Rigged machines, programmed cold cycles, and server based technology??

[Alan Mendelson]

I think this deserves its own thread. The technology of slot machines and video poker has certainly changed. Slots, which were just controlled by gears and spinning wheels are now controlled by computers and "virtual wheels" which cannot be seen but exist only in "code."

Video poker games which are supposed to be based on a random draw of 52/53 cards have been alleged to be not truly random at all.

And now, there is server based technology which allows casino managers to change the games they offer on the "boxes" that players sit at.

In another thread Rob Singer discussed his feelings about video poker not being truly random, and others have indicated some doubt that the machines are truly random, which brought up an additional question about cold machines and "cold casinos."

There IS something to changing casinos and not just machines when your machine enters a cold cycle. It could be something's going on casino-wide inside the place, but I have no info on that and it's likely not probable.

I really hope that the conspiracy theory about rigged, programmed cold cycles hasn't led to the allegation that casino managers can push a magic button in the back room to make all the slots turn cold? Although that is an actual fear that many have with the introduction of server-based slots and video poker. I wonder, Rob, if you have any particular thoughts about the new server-based technology?

Indeed, different casinos can have different pay tables and pay backs on their games. That is a real issue. But are casinos tricking patrons by pushing the "stop paying" button?

[Rob.Singer]

HUH? The machines are not rigged when we're talking about pre-programmed cycles!

You mean you REALLY want to talk about magic buttons and you do not want to take me up on my offer that'll without a doubt make you a perennial winner?

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I consider anything that is pre-programmed such as a pre programmed cycle to be rigged.

I also think that players who stick to your win/goal method by itself can see a dramatic change in their win/loss performance. Since I adopted that single part of your strategy I have personally had a dramatic change in my net results. I also think there is a lot of value in following certain of your "special plays." Some of which I don't utilize because I don't play those games -- but for the Bonus (also Aces and Faces) a few of your special plays have value. And in Triple Double Bonus your special play on holding trip-Aces and dropping a kicker is a strategy I can't dispute even though the "math guys" do.

Personally, I don't think there are magic buttons. I do not fear playing on server based machines. Already I've been sent emails telling me about the danger of server based technology -- and I think the fear comes from a misunderstanding.

But tell me your feelings about it, Rob?

[Rob.Singer]

Aria has a server based system, which allows them to control anything they choose to control on the vp machines via fibre optics, and from a central location. I have no idea what they do with all that control.

If you still believe machines aren't allowed to have pre-programmed cycles, then you haven't listened and wanted to learn from what I said.

So are you still more willing to go on wasting your time at Harrah's machines losing, or has it gotten thru to you yet that you don't have to continue suffering thru that kind of misery?

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I am very familiar with what server based technology is. They can change the games on the "boxes" by pushing buttons. They can change denominations. They can even change pay tables on video poker... but they can't program the machines to stop paying.

Now, if you have information to the contrary, that some casino has used server based technology to cheat customers, please present your proof.

[Rob.Singer]

Aside from ducking that which I asked you yet again....I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said about server based control. I gave you info on the only casino I know of that uses it 100%. I'm going to the Cosmopolitan soon to see if they also utilize it. What they do with that technology I have no idea. But it has nothing to do with the pre-programmed cycles. What you're trying to do is obfuscate the actual issue, and that means you're truly torn over it.

I think we're finally getting somewhere, that is, if you can finally answer the question.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob Im not torn over anything.

I dont think there are any secret handshake deals that allow the casinos or machine makers to have rigged machines.

And since I can't subscribe to your belief that the games are programmed or rigged to have cold cycles, I can't continue your discussion about how to play such rigged or programmed machines.

[Rob.Singer]

Since you keep ducking the question, you'll most likely keep needlessly lining Harrah's pockets, per your choice.
For a journalist, you don't seem to know what investigative journalism is all about.

[slingshot]

Having asked the question, but not exactly casino-wise to terminology-I would like to take a stab at my understanding. The pre-programmed cycles occur at different stages according to win-loss percentages and the hold. For instance, one visit while playing a full 3 hours (I know-WAY too long) without ANY machine producing anything but SCARES, (I played slots, video poker, even lowered myself to the penny machines), all of a sudden it was obvious the whole gamut of machines came alive as if awakened from a slumber. I was able to retrieve my losses, thankfully, and got out of there mentally worn and weary.

[Alan Mendelson]

Since you keep ducking the question, you'll most likely keep needlessly lining Harrah's pockets, per your choice.
For a journalist, you don't seem to know what investigative journalism is all about.

Rob, Rob, Rob. I play video poker using the best knowledge and best information I have available. Surprise Rob -- some of that information comes from YOU.

I do not consider your information about programmed cold cycles to be good information or valid. But I am open to the idea if you can show me the proof. Investigative journalism requires proof.

I used proof when I helped to send the mechanics of a mortgage banking scheme to prison. I used proof when I investigated the oil industry which prompted the state of New York to rewrite consumer protection laws for the gasoline business.

I used proof of crimes (I created the term "drive by mortgage fraud") when I testified before the California legislature about the need to change the laws for mortgages and deeds in the state.

Show me your PROOF. Don't tell me you spoke to a programmer. Because for every programmer you say you have spoken to who says there are programmed cold cycles, I guarantee you I can find a dozen experts who say it's not true.

Because you don't have absolute proof you would not win a criminal case. And without a preponderance of evidence you could not win a civil case.

I am perplexed by this question about proving the existence of "programmed cold cycles." Why is this such a big issue for you? When the issue of non-random machines was brought up before you said you still played them. And now?

[Rob.Singer]

You're confusing the use of investigative journalism as needing to be linked with some sort of illegal activity. My effort was put towards uncovering the part of video poker machine operation that's not allowed to be publicized for the good of the casino industry as well as the state tax accounts. You just keep ignoring the facts about government contracts that you obviously know little about--perhaps out of fear?--yet you do not choose to be educated on them, while somehow preferring to go happily along as you transfer more and more money from your account to Caesar's. To you, it's easier to poke fun at this by saying its got something to do with a secret handshake of some type. And why are you trying to confuse the issue with civil or criminal inferences? Tht's why I say, you seem not to have understood most of what I'm trying to teach you about video poker. This is confirmed by the fact that you don't even want to comment on my offer to teach you my play strategy for free. It's as if you enjoy pain!

Your last sentence doesn't make sense enough for me to answer. I've proven the existence of pre-programmed cycles to myself thru playing, talking to the programmer, and via testing a machine. How can that not do anything for you? If I were playing and always losing you can be sure I'd try anything out there to try to improve my game. It has to be that you keep on claiming the whole process has to be illegal, which in turn only shows me how you continually want to ignore that which I've been telling you about how it is NOT illegal.

I play the machines & I've played the machines because I've also said I use this knowledge to my advantage. Who wouldn't once they understood it?

You keep making silly statements. I talked to and was informed by a machine programmer. So you can get 10 experts to tell you differently? I can get a hundred. So what. None of them have done the research I have. No wonder you don't understand these things. You believe 10 "experts" know more about what goes into a machine code than one machine programmer. Explain how that makes sense.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob: reporting and journalism are based on facts. Facts need proof. Provide your proof.

[Rob.Singer]

How about you provide YOUR proof that the machines are random. Simply saying you believe what's on the Internet from entities that earn their business livelihood from it and what 10 so-called experts proclaim is no more proof than what a phony like arci claims when he says an AP's proof of winning is because the math theoretically says it is so.

Responsible journalism goes both ways.

[Alan Mendelson]

How about you provide YOUR proof that the machines are random. Simply saying you believe what's on the Internet from entities that earn their business livelihood from it and what 10 so-called experts proclaim is no more proof than what a phony like arci claims when he says an AP's proof of winning is because the math theoretically says it is so.

Responsible journalism goes both ways.

Rob, this statement of yours is made from a position of weakness. It is you who is making the challenge. So far you have presented ZERO proof or evidence. And your own VP machine experiments in your own home don't qualify. And that's the way it is.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, this statement of yours is made from a position of weakness. It is you who is making the challenge. So far you have presented ZERO proof or evidence. And your own VP machine experiments in your own home don't qualify. And that's the way it is.

Challenge? I asked you to provide proof of that which you believe in, which you obviously can't do, after clearly telling you confidential agreements cannot be opened for public viewing, aka "my proof" in your terminology. That's why I went on a mission to prove it to myself. With this information, I'll help those who ask.

BTW, what exactly would constitute proof to you? If I showed you the confidential agreement, you'd say it was false. If the Gaming Commission told you to your face, you'd tell them it was a conspiracy. All in the name of allowing you to continue getting your video poker machine fixes without interruption and without the disruption of having to work a little harder while you're playing....and, as you've said, losing. And you really wonder why you're so far behind the royal cycle? I'm willing to make an educated guess that when you're losing at a machine, you're just too stubborn to get up and move because you want as little time as possible to pass while waiting to experience that next jolt of intermittent satisfaction received from a winning hand--probably trying to teach that thing a lesson as it drains your account.

To this, I shake my head. I can't talk about this any more because your confusion just doesn't make sense to someone like me. If you refuse the free training I've offered to make you a better player, I have this final bit of advice: Please stay away from the machines.

[slingshot]

I don't understand the argumentative part of this thread. I've read Rob for the past couple of years and as I understand the regulations the preprogrammed cycles adhere to the regulation that requires the programming to fall within the parameters of randomness. Thus, it's almost like saying the same thing. The nice thing is that the programmers put it in cycles that are detectable to some degree,

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't understand the argumentative part of this thread. I've read Rob for the past couple of years and as I understand the regulations the preprogrammed cycles adhere to the regulation that requires the programming to fall within the parameters of randomness. Thus, it's almost like saying the same thing. The nice thing is that the programmers put it in cycles that are detectable to some degree,

I am going to refer to this line from the NGC regulations:

"For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game."

Tell me if you think that allows hot and cold cycles to be programmed into the game of video poker? The way I understand it, what defines random in video poker differs from traditional slot machines.

In video poker random means each of the cards in the virtual deck has an equal chance of being selected by the RNG.

In traditional slots, the RNG must give each pre-programmed combination on the virtual reels to have an equal chance of being selected. But in traditional slots the choices for the RNG might restrict the number of winners.

For example, let's use W for winner and L for loser on a three reel slot. The RNG must give each of the following five combinations an equal chance of being selected:

L L L
L L L
L L L
W W W
L L L

So, while the definition of "random" is that all five combinations have an equal chance in slots of being selected, only one out of the five combinations is a winner.

In video poker, starting hands and ending hands are not pre-determined. Each and every one of the five cards in the starting hand is selected at random, and each of the replacement cards is selected at random. This is why the chance of being dealt a royal is 1/629,740.

Now, if I'm wrong, explain it to me.

[Alan Mendelson]

BTW, what exactly would constitute proof to you? If I showed you the confidential agreement, you'd say it was false.

Rob, show your evidence. Show your proof. Show your research. In other words, show how you came to your conclusions. That is what an investigator does. You're telling us that you reached a conclusion, you're telling us what your conclusion is, but what information do you have to back it up except for:

A. A programmer told you
B. You studied a video poker machine in your home
C. You have inside knowledge of government contracts and secret agreements

This is a free forum. You can post on this forum photos and videos. Be my guest.

Rob, did you ever continue your discussion with The Wizard of Odds about a similar subject: http://wizardofodds.com/blog/chat-with-rob-singer/

[slingshot]

OK. On a home computer where no hold is figured in, I would agree. But if a casino has the right to a certain hold, wouldn't there HAVE to be a program that allowed this YET by programming come within the parameters of randomness? And can you say that true randomness would accomplish the same?

[Alan Mendelson]

OK. On a home computer where no hold is figured in, I would agree. But if a casino has the right to a certain hold, wouldn't there HAVE to be a program that allowed this YET by programming come within the parameters of randomness? And can you say that true randomness would accomplish the same?

You are putting too much emphasis on the concept of a "casino hold." Think of it this way:

Slot machines are strictly a game of chance and the regulators say the slot machines must return a minimum percentage of money played over the long term. This is a form of consumer protection for the masses. It will not protect you as an individual player.

Video poker has a different consumer protection rule. That rule is that the game must deal and draw on all cards equally and without prejudice. In other words, no stacking the deck, or preventing Aces from being drawn from the virtual deck. I am sure that video poker machines must also comply with the rule for holds and paybacks which is why you don't see 3/2 jacks or better, or 3/2 bonus, or 4/3 double double bonus. I am sure the NGC would not approve such poor pay tables.

You know, this whole discussion about "holds" and "paybacks" on slots is strictly based on long term theoreticals. And I agree 100% with Rob that you and I will never see the long term. Some of us will win more than the "long term" says we should, and some of us will lose more. I was once dealt a royal on a 50-play machine. As much as I moan and groan about a lack of royals, I'm probably way ahead of the number of theoretical royals I should have after about ten years of playing video poker because of that single instance of getting 50 simultaneous royals.