The specifics are a trade secret and are not available to the public.
At 11:46 PM 5/16/2006, you wrote:
bl, I appreciate what you're saying, and it's probably correct, but
I wonder if anyone out there can tell us from personal experience
what software architecture a specific VP machine uses, such as an IGT GameKing.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Isn't all this talk/concern about random generators off the mark?
Seems to me that what's done with that number will be the major factor in dealing a fair game.
If you wanted to bias the game, either in the player's or casino's favor, would you tinker with the random number generator or with it's output?
Fred
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Actually, there are card shuffling algorithms that are much more efficient in terms of CPU time than this.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Coleman
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Dealing cards using an RNG...
I know this thread is getting very geeky but of course there's a
slight error in this description. When the RNG selects a number
between 1 and 52, the program that pulls the number then looks it up
to find the card that the number represents. When the program pulls
the next number it then checks to see if that number was already
selected. If so, it will throw it out and get another. This prevents
duplicate cards.
The RNG doesn't know if a number is used or not. And the algorithm
described below would not eliminate the selected number, only the
number 52 and the card it represents.
Also, the original poster asked if the program has to emulate a
hand-dealt game, meaning the remaining cards in the deck are fixed,
not shuffled. It does not. It only has to have each element have the
same chance of appearing as in the live game. Here's the relevant
regulation portion (and it answers other questions that have been
previously posted):
For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games,
the mathematical
probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome
must be equal to the
mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the
live gambling game. For other
gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in
a position in any game
outcome must be constant.
(c) The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of
game elements or
detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount
wagered, or upon the
style or method of play.
3. Must display an accurate representation of the game outcome. After
selection of the game
outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary
decision which affects the
result shown to the player.
4. Must display the rules of play and payoff schedule.
5. Must not automatically alter paytables or any function of the
device based on internal
computation of the hold percentage.
6. Must meet the technical standards adopted pursuant to section 14.050.
At 06:35 AM 5/16/2006, you wrote:
> This integer will be between 1 and 52. We go to our
>"deck" and see what card that number represents, and write it to the
>screen. There are
>now 51 cards left in the deck. Get another random number and
>multiply it by 51 (instead
>of 52). This gives an integer between 1 and 51. The software,
>having eliminated the card
>already dealt from the deck, now gets the second card dealt and
>writes it to the screen. It
>goes through it a third time, now multiplying the random number by
>50, to get the third
>card. And so forth, getting 10 cards in all for the VP hand.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
SPONSORED LINKS Online gambling Outdoor recreation Recreation software
Gambling
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But, but, but.....inquiring minds want to know! LOL
I guess you're right - former IGT employees probably signed an NDA and therefore can't say anything 
The specifics are a trade secret and are not available to the public.
Bill Coleman <vphobby2@cox.net> wrote:
At 11:46 PM 5/16/2006, you wrote:
bl, I appreciate what you're saying, and it's probably correct, but
I wonder if anyone out there can tell us from personal experience
what software architecture a specific VP machine uses, such as an IGT GameKing.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Presumably you're talking about sinister modification of a game's programming code by a malicious developer to bias the game one way or the other, in favor of the player or the casino/machine. Hopefully, the NGC goes over the source code carefully to look for any mis-use of the value retrieved from the RNG (i.e. the card dealt). In fact, the RNG component *is* code, so both the generation of the random number and its use should be subject to the same scrutiny.
The story about the RNG codebreakers led me to wonder this: the way the VP statutes read, couldn't the game manufacturer be considered liable and in violation of the statute if a game's RNG turns out to have a detectable pattern? (I think one of the statutes stated that the game must not have any detectable pattern) Have any game manufacturers ever been sued as a result of one of these flaws being exposed, or did they just correct the problem and issue a new version of the game software? Seems to me like the casinos could have a case against the manufacturer, if they wanted to go that route, based on the way the statute reads. Then again, if NGC via its testing lab gave the game its seal of approval, perhaps the NGC became liable at that point. But who is really going to sue the NGC over a flawed game? That would be an invitation for closer NGC scrutiny of the suing casino's operations out of anger over the lawsuit - not a good idea. You probably don't want to anger the
higher-ups in the NGC. Then again, it's the old quandry of: who regulates the regulators? I don't know if they're elected or not, perhaps the head Commissioner is, but not many others, certainly not low-level employees. OK, enough of my rambling....
Fred <fred123@mts.net> wrote:
Isn't all this talk/concern about random generators off the mark?
Seems to me that what's done with that number will be the major factor in dealing a fair game. If you wanted to bias the game, either in the player's or casino's favor, would you tinker with the random number generator or with it's output?
Fred
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]