In a message dated 2/20/2005 11:01:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
erchalb@cantv.net writes:
If when
the drink comes the cocktail waitress serves it on the right, I stay
at the machine, if she serves it on the left I move to another
machine.
Well, at least it's based on science, thanks!! <G>
Fred*
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Maybe the last word on this subject should be one of Jean Scott's
old columns at the lasvegasadvisor.com site, dated May 03, 2002
called "Switching Machines." It features a David Letterman
style "Top Ten Reasons for Switching Machines" which is funny. Check
out her archives to find it.
Terry Murphy & VP Pappy (Midwest Casino Guide)
"Getting a Royal Flush is like getting a cold; everyone gets one
sooner or later."
--VP Pappy
<<Maybe the last word on this subject should be one of Jean Scott's
old columns at the lasvegasadvisor.com site, dated May 03, 2002
called "Switching Machines." It features a David Letterman
style "Top Ten Reasons for Switching Machines" which is funny. Check
out her archives to find it.
I had forgotten that column - but no wonder - I just realized I have been writing that EVERY week (with a few exceptions and a few guest columnists) for almost FIVE years. No wonder I can't remember what I write!!!!
Any way, I just wanted to point out that although I wrote the introduction, that "top ten" list was written by someone on this or Skip's list but I forget by whom. I'm not usually that funny - mostly too serious for my own good. I am trying to "lighten up" in my old age, however.
However, if you are in a losing streak and need "support" go to the Frugal Friday archives - http://lasvegasadvisor.com/frugalfridays-archive.cfm and read the following columns that discuss losing streaks:
May 5, 2000
Aug. 9, 16, 23, 30, 2002
March 14, 21, 28, 2003
As you can see, when I start on this subject I get wound up for weeks! There are probably more columns that mention this subject but I got tired of researching.
One thing that amazed me as I was reading over some of these old columns is how much of the gambling information is still useable. Of course, some of the casinos I mentioned have changed names or been blown up. Some of the details about specific slot club I discuss have changed. Jeff Compton figures there are over 350 clubs in the US and Canada - and every year probably about 20% of them undergo some major change. But the general principles of smart casino play do not change - you just have to keep adapting your particular gambling activities as the casinos continue to make their changes.
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards and for the
Frugal series of books. Now is the time you might
need "Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler."
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of switching
machines when on a winning streak...if you subscribe to the idea of
regression towards the mean a contrarian approach would be the way to
go...if your in a session where your return is over 200% on a 99%
machine odds are the floor is about to fall out...however if you are
experienceing 50% return on a 99% machine well sounds like 100+%
return is on the way! of course that't not necessarily how things
will work out...just the way I tend to think of these things in my
own superstitious way.
The Keno in the title is referring to that gaming commission employee
who figured out how to beat keno based on previous machine draws. I
believe he stated that he had a roughly 3% chance of picking all the
numbers in a keno board...talk about a postive ev! I wonder about how
random these pseudo number generators really are. Can they be beat?
Of course if knew the algorithm and the seed they would always be
beatable. If you exclude the claim that the random number generators
are running continuosly, something that I do doubt, and the Keno
example proves to be false, then some advantage should be possible.
In a message dated 2/20/2005 11:01:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
erchalb@c... writes:
If when
the drink comes the cocktail waitress serves it on the right, I
stay
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, TKeep123@a... wrote:
at the machine, if she serves it on the left I move to another
machine.Well, at least it's based on science, thanks!! <G>
Fred*
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118" <jaydavidson118@y...>
wrote:
if you subscribe to the idea of
regression towards the mean a contrarian approach would be the way
to
go...
interesting thought, if there was a localized anomaly in the rng, then
regression to the mean would probably apply
for truly random there is no regression to the mean
The Keno in the title is referring to that gaming commission
employee
who figured out how to beat keno based on previous machine draws. I
believe he stated that he had a roughly 3% chance of picking all
the
numbers in a keno board...talk about a postive ev! I wonder about
how
random these pseudo number generators really are. Can they be beat?
Of course if knew the algorithm and the seed they would always be
beatable. If you exclude the claim that the random number
generators
are running continuosly, something that I do doubt, and the Keno
example proves to be false, then some advantage should be possible.
i thought the gaming commission employee exploited a fault in the
random number generation but i might be confusing it with the other
cases - basically the problem was the rng was reset at particular
times and then the random numbers were picked serially in the same or
very similar matter, thus you had a good shot at predicting the
sequences
in video poker the rng is running continously, a number (or cards) are
picked at the moment you hit the deal button, thus adding a very
random element - when you actually hit the button, and the next set of
cards are not the next random number, rather they are the next one you
grab at the exact moment you rehit the deal button
if you could reset a machine and then hit the deal button at precise
times (within milliseconds) in theory you could get the exact same
sequence of cards, assuming the same seed is used at reset, which is
probably not the case
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118" <jaydavidson118@y...>
wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of switching
machines when on a winning streak...if you subscribe to the idea of
regression towards the mean a contrarian approach would be the way
to
go...if your in a session where your return is over 200% on a 99%
machine odds are the floor is about to fall out...however if you
are
experienceing 50% return on a 99% machine well sounds like 100+%
return is on the way! of course that't not necessarily how things
will work out...just the way I tend to think of these things in my
own superstitious way
Regression towards the mean does not apply in this type of
situation. There is nothing elastic compelling it back, like there
is in blackjack where as ten cards are played and discarded more
often, they are then less likely to appear since there's less of
them. If you play a 100% game and your up $5000 over $10,000 bet,
the probability (assuming true randomness now) is that you'll be up
$5000 over $1,000,000,000 bet. Same winnings, but your % yield has
now approached 0.
Regression towards the mean does not apply in this type of
situation. There is nothing elastic compelling it back, like there
is in blackjack where as ten cards are played and discarded more
often, they are then less likely to appear since there's less of
them.
I think you took my post too literally...the point was if you are
looking for a signal to switch machines quitting while you are ahead
makes more sense than quitting while you are down...over time your
results will tend toward the ev of the game hence if you are ahead
that's the wrong direction for you... in a rough way regression
toward the mean Does apply even though that's a longer term situation
than a single playing session...where anything can happen. The
blackjack example is a good one because it shows the causal effect
but this is not needed for regression toward the mean...it is an
effect that often occurs where no causal mechanism is obvious
If you play a 100% game and your up $5000 over $10,000 bet,
the probability (assuming true randomness now) is that you'll be up
$5000 over $1,000,000,000 bet. Same winnings, but your % yield has
now approached 0.
yes, I agree, but I was talking about a less than 100% game, so I'm
not sure I follow your point.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "steviemcc1" <steviemcc1@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118"
<jaydavidson118@y...>
wrote:
> if you subscribe to the idea of
> regression towards the mean a contrarian approach would be the way
to
> go...interesting thought, if there was a localized anomaly in the rng,
then
regression to the mean would probably apply
for truly random there is no regression to the mean
Don't you expect your results, given random draws, to approach the ev
of the game, assuming perfect play, that's regression towards the
mean (ev)
i thought the gaming commission employee exploited a fault in the
random number generation but i might be confusing it with the other
cases - basically the problem was the rng was reset at particular
times and then the random numbers were picked serially in the same
or
very similar matter, thus you had a good shot at predicting the
sequencesin video poker the rng is running continously, a number (or cards)
are
picked at the moment you hit the deal button, thus adding a very
random element - when you actually hit the button, and the next set
of
cards are not the next random number, rather they are the next one
you
grab at the exact moment you rehit the deal button
if you could reset a machine and then hit the deal button at precise
times (within milliseconds) in theory you could get the exact same
sequence of cards, assuming the same seed is used at reset, which is
probably not the case
I heard about that case too, but that was a different case, in that
case "urban legend" the machines were turned on at exactly the same
time each day, and the machines took the initial seed number from the
machine clock.
For the Keno thing to work the machine can not continuously cycle
through random numbers, it would have to generate a new set of
numbers to play and then use them the next time the game is played,
whether it was 10 seconds later or a few hours later. The employee
convicted and I believe served some time in NV or at least probation,
so I'm sure this is a real event. I've heard it said that slot
machines continuously cycle through random numbers and when you hit
the button the machine spits out whatever rng numbers it was
currently generating, but, this could not have been the case for the
keno game, becase the employee said that he based his choice upon the
last set of numbers that was generated hence linking the previous
game to the current game, this would be lost if the rng continuously
cycled.
The casinos have a vested interest to say the machines continuosly
cycle...to cut down on the arguments of people saying this person
stole my jackpot...that person just hit the button at the right time
not the next person to hit the button was going to hit a jackpot.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118" <jaydavidson118@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Regression towards the mean does not apply in this type of
> situation. There is nothing elastic compelling it back, like
there
> is in blackjack where as ten cards are played and discarded more
> often, they are then less likely to appear since there's less of
> them.I think you took my post too literally...the point was if you are
looking for a signal to switch machines quitting while you are
ahead
makes more sense than quitting while you are down...over time your
results will tend toward the ev of the game hence if you are ahead
that's the wrong direction for you... in a rough way regression
toward the mean Does apply even though that's a longer term
situation
than a single playing session...where anything can happen. The
blackjack example is a good one because it shows the causal effect
but this is not needed for regression toward the mean...it is an
effect that often occurs where no causal mechanism is obvious>If you play a 100% game and your up $5000 over $10,000 bet,
> the probability (assuming true randomness now) is that you'll be
up
> $5000 over $1,000,000,000 bet. Same winnings, but your % yield
has
> now approached 0.
yes, I agree, but I was talking about a less than 100% game, so I'm
not sure I follow your point.
I used 100% because it's easy to illustrate but you can use any %.
Assuming true randomness, past events have no bearing on future
occurrances in probability. The machine does not care to remember it
got you up $5000 and try to fix you back. However, what is
regressing toward the mean is your % yield because $5000 over a
billion spent is essentially an even 100% yield as opposed to 150%
which occurred during your first $10,000 spent.
Now, in the real imperfect non-random world, past events do figure in
and can deviate you farther from the norm in the short-term; it can
make your ride a little more streaky and incredible. What your
probably thinking of is in the very long term the machine has got to
balance out; it can't pay off royals every 10,000 hands forever.
Well yeah, but if you've reached the crest of a mountain and are now
going down a steep waterfall, why not jump off and ride that new
train that's possibly going up another maybe steeper mountain.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "steviemcc1" <steviemcc1@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118" <jaydavidson118@y...>
wrote:
Don't you expect your results, given random draws, to approach the
ev
of the game, assuming perfect play, that's regression towards the
mean (ev)
1. that's not regression towards the mean
2. deviation increases as you play, which is why even an even bet is a
fool's bet unless you have an unlimited bankroll (or a bankroll
substantially larger than your opponent)
I used 100% because it's easy to illustrate but you can use any %.
Assuming true randomness, past events have no bearing on future
occurrances in probability. The machine does not care to remember
it
got you up $5000 and try to fix you back. However, what is
regressing toward the mean is your % yield because $5000 over a
billion spent is essentially an even 100% yield as opposed to 150%
which occurred during your first $10,000 spent.Now, in the real imperfect non-random world, past events do figure
in
and can deviate you farther from the norm in the short-term; it can
make your ride a little more streaky and incredible. What your
probably thinking of is in the very long term the machine has got
to
balance out; it can't pay off royals every 10,000 hands forever.
Well yeah, but if you've reached the crest of a mountain and are
now
going down a steep waterfall, why not jump off and ride that new
train that's possibly going up another maybe steeper mountain.
I actually think we are mostly in agreement here...I didn't mean to
imply dependence of past events on current play, the manufactures
claim independence of these events,it is just a function of the ev of
the game that will tend to push results toward the mean expectation...
The point of my original post that I was expecting responses to was
about the Keno game where the rng was solved, that would be truly
interesting if a similar situation ocurred for vp. If you could
predict future hands based on previous deals all games would become
postive plays...even imperfect prediction, like the case given (3%
accuracy) would be a greate benefit.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "steviemcc1" <steviemcc1@y...> wrote:
I think the guy who "solved" the rng code at Bally's was a Nevada regulater who had access to special codes that even casino manager's dont have. He used the information he got on his job in Nevada to try and make a killing in atlantic City but got caught. I remember they found computer's in his room upstair's.
Ned C.
The Wild Joker
jaydavidson118 <jaydavidson118@yahoo.com> wrote:
The point of my original post that I was expecting responses to was
about the Keno game where the rng was solved, that would be truly
interesting if a similar situation ocurred for vp. If you could
predict future hands based on previous deals all games would become
postive plays...even imperfect prediction, like the case given (3%
accuracy) would be a greate benefit.
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to
U.S./Canada
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]