LUCK is almost EVERYTHING in Video Poker

[Rob.Singer]

OK, but I don't think which cards to hold is much more than simple common sense. Therefore, I give skill no more than a 5% cut. Either way, the Dancer definition of vp being 95% skill with some obscure caveat of the player needing to be immersed somewhere within the "long term" to be valid--or at least that USED to be his story--was all predicated on his need to sell books, strategy cards, his services, etc. If he told the obvious truth about this, his sales would suffer.

[arcimede$]

I wonder if we could return to this thread in a civilized manner? Is there any way to define how much of video poker play is "luck" or is there no way to quantify it?

Since I AM a math guy let me help you out.

On any given hand in a random deal you could claim it is 100% luck. After all you will get 1 out of 2.6 million possible hands. And, since gambling is composed of individual hands then you could claim by induction that the game is 100% luck.

So, no need to worry about any system since none of it makes any difference.

Sound reasonable? Well, it's 100% BS. Just like what Singer spews. And, I'm not going to correct it for you because you've ignored all the factual information provided in the past. So, wallow around in your playground like a couple of pigs in a mud pen. That's exactly what you look like.

[redietz]

It seems to be the reasonable way to check "luck" is simply to see what happens first when people don't hold anything and just draw all new cards or, conversely, hold one, two, three, four, or all cards randomly and then draw. In the first case, depending on game, I think the returns range from 30 to 50%. So a monkey playing the game could approach 50% return. Then you could assign various levels of "expertise" to the "player," so that he gets more and more smart and then check the returns of these levels of expertise.

Now, unfortunately for the Singer method, what happens is that the returns for these increasingly expert players follows the path of strategy cards from beginner to expert. The more one adheres to AP play, the higher the return.

In summary, it would appear that random luck yields a return below 50%, and that increasing one's skill level boosts the return to approach the optimal return for the game. Using progression-jumping and special plays, while playing otherwise AP style, doesn't have much effect, other than to keep folks entertained who would otherwise get bored. So maybe I've discovered a use for the "Singer Strategies." They may balance their inherent losses by forcing people to pay attention. This has two good side effects -- people pay attention and make fewer mistakes (maybe), and they may get tired faster from paying so much attention, so they quit playing negative games after fewer hands.

[regnis]

It seems to be the reasonable way to check "luck" is simply to see what happens first when people don't hold anything and just draw all new cards or, conversely, hold one, two, three, four, or all cards randomly and then draw. In the first case, depending on game, I think the returns range from 30 to 50%. So a monkey playing the game could approach 50% return. Then you could assign various levels of "expertise" to the "player," so that he gets more and more smart and then check the returns of these levels of expertise.

Now, unfortunately for the Singer method, what happens is that the returns for these increasingly expert players follows the path of strategy cards from beginner to expert. The more one adheres to AP play, the higher the return.

In summary, it would appear that random luck yields a return below 50%, and that increasing one's skill level boosts the return to approach the optimal return for the game. Using progression-jumping and special plays, while playing otherwise AP style, doesn't have much effect, other than to keep folks entertained who would otherwise get bored. So maybe I've discovered a use for the "Singer Strategies." They may balance their inherent losses by forcing people to pay attention. This has two good side effects -- people pay attention and make fewer mistakes (maybe), and they may get tired faster from paying so much attention, so they quit playing negative games after fewer hands.

These kind of sensible well thought out answers will not be tolerated Red!!

[arcimede$]

The return of a redraw is calculated in all the software tutors. It is generally between 25-30%. In this case it might be a little worse since you would be throwing away better cards than you would playing normally.

[quahaug]

It seems to be the reasonable way to check "luck" is simply to see what happens first when people don't hold anything and just draw all new cards or, conversely, hold one, two, three, four, or all cards randomly and then draw. In the first case, depending on game, I think the returns range from 30 to 50%. So a monkey playing the game could approach 50% return. Then you could assign various levels of "expertise" to the "player," so that he gets more and more smart and then check the returns of these levels of expertise.

Now, unfortunately for the Singer method, what happens is that the returns for these increasingly expert players follows the path of strategy cards from beginner to expert. The more one adheres to AP play, the higher the return.
In summary, it would appear that random luck yields a return below 50%, and that increasing one's skill level boosts the return to approach the optimal return for the game. Using progression-jumping and special plays, while playing otherwise AP style, doesn't have much effect, other than to keep folks entertained who would otherwise get bored. So maybe I've discovered a use for the "Singer Strategies." They may balance their inherent losses by forcing people to pay attention. This has two good side effects -- people pay attention and make fewer mistakes (maybe), and they may get tired faster from paying so much attention, so they quit playing negative games after fewer hands.

Wouldn't it make sense to hold all cards on a winning deal and swipe any other hand? That would simulate a slot machine best.

[Rob.Singer]

Since I AM a math guy let me help you out.

On any given hand in a random deal you could claim it is 100% luck. After all you will get 1 out of 2.6 million possible hands. And, since gambling is composed of individual hands then you could claim by induction that the game is 100% luck.

So, no need to worry about any system since none of it makes any difference.

Sound reasonable? Well, it's 100% BS. Just like what Singer spews. And, I'm not going to correct it for you because you've ignored all the factual information provided in the past. So, wallow around in your playground like a couple of pigs in a mud pen. That's exactly what you look like.

Hmmm....sounds like someone has some more problems going on again up there

[Will Player]

All of the words around this issue tend to get away from the point. a "Random Number Generator", nowhere, actually generates a random number. The whole idea of the "random" number is not real. Oddly enough, the whole casino approved AP strategy is built around this false notion. It is not difficult to take advantage of non-randomness by building a system of play and variant bets (changing denominations) when your system detects favorable conditions. The problem is most people have been conditioned not to think. They look to the websites, books and experts (adult people) for all of the answers. The only thing I needed to understand was the architecture and behavior of a device called a "random number generator" inside a computer. I took programming classes, have a close family member who designed integrated circuits (read" processors, memory and other computer internal parts) as a PhD., and exhausted this issue from a technical standpoint. Then, I developed a system, programmed it into excel (where there also exist these pseudo random number generators) and adjusted my system until i came out ahead. I then went to the casinos and applied the system until I could actually do it in practice (this took years and was still is the challenge). I've come out ahead.

Am I think only person who thinks for themselves? I mean, the whole idea that a "random number generator" isn't random should be a HUGE light bulb in every intelligent machine player's mind. At this moment, they should question every idea of advantage play and find a rational option. It's my experience from reading this site and others that VERY FEW people actually use this valuable information to create a system that makes money over time. I will say this, even when you devise a profitable system, that's not the whole thing. Applying that systems, by the rules, in the casino environment is the other half of the battle. Casinos have two real advantages in the mainstream : 1. promoting the fallacy that the machines are random (they might not even know this themselves) and 2. the design of the casino itself and how it's designed to affect your behavior (so it would be very difficult to follow even a working system to take money away from said casino). These are the two main ideas that a successful gambler explores. Unsuccessful gamblers understand these concepts but are unwilling to explore the solutions to these two main casino created advantages.

[Vegas_lover]

All of the words around this issue tend to get away from the point. a "Random Number Generator", nowhere, actually generates a random number. The whole idea of the "random" number is not real. Oddly enough, the whole casino approved AP strategy is built around this false notion. It is not difficult to take advantage of non-randomness by building a system of play and variant bets (changing denominations) when your system detects favorable conditions. The problem is most people have been conditioned not to think. They look to the websites, books and experts (adult people) for all of the answers. The only thing I needed to understand was the architecture and behavior of a device called a "random number generator" inside a computer. I took programming classes, have a close family member who designed integrated circuits (read" processors, memory and other computer internal parts) as a PhD., and exhausted this issue from a technical standpoint. Then, I developed a system, programmed it into excel (where there also exist these pseudo random number generators) and adjusted my system until i came out ahead. I then went to the casinos and applied the system until I could actually do it in practice (this took years and was still is the challenge). I've come out ahead.

Am I think only person who thinks for themselves? I mean, the whole idea that a "random number generator" isn't random should be a HUGE light bulb in every intelligent machine player's mind. At this moment, they should question every idea of advantage play and find a rational option. It's my experience from reading this site and others that VERY FEW people actually use this valuable information to create a system that makes money over time. I will say this, even when you devise a profitable system, that's not the whole thing. Applying that systems, by the rules, in the casino environment is the other half of the battle. Casinos have two real advantages in the mainstream : 1. promoting the fallacy that the machines are random (they might not even know this themselves) and 2. the design of the casino itself and how it's designed to affect your behavior (so it would be very difficult to follow even a working system to take money away from said casino). These are the two main ideas that a successful gambler explores. Unsuccessful gamblers understand these concepts but are unwilling to explore the solutions to these two main casino created advantages.

red flag, red flag, red flag. Here we have a topic that hasn't been touched in over 6 months. Out of nowhere comes a member who has two posts, has been a member for over a year, humoring us with an extremely vague post about how obvious it is random games are not random, supporting aspects of Singer's strategy. By all means, carry on

[slingshot]

Will, all I have to say is welcome and on the perchance you are an entirely different person than the above accuser=carry on. FWIW, I have been having quite a bit of luck with sweeps on hands that were not quite the norm and other actions you have posted about. While Rob may not be the most popular person, I have been motivated more to do my own thinking by his posts. It never hurts to have more similar thinking.

[Alan Mendelson]

All of the words around this issue tend to get away from the point. a "Random Number Generator", nowhere, actually generates a random number. The whole idea of the "random" number is not real.

Thanks for being a member and for your post. Essentially, what you are saying is that RNGs are not random. If they are not random, how do you know and what is your proof? If you have it, please provide it. If you are making the allegation that the machines are not truly random but you cannot back up your claim all I can say is that we fought that war before.

I am always interested in seeing new information and proof to substantiate such claims and reports. Thank you.

[regnis]

Will--some of us believe that the RNG is not actually random. However, you seem to be certain of that. Please provide any proof that you may have. And if you do have proof that it is not random, then please also discuss how we can take advantage of that to profit.

Many assertions have been made in this forum. But as Alan says, show us the proof. Not just anecdotal--but actual proof.

[slingshot]

ALL I want is for someone to tell me, with a plausible reason, why I can go,say, on a Tuesday morning and play 4 hours and NEVER hit a quad on ANY game and then go on a Thursday and hit 7-8.

[Vegas_lover]

ALL I want is for someone to tell me, with a plausible reason, why I can go,say, on a Tuesday morning and play 4 hours and NEVER hit a quad on ANY game and then go on a Thursday and hit 7-8.

Simple: variance

[slingshot]

Simple: variance

B-b-but you guys told me they were random!

[Vegas_lover]

B-b-but you guys told me they were random!

B-b-but nobody said variance undermines randomness.

[regnis]

If you don't believe in the RNG, then you probably believe that variance is programmed. If you believe in the RNG, then that variance that Sling is questioning is probably statistically very normal.

I have a friend who swears the games are fixed because if he plays Bonus, he never gets 2 pair. As soon as he switches to DDB, he gets 2 pair constantly. So his eyeball test is telling him the game is not random. The eyeball test---not exactly scientific but it does make you wonder sometimes.

PROOF!!!!!!! We'll never know for sure.

[slingshot]

If you don't believe in the RNG, then you probably believe that variance is programmed. If you believe in the RNG, then that variance that Sling is questioning is probably statistically very normal.

I have a friend who swears the games are fixed because if he plays Bonus, he never gets 2 pair. As soon as he switches to DDB, he gets 2 pair constantly. So his eyeball test is telling him the game is not random. The eyeball test---not exactly scientific but it does make you wonder sometimes.

PROOF!!!!!!! We'll never know for sure.

I'll even add one further-after 2 hours of this nonsense, my wife and I went to playing the penny slots for her entertainment at the lowest bets possible and NOTHING happened on the slots for another hour. Even the so-called bonus rounds would NOT give a payout much more than the original bet on the particular hand. Finally, after another hour, we started winning a bunch of $5 winners, cashing out and actually got back most of our outlay and ONE machine in the whole room gave us a good hit and we left winners. We were exhausted, chilled from the a/c, smelly, and wondering if it was worth it.

[redietz]

I want to chime in with a caveat about random number generators. After people who claimed paranormal abilities to predict cards and so on were debunked, paranormal investigators retreated to the concept that people could influence random number generators or could predict what random number generators would generate. Now they were dealing with hundreds of thousands of trials done quickly via machines. And lo and behold -- some anomalies occurred. I actually visited one such laboratory.

So investigators were confronted with either finding flaws with the RNG's, which were probably more sophisticated than video poker RNG's, or concluding that paranormal abilities on some quantum level existed. For the most part, they chose the latter. Debunkers went after their results by attacking the RNG's.

My point is that the nature of the alleged randomness of various RNG's has been debated for decades. It's not some cut-and-dried, we-know-this-for-a-fact conclusion that the RNG's used in video poker play are flawless.

It's easy to say, "Yeah, we all know RNG's work." That doesn't make it so.

And, if you want to take the pro-paranormal side, one can make the case that those studies indicated that individuals could either (1) influence RNG's or (2) somehow know what the RNG's were going to do. You had to choose one or the other, if the math was correct -- either something was wrong with the RNG's or people could affect them.

[slingshot]

I want to chime in with a caveat about random number generators. After people who claimed paranormal abilities to predict cards and so on were debunked, paranormal investigators retreated to the concept that people could influence random number generators or could predict what random number generators would generate. Now they were dealing with hundreds of thousands of trials done quickly via machines. And lo and behold -- some anomalies occurred. I actually visited one such laboratory.

So investigators were confronted with either finding flaws with the RNG's, which were probably more sophisticated than video poker RNG's, or concluding that paranormal abilities on some quantum level existed. For the most part, they chose the latter. Debunkers went after their results by attacking the RNG's.

My point is that the nature of the alleged randomness of various RNG's has been debated for decades. It's not some cut-and-dried, we-know-this-for-a-fact conclusion that the RNG's used in video poker play are flawless.

It's easy to say, "Yeah, we all know RNG's work." That doesn't make it so.

And, if you want to take the pro-paranormal side, one can make the case that those studies indicated that individuals could either (1) influence RNG's or (2) somehow know what the RNG's were going to do. You had to choose one or the other, if the math was correct -- either something was wrong with the RNG's or people could affect them.

My solution to the problem has been to get even $25 and get the heck outta there on the rough days and be thankful. It's boring, unpleasant, and just plain a waste of time to hope for better on those days.