Hi all
Here's a point that hasn't been mentioned. As posted earlier, I think
faster processors make less streaky games. Another thing is TITO. In
the "old days" coin in coin out caused a lot of down time. So if you
had a $500 game bankroll and hit enough to vend coins, mostly $1
machines, then it wouldn't be long till machine was down. In a good
win streak you might be waiting an hour or more for fills and stuck
coins. So the end of the day produced a winner. Now you get a $800
aces win and you play without a pause to fill. Heck, in Double Bonus
most of that win can be lost in the time it used to take a slot
person to open machine to see if empty or jammed. As a result our
nice little wins are spent before we know what happened. The dollar
players are the ones who feel this the most.
Cheers......Jeep.
.
."rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
I agree it would be easy for the manufacturer to implement.
However,
since there is no law to allow this, they would be risking their
entire business. As has been mentioned on this forum many times,
the
potential for a whistle blower is high enough to make this
extremely
unlikely.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "billkennedy3" <billkennedy3@y...>
wrote:
>
> As a developer, something like this would be trivial to implement
on
> the manufacturer's end, but I don't believe the risk would
warrant
> it. Any change that they could theorectically make would have to
be
> small enough to not be noticed over millions of hands, and would
thus
> have a very small overall effect on the EV of the machine.
>
> Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who play VP don't
get
> anywhere near optimal strategy, often giving up over 3-4% of the
> theorectical maximum. For the manufacturer or casino to risk
> everything for what would amount to an almost imperceptible gain
to
> their expected take seems silly. I'm not saying that it
definitely
> never happens, but I'd be very surprised to learn that any
> manufacturer/casino would be stupid enough to try it. Now if
they
> could get the gaming commission in on it, that would be a
different
> story -- they could probably get away with whatever they wanted.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe"
<jackessiebabe@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Last evening, while having a pleasant dinner conversation with
my
> > very intelligent, analytical and pragmatic husband, we got on
the
> > subject of casinos possibly colluding with vp manufacturers to
> > inhibit the randomness of the machines. As is our wont, in this
> kind
> > of non-provable discussion, he argued one side and I argued the
> > other.
> >
> > His totally uninformed, but IMO, interesting thesis was that,
with
> > the knowledge of only the barest minimum of key people, that
the
> > slightless chip adjustment would be adequate to subotage any
pay
> > schedule. THe example he gave was to surmise that the Jack of
Clubs
> > was tweaked so that it only appeared 95% of the time that it
would
> > be expected to appear if the program was truly random. Since
this
> > would impact on the Club RF, SF, FL, Quad Jacks, etc., it could
> > easily bring a 100+ EV, down to well below that figure. He
even
> > suggested the possibility that the casinos were NOT AWARE that
this
> > was being done on their behalf, and that the vp Manufacturers
could
> > be doing this surreptiously, to enhance sales, by ensuring that
> > their machines were the most profitable on the casino floor!
> >
> > While I don't really (WANT TO!) believe this, it made for an
> > interesting dinner hour discussion.
> >
> > Are there any professional computer programmers out there who
would
> > care to respond to the possiblity of something like this
occuring?
···
> >
> > Babe