The "same rank anomaly" has been well documented by many people, but unfortunately it is all what a court would probably call hearsay evidence. Just individual players, having seen the anomaly many times, started keeping records. I was one of those. Assuming you are not holding one of the same rank cards as your discard, there are three in the remaining 47 unseen cards, so on a one-card draw you should get a card of the same rank as the discard a little more often than once in 16 such draws. About ten years ago, I kept careful track of over 300 such draws, and averaged a draw card of the same rank as the discard a little more often than one in 12 times. Not overwhelming statistics, but enough to lend some credence to the subjective observations.
Could such anomalies really exist in machines approved in Nevada? It is my opinion that anyone who refuses to consider that possibility has far too much faith in government regulation, testing and enforcement.
In spite of the many reported anomalies, however, there has been no evidence that the long-term return of the games is statistically different than expectation.
Dan
ยทยทยท
"teacuplily" <teacuplily@yahoo.com> wrote:
A while back , before learning Singer method, I emailed Dancer about
the anomaly of redrawing same rank card more often than not on
discard. I think you know what Im talking about. (In AC anyway) He bet
me $10 g it doesn't happen, he gets $10 g. He didn't say what I would
get if it came out. After reading your articles about these type bets
I have to wonder what the 'small print' on that bet would have been.
That errogant email is why my wife thinks he's a fraud. He wanted me
to think I was some kinda moroon.
Ron
--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor/Publisher of VP newsletter "Video Poker Times"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com
"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur