--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar"
<tooncessnl@h...> wrote:
Running this post through the patented "Toonces" Lie Detector
machine...
FACT: a cat that manages to get behind the wheel of a car and
crashes
it everytime is not really a cat who can drive a car!
But at least it is a perfect streak !!!!!!!!!!!!
That is an excellent point. But calling
myself "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacarbutnotverywell" was more than I
needed to make my name unique.
1--------------------------
*BZZZZ* Getting lots of high cards is something they noticed and
happened simultaneously with the royal streak, but there is no
correlation between getting lots of high cards on previous hands
and
subsequent royals on future hands.
I cannot predict the weather, but .......
When I see clouds it is more likely to rain than when there are no
clouds.
Ahhh... but that's because clouds are a predictor of future results.
If it is raining at 10:01, it is more likely to be raining at 10:02,
than if it was dry at 10:01. But if you hit a pair of Aces at 10:01,
you are no more likely to hit a pair of Aces at 10:02, than if you
got a losing hand at 10:01.
If you don't believe me, try an experiment on any video poker
program. Keep track of the first card dealt, whether it is a high
card (J-A) or low. after 1001 trials, there will be 1000
combinations on 2-letter combos. Within a standard degree of error,
HH will occur 9.5% of the time. HL and LH will occur 21.3% of the
time each, and LL will occur 47.9% of the time. But if "clumping"
occurs more often, due to imperfect RNGs, then the HH and LL
combination should occur more often than predicted.
Toonces - here you are wrong: within the domain of cards being
dealt in any period of time is predictive that the odds are better
since no RNG is perfect.
I will grant you that no RNG is perfect. But without knowledge of
exactly in what way any particular RNG is flawed and a way to exploit
it, the knowledge that the RNG generator is imperfect is of no use to
you. In addition, when playing VP, you are not taking the very next
number off of the RNG. Even if the pattern of numbers in an RNG is
deterministic, hundreds of thousands of random numbers are generated
each second, and only the one that was produced the exact millisecond
the deal button was pressed gets used.
For example, let's add an imperfection into a theoretical RPG. Every
52 hands generated, the Ace of clubs will be the first card selected
and will never occur the other 51 hands generated. Despite this
imperfection, how are you going to exploit it at 100,000
hands/second? And even if you could, how could you be sure this is
the actual imperfection to the RNG?
Another flaw is to assume that because the RNG is imperfect, that it
is more likely to cause "Clumping of high cards" than pure chance.
It is just as likely that an imperfect RNG actually causes "Anti-
clumping" or alternating of high and low cards. Without knowing
which case is true (I suspect neither), knowing the RNG is flawed is
of no use.
The point is, imperfect RPGs are a copout to avoid having to face the
law of independant trials. Without having a computer at the casino
to analyze every single hand synchronized to the deal button event,
to reverse engineer and test the generator function, knowing that the
RNG is imperfect is of no value to us simple minds.
If hands ARE being dealt with a preponderance of high cards it is
intuitively obvious that odds favor ending up with a royal versus
being dealt a preponderance of hands with no high cards.
Yes, if the hand you are currently looking at has high cards you are
more likely to get a royal. But if the last 3 hands had high cards,
and you didn't get a royal, your chances of getting a royal haven't
gone up.
Many a random nunmber generator has been questioned when it spits
out
the same 3 digit number 5 times in a row. Mathematically it has
never been proven that a true RNG can be developed. It has never
been proven that on cannot either. Streaks are a manifestation of
randomness.
Streaks are always found in nature by reviewing past results. But
finding them is of no value unless they can predict future results.
If I've flipped a coin heads 5 times in a row, the sixth time the
chances of it coming out heads is still 50%. If I generate millions
of pseudo-random numbers every second, and the numbers selected at
time 2.145633, 4.549845, 6.395560, 8.995551 and 10.533828 are all
even, the chances of number 13.443957 being even is still 50%
(assuming the RNG passed the randomness test required by the Nevada
Gaming Board).
And of course, there is the counter-intuitive advice of "If I get
10
no pays at .25, I press to .50". If good and bad streaks happen,
and
you just got a horrible hand, shouldn't you lower your bet or quit,
since clearly, you are in the middle of a bad streak?
You have missed the point. If you leave a machine everytime you
have
10 losers in a row, you might as well not play at all. So play we
must, so why not have some fun. All the pressing does is
martingale
VP - of course you can get to $2 never hit a FH or quad and run out
your wad. But for those of us who make to pilgrimages as a
vacation
not vocation, it sometimes have to make your hours of comp making
as
fun as possible.
I have no problem with making it as fun as possible, and if your
strategies make the game more enjoyable, there's little harm to
changing denominations on whatever superstition you choose. But if
you try to convince others that this system you have is superior to
others, I would refute it.
On the other hand, this suggestion seemed contrary to all of your
other advice which seemed to say to raise you bets when you were
getting high cards. This one has you rasing your bet when you likely
got a bunch of low cards.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dayrelton" <tiggerrr@m...> wrote:
