Scoblete didn't answer the question. Maybe we can.

[Alan Mendelson]

In his latest online column, gaming expert Frank Scoblete didn't answer his reader's question. I don't know if Frank misread the question, or didn't have an answer or thought he was being "cute" and funny with his answer.

But the reader asked a specific question about being dealt quad aces with a kicker. He thought he was playing Triple Double Bonus but by accident he was playing Bonus Poker instead.

The question was, I think, all things being equal, would the same cards have come up had he been on TDB Poker instead of just Bonus Poker?

Here is a link to Scoblete's website and it is the second question from "Jim."

http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/...e-double-61826

Can we help out Jim with an answer?

[arcimede$]

The question was already answered in the first part of the column. Anything you do differently changes your timing and leads to different results.

There's another factor to consider as well. Programs use a technique called seeding to change the RNGs results. I would think a RNG is reseeded anytime a game is changed. So, even if this dude happened to hit the deal key at the exact same timing after changing games the results would likely still have been different.

[regnis]

You are oversimplifying the answer. The real question, which has been discussed before here, is whether the Bonus game and the Triple Double Bonus game deal the same cards from 1 deck(i.e. 1 RNG or chip) or do they use different decks. So for discussion purposes, let's just say that he would have spun at the exact same time so the RNG was not a factor in terms of timing.

Based upon some previous discussions here, when I switch games on a machine, I check if the previous hand that I had comes up on the new game. In the casinos that I play in, the hand does not come up which we think indicates a separate RNG and different "deck" of cards. I believe that is the question being asked to Scoblete.

[Alan Mendelson]

I agree with regnis here. I think the writer was asking if he had been playing Triple Double Bonus and had pushed the button at the same time would that have been a thousand dollar win instead of the smaller quad aces win in Bonus poker?

[arcimede$]

No one knows precisely how IGT implemented their RNG so no one but IGT is going to be able to answer definitively.

There is no deck of cards. The most likely implementation simply maps RNG numbers into cards. The so-called continuous shuffle is just looping through calls to the RNG and throwing away the results.

[Rob.Singer]

You are oversimplifying the answer. The real question, which has been discussed before here, is whether the Bonus game and the Triple Double Bonus game deal the same cards from 1 deck(i.e. 1 RNG or chip) or do they use different decks. So for discussion purposes, let's just say that he would have spun at the exact same time so the RNG was not a factor in terms of timing.

Based upon some previous discussions here, when I switch games on a machine, I check if the previous hand that I had comes up on the new game. In the casinos that I play in, the hand does not come up which we think indicates a separate RNG and different "deck" of cards. I believe that is the question being asked to Scoblete.

Arci's oversimplifying because he can't find the answer in any Internet search so he's doing his best to make it appear he knows something more than the rest.

The hands on different games is the same for IGT machines everywhere. Even a 25c 7/5 BP game will show a different last hand than an 8/5 $1 game on the same machine. That's because these machines have multiple RNG's as I said months ago here, which I saw on the multi-game/multi-denom. machine I had. So in this case, aside from the correct fact that it makes a difference whether you hit the deal button NOW....or now, even if the player had hit the deal button on BP and TDB at the exact same time, different cards would appear.

[Alan Mendelson]

these machines have multiple RNG's

Do the machines have multiple RNGs or 1 RNG that feeds data to different game programs? If I remember, the last time I looked at an IGT machine at Rincon, the cards showed the same for 25-cent and 50-cents bonus, but the $1 and $2 games showed the same "last hand" but it was different from the lower denomination bonus games.

I don't think I looked at different games because at the time we were just discussing Rob's strategy about increasing denomination when the games "got hot."

[regnis]

Found this from Bill Burton who is a writer and with the Craps control group:

"Many gamblers (not all) are skeptical by nature. For example, when this writer sees a new casino game he looks to find the bad before looking to see if there's a good side to the game. Computers only increase skepticism in gamblers. Many thoughts are that the casinos can switch up pay schedules on a whim for slot machines or video poker. There are conspiracy theorists all around that will guarantee that changes happen. Whatever the case, we found an extreme for potential conspiracy theorists to go bonkers.

Some video poker machines are simple -- one line, one game. However, there are many machines that are multi-game and multi-denomination. You know, 10 games with 5 different amounts of money to play.

We've all sat at a machine and said "darn, I wish I was playing dollars instead of quarters" when getting that Royal Flush. Well, if you were playing a different denomination, you probably wouldn't have gotten that Royal Flush. Every game on a multi-game machine is run on its own RNG (Random Number Generator) program. Each game also has a separate RNG for payouts.In simple terms, there are separate decks utilized for each Video Poker game so you will not be dealt cards from the same deck if you were playing .25 cent Jacks or Better that you would if you were playing $1 Jacks or Better.

Same thing goes if you were playing Bonus Poker or Jacks or Better. Those four Aces you were dealt at Jacks or Better that pay 125 would not be dealt at the same time as four Aces in the Bonus Poker game so you wouldn't see a nice payout of 400 at the same time.

If you have a conspiracy theory about one game, now you can multiply that by a lot with multi-game and multi-denomination machines. Just know that every game you play in every denomination is treated separately by the computers."

Of course, I don't know if this is factual or his opinion..

[Rob.Singer]

Do the machines have multiple RNGs or 1 RNG that feeds data to different game programs? If I remember, the last time I looked at an IGT machine at Rincon, the cards showed the same for 25-cent and 50-cents bonus, but the $1 and $2 games showed the same "last hand" but it was different from the lower denomination bonus games.

I don't think I looked at different games because at the time we were just discussing Rob's strategy about increasing denomination when the games "got hot."

I answered that in my last post. When a machine has 7/5 BP for 25c & 50c, the last hand played will show the same cards for each denom. because they use the same RNG. And if the $1 & $2 8/5 BP games both show the same last hand on that same 4-level machine -- but different from the last hand on the lower denomination games, it's because there's a second RNG.

[Alan Mendelson]

I answered that in my last post. When a machine has 7/5 BP for 25c & 50c, the last hand played will show the same cards for each denom. because they use the same RNG. And if the $1 & $2 8/5 BP games both show the same last hand on that same 4-level machine -- but different from the last hand on the lower denomination games, it's because there's a second RNG.

What you describe can also be accomplished by ONE RNG that feeds data to two different game programs. And that is what I was told. Now if someone would cite a source, even a web page, I would be open to change my mind.

Why would any game console need more than one RNG?

[arcimede$]

The last card shown has little to do with the RNG. I've explained this before. Mostly likely each game has a partition of storage assigned to it. This is where the last cards are stored as well as the pay table, RNG seed, denomination, etc.. It could be on the same chip or different chips. However, its almost assuredly the exact the same code running for the 7/5 vs. 8/5 games. It could be different COPIES of the same code however. In both cases there are NOT two different RNGs in the sense that they use a different algorithm.

Once again Singer demonstrates how ignorant he is of simple facts.

Think of buying two TVs of the same model from the same manufacturer. Does anyone think the chips are any different? They have the exact same code.

[Alan Mendelson]

There might be some confusion over terminology here. Would everyone be in agreement if we said there is ONE random number generator in each machine which could send out signals to different programs and each program can control one or more different game types and pay tables?

[arcimede$]

In the past I doubt it would have been the RNG controlling the game programs. RNGs are typically subroutines called by the programs to get the next number in a random sequence. The RNG is passed input (current seed) from the game program and computes the next random number based on that input. If you have multiple game programs then the RNG would compute a different number based on the input provided.

For a continuous shuffle there does need to be another program added to this picture that is running when the machine is idle. This may have changed the implementation somewhat as this program needs access to the RNG seed being used by the active game. However, this could have been done simply by having the active game seed accessible by this program in a machine global area.

[Alan Mendelson]

I dont follow what you're saying Arc. I just know that I was told and shown a single RNG in a multi game vp console. If I got the wrong info, I'd like to know... not that it makes a difference to any of us.

[Rob.Singer]

What you describe can also be accomplished by ONE RNG that feeds data to two different game programs. And that is what I was told. Now if someone would cite a source, even a web page, I would be open to change my mind.

Why would any game console need more than one RNG?

I can't answer that because I don't really know. But what I do know is that there were (at least) 2 of them in the machine I had because I also asked (IGT) but it may be right that a single RNG can feed data to two different programs--and maybe more. But these multi-game/multi-denom. machines may require more than one because of so many variables.

[arcimede$]

I dont follow what you're saying Arc. I just know that I was told and shown a single RNG in a multi game vp console. If I got the wrong info, I'd like to know... not that it makes a difference to any of us.

Alan, all I said is there are multiple possible implementations. Your example is one of those.

[arcimede$]

Maybe an analogy would help. Think about a blackjack game using a continuous shuffling device. The dealer is the equivalent of the game program in VP (JOB, DB, etc). When a VP program needs another card it asks the RNG for a card. When the dealer needs a card he asks the shuffling device for a card (stops the shuffling and selects the next card and then resumes the shuffling).

The shuffling device and the RNG prove equivalent function. Note that the dealer and game program are the controlling entities. The only slight difference is the RNG returns a number between 0 and a few billion rather than a card. The program then converts that number into a card by dividing by 52 and taking the remainder. The programs uses a fixed mapping of numbers into cards (for example: 0=ac, 1=2c, etc)

Does this help?

[Alan Mendelson]

Maybe an analogy would help. Think about a blackjack game using a continuous shuffling device. The dealer is the equivalent of the game program in VP (JOB, DB, etc). When a VP program needs another card it asks the RNG for a card. When the dealer needs a card he asks the shuffling device for a card (stops the shuffling and selects the next card and then resumes the shuffling).

The shuffling device and the RNG prove equivalent function. Note that the dealer and game program are the controlling entities. The only slight difference is the RNG returns a number between 0 and a few billion rather than a card. The program then converts that number into a card by dividing by 52 and taking the remainder.

Does this help?

That's exactly my understanding. The RNG delivers "cards" and the various game programs decide the rest.

And if this is correct, then going back to the Scoblete column... would Jim have gotten the thousand dollar payoff? I think yes.

[arcimede$]

Alan, what I described is the implementation of a single game program. Now, consider multiple games. It would be like separate dealers in my analogy. Each dealer could have a separate, identical shuffling device or they could share (since only one game is active at any given time). We don't know how it actually works for sure.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, what I described is the implementation of a single game program. Now, consider multiple games. It would be like separate dealers in my analogy. Each dealer could have a separate, identical shuffling device or they could share (since only one game is active at any given time). We don't know how it actually works for sure.

You're right... we don't know for sure.