Increasing denominations anomoly

[Rob.Singer]

In normal play, you will lack conversions -- and you will make some. Saying that a lack of conversions on 1 card draws makes no sense if you are converting hands with 2 or more card draws.

Again, it's not what makes sense about it to you or what your definitions are. You asked me to explain it and I have. I think this would have been much easier if you stayed on track with your original question and didn't have a need to interject your opinions or observations. I expected all that would follow once you understood what I was passing onto you--agree with it or not. A more pertinent point would be that understanding and becoming intimately familiar with this phenomena has been a valuable tool in my consistent vp winning. Rather than telling me you believe in this or that, wouldn't you have an interest in something that could get you onto the other side of the ledger for a change? That's what I've been attempting to do anyway.

I believe redietz understands, and qua made the correct observation as a third party.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, let me see if I understand you now. We are now discussing various things including:

1. programmed, deliberately designed cold cycles.
2. intentionally indicating that the programmed cold cycles start on hands with a one card draw
3. starting the cold cycles after all 100 of the one-card draws have failed to convert

So, to continue this discussion one would have to:

A. Believe there are programmed cold cycles
B. Believe that the programmers use one-card draws as the indicator that cold cycles are coming
C. Believe the "true cold cycles" don't start until after you have 100 one card draws that fail to convert, without a one card draw converting to disrupt the pattern

Is that what you are saying?

And if that is indeed what you are saying, then what is coming with the "true cold cycle" that is about to start? What can a player expect?

[Alan Mendelson]

And as I shake my head, where have I ever said these failed conversions have to occur 100 times....

Rob here is where you said it... in this thread in post #11:

Within about 100 hands, if you find you're not converting the card that'll fill in the four card straight, flush, full house, SF, or RF even once while never getting at least a high pair on any of your sweeps, then you are in a cold cycle,

the key words are you're not converting the card ... even once

You're qualifier even once means it never happens in 100 hands.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry, we had a problem with our Forum and for a few hours our forums were completely down and some of the forums were locked. This forum is now unlocked and back in business. Sorry for the interruption. None of the forums lost any posts and all posts are as they were. Thanks.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob here is where you said it... in this thread in post #11:

Within about 100 hands, if you find you're not converting the card that'll fill in the four card straight, flush, full house, SF, or RF even once while never getting at least a high pair on any of your sweeps, then you are in a cold cycle,

the key words are you're not converting the card ... even once

You're qualifier even once means it never happens in 100 hands.

I've said "within about 100 hands" a dozen times here, and nearly every time I've said that these one card draws may happen only a few times or many times ALONG WITH multiple RAZGUS and winners or losers received in any other manner within those 100 hands overall. IE, a TOTAL of 100 hands are played, and they are not only the non-converted 1-card draws.

Not converting the draw "even once" means it didn't convert in any of the opportunities, which may be several or ten or whatever.
Do you get that?

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, Rob, now that you have clarified that I get a better understanding of your position. But do I believe that machines are programmed to go through cold cycles? No. Do cold cycles happen? Yes. Are cold cycles part of the randomness of the RNG? Unfortunately, yes. Have I gone through cold cycles? Yes. Have I also gone through hot cycles? Yes, and I told you about one just last week.

Last week I had $300 of free play at a casino and when I cashed out I had $6200 after getting quad aces twice, plus one straight flush, and multiple quads playing the variety of 8/5 Bonus called Aces and Faces.

Have I had hot streaks before?

About three years I went to a casino with $400 of free play and left with more than $11,000.

Were there tell tale signs that I was having a hot cycle? You tell me. Are there signs for a hot cycle just as there are signs for a cold cycle?

Edited to add: But above you wrote:

Not converting the draw "even once" means it didn't convert in any of the opportunities, which may be several or ten or whatever.
Do you get that?

Unfortunately what you have here may be nothing more than random events if you don't convert in "several or ten or whatever" number of hands.

But if you told me you didn't convert in a hundred hands, then I would be suspicious of a "fix."

[Rob.Singer]

1. That is correct.
2. "intentionally indicating that the programmed cold cycles start on hands with a one card draw". Incorrect. The cold cycles do not start on hands with a one card draw. Where did you get that from? I'll say it again: If you play about 100 hands in a row and you are dealt several non-converted RAZGUS along with experiencing several non-converted one card draws amongst other winning & losing hands of any other kind, you have entered into an intentionally programmed-in cold cycle.
3. There you go again professing that I said there has to be 100 failed one card draws. Are you doing that on purpose? Here's your assignment, and please don't go selectively looking for incomplete snippets that you can spin to wrongly mean 100 one card draws: READ #2 ABOVE!

You said to continue the discussion, one would have to believe there are programmed-in cold cycles. Incorrect. Right now we are not done with the original question/answer so we cannot continue anything other than making sure you understand it first.

Your B & C revert back to your misunderstanding as noted in 2 & 3 above, so it makes no sense to discuss what you're trying to say/ask until you get that straight first. The one thing you did say correctly is that a one card conversion (happening of course within those overall 100 hands WHICH ARE NOT ALL ONE CARD DRAWS) DOES IN FACT NEGATE THAT YOU ARE ENTERING INTO A COLD CYCLE.

What happens once you know you are in one of these "true cold cycles"? I can't tell you for sure because I'm not stupid enough or stubborn enough to stay at such a machine. However, as I said earlier as told me by the programmer, the cold cycle will go on for as long as it takes for the machine's hold % to safely remain at or over the required minimum--accomplished by computations within that average out what can be expected to occur in the next X amount of hands. In other words, if the minimum hold is 2.5%, then the hold will never go to 2.4% etc.

What will come next is the normal gambler's inability to accept that this actually happens in the machines, because the gambler in all of us does not want to be hassled or bothered into working hard at the machine to look for this phenomena. All the gambler craves is the intermittent satisfaction of winners as fast and as often as possible. Purists will claim "the regulations" do not allow for this, but think about how they've been misled by the industry into believing everything the Gaming Commissions put up on the Internet is all-inclusive for all eyes to see. I trained myself to detect these things long ago, and it's not that difficult but not everyone can do it. They do occur, and although I've never stayed around a machine long enough to witness the impending carnage, Better safe than sorry, and I can honestly say I no longer experienced such gut-wrenching losing streaks--like I've done many times prior--on any machine since learning to leave at the beginning of cold cycles.

[Rob.Singer]

Well, Rob, now that you have clarified that I get a better understanding of your position. But do I believe that machines are programmed to go through cold cycles? No. Do cold cycles happen? Yes. Are cold cycles part of the randomness of the RNG? Unfortunately, yes. Have I gone through cold cycles? Yes. Have I also gone through hot cycles? Yes, and I told you about one just last week.

Last week I had $300 of free play at a casino and when I cashed out I had $6200 after getting quad aces twice, plus one straight flush, and multiple quads playing the variety of 8/5 Bonus called Aces and Faces.

Have I had hot streaks before?

About three years I went to a casino with $400 of free play and left with more than $11,000.

Were there tell tale signs that I was having a hot cycle? You tell me. Are there signs for a hot cycle just as there are signs for a cold cycle?

Edited to add: But above you wrote:

Not converting the draw "even once" means it didn't convert in any of the opportunities, which may be several or ten or whatever.
Do you get that?

Unfortunately what you have here may be nothing more than random events if you don't convert in "several or ten or whatever" number of hands.

But if you told me you didn't convert in a hundred hands, then I would be suspicious of a "fix."

Alan, any machine experiences you've had are the result of either randomness or programmed-in cycles. You have no idea beyond any of that. I think this is why you had such a difficult time comprehending the facts I was giving. You kept trying to explain off what I was saying by coming up with stories of your experiences, and none of this can ever be detected by someone who isn't or has never been aware of the facts behind the cold cycle. Also, read my post above about what the typical reason for not believing this is. These too were told to me by the same person who alerted me on the cycles. You say you never have a winning year. Why in the world would you not want to try to learn to play better, smarter, stronger, or learn how to detect certain things that can help you do all of those things?

BTW--there are also programmed-in hot cycles, which are there but are far less frequent. I've run into some (and no, it has zero to do with getting a royal) but as per my strategy's requirement, once I hit my win goal I stop. Could be the cycle was ended right then or it could be it went on for hundreds or thousands of deals.

[Rob.Singer]

One more point. You're quick to identify how getting a handful unconverted hands without converting at least one within 100 overall hands is not very unusual. I also expect you believe the same thing about unconverted RAZGUS, although you never mention them and they are an integral part of this discussion because there is no cold cycle beginning without them ALONG WITH the one card draw failures. But what you continue to sweep aside is that whether you win or lose while playing these 100 overall hands is completely irrelevant. They are simply an indicator that you indeed are entering a cold cycle. If you can clear your mind of the misconception that those 100 hands have to net a loser then we're getting somewhere.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks Rob. You've clarified your position. But I am not convinced that what you see is any indication of a cold cycle.

In fact, Rob, all video poker with a negative expectation pay table is nothing less than a long cold cycle. It might not be a sudden deep freeze, but the casino will get your money the longer you play. I don't think you can argue with that Rob, because I think you say similar things.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off sticking with your strategy about hitting win goals and leaving. I have a hard time believing that cold cycles are programmed into the game. That's a little too much "conspiracy theory" for me to swallow.

Since most video poker has a negative expectation pay table to start with, and since most players don't have the discipline to quit when ahead, and since most players don't know proper strategy, do the casinos/machine makers also have to rig the machines to score a profit?

[quahaug]

This discussion brings up a question I've had for a while. What happens if a vp machine returns less than the minimum percentage allowed by Nevada regs? Slot machines are programed to stay within a particular pay off range, Right?, but theoretically vp machines cannot be programed to stay in the same range. out of the thousands of machines out there there has to be at least one on the far right of the money returned bell curve by chance alone not to mention poor play making for even lower returns. I wonder what would happen if a person just kept swiping hands? Would the machine be able to be removed by the casino after being played for ten years and returning say ten percent? Obviously the machine would have to have broken down for them to remove such a money maker but in theory it could happen.

[Alan Mendelson]

quahaug, good question. I'm going to take a guess:

First, video poker games are not judged by the same "payback requirement" as regular slots. Let's say the required minimum payback is 75%.

With slots the program would reveal the percentage of hits and pays -- the payback.
with video poker, which is supposed to be a game determined by a random shuffle of 52/53 cards, the payback is figured by the paytable on the glass.

Now you raise the question of "dumb players." What if only dumb players play the VP machine, always make the wrong holds, and the machine has a "hold" or "payback" that violates the payback regulations? Well, I don't think anyone will ever know -- because the video poker game is not tested or judged by the gaming requlators in the same way that the slot machines are tested or regulated.

I don't think the regulators look at the actual win/loss of a particular machine, but instead look at the "set up" or "program" of a machine to determine its acceptability under regulations.

[Rob.Singer]

Thanks Rob. You've clarified your position. But I am not convinced that what you see is any indication of a cold cycle.

In fact, Rob, all video poker with a negative expectation pay table is nothing less than a long cold cycle. It might not be a sudden deep freeze, but the casino will get your money the longer you play. I don't think you can argue with that Rob, because I think you say similar things.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off sticking with your strategy about hitting win goals and leaving. I have a hard time believing that cold cycles are programmed into the game. That's a little too much "conspiracy theory" for me to swallow.

Since most video poker has a negative expectation pay table to start with, and since most players don't have the discipline to quit when ahead, and since most players don't know proper strategy, do the casinos/machine makers also have to rig the machines to score a profit?

Alan, you missed another key point. I don't somehow play any special way trying to detect and avoid the cold cycles as a strategy for doing well. I've always used this knowledge in conjunction with my other requirements and skills that has only enhanced my opportunity leading to what has clearly been the most successful vp career ever. I truly don't see why you get so interested in how I've done so well with what I've learned over the years, then once you understand the parameters you look for any reason you can create to say it can't work or you don't believe it to be correct or it doesn't make sense based on your knowledge of the game. I, as the expert on this,would understand better if you didn't have such bad yearly results, but the opportunity to try to do better staring you in the face and you diss it?

[Rob.Singer]

This discussion brings up a question I've had for a while. What happens if a vp machine returns less than the minimum percentage allowed by Nevada regs? Slot machines are programed to stay within a particular pay off range, Right?, but theoretically vp machines cannot be programed to stay in the same range. out of the thousands of machines out there there has to be at least one on the far right of the money returned bell curve by chance alone not to mention poor play making for even lower returns. I wonder what would happen if a person just kept swiping hands? Would the machine be able to be removed by the casino after being played for ten years and returning say ten percent? Obviously the machine would have to have broken down for them to remove such a money maker but in theory it could happen.

In Nevada there is a requirement that vp machines do not go below the 75% threshhold. Was that a guess Alan? And therein lies the reason for the programmed-in hot cycles. Just as cold cycles control the machine not overpaying its boundaries, the hot cycle controls the other end of it. There is a reason the regs. we're allowed to see doesn't include these things. Anyone who thinks the game manufacturers have a better relationship with the public than they do with the casinos and the gaming commission hasn't looked into anything beyond what they want to see.

[Alan Mendelson]

75% was not a guess. But I don't know what other states require. For example, I have no idea what the requirements are in California -- and I should know that.

I still don't believe that there are programmed hot and cold cycles. Everything I've heard, read or been told -- until your comments, Rob -- are that the payback of VP is determined by the paytable on the glass and the long term math of a random shuffle of 52/53 cards.

I don't deny that you have had an incredibly successful VP career once you developed and used your own system. But I just can't subscribe to claims that the shuffle/selection of the cards isn't random.

Are there machines with flaws that do not have random shuffles? Perhaps. But is the system corrupt? You will have to show me proof. And in our interview, Rob, you said you could not provide that proof. Can you now?

[Rob.Singer]

There is nothing corrupt about the programmed-in cycles. They're not only allowed by the regulations--you can see that they are absolutely necessary for business sense. And since casinos are a big business that supplies a huge amount of state payments in the form of taxes & employment, that's the indicator that it will never allow the playing public to see every confidential/proprietary portion of their agreements.

Those are also the same reasons nothing can be proven other than to actively research these things at the machines over a long period of time as I have done. I also had a machine at my home for 5th card testing, and billions of hands run thru it confirmed my beliefs. I don't think there's anything else that can be done. All I can do is share & inform and offer to help.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, as we discussed before--- if you could ever prove the machines are not random it would make a giant story, and I promise you I will be the first to put it on TV on my own show when you have the proof.

[redietz]

I just want to report something I was told by a person formerly in a managerial position, and let you guys kick it around. What was reported was this (and I only heard this in the last few months). At one strip casino, 20 years ago, the managers did actually check the new video poker machines, and number-of-royals is one history that can be checked. Now whether this was due to location and different number of hands played is hard to believe, but some machines had massively different royal numbers. Some were in the 60's when checked; 60-some royals had been hit at several. Others were two or three.

I have no explanation as to how this could happen.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, as we discussed before--- if you could ever prove the machines are not random it would make a giant story, and I promise you I will be the first to put it on TV on my own show when you have the proof.

Yes I know, but even if I provided my test findings, they could be dissed by anyone who wanted to just because they didn't witness me doing the testing in my home. In other words, as any investigator would do, I did everything possible to prove to myself what was going on especially because it had to do with my livelihood. And it continues to help me even though I no longer am a professional player.

So I'm left with trying to explain what I've learned from an actual programmer and on my own, to other players. I've found just what I expected: those who are really serious about doing better ask for me to train them. Those who aren't and don't really mind what they've experienced for vp results, say they don't believe in it.

Redietz seems to wonder about it, but I don't think he plays enough vp for it to matter. Just from this discussion I've had five people contact me about it. Those are probably the ones I can help by sharing.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob let me ask you this: what is the MINIMUM number of hands you need to identify that you are entering a "cold cycle"?

The reason why I ask for the minimum, is because most video poker players are "under funded." For example, give a player 20 cold hands where they hit nothing (not even a paying pair) on a $1 game, and you have an immediate loss of 20 X $5 = $100. And on a $5 game, and you have an immediate loss of 20 X $25 = $500.

If you need 100 hands to identify that a cold cycle is coming you might already have your trip budget wiped out. So a really valuable tool -- if there could be one -- is to identify a cold cycle in five hands or ten hands.

Remember Rob, you are going to a casino with a bankroll of, what is it... $53,000 ??

Your advice and technique might be worthwhile but for "regular Joes" the info could be impractical.