Additional details
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/4ztmv">
http://tinyurl.com/4ztmv</a>
Ok, I admit it. I'm dense. I've read through both stories on this case at least twice and I STILL don't get what the lawsuit was about (i.e., what was the complaint?)
Can someone who understands the arguments re-phrase or explain it for me?
carlos
vpFREE <vpFREE@Cox.net> wrote:
Additional details
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Carlos;
Don't worry. You are in the same boat as the plantiffs and
plaintiff's lawyers.
Skip
Carlos Lebron wrote:
Ok, I admit it. I'm dense. I've read through both stories on
this case at least twice and I STILL don't get what the lawsuit
was about (i.e., what was the complaint?)Can someone who understands the arguments re-phrase or explain it
for me?carlos
Additional details
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[click here]
vpFREE <vpFREE@Cox.net> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
Ok, I admit it. I'm dense. I've read through both stories on this
case at least twice and I STILL don't get what the lawsuit was about
(i.e., what was the complaint?)
Can someone who understands the arguments re-phrase or explain it
for me?
In as plain English as I can make it, according to the suit:
Slot machines are not truly "random" because they are controlled by a
computer. Despite the fact that there are 20 physical stops on each
reel, not each stop is equally likely to occur; therefore, this is
fraud.
Video poker is not truly "random" because a physical deck is not
used. The computer chip can be set to deal out certain cards more (or
less) often than others; therefore, this is fraud.
I hope this helps.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Carlos Lebron <calebr0n@y...> wrote:
It does help, thanks. They're claming the minute difference between computer-generated randomness and "true" randomness is enough to constitute fraud when a casino (or game manufacturer) claims the deal from a virtual 52-card deck is random. Hmmm....
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
carlos
djmcosmo <djmcosmo@yahoo.com> wrote:
In as plain English as I can make it, according to the suit:
Slot machines are not truly "random" because they are controlled by a
computer. Despite the fact that there are 20 physical stops on each
reel, not each stop is equally likely to occur; therefore, this is
fraud.
Video poker is not truly "random" because a physical deck is not
used. The computer chip can be set to deal out certain cards more (or
less) often than others; therefore, this is fraud.
I hope this helps.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]