Comparing getting dealt 4 cards to a royal to 4 cards to a straight flush
This is purely anecdotal and you probably have a (relatively) small sample
size. If the math holds correct (i.e. not a rigged machine), then the 9-to-1
is still true.
···
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:16 AM, been2all50 <been2all50@yahoo.com> wrote:
From my experience, as if getting dealt 4 cards to a royal is more frequent
than getting dealt 4 cards to a straight flush. Can someone explain to me
why? The ratio should be 9:1
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9 to 1 is the ratio of the frequency of getting dealt a straight flush
to the frequency of getting dealt a royal flush. If hands in which 4
to a straight flush or 4 to a royal flush are dealt but not drawn to
aren't counted, the ratio of the frequency of getting dealt 4 to a
straight flush to the frequency of getting dealt 4 to a royal flush
can be less than 5 to 1.
···
This is purely anecdotal and you probably have a (relatively) small sample
size. If the math holds correct (i.e. not a rigged machine), then the 9-to-1
is still true.On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:16 AM, been2all50 <been2all50@yahoo.com> wrote:
From my experience, as if getting dealt 4 cards to a royal is more frequent
than getting dealt 4 cards to a straight flush. Can someone explain to me
why? The ratio should be 9:1[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In my opinion, and it IS opinion, not the product of analyzing empirical evidence, certain things are significantly more memorable than others. So the 4 to a RF 10-J-K-A of hearts sticks in one's memory more vividly than 4-5-7-8 of hearts. You probably get a burst of adrenaline, thinking about the potential royal. Just as you might remember exactly what happened on December 25th in the year you were six and you got the bike, and haven't a clue what you did on December 5th or 15th the same year.
I also believe, though I might be proven wrong by the testing Singer is doing, that a similar phenomenon might be taking place where the "same card, different suit" issue has been raised. The reappearance of a 4, but hearts replacing diamonds, instead of the spade or the 7 you wanted for a flush or straight, becomes more memorable because you're focused in on that one card. When you throw away all cards for five new ones, you look at the whole array, never noticing that a 7 appears 27.6% more frequently than would be expected in the second position. (I made that stat up, but it sounds legit).
when pulling for a high inside straight, I'm much more successful pulling a Queen than any other card
when I need an 8, I get a 9, and vice versa, and I NEVER get quad 9's
Jacks and deuces seem to go together more often than any other combo in 2 pair & full houses
the card I needed for quads or a RF comes up on the very next hand, 62.5% of the time in the exact position I needed (another made up stat)
whatever card I needed, I usually get just one card off, and whatever suit I need, I get the same color almost all the time.
I'm not sayingthat any of these occurrences ACTUALLY happens outside the bounds of normal statistical probability, just that it SEEMS that way. And every time it does happen, it just reinforces that notion.
···
From my own play, I've noticed the following items that seem to occur more than "random normal":
________________________________
From: been2all50 <been2all50@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:16:32 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Comparing getting dealt 4 cards to a royal to 4 cards to a straight flush
From my experience, as if getting dealt 4 cards to a royal is more frequent than getting dealt 4 cards to a straight flush. Can someone explain to me why? The ratio should be 9:1
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
That's why I think the VP machines a output machines. Too many almost RF. For slot machines, they can be programed for near misses which is legal.
Are VP machines immune to this?( can not be programed for almost RF?)
Roughly, how often do you get dealt 4 cards to a royal? ....1/2764 ?
···
________________________________
From: Guru Perf <guruperf@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:22:10 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Comparing getting dealt 4 cards to a royal to 4 cards to a straight flush
In my opinion, and it IS opinion, not the product of analyzing empirical evidence, certain things are significantly more memorable than others. So the 4 to a RF 10-J-K-A of hearts sticks in one's memory more vividly than 4-5-7-8 of hearts. You probably get a burst of adrenaline, thinking about the potential royal. Just as you might remember exactly what happened on December 25th in the year you were six and you got the bike, and haven't a clue what you did on December 5th or 15th the same year.
I also believe, though I might be proven wrong by the testing Singer is doing, that a similar phenomenon might be taking place where the "same card, different suit" issue has been raised. The reappearance of a 4, but hearts replacing diamonds, instead of the spade or the 7 you wanted for a flush or straight, becomes more memorable because you're focused in on that one card. When you throw away all cards for five new ones, you look at the whole array, never noticing that a 7 appears 27.6% more frequently than would be expected in the second position. (I made that stat up, but it sounds legit).
From my own play, I've noticed the following items that seem to occur more than "random normal":
when pulling for a high inside straight, I'm much more successful pulling a Queen than any other card
when I need an 8, I get a 9, and vice versa, and I NEVER get quad 9's
Jacks and deuces seem to go together more often than any other combo in 2 pair & full houses
the card I needed for quads or a RF comes up on the very next hand, 62.5% of the time in the exact position I needed (another made up stat)
whatever card I needed, I usually get just one card off, and whatever suit I need, I get the same color almost all the time.
I'm not sayingthat any of these occurrences ACTUALLY happens outside the bounds of normal statistical probability, just that it SEEMS that way. And every time it does happen, it just reinforces that notion.
____________ _________ _________ __
From: been2all50 <been2all50@yahoo. com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:16:32 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Comparing getting dealt 4 cards to a royal to 4 cards to a straight flush
From my experience, as if getting dealt 4 cards to a royal is more frequent than getting dealt 4 cards to a straight flush. Can someone explain to me why? The ratio should be 9:1
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
That's why I think the VP machines a output machines. Too many almost RF.
For slot machines, they can be programed for near misses which is legal.
IIRC, this practice has been discontinued.
Are VP machines immune to this?( can not be programed for almost RF?)
It would be illegal to program VP for "almost RF's" in Nevada (and
in many other regulated jurisdictions).
···
On 5 May 2009 at 20:56, ERNIE NELMIDA wrote:
> That's why I think the VP machines a output machines. Too many almost RF.
> For slot machines, they can be programed for near misses�which is�legal.
IIRC, this practice has been discontinued.
Well, I think there's some semantics issues involved. For example, IGT claims they do not specifically program a "near miss", as this would be considered encouraging addictive behavior. But that's a little like McDonald's claiming they don't add addictive substances to their burgers (which would be illegal), instead they add "flavor enhancers". Back to IGT, Wheel of Fortune is the obvious case. Anyone who has played this game soon understands that the wheel is not an equally weighted random spin as one would expect a non-gaffed physical "wheel of fortune" to act. Instead the position, just before the top prize, hits about 80% of the time. IGT would claim that that position was programmed to hit about 80% of the time, and it's irrelevant that it just happens to be one position off from the top prize. Anyone who plays the game would say it's a near miss of the top prize, as the frequent cursing and "oh just missed again" will attest. Players don't think "yippee I hit the same prize again, what are the odds of that happening?", instead they think "how could I just miss the top prize again?" Hence I say it's a semantic issue. One for the lawyers, and perhaps one day a jury.
> Are VP machines immune to this?( can not be programed for almost RF?)
It would be illegal to program VP for "almost RF's" in Nevada (and
in many other regulated jurisdictions).
Minor clarification: "almost RF's" will occur in a fair deal. The issue is whether or not there are more "almost RF's" than a fair deal would statistically allow. That would be a violation of NGR:
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf
"14.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices. All gaming devices submitted for approval: ... (b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical
probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the
mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game. For other
gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game
outcome must be constant."
It seems to me that the wheel in IGT Wheel of Fortune is in violation of this regulation ("wheel of fortune" is a live gambling game), but I am not a lawyer or judge (but I have served on juries).
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...> wrote:
On 5 May 2009 at 20:56, ERNIE NELMIDA wrote: