Failed quads

[arcimede$]

Arc you were okay until you mentioned "stupidity" and that doesn't help the conversation.

Just the facts. When someone tries to pass themselves off as an expert and then demonstrates this level of incompetence there are really no words sufficient to describe them. I was actually being nice.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, it wasn't nice.

[slingshot]

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.

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.

I will say this: five years ago when I was playing all the time,they sure felt random. Which makes it all the easier to notice the difference now.

[Alan Mendelson]

So tell me slingshot what does a random feeling feel like? What was that feeling five years ago which is different from the feeling you get now when you play? Is there a particular tingle in your left leg when a machine is random? Or do you get a tingle in your right arm when a machine is not random?

I remember the 1980s as being my best year for news stories. But was it really? I felt like I had the best time reporting news when I was at WTVJ but how do I compare it to working at KCAL?

Saying the machines "felt" random then and not now is based on what?

Let's be scientific: did you actually test an RNG five years ago? Or are you just going by your memory? Memory of what -- lucky draws? Maybe you had more royals five years ago?

I don't want to be overly critical, but personal observations whether they be about machine randomness or fifth card flipovers or converting flushes to royals are all subject to personal biases.

[Rob.Singer]

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

I played nickels and maybe pennies for the sole purpose of tracking the fifth card flipover percentage. No royals, but the flipover % was well above double what the math says in a totally random scenario. This was all explained in one of my most popular articles ever.

No one ever proved my findings wrong. The hack administrator from videopoker.com sat with me for several hundred hands at the M where the % was right on target, which meant nothing....except to arci, who now wants to claim several hundred hands will give a more reliable result than 45000, or one billion! Just the facts please arci, just the facts. And leave out the lies this time.

Alan, Don't be concerned that arci still hasn't learned how to control his namecalling. We never know if and when those machines in his house start reading bad numbers, or if the chair gets a flat. Such catastrophes actually do produce more irritability than normal living

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry, Rob, but 45,000 hands proves nothing.

In fact, the only thing that will ever prove your allegations is an examination of the chip and the programming. The rest of this is just "talk." And no one has to prove your findings wrong -- you have to prove your findings "right."

As I've said before -- your biggest mistake was returning that video poker machine that you tested and claimed to prove your fifth card flipover conspiracy. You gave away the proof.

[slingshot]

A famous historical scientist took heavy and light objects atop the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped them at exactly the same time. Despite observers SEEING them hit the ground at the exact same time, THEY WOULDN'T BELIEVE. Times haven't changed.

[regnis]

As a follow up to the original post in this thread, my friend returned to the same casino today and tho he didn't count the trips, failed to get any quads on trips again. I was not there with him today. Then he tells me that the guy next to him playing a 5-way complained to him that he was 0 for 83 on trips. Since 83 is not dividible by 5, I assume that is 0 for 415 (5-way game) which I would find to be troublesome.

[Alan Mendelson]

A famous historical scientist took heavy and light objects atop the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped them at exactly the same time. Despite observers SEEING them hit the ground at the exact same time, THEY WOULDN'T BELIEVE. Times haven't changed.

Really? If I see it I am supposed to believe it? So am I to believe that because I failed to draw the royal card when I have four to the royal that the machine I am on lacks all 52 cards in its virtual deck?

Sling, good buddy, where do you get this stuff?

[slingshot]

Really? If I see it I am supposed to believe it? So am I to believe that because I failed to draw the royal card when I have four to the royal that the machine I am on lacks all 52 cards in its virtual deck?

Sling, good buddy, where do you get this stuff?

All I'm saying is the proof's in the playing in an actual casino. Every thing Rob's described I've experienced. I'm not as much of a player anymore-as for as time and visits- because I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced it in my playing. I'm just trying to add my experiences, but I guess you guys weren't as hooked on vp as I was. It stirred up a bit of anger within me that times changed and skill no longer matters as much as luck.

[Alan Mendelson]

All I'm saying is the proof's in the playing in an actual casino.

Absolutely wrong. What anyone sees in a casino from their own personal play means nothing. As Sgt. Schultz would say. "Nothing."

I said this to Rob and I'm saying it to you: If you want to prove the machines are not random get the RNG out of the machine and test the RNG. (And Rob, when you have the proof... don't give the machine back.)

[Rob.Singer]

Absolutely wrong. What anyone sees in a casino from their own personal play means nothing. As Sgt. Schultz would say. "Nothing."

I said this to Rob and I'm saying it to you: If you want to prove the machines are not random get the RNG out of the machine and test the RNG. (And Rob, when you have the proof... don't give the machine back.)

Not so true Alan. Get enough hands in any test and you'll have something close to "proof". I happened to do my testing at the SP to prove this out to MYSELF. It was "only" 45000 hands, which is why I pulled out all the stops...legal, financial, & a little bit illegal, to get a machine for 3 months----and it had to go back because I wasn't supposed to have it. I spent a year trying to get my results publicized, but no one including WoV and an inside track at the NGC wanted any part of it. Then I retired. That's why everything went into storage.

[slingshot]

Not so true Alan. Get enough hands in any test and you'll have something close to "proof". I happened to do my testing at the SP to prove this out to MYSELF. It was "only" 45000 hands, which is why I pulled out all the stops...legal, financial, & a little bit illegal, to get a machine for 3 months----and it had to go back because I wasn't supposed to have it. I spent a year trying to get my results publicized, but no one including WoV and an inside track at the NGC wanted any part of it. Then I retired. That's why everything went into storage.

And now I say let those who wanna listen hear, and those who wanna go on the other way fill the machines. I don't think anything is gonna change on this forum as far as individual "fixed" beliefs. I see the frequent cold cycles and the not so frequent hot cycles and that's all that matters to me. I only persisted because I enjoyed picking up a tidbit from Rob every now and then-that and finding out that vp is so much more than numbers and charts.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, you have never presented any proof. Show me your proof and I will publish it on the website for the whole world to see. But make sure it's "proof."

Not so true Alan. Get enough hands in any test and you'll have something close to "proof".

Close to proof? No. We all want to see the proof. This is not like being a little bit pregnant.

[a2a3dseddie]

Alan / Rob,

What are you referring to when you mention "fifth card flipover %"?

[Rob.Singer]

Alan / Rob,

What are you referring to when you mention "fifth card flipover %"?

The so-called "5th card" is the 5th dealt card when dealt two pair, four to a flush or straight or Royal or SF. Many many people were bringing to my attention that when they held 4 cards, so often the draw produced the same card/different suit from what was discarded. After exhausting and somewhat expensive and risky research, I concluded that while the normal "flipover" to the same value card was mathematically around 6% of the time, on the machines I've tested for over a billion hands, the rate is double that at a minimum. I've never put in the additional time and expense to truly determine if this is detrimental or even favorable (in the case of royals & SF's) to the player.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, you have never presented any proof. Show me your proof and I will publish it on the website for the whole world to see. But make sure it's "proof."



Close to proof? No. We all want to see the proof. This is not like being a little bit pregnant.

Alan, exactly how can anyone present proof to anyone else of a multi-visit 45000 hand trial at a casino unless they go together? And the reason I said "close to proof" is because that many hands, to me, only gave me direction to do a much more thorough study.

You've already said you don't consider a billion hand test on a single machine as proof that anything's out of whack. Are you like Obama--do you need to be smacked upside the head with TRILLIONS of hands before it finally gets thru? So please tell me exactly what will you need to do a story on it?

[a2a3dseddie]

The so-called "5th card" is the 5th dealt card when dealt two pair, four to a flush or straight or Royal or SF. Many many people were bringing to my attention that when they held 4 cards, so often the draw produced the same card/different suit from what was discarded. After exhausting and somewhat expensive and risky research, I concluded that while the normal "flipover" to the same value card was mathematically around 6% of the time, on the machines I've tested for over a billion hands, the rate is double that at a minimum. I've never put in the additional time and expense to truly determine if this is detrimental or even favorable (in the case of royals & SF's) to the player.

So is this 5th card flipover "fix" or "gaff" just on the machine you tested, or do you think it applies to all VP machines? If it applies to all (or a majority) of VP machines, how did you manage to overcome this and win $1 million?

[Rob.Singer]

So is this 5th card flipover "fix" or "gaff" just on the machine you tested, or do you think it applies to all VP machines? If it applies to all (or a majority) of VP machines, how did you manage to overcome this and win $1 million?

I believe it's something that may be encoded into every IGT machine--legally of course. The reason is because of the machine I had for testing of course, and when I played those 45000 hands at the South Point I did so on a variety of machines. As far as me seemingly overcoming this as I consistently won (and as you may see from my posted pictures here, still do) thru the years, remember I said that I have not determined if this programming helps or hurts the player....but why would a manufacturer do anything that helps people win.

To me this really makes near perfect sense. In my corporate America days I've had numerous software engineers, ie, programmers, work for me and they are a quirky bunch. For the most part they're loners who do amazing work, but spend an overabundance of time doing their own little private things in their own little corners. Once a job was finished they used to tell us to "look for their signature" which even in DoD work showed up in the bowels of the job but only when you looked for it. Like an artist painting in his or her own little secret within their masterpiece. The same seems true with the machine programmers. And I like to think that the few royals I've received over the years by throwing the fifth card out from the dealt straight, was in fact due to the work of one of these silent geeks.

[Alan Mendelson]

Finally, Rob has said something that is both reasonable and something which would actually permit a test of his theory and allegations that video poker games are not truly random. In his discussion about fifth card flipovers above he wrote:

I believe it's something that may be encoded into every IGT machine--legally of course.

Well, Rob, if it's encoded then the test and the proof would be in the examination of the RNG and you don't have the RNG. You tested it and then you returned the machine. That was your blunder.

Now, if you really believe that this is something that is encoded then why don't you (now that you are a Nevada resident) go to any of the various slot machine stores in Nevada and buy yourself another VP machine and test the RNG. Don't test 45-thousand hands -- but examine the RNG.

I've been telling you this for a couple of years now. Your play in a casino, your records and print outs of hands, mean nothing. The proof would be showing how an RNG is programmed.

Now, I am not an expert on RNGs or video poker electronics. So tell me this: is there a reason why you can't buy a VP machine, remove the RNG and have it tested??