vpFREE2 Forums

What Would It Take???

#1

From the vpFREE FAQ:

"vpFREE believes that video poker games which are regulated
by respected gaming commissions are random and fair, and
that the ER of such games is a mathematical function of
their pay tables."

···

___________________________________________

I've deleted Frank Kneeland's "What Would It Take???" post on vpFREE
and re-posted it on FREEvpFREE.

Formulating the required parameters to mathematically prove, or disprove,
the randomness of video poker offerings is an interesting and important
subject, but it may not have widespread interest for vpFREE members and
it would likely prove to be disruptive.

So, please use FREEvpFREE for any further posts in this thread.

                           FREEvpFREE:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/</a>

Messages can be read on FREEvpFREE without becoming a member,
but you must be a member to post.

vpFREE Administrator

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

(PLEASE DON'T RESPOND TO ANYTHING I SAY IN THIS POST UNLESS THE ADMIN CLEARS THE TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION)

I guess I understand your concern, people rarely follow instructions on forums.

All I was looking for was the best mathematical procedure to use as a test if one wished to test it themselves. I was not attempting to promote or discuss either side of the argument, or prove or disprove which one is correct.

The question I wanted to answer was strictly what is the best type of math for checking that would achieve the highest level of certainly with the smallest sample. I know the gaming commission uses Chi Squared, but I hear there are better faster methods and tricks.

I do not post on FREEvpFREE, so unless you change your mind on allowing this topic, I guess I'll just work on it elsewhere.

~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

From the vpFREE FAQ:

"vpFREE believes that video poker games which are regulated
by respected gaming commissions are random and fair, and
that the ER of such games is a mathematical function of
their pay tables."

___________________________________________

I've deleted Frank Kneeland's "What Would It Take???" post on vpFREE
and re-posted it on FREEvpFREE.

Formulating the required parameters to mathematically prove, or disprove,
the randomness of video poker offerings is an interesting and important
subject, but it may not have widespread interest for vpFREE members and
it would likely prove to be disruptive.

So, please use FREEvpFREE for any further posts in this thread.

                           FREEvpFREE:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/</a>

Messages can be read on FREEvpFREE without becoming a member,
but you must be a member to post.

vpFREE Administrator

#3

All controversial topics should be banned.

Especially if it's about how VP machines work.

···

--- On Sun, 3/18/12, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: What Would It Take???
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2012, 2:47 AM

(PLEASE DON'T RESPOND TO ANYTHING I SAY IN THIS POST UNLESS THE ADMIN CLEARS THE TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION)

I guess I understand your concern, people rarely follow instructions on forums.

All I was looking for was the best mathematical procedure to use as a test if one wished to test it themselves. I was not attempting to promote or discuss either side of the argument, or prove or disprove which one is correct.

The question I wanted to answer was strictly what is the best type of math for checking that would achieve the highest level of certainly with the smallest sample. I know the gaming commission uses Chi Squared, but I hear there are better faster methods and tricks.

I do not post on FREEvpFREE, so unless you change your mind on allowing this topic, I guess I'll just work on it elsewhere.

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

From the vpFREE FAQ:

"vpFREE believes that video poker games which are regulated
by respected gaming commissions are random and fair, and
that the ER of such games is a mathematical function of
their pay tables."

___________________________________________

I've deleted Frank Kneeland's "What Would It Take???" post on vpFREE
and re-posted it on FREEvpFREE.

Formulating the required parameters to mathematically prove, or disprove,
the randomness of video poker offerings is an interesting and important
subject, but it may not have widespread interest for vpFREE members and
it would likely prove to be disruptive.

So, please use FREEvpFREE for any further posts in this thread.

FREEvpFREE:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FREEvpFREE/</a>

Messages can be read on FREEvpFREE without becoming a member,
but you must be a member to post.

vpFREE Administrator

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

"All controversial topics should be banned.

Especially if it's about how VP machines work."

I don't want to start controversy - however I was very interested in Frank's subject matter - being that this is a forum about VP, techniques for undertanding how the machines work is integral to just discussing the games (in my opinion). Plus, it's helpful to remember facts based on reality when you're in the thick of playing.

I would respectfully ask if perhaps the subject might be allowed.

Valerie

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6976 (20120318) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

As I posted, I believe this is an interesting and important
project and would like to see it pursued, but on FREEvpFREE
rather than on vpFREE.

My decision to move the topic to FREEvpFREE was influenced
by the first response to Frank Kneeland's post which was
from Rob Singer (which can be read on FREEvpFREE) with
personal, controversial observations, and hints of more to
come, that I didn't want to deal with on vpFREE.

FWIW, in the interests of freedom of speech, Rob Singer is
allowed to do limited, moderated posting on vpFREE as long as
he doesn't do any trolling or talk about his system(s) or
results (which he has already covered in great detail on
various forums over the years).

IMO, Rob Singer's response didn't violate his posting
guidelines so I didn't reject it, but I didn't want to open
any disruptive doors on vpFREE, so I moved the discussion to
FREEvpFREE.

So, please pursue this discussion, but do it on FREEvpFREE.

vpFREE Administrator

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

Valerie Pollard <vpollard@socal.rr.com> wrote:

I don't want to start controversy - however I was very
interested in Frank's subject matter ...

... I would respectfully ask if perhaps the subject might
be allowed.

#6

I understand. I only wanted to talk about how one would go about being sure for one's self of one's position regardless of which side of the argument one was on.

I certainly didn't want to start any conflict on the subject.

I agree with and support your decision to move the thread.

I will make a single post on FREEvpFREE to state my position on the subject and then recuse myself from further comment on this topic here or there, since I have no desire to become part of conflagration on this apparently excessively heated topic.

I'm discussing it with some math guys on other forums and will perhaps post a link for a free spreadsheet utility in a month or so. The utility will be merely a booking tool that includes probability functions that tells a person if they ran better or worse than expected...and if so by what margin, and how likely it is that their results could be within the realm of pure chance.

I'm sure some people on this forum might like to use it, so I'll just post the finished product.

(IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO EMAIL ME WITH INPUT FOR THE UTILITY PLEASE DO SO PRIVATELY)

(this will be my last comment on this subject) ~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

Valerie Pollard <vpollard@...> wrote:

> I don't want to start controversy - however I was very
> interested in Frank's subject matter ...

> ... I would respectfully ask if perhaps the subject might
> be allowed.

As I posted, I believe this is an interesting and important
project and would like to see it pursued, but on FREEvpFREE
rather than on vpFREE.

My decision to move the topic to FREEvpFREE was influenced
by the first response to Frank Kneeland's post which was
from Rob Singer (which can be read on FREEvpFREE) with
personal, controversial observations, and hints of more to
come, that I didn't want to deal with on vpFREE.

FWIW, in the interests of freedom of speech, Rob Singer is
allowed to do limited, moderated posting on vpFREE as long as
he doesn't do any trolling or talk about his system(s) or
results (which he has already covered in great detail on
various forums over the years).

IMO, Rob Singer's response didn't violate his posting
guidelines so I didn't reject it, but I didn't want to open
any disruptive doors on vpFREE, so I moved the discussion to
FREEvpFREE.

So, please pursue this discussion, but do it on FREEvpFREE.

vpFREE Administrator

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#7

I understand the Admin's view point, but I think this is a very valid discussion for VP Free and would have widespread interest the VP Free community as a whole. I think the number of people who have never doubted the fairness of machines at some point in their career is a very small number. I consider myself a pretty good gambler, vp player and am pretty confident with the math behind the games but when I was playing vbj and busted my 12 vs 2 what seemed like 20 times in a row, I started to wonder about the 'fairness' of the game. Of course, when I sat down and actually counted the times I got 12 vs 2 and the number of times I busted, it was right in the center of the expected value distribution.

But, the same question applies to this very simple case. My hypothesis was that my holding of 12 vs dealer 2 busted more than the expected value. Depending on the composition of the 12, my probability of busting is either 16/49 or 15/49( single deck game, reshuffle after every hand). How many samples do I need, and what result will either confirm or refute my hypothesis?

Just because vpfree adheres to the belief that VP machines are fair doesn't mean I shouldn't know how that is calculated and what goes behind the statement. Just accepting a statement as fact doesn't teach you anything.

VPfree also accepts the premise that 9/6 JOB is a 99.54% return ( to 2 decimal places) but a discussion of how you get to that number would certainly be valid.

If I decide to play a little recreational roulette ( like the $0.25 game at the Westin 5-8 M - Th) and I bet on 17 and 60 spins go by without a 17, what does that tell me? How about 100 spins? 200 spins?
I think this is an excellent topic for VP Free. Just because some people will get all wound up on the topic doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

One vote to open this topic up to discussion.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

From the vpFREE FAQ:

"vpFREE believes that video poker games which are regulated
by respected gaming commissions are random and fair, and
that the ER of such games is a mathematical function of
their pay tables."

I've deleted Frank Kneeland's "What Would It Take???" post on vpFREE and re-posted it on FREEvpFREE.

Formulating the required parameters to mathematically prove, or disprove,the randomness of video poker offerings is an interesting and important subject, but it may not have widespread interest for vpFREE members and it would likely prove to be disruptive.

#8

I also agree. I think a compromise is in order in that it should be tried on here. If it degenerates to a p****** match, then it can be moved. Give it a fair shot, possibly even with some moderate moderating.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...> wrote:

One vote to open this topic up to discussion.

#9

The only thing I would say for sure is the (correct) calculated return for 9/6 JB is based on solid mathematics and is not subject to any luck or any external factors. It is simply the overall return you get if you played every possible hand correctly (to maximize overall EV).
The overall return for 9/6 JB for perfect play is 99.5439+ (I have to look up the precise figure)

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...> wrote:

I understand the Admin's view point, but I think this is a very valid discussion for VP Free and would have widespread interest the VP Free community as a whole. I think the number of people who have never doubted the fairness of machines at some point in their career is a very small number. I consider myself a pretty good gambler, vp player and am pretty confident with the math behind the games but when I was playing vbj and busted my 12 vs 2 what seemed like 20 times in a row, I started to wonder about the 'fairness' of the game. Of course, when I sat down and actually counted the times I got 12 vs 2 and the number of times I busted, it was right in the center of the expected value distribution.

But, the same question applies to this very simple case. My hypothesis was that my holding of 12 vs dealer 2 busted more than the expected value. Depending on the composition of the 12, my probability of busting is either 16/49 or 15/49( single deck game, reshuffle after every hand). How many samples do I need, and what result will either confirm or refute my hypothesis?

Just because vpfree adheres to the belief that VP machines are fair doesn't mean I shouldn't know how that is calculated and what goes behind the statement. Just accepting a statement as fact doesn't teach you anything.

VPfree also accepts the premise that 9/6 JOB is a 99.54% return ( to 2 decimal places) but a discussion of how you get to that number would certainly be valid.

If I decide to play a little recreational roulette ( like the $0.25 game at the Westin 5-8 M - Th) and I bet on 17 and 60 spins go by without a 17, what does that tell me? How about 100 spins? 200 spins?
I think this is an excellent topic for VP Free. Just because some people will get all wound up on the topic doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

One vote to open this topic up to discussion.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@> wrote:
>
> From the vpFREE FAQ:
>
> "vpFREE believes that video poker games which are regulated
> by respected gaming commissions are random and fair, and
> that the ER of such games is a mathematical function of
> their pay tables."
>
>
> I've deleted Frank Kneeland's "What Would It Take???" post on vpFREE and re-posted it on FREEvpFREE.
>
> Formulating the required parameters to mathematically prove, or disprove,the randomness of video poker offerings is an interesting and important subject, but it may not have widespread interest for vpFREE members and it would likely prove to be disruptive.
>

#10

There is timing involved when dealing and drawing for the cards. Cards are constantly being "shuffled" within the RNG when you draw. While you decide what to hold the remaining 47 cards are constantly being shuffled until you hit the draw button. So timing does have a factor as to when you hit the draw button for your cards. IF you do practice enough to get to the point of perfect play then you could come close to the return percentages for the game. From what I understand this percentage is derived from the life of the machine which would be a number of hands impossible for one person to play. This is just from what I've read or heard from other people so I cannot say all is fact, just my opinion.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "crazed_gambler" <exgeek@...> wrote:

The only thing I would say for sure is the (correct) calculated return for 9/6 JB is based on solid mathematics and is not subject to any luck or any external factors. It is simply the overall return you get if you played every possible hand correctly (to maximize overall EV).
The overall return for 9/6 JB for perfect play is 99.5439+ (I have to look up the precise figure)

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@> wrote:
>
> I understand the Admin's view point, but I think this is a very valid discussion for VP Free and would have widespread interest the VP Free community as a whole. I think the number of people who have never doubted the fairness of machines at some point in their career is a very small number. I consider myself a pretty good gambler, vp player and am pretty confident with the math behind the games but when I was playing vbj and busted my 12 vs 2 what seemed like 20 times in a row, I started to wonder about the 'fairness' of the game. Of course, when I sat down and actually counted the times I got 12 vs 2 and the number of times I busted, it was right in the center of the expected value distribution.
>
> But, the same question applies to this very simple case. My hypothesis was that my holding of 12 vs dealer 2 busted more than the expected value. Depending on the composition of the 12, my probability of busting is either 16/49 or 15/49( single deck game, reshuffle after every hand). How many samples do I need, and what result will either confirm or refute my hypothesis?
>
> Just because vpfree adheres to the belief that VP machines are fair doesn't mean I shouldn't know how that is calculated and what goes behind the statement. Just accepting a statement as fact doesn't teach you anything.
>
> VPfree also accepts the premise that 9/6 JOB is a 99.54% return ( to 2 decimal places) but a discussion of how you get to that number would certainly be valid.
>
> If I decide to play a little recreational roulette ( like the $0.25 game at the Westin 5-8 M - Th) and I bet on 17 and 60 spins go by without a 17, what does that tell me? How about 100 spins? 200 spins?
> I think this is an excellent topic for VP Free. Just because some people will get all wound up on the topic doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
>
> One vote to open this topic up to discussion.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@> wrote:
> >
> > From the vpFREE FAQ:
> >
> > "vpFREE believes that video poker games which are regulated
> > by respected gaming commissions are random and fair, and
> > that the ER of such games is a mathematical function of
> > their pay tables."
> >
> >
> > I've deleted Frank Kneeland's "What Would It Take???" post on vpFREE and re-posted it on FREEvpFREE.
> >
> > Formulating the required parameters to mathematically prove, or disprove,the randomness of video poker offerings is an interesting and important subject, but it may not have widespread interest for vpFREE members and it would likely prove to be disruptive.
> >
>

#11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "videopkrplayer" <Videopkrplayer@...> wrote:

There is timing involved when dealing and drawing for the cards. Cards are constantly being "shuffled" within the RNG when you draw. While you decide what to hold the remaining 47 cards are constantly being shuffled until you hit the draw button. So timing does have a factor as to when you hit the draw button for your cards. IF you do practice enough to get to the point of perfect play then you could come close to the return percentages for the game. From what I understand this percentage is derived from the life of the machine which would be a number of hands impossible for one person to play. This is just from what I've read or heard from other people so I cannot say all is fact, just my opinion.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "crazed_gambler" <exgeek@> wrote:
>
> The only thing I would say for sure is the (correct) calculated return for 9/6 JB is based on solid mathematics and is not subject to any luck or any external factors. It is simply the overall return you get if you played every possible hand correctly (to maximize overall EV).
> The overall return for 9/6 JB for perfect play is 99.5439+ (I have to look up the precise figure)
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@> wrote:
> >
> > I understand the Admin's view point, but I think this is a very valid discussion for VP Free and would have widespread interest the VP Free community as a whole. I think the number of people who have never doubted the fairness of machines at some point in their career is a very small number. I consider myself a pretty good gambler, vp player and am pretty confident with the math behind the games but when I was playing vbj and busted my 12 vs 2 what seemed like 20 times in a row, I started to wonder about the 'fairness' of the game. Of course, when I sat down and actually counted the times I got 12 vs 2 and the number of times I busted, it was right in the center of the expected value distribution.
> >
> > But, the same question applies to this very simple case. My hypothesis was that my holding of 12 vs dealer 2 busted more than the expected value. Depending on the composition of the 12, my probability of busting is either 16/49 or 15/49( single deck game, reshuffle after every hand). How many samples do I need, and what result will either confirm or refute my hypothesis?
> >
> > Just because vpfree adheres to the belief that VP machines are fair doesn't mean I shouldn't know how that is calculated and what goes behind the statement. Just accepting a statement as fact doesn't teach you anything.
> >
> > VPfree also accepts the premise that 9/6 JOB is a 99.54% return ( to 2 decimal places) but a discussion of how you get to that number would certainly be valid.
> >
> > If I decide to play a little recreational roulette ( like the $0.25 game at the Westin 5-8 M - Th) and I bet on 17 and 60 spins go by without a 17, what does that tell me? How about 100 spins? 200 spins?
> > I think this is an excellent topic for VP Free. Just because some people will get all wound up on the topic doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
> >
> > One vote to open this topic up to discussion.
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From the vpFREE FAQ:
> > >
> > > "vpFREE believes that video poker games which are regulated
> > > by respected gaming commissions are random and fair, and
> > > that the ER of such games is a mathematical function of
> > > their pay tables."
> > >
> > >
> > > I've deleted Frank Kneeland's "What Would It Take???" post on vpFREE and re-posted it on FREEvpFREE.
> > >
> > > Formulating the required parameters to mathematically prove, or disprove,the randomness of video poker offerings is an interesting and important subject, but it may not have widespread interest for vpFREE members and it would likely prove to be disruptive.
> > >
> >
>