A simple quesstion about the Nevada Gaming Control Board

Has everyone on this forum memorized this regulation?

"For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game."

I have a very simple question: How is video poker "representative of (a) live gambling game"? There is no live poker game in any casino I have ever visited that guarantees a specific return for a specific final hand. Playing live poker, there is nothing that ensures I will receive a 9:1 return if my final hand is a full house. For that matter, there is nothing that ensures I will win ANYTHING if my final hand is a full house. On the other hand, playing live poker I can win a pot holding a final hand that is worse than any number of other player's final hands. All I have to do is get them to fold; easier said than done, often, but very far from impossible.

So how is video poker "representative" of the live gambling game, poker? I would argue it is not. And that certainly throws a wrench into the entire "is video poker truly random" discussion, doesn't it?

Can someone please point me to the finding by the Nevada Gaming Control Board wherein they have unequivocally declared video poker to be representative of a live gambling game? Anyone?

First, thank you for joining and for posting.

I think you are applying the wrong "definition" to what the NGC regulation says. The regulation says "the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game" means that if you have a deck of 52 playing cards, each card must have an equal chance of being dealt or appearing on the video poker screen just as it would if a dealer were at the table dealing from a deck of cards. This has nothing to do with payoffs or with drawing a winning hand.

If the regulation were written like this instead, would it make more sense?

"For video poker machines, the play of the machine must not alter the chances of receiving any playing card remaining in the deck of cards." Of course that is my version of what the regulation could say.

Alan, the point I was trying to make, and at which I apparently failed, is that I do not believe there is any a priori reason to simply assume the NGC considers video poker to be representative of any of the live card game variants collectively known as "poker". What proof does anyone have that the NGC does not consider video poker to be simply another form of slot machine, wherein a randomly-generated number is mapped to a particular result for each play of the machine?

That's a valid question Black Bart. So I suggest that you ask them so that your questions are answered satisfactorily. I asked them. The people to call are at the Enforcement Division. Rather than us argue about it here, give them a call:

(775) 684-7900 - Enforcement Division