On a 3 way game, my friend was dealt trips 38 times and failed to get one quad. This was in a period of about 2 hours. I thought the amount of trips seemed extremely high, and the number of quads obviously too low.
Curious as to the (afraid to say it) math.
Edit---
He did get one quad holding a pair of tens during that time.
Last edited by regnis; 07-10-2013 at 09:02 AM.
Odds of turning 3 of a kind into quads is 1/24.
Your friend had 38 X 3 = 114 chances and in a perfect world he should have had quads 4.75 times.
Personally, I don't think that's too far off.
That part I get and, while frustrating to a player, doesn't seem that extreme to me either. But what about the number of trips dealt? That seemed like a lot. He had so few straight and flush draws--but lots of house draws and the trips. unfortunately, couldn't fill a house either. One of those days---glad I was just kibitzing and not playing with him.
On the flip side he should be happy he got so many dealt trips on a multi handed machine.
Reports such as this is what got me going on testing the fifth card flipover anomaly. At first, to several e-mailers I kept saying it was only gambler's perception and/or what they were claiming wasn't THAT unusual in the short term. However, after the reports kept rolling in, I did something. Few want to believe the machines are not 100% random, and none of the doubting thomases will ever even do a study for a few thousand hands on a machine. No reason to shake the foundation of their belief system with the stark truth.
Rob this wasn't out of the ordinary. Period.
Trips are dealt about once in every 45 hands including dealt FHs. Hence, 38 trips would take around 1710 hands. This would be 855 hands/hour. Nothing extreme and even at only 600 hands/hour would not be too far from normal.
I did. It's called losing my A**. These 3 card hands are perfectly placed to keep you going, too. And all the signs of a cold cycle usually show up during these kind of sessions and I'm finally comfortable getting up and going to another machine.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Rob-it is this type of hand that feeds the non-random believers. I wish you could show us some actual proof.
Arci--he plays slow and of course a 3-way takes longer to deal and draw. So I figure him at more like 400 hands per hour and that is a little high on the trips then.
Just the eyeball test you felt like it was a lot more trips than normal.
Just the same as what people thought they were seeing with the fifth card flipover, only since my testing proved to me at least that their suspicions were right, if everything (even those not really out of the normal like this one) players reported were looked into, I have no doubt more people would finally believe and know as I do--that the machines are close to 100% random, but that's as far as it goes.
Huh??? Why does it take longer? You are dealt one hand, and you make your selection which applies to the others. What takes so long?Originally Posted by regnis
If you told me it was a 100-play game, and you set the speed on the slowest mode, then yes, you'd have to wait a few seconds for each hand to reveal itself. But three hands? How long could three hands take?
Rob, it really comes down to this: how do you know if machines are "close to 100% random" or "random" or "not random"?? How do you tell?Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan-I've never timed it. But logically it has to deal 3 hands rather than one, and then you look at 3 rather than one before you spin again. It's only seconds but seconds would be another hand on a 1 way. But again, the eyeball test we knew he was getting more trips than is normal. I'm not saying it's not random, but it is days like that that one wonders. We will never know for sure if they are random or not, but it would be 1 big conspiracy to have lasted this long.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You don't look at three hands. What is dealt on the bottom line is the same on all 3, 5, 10 or 50 or 100 hands. You look at one hand.
The only speed control is if you set the machine to slow, medium or fast for revealing the draws after you make your choice.
Or... are you playing a machine I don't play???
I know they are "not random"....but not how FAR from random, because I took the time to test 45000 hands at machines in the South Point, and I made the investment to test and record results from over a billion hands played on a real machine at home for 3 months. It is clear to me. Even if I took time out from a fabulous retirement to go to southern Az. to get the papers printed out from that testing, you still would not want to believe it, probably erroneously saying "but that's only data from ONE actual machine, and that's not good enuf for me because it could be a bad machine in a sea of good machines"....which is laughable at best because you already don't ever want to know the machines you play so compulsively are nothing short of totally random.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've done way more work on this subject than anyone else would ever even think of doing. I've convinced myself, and I leave it to anyone else interested to make their own determinations. There's a discussion going on at vpFree right now about the merits of the Revel promotion. I have a friend "AP" from LV who went there, with my help, to play in it. He returned after we came up with a $7800 stop win goal (he won $8300), but was prepared to pay my sister in Phila. a nominal fee + heating expenses, to stay in their guest house out back from Aug. 1st thru early Dec. so he could take advantage of the 20 week rebate if he lost $100k or less. That discussion relates to what's common sense and what's not, and in a first, Bob Dancer is the only poster who supports what I've said--which is both fact-based and common sense based. Same as the random issue. I have both facts and sensibility on my side. You have "hope nots" and "government says so's". So which makes more "sense"
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 07-11-2013 at 03:28 PM.
Tell me Rob: how did you "test 45,000 hands" at the South Point? What method did you use? Did you test the RNGs or was this based only on observation? And I am curious, how many royals did you have within those 45,000 hands? LOL
Singer was proved wrong on the 5th card flip-overs just like everything else. I see he's still claiming he has the papers he promised last year but never provided. Bwah haha haha haha
And now the games are "almost "random. Talk about silly nonsense. There is no such thing. Singer has just outdone his most idiotic claims. Is there no limit to his stupidity?
Arc you were okay until you mentioned "stupidity" and that doesn't help the conversation.
If you had to meet regulations, and pay out your specified percentage, yet collect your specified take-how would you do it other than "simulated randomness"? It's legal and fullfills all requirements. We never question that the mega jackpots have to build up enough to pay out the jackpots.
You still don't understand this yet, slingshot. Payout percentages are not managed by "fixing" the machines. In the case of slots, the payout percentages are based on the number of possible winning combinations on the virtual reels of a slot. And in the case of video poker, the payout percentages are based on the theoretical pay table. In reality (and I am sure Rob will agree) over the life of a machine NO machine might ever hit is theoretical payout.Originally Posted by slingshot
To put it another way -- there is no "switch" or "trigger" that says "this machine will pay" or "this machine will not pay" to meet some required payout.
slingshot, you somehow think that machines must meet some payout requirement? Well, in theory they must but they might not. This is why -- and again Rob will agree -- that you can have winning sessions on a negative paytable video poker game.
Let me sum it up another way: the machines are random and they are not rigged. And for Rob's benefit-- you can't be a little bit not random. That's like saying a woman is just a little bit pregnant.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote