Warning to Forum Readers -- Gambling Credentials

[Rob.Singer]

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?
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.

I think the key here is in the classic BS by arci that claims, and I quote, that "any casino caught making their machines non-random would have their doors shut by Gaming". That assertion/guess/lie has continually been disproven. And I agree that if a boss were identified to have been doing that for years for the benefit of his establishment, his hire value would skyrocket.

[Rob.Singer]

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.

Just wondering....do you also keep records on how many knocks there are on the wall by your neighbor when that machine is clanging away? Or does the card game get "too loud" at times...

Squeak squeak....knock knock

[redietz]

To address Alan's question about how much does playing 25 cent FPDW yield, the answer's pretty simple -- six bucks an hour at normal speed, plus comps. Yes, one might be better flipping burgers. Of course, one would be fabulously better off flipping burgers than playing the negative expectation dollar and up machines at Caesars. Unless, of course, one uses the excuse that those machines provide excitement and thrills, which somehow doesn't happen when one plays for quarters. Why it would be different playing for a buck versus a quarter is beyond me. I guess some people have a paper fetish.

[slingshot]

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.

I noticed 2 examples from my recent play. Today, I took the $20 free play and turned it into $35 and left-I finally got pissed at their reduction in offers and inordinate amounts offered to friends who only played there once or twice=$85. Last visit, however, I noticed that whenever there was a choice between two hands, I wouldn't have gotten a winner on either hand on 2-3 card draws. While playing dp vs ddbp, there were few 2 pair draws on bp but almost always 2 pair on ddbp-which is what I played today=and which was fine because that's a push and I got to KEEP playing until the freeplay was played through.

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

Unfortunately for you and for Rob, if the machines are not 100% random the burden is on you to prove they are not. So what is your proof?

Rob... you haven't presented your data after all these months and even if you did present your data without the machine to connect with the data the data is meaningless. You might have stumbled upon the story of the century but you have no way to prove it.

[redietz]

I never said they weren't random. I gave you a list of reasons why the assumption every machine was random was flawed.

"The burden of proof?" Alan, I'm assuming you mean that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," which I agree with. Now the key question here isn't "Is it likely this machine in front of me is non-random?" The question is whether, "Is every single one of these thousands of machines' RNGs operating flawlessly?"

Now I take it your position is that it is more likely that each one of tens of thousands of machines is operating flawlessly than that one or more are operating in a flawed fashion. If that is your position, good for you. I would submit that position, since it is extremely unlikely, would carry a very heavy burden of proof.

I'm not trying to prove anything to anybody, except the limitations of what you actually know to be true. Evidently Alan knows that none of the tens of thousands of machines is flawed. That is an extraordinary position.

[Alan Mendelson]

I never said they weren't random. I gave you a list of reasons why the assumption every machine was random was flawed.

Well now you can disregard my question about burden of proof. "I never said they weren't random" is all the response I need. Your list of reasons is argumentative and without merit.

Redietz, I must say you are very imaginative at creating arguments over just about everything on this forum whether it be Rob's strategy, or my credentials, or even how I operate the forum. You make a lot of critical noise for someone who makes little in the way of positive contributions.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, as I said, I can't prove to anyone that the machines are not random, and I really don't need to because I've proven it to myself--which in gambling, is all that counts. I passed along my info and that's all I can do. If anyone chooses not to believe me, I gave you the spot-on reason for that also.

What I find confusing is why you don't believe you should present similar proof that the games are random. Simply saying you saw so on the Internet and the regs say so, is very inconclusive. That's like arci or Dancer or redietz claiming they all win, and their "proof" is because that's what the math says they should do under perfect circumstances throughout the life of their play. Fine & dandy, except for one glaring missing fact: saying something SHOULD BE is not anything near proof that it HAS HAPPENED. It's just a crutch....and a weak one at that. So I ask you: can you present absolute proof that the games are indeed random everywhere in Nevada all the time, or is that locked up in one of your ex-wives' garages?

[regnis]

Yes-and I would still like to know how you (Redietz) justify playing VP as an AP if you believe they are not random. How can you rely on the math if the math is a myth?

Can you explain?

[regnis]

Rob--you know ex-wives only get things of significant monetary value

[Alan Mendelson]

So I ask you: can you present absolute proof that the games are indeed random everywhere in Nevada all the time

As I said before, the burden of proof is not on me. It is on you. And you've admitted that you can't prove it to anyone but yourself. Now, even redietz says "I never said they weren't random."

[Rob.Singer]

If you want to believe games are totally random and you proclaim they are as a site administrator, why in the world would you think there is no burden of proof on you?? If anything, my inability to prove they aren't random would seem slightly more credible than your inability to prove they are, since I've explained my reasons for my position. What's yours--because you read about it on the Internet?

[Alan Mendelson]

If you want to believe games are totally random and you proclaim they are as a site administrator, why in the world would you think there is no burden of proof on you?? If anything, my inability to prove they aren't random would seem slightly more credible than your inability to prove they are, since I've explained my reasons for my position. What's yours--because you read about it on the Internet?

Because the law is on my side. Who is on your side, Rob?

[slingshot]

is that I used to play longer sessions and I now heed Rob's advice to get outta there as soon as possible.

[arcimede$]

Video poker machines are nothing but small computers. Everyone knows that computers fail now and then, but it is not a common occurrence and generally it is obvious when it happens. One of the most reliable components of computers is the central processing unit. It would take failures in the CPU to cause the RNG to fail. As part of the power up code on these system they run diagnostic checks that would find most problems. In addition, if any internal error is detected the machines run diagnostics. And, even on the small chance it wasn't detected, the problem would most likely impact other programs in the machine. Things like displaying cards or counting down credits might fail. The RNG is probably less that .01% of the code.

In other words, the chances of undetected failures in the RNG of VP games is very, very small.

[redietz]

Regarding Alan's comments vis-a-vis me: consider me an editor, Alan.

[redietz]

What Alan said about me is completely true. But it seems to me that when it comes to gambling, somebody who can tell you what you shouldn't be doing is actually pretty valuable. Readers are going to get more financial value from me telling them what they shouldn't do than from just about anyone else telling them what they should do. Not much warm-and-fuzzy, just value.

[Rob.Singer]

Because the law is on my side. Who is on your side, Rob?

Are you absolutely sure about that? First I'll ask you to point that out to me anywhere but on the NGC site, because I told you that they will never publish proprietary or confidential policy. Then, simply prove that the games are 100% random. Have you tested any machine(s) and if so, may I see the printed results?

[arcimede$]

Are you absolutely sure about that? First I'll ask you to point that out to me anywhere but on the NGC site, because I told you that they will never publish proprietary or confidential policy. Then, simply prove that the games are 100% random. Have you tested any machine(s) and if so, may I see the printed results?

"proprietary or confidential policy" would be against the law. Only a dufus would make such a claim.

[regnis]

Video poker machines are nothing but small computers. Everyone knows that computers fail now and then, but it is not a common occurrence and generally it is obvious when it happens. One of the most reliable components of computers is the central processing unit. It would take failures in the CPU to cause the RNG to fail. As part of the power up code on these system they run diagnostic checks that would find most problems. In addition, if any internal error is detected the machines run diagnostics. And, even on the small chance it wasn't detected, the problem would most likely impact other programs in the machine. Things like displaying cards or counting down credits might fail. The RNG is probably less that .01% of the code.

In other words, the chances of undetected failures in the RNG of VP games is very, very small.

Arci--I think that those that believe they are not random believe it is intentionally so, not a case of CPU failure. I believe that they believe it is more diabolical than computer error. I, myself, am still not sure what I believe. But I do agree with Red that the belief that a casino would get fined a significant amount and/or lose its license is fairy tale. The state, city, municipality---whatever--that relies on the casino revenue is not going to bite the hand that feeds it.