vpFREE2 Forums

Is there a "cut card" effect to the ER in VP? (VP to BJ analogy of CSM's)

#1

Is there a "cut card" effect to the ER in VP if a casino adopts as a
practice or policy the shutting down and removal of any VP machine that
hits large jackpots early and often in its life cycle or after several
Royal Flushes that are "too close together" in the judgment of
management?

Stated another way...
If winning streaks are really just our perception of short intervals of
RNG random distribution over millions of "trials", does interruption of
the streak throught EARLY removal of a perceived hot or cold machine
have any effect upon the Short-term ER to the casino owner? Short term
being defined as less than 1,000,000 hands and Early removal defined as
prior to 1,000,000 actually played upon the machine.

#2

No, there should be no "cut card effect".

Assuming a fair RNG, then VP is just like most other games in the casino in
the sense that each hand is an independent trial. No one hand has any
bearing on the other, no one spin of the roulette wheel has an effect on
another. The win comes in playing perfectly and cash-back/points bonuses,
etc.

That's what makes BJ and card-counting different. Each hand *should* be
independent (and prior to Thorp. casinos believed this), but the previous
hands (the count) provide insight into future hands, thus making those hands
less-than truly independent.

If the situation you describe happens, then it's just a statistical
anomally, the "independance" of the game has not been broken.

···

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:41 PM, William E. Bate <wbate@dol.state.nj.us>wrote:

  Is there a "cut card" effect to the ER in VP if a casino adopts as a
practice or policy the shutting down and removal of any VP machine that
hits large jackpots early and often in its life cycle or after several
Royal Flushes that are "too close together" in the judgment of
management?

Stated another way...
If winning streaks are really just our perception of short intervals of
RNG random distribution over millions of "trials", does interruption of
the streak throught EARLY removal of a perceived hot or cold machine
have any effect upon the Short-term ER to the casino owner? Short term
being defined as less than 1,000,000 hands and Early removal defined as
prior to 1,000,000 actually played upon the machine.

--
Thanks,

Dennis
______________________________
Read about my weight-loss journey:
http://www.healthstewards.com/member_detail.php?id=76&selected=1

I am a Toyota Engine of Change:
http://www.toyotaenginesofchange.com/Page451.aspx

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

#3

Defective machines in favor of the player get quickly removed from the
floor whereas defective machines in favor of the casino stay. That's
an effect, though not the same as the cut card effect.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "William E. Bate" <wbate@...> wrote:

Is there a "cut card" effect to the ER in VP if a casino adopts as a
practice or policy the shutting down and removal of any VP machine that
hits large jackpots early and often in its life cycle or after several
Royal Flushes that are "too close together" in the judgment of
management?

#4

Is there a way to track these "defective" machines by serial number or
lot number? What is the most likely cause of the defects? Gaffed RNG?
Perpetrated by an employee of the chip manufacturer?

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

> Is there a "cut card" effect to the ER in VP if a casino adopts

as a

> practice or policy the shutting down and removal of any VP

machine that

> hits large jackpots early and often in its life cycle or after

several

> Royal Flushes that are "too close together" in the judgment of
> management?

Defective machines in favor of the player get quickly removed from

the

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "William E. Bate" <wbate@> wrote:
floor whereas defective machines in favor of the casino stay. That's
an effect, though not the same as the cut card effect.

#5

Is there a way to track these "defective" machines by serial number or
lot number?

Yes, I imagine you could. There’s the old system of playing the hot
machines and avoiding the cold machines, maybe there is some
scientific justification for such an approach. If you know statistics,
you can use it to get some separation between the data and random
noise. You can use Bayes’ theorem to adjust your expectations of a
particular machine given your current results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Bayes’+theorem

What is the most likely cause of the defects? Gaffed RNG?
Perpetrated by an employee of the chip manufacturer?

Cause is a different issue. There are lots of potential causes. An
analogy would be if you got a flat tire. Was it a defective tire,
improper inflation, a defective car, a defective road, a street kid
with a knife, or merely a chance encounter with a road hazard?
Whatever the cause, you still have a flat tire, and have to deal with
that fact first.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "William E. Bate" <wbate@...> wrote:

#6

No, there should be no "cut card effect".

Agreed. The software will produce effectively random numbers.
Casinos might pull a machine for such reasons, but they are
wasting their time. However, since it does not actuaully hurt
them to do so either, it is a reasonable policy to adopt. If
one in 1000 such machines actuzlly IS dumping over its fair share,
then the effort is worth it.

That's what makes BJ and card-counting different. Each hand

*should* be

independent (and prior to Thorp. casinos believed this),

LOL. You give the casions WAY too much credit. Back in Thorpe's
day they had NO CLUE about the underlying ooncepts of BJ. They
knew they made money on the game. That is pretty much it.
Independent Trials??!? They probably STILL don't know what
that means.

Quad Zilla

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Salguero" <salguero@...> wrote:

#7

They kind of remind me of a bunch of aborigines, who have sex all the
time and are popping kids all the time, but never drew the relationship
between the two activities . . .

···

LOL. You give the casions WAY too much credit. Back in Thorpe's
day they had NO CLUE about the underlying ooncepts of BJ. They
knew they made money on the game. That is pretty much it.
Independent Trials??!? They probably STILL don't know what
that means.

Quad Zilla

#8

You don't play BJ much, do you?

The whole reason why profitable BJ games have virtually disappeared
is because casinos are now VERY clear on what each BJ rule variation means
to their bottom line. They may not go about it the right way (6-to-5) but
the math and stats of it all are definitely out there.

It would be naive to believe otherwise.

···

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:31 AM, what7do7you7want < what7do7you7want@yahoo.com> wrote:

   --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, "Dennis
Salguero" <salguero@...> wrote:
>
> No, there should be no "cut card effect".

Agreed. The software will produce effectively random numbers.
Casinos might pull a machine for such reasons, but they are
wasting their time. However, since it does not actuaully hurt
them to do so either, it is a reasonable policy to adopt. If
one in 1000 such machines actuzlly IS dumping over its fair share,
then the effort is worth it.

>
> That's what makes BJ and card-counting different. Each hand
*should* be
> independent (and prior to Thorp. casinos believed this),

LOL. You give the casions WAY too much credit. Back in Thorpe's
day they had NO CLUE about the underlying ooncepts of BJ. They
knew they made money on the game. That is pretty much it.
Independent Trials??!? They probably STILL don't know what
that means.

Quad Zilla

--
Thanks,

Dennis
______________________________
Read about my weight-loss journey:
http://www.healthstewards.com/member_detail.php?id=76&selected=1

I am a Toyota Engine of Change:
http://www.toyotaenginesofchange.com/Page451.aspx

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