The controversy regarding the rng and whether the video poker machine deals 5 or 10 cards goes back over 20 years. I heard that someone went to the manufacturer and was told it was a two step process. I do not know the details but when I asked I was told no information could be released in order to protect the intergity of the game. Of course misinformation could be released to protect it also, which I think has been done alot.
Since then it seems the sources for information about this are slot mechanics, who are not trusted company employees with any inside information on the actual design of the machine. When an error is made in playing a hand on any video poker machine it almost always involves not holding a card or holding the wrong cards. In these cases the machine can be opened and the drawn cards can be displayed.
In very rare cases the machine will hold a card by itself. In these situations the card that would have been drawn cannot be known (because it was not generated). One time a slot mechanic even said the drawn card was there in the machine but there was no way to find out what it was because the machine would not let anyone see it! This seems strange since the machine will let you see it in the other situations.
In my opinion this is very strong evidence that there is a two step process in dealing the cards. Steveinnv
RNG Operation
[snip]
In my opinion this is very strong evidence that there is a two step process in dealing the cards. Steveinnv
OK. And assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true -- now please tell me how this possibly can affect the player.
Just to clear the air, I have 2 sources for the methodology that IGT uses
on the Game Kings. The first was the person who designed and wrote one of
the more popular games, the second was the primary public relations contact
at IGT who confirmed this with the programming department. Since the first
source was absolutely reliable the confirmation by the second (almost 2
years later) sews it up.
And it would not be an industrial secret, there are 3 possible
methodologies; the one chosen doesn't really make a difference.
B
···
At 09:37 AM 06/03/2005, you wrote:
The controversy regarding the rng and whether the video poker
machine deals 5 or 10 cards goes back over 20 years. I heard that
someone went to the manufacturer and was told it was a two step
process. I do not know the details but when I asked I was told no
information could be released in order to protect the intergity of the
game. Of course misinformation could be released to protect it also,
which I think has been done alot.
Since then it seems the sources for information about this are
slot mechanics, who are not trusted company employees with any inside
information on the actual design of the
machine.
When an error is made in playing a hand on any video poker machine it
almost always involves not holding a card or holding the wrong cards. In
these cases the machine can be opened and the drawn cards can be displayed.
In very rare cases the machine will hold a card by itself. In
these situations the card that would have been drawn cannot be known
(because it was not generated). One time a slot mechanic even said the
drawn card was there in the machine but there was no way to find out
what it was because the machine would not let anyone see it! This seems
strange since the machine will let you see it in the other situations.In my opinion this is very strong evidence that there is a two
step process in dealing the cards. Steveinnv
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> [snip]
> In my opinion this is very strong evidence that there
is
> a two step process in dealing the cards. Steveinnv
>OK. And assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true --
now
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Thomas <jfthomas3@c...> wrote:
please tell me how this possibly can affect the player.
----------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to machine/hardware and its functionality/software, it
would be nice to see IN THE FUTURE posts/messages something like:
Hi, I'm John Thomas or I'm bornloser and I work for IGT or I used to
work for IGT and this is how the machine is programmed or how it
works... (instead of assumptions)
then all of us will gladly listen and say "Very good information.
Thank you!".
While we are still on the subject, I came across an article regarding
the RNG, etc. Unfortunately, it is from 1999, but still was quite
informative.
http://www.americancasinoguide.com/Tips/video-poker.shtml
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@y...> wrote:
When it comes to machine/hardware and its functionality/software, it
would be nice to see IN THE FUTURE posts/messages something like:Hi, I'm John Thomas or I'm bornloser and I work for IGT or I used to
work for IGT and this is how the machine is programmed or how it
works... (instead of assumptions)then all of us will gladly listen and say "Very good information.
Thank you!".
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@y...>
wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > In my opinion this is very strong evidence that
there
is
Hi, I'm bornloser and I do not work for IGT and I never worked for
IGT and I have no idea concerning the mechanics of how the machine
is programmed or how it works. Any assumptions that I make about
that would be irrelevant anyway in this thread of discussions. I
have been talking about techniques of "dealing" and the cycling of
RNG's.
We were discussing the differences between 5-card deals and 10-card
deals. Because of what one understands about VP and how it is
supposed to work under regulations esrtablished in the state of
Nevada, it is totally irrelevant in the probabilities of getting a
royal flush. It is also irrelevant how fast the RNG cycles. My
comment is simply that random is random and random.
Again, and hopefully finally, the way in which the cards are dealt
and the speed of the cycling of the RNG is irrelvant to what the
results will be over the long term, which is all that matters to the
serious VP player. Perhaps, I have the fault of being naive,
believing that the regulators do their job and the casinos respect
and implement those regulations.
.....bl
> > a two step process in dealing the cards. Steveinnv
> >
>
> OK. And assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is true --
now
> please tell me how this possibly can affect the player.
----------------------------------------------------------When it comes to machine/hardware and its functionality/software,
it
would be nice to see IN THE FUTURE posts/messages something like:
Hi, I'm John Thomas or I'm bornloser and I work for IGT or I used
to
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Thomas <jfthomas3@c...> wrote:
work for IGT and this is how the machine is programmed or how it
works... (instead of assumptions)then all of us will gladly listen and say "Very good information.
Thank you!".
1999 is prior to release of the Game King platform, but if you read the
quote from IGT it does not say that 10 cards are dealt initially but could
be interpreted that way. However, 1999 is ancient history in this industry.
···
At 08:36 PM 06/03/2005, you wrote:
While we are still on the subject, I came across an article regarding
the RNG, etc. Unfortunately, it is from 1999, but still was quite
informative.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Maybe I am new here and don't understand all the nuances, but I am a
computer programmer that writes a lot of statistical simulation
code.
If you ask for 10 random numbers sequentially or 5 then 5, there
should be no difference in the outcome unless the seed value given
to the RNG subroutine changes between the calls.
If new seeds were passed to it every time, the machine changes to a
video lottery terminal because the process would no longer be truly
random.
Someone might be able to throw a lot of money away by discarding
every hand and recording the values picked in order to reverse what
the current seed is. But then they would need to simulate until the
next possible royal flush is found and wait until that many plays
have been done on that single machine. Not a very effective use of
resources, even with comp dollars.
Stacking is where programming is important to me. I would prefer
playing a machine that does not stack the cards than one that does.
If I only discard 1 card in the far right (5th) position to try and
catch a flush, I want the new card to be drawn out of 47 and not out
of 43 as it would be in a stacked machine. My odds of catching the
flush on a non stacked machine are always 19% (9/47). This constant
probability is what makes the EV work. This would be the same odds
on a stacked machine if I discarded card 1, but not the same if I
discard card 5.
On a stacked machine, odds vary based on what was placed in
positions 6-9. The best scenario on a stacked machine for discarding
card 5 to get a flush is that none of the cards I need are placed in
positions 6-9. That works out to 38/47 * 37/46 * 36/45 * 35/44 *
9/43 which is only an 8.6% chance of catching that flush. And things
only get worse from there if any of the cards I need are in
positions 6-9. The total possibility of catching that flush by
discarding card 5 on a stacked machine is only 11.3%. This is almost
half what it is on a non stacked machine.
Just to clear the air, I have 2 sources for the methodology that
IGT uses
one of
the more popular games, the second was the primary public
relations contact
at IGT who confirmed this with the programming department. Since
the first
source was absolutely reliable the confirmation by the second
(almost 2
years later) sews it up.
And it would not be an industrial secret, there are 3 possible
methodologies; the one chosen doesn't really make a difference.B
> The controversy regarding the rng and whether the video
poker
> machine deals 5 or 10 cards goes back over 20 years. I heard
that
> someone went to the manufacturer and was told it was a two step
> process. I do not know the details but when I asked I was told
no
> information could be released in order to protect the intergity
of the
> game. Of course misinformation could be released to protect it
also,
> which I think has been done alot.
> Since then it seems the sources for information about
this are
> slot mechanics, who are not trusted company employees with any
inside
> information on the actual design of the
> machine.
> When an error is made in playing a hand on any video poker
machine it
> almost always involves not holding a card or holding the wrong
cards. In
> these cases the machine can be opened and the drawn cards can be
displayed.
> In very rare cases the machine will hold a card by
itself. In
> these situations the card that would have been drawn cannot be
known
> (because it was not generated). One time a slot mechanic even
said the
> drawn card was there in the machine but there was no way to
find out
> what it was because the machine would not let anyone see it!
This seems
> strange since the machine will let you see it in the other
situations.
>
> In my opinion this is very strong evidence that there
is a two
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@c...> wrote:
on the Game Kings. The first was the person who designed and wrote
At 09:37 AM 06/03/2005, you wrote:
> step process in dealing the cards. Steveinnv[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sigh!
Completely untrue! But, why bother. Let each do what they think is
best for them, in spite of what is "correct".
In truth, the card that is in any position on the 2nd "row" of 5
cards that are dealt is, indeed, there with a 1 in 47 chance, not 1
in 43.
Good luck to all! I am outta this thread. LOL
.....Bl
Stacking is where programming is important to me. I would prefer
playing a machine that does not stack the cards than one that
does.
If I only discard 1 card in the far right (5th) position to try
and
catch a flush, I want the new card to be drawn out of 47 and not
out
of 43 as it would be in a stacked machine. My odds of catching the
flush on a non stacked machine are always 19% (9/47). This
constant
probability is what makes the EV work. This would be the same odds
on a stacked machine if I discarded card 1, but not the same if I
discard card 5.On a stacked machine, odds vary based on what was placed in
positions 6-9. The best scenario on a stacked machine for
discarding
card 5 to get a flush is that none of the cards I need are placed
in
positions 6-9. That works out to 38/47 * 37/46 * 36/45 * 35/44 *
9/43 which is only an 8.6% chance of catching that flush. And
things
only get worse from there if any of the cards I need are in
positions 6-9. The total possibility of catching that flush by
discarding card 5 on a stacked machine is only 11.3%. This is
almost
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "artinnj" <artinnj@y...> wrote:
half what it is on a non stacked machine.
You are making an unwarrented assumption. The RNG continues to process
numbers after the first 5 are drawn with the main program ignoring the
results until the "draw" button is pressed. This has the same effect as
putting in a new seed.
···
At 12:08 PM 06/04/2005, you wrote:
Maybe I am new here and don't understand all the nuances, but I am a
computer programmer that writes a lot of statistical simulation
code.If you ask for 10 random numbers sequentially or 5 then 5, there
should be no difference in the outcome unless the seed value given
to the RNG subroutine changes between the calls.If new seeds were passed to it every time, the machine changes to a
video lottery terminal because the process would no longer be truly
random.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi bornloser1537,
I think the only way you can implement that distribution in a
computer program is to have the program enumerate all 184,072,680
possible combinations of the remaining 47 cards and choose one from
all of those combinations.
It that how the machines implement this?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:
Sigh!
Completely untrue! But, why bother. Let each do what they think
is
best for them, in spite of what is "correct".
In truth, the card that is in any position on the 2nd "row" of 5
cards that are dealt is, indeed, there with a 1 in 47 chance, not
1
in 43.
Good luck to all! I am outta this thread. LOL
.....Bl
>
> Stacking is where programming is important to me. I would prefer
> playing a machine that does not stack the cards than one that
does.
> If I only discard 1 card in the far right (5th) position to try
and
> catch a flush, I want the new card to be drawn out of 47 and not
out
> of 43 as it would be in a stacked machine. My odds of catching
the
> flush on a non stacked machine are always 19% (9/47). This
constant
> probability is what makes the EV work. This would be the same
odds
> on a stacked machine if I discarded card 1, but not the same if
I
> discard card 5.
>
> On a stacked machine, odds vary based on what was placed in
> positions 6-9. The best scenario on a stacked machine for
discarding
> card 5 to get a flush is that none of the cards I need are
placed
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "artinnj" <artinnj@y...> wrote:
in
> positions 6-9. That works out to 38/47 * 37/46 * 36/45 * 35/44 *
> 9/43 which is only an 8.6% chance of catching that flush. And
things
> only get worse from there if any of the cards I need are in
> positions 6-9. The total possibility of catching that flush by
> discarding card 5 on a stacked machine is only 11.3%. This is
almost
> half what it is on a non stacked machine.
>
Sorry to but in again, but the machines pick a number between 1 and 52 for
each card, checking to see if that card had already been picked. It would
be absurd to have 1 number represent a hand.
···
At 01:17 PM 06/04/2005, you wrote:
Hi bornloser1537,
I think the only way you can implement that distribution in a
computer program is to have the program enumerate all 184,072,680
possible combinations of the remaining 47 cards and choose one from
all of those combinations.It that how the machines implement this?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No, to add just a little to Bills' response... Well, maybe a lot 
First, I have never worked for IGT or any other gaming company. That
said, what follows is ONE possible implementation. The RNG runs
continually after an initial seed (it may also be reseeded at various
intervals). THe RNG is a program that outputs a number between 1 and
52 (or more if jokers are present). The number is an index into a
vector of cards. On the deal the main program requests 5 numbers and
converts each number into a card and displays it. After the player
chooses which cards to hold, the program requests as many numbers as
are required to fill out the draw. In between deal and draw the RNG
algoritm may have cycled through millions of numbers (cards). And,
while waiting for deal to be pressed once again it will also cycle
through millions of numbers. All of these values are ignored.
For example, if the numbers provided by the RNG are 1,4,3,5,2 and the
vector of cards starts out AH,KH,QH,JH,TH then a dealt RF will be
displayed on the screen, it will appear as AH,JH,QH,TH,KH.
If the number generated just before the sequence above was a 12 and
the player hit deal a few nanaoseconds quicker then the values would
have been 12,1,4,3,5. The 12 would map into the 3H. Most of us would
discard the 3H and hit draw. In this situation millions of number
have passed and any of the other 47 cards are possible. In the old 10
card method the drawn card would be the KH corresponding to the
number 2 that we already know is the next generated number.
The RNG algorithm most likely generates a 32 bit or more number and
divides the number by 52. The actual number used is the remainder
(modulus 52) of this division operation. The reason for at least 32
bits in the algorithm is to provide better randomness. And, yes,
there are differences in "randomness".
Other thoughts?
Dick
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "artinnj" <artinnj@y...> wrote:
Hi bornloser1537,
I think the only way you can implement that distribution in a
computer program is to have the program enumerate all 184,072,680
possible combinations of the remaining 47 cards and choose one from
all of those combinations.It that how the machines implement this?
Other thoughts?
There is a midget inside with a deck of cards. 
Seriously, it should be somewhat easy to figure out for somebody with
the correct equipment and some knowledge. You should be able to yank
the ROM chips out of the machine and decode the instructions. All you
would need it time, money and a knowledge of ICs.
With all respect to IGT, and all the other manufacturers out there.
It's not rocket science, these machines cannot be that difficult to make.
-Dave
Thanks Bill, that is exactly my original point.
If the program is picking each card individually and checking to see
whether that card has already been dealt, then it us just like
pulling a card from the remaining deck. Therefore, the 10th card is
being chosen out of the 43 remaining cards available, not out of 47.
I never would have thought that these meachines have the computing
power to do the full hand analysis.
Sorry to but in again, but the machines pick a number between 1
and
52 for
each card, checking to see if that card had already been picked.
It
would
be absurd to have 1 number represent a hand.
>Hi bornloser1537,
>
>I think the only way you can implement that distribution in a
>computer program is to have the program enumerate all 184,072,680
>possible combinations of the remaining 47 cards and choose one
from
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@c...> wrote:
At 01:17 PM 06/04/2005, you wrote:
>all of those combinations.
>
>It that how the machines implement this?[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But, the point is, since you do not KNOW what the 6th, 7th, 8th, and
9th cards are (since they are all hidden), the 10th card CAN be any
of the 47 remaining cards. The only thing that you KNOW are the
identities of the 1st five dealt cards.
(This is NOT rocket science. I know that I said that I was out of
this thread, but "the devil made me do this". LOL)
....bl
Thanks Bill, that is exactly my original point.
If the program is picking each card individually and checking to
see
whether that card has already been dealt, then it us just like
pulling a card from the remaining deck. Therefore, the 10th card
is
being chosen out of the 43 remaining cards available, not out of
47.
I never would have thought that these meachines have the computing
power to do the full hand analysis.> Sorry to but in again, but the machines pick a number between 1
and
52 for
> each card, checking to see if that card had already been picked.
It
would
> be absurd to have 1 number represent a hand.
>
> >Hi bornloser1537,
> >
> >I think the only way you can implement that distribution in a
> >computer program is to have the program enumerate all
184,072,680
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "artinnj" <artinnj@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@c...> wrote:
> At 01:17 PM 06/04/2005, you wrote:
> >possible combinations of the remaining 47 cards and choose one
from
> >all of those combinations.
> >
> >It that how the machines implement this?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]