vpFREE2 Forums

It Goes Cold After Quads

In all fairness, in my response to Bob I should have mentioned an
article in my booklet, "Video Poker Anomalies and Anecdotes." Perhaps
this is what Bob "remembered." Here is that entire article:

It Goes Cold After Quads

This is another anomaly that was reported by several readers. The
story here is that if the next play after quads (or better) in Deuces
Wild is not a winner (i.e., a straight or better since
three-of-a-kind is actually only a push) then the machine usually
goes cold; that is, it doesn't make any payoffs for many hands.
Losing money during this "cold" cycle could often be avoided,
however, by playing just one coin instead of five for several hands,
or by simply waiting for several seconds before making another play.

Upon reading this, a pro asked how I could report two contradicting
ideas. Is the machine likely to yield another quads after quads
(previous page), or is it likely to go cold? At first I thought he
had made a valid point, but then I realized that the two reported
anomalies are not mutually exclusive. Although it may seem unlikely,
it is possible for both to be true. If you reread the first paragraph
above you will see that it says that the machine is likely to go cold
if the next play is not a winner.

Thus, the next play after quads could either be another quads or
another winning payoff or the machine goes cold. Some people claim
that's the case.

This is not to say that either or both of these reported anomalies
actually exist, for if they did it should be possible to take
advantage of this knowledge by playing quickly after getting quads or
better, then pausing awhile if the next hand is not a winner. My own
experience shows the anomaly to be so consistent it's scary, yet, as
for other strange occurrences, neither the anomaly itself nor the
attempt to take advantage of the knowledge seem to affect the long
term payback of the game.

Most statisticians and pros would say to ignore these reported
anomalies because the games are random. Playing less than five coins
costs money by reducing the game's expected payback, and any delay
costs money by forfeiting expected gains. Others say that the
algorithmic random number generators are obviously not perfect, and
they would prefer to give up some "expected" value rather than giving
up real money by playing when the machine is cold. Take your choice.

ยทยทยท

================
Before reading too much into this, note that on the back cover of the
booklet it says, "... this is not a book on how to win at video
poker. Instead, it is a collection of stories sent in by readers of
Video Poker - Precision Play and Video Poker Times. Some are amusing,
some echo the frustration we all feel sometimes, and you may find a
few a bit disturbing."

But I still feel that anyone who believes that anomalies can't
possibly exist in video poker games is putting entirely too much
faith in government regulations.

Dan

--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor/Publisher of VP newsletter "Video Poker Times"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com

"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur

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

Dan wrote:

<snip>

This is not to say that either or both of these reported anomalies
actually exist, for if they did it should be possible to take
advantage of this knowledge by playing quickly after getting quads or
better, then pausing awhile if the next hand is not a winner. My own
experience shows the anomaly to be so consistent it's scary, yet, as
for other strange occurrences, neither the anomaly itself nor the
attempt to take advantage of the knowledge seem to affect the long
term payback of the game.

This last sentence makes it unclear whether you are advocating playing
one coin or not. If the anamoly is so consistent, it should be simple
to take significant advantage of it. It implies that, enough to draw
fairly meaningful conclusions, you've attempted to take advantage of
it by playing one coin, but have found the results to contradict the
consistency of the anamoly. Or does "neither the anomaly itself nor
the attempt to take advantage of the knowledge seem to affect the long
term payback of the game" refer to "other strange occurrences" and not
to the anamoly in question?

<snip>

But I still feel that anyone who believes that anomalies can't
possibly exist in video poker games is putting entirely too much
faith in government regulations.

The probability that video poker machines are perfectly random, at
which I can only guess, directly affects their value, and is one of
several reasons I "fudge" in the direction of conservatism.

Dan wrote:

But I still feel that anyone who believes that anomalies can't
possibly exist in video poker games is putting entirely too much
faith in government regulations.>>>

If I recall correctly, wasn't there found to be an anomaly in some of
the early multiline machines? I can't remember if it was in IGT's
Triple Play or Silicon's Lucky Draw platform. As I recall some pros
noticed that there was a higher then predicted occurrence of duplicate
cards appearing on multiple lines on the draw. There was no way to
exploit the anomaly that I know of and pros said it was no more likely
to produce duplicate good cards versus duplicate bad cards so the net
effect was zilch. (It probably increased variance much like in
SpinPoker but I'll leave that discussion for Harry :slight_smile: ) I believe the
manufacturer corrected the problem, probably in the form of trekking
the RNG in some way.