Warning to Forum Readers -- Gambling Credentials

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, Rob, of course you agree with redietz when he says the machines are not random. Isn't that the excuse all APs use when they don't win? That something must be rigged?

Over on Wizard of Vegas some "dice controllers" were blaming "biased dice" (not random, or rigged) for how they weren't able to control their throws or get the results they expected from their expert throws. Hah!!

Well, Rob, I am glad you found a supporter for your rigged machine theory.

Public address announcer: "Arcimedes. Paging Arcimedes. Mr. Arcimedes. Paging Mr. Arcimedes."

[arcimede$]

Well, Rob, of course you agree with redietz when he says the machines are not random. Isn't that the excuse all APs use when they don't win? That something must be rigged?

I've never used it, but I agree that we should all keep our eyes open.

Public address announcer: "Arcimedes. Paging Arcimedes. Mr. Arcimedes. Paging Mr. Arcimedes."

Sorry, bowled, played cards and went to casinos to collect some freeplay yesterday and played golf today.

Priorities. Was there something important I missed?

[regnis]

Redietz- I have one problem--I am confused. If you don't believe that the RNG is in fact random, how can you be an AP? The math doesn't work if the RNG isn't random. The ER is a myth if the RNG is not truly random.

I also am a non-believer in the RNG, or at least its randomness, but then I am not an AP.

How do you make peace with this?

[Rob.Singer]

I've never used it, but I agree that we should all keep our eyes open.



Sorry, bowled, played cards and went to casinos to collect some freeplay yesterday and played golf today.

Priorities. Was there something important I missed?

If you did that stuff alone, yes, there was something important that you missed. Oh but wait....you're used to it!

[Rob.Singer]

Well, Rob, of course you agree with redietz when he says the machines are not random. Isn't that the excuse all APs use when they don't win? That something must be rigged?

Over on Wizard of Vegas some "dice controllers" were blaming "biased dice" (not random, or rigged) for how they weren't able to control their throws or get the results they expected from their expert throws. Hah!!

Well, Rob, I am glad you found a supporter for your rigged machine theory.

Public address announcer: "Arcimedes. Paging Arcimedes. Mr. Arcimedes. Paging Mr. Arcimedes."

One more time: non-random machines are not rigged machines. Totally random machines are the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon the video poker-playing community. In time, even hard-line geezers like arci will come to agree with that.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob you are going to have to be clear about this:

If you say a machine is not random, does it mean there is some kind of "fix" to make it non random?
Or, are you saying that on a machine that is supposed to be random you will never see true random results because a true random distribution can never be reached?
Or, are you saying that the gaming companies just can't create a random machine?

[Rob.Singer]

Rob you are going to have to be clear about this:

If you say a machine is not random, does it mean there is some kind of "fix" to make it non random?
Or, are you saying that on a machine that is supposed to be random you will never see true random results because a true random distribution can never be reached?
Or, are you saying that the gaming companies just can't create a random machine?

I say that because, first, of what what told to me by a gaming programmer, and next, because the machine I had for testing confirmed what he said. I was told the machines COULD be programmed to be completely random, but that there was no reason to because of gaming regulations requiring the payback of all machines to be below a certain %, no matter what the paytable theoretically represented. And any machine that somehow went above that proprietary number was to be removed from the floor and immediately returned to the factory. All machines in every casino are leased not owned. So non-random does not mean rigged.

[regnis]

Rob-in what way is it non-random? Are the odds of any card showing not 1/52? Are there pre-designed payouts or occurences rather than a random draw on each hand? Are the odds of a royal not approx 1/40,000? Is it set to not hit royals? Please explain in what way they are not random. Does it go beyond the general feeling we all get that when we have 4 to a flush we never seem to get it?

By the way-----HAWKS WIN!!!!!!

[Alan Mendelson]

I say that because, first, of what what told to me by a gaming programmer, and next, because the machine I had for testing confirmed what he said. I was told the machines COULD be programmed to be completely random, but that there was no reason to because of gaming regulations requiring the payback of all machines to be below a certain %, no matter what the paytable theoretically represented. And any machine that somehow went above that proprietary number was to be removed from the floor and immediately returned to the factory. All machines in every casino are leased not owned. So non-random does not mean rigged.

This goes back to our first interview... I disagreed with you then and I disagree with you now.

1. I really doubt this story about the engineer sitting next to you on a plane trip from Europe.
2. Let's not bring up the machine you tested and your results until you can find that machine. Even your results -- if you can find them -- cannot be verified without the machine.
3. You have it all wrong about what the NGC wants with a video poker machine. You said the machines would be legal because of "gaming regulations requiring the payback of all machines to be below a certain %, no matter what the paytable theoretically represented." This is wrong. What you are talking about refers to SLOT MACHINES but with Video Poker machines the regulations are quite clear that each card must have an equal chance of showing. The "return" is determined by the pay table and not by rigging the RNG. Now we can argue this but this is what we debated going back to our first interview and I stand by it and I will disagree with you till the day I am eating dirt.... to quote a phrase from you.

Now, what is your evidence that the video poker machines in use now in Nevada and made by the big gaming companies are not random? And why are they not random?

[slingshot]

This goes back to our first interview... I disagreed with you then and I disagree with you now.

1. I really doubt this story about the engineer sitting next to you on a plane trip from Europe.
2. Let's not bring up the machine you tested and your results until you can find that machine. Even your results -- if you can find them -- cannot be verified without the machine.
3. You have it all wrong about what the NGC wants with a video poker machine. You said the machines would be legal because of "gaming regulations requiring the payback of all machines to be below a certain %, no matter what the paytable theoretically represented." This is wrong. What you are talking about refers to SLOT MACHINES but with Video Poker machines the regulations are quite clear that each card must have an equal chance of showing. The "return" is determined by the pay table and not by rigging the RNG. Now we can argue this but this is what we debated going back to our first interview and I stand by it and I will disagree with you till the day I am eating dirt.... to quote a phrase from you.

Now, what is your evidence that the video poker machines in use now in Nevada and made by the big gaming companies are not random? And why are they not random?

But yet you guys believe that by waiting a split second, or counting a-thousand-one, thousand-two-PUSH THE BUTTON!-that you can get a winning hand whereas before that you didn't have a chance?

[Alan Mendelson]

But yet you guys believe that by waiting a split second, or counting a-thousand-one, thousand-two-PUSH THE BUTTON!-that you can get a winning hand whereas before that you didn't have a chance?

Yes, I believe that most of the modern video poker machines today have the continuous shuffle method. I guess you don't?

[arcimede$]

One can only laugh hysterically at the silly nonsense produced by speedo. Of course, folks like Frank, Dancer, myself and hundreds of APers are proof that he is once again lying just like he always does.

But hey, keep on wearing those tin foil hats. They are very stylish.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, could you be more specific? Just for the record. Tin foil hats could also be a fashion statement. Please refer to the event that the tin foil hat made its appearance. Thanks.

[regnis]

Hard for Arci to prove that they are Random, just as the rest of us can't prove they aren't. I wish we could get further clarification from Rob as to hoe the non-randomness manifests per my previous question in this thread.

Arci-other than that they are supposed to be random, can you point to any proof that they are. Even your buddy Redietz seems to question randomness, although again, with no specifics.

[slingshot]

Yes, I believe that most of the modern video poker machines today have the continuous shuffle method. I guess you don't?

How else can you explain the fact that some days the quads totally disappear=yet come another day and they're plentiful?

[Alan Mendelson]

How else can you explain the fact that some days the quads totally disappear=yet come another day and they're plentiful?

Maybe it's a random game and some days you get lucky and some days you don't?

[regnis]

Alan-one of my friends who I play VP with is always complaining about the flush draw on 4 to a flush. So I asked him to keep track one day because I think we forget the flushes that fill and remember what seems like an endless string of failures. He stopped counting at 6 of 213. Obviously, too small of a sample size but now he is even more convinced they are rigged. This also was on an Ultimate X game where, as you probably know, the hand after a flush is worth anywhere from 8-12 times more. He firmly believes that those games are programmed to not give flushes and full houses and are not random.

What a lawsuit if we could ever prove it. So again, Rob, Red, etc.---if you have proof, I'm filing the class action suit.

[arcimede$]

All people need to do is collect enough results to get close to statistical verification. That why I keep results. Regnis, your buddy should keep on with the numbers. Once he gets to 10,000 tries if he stills sees this level of discrepancy I think he will have pretty good evidence to take to a gambling commission.

Slingshot, the reason quads vary is actually good evidence for randomness. If they were consistent, that would not be random.

[redietz]

It's pretty clear I said, "If there's any non-random trickeration..." which, to my ears, doesn't read like, "there is non-random trickeration." But reading comprehension isn't Alan's strength, so we forgive and move on.

Meanwhile, for those who absolutely think all RNG's are working flawlessly, we present (for the umpteenth time), the difficulty with that assumption:

1) It assumes that, without any trickeration, all RNG's work flawlessly all the time. Do you know any piece of equipment that works flawlessly all the time? And Rob's manhood doesn't count.
2) It assumes no manager, anywhere in the gambling world, would be so devious as to rig a machine at any time. Welcome to the Disney Channel.
3) It assumes the gaming commission checks all machines to ensure there is no trickeration. True enough, but does anyone know the frequency of that checking? I've told you several times.
4) It assumes any casino caught doing that would be severely damaged by fines and public reaction. That, my friends, is incorrect.
5) It assumes any manager caught doing trickerations would never find a job in gaming again. That, my friends, is incorrect. In fact, if you think about it, it's a great reason to hire somebody.

[Rob.Singer]

This goes back to our first interview... I disagreed with you then and I disagree with you now.

1. I really doubt this story about the engineer sitting next to you on a plane trip from Europe.
2. Let's not bring up the machine you tested and your results until you can find that machine. Even your results -- if you can find them -- cannot be verified without the machine.
3. You have it all wrong about what the NGC wants with a video poker machine. You said the machines would be legal because of "gaming regulations requiring the payback of all machines to be below a certain %, no matter what the paytable theoretically represented." This is wrong. What you are talking about refers to SLOT MACHINES but with Video Poker machines the regulations are quite clear that each card must have an equal chance of showing. The "return" is determined by the pay table and not by rigging the RNG. Now we can argue this but this is what we debated going back to our first interview and I stand by it and I will disagree with you till the day I am eating dirt.... to quote a phrase from you.

Now, what is your evidence that the video poker machines in use now in Nevada and made by the big gaming companies are not random? And why are they not random?

Alan, as I've said prior, you will only believe that machines are 100% random 100% of the time, because where would believing any different leave you when hit with those frequent urges to get some video poker action in? Imagine the predicament.

1. It was on a plane coming back from Australia, where there are thousands of IGT machines in play. But most of my info came from follow-up talks with him after I began looking into the 5th card flipover anomaly.

2. What's with your penchant for getting your hands on the machine I tested? You know that it wasn't really legal for me to have it, and all I can do is share what I found. True believers such as yourself and most AP's would never change their beliefs even if the case were proven in a court of law. And why not? Because it would compromise that incredible, insatiable need to play the game going forward. People always believe in what they want. It's up to the individual to have the ability to be able to deal with whatever facts they choose are real. I've done that.

3. It's the same with this issue. Common sense says you should not play again if you believed what I said about how wrong you are and how we are not allowed access to the proprietary & confidential portions of the regulations. But not playing again would be inconceivable to you, so nothing could get through to you but whatever it takes to be able to keep playing, thinking everything is random and hunky dory. And just like arci or anyone else can't prove anything to regnis or you or me or anyone that machines are random, I can't prove they aren't. Even though from my own conversations and testing and even my play, I KNOW they are not.