An extraordinary conclusion ("IGT 3/5 plays are not dealing cards randomly")
requires extraordinary evidence. The point was that if you can't post correct
odds (a simple thing), are you sure you and your other "evidence gatherers"
accurately recorded each and every flush draw (a very difficult thing,
considering the time-consuming tedium of the task), making sure to count the multiple
flush hits when they occurred? In an experiment such as this, the accuracy of
the data-gathering is crucial!
If, as you have apparently concluded, you are being "shorted" on flush draws
by about 20%, it would be fair to assume that just about NO ONE could possibly
be ahead on these machines. It would be interesting if anyone would like to
post their personal results for the years 2001 and 2002 on the machines in
question.
Do you believe your observations would extend to NSUDs? Or do you think they
are only valid for non-wildcard games? And how about non-wildcard games OTHER
than DB and SA?
And yes, I do tend to nitpick. More with numbers than with typos, as you can
usually figure out what the person who typoed meant to say. Not so with
numbers! How can I know that you meant "47" when you wrote "51"? This is not a typo.
The technical term is "mistake."
Nitpicking notwithstanding, I've found the data you have gathered
interesting. If I were trying to reduce the actual payback on apparently positive
machines by a percent or two, I would slightly reduce the "hit rate" on High Pairs,
or maybe Two Pair, hands that occur extremely often and contribute a large
proportion to the overall payback. It would only take an unnoticeably small
reduction in "hits" to accomplish this, and no one would think to look at those
(common, boring) hands.
Brian
ยทยทยท
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 9/11/2004 1:04:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rockofjello333@yahoo.com writes:
But d'ya know what, Brian my boy? I don't give two hoots in hell
whether you or anyone else "trusts" my data or not. I merely
provided it because several people asked me to. If the conclusion
suggested by it interferes with someone's preconceived notions, they
will naturally find some way to attack it or its provenance.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]