(THIS IS A QUICK IN AND OUT AND WILL BE MY ONLY POST ON THIS FORUM. this topic was moved from vpFREE and I just don't have the time to add yet one more forum to my duties. I hope everyone understands.)
Every time the subject of random vs non-random, fair vs unfair comes up I hear people saying endlessly what they won't accept as proof and how they won't believe what other people tell them. What I almost never here is what they would accept and what would be proof in a format that's doable.
It's everything about the problem and nothing about the solution. That seems terribly negative, not to mention pointless to me.
Superficially and perhaps deeper, I think skepticism is a great policy and I encourage it wholeheartedly!
Therefore, what I'd like to help create is a Pre-packaged, turn-key, do-it-yourself home test that people can use to validate or invalidate, prove or refute their OWN beliefs...WHATEVER THEY ARE. Not my beliefs, their beliefs, nobody cares what I believe, or at least I don't expect them to.
I know from reading a lot of books on the subject that human perception is not all that great at spotting, identifying and quantifying randomness.
So it seems a systematic unbiased method that people could agree on would be helpful. NOTE: I meant agree on the method, not the conclusions.
I'm not particularly polarized on either side of the random vs non-random argument...what I am polarized about is people being sure rather than guessing, and a route of personal discovery, regardless of which side they are on.
If I succeed in my project the utility or method will be usable for people on both sides of the argument with equal vigor...but please note: this is intended to be a do-it-yourself--for-yourself thing.
I have no intention of posting my results, nor do I expect people to post their results. People are only every going to be SURE about their own results, so the goal is to give them an easy to use tool to for personal use.
(I'LL NOT BE CHECKING OR POSTING HERE AGAIN, SO IF YOU NEED TO TALK EMAIL ME)
~FK
P.S. Oh and what's another word for euphemism?
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:
*****Forwarded Message*****
From: "rob.singer1111@..." <rob.singer1111@...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:32 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] What Would It Take???
One cannot argue with the process you've laid out for such a
controversial project. I identify it in this manner because
every time I've reported how I've informally felt about
several seemingly odd non-random occurrences I've
experienced--and then went about my own informal
testing/recording very short term events on machines in
Nevada casinos, and/or spent even far shorter periods of
times at machines at the M & Red Rock with doubters such as
the Wizard and videopoker.com's Webman--no possible
conclusions were attained and as a result, I couldn't prove
what I set out to.
That did not stop me, however, and I have since (almost two
years ago now) absolutely proven to myself thru a very
expensive although not all that time-consuming of an effort,
comparatively anyway, that there indeed are certain very
infrequent routines programmed into these machines, and none
of what is done has anything to do with being "rigged" or
"illegal". There are, in fact, even certain "signature"
harmless code within, even though I never came across it and
was not able to prove it. It's important to note that not
everything is done in the casino's so-called favor, and I
have never been able to determine if any of it actually hurt
or...or helped...the player who plays a lot.
I tried explaining all of my findings and asked to meet with
the brightest of the bright on the Wizard's forum, but as
usual with controversies, it eventually got out of hand. I'd
explain more but only if you'd like me to.
_____________________________________________
"Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
... I'd like to start this thread specifically for the
purposes of discussing what it would take to prove that
machines are not fair and random or visa versa as the case
may be ...