vpFREE2 Forums

Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker?

#1

I have been playing video poker in Las Vegas on Full Pay Deuces Wild
machines for some time now. I have been tracking my "drop rate" (the
amount of payout not including the jackpots). In FPDW that should be
the full payout of 100.76% minus the jackpot share of 5.84% for
a "drop rate" of 94.92%. Therefore, with perfect play, for every
$1000 played into the machine, you should recover $949.20, or a loss
of about $50, if you do not hit 4 Deuces or a Natural Royal Flush.

My "drop rate", after playing several hundred thousand dollars
through the machines is 92.38%, meaning that for every $1000 I play
I am recovering $923.80 (losing $76.20). When this "drop rate" is
added to the jackpot 5.84% winnings it would result in an overall
return of 98.22% on the FPDW machines, hardly a "Full Pay" machine.

By the way, I am using Bob Dancers FPDW strategy card and statistics
from the VPW video game. I play at the advanced level, using the
exceptions to the exceptions to get the maximum return from the
game, and only play at about 750 hands/hr to minimize any errors.

I called the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine how they verified
the payouts on the machines. Much to my surprise I found out that
they had no objective way to determine if the machines were paying
out according to the pay tables and game statistics. They simply
looked at coin-in vs coin-out (which can vary substantially,
depending on the quality of play), the various meters that recorded
the different payouts for different hands, they checked the e-prom
chip to insure that it was the original one certified and installed
by the manufacturer, and did an overall visual inspection of the
machine. I asked if they placed a computer inside the machine to
simulate actual play (with computer accuracy) and played a couple of
million hands. By tracking the results of perfect play by the
computer the Gaming Commission technicians could confirm the
accuracy and payback of the machine. No, they did not have the
equipment to do that, they said.

I have been checking the FPDW banks of machines at the Station
Casinos and very few players have been on the machines. I have asked
players, some who were in the highest "President" comp level and who
have played the machines over a long period of time, why were there
so few players. Over and over I have heard that the machine payback
has declined, which I have verified by my tracking.

Have the casinos found some way to alter the payouts, so that you
are not getting the play they have advertised? I thought each
machine was a stand-alone box, but now I'm finding out that they are
tied into a central computer managed by the casino. With the Nevada
Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines have been
compromised or biased in some way, are you sure those are "OVER 100%
PAYOUT" games you are playing?

#2

Luck will always be the determining factor for winning. You can still lose at full pay
machines no matter how perfectly one plays the game. We just have a better chance to win
when the house gives us a 1% edge.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "morriemansell" <morriemansell@...> wrote:

I have been playing video poker in Las Vegas on Full Pay Deuces Wild
machines for some time now. I have been tracking my "drop rate" (the
amount of payout not including the jackpots). In FPDW that should be
the full payout of 100.76% minus the jackpot share of 5.84% for
a "drop rate" of 94.92%. Therefore, with perfect play, for every
$1000 played into the machine, you should recover $949.20, or a loss
of about $50, if you do not hit 4 Deuces or a Natural Royal Flush.

My "drop rate", after playing several hundred thousand dollars
through the machines is 92.38%, meaning that for every $1000 I play
I am recovering $923.80 (losing $76.20). When this "drop rate" is
added to the jackpot 5.84% winnings it would result in an overall
return of 98.22% on the FPDW machines, hardly a "Full Pay" machine.

By the way, I am using Bob Dancers FPDW strategy card and statistics
from the VPW video game. I play at the advanced level, using the
exceptions to the exceptions to get the maximum return from the
game, and only play at about 750 hands/hr to minimize any errors.

I called the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine how they verified
the payouts on the machines. Much to my surprise I found out that
they had no objective way to determine if the machines were paying
out according to the pay tables and game statistics. They simply
looked at coin-in vs coin-out (which can vary substantially,
depending on the quality of play), the various meters that recorded
the different payouts for different hands, they checked the e-prom
chip to insure that it was the original one certified and installed
by the manufacturer, and did an overall visual inspection of the
machine. I asked if they placed a computer inside the machine to
simulate actual play (with computer accuracy) and played a couple of
million hands. By tracking the results of perfect play by the
computer the Gaming Commission technicians could confirm the
accuracy and payback of the machine. No, they did not have the
equipment to do that, they said.

I have been checking the FPDW banks of machines at the Station
Casinos and very few players have been on the machines. I have asked
players, some who were in the highest "President" comp level and who
have played the machines over a long period of time, why were there
so few players. Over and over I have heard that the machine payback
has declined, which I have verified by my tracking.

Have the casinos found some way to alter the payouts, so that you
are not getting the play they have advertised? I thought each
machine was a stand-alone box, but now I'm finding out that they are
tied into a central computer managed by the casino. With the Nevada
Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines have been
compromised or biased in some way, are you sure those are "OVER 100%
PAYOUT" games you are playing?

#3

jimmason wrote:

Luck will always be the determining factor for winning. You can still
lose at full pay machines no matter how perfectly one plays the game.
We just have a better chance to win when the house gives us a 1%
edge.

If it's simply poor luck behind the poster's report, it's very poor
luck indeed.

From the info relayed, I infer that the odds against such sour
performance is 200 to 1 at the very least (assuming 200K hands played)
and might well be 10,000+ to 1 if the "several hundred thousand
dollars through" represents more hands.

- Harry

#4

I believe you have proved a valid point that the
secondary programs are determining the payout. This
has been occurring over the last 4 or 5 years.
Secondary programs are controlling the payouts with
very sophisticated software. It is a game of "you
almost had it, maybe next time" that keeps the vp
players hooked to the machine. There is no statistical
proof that the vp machine payouts are in accordance to
random draws of hands displayed on the video terminal.
There is lot of talk by "vp experts" that preach that
this happens but somehow they all have an interest on
the continuation of vp machines and not the slot
machines that these have become/
vet

···

--- jimmason <pointofsalesolutions@usa.net> wrote:

Luck will always be the determining factor for
winning. You can still lose at full pay
machines no matter how perfectly one plays the game.
We just have a better chance to win
when the house gives us a 1% edge.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "morriemansell"
<morriemansell@...> wrote:
>
> I have been playing video poker in Las Vegas on
Full Pay Deuces Wild
> machines for some time now. I have been tracking
my "drop rate" (the
> amount of payout not including the jackpots). In
FPDW that should be
> the full payout of 100.76% minus the jackpot share
of 5.84% for
> a "drop rate" of 94.92%. Therefore, with perfect
play, for every
> $1000 played into the machine, you should recover
$949.20, or a loss
> of about $50, if you do not hit 4 Deuces or a
Natural Royal Flush.
>
> My "drop rate", after playing several hundred
thousand dollars
> through the machines is 92.38%, meaning that for
every $1000 I play
> I am recovering $923.80 (losing $76.20). When this
"drop rate" is
> added to the jackpot 5.84% winnings it would
result in an overall
> return of 98.22% on the FPDW machines, hardly a
"Full Pay" machine.
>
> By the way, I am using Bob Dancers FPDW strategy
card and statistics
> from the VPW video game. I play at the advanced
level, using the
> exceptions to the exceptions to get the maximum
return from the
> game, and only play at about 750 hands/hr to
minimize any errors.
>
> I called the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine
how they verified
> the payouts on the machines. Much to my surprise I
found out that
> they had no objective way to determine if the
machines were paying
> out according to the pay tables and game
statistics. They simply
> looked at coin-in vs coin-out (which can vary
substantially,
> depending on the quality of play), the various
meters that recorded
> the different payouts for different hands, they
checked the e-prom
> chip to insure that it was the original one
certified and installed
> by the manufacturer, and did an overall visual
inspection of the
> machine. I asked if they placed a computer inside
the machine to
> simulate actual play (with computer accuracy) and
played a couple of
> million hands. By tracking the results of perfect
play by the
> computer the Gaming Commission technicians could
confirm the
> accuracy and payback of the machine. No, they did
not have the
> equipment to do that, they said.
>
> I have been checking the FPDW banks of machines at
the Station
> Casinos and very few players have been on the
machines. I have asked
> players, some who were in the highest "President"
comp level and who
> have played the machines over a long period of
time, why were there
> so few players. Over and over I have heard that
the machine payback
> has declined, which I have verified by my
tracking.
>
> Have the casinos found some way to alter the
payouts, so that you
> are not getting the play they have advertised? I
thought each
> machine was a stand-alone box, but now I'm finding
out that they are
> tied into a central computer managed by the
casino. With the Nevada
> Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines
have been
> compromised or biased in some way, are you sure
those are "OVER 100%
> PAYOUT" games you are playing?
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/

#5

Not so. I have won every year since 1997. I have no connection to
books, tapes, strategy cards or programs. it is so common if you lose
playing a beatable gaming opportunity to say it fixed. I have played
nothing buy 25 cent FPDW. I even went 250,000 hands without a jackpot
and still ended up winning my usual annual amount. I play from 1000 to
1500 hands at a sitting 5 or six days a week, On multiple point dayus
at more than one casino a double or triple my play those days. I a;so
practice on a computer regular basis. I also enjoy myself playing
about 550 hands an hour and have money management system that tells me
when it is time to quit.
P. S. I slow the machine down when it is at high speed.

kellypkjoe

···

--- vet <vet611@yahoo.com> wrote:

I believe you have proved a valid point that the
secondary programs are determining the payout. This
has been occurring over the last 4 or 5 years.
Secondary programs are controlling the payouts with
very sophisticated software. It is a game of "you
almost had it, maybe next time" that keeps the vp
players hooked to the machine. There is no statistical
proof that the vp machine payouts are in accordance to
random draws of hands displayed on the video terminal.
There is lot of talk by "vp experts" that preach that
this happens but somehow they all have an interest on
the continuation of vp machines and not the slot
machines that these have become/
vet
--- jimmason <pointofsalesolutions@usa.net> wrote:

> Luck will always be the determining factor for
> winning. You can still lose at full pay
> machines no matter how perfectly one plays the game.
> We just have a better chance to win
> when the house gives us a 1% edge.
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "morriemansell"
> <morriemansell@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have been playing video poker in Las Vegas on
> Full Pay Deuces Wild
> > machines for some time now. I have been tracking
> my "drop rate" (the
> > amount of payout not including the jackpots). In
> FPDW that should be
> > the full payout of 100.76% minus the jackpot share
> of 5.84% for
> > a "drop rate" of 94.92%. Therefore, with perfect
> play, for every
> > $1000 played into the machine, you should recover
> $949.20, or a loss
> > of about $50, if you do not hit 4 Deuces or a
> Natural Royal Flush.
> >
> > My "drop rate", after playing several hundred
> thousand dollars
> > through the machines is 92.38%, meaning that for
> every $1000 I play
> > I am recovering $923.80 (losing $76.20). When this
> "drop rate" is
> > added to the jackpot 5.84% winnings it would
> result in an overall
> > return of 98.22% on the FPDW machines, hardly a
> "Full Pay" machine.
> >
> > By the way, I am using Bob Dancers FPDW strategy
> card and statistics
> > from the VPW video game. I play at the advanced
> level, using the
> > exceptions to the exceptions to get the maximum
> return from the
> > game, and only play at about 750 hands/hr to
> minimize any errors.
> >
> > I called the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine
> how they verified
> > the payouts on the machines. Much to my surprise I
> found out that
> > they had no objective way to determine if the
> machines were paying
> > out according to the pay tables and game
> statistics. They simply
> > looked at coin-in vs coin-out (which can vary
> substantially,
> > depending on the quality of play), the various
> meters that recorded
> > the different payouts for different hands, they
> checked the e-prom
> > chip to insure that it was the original one
> certified and installed
> > by the manufacturer, and did an overall visual
> inspection of the
> > machine. I asked if they placed a computer inside
> the machine to
> > simulate actual play (with computer accuracy) and
> played a couple of
> > million hands. By tracking the results of perfect
> play by the
> > computer the Gaming Commission technicians could
> confirm the
> > accuracy and payback of the machine. No, they did
> not have the
> > equipment to do that, they said.
> >
> > I have been checking the FPDW banks of machines at
> the Station
> > Casinos and very few players have been on the
> machines. I have asked
> > players, some who were in the highest "President"
> comp level and who
> > have played the machines over a long period of
> time, why were there
> > so few players. Over and over I have heard that
> the machine payback
> > has declined, which I have verified by my
> tracking.
> >
> > Have the casinos found some way to alter the
> payouts, so that you
> > are not getting the play they have advertised? I
> thought each
> > machine was a stand-alone box, but now I'm finding
> out that they are
> > tied into a central computer managed by the
> casino. With the Nevada
> > Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines
> have been
> > compromised or biased in some way, are you sure
> those are "OVER 100%
> > PAYOUT" games you are playing?
> >
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your
story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/

____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow

#6

Has anyone actually run any numbers on this? What's the volatility of FPDW?

You left out the important detail of how many hands you actually estimate
you played.

My gut tells me that this is within the 95% confidence interval if you've
played about 100,000. But without numbers its just my gut.

Also, see this month's Strictly Slots on why casino-fixing in the way that
you are implying (through a central computer at the casino) is implausible
by technical limitations in the communication system from machine to server.

···

On 8/10/07, morriemansell <morriemansell@yahoo.com> wrote:

  I have been playing video poker in Las Vegas on Full Pay Deuces Wild
machines for some time now. I have been tracking my "drop rate" (the
amount of payout not including the jackpots). In FPDW that should be
the full payout of 100.76% minus the jackpot share of 5.84% for
a "drop rate" of 94.92%. Therefore, with perfect play, for every
$1000 played into the machine, you should recover $949.20, or a loss
of about $50, if you do not hit 4 Deuces or a Natural Royal Flush.

My "drop rate", after playing several hundred thousand dollars
through the machines is 92.38%, meaning that for every $1000 I play
I am recovering $923.80 (losing $76.20). When this "drop rate" is
added to the jackpot 5.84% winnings it would result in an overall
return of 98.22% on the FPDW machines, hardly a "Full Pay" machine.

By the way, I am using Bob Dancers FPDW strategy card and statistics
from the VPW video game. I play at the advanced level, using the
exceptions to the exceptions to get the maximum return from the
game, and only play at about 750 hands/hr to minimize any errors.

I called the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine how they verified
the payouts on the machines. Much to my surprise I found out that
they had no objective way to determine if the machines were paying
out according to the pay tables and game statistics. They simply
looked at coin-in vs coin-out (which can vary substantially,
depending on the quality of play), the various meters that recorded
the different payouts for different hands, they checked the e-prom
chip to insure that it was the original one certified and installed
by the manufacturer, and did an overall visual inspection of the
machine. I asked if they placed a computer inside the machine to
simulate actual play (with computer accuracy) and played a couple of
million hands. By tracking the results of perfect play by the
computer the Gaming Commission technicians could confirm the
accuracy and payback of the machine. No, they did not have the
equipment to do that, they said.

I have been checking the FPDW banks of machines at the Station
Casinos and very few players have been on the machines. I have asked
players, some who were in the highest "President" comp level and who
have played the machines over a long period of time, why were there
so few players. Over and over I have heard that the machine payback
has declined, which I have verified by my tracking.

Have the casinos found some way to alter the payouts, so that you
are not getting the play they have advertised? I thought each
machine was a stand-alone box, but now I'm finding out that they are
tied into a central computer managed by the casino. With the Nevada
Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines have been
compromised or biased in some way, are you sure those are "OVER 100%
PAYOUT" games you are playing?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#7

Morrie called me before he began this thread --- and I told him that I
believed the games are fair.

I don't recognize Morrie by name (although I might recognize him by
face). I'm assuming that I don't know him at all, so my comments below
are aimed "at players in general" rather than at Morrie in particular.

When people tell me they play 750 hands per hour and have exact records
of 100,000 hands, I'm skeptical. Some people are good record-keepers.
Most aren't. It's possible the numbers Morrie presented in his post are
accurate --- and it's also possible that he's making some systematic
error in his record-keeping. We just don't know.

If many people presented records and they were summed together, you can
bet they'd be worthless. "Garbage In Garbage Out," as the saying goes.
Assuming that everyone has excellent records and they can be trusted is
naïve.

Someone posted the fact that he's been plus every year since 1997 and he
plays exclusively FPDW. He could be lying, but I believed him. (My
results are like that, although I play many more games than FPDW.) These
kinds of results affirm my basic prejudice that the games are fair. Some
of you have different prejudices going in and if you believe the games
are unfair, these kinds of posts are ignored.

Most of the players who sincerely question the fairness of the machines
aren't winning players. (Morrie told me he was actually a winning
player.) Losing players typically search for some explanation that tells
them why they are losing. Over the short run (and 100,000 hands is
fairly short), anything can happen, but extend your experiment long
enough and your results are what you deserve. Your game selection and
skill level become dominant the more hands you play.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

#8

I remember TomSki wrote in one of Dan Paymer's "VP Times" quite a few years ago that for FPDW, you need about 2 million hands to approximate the EV. In my opinion, the original poster of this thread has just had bad luck. A few years ago, I went an entire year without a royal -- and I play nearly every day!
-- Steve in LV

#9

With reel and theme slots, the payout can be verified. With video
poker, there is always the legal disclaimer: "*with perfect play",
generally found somewhere in very small print. Of course, on average,
the machines are not played with perfect play, otherwise the casino
would remove them from the floor. Yes, those occasional mistakes you
make, even if it was really the fault of a sticky key, or a
distracting cocktail waitress, do add up. So, machines that are
dependent on player strategy can not be verified for return, because
the return will depend on the average player strategy. Instead,
casinos use a "theoretical" hold.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "morriemansell" <morriemansell@...> wrote:

With the Nevada
Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines have been
compromised or biased in some way, are you sure those are "OVER 100%
PAYOUT" games you are playing?

#10

Bob's comment on Morrie's post leads me to expand on my brief earlier
post.

I'm going to be skeptical of anyone's statement that machines are
"gaffed". However, I'll evaluate their claims within the confines of
the evidence they present.

I previously suggested that Morrie's experience was, at best, a "worst
in 200" result - and likely more sour. I'll amend that: His
experience was a "worst in 20,000" result at best, and the odds
against it may very well run into the millions (this assumes that the
number of hands range from 200K to 800K, based upon a statement of
wagers totally "hundreds of thousands of dollars"). I'll summarize my
methodology for this calculation as a footnote.

The inevitable conclusion is that something other than an unfortunate
run of hands is involved. Were these my results, I'd run to the
Gaming Commission with confidence in my claim (it shouldn't come to
anyone's surprise that I would have the detailed records to
substantiate the claim ;).

···

------

Bob's observation on Morrie's report was: "Over the short run (and
100,000 hands is fairly short), anything can happen, but extend your
experiment long enough and your results are what you deserve."

For a subset of hands having a cycle of no more than 600 hands, and
running as short as 3.5, a run such as in my 200,000 hand trials very
definitely represents the "long run". While you can't have any
reliable expectation of overall game return on such a run of hands,
it's because of the wide variance in number of expected hands for the
RF and quad deuces -- representing almost 6% of the game return.

20 cycles of a hand give you a pretty narrow range for actual return
to fall vs. expected return on that hand. We're talking over 300 for
the WRF, and over 50 thousand cycles for 3K. The footnote gives
details that bear out that one would expect 3K to WRF cumulative
results to adhere to expectation by a FAR greater degree than
represented in Morrie's case.

------

Now, I'm with Bob when he says (in essence) that the general reported
experiences by those who he considers reliable along with his own give
him firm confidence in the fairness of video poker across the board.

But I think there's room for a healthy skepticism when it comes to
fairness of machines. I won't take it on blind faith that the
necessary checks and balances are in place that would prevent a casino
from cheating the customer -- although I think the technology in place
would make it VERY unlikely.

Bottom line is that if I should find myself with any significant doubt
about machine fairness, I'd immediately quit play in the casino in
question (or entirely, if the doubt was across the board). To do
otherwise is a fool's errand.

With respect to Morrie's report, it should be evident that I almost
entirely discount the possible factual basis -- but I only have a bias
from my own experience on which to do so; Morrie hasn't presented
anything blatantly fallacious.

- Harry

Calculation: I've stated that Morrie's results are no more probable
than 1 in 20,000.

Morrie's return on hands outside of the RF/4D was 92.38%. This
compares with an expectation of 94.92%, falling short by over 2.5%.

He's stated that he's bet into the hundreds of $1000's. I take that
to mean that he's likely recorded play of at least 200,000 hands,
perhaps many more.

I used winpoker to run three 200K hand trials to see how the return on
these hands varied from expectation. My results were 95.47%, 94.61%,
94.85%. The greatest variance from the 94.92% expectation was 0.55%.

I'm estimating the standard deviation of the return from this subset
of hands at .6% as a consequence. Standard deviation is a valid
perspective from which to view the results given the sizable number of
hands relative to the hand frequencies involved (it's unreliable for
game hands as a whole until play runs well into the millions of hands).

Recall that under a "normal" distribution, 68% of values fall within 1
standard deviation from expectation. In this case, .6% likely
represents a liberal (high) estimate. (An actual value can be
calculated, but isn't necessary for this exercise.)

Morrie's 2.5% deviation is more than 4x this. Statistically, you look
for less than 1 in 10,000 results to fall outside "4 standard
deviations" of expectation, with half of those falling to either side.
Thus, is sub par result represents a 1 in 20,000+ worst case scenario.

This assumes 200,000 tracked hands of play. Were that number 400K or
600K, the odds against the result would fall into the millions.

#11

This analysis, which I'm not 100% sure about (I'll look at it tomorrow when
I have a, uhm, clearer mind), assumes perfect play. Do we have any sort of
assessment of the OP's skill?

···

On 8/11/07, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

  Bob's comment on Morrie's post leads me to expand on my brief earlier
post.

I'm going to be skeptical of anyone's statement that machines are
"gaffed". However, I'll evaluate their claims within the confines of
the evidence they present.

I previously suggested that Morrie's experience was, at best, a "worst
in 200" result - and likely more sour. I'll amend that: His
experience was a "worst in 20,000" result at best, and the odds
against it may very well run into the millions (this assumes that the
number of hands range from 200K to 800K, based upon a statement of
wagers totally "hundreds of thousands of dollars"). I'll summarize my
methodology for this calculation as a footnote.

The inevitable conclusion is that something other than an unfortunate
run of hands is involved. Were these my results, I'd run to the
Gaming Commission with confidence in my claim (it shouldn't come to
anyone's surprise that I would have the detailed records to
substantiate the claim ;).

------

Bob's observation on Morrie's report was: "Over the short run (and
100,000 hands is fairly short), anything can happen, but extend your
experiment long enough and your results are what you deserve."

For a subset of hands having a cycle of no more than 600 hands, and
running as short as 3.5, a run such as in my 200,000 hand trials very
definitely represents the "long run". While you can't have any
reliable expectation of overall game return on such a run of hands,
it's because of the wide variance in number of expected hands for the
RF and quad deuces -- representing almost 6% of the game return.

20 cycles of a hand give you a pretty narrow range for actual return
to fall vs. expected return on that hand. We're talking over 300 for
the WRF, and over 50 thousand cycles for 3K. The footnote gives
details that bear out that one would expect 3K to WRF cumulative
results to adhere to expectation by a FAR greater degree than
represented in Morrie's case.

------

Now, I'm with Bob when he says (in essence) that the general reported
experiences by those who he considers reliable along with his own give
him firm confidence in the fairness of video poker across the board.

But I think there's room for a healthy skepticism when it comes to
fairness of machines. I won't take it on blind faith that the
necessary checks and balances are in place that would prevent a casino
from cheating the customer -- although I think the technology in place
would make it VERY unlikely.

Bottom line is that if I should find myself with any significant doubt
about machine fairness, I'd immediately quit play in the casino in
question (or entirely, if the doubt was across the board). To do
otherwise is a fool's errand.

With respect to Morrie's report, it should be evident that I almost
entirely discount the possible factual basis -- but I only have a bias
from my own experience on which to do so; Morrie hasn't presented
anything blatantly fallacious.

- Harry

Calculation: I've stated that Morrie's results are no more probable
than 1 in 20,000.

Morrie's return on hands outside of the RF/4D was 92.38%. This
compares with an expectation of 94.92%, falling short by over 2.5%.

He's stated that he's bet into the hundreds of $1000's. I take that
to mean that he's likely recorded play of at least 200,000 hands,
perhaps many more.

I used winpoker to run three 200K hand trials to see how the return on
these hands varied from expectation. My results were 95.47%, 94.61%,
94.85%. The greatest variance from the 94.92% expectation was 0.55%.

I'm estimating the standard deviation of the return from this subset
of hands at .6% as a consequence. Standard deviation is a valid
perspective from which to view the results given the sizable number of
hands relative to the hand frequencies involved (it's unreliable for
game hands as a whole until play runs well into the millions of hands).

Recall that under a "normal" distribution, 68% of values fall within 1
standard deviation from expectation. In this case, .6% likely
represents a liberal (high) estimate. (An actual value can be
calculated, but isn't necessary for this exercise.)

Morrie's 2.5% deviation is more than 4x this. Statistically, you look
for less than 1 in 10,000 results to fall outside "4 standard
deviations" of expectation, with half of those falling to either side.
Thus, is sub par result represents a 1 in 20,000+ worst case scenario.

This assumes 200,000 tracked hands of play. Were that number 400K or
600K, the odds against the result would fall into the millions.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#12

Jason Pawloski wrote:

This analysis, which I'm not 100% sure about (I'll look at it
tomorrow when I have a, uhm, clearer mind), assumes perfect play. Do
we have any sort of assessment of the OP's skill?

The analysis assumes much more than "perfect play". There's no
question that the whole shootin' match is off, for example, not only
if the player in question plays other than according to optimum return
strategy, but also if his records are inaccurate.

There are any number of reasons by which one might discount the
player's claim of tampered machines. However, in absence of any
information outside of what is presented the only discussion that can
be conducted is whether the information necessarily demonstrates the
machines are unfair.

That much said, I'm pretty sure that even if the player's strategy ER
falls .5% short of optimum return, these results would strongly
suggest the machines are gaffed (but that statement would be said with
far less confidence unless specifics of that strategy were known).
Start talking 1%+ and all bets are off.

So that it's understood, I don't personally think it's likely that the
machines are anything but totally clean. But as I said before, that's
based upon personal bias from experience -- not anything that was
reported.

- Harry

What's with the "clearer mind"? Sweep away the distractions of the
"day world" and my mind resonates clear as a bell :wink:

#13

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

So, machines that are dependent on player strategy can not be
verified for return, because the return will depend on the average
player strategy. Instead, casinos use a "theoretical" hold.

That's a point to which I gave careful consideration when assessing
Morrie's post. I had difficulty accepting at face value his statement
that the Gaming Commission "had no objective way to determine if the
machines were paying out according to the pay tables and game statistics".

I arrived at the same conclusion for the reason you state. However, I
speculated that the general skill with which players hit FPDW might be
reasonably consistent across the LV locals. When you assume that the
OP plays optimum strategy, and recognize that his sizable ER deviation
on frequent hands would be realized by all players on the machines if
gaffed, then there would be meaningfully significant statistical
differences in hand returns between the casino in question and the
others that would flag a problem.

It's academic speculation, at best ... and is washed out if you step
up to a conspiracy theory in which multiple casinos have colluded to
defraud players.

- Harry

#14

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

It's academic speculation, at best ... and is washed out if you step
up to a conspiracy theory in which multiple casinos have colluded to
defraud players.

If you only assume the "positive" games are fixed at one casino then
it is not too far fetched. However, I have had long bad stretches
before at one casino and it eventually turned around. Although, I am
currently experiencing a bad streak at one casino that just happens
to be a stations casino. However, it is not FPDW, it is NSUD.

Over the past 3 years I have played over 200K hands of NSUD and I
also keep track of the quad ducks and royals. I have experienced
nearly a 2% below expectation result on hands below the quad ducks. I
have run sims and found this to be about a 1 in 10000 chance.
Needless to say this has raised some questions in my mind as well.
However, I also know of people playing the same machines that have
won money. In addition, I have won money on some other machines in
that the same casino and I have won money every year overall at all
the casinos I play.

Some other things to consider:

- I had 207 tries at 4RF this year before finally hitting. I had a
streak of 200 misses last year.
- I did not hit a WRF on various deuces machines across 4 differrent
casinos for over 12 cycles during one stretch.
- At one point this year I was behind over 12K playing quarter VP and
had only 4 RFs in over 400K hands at that time (a lot of 3 and 5
play).

Given all that I am now ahead for the year although still down over 5
RFs. So, what does it all mean?

First of all I think we can pretty much ignore Bob Dancer's comment
about poor record keeping. Anyone who keeps the level of detail to
make these kinds of statements is extremely likely to be accurate.

Second, with literally millions of gamblers out there the odds are
extremely good that many folks will see bad streaks WITHOUT being
cheated. A few of those will be anal record keepers like myself. One
thing that helps is I had a bad 3 year stretch in another casino
about 7-8 years ago. I am well ahead at that casino for the last 3
years. So, for now anyway, I still write these kinds of things off as
just being "unlucky".

Dick

#15

A few things to reply are worth mentioning. I find it interesting when there are complaints about losing more than we should, but never a complaint about the machiens when we win more than we should. The second item that should clear up much of this mystery is the Poisson distribution. Several hundred thousand hands, while statistically significant is not absolutely conclusive. I had a trip last year in which I received 5 royals when I should have received one. Based on the Poisson distribution the odds of this happening was 326:1 The converse can also happen, rare, but it can happen. The NV gaming regulations absolutely prohibit any secondary decisions. I have gone 200,000 hands without a royal, but have also hit 2 within 2 hours. I have had back to back 4 of a kinds. I have had 2 throwaway all cards on FPDW machines and received 2222 back within the time that it took to fill the first machine where it happened. As for the players at Stations saying the paybacks have
been reduced, perhaps they are just on the wrong side of standard deviation. Or perhaps the location of the FPDW at the Palace station where you have to inhale all the fumes from the chimneys in the area may dull your alertness. You can play the best strategy there is but I am sure that even Bob Dancer will admit that there are times that he just realized he had a pair that he didn't see or that he was distracted by the waitress bringing him a drink or the cell phone rang or whatever. I have a suggestion. Play 5 more cycles of the several thousand hands and see what the results are. this will get you beyond even 3 standard deviations (99.7%) and see how the results come out. Better yet, use the same machine. I am aware that a machine can have a faulty chip but playing several should give you a fair trial. Maybe I am nieve in not believeing that the casinos might cheat you out of $10 hour in advantage and comps at FPDW, but note that the Stations limiting of points for
FPDW and having advanatge play at higher denominations where the edge is under .2% keeps their bottom line intact. I don't agree with the decision by the Palace Station Management to subject one to unhealthy playing conditions in their FPDW section thus I have found other locations (secondary reason is that Palace Station refuses to stip idiodic policy of having housekeeping call you to ask about cleaning your room when the do not disturb sign is on and refuses to change this policy) that have better playing conditions.

morriemansell <morriemansell@yahoo.com> wrote: I have been playing video poker in Las Vegas on Full Pay Deuces Wild
machines for some time now. I have been tracking my "drop rate" (the
amount of payout not including the jackpots). In FPDW that should be
the full payout of 100.76% minus the jackpot share of 5.84% for
a "drop rate" of 94.92%. Therefore, with perfect play, for every
$1000 played into the machine, you should recover $949.20, or a loss
of about $50, if you do not hit 4 Deuces or a Natural Royal Flush.

My "drop rate", after playing several hundred thousand dollars
through the machines is 92.38%, meaning that for every $1000 I play
I am recovering $923.80 (losing $76.20). When this "drop rate" is
added to the jackpot 5.84% winnings it would result in an overall
return of 98.22% on the FPDW machines, hardly a "Full Pay" machine.

By the way, I am using Bob Dancers FPDW strategy card and statistics
from the VPW video game. I play at the advanced level, using the
exceptions to the exceptions to get the maximum return from the
game, and only play at about 750 hands/hr to minimize any errors.

I called the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine how they verified
the payouts on the machines. Much to my surprise I found out that
they had no objective way to determine if the machines were paying
out according to the pay tables and game statistics. They simply
looked at coin-in vs coin-out (which can vary substantially,
depending on the quality of play), the various meters that recorded
the different payouts for different hands, they checked the e-prom
chip to insure that it was the original one certified and installed
by the manufacturer, and did an overall visual inspection of the
machine. I asked if they placed a computer inside the machine to
simulate actual play (with computer accuracy) and played a couple of
million hands. By tracking the results of perfect play by the
computer the Gaming Commission technicians could confirm the
accuracy and payback of the machine. No, they did not have the
equipment to do that, they said.

I have been checking the FPDW banks of machines at the Station
Casinos and very few players have been on the machines. I have asked
players, some who were in the highest "President" comp level and who
have played the machines over a long period of time, why were there
so few players. Over and over I have heard that the machine payback
has declined, which I have verified by my tracking.

Have the casinos found some way to alter the payouts, so that you
are not getting the play they have advertised? I thought each
machine was a stand-alone box, but now I'm finding out that they are
tied into a central computer managed by the casino. With the Nevada
Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines have been
compromised or biased in some way, are you sure those are "OVER 100%
PAYOUT" games you are playing?

···

---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#16

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

There are any number of reasons by which one might discount the
player's claim of tampered machines. However, in absence of any
information outside of what is presented the only discussion that

can

be conducted is whether the information necessarily demonstrates the
machines are unfair.

That much said, I'm pretty sure that even if the player's strategy

ER

falls .5% short of optimum return, these results would strongly
suggest the machines are gaffed (but that statement would be said

with

far less confidence unless specifics of that strategy were known).
Start talking 1%+ and all bets are off.

So that it's understood, I don't personally think it's likely that

the

machines are anything but totally clean. But as I said before,

that's

based upon personal bias from experience -- not anything that was
reported.

Like you, Harry, I believe that the machines in LV are not gaffed,
but occasionally one does have extraordinary spells of play which
tend to give a player pause. A case in example is my current spell
of poor results at Downtown Deuces at the Vegas Club.

I play this game with a high degree of accuracy, near 100% correct --
  marred, of course, by the fact that I do make the occasional
mistake thanks to human error. As for how accurate my records are,
they are perfect. I play only the deuces there so I can work
backwards from my cashback to get an exact number of hands played.
In my last seven days of play there, I have earned $160 cb. At an
earn rate of .2%, that indicates coin-in of $80000 (160/.2%). All
play is at quarters, so I've played 64000 hands in this spell
(80000/1.25). My results are zero royals and five deuces sets.

OK, the RF result is certainly not suspicious. But the quad deuces
is way off expectation. With a cycle of 4943 hands between deuces, I
should have 12.947 deuces. Close enough to call it 13 in expectation
with five in actuality. I'll leave it to you to determine just how
weird this result is. In any case, I sure understand just how easy
it is to question whether these machines are "honest."

don

#17

As far as the question how many hands I have played here is an
estimate. About 400,00 to 500,000 a year. I quess I have played over
4,000,000 hands.

kellypkjoe

···

--- Jason Pawloski <jpawloski@gmail.com> wrote:

Has anyone actually run any numbers on this? What's the volatility of
FPDW?

You left out the important detail of how many hands you actually
estimate
you played.

My gut tells me that this is within the 95% confidence interval if
you've
played about 100,000. But without numbers its just my gut.

Also, see this month's Strictly Slots on why casino-fixing in the way
that
you are implying (through a central computer at the casino) is
implausible
by technical limitations in the communication system from machine to
server.

On 8/10/07, morriemansell <morriemansell@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have been playing video poker in Las Vegas on Full Pay Deuces
Wild
> machines for some time now. I have been tracking my "drop rate"
(the
> amount of payout not including the jackpots). In FPDW that should
be
> the full payout of 100.76% minus the jackpot share of 5.84% for
> a "drop rate" of 94.92%. Therefore, with perfect play, for every
> $1000 played into the machine, you should recover $949.20, or a
loss
> of about $50, if you do not hit 4 Deuces or a Natural Royal Flush.
>
> My "drop rate", after playing several hundred thousand dollars
> through the machines is 92.38%, meaning that for every $1000 I play
> I am recovering $923.80 (losing $76.20). When this "drop rate" is
> added to the jackpot 5.84% winnings it would result in an overall
> return of 98.22% on the FPDW machines, hardly a "Full Pay" machine.
>
> By the way, I am using Bob Dancers FPDW strategy card and
statistics
> from the VPW video game. I play at the advanced level, using the
> exceptions to the exceptions to get the maximum return from the
> game, and only play at about 750 hands/hr to minimize any errors.
>
> I called the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine how they
verified
> the payouts on the machines. Much to my surprise I found out that
> they had no objective way to determine if the machines were paying
> out according to the pay tables and game statistics. They simply
> looked at coin-in vs coin-out (which can vary substantially,
> depending on the quality of play), the various meters that recorded
> the different payouts for different hands, they checked the e-prom
> chip to insure that it was the original one certified and installed
> by the manufacturer, and did an overall visual inspection of the
> machine. I asked if they placed a computer inside the machine to
> simulate actual play (with computer accuracy) and played a couple
of
> million hands. By tracking the results of perfect play by the
> computer the Gaming Commission technicians could confirm the
> accuracy and payback of the machine. No, they did not have the
> equipment to do that, they said.
>
> I have been checking the FPDW banks of machines at the Station
> Casinos and very few players have been on the machines. I have
asked
> players, some who were in the highest "President" comp level and
who
> have played the machines over a long period of time, why were there
> so few players. Over and over I have heard that the machine payback
> has declined, which I have verified by my tracking.
>
> Have the casinos found some way to alter the payouts, so that you
> are not getting the play they have advertised? I thought each
> machine was a stand-alone box, but now I'm finding out that they
are
> tied into a central computer managed by the casino. With the Nevada
> Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines have been
> compromised or biased in some way, are you sure those are "OVER
100%
> PAYOUT" games you are playing?
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

#18

Bob you knew me and my wife Sheila from your classes. Sadly Sheila is
no longer with us. My best investment was $10 for your Deuces Wild
Video Poker book. That and your class when you said keep records

kellypkjoe

···

--- Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:

Morrie called me before he began this thread --- and I told him that
I
believed the games are fair.

I don't recognize Morrie by name (although I might recognize him by
face). I'm assuming that I don't know him at all, so my comments
below
are aimed "at players in general" rather than at Morrie in
particular.

When people tell me they play 750 hands per hour and have exact
records
of 100,000 hands, I'm skeptical. Some people are good record-keepers.
Most aren't. It's possible the numbers Morrie presented in his post
are
accurate --- and it's also possible that he's making some systematic
error in his record-keeping. We just don't know.

If many people presented records and they were summed together, you
can
bet they'd be worthless. "Garbage In Garbage Out," as the saying
goes.
Assuming that everyone has excellent records and they can be trusted
is
na�ve.

Someone posted the fact that he's been plus every year since 1997 and
he
plays exclusively FPDW. He could be lying, but I believed him. (My
results are like that, although I play many more games than FPDW.)
These
kinds of results affirm my basic prejudice that the games are fair.
Some
of you have different prejudices going in and if you believe the
games
are unfair, these kinds of posts are ignored.

Most of the players who sincerely question the fairness of the
machines
aren't winning players. (Morrie told me he was actually a winning
player.) Losing players typically search for some explanation that
tells
them why they are losing. Over the short run (and 100,000 hands is
fairly short), anything can happen, but extend your experiment long
enough and your results are what you deserve. Your game selection and
skill level become dominant the more hands you play.

Bob Dancer

For a 3-day free trial of Video Poker for Winners, the best video
poker
computer trainer ever invented, go to //www.videopokerforwinners.com

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

#19

What I find interesting is that the Nevada Gamimg Commission cannot
verify the randomness of Video
Poker.
                                           --- In
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, pesach kremen <royalflush2222@...> wrote:

A few things to reply are worth mentioning. I find it interesting

when there are complaints about losing more than we should, but never
a complaint about the machiens when we win more than we should. The
second item that should clear up much of this mystery is the Poisson
distribution. Several hundred thousand hands, while statistically
significant is not absolutely conclusive. I had a trip last year in
which I received 5 royals when I should have received one. Based on
the Poisson distribution the odds of this happening was 326:1 The
converse can also happen, rare, but it can happen. The NV gaming
regulations absolutely prohibit any secondary decisions. I have gone
200,000 hands without a royal, but have also hit 2 within 2 hours. I
have had back to back 4 of a kinds. I have had 2 throwaway all cards
on FPDW machines and received 2222 back within the time that it took
to fill the first machine where it happened. As for the players at
Stations saying the paybacks have

been reduced, perhaps they are just on the wrong side of standard

deviation. Or perhaps the location of the FPDW at the Palace station
where you have to inhale all the fumes from the chimneys in the area
may dull your alertness. You can play the best strategy there is but
I am sure that even Bob Dancer will admit that there are times that
he just realized he had a pair that he didn't see or that he was
distracted by the waitress bringing him a drink or the cell phone
rang or whatever. I have a suggestion. Play 5 more cycles of the
several thousand hands and see what the results are. this will get
you beyond even 3 standard deviations (99.7%) and see how the
results come out. Better yet, use the same machine. I am aware that
a machine can have a faulty chip but playing several should give you
a fair trial. Maybe I am nieve in not believeing that the casinos
might cheat you out of $10 hour in advantage and comps at FPDW, but
note that the Stations limiting of points for

FPDW and having advanatge play at higher denominations where the

edge is under .2% keeps their bottom line intact. I don't agree with
the decision by the Palace Station Management to subject one to
unhealthy playing conditions in their FPDW section thus I have found
other locations (secondary reason is that Palace Station refuses to
stip idiodic policy of having housekeeping call you to ask about
cleaning your room when the do not disturb sign is on and refuses to
change this policy) that have better playing conditions.

morriemansell <morriemansell@...> wrote: I have been

playing video poker in Las Vegas on Full Pay Deuces Wild

machines for some time now. I have been tracking my "drop rate"

(the

amount of payout not including the jackpots). In FPDW that should

be

the full payout of 100.76% minus the jackpot share of 5.84% for
a "drop rate" of 94.92%. Therefore, with perfect play, for every
$1000 played into the machine, you should recover $949.20, or a

loss

of about $50, if you do not hit 4 Deuces or a Natural Royal Flush.

My "drop rate", after playing several hundred thousand dollars
through the machines is 92.38%, meaning that for every $1000 I play
I am recovering $923.80 (losing $76.20). When this "drop rate" is
added to the jackpot 5.84% winnings it would result in an overall
return of 98.22% on the FPDW machines, hardly a "Full Pay" machine.

By the way, I am using Bob Dancers FPDW strategy card and

statistics

from the VPW video game. I play at the advanced level, using the
exceptions to the exceptions to get the maximum return from the
game, and only play at about 750 hands/hr to minimize any errors.

I called the Nevada Gaming Commission to determine how they

verified

the payouts on the machines. Much to my surprise I found out that
they had no objective way to determine if the machines were paying
out according to the pay tables and game statistics. They simply
looked at coin-in vs coin-out (which can vary substantially,
depending on the quality of play), the various meters that recorded
the different payouts for different hands, they checked the e-prom
chip to insure that it was the original one certified and installed
by the manufacturer, and did an overall visual inspection of the
machine. I asked if they placed a computer inside the machine to
simulate actual play (with computer accuracy) and played a couple

of

million hands. By tracking the results of perfect play by the
computer the Gaming Commission technicians could confirm the
accuracy and payback of the machine. No, they did not have the
equipment to do that, they said.

I have been checking the FPDW banks of machines at the Station
Casinos and very few players have been on the machines. I have

asked

players, some who were in the highest "President" comp level and

who

have played the machines over a long period of time, why were there
so few players. Over and over I have heard that the machine payback
has declined, which I have verified by my tracking.

Have the casinos found some way to alter the payouts, so that you
are not getting the play they have advertised? I thought each
machine was a stand-alone box, but now I'm finding out that they

are

tied into a central computer managed by the casino. With the Nevada
Gaming Commission unable to verify if the machines have been
compromised or biased in some way, are you sure those are "OVER

100%

···

PAYOUT" games you are playing?

---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#20

kellypkjoe wrote:

As far as the question how many hands I have played here is an
estimate. About 400,00 to 500,000 a year. I quess I have played over
4,000,000 hands.

I take it that you are outing yourself as "morrie". That's helpful.
You've been a known, level-headed quantity here for a few years, and
for a few years more on the Skip Hughes vp group.

I'm all the more hesitant to dismiss your claim. And I presume that
the record keeping involved in your numbers includes something upwards
of 400K hands per year -- a number that I've stated puts the odds
against at a magnitude that makes sheer poor luck a VERY
unsatisfactory explanation (despite suggestions by a couple of people
to the contrary).

Something else that I find intriguing is that the results you've
observed are consistent with how I've suggested (can't remember if it
was here or elsewhere) a casino might most viably gaffe machines in a
way that players are less likely to suspect. I'd be inclined to look
for a shorting of frequent hand expectancy (where only a modest
reduction would net the casino a sizable gain), hand-in-hand with an
modest increase in jackpot frequency - something which players sit up
and take notice of, with a net outcome that's favorable to the casino.

While I find your numbers compelling evidence that something is amiss
with the machines, the unlikelihood of such an event still biases me
against the possibility (not having compiled the numbers myself).

There's much more that might be said. Bottom line, it goes without
saying that you shouldn't play there further. And anyone else who
chooses to should be circumspect in doing so, and consider maintaining
detailed records.

- Harry