Quote:
Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob.Singer
That's why there ARE vulnerable machines out there--IGT first warned it's worldwide customers, the memo told them that a fix was coming, then they sent out new chips to all. It was up to each and every casino to manually go around and change the upgraded chip in each and every affected machine....on the planet. Just knowing how people in business generally operate, there'd be zero chance of 100% compliance from the get-go. This is why Barona and Peppermill Corp. have policies of never enabling the DU option in any machines again. And it's for sure there are others.
Back then it wasn't just walk in, sit down, and destroy. You had to sit at a mid-2002 or later machine, but by 2005 these were plentiful because they were anti-glare/flat screen/tito, and everybody wanted them. The older coin-droppers/curved tube screens were updated but did not have the software bug. Today it's slightly more challenging since newer machines without the bug have come out after mid-2009, but by and large a majority of those 2002-2009 machines remain on casino floors. If you steer clear of machines that do everything but give you a back rub you have a better chance of coming across one.
I've not seen the DU option advertised and always played to a winning hand to see if it was turned on. Most aren't, but back then there was little problem getting it enabled. I've found it a bit more difficult these days, although you can find it already activated here and there.
That's another thing--4 and 5 denomination machines these days are usually gonna have different pay tables on the lower denoms vs. the higher one or two. But if you find one of these it all comes down to how creative you are with your movements, because to make money you'll have to make this play an awful lot at that one machine. I was always concerned some yahoo nobody might accidentally see me making some odd moves, but it was all just in my head. This is what led me to my one-and-done approach at only higher limits, but it was probably not necessary. If I had lived in Nv. I would have surely changed my strategy.
You can add this post to the list of evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.
Mickey, I don’t see how this post adds ”evidence that Rob actually did put this play down.” All it does it gives Rob’s opinion that this play could still be out there and gives some details on this play that were mostly known from the wired article.
I obviously don’t know if Rob exploited this play or not. Based on Rob’s timeline, he said he looked for this play for “better part of 4 years, not really knowing what I was doing or looking for”. This means that Rob was looking for this type of play for at least two years before it even existed. This is putting the pieces together from Rob’s posts and the wired article.
Most people would give up looking for something like this if they hadn’t found it after looking for it for two years, let alone four years. Again, this doesn’t prove or disprove if Rob exploited this play. Just something interesting to think about.