vpFREE2 Forums

Don't you hate it..........

#1

Lee Crowell wrote:
> when you do the right thing and it turns out wrong?
>
> Last Thursday I checked into Harrah's LV- hey, I know, but friends
> were in town- on my second hand on the progressive $1 bank in Poker
> place, I was dealt AKQ of diamonds and the Q of clubs- the
> progressive was at $4,250- so of course, I hold the 2 Qs, but as
> I'm reaching for the deal button, I'm thinking, hey, it's only my
> second hand, maybe I should go for the royal? But, as usual, I went
> back to my favorite line- play right or don't play at all. You can
> guess what 2 cards came up. Did I mention how much I hate that?

Of course, that makes the assumptions that:
(a) the deck is "shuffled" when you press the play button, and nothing changes the order of the cards in that game from that point (otherwise, had you not hesitated, you probably wouldn't have been dealt the JT), and
(b) when you discard, the replacement cards are dealt "from the top of the deck" (insert "I know casinos where they must have been dealing from the bottom" jokes here), as opposed to "dealing" 10 cards at the start, with each card having its potential replacement determined at that point.

Has it ever been established how VP machines "work" in terms of how the cards are dealt during a game?

-- Don

#2

I'm thinking I read somewhere many years ago that video poker deals 5 cards + 5 cards, total of 10 at once, meaning a card is behind the card you discard. So you would never know what might have been. I could be mistaken. Any one else heard of this?
   
  Magnum.

          Lee Crowell wrote:

when you do the right thing and it turns out wrong?

Last Thursday I checked into Harrah's LV- hey, I know, but friends
were in town- on my second hand on the progressive $1 bank in Poker
place, I was dealt AKQ of diamonds and the Q of clubs- the
progressive was at $4,250- so of course, I hold the 2 Qs, but as
I'm reaching for the deal button, I'm thinking, hey, it's only my
second hand, maybe I should go for the royal? But, as usual, I went
back to my favorite line- play right or don't play at all. You can
guess what 2 cards came up. Did I mention how much I hate that?

Of course, that makes the assumptions that:
(a) the deck is "shuffled" when you press the play button, and nothing
changes the order of the cards in that game from that point (otherwise,
had you not hesitated, you probably wouldn't have been dealt the JT), and
(b) when you discard, the replacement cards are dealt "from the top of
the deck" (insert "I know casinos where they must have been dealing from
the bottom" jokes here), as opposed to "dealing" 10 cards at the start,
with each card having its potential replacement determined at that point.

Has it ever been established how VP machines "work" in terms of how the
cards are dealt during a game?

-- Don

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

···

Don Del Grande <del_grande@earthlink.net> wrote:

#3

I wrote to IGT once about this and they responded with this link: http://www.strictlyslots.com/archive/0505ss/rng.html

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Norwood" <magnum0829@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re:Don't you hate it..........

I'm thinking I read somewhere many years ago that video poker deals 5 cards + 5 cards, total of 10 at once, meaning a card is behind the card you discard. So you would never know what might have been. I could be mistaken. Any one else heard of this?

Magnum.

Don Del Grande <del_grande@earthlink.net> wrote:
         Lee Crowell wrote:

when you do the right thing and it turns out wrong?

Last Thursday I checked into Harrah's LV- hey, I know, but friends
were in town- on my second hand on the progressive $1 bank in Poker
place, I was dealt AKQ of diamonds and the Q of clubs- the
progressive was at $4,250- so of course, I hold the 2 Qs, but as
I'm reaching for the deal button, I'm thinking, hey, it's only my
second hand, maybe I should go for the royal? But, as usual, I went
back to my favorite line- play right or don't play at all. You can
guess what 2 cards came up. Did I mention how much I hate that?

Of course, that makes the assumptions that:
(a) the deck is "shuffled" when you press the play button, and nothing
changes the order of the cards in that game from that point (otherwise,
had you not hesitated, you probably wouldn't have been dealt the JT), and
(b) when you discard, the replacement cards are dealt "from the top of
the deck" (insert "I know casinos where they must have been dealing from
the bottom" jokes here), as opposed to "dealing" 10 cards at the start,
with each card having its potential replacement determined at that point.

Has it ever been established how VP machines "work" in terms of how the
cards are dealt during a game?

-- Don

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

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#4

OK, let's clarify this for the thousandth time. Legato is either careless or ignorant (this is why Strictly Slots should be read for the number of errors that can be found, not its informative capacity), but his information is not correct. The RNG does NOT select a number that corresponds to a 10-card hand. First, imagine trying to write a program listing every possible hand and assigning a number to it. Then try to figure out how regulators can determine if every hand is covered.

Instead, it is simple to have the RNG pick a number between 1 and 52 (or more, if there are Jokers). That number is mapped to a particular card. Then it picks another number between 1 and 52, checks to see if its a duplicate and, if not, finds the card that that number is mapped to. This goes on in IGT Game Kings and Bally GameMakers (probably in all other modern VP machines as well) until exactly 5 cards are dealt. While you are deciding which cards to hold, the RNG continues to cycle, selecting numbers and throwing them away. When you push the "draw" button it stops the RNG and pulls numbers until as many new cards as are required are selected.

There is a suspicion that early VP machines did, in fact, deal 10 cards at a time but it is unclear whether they queued them as FIFO or lined them up behind the first 5 cards. However, it is an absolute fact that modern machines work as I have described. I have verified this with IGT product management, Bally product management and 2 IGT programmers who work on VP.

Perhaps vpFREE management would like to post this somewhere on the website so this question doesn't keep coming up.

···

At 12:25 PM 5/17/2008, you wrote:

I wrote to IGT once about this and they responded with this link:
http://www.strictlyslots.com/archive/0505ss/rng.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Norwood" <magnum0829@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re:Don't you hate it..........

> I'm thinking I read somewhere many years ago that video poker deals
> 5 cards + 5 cards, total of 10 at once, meaning a card is behind the
> card you discard. So you would never know what might have been. I
> could be mistaken. Any one else heard of this?
>
> Magnum.
>
> Don Del Grande <del_grande@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Lee Crowell wrote:
>> when you do the right thing and it turns out wrong?
>>
>> Last Thursday I checked into Harrah's LV- hey, I know, but friends
>> were in town- on my second hand on the progressive $1 bank in Poker
>> place, I was dealt AKQ of diamonds and the Q of clubs- the
>> progressive was at $4,250- so of course, I hold the 2 Qs, but as
>> I'm reaching for the deal button, I'm thinking, hey, it's only my
>> second hand, maybe I should go for the royal? But, as usual, I went
>> back to my favorite line- play right or don't play at all. You can
>> guess what 2 cards came up. Did I mention how much I hate that?
>
> Of course, that makes the assumptions that:
> (a) the deck is "shuffled" when you press the play button, and
> nothing
> changes the order of the cards in that game from that point
> (otherwise,
> had you not hesitated, you probably wouldn't have been dealt the
> JT), and
> (b) when you discard, the replacement cards are dealt "from the top
> of
> the deck" (insert "I know casinos where they must have been dealing
> from
> the bottom" jokes here), as opposed to "dealing" 10 cards at the
> start,
> with each card having its potential replacement determined at that
> point.
>
> Has it ever been established how VP machines "work" in terms of how
> the
> cards are dealt during a game?
>
> -- Don

#5

See FAQ #37: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ.htm#37

···

On 18 May 2008 at 10:50, Bill Coleman wrote:

Perhaps vpFREE management would like to post this somewhere on the
website so this question doesn't keep coming up.

#6

. While you are deciding which cards to hold, the RNG
continues to cycle, selecting numbers and throwing them away. When
you push the "draw" button it stops the RNG and pulls numbers until
as many new cards as are required are selected.

ok so if I pause to tell my husband I'm drawing to the royal or look up
to answer the bartender or stare at the 4 to the royal praying to the
VP gods or anything that changes that "time" it takes to hit the draw
button have I essentially changed the cards I will receive?
that is what I always wonder...did that second it took to do "whatever"
change the outcome....do we know how fast the RNG is changing the cards?

#7

Those of you interested in the RNGs and hacking may enjoy this.....

http://www.ethicalhacker.net/content/view/22/2/

···

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

On 18 May 2008 at 10:50, Bill Coleman wrote:

> Perhaps vpFREE management would like to post this somewhere on the
> website so this question doesn't keep coming up.

See FAQ #37: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ.htm#37

#8

These guys were hanging out at the Sahara last night.

···

--- vetsen <vetsen@cox.net> wrote:

Those of you interested in the RNGs and hacking may
enjoy this.....

http://www.ethicalhacker.net/content/view/22/2/

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...>
wrote:
>
> On 18 May 2008 at 10:50, Bill Coleman wrote:
>
> > Perhaps vpFREE management would like to post
this somewhere on the
> > website so this question doesn't keep coming up.
>
> See FAQ #37:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ.htm#37
>

#9

Heh.

Someone doesn't understand probability.

From the article:

So the numbers produced were not truly random. But Alex thinks there's
a good reason why this has to be so:

If it's truly random, they can't set the odds. They can't verify what
the odds really are. Some machines gave sequential royal flushes. They
shouldn't happen at all. So the designers want to be able to verify
that they have the right statistics or they feel like they don't have
control over the game.

···

On 5/19/08, vetsen <vetsen@cox.net> wrote:

Those of you interested in the RNGs and hacking may enjoy this.....

http://www.ethicalhacker.net/content/view/22/2/

#10

vetsen wrote:

> Those of you interested in the RNGs and hacking may enjoy this.....
>
> http://www.ethicalhacker.net/content/view/22/2/

King Fish wrote:

Heh.
Someone doesn't understand probability.

From the article:
"So the numbers produced were not truly random. But Alex thinks
there's a good reason why this has to be so:

If it's truly random, they can't set the odds. They can't verify what
the odds really are. Some machines gave sequential royal flushes.
They shouldn't happen at all. So the designers want to be able to
verify that they have the right statistics or they feel like they
don't have control over the game."

Keen observation, KF. Anyone with a basic grasp of the programming or
statistics couldn't read that section without being total incredulous.
The authors should have farmed that section out to Alex (or at least
submitted it for review).

Of course every writer strives to boil down complex details for the
sake of the layman. However, the concepts here could have been laid
out accurately without resorting to anything beyond street sense.

What's ironic is when people are appreciative of such snippets,
feeling they've been given useful insight.

- Harry

#11

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

Keen observation, KF. Anyone with a basic grasp of the programming

or

statistics couldn't read that section without being total

incredulous.

The authors should have farmed that section out to Alex (or at

least

submitted it for review).

Of course every writer strives to boil down complex details for the
sake of the layman. However, the concepts here could have been laid
out accurately without resorting to anything beyond street sense.

What's ironic is when people are appreciative of such snippets,
feeling they've been given useful insight.

- Harry

I think the article is a pipedream ... a fantasy for hackers to dream
about, with so much detail it seems plausible. Even if one devised a
method to predict the next RF, which seems very unlikely, I doubt its
possible to hit the deal button at the precise instant required
to "catch" the hand. Even old processors are too fast. But it's fun
to imagine isn't it.