, it's time to shit or get off the pot. Could you show us how a non-random generator fits into Nevada Revised Statutes's Regulation 14? Can you show us where The Nevada Gaming Control Board has approved gaming devices where the results are not random? Forget the smoke and mirrors bullshit. Put up some real evidence or you are a con man. And say hello to Mark for me.

---

It's been 4 days and not a peep out of Harley, er, Travis. What's up, Harley? Where'd you go? Did you find out you can't con anyone here?

Not all soil is conducive to new growth; it doesn't matter how much bullshit you shovel onto it, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

I can only wonder why these companies took the trouble of devising and patenting this technology given what you posted Spock. At any rate you might find this interesting Spock (jump to 3:30):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvgsGfbgItQ&feature=youtu.be&t=210

---

FYI - the type of near miss described in this video (3/10 bars, 3/10 bars, 1/10 bars) is legal. The illegal type of near miss is when you should end up with a losing hand, like Bar-blank-7 then it gets re-mapped to 7-7-blank.

---

I don't know exactly what you are describing in your example. However, they are allowed to have a certain number of near misses.

Back some years ago there was a local news station reporting on this subject. They were showing the near misses on slots and also claiming it was illegal. I think they missunderstood and thought there could never be a near miss.

Essentially, they can't re-map the output so it looks like you almost hit something huge. Almost hitting some huge (like 7-7-blank on blazing 7's) is much more enticing than blank-Bar-7. If the output was going to be blank-bar-7, for a $0 payout, they can't re-map it on the fly to 7-7-blank, which also pays $0.