What Would It Take???

[Frank Kneeland]

The title of the original post was What Would It Take??

I am beginning to wonder "What Would It Take??" to end this discussion. OK now that's funny. Highlight of the thread. Touché!~FK

[faygo]

Frank It is as if you haven't been writing in English. From were I sit it  was clear what you were proposing at the git go(start).  I didn't offer anything because I have found peace long ago with the vagarities of Video Poker.

[moneyla]

I hope I am not being misunderstood here so let me just state my position, and this will be the last time: 1. I believe the games are random. 2. Unless there is some widespread test involving lots of players on lots of machines, no individual test will prove anything. 3. Having a test that an individual performs on their own proves nothing as anything can happen in the short term and any individual player can only offer short term result. 4. If someone does have short term results that do not show the machines are random, are we to believe that the machines are not random and/or rigged? 5. Why bother with any kind of test, program, utility or whatever that will not actually test long term results? I have lots of respect for Frank, I just don't understand what an individual exam by individual players is going to prove. I am all for some extensive testing and management of video poker machines so that all consumers can be assured they are playing fair games.

[backsider]

[QUOTE=backsider]I know this isnt popular around here and new2vp seems to have the same issue in reading that monyla has, but there is someone who has tested a machine a few billion hands worth, and this person has already identified that some things are not as random as we thought they are. I am interested in working with this utility and see how things go. But alas, what if I or anybody else dscovers something that doesnt jive with what they want to believe in, and put it up for discussion here? The vocal ones wouldnt believe me, just as they do not want any part of the aforementioneds testing results. Im hoping for open minds, but it looks like thats a very challenging concept around here.


 
Showt us your results and we'll look at them.[/QUOTE]

I will try to write down whatever happens once we get and I understand the utility Frank provides. But as I read further it does not look like he wants anyone to share what they experience? Im confused.

[backsider]

I hope I am not being misunderstood here so let me just state my position, and this will be the last time: 1. I believe the games are random. 2. Unless there is some widespread test involving lots of players on lots of machines, no individual test will prove anything. 3. Having a test that an individual performs on their own proves nothing as anything can happen in the short term and any individual player can only offer short term result. 4. If someone does have short term results that do not show the machines are random, are we to believe that the machines are not random and/or rigged? 5. Why bother with any kind of test, program, utility or whatever that will not actually test long term results? I have lots of respect for Frank, I just don't understand what an individual exam by individual players is going to prove. I am all for some extensive testing and management of video poker machines so that all consumers can be assured they are playing fair games.

I think I finally get why you are arguing with Frank over this. If you are right, nothing from my upcoming results or anyone elses will mean a thing in the grand scheme of things. I even read where he just scolded me for identifying the reported results of somebody else, so how important will anyone elses report be, especially when they will include far lesser hands?

You believe this is an exercise in futility and Im starting to agree. Even if a smug poster like shadowman kept records using the utility and saw irregularities from those theories he believes in, no way Jose would he ever tell the truth about it anyway.

Im losing interest.

[moneyla]

Thank you, backsider.  Let me give you an analogy of what I think is going on with Frank's "utility." He is coming up with a system to measure how much water is in a can of peas, because some people suspect there is too much water in the cans they buy which violates what is written on the label.  Frank's utility will measure the water and the peas in a can.  But if you use this to measure your can of peas it doesn't mean that all of the other cans of peas are not packaged as it says on the label.

[backsider]

If I now understand things right, he will provide this utility for individual interest only. With all the effort he puts into this, it would seem something more definitive should be the goal, no? The fellow I mentioned who did a real testing at least talked about what the equipment spit out, and the wizzard and friends had interest in seeing it until the guy actually made plans to make it happen.

Maybe Frank is playing it safe just like those guys. Really, if they all espouse total randomness, could they actually handle a proof that it isnt how they thought it was?

[Frank Kneeland]

If I now understand things right, he will provide this utility for individual interest only. With all the effort he puts into this, it would seem something more definitive should be the goal, no? The fellow I mentioned who did a real testing at least talked about what the equipment spit out, and the wizzard and friends had interest in seeing it until the guy actually made plans to make it happen.

Maybe Frank is playing it safe just like those guys. Really, if they all espouse total randomness, could they actually handle a proof that it isnt how they thought it was?I think there's a slight disconnect.You are more than welcome to combine and compile results with whomever you'd like. The bigger the sample the better the confidence.I'm just not asking anyone to do that, nor do I wish to be part of it. If you'd like to do this, more power to you. Don't expect anyone but you and your relatives to believe your results.The fundamental problem is there's no way to verify anything that anyone says over the Internet, leaving all shared results in doubt. As I see it the only thing everyone will always believe is themselves. It not about what's' safe, it's about what's possible. People simply don't believe other people, if what the other people are saying disagrees with what they believe. People are only too eager to believe anyone that agrees with them.Please feel free to do whatever you'd like with the utility with whoever you like.I'm estimating two weeks to completion.~FK

[backsider]

I believe you Frank and I believe in what youre doing. People dont usually believe other people, thats the key. Or more accurately, people pick and choose who they wish to believe.

I believe Ill have a morning beer!

[mightwin]

Breakfast of champions. I believe Mr. Kneeland is trying to find an easy way for us to convince ourselves - one way or the other, what is "exceptable" and "expectable".  I'll say thank you in advance. I already believe the machines are random.  With that said, I can tell you which machine will hit a jackpot with 99.9% confidence - the one I just got up from....