Question:
Are the chances of winning,ie, payout, the same on all 9/6 Jacks or
better machines? Or, can a machine payout be altered as in a slot
machine setting?
Thanks, Vegas Dave
VP Payout
Are the chances of winning,ie, payout, the same on all 9/6 Jacks or
better machines?
They're all the same in Nevada.
Or, can a machine payout be altered as in a slot machine setting?
Not legally in Nevada.
FAQ #3 <http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ.htm#3> says:
3. Are VP machines random/fair? - In Nevada it's illegal to have non-
random machines, and casinos are unlikely to cheat and thereby risk
their gaming licenses. New Jersey and Mississippi and a few other
states are generally believed to have random VP machines, while there
is less confidence in some other jurisdictions.
vpFREE Administrator
Refresh your browser before reading DataBase pages
···
On 6 Jan 2005 at 6:30, davidgwells1934 wrote:
> Are the chances of winning,ie, payout, the same on all 9/6 Jacks
or
> better machines?
They're all the same in Nevada.
> Or, can a machine payout be altered as in a slot machine setting?
Not legally in Nevada.
Need to watch our terminology here. Normally-understood meaning
of "payout" is number of coins paid for a specified hand. As long as
casino discloses this value, it can be altered at any time. For
instance, payout for an RF in a "progressive" game will normally
increase by a small amount every time a hand is played.
Probability of getting a specified hand (from a specified original
deck, assuming best play) cannot legally be altered by any casino
which is subject to Nevada Gaming Control Board regulation.
states are generally believed to have random VP machines
You don’t have to “generally believe” in Jersey. They have an extremely
rigorous testing regimen and a technologically advanced laboratory.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE: New Jersey and Mississippi and a few other
<<You don't have to "generally believe" in Jersey. They have an extremely
rigorous testing regimen and a technologically advanced laboratory.>>
But I believe that their regulations don't actually state that VP has to be random in the same way the NV one does. I think they lump VP in with "slot" machines.
However, it is generally believed that Jersey VP is random just like NV.
···
________________________________________
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."
Mississippi adopted Nevada's regulation word for word:
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.
You may want to correct the FAQ below.
I am researching New Jersey and will let you know what I find out.
B
FAQ #3
<<http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ.htm#3>http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ.htm#3>
says:3. Are VP machines random/fair? - In Nevada it's illegal to have non-
random machines, and casinos are unlikely to cheat and thereby risk
their gaming licenses. New Jersey and Mississippi and a few other
states are generally believed to have random VP machines, while there
is less confidence in some other jurisdictions.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jean Scott wrote: But I believe that their regulations don't actually state
that VP has to be
random in the same way the NV one does. I think they lump VP in with "slot"
machines.
However, it is generally believed that Jersey VP is random just like NV.
As this topic has come up about every 18 months, different lists have
clearly described how the Casino Control Commission and its laboratory do
require all the chips to provide a random deal similar to a 52-card deck.
And then they certify that. In more than 20 years, no one has legally
doubted or challenged that procedure.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]