I also notice this a lot, that is, seeing the same card but in a different suit. This happens when I throw away a single card. I think it's because our eyes are focused on that one card and we notice what comes in the spot. I have a feeling that if we kept track of all the cards we throw away, we would notice this happening a lot also.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Norma Posy" <normagirl9@...> wrote:
I believe there is a psychological effect going on here.
When I throw away, say a nine of hearts, and get a nine in its place, I *notice* it. Especially if the color is the same (diamonds in this case). Otherwise, I don't notice it. Over some time, the "notices" pile up in the back of my mind. So I get suspicious.
About randomness:
The entire theoretical structure of the computations of all those payoffs, and all those "hold/discard" hierarchy tables, is predicated on "any card is as likely as any other card" (to within some statistical criterion).
It is true that algorithmic random number generators have their faults. There is a large body of study on this issue, mostly by physics people who are very critical of the "purity" of the methods they use to computer-simulate complicated physical processes.
For purposes of use in a video poker machine, however, the departure from "true randomness" (however defined) of the internal random number generator (RNG), is not worth worrying about.
Also, the casino does not have to go to the trouble of biasing the RNGs. Just reducing the payout table suffices. Like replacing a "6/9" J-or-B with a "5/8".
That said, I cannot help but wonder about all those Indian casinos outside of Nevada. It is a trivial programming job to bias the RNG in a machine.
This is related to an interesting design question: If a machine pays off poorly, customers will learn to avoid it. On the other hand, if it pays off too well, the casino will not make as much money. Somewhere, there is an optimum point.
A related design question is: Should the payouts be large and rare, or small and frequent? The California Lottery is currently debating this question.
- - Norma Posy
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Video Poker" <videopoker@> wrote:
>
> the point is are the machines random?
> if they are not, then everything Dancer writes is moot.
> Singer's one study is in and of itself not relevent, true random dealing is!
>
> And the other person who questioned Singer, go to his site and read and drae your own conclusions.
> Is not "studying" all sides true learning.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: bobbartop
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:43 PM
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Something strange
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Levine" <stuckinvegas@> wrote:
> >
> > Rob Singer is doing a study on having 4 to a flush or straight and having the same card that you threw away come back in another suit. For example, you have the 2-3-4-5-9h, and throw away the 9h and get back the 9d.
> >
> > He's showing that this keeps happening way out of the normal percentages that it should be happening. If you go to his website vptruth.com, you'll see the results for yourself. Anything that is out of the realm of "randomness" must be considered rigged.
> >
>
> So let me get this right. They don't "rig" them so they will pay off with less royals, but they instead rig them so they will give you a 9 of diamonds just to annoy you. Is that correct?
>
> Oh brother! Sheesh! This guy Singer sounds like he's got some issues. Sounds like "studying" what Singer has to say would really be a waste of one's time.
>
> -BB
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.18/2098 - Release Date: 05/05/09 08:05:00
>
> ----------
>
>
> ----------
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.18/2098 - Release Date: 05/05/09 08:05:00
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
