vpFREE2 Forums

LVA Question of the Day - 28 DEC 2006

#1

Q: A video poker expert claims that VP machines are programmed
with "hot and cold" cycles to bring the machines up or down to
their specified pay-out percentages. Other experts claim that
each deal is random, based on a 52-card deck. Both sides support
their positions by quoting gaming regulations. Which is correct?

http://tinyurl.com/jsbv2

<a href="http://tinyurl.com/jsbv2">
http://tinyurl.com/jsbv2</a>

NOTE: vpFREE access to the Question of the Day
link has been approved by LVA and expires after
the current day for non-LVA members.

···

************************************************

This link is posted for informational purposes and doesn't
constitute an endorsement or approval of the linked article's
content by vpFREE. Any discussion of the article must be done
in accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.

************************************************

#2

I've been singularly unimpressed with the majority of the questions
selected by LVA for their QoD feature. That is not the case with
today's question. However, given a chance to give the definitive
answer, they seem to have punted.

LVA says - "The answer is that video poker machines must be based on a
random deal from a complete 52-card deck, 53 cards if there's a joker.
(See QoD 7/13/06 for a full discussion on the idea of "random").

This precludes a video poker machine from doing anything but dealing
out random hands every round. "

No, just because the video poker machines must be based on a random
deal, it doesn't follow then that that in and of itself "precludes a
video poker machine from doing anything but dealing out random hands
every round."

I expected the answer to go into how the Casino Control Commissions in
various jurisdictions, mainly in Las Vegas and Atlantic City ensure
that the machines are manufactured, maintained, and periodically
verified as to this aspect. The manufacturing phase seems to be the
most clear cut, and least subject to non-randomness in the machines,
or their being programmed for "hot and cold streaks". But once they
leave the manufacturer, and installed in the casino, what specifically
is done to see that they remain so?

A state Bureau of Weights and Measures doesn't rest assured that the
weighing equipment is manufactured by reputable companies, and why,
the merchants that use them surely don't resort to any hanky-panky!
Every other time I am returning from Atlantic City on a tour bus, it
stops at Highway Weighing Scale. It doesn't get (it could, it should
in my opinion) any special dispensation being from a reputable charter
company, that ferries people daily to Atlantic City and back.

I hope someone here would post a clear explanation. Thanks.

#3

But once they
leave the manufacturer, and installed in the casino, what specifically
is done to see that they remain so?

Normally, most qualified casino managers do not allow those bitchy control
freaks, the video poker leprechans, crawl into the back of the machines :-).

I hope someone here would post a clear explanation. Thanks.

I am probably not the one to make the explanation clear, as clarity is only
established in the mind of the reader, however, if you would like a
homogenized, sanitized, legalized version, click here:
http://gaming.nv.gov/ngc_main.htm
If my memory serves, and that may be a stretch, as this is Thursday and I
don't recall Tuesday all that well, I believe what you are looking for will
be included in regulation 14, Standards for gaming devices. This reg. may
not govern the random testing that is done in NV, that may be under another
section number, I don't recall. It has been about five years since I
looked at our gaming statutes in depth. I do remember that they have quite
a few pdf files that you can downlaod and peruse at your leisure.
                                Nudge

···

From: "Adams Myth"
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: LVA Question of the Day - 28 DEC 2006

#4

Nevada regulation re VP type devices:

5. Must not automatically alter paytables or any
function of the device based on internal
computation of the hold percentage.
14040(5)

http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf

This refutes the primary anti-randomness argument
being addressed in the QOD - that there is
computer code which "catches up" after a cold streak.

···

--- Adams Myth <Adams_Myth@HotMail.Com> wrote:

I've been singularly unimpressed with the majority
of the questions
selected by LVA for their QoD feature. That is not
the case with
today's question. However, given a chance to give
the definitive
answer, they seem to have punted.

LVA says - "The answer is that video poker machines
must be based on a
random deal from a complete 52-card deck, 53 cards
if there's a joker.
(See QoD 7/13/06 for a full discussion on the idea
of "random").

This precludes a video poker machine from doing
anything but dealing
out random hands every round. "

No, just because the video poker machines must be
based on a random
deal, it doesn't follow then that that in and of
itself "precludes a
video poker machine from doing anything but dealing
out random hands
every round."

I expected the answer to go into how the Casino
Control Commissions in
various jurisdictions, mainly in Las Vegas and
Atlantic City ensure
that the machines are manufactured, maintained, and
periodically
verified as to this aspect. The manufacturing phase
seems to be the
most clear cut, and least subject to non-randomness
in the machines,
or their being programmed for "hot and cold
streaks". But once they
leave the manufacturer, and installed in the casino,
what specifically
is done to see that they remain so?

A state Bureau of Weights and Measures doesn't rest
assured that the
weighing equipment is manufactured by reputable
companies, and why,
the merchants that use them surely don't resort to
any hanky-panky!
Every other time I am returning from Atlantic City
on a tour bus, it
stops at Highway Weighing Scale. It doesn't get (it
could, it should
in my opinion) any special dispensation being from a
reputable charter
company, that ferries people daily to Atlantic City
and back.

I hope someone here would post a clear explanation.
Thanks.

#5

It has been posted here many times. The programs are tested and
verified. In Nevada Gaming also makes random checks of machines.
However, no matter how stupid and greedy some managers are they
aren't stupid enough to gaff the machines and lose their licenses.

The programs MUST deal with each card having an equal chance to
appear since machine dealt games must operate exactly like they were
hand-dealt. New Jersey has no such regulation but the Gaming
Commission has never approved a machine that works differently and
say that they never will. And if they did it is almost certain that
the legislature would immediately overrule them. Every other
commercial jurisdiction requires that VP operates this way except for
racinos in New York State where every machine operates by emulating
scratch-off lottery tickets. All Class III native jurisdictions also
operate this way except for those in Washington State which operate
like NY racinos.

···

At 08:16 PM 12/28/2006, you wrote:

I've been singularly unimpressed with the majority of the questions
selected by LVA for their QoD feature. That is not the case with
today's question. However, given a chance to give the definitive
answer, they seem to have punted.

LVA says - "The answer is that video poker machines must be based on a
random deal from a complete 52-card deck, 53 cards if there's a joker.
(See QoD 7/13/06 for a full discussion on the idea of "random").

This precludes a video poker machine from doing anything but dealing
out random hands every round. "

No, just because the video poker machines must be based on a random
deal, it doesn't follow then that that in and of itself "precludes a
video poker machine from doing anything but dealing out random hands
every round."

I expected the answer to go into how the Casino Control Commissions in
various jurisdictions, mainly in Las Vegas and Atlantic City ensure
that the machines are manufactured, maintained, and periodically
verified as to this aspect. The manufacturing phase seems to be the
most clear cut, and least subject to non-randomness in the machines,
or their being programmed for "hot and cold streaks". But once they
leave the manufacturer, and installed in the casino, what specifically
is done to see that they remain so?

A state Bureau of Weights and Measures doesn't rest assured that the
weighing equipment is manufactured by reputable companies, and why,
the merchants that use them surely don't resort to any hanky-panky!
Every other time I am returning from Atlantic City on a tour bus, it
stops at Highway Weighing Scale. It doesn't get (it could, it should
in my opinion) any special dispensation being from a reputable charter
company, that ferries people daily to Atlantic City and back.

I hope someone here would post a clear explanation. Thanks.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#6

Thanks for the explanation. I would have expected LVA to be as clear.

That "New Jersey .... Gaming Commission has never approved a machine
that works differently" is intriguing. It is not enough to ensure that
a machine, when manufactured, complies with the specifications. Could
something happen afterwards, either by accident or intention?

It has been posted here many times. The programs are tested and
verified. In Nevada Gaming also makes random checks of machines.
However, no matter how stupid and greedy some managers are they
aren't stupid enough to gaff the machines and lose their licenses.

"gaffing" (whatever that is) the machines and losing their licenses
may be enough of a deterrent to the big casinos. Does it equally deter
the smaller operatives?

I tried Google for "Casino fraud". It loos like just about all the
online casinos are shady, especially as to Casino Affiliates. That
might be an exaggeration. I know WizardOfOdds site promotes BoDog, and
he (Shackleford?) seems to vouch for their honesty.

But I am digressing.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote: