The fifth card flip over was tested by several folks. Anyone can test it for themselves. It has been proven to be a lie.
The fifth card flip over was tested by several folks. Anyone can test it for themselves. It has been proven to be a lie.
why call it a lie? How about an anomaly? We don't have the data, we don't have the computer. We all have experienced strange things. I think it is now nothing more than a point of conversation, and I am happy to leave it at that. In fact, we should leave it at that unless anyone else has not only the data but also the VP machine to prove it.
I'm primarily curious as to why Shackleford didn't take Rob on regarding Rob's wager of coming out 25K ahead over 10 sessions. I'm stunned, frankly. Or why wouldn't the crew on that site pool their resources and do it? The parameters of the wager were laid out and clear. I understand passing on the 7 of 10 session bet, because odds were a tad against them, but why pass on the wager regarding Rob being ahead 25K overall?
Dan, I've been a card-carrying member of the skeptical movement for 35 years. I follow the Randi challenge. I attend the challenges when I can. That's one reason I was appalled at the answers/responses on that forum. They were data-less, nose-in-the-air groupthink and without kahunas, featuring all the negatives of the skeptic movement and none of its strengths. And when money was mentioned, they scurried like lemmings.
I think Rob will win those challenges. There was also the LVA challenge. When you are able to move to high denominations and have the bankroll then winning isn't the problem that the math guys claim. Yes we can and do hit big payoffs on negative games and that's how Rob wins. You don't have to be on a positive expectation game to win.
Would someone be so kind to refresh me on the 5th card flip over theory. I am not sure I am clear on what is being suggested.
I just find it funny that all the people that say Rob's system can't work, because of the math, are afraid to make the wager because they believe he can win 7 of 10 or whatever the various numbers are. And then even with the 25,000 parameter, no one would put up.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As Red so correctly stated, while Rob may not have evidence of the 5th card flipover, the non-randomness, the hot and cold cycles, etc., where is any actual evidence that the chip is random and that these anomalies do not exist. Just because the regs say that every deal has to be a 52 card blah blah blah, does not make it true.
What player hasn't used the eyeball test to question randomness. What player hasn't questioned the lack of success on the 4 card flush hold. I guess since we continue to play we must be accepting that they are random, but who knows.
Arci likes to call it a lie because what other choice does he have. Only problem is, it makes him look stupid and hypocritical on two fronts. First, the two critics who sat with me both tested a few hundred hands. Arci knows he looks dumb with such a proclamation, and even an online poker dufus like dandy can't bring himself to say something with no basis in fact like that. And even though others here have explained how there is no true method of proving anything, these clowns choose to show unabated belief in the Internet as gospel truth.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, you know the only way I could have approached the NGC was the,way I did--after I returned the machine. I wasn't supposed to have it, thus the reports that NGC could well have followed up on if it was in their and the gaming industry's best interest in doing so. Ditto for Wizard, and I've always since believed he has some sort of consulting status with them or the machine manufacturers because of his refusal to do what he says he'll do in writing on his site.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-22-2013 at 09:55 AM.
Rob, you could have contacted 60 Minutes first. You could have contacted the LA Times or the NY Times or the Washington Post. Why go to the court of last resort first? What really surprised me is that you doubted they would give you a fair hearing yet you did go to them first.
And please don't get me started about returning the machine. But do answer this question:
Did you steal the machine? No, it was lent to you, wasn't it? I don't know what the laws are in Arizona about having modern machines (in Calif they must be 25 years old or older) but you could have put it in your car and stuck it in a storage locker in Nevada until third party professionals got a chance to examine it.
And if you tell us you absolutely had not other choice than to return the machine after finding the "problem" then why did you even bother finding the problem?
Rob you had the Holy Grail in your hands and you let it slip through your fingers. However if you suspect this was not an anomaly then why don't you got to IGT and buy a machine? They have a store in Reno where they will sell you one.
Nobody has commented on what to me was the most troubling aspect of the thread over at Shackleford's forum -- namely the serious claim that a few lines of inserted code could be relatively well hidden and would render a machine non-random. That was what they were claiming Rob could/would do, and it was taken seriously and not shouted down. Now if that's the case, why is Rob the only person motivated to do that?
Actually, Alan, if you loosen up your perceptions a little, the pitch can be made that The Holy Grail is proof that the machines are random. Really, do you have data? Do you have any proof whatsoever? Or do you have ballpark estimates, personal observation, and assumptions?
Alan, the machine I had for 3 months was removed from Aliante Station's (and I'm not sure it's still called that) inventory of initial back-up machines. I paid someone to get it to me and it most certainly was not on the up & up. Going to 60 minutes after being shunned by the NGC would have almost certainly been a great big problem for me....and others possibly. I got it back to my "supplier" right when I promised to. It went into service soon afterwards, and because I have the machine serial# I checked at Aliante, and I found it operating on the floor when we stayed in Pahrump. I expected the inspectors from NGC or somewhere to discover that the machine had been operating before a single bet had been made on it, but as even more proof that those people simply rubber stamp just about everything they're responsible for in order to keep the revenues flowing, nothing happened.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-22-2013 at 10:31 PM.
So now you tell us that this machine wasn't a machine in regular use. Perhaps it was removed from the floor because of an irregularity or problem. Did you test a faulty machine Rob?Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
The more you tell us, the more your research stinks.
It was obviously a lie because the numbers he claimed were impossible. BTW, it wasn't just on his machine. He claimed to have played regular penny and nickel machines in casinos and got similar results.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The claim was that hands where you hold 4 cards, like 2 pair, 4 to a straight or flush, etc. would have the drawn card match the card tossed, that is, the same rank, around 40% of the time. The number we should see is 3/47 or between 6-7%.Originally Posted by woodman22
Nothing is impossible if the RNG is random. You should rephrase that. Maybe implausible would better make your point.Originally Posted by arcimede$
That's only because you're reading comprehension ability has apparently deteriorated somewhat. How many times have I written that I had a NEW machine? As in, as my post said, never yet having had a bet placed on it.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-23-2013 at 11:45 AM.
As usual, another day--another arci lie. My, my, my....things may not be going so well in the household up north todayOriginally Posted by arcimede$
Woodman, you deserve the truth since you took the time to ask the question. The machine I had for testing the 5th card flipover issue, ran about a billion hands. And while in totally random operation the mathematical rate should have been just over 6%, that machine spit out flipovers at almost double--or 12%--expectation. The relatively few hands I actually tested on low denomination machines inside casinos ran anywhere from 1% to 40%. Of course, Mr. "Only the facts" arci chose to apply the highest rate I've ever experienced in testing to every test. Now would you say the dufus has an agenda, or personal problems....or both!
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-23-2013 at 11:46 AM.
When the odds are less than something like 10^100 I'll go with impossible. IIRC, there aren't that many atoms in the universe.Originally Posted by regnis
And, for those who missed an actual test:
http://forum.videopoker.com/forum/fo...s.asp?TID=2249
Last edited by arcimede$; 08-23-2013 at 07:19 PM.
Singer's own words:Originally Posted by Rob.SingerAs usual, another day--another arci lie. My, my, my....things may not be going so well in the household up north today
Woodman, you deserve the truth since you took the time to ask the question. The machine I had for testing the 5th card flipover issue, ran about a billion hands. And while in totally random operation the mathematical rate should have been just over 6%, that machine spit out flipovers at almost double--or 12%--expectation. The relatively few hands I actually tested on low denomination machines inside casinos ran anywhere from 1% to 40%. Of course, Mr. "Only the facts" arci chose to apply the highest rate I've ever experienced in testing to every test. Now would you say the dufus has an agenda, or personal problems....or both!
"So I decided to do a serious test on the subject, which I’m 2/3’s the way through with right now. What I’ve found has surprised me but not overwhelmingly so, because I already accept that there's no such thing as a randomly programmed machine – at least in the context that the gurus and other math people want us to believe there is. (BTW—can you just IMAGINE what acknowledging that fact AND TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT IT would do to all that income they receive from a marketing philosophy based on totally random machines?)
At this point in time I’ve played and documented the testing results from 30,000 hands which have yielded about 3500 opportunities, where I play one credit of the smallest denomination I can find in multiple casinos around Nevada. While the math says that the 5th card should flip over just a little over 6% of the time, the actual result is running nearly EIGHT TIMES that! When I first brought this up, the math people were claiming I was just using my own “selective memory” which proved nothing. Then I went out and took the time to document results, so what do they do? They claim I’m, what else, “making it up” of course! Have you ever seen a group of people get more agitated from issues that rattle their little worlds, instead of using all that intellect they claim they have by taking the time to follow up my testing with testing of THEIR OWN?"
Now, let me see ... what is 6 times 8? Would that be 48% based on 30K hands. Add another lie to the endless list of lies from Singer. And then, later on:
"On the machine testing I did, the results were not much different overall than what I’ve seen in my first 30,000 hands. I now stand at 40,000 hands played, 4688 opportunities, with 2211 flip-overs. I’m running at 42.7% and guess what? The math says I should be seeing 6.38% - almost 7 times LESS than what I’m experiencing. What’s even more telling: At home here I’ve been using an auto-shuffler to play a tedious 1000 hands the past few weeks, and my flip-overs are running just about where they should be – at just over 8%! "
BTW, I got most of this information from this thread. Singer is using the alias backsider while pretending he is someone else.
http://forum.videopoker.com/forum/fo...18&KW=flipover
Last edited by arcimede$; 08-23-2013 at 07:33 PM.
So funny....arci is skipping the words from the billion hand test while pretending figures from a comparatively meaningless sampling are proof. But we all know why he's fumbling around doing that as well as making up that there's yet another poster he needs to be me: HE'S STILL TRYING TO CONJURE UP EXCUSES & FACE-SAVING LIES ABOUT WHY HE BACKED OUT OF HIS OWN CHALLENGE ON THE OTHER THREAD!!So he needs more time to try and get out of his trap. We understand, and we only want THE FACTS....YES, JUST THE FACTS. Not a thousand word scramble full of lies and diversions like the one above. JUST THE FACTS!
Sorry my friend....you did it all to yourself again. Nerds--aka, loners--do tend to do that type of thing.
I just went to the link where the backsider was trying to give credence to what my posts on Wizard's forum were about. The most glaring amusement is that the videopoker.com hacks were doing exactly what arci tries to do here but can't get away with it because I'm actually here: they all claim to be math geniuses, yet they choose to focus on sample size results ranging from a few hundred to 45,000 hands, and for some reason they don't want a thing to do with the billion hand test result. Anyone else find this odd or curious? And of course, arci feels a close comfort with these hacks since he's been outed today as being a true lying weasel on his own proposal.
Maybe a visit to the Minn. State Fair this weekend might shake some of the woes??
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 08-23-2013 at 08:23 PM.
A new machine is the same as a machine taken out of service. Perhaps the correct RNG wasn't installed yet? Rob, the only "fair test" would be on many machines in service.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Do you think you could successfully sue a casino for having a machine that is not random that is not in service? The only thing that would matter is if you played on a machine that is not fair.
So again, it doesn't matter if the machine was new and not in service, or old and not in service. You tested a machine that's not in service. There goes your proof, again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote