vpFREE2 Forums

Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker?

#21

Of course, we know it has been done before, that would be the case of
Larry Volk and American Coin.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Larry%20Volk%20American%20Coin

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".

···

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

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

#22

Just ran a simulation of 250,000 hands of FPDW on WinPoker for a
return of 99.29% and a loss of $22,000 (quarter based.)

I did this a few years ago for 1,000,000 hands and had an even lower
return. If you really want to scare yourself, run a million hands of
a "safe" game like JOB and pretend you are playing a high denom game.

It's all in the number of royals and other rare hands and that's a
matter of luck.

George in SF

#23

"It's all in the number of royals and other rare hands and that's a
matter of luck."

That was VERY well put!

Like it or not, video poker is still a game of CHANCE.

···

On 8/11/07, George <wxmen@sonic.net> wrote:

Just ran a simulation of 250,000 hands of FPDW on WinPoker for a
return of 99.29% and a loss of $22,000 (quarter based.)

I did this a few years ago for 1,000,000 hands and had an even lower
return. If you really want to scare yourself, run a million hands of
a "safe" game like JOB and pretend you are playing a high denom game.

It's all in the number of royals and other rare hands and that's a
matter of luck.

George in SF

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

#24

Curtis Rich wrote (quoting George):

"It's all in the number of royals and other rare hands and that's a
matter of luck."

That was VERY well put!

Like it or not, video poker is still a game of CHANCE.

This is the third of 3 successive posts that what's at play in
"morrie"s adverse play report merely involves luck.

Not to be rude, but "read my lips": In this case, this is akin to
saying that someone's being struck by lightning is merely a matter of
luck, despite the fact that they were standing in the middle of a vast
empty field holding onto a 20 ft steel pole (mind you, I'm not citing
this as analogous to "morrie"s misfortune -- it's just another case
where someone writing the experience off to dumb luck is almost
entirely wildly off base.

The thing that distinguishes "morrie"s experience from the suggestion
above is that he's specifically EXCLUDED "royals and other royal
hands" from the play statistics in measuring up his results against
expectations.

I realize that the math involved is dry as a bone and entirely
uninteresting. But if "morrie" is talking about a track record of
400K+ hands he's reporting a worse than a "one in a million" event.

Now, no doubt he could simply be the taking the brunt of a cruel joke
of the universe. Some poor soul is going to be hit by lightning twice
in their life for no cause other than being in the wrong place twice.
But the odds are so extreme here that one has put blinders on if you
come to grips with the math and yet don't find good reason to find the
casino suspect -- provided that you accept all other information as fact.

I won't debate anyone that should choose to question the facts as
reported. However, dumb luck doesn't cut it here.

- Harry

#25

don.guer wrote:

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 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."

An unfortunate run. Calculation with a Poisson distribution puts the
probability of a deuce drought involving 5 or less hits on this play
at 1.1%. I think we'll both agree that most any active deuces player
should anticipate such a dry run sometime along the way.

- Harry

#26

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

The thing that distinguishes "morrie"s experience from the

suggestion

above is that he's specifically EXCLUDED "royals and other royal
hands" from the play statistics in measuring up his results against
expectations.

I realize that the math involved is dry as a bone and entirely
uninteresting. But if "morrie" is talking about a track record of
400K+ hands he's reporting a worse than a "one in a million"

event.

Now, no doubt he could simply be the taking the brunt of a cruel

joke

of the universe. Some poor soul is going to be hit by lightning

twice

in their life for no cause other than being in the wrong place

twice.

But the odds are so extreme here that one has put blinders on if

you

come to grips with the math and yet don't find good reason to find

the

casino suspect -- provided that you accept all other information as

fact.

I won't debate anyone that should choose to question the facts as
reported. However, dumb luck doesn't cut it here.

Right, Harry. The exlusion of the jackpots is exactly what concerned
me with my situation. Although, I have fewer hands at 200K, it's
still enough to make me pause.

A lot of theories have been thrown out and there's another one that
hasn't been mentioned. A computer bug. A video poker machine is
nothing but a computer with tons of code. I'm very concerned that the
NGC has no way to verify these machines match expected results. A
completely unintentional bug might pass right through their testing
process.

Dick

#27

To suggest a bug is little far fetched. If such bug existed it would
have discovered decades ago. No one would have winning history and
their is plenty of winners.

kellypkjoe

···

--- mroejacks <rgmustain@aol.com> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
> The thing that distinguishes "morrie"s experience from the
suggestion
> above is that he's specifically EXCLUDED "royals and other royal
> hands" from the play statistics in measuring up his results against
> expectations.
>
> I realize that the math involved is dry as a bone and entirely
> uninteresting. But if "morrie" is talking about a track record of
> 400K+ hands he's reporting a worse than a "one in a million"
event.
>
> Now, no doubt he could simply be the taking the brunt of a cruel
joke
> of the universe. Some poor soul is going to be hit by lightning
twice
> in their life for no cause other than being in the wrong place
twice.
> But the odds are so extreme here that one has put blinders on if
you
> come to grips with the math and yet don't find good reason to find
the
> casino suspect -- provided that you accept all other information as

fact.
>
> I won't debate anyone that should choose to question the facts as
> reported. However, dumb luck doesn't cut it here.

Right, Harry. The exlusion of the jackpots is exactly what concerned
me with my situation. Although, I have fewer hands at 200K, it's
still enough to make me pause.

A lot of theories have been thrown out and there's another one that
hasn't been mentioned. A computer bug. A video poker machine is
nothing but a computer with tons of code. I'm very concerned that the

NGC has no way to verify these machines match expected results. A
completely unintentional bug might pass right through their testing
process.

Dick

____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

#28

kellypkjoe wrote:

To suggest a bug is little far fetched. If such bug existed it would
have discovered decades ago.

I'm inclined to agree.

On a separate note, earlier you provided some numbers concerning your
deuces play. However, for your reported return statistic it wasn't
entirely clear as to how much of that play is reflected in the
reported return. It would be helpful if you would indicate how many
hands were specifically represented in your return numbers.

- Harry

#29

Wasn't there a long-standing problem with (sigh) IGT blackjack machines? I
thought I read this in this VP group... the expected payout was slightly
more than the reported payout because of something overlooked?

Maybe its not that outlandish?

···

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

  kellypkjoe wrote:
> To suggest a bug is little far fetched. If such bug existed it would
> have discovered decades ago.

I'm inclined to agree.

On a separate note, earlier you provided some numbers concerning your
deuces play. However, for your reported return statistic it wasn't
entirely clear as to how much of that play is reflected in the
reported return. It would be helpful if you would indicate how many
hands were specifically represented in your return numbers.

- Harry

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

#30

Just ran a simulation of 250,000 hands of FPDW on WinPoker for a
return of 99.29% and a loss of $22,000 (quarter based.)

For quarters it's a loss of around $2,200.

vpFae

#31

I agree it is farfetched, but not impossible. Computer bugs are not
always direct and easy to locate. They can be very subtle and may only
only impact a few people who meet whatever strange stiuation causes the
bug to rear it's ugly head. Those who have worked closely with
computers know what I'm talking about.

Dick

···

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

To suggest a bug is little far fetched. If such bug existed it would
have discovered decades ago. No one would have winning history and
their is plenty of winners.

#32

Following is a response I recently receive from the Alcohol and
Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) regarding video poker machines in
Ontario:

"The AGCO regulates the gaming industry in Ontario , including
testing for the technical integrity, security and safety of all
electronic gaming machines operating in Ontario gaming facilities.
The AGCO requires 'cards' in video poker machines be dealt in a
completely random manner. The randomness of the video poker "cards"
in a deal is verified by various statistical tests, such as frequency
test, "poker" tests and Kolmogorov-Smirnof test. The randomness of
the winning combinations is verified by a statistical test
called "goodness of fit"."

It seems odd to me that what Ontario can apparently do, Nevada can't.

···

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

. I'm very concerned that the
NGC has no way to verify these machines match expected results. A
completely unintentional bug might pass right through their testing
process.

#33

> . I'm very concerned that the
> NGC has no way to verify these machines match expected results. A
> completely unintentional bug might pass right through their

testing

> process.

Following is a response I recently receive from the Alcohol and
Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) regarding video poker machines

in

Ontario:

"The AGCO regulates the gaming industry in Ontario , including
testing for the technical integrity, security and safety of all
electronic gaming machines operating in Ontario gaming facilities.
The AGCO requires 'cards' in video poker machines be dealt in a
completely random manner. The randomness of the video

poker "cards"

in a deal is verified by various statistical tests, such as

frequency

test, "poker" tests and Kolmogorov-Smirnof test. The randomness of
the winning combinations is verified by a statistical test
called "goodness of fit"."

It seems odd to me that what Ontario can apparently do, Nevada

can't.

I suspect this means that the machines can be tested in a lab but not
in a casino. Once tested the chips are somehow secured to insure no
tampering. Does this mean the system is foolproof? I doubt it.

Dick

···

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

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

#34

Those of you who believe that the casinos can "tweak" full pay machines "legally" and insure a good profit on these machines should ask themselves the following question:
    With guaranteed good income from the very popular full pay deuces and other full pay machines, why aren't these machines in every casino on the strip instead of becoming more extinct with passing time?

Randi.d

#35

That's a very good point. Honesty of big business goes
so far, remember what happened with Enron. It's about
time that the state casino commissions do their job.
vet

···

--- neilemb <nembree@rogers.com> wrote:

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

> . I'm very concerned that the
> NGC has no way to verify these machines match
expected results. A
> completely unintentional bug might pass right
through their testing
> process.

Following is a response I recently receive from the
Alcohol and
Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) regarding video
poker machines in
Ontario:

"The AGCO regulates the gaming industry in Ontario ,
including
testing for the technical integrity, security and
safety of all
electronic gaming machines operating in Ontario
gaming facilities.
The AGCO requires 'cards' in video poker machines be
dealt in a
completely random manner. The randomness of the
video poker "cards"
in a deal is verified by various statistical tests,
such as frequency
test, "poker" tests and Kolmogorov-Smirnof test.
The randomness of
the winning combinations is verified by a
statistical test
called "goodness of fit"."

It seems odd to me that what Ontario can apparently
do, Nevada can't.

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

#36

Well, they give all their citizens health insurance, too, and we
apparently can't.

···

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

It seems odd to me that what Ontario can apparently do, Nevada can't.

#37

I've never truly questioned the randomness of VP machines out here in Las
Vegas. However, I must admit, there is one thing that always gives me
pause. It seems like whenever I'm trying to draw a 5th card to a certain
hand, I'll often get dealt the same 5th card that was there on the deal, but
in a different suit.

For instance:

3H 7H 9H 10H QS

When trying to draw a 5th heart for the flush, I'll end up drawing something
like the queen of diamonds.

Of course, this is purely anecdotal, and maybe just what I choose to
remember most, and probably has nothing to do with statistics or fixed
machines...but it does seem to happen a lot more than one would think...at
least to me. :wink:

#38

Deuces sounds like the game of choice for most players here, so I've taken
the time to try to learn the game. However, I find that I have a lot of
trouble dealing with getting a natural four of a kind, and only getting paid
a pittance for it. Can someone help me learn to enjoy this game!?!?! :slight_smile:

#39

You have a 2/47 chance of that happening. Since it is a strange event
you tend to notice it. Not a big deal.

Edmund

···

On 8/12/07, Nathan O. Roemer <public@soundmessage.com> wrote:

I've never truly questioned the randomness of VP machines out here in Las
Vegas. However, I must admit, there is one thing that always gives me
pause. It seems like whenever I'm trying to draw a 5th card to a certain
hand, I'll often get dealt the same 5th card that was there on the deal, but
in a different suit.

For instance:

3H 7H 9H 10H QS

When trying to draw a 5th heart for the flush, I'll end up drawing something
like the queen of diamonds.

Of course, this is purely anecdotal, and maybe just what I choose to
remember most, and probably has nothing to do with statistics or fixed
machines...but it does seem to happen a lot more than one would think...at
least to me. :wink:

#40

I'm not a believer in tweaking, but I've seen enough to believe something's up. I've played the FPDW at Sams Town often and only on 6x and recently their 7x weekends or periods. The deuces appear almost on schedule, but I have one royal in one year of entirely too much play. What's even more curious is I have only seen 2 others hit royals when I'm playing, and when I play believe me the seats are full or close to it.
   
  I can't believe the casinos lose anything on these machines, and why there aren't more of them I think has more to do with who comes in to play them more than anything else. I don't know if Wynn still has their 100% machines, but I seem to recall it was the clientel that either made them take them out or reduce their numbers.
   
  Thank you for the input on the fact that Michael's is open to the public. Now all I need do is look for that 125 credit quad bonus card in the mail, play $25 jacks or better at the LVH, and hit it in my first few hands so I can go.

···

"randi.d" <randi.d@prodigy.net> wrote:
          Those of you who believe that the casinos can "tweak" full pay machines
"legally" and insure a good profit on these machines should ask themselves
the following question:
With guaranteed good income from the very popular full pay deuces and
other full pay machines, why aren't these machines in every casino on the
strip instead of becoming more extinct with passing time?

Randi.d

---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
       
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.

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