------- Forwarded message follows -------
···
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Video Poker" <videopoker@twcny.rr.com>
Date sent: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:15:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Does Rob Singer's Method Work/ more on this
"DOUBT IS NOT A VERY AGREEABLE STATUS,
BUT CERTAINTY IS A RIDICULOUS ONE"
----- Original Message -----
From: NC Wanderer
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Does Rob Singer's Method Work/ more on this
Why would you do these tests? Do you beleive in the Easter Bunny?
--- On Wed, 6/24/09, brumar_lv <brumar_lv@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: brumar_lv <brumar_lv@yahoo.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Does Rob Singer's Method Work/ more on this
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 5:58 PM
The "5th card flipover" tests Singer is running refers to these three types of dealt hands: two
pair, open end straights, and 4 to a flush. The odds are 4/47, 8/47, and 9/47. Is anyone on vpfree
doing similar tests? As I recall this was discussed a month or two ago.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups. com, "theprostitutionsta te" <theprostitutionsta te@...> wrote:
>
> Just came across this piece.
>
> http://brokopp. casinocitytimes. com/articles/ 46781.html
>
> Is he talking about in that article "5th card flipover" when you throw away, say a 10 of clubs,
and instead get a 10 of hearts, for example, instead of the card you need?
>
> If that's what he's talking about, I've noticed that so many times I've indeed become
suspicious myself at times. Though I've just dismissed it.
>
> I assume RNGs are indeed random (or at least, if not, that the practicality of taking advantage
of algorithm weakness runs into so many millions, that it's really not possible to take advantage
of it)
>
> HOWEVER, I myself am depending on the expertise of others and not my own personal experience
with applying such tests ...so eh, whatever.