So I've been playing JOB on a gameking machine. Play is .25, .50 or $1. My
question is how many times does the same situation have to occur before we
question randomness of the draw? The situation in question is the 4 of a
kinds I've been hitting. Every single time the scenario is the same, 3 9s, hold
them, get the fourth on the draw. 3 hands later, 3 8s, get the fourth on the
draw. This has happened numerous times now and it's always exactly the
same. 4 9s, 3 hands later, 4 8s. What gives?
How many times before we question randomness
So why are you outing an advantage play?
I'd be playing it at the quarter level until quad 9's hit, then going up to dollars for the "sure thing" quad 8's.
Care to share the location with us?
B.
···
tangboy5000 <tangboy5000@yahoo.com> wrote:
So I've been playing JOB on a gameking machine. Play is .25, .50 or $1. My
question is how many times does the same situation have to occur before we question randomness of the draw? The situation in question is the 4 of a
kinds I've been hitting. Every single time the scenario is the same, 3 9s, hold
them, get the fourth on the draw. 3 hands later, 3 8s, get the fourth on the
draw. This has happened numerous times now and it's always exactly the
same. 4 9s, 3 hands later, 4 8s. What gives?
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Argosy, Lawrenceburg Indiana. First bank of 8
machines when you walk into the VP area. I've done
this on a couple of machines multiple times, so I
think it's the gamekings, not the particular machine.
I was going to try what you suggested the next time
out, but wanted to confirm that switching
denominations doesn't do anything to the machine.
···
--- Brian Lavoie <blavoie46@yahoo.com> wrote:
So why are you outing an advantage play?
I'd be playing it at the quarter level until quad
9's hit, then going up to dollars for the "sure
thing" quad 8's.
Care to share the location with us?
B.
tangboy5000 <tangboy5000@yahoo.com> wrote:
So I've been playing JOB on a gameking machine.
Play is .25, .50 or $1. My
question is how many times does the same situation
have to occur before we question randomness of the
draw? The situation in question is the 4 of a
kinds I've been hitting. Every single time the
scenario is the same, 3 9s, hold
them, get the fourth on the draw. 3 hands later, 3
8s, get the fourth on the
draw. This has happened numerous times now and it's
always exactly the
same. 4 9s, 3 hands later, 4 8s. What gives?---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for
ridiculously low rates.[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I wish we knew how the gambling commission tests for randomness. It
may be more difficult than we imagine. One approach is do millions
of deals and count how frequently each card appears. Each card
should account for roughly 1/52nd of the total number of cards
dealt. But does that mean each individual deal is random?
What really matters is how good the algorythm is in the short term (1-
10 cards). Is it possible the algorythm tends to spit out groups
of cards that are "related" or "close to" one another?
This isn't strictly an academic issue because the method of dealing
has changed in recent years. We've been told that, in the past, 10
cards were dealt (5 of them were held in reserve). Today (according
to IGT) only 5 cards are dealt. The 1-5 redeal cards are selected
later after the player decides what to do.
Perhaps this change was made to improve randomness, because there is
now a "disconnect" between the first 5 cards, and the redeal cards.
Does that imply that players used to benefit by non-random
groupings of similar or related cards, but not anymore? If players
today are experiencing more/longer losing streaks this might explain
why.
Keep in mind this is pure conjecture on my part.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Charles Martin <tangboy5000@...> wrote:
Argosy, Lawrenceburg Indiana. First bank of 8
machines when you walk into the VP area. I've done
this on a couple of machines multiple times, so I
think it's the gamekings, not the particular machine.
I was going to try what you suggested the next time
out, but wanted to confirm that switching
denominations doesn't do anything to the machine.
They went to the constant shuffle after some
"cheaters" reverse engineered the chip they were
using. They would just throw away hand after hand and
record the cards. They were then able to engineer a
chip with the same algorithm and use that to figure
out what the best cards to hold were.
···
--- brumar_lv <brumar_lv@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Charles Martin
<tangboy5000@...> wrote:
> Argosy, Lawrenceburg Indiana. First bank of 8
> machines when you walk into the VP area. I've
done
> this on a couple of machines multiple times, so I
> think it's the gamekings, not the particular
machine.
> I was going to try what you suggested the next
time
> out, but wanted to confirm that switching
> denominations doesn't do anything to the machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I wish we knew how the gambling commission tests for
randomness. It
may be more difficult than we imagine. One approach
is do millions
of deals and count how frequently each card appears.
Each card
should account for roughly 1/52nd of the total
number of cards
dealt. But does that mean each individual deal is
random?What really matters is how good the algorythm is in
the short term (1-
10 cards). Is it possible the algorythm tends to
spit out groups
of cards that are "related" or "close to" one
another?This isn't strictly an academic issue because the
method of dealing
has changed in recent years. We've been told that,
in the past, 10
cards were dealt (5 of them were held in reserve).
Today (according
to IGT) only 5 cards are dealt. The 1-5 redeal
cards are selected
later after the player decides what to do.Perhaps this change was made to improve randomness,
because there is
now a "disconnect" between the first 5 cards, and
the redeal cards.
Does that imply that players used to benefit by
non-random
groupings of similar or related cards, but not
anymore? If players
today are experiencing more/longer losing streaks
this might explain
why.Keep in mind this is pure conjecture on my part.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Charles Martin wrote:
They went to the constant shuffle after some
"cheaters" reverse engineered the chip they were
using. They would just throw away hand after hand and
record the cards. They were then able to engineer a
chip with the same algorithm and use that to figure
out what the best cards to hold were.
I'll emphasize that I don't question this statement. However, because
hard information is hard to come by, I'd like to know how reliable is
your source.
- H.
I thought everyone knew this. It was covered in the
national news. Let me find the article I was reading
yesterday and I'll link to it. The article wasn't on
video poker, but general casino cheating... like the
light wand.
···
--- Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
Charles Martin wrote:
>
> They went to the constant shuffle after some
> "cheaters" reverse engineered the chip they were
> using. They would just throw away hand after hand
and
> record the cards. They were then able to engineer
a
> chip with the same algorithm and use that to
figure
> out what the best cards to hold were.I'll emphasize that I don't question this statement.
However, because
hard information is hard to come by, I'd like to
know how reliable is
your source.- H.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com