I know and have met both Nudge and Rob Singer.
They are not the same person.
vpFae
On 10 Dec 2007 at 17:02, gilbert_616 wrote:
Nudge Nudge Nudge Nudge51 ???
or is it Rob Rob Rob
Maybe it's time to verify who nudge51 really is…
Remember the private e-mail you sent me a few years back?
You forgot to clean up the "From:" section that shows "nudge51".
And at the end of your message "Rob Singer".
Typical skeptic retort.
For those of you who don't know, one sigma = 200
therefore six sigma's would be 1200. Therefore he
is saying that getting 1200 or more deuces than a
regular game on average is proof enough for him.For someone who isn't impressed by hand waving
you sure do a lot of it.
Jackie, and my question is for Gilbert, too, if you believe that
deuces show up more often than other cards in a Deuces Wild game, what
do you believe is the theoretical payback, with perfect play, for,
say, full pay Deuces Wild and what do you believe "perfect play" is?
Would you, for examples, hold 3 deuces over a wild royal or two deuces
over 4 of a kind? If the game returns 100.76% under the assumption
that each unseen card has the same chance of occurring and perfect
play, wouldn't it return significantly higher under your assumption?
Why are casinos putting these machines in if they pay back so much
higher than 100.76%?
Wow, Thanks Dick,
I do really enjoy an intelligent conversation, so just so you know
for the future, my mind is never made up but like most people,
I must be shown proof in order to change it. In this particular
case I'm just philosophizing. As you stated, I haven't read the reg.
but which reg., the old Nevada one or the new Federal one that
replaced it?
Why would casinos break a law? Umm, for money??
But I'm not saying they break the law, I'm saying they can
change the way a deck is handled to change the expected outcome.
Not to mention being perfectly OK to do with the boards
approval as the randomness has not been tampered with.
Is card counting, as in blackjack, illegal? Noooo!
Would you classify card counting as "expert play"?
I really don't see any difference in card counting and expert play
at VP. Yet, to my knowledge, there has never been an expert
VP player banned from a casino for winning too much. Maybe
it's because the casino's edge can be recouped by simply
changing the payout table. Hmmm, isn't that what is happening
now? Whereas in blackjack, you would have to make changes
that are approved by the board, which takes too long to do so
ban players instead. BTW you don't see 110% payback for
the very same reason as before -- casino edge or profit.
I do know about RNG's but an RNG is not the final determining
factor in these games. Other factors enter in to the final solution.
A RNG just produces numbers in a random fashion.
To me, a VP machine should imitate a live game in card handling.
By that, I mean how the deck is handled. In live play, a deck is
shuffled and cards dealt sequentially from the top of the deck.
According to your scenario Dick, it doesn't happen that way.
Let's say the RNG continuous output is the deck shuffler and pressing
the Deal button produces the copy of the 52 card deck and the screen
shows the first five cards from the top of that deck. You discard all five
and get dealt the next five cards from that deck. Now the RNG has been
running all this time "shuffling" the real deck you mention. You hit the Deal
button and get a new deck order from which to play. That is the ideal setup.
Now tell me Dick, is that the way it's done? My understanding of your
scenario says it's not, which means the deck has been manipulated to
produce a different statistical outcome without affecting the randomness
requirement or any other rule from the board.
Jackie
----- Original Message -----
From: mroejacks
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:36 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@...> wrote:
> Then it occurred to me that the secret to all of this was in the
way a dealer handled the
> cards and the tendency of the cards to group together according to
game play and to
> even a small extent, your position at the table.
This is called random. The key is the groupings you notice are
temporary and move around. The existence of short term patterns in
random events is part of randomness. The fact that we notice them so
easily is really a function of the human mind which is tuned to
noticing patterns.
>
> So, a question comes to mind, exactly how does a VP machine handle
the cards?
> Is a "fresh deck" with all the cards in suit and rank used, or a
deck composed of the discards
> with suit and rank in random positions? Are the decks "shuffled"
and cards dealt from
> the top of the deck (with or without burn cards), or does the RNG
just use the first ten
> numbers produced to pick their correspondingly assigned cards.
This has been covered many times on this site. The RNG continually
runs, even while you are playing a hand. Logically, think that a copy
of the cards is dealt out while the real cards are constantly
shuffled. The RNG only "copies" five cards when deal is pressed and
copies the number of discards when you press "draw". This takes
microseconds and then the RNG goes back to looping through billions
of numbers.
>
> RNG's can be set up in a wide variety of methods and still retain
the random aspect
This is true, however, the LAW also requires that every card has the
same chance of appearing. This eliminates any card favoratism. It is
this part of the law that allows us to determine the cycle times for
the various hand types and determine a games payback. I think it's
time for someone to go read the gaming regulations.
> because with a true RNG, operating in the way most people believe
they should, would
> almost never produce a RF, SF, or a ST.
No, this is patently false. I have two RNGs downloaded on my computer
that I use for testing various aspects of VP games. What you said is
completely wrong and demonstrates you don't understand what random
means. I would suggest doing a little reading on the subject.
> So poker RNGs must be set up to pick 10
> numbers from 1 to 52 (or 53 for the Joker game). Each number would
have a card assigned
> to it such as 1=Ac, 13=Ad, 26=Ah, and 39=As, or the other method
would be to select the
> ten cards by their location in the deck such as 1=first or top card
and 52 (53)= the last card
> or bottom of the deck. This last method used on the discard or
shuffled deck would
> produce a concentration of deuces and therefore more deuces would
appear than in other
> games.
Like I said, you need to do some reading. The mechanism most likely
used randomly produces a number between 1-52 (53). For example, the
next 5 numbers might be 7, 33, 35, 9, 12. The logical deck of cards
is constant (and might be exactly what you stated above) but these
numbers keep changing through the RNG algorithm that runs constantly
and the probability of any one number appearing exactly when you
press deal is the same for every number. It is this number that is
used to select the card found in the position corresponding to said
number.
>
> Now, since casino's must make a profit, I firmly believe that their
are certain controls in
> place to prevent losses. Most say that is controlled by the pay
table, and while there is
> some truth to that there is also the case of RF appearing more
frequently when Max Bet
> isn't used and easily justified to the GCC.
Go read the Nevada gaming regs. There are controls in place to
prevent EXACTLY what you said. I realize I'm probably talking to
someone who has their mind made up, but the facts present an entirely
different story. If you can explain why a casino would break the law
when changing paytables LEGALLY accomplishes the same thing then I
might be willing to listen. And, if this was a common occurance then
why wouldn't we see 110% payback machines everywhere?
Dick
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'
Nudge Nudge Nudge Nudge51 ???
or is it Rob Rob Rob
I guess it's now time for my best junior high school, "yeah, that's my name,
don't wear it out".
Maybe it's time to verify who nudge51 really is...
Remember the private e-mail you sent me a few years back?
sorry, gil, but I've never sent you a private anything. Now if you could
only crank up your video poker curiosity to the level of your imagination,
that would probably be a good thing.
You forgot to clean up the "From:" section that shows "nudge51".
Damn, I hate it when I have a dirty "From:" section. I can't get any STD's
from that, can I?
The only reason that I got involved in this thread is that you tried to
state as a fact something that is downright wrong. Right now, we have 8,411
vpFREE members and I am confident that will include a healthy number of
neophytes that might have taken your fictitious statement as truth. That
would probably not be a good thing.
Now, if you want to dispel your other fallacious belief that I am Rob
Singer, there is a way to do it. If your interest is still peaked, I might
suggest that you consider getting a life, however, be that as it may, if you
go to the vpFREE home page, click on the links to find the lunch photos, you
will be able to spot a much too folically challenged clear shot of the back
of my noggin. I want to keep my mug off the net so that I can still take
advantage of plays like I had yesterday in a six deck shoe for three hours
with 83% penetration and a 12 to 1 bet spread, with no heat. I can't help
you with what year the lunch photo was because I'm old and have a serious
case of CRS. If you're having trouble finding the right page, you may want
to ask your mom or dad to help you. I hope that I have been of some
assistance.
Nudge
From: "gilbert_616" Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG),
Wow, Thanks Dick,
You're welcome.
I do really enjoy an intelligent conversation, so just so you know
for the future, my mind is never made up but like most people,
I must be shown proof in order to change it. In this particular
case I'm just philosophizing. As you stated, I haven't read the
reg.
but which reg., the old Nevada one or the new Federal one that
replaced it?
Nothing has replaced the Nevada Regs. Is this an attempt at
obfuscation?
Why would casinos break a law? Umm, for money??
But I'm not saying they break the law, I'm saying they can
change the way a deck is handled to change the expected outcome.
Not to mention being perfectly OK to do with the boards
approval as the randomness has not been tampered with.
What you just said is gobblety-gook. If they change the "expected
outcome" then they are no longer random. Not to mention the fairness
criteria. If you would actually spend the time to follow the
reference from the VPfree links to the Nevada Gaming Commision you
would understand the regulations cover a lot more than you think.
However, before forewarned, that just might lead to the understanding
that the games are fair.
Is card counting, as in blackjack, illegal? Noooo!
Would you classify card counting as "expert play"?
If done properly it can lead to an advantage.
I really don't see any difference in card counting and expert play
at VP. Yet, to my knowledge, there has never been an expert
VP player banned from a casino for winning too much.
I think you just haven't paid attention. It has been discussed just
recently by players banned at the El Cortez. However, the casinos
have ANOTHER option when it comes to VP players ... they downgrade
paytables or remove machines. Now tell me you haven't heard of that.
Maybe
it's because the casino's edge can be recouped by simply
changing the payout table. Hmmm, isn't that what is happening
now? Whereas in blackjack, you would have to make changes
that are approved by the board, which takes too long to do so
ban players instead. BTW you don't see 110% payback for
the very same reason as before -- casino edge or profit.
Changes to VP machines also require approval. (Now, is this the
federal board you're talking about ??? … I couldn't resist)
However, I think you just agreed with me. No reason to cheat, just
change the paytable. What IS your point???
I do know about RNG's but an RNG is not the final determining
factor in these games. Other factors enter in to the final
solution.
A RNG just produces numbers in a random fashion.
And what other factors would that be??? The regulations truly
PROHIBIT any other factors. Sorry, but you are not up on the facts
here. Go read the regs before you make any more foolish statements.
To me, a VP machine should imitate a live game in card handling.
By that, I mean how the deck is handled. In live play, a deck is
shuffled and cards dealt sequentially from the top of the deck.
According to your scenario Dick, it doesn't happen that way.
The key word is "imitate". In other words the results must be the
same. They really don't have a little deck of cards inside the
machine. OK, I'm being a little facetious here but the regs don't
care HOW you get these results, only that they are the same.
Let's say the RNG continuous output is the deck shuffler and
pressing
the Deal button produces the copy of the 52 card deck and the
screen
shows the first five cards from the top of that deck. You discard
all five
and get dealt the next five cards from that deck. Now the RNG has
been
running all this time "shuffling" the real deck you mention. You
hit the Deal
button and get a new deck order from which to play. That is the
ideal setup.
This is not the way IGT machines work on the Game King platform. It
is similar to the way they worked previously (about 8 years ago).
Now tell me Dick, is that the way it's done? My understanding of
your
scenario says it's not, which means the deck has been manipulated to
produce a different statistical outcome without affecting the
randomness
requirement or any other rule from the board.
I can't tell you exactly how it is done since the actual algorithm is
considered secret (and there's a good reason for this). However, IGT
has stated publicly that their RNG works continually and that the
cards are selected randomly at the initial deal and again when
drawing. I didn't make this up, I'm simply stating what everyone
who's kept up with VP already knows.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@...> wrote:
I don't know how this happened but I don't believe the casinos are cheating.
Nor am I a conspiracy theorist.
I just believe there are legitimate methods of controlling payouts other than
just changing the payout tables. Let's say for example that a different legitimate
method of deck handling shows the data miners that a RF would appear less
frequently than some other method, then I believe the more profitable method
would be employed.
Jackie
----- Original Message -----
From: mroejacks
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, since casino's must make a profit, I firmly believe that
their
> are certain controls in
> > place to prevent losses.
>
>
> The State of Nevada, Division of Gaming's definition of gambling
is "1
> part chance, 1 part consideration, 1 part reward." Any game that
does
> not fit the definition cannot be used for gaming purposes in the
State
> of Nevada. A gaffed machine is not gambling. Whatever it is, it
is
> not gambling.
>
> If you beleive the cards are not dealt at random, contact the State
of
> Nevada, Division of Gaming. I'm sure they will be happy to listen
to
> your concerns.
Good post, Mickey. I sometimes wonder why people "need" to believe
that gambling is not fair. While no one would ever claim there aren't
a few unscrupulous folks out there who would do anything to take our
money, why do they believe everyone falls into this category.
Jackie, you should understand that the casinos do put in "controls"
to make sure they maximize their profits. However, not in the way you
indicated. They do this legally by using data mining techniques to
determine trends, find poor returns on their investments, etc. For
example, if they find a certain bank of machines is not returning
what they determine to be acceptable, they will either remove the
bank or set it payback less through paytable adjustements. This is
completely legal and above board. The bottom line is the casinos
don't "need" to cheat to make fantastic profits. They have legal ways
to accomplish this goal.
We, as astute gamblers, need to recognize this fact and do what
we "need" to do in order to maximize our personal profits.
Dick
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Huh???
I never stated such.
I never even implied such.
So how can you reasonably determine what I think??
Jackie
----- Original Message -----
From: mroejacks
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'
PS. Jackie thinks they don't come out as often as they should.
When posting to a public forum you are inviting any and everyone to
respond with their opinion. That's just the way it is.
Dick
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yes, but how do we know that you are not Rob Singer? 
Gilbert has been making similar trolls questioning machine randomness for
years. I cannot say with any authority whether Nudge is an ass or Rob
Singer, but he is correct in this instance....
Chandler... feverishly begging the machine for more 2s.
vpFae
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:40 PM
To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the
'Deuces' or '2s'
On 10 Dec 2007 at 17:02, gilbert_616 wrote:
> Nudge Nudge Nudge Nudge51 ???
> or is it Rob Rob Rob
> Maybe it's time to verify who nudge51 really is…
> Remember the private e-mail you sent me a few years back?
> You forgot to clean up the "From:" section that shows "nudge51".
> And at the end of your message "Rob Singer".
I know and have met both Nudge and Rob Singer.
They are not the same person.
vpFae
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't know how this happened but I don't believe the casinos are
cheating.
Nor am I a conspiracy theorist.
I just believe there are legitimate methods of controlling payouts
other than
just changing the payout tables. Let's say for example that a
different legitimate
method of deck handling shows the data miners that a RF would
appear less
frequently than some other method, then I believe the more
profitable method
would be employed.
As soon as you say "controlling payouts other than just changing the
payout tables", you are stating the casinos ARE cheating since this
is against the law. Any method of deck handling other than RANDOM is
clearly against the law and hence, not "legitimate". Personally, I
think you are simply uninformed and need to spend some time reading.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@...> wrote:
I don't have to determine what you think, this what you said, and I
quote:
'it "seems" that more deuces show up than in other non-deuces wild
games.'
Gilbert stated his opinion is that they come up "more frequently"
playing deuces wild games. Therefore, I made the comment that you and
he were of differing viewpoints.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@...> wrote:
Huh???
I never stated such.
I never even implied such.
So how can you reasonably determine what I think??Jackie
Yes, but how do we know that you are not Rob Singer?
Gilbert has been making similar trolls questioning machine randomness
for
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Chandler" <chandler_re@...> wrote:
years. I cannot say with any authority whether Nudge is an ass or Rob
Singer, but he is correct in this instance....Chandler... feverishly begging the machine for more 2s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandler,
You don't have to be begging the machine for more 2s. Just play a
Deuces Wild game and you'll get a bunch of them....BUT.... NOT the 4
Deuces at the same time which I think is what most of the people
thought I meant by saying "you see more 2s more frequently in the
Deuces Wild game --- one here, two there, but not all 4 of them".
It seems like a number "2" shows up every 3 or 4 draws (at least when I
play this game). Is that what you are thinking? 4 Deuces for 1,000
credits? Well, I wasn't talking about that.
And for questioning about the machine randomness....it's basically how
they programmitically do it and NOT whether IGT and the other
manufacturers are being honest or not.
I ask for information here when I don't know or want to know about
something. And if you don't like the question or post --- You have the
right to ignore not read the post and remain silent. As far as I know,
there is no such Rule(s) here that says "You have to read and/or reply
to each and every topic in this forum.". If you don't have any good
information to contribute in this kind of topic, just keep playing vp
and you may hit more 2s coming your way instead.
You don't have to be begging the machine for more 2s. Just play a
Deuces Wild game and you'll get a bunch of them....BUT.... NOT the
4
Deuces at the same time which I think is what most of the people
thought I meant by saying "you see more 2s more frequently in the
Deuces Wild game --- one here, two there, but not all 4 of them".
It seems like a number "2" shows up every 3 or 4 draws (at least
when I
play this game). Is that what you are thinking? 4 Deuces for 1,000
credits? Well, I wasn't talking about that.
Gilbert, think about it, a 2 has about a 5 in 13 chance of showing up
on every deal (any of the 5 cards could be a 2). On the draw, if you
don't already have a 2 you now have an even better chance. If you add
these together a 2 SHOULD appear just about as often as you
indicated. Naturally, I'm referring to a random/fair selection
process. That is all that is needed. And, if you really check closely
you will see that 8s appear just as often. The difference? ... you're
not looking for 8s.
And for questioning about the machine randomness....it's basically
how
they programmitically do it and NOT whether IGT and the other
manufacturers are being honest or not.
Although the algoritms for RNGs can be different, there is only ONE
way the results can be random and fair. They either are or they are
not. They meet the standard tests or they don't. If one card shows up
more often than another, it will fail the tests.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@...> wrote:
Does that include buying dinner for your friends with comps because one really hates eating alone?
Scot Krause <krauseinvegas@cox.net> wrote:
if it says "nudge51", you guess is probably right on!
Truthfully, I know "nudge" personally. I was just razzing him a bit! But 20
years of winning may be stretching, eh, nudge? Are you adding in the cash
value of all those combs and keychains?
Scot
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi again Jackie,
There are no legitimate methods other than the paytable, either for slots or VP. Nevada, NJ, Miss, and almost other commercial jurisdiction has either regulations or customs that have the force of regulations that require games to play 1 of 3 ways:
Class II Indian casinos MUST play either a Bingo or Pull-tab game and display the results on a machine, whether through the way slot reels line up or a VP hand ends up. However, in VP not all cards have an equal chance of coming up.
NY State Racinos and Washington State Indian casinosplay a scratch-off lottery ticket and display the results like the above.
ALL OTHER jurisdictions have machines that randomly pick a number between 1 and 52 and display the card that was pre-assigned to that number (it NEVER changes). Then a 2nd number is selected and if it is not the same as the first the next card is displayed. This continues until all 5 cards are displayed. When (if) cards are discarded the same procedure is used to select the replacements. Every card not previously selected has an equal chance of being picked. This is exactly the same as a hand-dealt game. So in VP the only way to influence the payout % is to change the paytable. (Yes, you could analyze your customer base and hope that future play mimics past play and therefore change your floor hold by changing games but that is no different than changing paytables and, in fact, may not be a valid predictor of the future).
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Thanks,
B
At 01:23 PM 12/10/2007, you wrote:
I don't know how this happened but I don't believe the casinos are cheating.
Nor am I a conspiracy theorist.I just believe there are legitimate methods of controlling payouts other than
just changing the payout tables. Let's say for example that a different legitimate
method of deck handling shows the data miners that a RF would appear less
frequently than some other method, then I believe the more profitable method
would be employed.Jackie
----- Original Message -----
From: mroejacks
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Random Number Generation (RNG), cards drawn, and the 'Deuces' or '2s'--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jackie" <ajackiek@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, since casino's must make a profit, I firmly believe that
their
> are certain controls in
> > place to prevent losses.
>
> The State of Nevada, Division of Gaming's definition of gambling
is "1
> part chance, 1 part consideration, 1 part reward." Any game that
does
> not fit the definition cannot be used for gaming purposes in the
State
> of Nevada. A gaffed machine is not gambling. Whatever it is, it
is
> not gambling.
>
> If you beleive the cards are not dealt at random, contact the State
of
> Nevada, Division of Gaming. I'm sure they will be happy to listen
to
> your concerns.Good post, Mickey. I sometimes wonder why people "need" to believe
that gambling is not fair. While no one would ever claim there aren't
a few unscrupulous folks out there who would do anything to take our
money, why do they believe everyone falls into this category.Jackie, you should understand that the casinos do put in "controls"
to make sure they maximize their profits. However, not in the way you
indicated. They do this legally by using data mining techniques to
determine trends, find poor returns on their investments, etc. For
example, if they find a certain bank of machines is not returning
what they determine to be acceptable, they will either remove the
bank or set it payback less through paytable adjustements. This is
completely legal and above board. The bottom line is the casinos
don't "need" to cheat to make fantastic profits. They have legal ways
to accomplish this goal.We, as astute gamblers, need to recognize this fact and do what
we "need" to do in order to maximize our personal profits.Dick
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Chandler,
You don't have to be begging the machine for more 2s. Just play a
Deuces Wild game and you'll get a bunch of them....BUT.... NOT the
4
Deuces at the same time which I think is what most of the people
thought I meant by saying "you see more 2s more frequently in the
Deuces Wild game --- one here, two there, but not all 4 of them".
It seems like a number "2" shows up every 3 or 4 draws (at least
when I
play this game.
4X48X47X46X45 divided by 24 (which is 4 factorial, 4X3X2X1)=778,320
As long as I did the math right this is how many combinations out of
the 2,598,960 possible combinations that one can be dealt on the
initial deal. By dividing 2,598,960 by 778,320 the result is seeing
a single deuce on the flop and average of every 3.4 hands.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chandler,
>
> You don't have to be begging the machine for more 2s. Just play
a
> Deuces Wild game and you'll get a bunch of them....BUT.... NOT
the
4
> Deuces at the same time which I think is what most of the people
> thought I meant by saying "you see more 2s more frequently in the
> Deuces Wild game --- one here, two there, but not all 4 of them".
> It seems like a number "2" shows up every 3 or 4 draws (at least
when I
> play this game4X48X47X46X45 divided by 24 (which is 4 factorial, 4X3X2X1)=778,320
As long as I did the math right this is how many combinations out
of
the 2,598,960 possible combinations that one can be dealt on the
initial deal. By dividing 2,598,960 by 778,320 the result is
seeing
a single deuce on the flop and average of every 3.4 hands.
I have to write this over. One of the sentences doesn't make any
sense.
4x48x47x46x45 divided by 24 (which is 4 factorial, 4x3x2x1)=778,320.
As long as I did the math right this is how many combinations that
contain a single deuce out of the 2,598,960 combinations that one can
be dealt on the initial deal. By dividing 2,598,960 by 778,320 the
result is seeing a single deuce on the flop an average of every 3.4
deals.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@> wrote:
1) I am Rob Singer
2) I know people who have been barred/banned for their "expert" VP play or for winning at
more than 1 casino and or I am one of thise people
3) A set of numbers can be "evenly distributed" and "random"; "random" and NOT "even
distributed" or "even distributed" and NOT random. The two options, "evenly distributed"
and "random" are NOT related nor does one require the other in any way. What is
important for VP is that the cards come out evenly distributed and uncorrelated (there are
other requirements also). Real randomness is not a requirement for the EV to be
computable from the paytable: only even distribution of uncorrelated cards.
4) Manual (hand) shuffling is known to produce an uneven distribution of cards with
correlations from shuffle to shuffle. People have developed techniques to profit from this
"unrandomness" (though more precisely it is not the randomness itself, bur rather the
distribution, correlations, and lack of randomness), and I either know of people who use
these techniques or have used them myself.
ok-- so 3 out of 4 of these are true.
-Yet, to my knowledge, there has never been an expert
VP player banned from a casino for winning too much. Maybe
it's because the casino's edge can be recouped by simply
changing the payout table. Hmmm, isn't that what is happening
now? Whereas in blackjack, you would have to make changes
that are approved by the board, which takes too long to do so
ban players instead. BTW you don't see 110% payback for
the very same reason as before -- casino edge or profit.I do know about RNG's but an RNG is not the final determining
factor in these games. Other factors enter in to the final solution.
A RNG just produces numbers in a random fashion.To me, a VP machine should imitate a live game in card handling.
By that, I mean how the deck is handled. In live play, a deck is
shuffled and cards dealt sequentially from the top of the deck.
According to your scenario Dick, it doesn't happen that way.
Let's push it even further. How often would we see a hand that
contains two deuces on the flop?
Six combinations make a pair of deuces. Any one of four times any one
of three divided by 2 factorial (4x3 divided by 2x1) = 6.
So the equation is 6x48x47x46 divided by 3 factorial(3x2x1) = 103,776
combinations. 2,598,960 divided by 103,776 = 25.04. So we'll see two
deuces on the flop about every 25 games.
How often will we see three deuces on the flop? There are four
combinations that make three deuces. Any one of four times any one of
three times any one of two divided by 3 factorial (4x3x2 divided by
3x2x1) = 4
So the equation is 4x48x47 divided by 2 factorial (2x1) = 4224
combinations. 2,598,960 divided by 4,224 = 615.28. So we'll see three
deuces on the flop about every 615 games.
How often will we see four deuces on the flop? One combination makes 4
deuces. Any one of four times any one of three times any one of two
times any one of one. So the equation is 1x48. 2,598,960 divided by
48 = 54,145. We'll be dealt four deuces every 54,145 games.
So now let's add some combination up-
Combinations containing one deuce, 778,320, plus combinations
containing two deuces, 103,776 = 882,096. 2,598,960 divided by
882,096 = 2.95. So we're gonna see a hand containing either one or two
deuces about every three hands we're dealt.
Adding in the rest of the combinations has a negligible effect. We'll
see a hand containing one or more deuces every 2.93
deals.
If one were seeing deuces at twice the rate of the true odds they would
have to see one deuce or more in two out of every three hands
dealt.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
4x48x47x46x45 divided by 24 (which is 4 factorial, 4x3x2x1)=778,320.
As long as I did the math right this is how many combinations that
contain a single deuce out of the 2,598,960 combinations that one can
be dealt on the initial deal. By dividing 2,598,960 by 778,320 the
result is seeing a single deuce on the flop an average of every 3.4
deals.
mickeycrimm wrote:
Let's push it even further ...
You disappoint, Mickey. I'd looked for you to shortcut the math a bit
by looking at the frequency with which you're dealt a hand with no
deuces and then back into the "hand with a deuce" frequency.
- H.
Harry, I don't know everything. I'm an amateur mathematican and still
learning tricks. I've been a pirate of other people's math tricks as
relates to a 52 card deck for a long time. You just taught me a new
trick. Thanks. I really wanted to show how often one would see one or
two deuces on the deal. The people who think they've been seeing
deuces out of the ordinary probably weren't aware of the high hit
frequency.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
mickeycrimm wrote:
> Let's push it even further ...You disappoint, Mickey. I'd looked for you to shortcut the math a bit
by looking at the frequency with which you're dealt a hand with no
deuces and then back into the "hand with a deuce" frequency.- H.