I believe you have proved a valid point that the
secondary programs are determining the payout.
It may be a valid point, but how on Earth can you say it is proven?
I don't question your assumption. But I am saying that proof is
considered either having absolute verifiable facts or at the very
least a substantial amount of evidence.
Guess what? The casinos won't give it to you.
There are really only two scenarios - the games are fair, or they are
rigged. If they are fair, an occasional perfect player will still
have a horrible run of luck resulting in the poor outcome cited.
If the games aren't fair, then the casinos can manipulate them at
will. Kick in the secondary program on Monday this week, then give it
a rest. Add the chip next Tuesday and Friday, then put the game back
to normal. And so forth.
If that is the case, we are all wasting an incredible amount of time.
And, more to the point ... money.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1b. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "kellypkjoe" kellypkjoe@yahoo.com kellypkjoe Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:19 pm (PST) 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
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
To: "vpFREE@yahoogroups.com" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 8/11/07 5:46 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Digest Number 5247
vpFREE Messages In This Digest (25 Messages) 1a. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: npf15251 1b. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: kellypkjoe 1c. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: getinholdon@aol.com 1d. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: kcace1024 1e. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: Jason Pawloski 1f. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: Bob Dancer 1g. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: Bob Dancer 1h. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: Steve Del Nero 1i. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: nightoftheiguana2000 1j. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: Harry Porter 1k. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: Jason Pawloski 1l. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: Harry Porter 1m. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: Harry Porter 1n. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? From: bornloser1537 2a. Re: Deadwood, South Dakota VP? From: David Austin 3a. Suncoast player beware From: sheiky2 3b. Re: Suncoast player beware From: krallison416@aol.com 3c. Re: Suncoast player beware From: Steve Del Nero 3d. Re: Suncoast player beware From: Harry Porter 4a. Re: Vegas Report From: Albert Pearson 4b. Re: Vegas Report From: Charles Galle 5a. Re: Michael's Visit XVP From: krallison416@aol.com 6a. hot spots From: Charles Galle 6b. Re: hot spots From: jeffcole2003oct 6c. Re: hot spots From: vpFae View All Topics | Create New Topic Messages 1a. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "npf15251" npf15251@yahoo.com npf15251 Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:12 pm (PST) --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vet <vet611@...> wrote:
--- 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
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1c. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "getinholdon@aol.com" getinholdon@aol.com pollp15 Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:59 pm (PST) I think we're beating cheated by not getting 4000 points for an ace low
straight flush as it has the same odds of one getting an ace high straight
flush...i.e. a royal, no?
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1d. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "kcace1024" cy4873@hotmail.com kcace1024 Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:41 pm (PST) It would not be too difficult to prove that the lower hands (below 4
deuces) are showing up with the right frequency. The cycle time is
short enough that if we could get several regular players to keep
good records over 100,000 hands we would have enough data to be 95%
confident that the machines are random or not. Depending on the
number of players one could obtain higher confidence levels or go
with fewer hands per player. I proposed this experiment once before,
but I presume the local LV players are pretty convinced the FPDW are
random and fair so there was no interest in conducting such a test.
Chris
-- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "npf15251" <npf15251@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vet <vet611@> wrote:
>
> I believe you have proved a valid point that the
> secondary programs are determining the payout.It may be a valid point, but how on Earth can you say it is proven?
I don't question your assumption. But I am saying that proof is
considered either having absolute verifiable facts or at the very
least a substantial amount of evidence.Guess what? The casinos won't give it to you.
There are really only two scenarios - the games are fair, or they
are
rigged. If they are fair, an occasional perfect player will still
have a horrible run of luck resulting in the poor outcome cited.If the games aren't fair, then the casinos can manipulate them at
will. Kick in the secondary program on Monday this week, then give
it
a rest. Add the chip next Tuesday and Friday, then put the game
back
to normal. And so forth.
If that is the case, we are all wasting an incredible amount of
time.
And, more to the point ... money.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1e. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "Jason Pawloski" jpawloski@gmail.com nemesissoft.rm Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:41 pm (PST) 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]
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1f. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "Bob Dancer" bob.dancer@compdance.com bobdancer05 Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:12 pm (PST) Getinholdon wrote: I think we're beating cheated by not getting 4000
points for an ace low
straight flush as it has the same odds of one getting an ace high
straight
flush...i.e. a royal, no?
No. In games based on Jacks or Better, it is more difficult to get a
suited 'A2345' than a royal. You will hold 'AK' in these games, where
the odds against you are a mere 16,214 to 1, but from 'A2', you'll hold
the ace only and the odds are now impossible to get 'A2345' on this
hand.
There has been at least one game with High and Low Royals. Everything
else in the pay schedule was lowered to make up for the additional
4,000-coin jackpot. You can feel bad that the casinos don't offer 102%
games if that'll make you feel better, but it's just not going to happen
except in rare cases (which are eliminated when identified by the
casinos) --- or on progressives.
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
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1g. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "Bob Dancer" bob.dancer@compdance.com bobdancer05 Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:28 pm (PST) 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
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1h. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "Steve Del Nero" artcontrol@cox.net artcon2002 Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:15 pm (PST) 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
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1i. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "nightoftheiguana2000" nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com nightoftheiguana2000 Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:29 pm (PST) --- 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?
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.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1j. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "Harry Porter" harry.porter@verizon.net vp_wiz Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:21 am (PST) 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.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1k. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "Jason Pawloski" jpawloski@gmail.com nemesissoft.rm Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:29 am (PST) 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]
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1l. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "Harry Porter" harry.porter@verizon.net vp_wiz Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:06 am (PST) 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 
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1m. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "Harry Porter" harry.porter@verizon.net vp_wiz Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:26 am (PST) 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
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 1n. Re: Are you being cheated on Full Pay Video Poker? Posted by: "bornloser1537" bornloser1537@yahoo.com bornloser1537 Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:46 am (PST) --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "npf15251" <npf15251@...> wrote:
... we are all wasting an incredible amount of time.
And, more to the point ... money.
I cannot buy this "conspiracy theory". But, I cannot speak for
anyone except myself. Further, I probably don't play at the rate
that some of you do. However, over the past 5 years, I have visited
LV 4-5 times a year, sometimes with spouse, sometimes with sons,
sometimes all of 4 of us. Each trip, each of us play about 10,000
hands on a variety of 99%+ video poker, at various venues.
Sometimes we are up, sometimes we are down. Over the whole 5 years,
right at this minute, we are roughly a few thousand down, less than
$5K, cumulative.
Over all of that time we have had fun and been entertained. None of
us feel we have been wasting an increible amount of time or money.
Just one family's experience...
.... bl
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (18) 2a. Re: Deadwood, South Dakota VP? Posted by: "David Austin" rendav@earthlink.net meeko1968 Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:50 pm (PST) We go up every January, VP is limited, and poor paytables. The best we have done we ole coin droppers on lower main, the North side of the street. There are machines scattered throughout town. Slots clubs are varible as well, we received cash back at First Gold on the northeast side of town A few STP/multi lines at the Silverado. Lots of small casinos throughout town. Franklin is newly remodeled and beautiful. You can email me if you need anything more specific.
(rendav@earthlink.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: Cat Denton
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 8/10/2007 1:47:13 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Deadwood, South Dakota VP?
We are planning a trip to Deadwood. Does anyone know about the VP there?
CAT
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3) 3a. Suncoast player beware Posted by: "sheiky2" sheiky2@msn.com sheiky2 Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:58 pm (PST) The Suncoast has downgraded many Machines throught the casino at the
Quarter and higher level.
Make sure you check your paytables before playing. Also, I am not sure
if this downgrading is over.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4) 3b. Re: Suncoast player beware Posted by: "krallison416@aol.com" krallison416@aol.com krallison1 Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:44 pm (PST)
In a message dated 8/10/2007 8:59:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sheiky2@msn.com writes:
The Suncoast has downgraded many Machines throught the casino at the
Quarter and higher level.
On the other hand, they have upgraded the deuces by the valet entrance to
NSUD.
Karen
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life, music and cats.
Albert Schweitzer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4) 3c. Re: Suncoast player beware Posted by: "Steve Del Nero" artcontrol@cox.net artcon2002 Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:18 pm (PST) > On the other hand, they have upgraded the deuces by the valet entrance to
NSUD.
Another reason I refuse to go there anymore (even with quarter FPDW), even
though it is sort of walking distance from my home. Why go to a place that
is constantly changing its machines?
-- Steve in LV
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4) 3d. Re: Suncoast player beware Posted by: "Harry Porter" harry.porter@verizon.net vp_wiz Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:30 am (PST) Steve Del Nero wrote:
Another reason I refuse to go there anymore (even with quarter FPDW),
even though it is sort of walking distance from my home. Why go to a
place that is constantly changing its machines?
Sigh ... rub it in, Steve. That's the only kind of place we have to
play in AC.
- H.
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4) 4a. Re: Vegas Report Posted by: "Albert Pearson" ehpee@rogers.com ehpee123 Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:03 pm (PST) Well done. Once again proving that a semi moderated forum is the way to go.
Regards
A.P.
--- vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@yahoo.com> wrote:
"docbrune4241", who sent a nasty, private email in response to
a vpFREE post, has been banned from posting or reading messages
on vpFREE.vpFREE Administrator
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (16) 4b. Re: Vegas Report Posted by: "Charles Galle" galle2u2@yahoo.com galle2u2 Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:55 pm (PST) I will be in Las Vegas and am wanting to know where I can find free available wireless signals. They were called "free hot spots" in an article or blog several months ago. Does anybody remember the hot spot locations? thanks for your time and effort
I tried to send this to you as an in line text before and the site would not accept it as a topic
vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@yahoo.com> wrote:
"docbrune4241", who sent a nasty, private email in response to
a vpFREE post, has been banned from posting or reading messages
on vpFREE.
"docbrune4241" joined vpFREE on 20 June 2007, immediately
posted a legitimate response to a post and was unmoderated.
Later that day "docbrune4241" posted another message that
contained negative personal comments and was placed on
moderated status. S/he has attempted to post three messages
since then and all three were rejected because of negative
personal comments.
vpFREE Administrator
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (16) 5a. Re: Michael's Visit XVP Posted by: "krallison416@aol.com" krallison416@aol.com krallison1 Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:34 pm (PST)
In a message dated 8/10/2007 2:08:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ugwf@hal-pc.org writes:
I think they need a disclaimer on
the menu that if you have to ask, you can't afford it
That's about the size of it. However, you do not need any appetizers if it
is the same as when we went in 2001 - they presented a huge tray of all sorts
of goodies, some very expensive, as part of the dinner.
Karen
There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life, music and cats.
Albert Schweitzer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (4) 6a. hot spots Posted by: "Charles Galle" galle2u2@yahoo.com galle2u2 Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:00 pm (PST) I will be in Las Vegas and am wanting to know where I can find free available wireless signals. They were called "free hot spots" in an article or blog several months ago. Does anybody remember the hot spot locations? thanks for your time and effort
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3) 6b. Re: hot spots Posted by: "jeffcole2003oct" jeff-cole@comcast.net jeffcole2003oct Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:10 pm (PST) Charles Galle wrote:
I will be in Las Vegas and am wanting to know where I can find free
available wireless signals. They were called "free hot spots" in an
article or blog several months ago. Does anybody remember the hot
spot locations? thanks for your time and effort
Try this:
http://www.wi-fihotspotlist.com/browse/us/2000283/2049997/p1.html
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3) 6c. Re: hot spots Posted by: "vpFae" vpFae@Cox.net vpfae6128305 Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:12 am (PST) On 10 Aug 2007 at 22:59, Charles Galle wrote:
I will be in Las Vegas and am wanting to know where I can find free
available wireless signals. They were called "free hot spots" in an
article or blog several months ago. Does anybody remember the hot
spot locations? thanks for your time and effort
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/LV_I.htm
Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3) Recent Activity 25 New Members Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS Vpfree Recreation Sports Database Poker Y! Sports for TV
Access it for free
Get Fantasy Sports
stats on your TV. Yahoo! TV
Staying in tonight?
Check Daily Picks &
see what to watch. Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal
Guides, news,
advice & more. Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest. Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web Messages vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe FLAGS (XAOL-GOODCHECK-DONE XAOL-RECEIVED XAOL-GOOD))