Originally Posted by regnis View Post
RS-I am certainly not smart enough to answer the questions or respond. But I assume the parameters used in the first simulation, in part, in addition to random luck, caused the high number of royals. But the other simulations using standard play (thread 46) don't seem that out of line to me.

I wouldn't know "code" if it were staring me in the face so I can only assume there were no bugs and rely on his assurance that he was certain there were no bugs.

I should add that I don't ever question the lack of royals or large amount of royals produced in any simulation. I went 10 years and millions of hands without a royal until I finally got a few. Then on very little play the last several years I seem to constantly get royals. To me, it shows that variance rules and EV requires a lot more than a million hands.
That's the thing though....the amount of royals isn't that far out of line. You'd expect about 50 royals, so 71 is not that lucky.

The problem is, since those royals represent 5.68% of the actual 105.2% return (71*800/1000000 = 5.68%). This means every non-royal hand should add up to almost a 100% payout (105.2% - 5.68% = 99.52%).

You don't need to understand code to realize something is either seriously wrong or absurdly great luck.