Ok, I've got all the "in the know" people here....

[slingshot]

Rob, and now Frank, along with Arci and the others....
So please tell me if I understand this correctly. I draw my cards to my hand in vp and the determining factor is a "split second" of whenever I push the draw button? So maybe the little lady who was standing by one of the banked slots and told me I should play it and push the button when the lights on the carousel turned green wasn't as loony as I thought? After all, she had seen a lady win big when she pushed the button as the light turned green. I have never heard of anything that sounds so close to voodoo as this. Are you guys serious? Forgot to add: this must be the reason I see these players at the slots sit there for a moment then play; then stop again for a few moments. So we go from dice control to button control?

[Alan Mendelson]

Slingshot, I don't understand your question. Are you saying that you can't accept that the RNG in various games is constantly "running" and "changing" possible outcomes until the button is actually pushed? And that if the button is pushed one-twentieth of a second earlier or later a different result is chosen?

[slingshot]

Slingshot, I don't understand your question. Are you saying that you can't accept that the RNG in various games is constantly "running" and "changing" possible outcomes until the button is actually pushed? And that if the button is pushed one-twentieth of a second earlier or later a different result is chosen?

So then why in the world are there vp charts, strategy, or any other aids other than sitting there counting thousand-one thousand-two-PUSH AS FAST AS YOU CAN! And why do machines suddenly go on hitting or losing streaks? No, I can't believe it.

[arcimede$]

The machines don't go on streaks. The players go on streaks. A good analogy is sports. In one game a basketball player may hit 9 - 10 shots, in the next game is might be 2 - 10. Was it the basketball or the player?

[redietz]

Arci,

I love you, but maybe another analogy....

Sometimes it can be the basketball, as the "acceptable ranges" for age and inflation of the ball can actually have an effect, as can the floor (old Boston Garden had dead spots dribbling-wise), or the lighting, or the sight-depth of the arenas (for whatever reason -- bigger arenas -- lower shooting percentages).

[arcimede$]

Arci,

I love you, but maybe another analogy....

Sometimes it can be the basketball, as the "acceptable ranges" for age and inflation of the ball can actually have an effect, as can the floor (old Boston Garden had dead spots dribbling-wise), or the lighting, or the sight-depth of the arenas (for whatever reason -- bigger arenas -- lower shooting percentages).

True at one time, but not so much any more. The basketballs used at various levels are standardized and kept within tight tolerances. And, if you want to limit it to home games then the same analogy applies and all the differences in arenas goes away.

[slingshot]

Strategy and such are useless. You might as well be hitting the draw button endlessly...You have just as good a chance.

[Rob.Singer]

Basketballs aren't tested throughout a game, and that's when those "tolerances" are most subject to changes. The old floor from the Boston Garden was moved in is entirety into the new TD Garden.

It's also patently incorrect that the machines do not go on streaks. If you constantly do not win on one during a visit, it absolutely is the machine as well as you, who are on such a streak. Whether that streak was there for a purpose is another matter, and that's already been discussed.

[redietz]

Not to belabor a minor point, but I will. The tolerances, especially high school level, aren't that tight, and that's where 90% of the games are played. If you full court press, you want brand new balls with slick skins and the max air pumped into them. If you have to deal with a full court press, you want old balls with lowest acceptable pressure.

[Alan Mendelson]

Strategy and such are useless. You might as well be hitting the draw button endlessly...You have just as good a chance.

Think about this for a second.

Suppose you are dealt Ah Kh Qh Jh 3h and you know you are sitting at a machine with a RNG that shuffles through the remaining cards in the deck at a rate of 1,000 cards per second. Would you want to disregard strategy which says to go for the royal, or just accept the dealt flush?

It really doesn't matter whether the cards are shuffled once for each hand you play, or if the cards are shuffled continuously in each hand you played. What is important in video poker is each card has a fair chance of being chose for the deal and for the draw.

Which is why I actually prefer either a "sequential draw" (cards shuffled once and dealt from the top of the deck) or the "continuous shuffle." What I don't want to play is a "shadow card system" in which the card you need might be trapped under a card you are holding.

[arcimede$]

Not to belabor a minor point, but I will. The tolerances, especially high school level, aren't that tight, and that's where 90% of the games are played. If you full court press, you want brand new balls with slick skins and the max air pumped into them. If you have to deal with a full court press, you want old balls with lowest acceptable pressure.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill and we're talking shooting, not pressing. I find it rather silly as no analogy is 100% perfect. Does anyone claim that if a player used exactly the same basketball on exactly the same court they will have exactly the same results? I sure hope not.

The situation with a good shooter is they produce an almost random distribution of balls within a circle that surrounds the basket. The distance from the center of the hoop is close to a bell curve. For a good shooter most of them will be very close to going in. The shots on any given night could be from any part of that distribution and hence the variance that we see from game to game.

This is quite similar to VP. We get a random distribution of hands in any given session. The results we see on any particular session is based on returns of the various results. Some sessions have more better paying results which is just like the basketball player when he has a few more shots close to the center of his range.

Also, in both cases the number of possible results is usually about the same each and every time. Hence, neither the machine nor the basketball are the deciding factors. At the end of the day its just a slightly different occurrence of the possible (random) results.

[arcimede$]

It's also patently incorrect that the machines do not go on streaks. If you constantly do not win on one during a visit, it absolutely is the machine as well as you, who are on such a streak. Whether that streak was there for a purpose is another matter, and that's already been discussed.

No, the machine may have had lots of good results available if you hit the deal key at a slightly different time. Your logic is strange indeed.

I wrote a program to study the returns of an RNG when every possible result is considered. If you take something like Alan's 1000:1 ratio then a session of 5000 hands would have had 5 million possible hands. When I looked at anything over a couple million hands the actual result was off by no more than .2 to .5% from the ER depending on game variance. In other words, if you do better or worse the machine had nothing to do with it.

[Alan Mendelson]

The situation with a good shooter is they produce an almost random distribution of balls within a circle that surrounds the basket. The distance from the center of the hoop is close to a bell curve. For a good shooter most of them will be very close to going in. The shots on any given night could be from any part of that distribution and hence the variance that we see from game to game.

Oops. Basketball is not like horse shoes. There are no points for being close. Either you sink the basket or you don't. There is no bell curve. Either you made the shot or you missed.

[Alan Mendelson]

we're talking shooting, not pressing

Since I might be the only one here who actually played basketball in school let me help with the definitions for the purpose of the discussion.

A full court press refers to a play in which the team with the ball (offense) makes a lightning fast combination of passes to move the ball to the basket as quickly as possible. it involves long passes over long distances with the offensive players running quickly to get away from the defending players. I think that every team spends countless hours on full court press drills.

Defending a full court press can be difficult if the defending team uses a man to man strategy. So you often use a full court press against a man to man defense.

A full court press is less effective against a zone defense.

Shooting, of course, comes at the end of the full court press.

[arcimede$]

Oops. Basketball is not like horse shoes. There are no points for being close. Either you sink the basket or you don't. There is no bell curve. Either you made the shot or you missed.

Alan, are you always this obtuse? Is this intentional?

The bell curve is not made vs missed shots. The bell curve is the distance from the center of the hoop which is exactly what I said. When the distance is within a certain value the ball goes in, when it outside that value the ball misses. Yeah, there's a few borderline as well. The point is that on some days more of the shots are from the group that is closer to the center. On other days more of the shots are in the outside group. This is just random variation.

[arcimede$]

Since I might be the only one here who actually played basketball in school let me help with the definitions for the purpose of the discussion.

Good grief ... condescending much. Oh yeah, I played lot and lots of organized basketball which doesn't mean I wouldn't know the meaning of basketball terms simply by watching games.

A full court press refers to a play in which the team with the ball (offense) makes a lightning fast combination of passes to move the ball to the basket as quickly as possible.

And then, you get it wrong. A full court press is a defense. It has nothing to do with offense. Did you really intend to make a fool out of yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-court_press

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, are you always this obtuse? Is this intentional?

The bell curve is not made vs missed shots. The bell curve is the distance from the center of the hoop which is exactly what I said. When the distance is within a certain value the ball goes in, when it outside that value the ball misses. Yeah, there's a few borderline as well. The point is that on some days more of the shots are from the group that is closer to the center. On other days more of the shots are in the outside group. This is just random variation.

Arc, it doesnt matter if a shooter makes a layup or a shot from six feet, it's still two points. Three pointers are a different story. What the heck do you mean by "When the distance is within a certain value the ball goes in, when it outside that value the ball misses." Never in junior high, high school or college did a coach ever talk about distance having a value for making a shot? Gees. Where do you get this stuff?

[Alan Mendelson]

Damn, I can't debate with Wikipedia. but okay, if you want to apply it to the defense it's okay with me.

[arcimede$]

Arc, it doesnt matter if a shooter makes a layup or a shot from six feet, it's still two points. Three pointers are a different story. What the heck do you mean by "When the distance is within a certain value the ball goes in, when it outside that value the ball misses." Never in junior high, high school or college did a coach ever talk about distance having a value for making a shot? Gees. Where do you get this stuff?

Alan, if you would actually try to understand what I wrote you might have chance at understanding. As it is you have no chance. You don't take the time to understand what I said yet alone put it into perspective. I guess someone who played basketball and doesn't understand what a full court press is has already demonstrated they don't listen. You've just proven it all over again. I won't bother responding to any more of your silly comments unless you first go back and read what I wrote.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if you would actually try to understand what I wrote you might have chance at understanding. As it is you have no chance. You don't take the time to understand what I said yet alone put it into perspective. I guess someone who played basketball and doesn't understand what a full court press is has already demonstrated they don't listen. You've just proven it all over again. I won't bother responding to any more of your silly comments unless you first go back and read what I wrote.

That's fine Arc, because I think the world will be better off not knowing about distance having a value for making a basketball shot. And to be honest it's been more than 40 years since I put on a jersey.