OK.. is this just coincidence?

[slingshot]

EVERY trip I've taken to the casino this year has one thing in common: I win what I'm gonna win in the first 30 minutes to an hour. The BEST I've done by staying any longer is fighting back to even.

[Alan Mendelson]

EVERY trip I've taken to the casino this year has one thing in common: I win what I'm gonna win in the first 30 minutes to an hour. The BEST I've done by staying any longer is fighting back to even.

You're not alone. I would say in a majority of my casino visits, I have won money in the first half hour or hour and then lost it the longer I stayed. Rarely have I kept playing to get a big win later.

However, with that said both of my royals (Thursday and Saturday night) came after long sessions, and while I was ahead in the early going (on Friday I had several quads and on Saturday I hit quad aces in the first few minutes and hit quad aces again about an hour later) had I left with those smaller wins I would not have hit the royals.

[slingshot]

You're not alone. I would say in a majority of my casino visits, I have won money in the first half hour or hour and then lost it the longer I stayed. Rarely have I kept playing to get a big win later.

However, with that said both of my royals (Thursday and Saturday night) came after long sessions, and while I was ahead in the early going (on Friday I had several quads and on Saturday I hit quad aces in the first few minutes and hit quad aces again about an hour later) had I left with those smaller wins I would not have hit the royals.

I really didn't wanna know that. LOL.

[Rob.Singer]

Here's a thought Alan: OVER ALL YOUR LIFETIME PLAY, if you had quit at certain points while ahead, you would be on the positive side of the equation, no doubt. Even without playing a specific strategy.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's a thought Alan: OVER ALL YOUR LIFETIME PLAY, if you had quit at certain points while ahead, you would be on the positive side of the equation, no doubt. Even without playing a specific strategy.

Rob, I think you're right about that. What happened to me last Thursday and Saturday were only two examples. There were also sessions where I had won five or ten thousand dollars in the first hour or two and then lost it all.

Unfortunately none of us has a time machine that will tell us with certainty what will happen if we keep playing ... or even what will happen when we show up in a casino. We just have to play and hope that we keep our wits about us.

In the cases where I "gave back" what I won it was all calculated and thought through. I happen to have set for myself bigger win goals than what most others might accept, and my loss limits are also a bit bigger.

The other day you sent me a text asking why I don't play $10 VP and I gave you the reason -- that is beyond my comfort level for play. My play is more defined by my comfort level than by strict win goals. But I do keep to loss limits.

[arcimede$]

I always get a chuckle watching seemingly intelligent people claim the machines do this, the machines do that, ad nauseum. What part of RANDOM don't you understand? Since I've experienced all possible variations I know these claims of winning first or winning last or whatever are nothing but short term random variations. Good grief ... quit making yourselves look like idiots and more important never listen to liars like Singer.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, no one ever said this wasn't the result of "random play." It's just that in the random scheme of things many of us have found that had we quit early we would have left with more wins than losses.

I am sure that the number of wins overall balances out but its the selection of the time period for playing and not playing which will determine whether or not you leave a winner. I know you will argue this, but it's the truth. Wins do not come like clockwork. The can come in spurts. And there comes a time when you say "I'll take this spurt and leave now."

[slingshot]

I always get a chuckle watching seemingly intelligent people claim the machines do this, the machines do that, ad nauseum. What part of RANDOM don't you understand? Since I've experienced all possible variations I know these claims of winning first or winning last or whatever are nothing but short term random variations. Good grief ... quit making yourselves look like idiots and more important never listen to liars like Singer.

I wouldn't have even mentioned it if I could experience anything positive=I've kept mental notes all year long and this is the norm for me. In a way, I guess it's good because I don't have to stay there long. I'm ready for a change.

[Vegas Vic]

I've been ahead early only to donate it back and I've been way behind early only to go ahead late in the session. It's 20-20 hindsight to say "if you had left right away after being ahead early, you'll be a winner overall" and is just as foolish to say "once you're behind, you'll never catch up".

No one..not even the Imperial Mr. Singer..can create the perfect formula for always winning. If you're lucky enough to hit, it's all good no matter when in the session it occurs. You'll never know when Lady Luck will bless you. That's why it's called GAMBLING.

[slingshot]

I've been ahead early only to donate it back and I've been way behind early only to go ahead late in the session. It's 20-20 hindsight to say "if you had left right away after being ahead early, you'll be a winner overall" and is just as foolish to say "once you're behind, you'll never catch up".

No one..not even the Imperial Mr. Singer..can create the perfect formula for always winning. If you're lucky enough to hit, it's all good no matter when in the session it occurs. You'll never know when Lady Luck will bless you. That's why it's called GAMBLING.

Yeah. Sometimes about the 3rd machine I hit pays the winner. Then again, other times I'll be there almost an hour, switching machines, when I finally get ahead. All I'm saying is after the win it's been hard to do anything trying to go any longer.

[Alan Mendelson]

Why do you change machines? Except to play a different game or denomination do you think switching machines will help you find a winner?

[slingshot]

Why do you change machines? Except to play a different game or denomination do you think switching machines will help you find a winner?

Well, a lot of it has to do with the hands. It seems like the machines aren't afraid to let you kinda know how they're playing. If the flushes, straights,full houses don't even happen every once in a while after 100 credits-I get sick of the machine-that's the way I feel. It used to infuriate me and make me mad enough to keep on playing-I mean, if I knew how to play, the machine should respond-right? Ha! Now, I just take it in stride and WAIT for a machine to at least play reasonably. Sometimes, I can stay there for 20 minutes with a machine leading me on in this manner. I HAVE done this:after ANOTHER player sits at one of my machines I left and most of the time given up after playing what seems like forever gone back to that machine with good results.

[arcimede$]

Slingshot, what you're doing is silly. You are trying to establish patterns in something where no long term pattern exists. That was the point of my previous comment. Accept that VP is random and focus on things that you can control. It will be time better spent.

Something to think about. A typical person plays a hand in about 5 seconds. During that time the machine cycles through around a million hands. That means you're evaluation is based on only .00001% of the possible hands. How can anyone determine what is going on based on such a small sample? They can't. You're only fooling yourself.

[slingshot]

Slingshot, what you're doing is silly. You are trying to establish patterns in something where no long term pattern exists. That was the point of my previous comment. Accept that VP is random and focus on things that you can control. It will be time better spent.

Something to think about. A typical person plays a hand in about 5 seconds. During that time the machine cycles through around a million hands. That means you're evaluation is based on only .00001% of the possible hands. How can anyone determine what is going on based on such a small sample? They can't. You're only fooling yourself.

During the time I WAS playing longer and these things were happening, I took time to watch the results of the hand that WAS dealt. It would NOT have matter which way I went with the hand, I WAS NOT gonna win. And now after a full year of experimenting, I'm convinced the vp machines are not any different that the slots.I'm convinced it's simulated randomness that's designed to work to the casino's hold and yet pay the true random amount at specific times. I don't see how anyone can't see the patterns. Perhaps it's pyschological in that the losing patterns make the player want to play longer, thinking his time is sure to come. I've just found that accepting the facts as I've seen them and playing accordingly works for me.

[arcimede$]

During the time I WAS playing longer and these things were happening, I took time to watch the results of the hand that WAS dealt. It would NOT have matter which way I went with the hand, I WAS NOT gonna win. And now after a full year of experimenting, I'm convinced the vp machines are not any different that the slots.I'm convinced it's simulated randomness that's designed to work to the casino's hold and yet pay the true random amount at specific times. I don't see how anyone can't see the patterns. Perhaps it's pyschological in that the losing patterns make the player want to play longer, thinking his time is sure to come. I've just found that accepting the facts as I've seen them and playing accordingly works for me.

You are destined to failure. Short term patterns always appear in random strings. People who think these patterns are real and act on them are going to face disappointment.

[slingshot]

You are destined to failure. Short term patterns always appear in random strings. People who think these patterns are real and act on them are going to face disappointment.

I will try to post my new results weekly.

[Alan Mendelson]

A typical person plays a hand in about 5 seconds. During that time the machine cycles through around a million hands.

I've always wondered about this! How quickly the cards are being "shuffled" in a video poker machine and how many "dealt royals" there could possibly be in the course of a "session" if only we were to hit the deal button at the right time.

If the chance of a dealt royal comes about once in 629,740 hands and there are a million hands dealt every five minutes, why don't we see more dealt royals?

(I hit two in my life.)

[arcimede$]

I've always wondered about this! How quickly the cards are being "shuffled" in a video poker machine and how many "dealt royals" there could possibly be in the course of a "session" if only we were to hit the deal button at the right time.

If the chance of a dealt royal comes about once in 629,740 hands and there are a million hands dealt every five minutes, why don't we see more dealt royals?

(I hit two in my life.)

It's every 5 seconds. And yes, royals are included in those hands.

However, every other hand is also dealt at the same rate. Hence, you won't see any higher ratio of RFs. Every type of hand has an equal chance of showing. You're sampling only one of those million hands each time you press deal.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes... seconds, not minutes. It's all a blur, really!! Did you get this "speed" figure from any gaming regulation or is this just based on speed of processors, electronics, etc.?
I ask this because I saw some regulations from the NGC that referred to speed of slot machines for picking results (numbers) but the reference was to 100 calls per second which is a much slower rate than you mentioned.

Here is the document: http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdoc...ocumentid=3450

[arcimede$]

I did a little test with an RNG. I created a loop and called the RNG continually on an old slow laptop. I got around a million/second so I divided by 5 assuming a VP machine wasn't as fast.