The game is not the same !

[shadowman]

-----no need to invoke conspiracy theories regarding rngs or secondary programming----what is happening is that the prng algorithms, output assignment schems and/or the seeding programs have been refined so as to minimize the predicted occurance of what we see as "hot" and "cold" segments of the number stream. the end results is a "smoothing" of the final output and results of hands dealt by the vp machine.

How would this be done without "secondary programming"? Any "refining" would, by definition, be secondary programming. There will always be a set of folks experiencing poor results. That is why a bell curve is used to define random distributions. I've said it before and I'll say it again. People have been complaining about machines being altered for decades. And, at the very same time other people are having good fortune. This is exactly what randomness predicts.

-----while the final outcomes are still certainly random-----you are less likely to experience the number of shorter term hot streaks you had in the past----but in the long term, in theory, this shouldn't mathematically make any difference. in the real world it does make a difference to the average vp player---and helps the casinos with their overall take on vp games ( i will go into how this benefits the casinos in a later post ). this is because many vp players won't play for the "long term". for you and i who plan to play hundreds of thousands of hands a year, year after year-----this shouldn't impact us-----but for the occasional player---it makes it less likely they will hit 4AsWK on a TBD machine in a four hour session of play. it also makes it less likely you can play a machines for a few dozen hands and determing if it might be "hot" or "cold"-----so all the machines are truly playing "more randomly"----both long and short term.

You obviously do not understand what the word "random" means. For a machine to be random is provides the various cards at certain frequencies. This then determines one's possible results. You can't favor casinos and still be random. You can't influence hot and cold streaks and still be random. What you are describing would be non-random by the very definition of the word.

[shadowman]

Hello again, It has been almost four months since my first post. I have continued my "cold streak" as Vman96 described it. No royals and very few 4oaks. As I stated before --I haven't changed-- there is something different going on. Chips

You don't have to change. Randomness requires some people will have bad streaks and others will have good streaks. I'm sorry you are having a bad streak. Been there, done that. It is very frustrating. However, it does not mean the games have changed.

For example, I went the last 2 years with only one RF each year playing regularly (250K hands/year). On the very same machines an acquaintance of mine hit 4 RFs in the last week before these machines were removed. Another friend hit 4 RF in one weekend during my bad streak. I sat by people hitting many RFs. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

[luigi1]

I hate cookie crumbles...

[williejoe]

daburglar, the assessment that i've made here is based on a number of discussions with some of the software developers who at one time worked for me and also play vp. they too believe that the prng algorithms, output assignment schemes and/or seeding methodologies have been significantly refined resulting in the final outputs (the dealt cards ),while ramdom, being much "smoother" or "flatter" than the cards dealt by the old vp programs. i also personally believe that igt has developed a number of chips with different prng algorithm "personalities"-----this combined with modifications to card assignment and /or seeding schemes could account, for example, for why a particular bank of supposedly identical vp machines rarely ever get "hot"---while another bank of machines seems to always do fairly well-----and i have seen this time and again in many casinos over the years. and have experienced banks of machines that played well for several years-----then one day---they all suddenly and permanenly go cold for months or years-----to where many times the regular, daily players stay away from them.

we will probably never know for sure what is really going on----i've researched this conundrum for years---but only have hypothesis to show for it. igt and the casinos sure can keep a secret----maybe they should be taking over security for the nsa and the cia.   

[williejoe]

shadowman----don't know for sure. but i would respecfully guess that my math and statistical background is probably a little deeper than yours. but i could be wrong. i do know that human nature is such that once one has forged a certain position over a long period of time----its very difficult for them to think outside of their firmly held postions. secondary programming is certainly not necessary to change the characteristics of the deterministic number sequence generated by a prng algorithm.

[BobDancer]

you can thank folks like "bob dancer" whom educated the general public and force the casinos to reduce the number of 100%+ gamesTrue enough. I am arguably the most famous "video poker educator" out there. Some players thank me for helping them learn the game. Others condemn me. (RF uses the word "thank" in his post, but it's clear he's more in the "condemn" camp.) This is no problem for me. It comes with the territory.I know that it's still possible to win at video poker. Approximately the same percentage of people today are winning than who won 10 years ago. But it's largely not the same people. The winning players today are MUCH more knowledgeable about the game than the winners were a decade ago. They have to be. The games and promotions overall are much tighter.The games are tougher because the players are more educated about it. The players who cannot keep up are often very angry about it. They wish things were like they used to be. They don't want to make the effort to stay competitive. They look for someone to blame for their misfortune --- and my name frequently comes up as the one to blame.But for those who are willing to study and practice, the opportunities are still out there. The information and tools to learn the game (some of which I've created) are more available in video poker than they are in other gambling games. It used to be easier to win at blackjack, sports betting, three card poker, horse racing, live poker, and a lot of other gambling games. Times have changed. Nothing is the same anymore. It's your choice whether you wish to knuckle down, study, practice, and become competent --- or complain that something has changed and things are harder today. 

[royal flush]

i respect you bob as you are a businessman to make money, and your "flashcards" i have seen even folks whom had no clue following and making better plays and avoiding the weak paytables, you are correct that everything changes, i used to just play 21 as i can count 8 decks, then came vp as their were ,many plays over 3% and dollar fpdw with comps, now the game either is a large progressive and a good promotion making the game positive, i play more live poker (stud in california and omaha 8 or better as i have a better edge) and i write stock options (puts and calls) as that is a big edge (treating the markets as a casino as it is, the other advantage player are the "bots" that can front run  the news skimming the market. you are so very right bob as everything changes and to keep an edge, i do respect you as a solid player

[shadowman]

shadowman----don't know for sure. but i would respecfully guess that my math and statistical background is probably a little deeper than yours. but i could be wrong.

If it is better than my math degree then you should realize that what I am saying is factual.

i do know that human nature is such that once one has forged a certain position over a long period of time----its very difficult for them to think outside of their firmly held postions.

How is this relevant? Randomness is pretty well defined. Any algorithm that doesn't generate cards with equal frequencies at each position is not random. And, the NGC tests for this as well as reviewing IGT code (just in case you didn't know). Everything you've mentioned would violate that requirement.

secondary programming is certainly not necessary to change the characteristics of the deterministic number sequence generated by a prng algorithm.

Of course it isn't, but then the algorithm would not be random. Pay me now or pay me later. If you try to avoid the secondary programming requirement you run into the random deal requirement.

[BobDancer]

[QUOTE=shadowman]  Randomness is pretty well defined. Any algorithm that doesn't generate cards with equal frequencies at each position is not random. /QUOTE]I'm hesitant to weigh in here. I do not have a math degree.However, when I use the word random I do not use the definition SM does. SM is combining "random" with "fair." Those are different concepts.Random includes the concept of unknowable in advance. Fair includes each unseen card has an equal chance of appearing.For example, let's assume we had a program that conceptually rolled fair dice --- except that if 66 were rolled, the dice would be conceptually rolled again. (You would still get 66 if the machine rolled it twice in a row .)We all agree that this machine wouldn't be fair --- but I believe the results are still random. Neglecting for simplicity the chance of 66 twice, a roll like 21 (or 12) would have a 2-in-35 chance of appearing. Same with 45 (or 54) and any other non-pair. Pairs (11, 22, 33, 44, 55 but not 66) would each have a 1-in-35 random chance of appearing.This is very definitely a semantic disagreement as to what 'random' means. SM and WJ aren't in agreement as what the definition of that word is. If they agreed on the definition, they are both knowledgeable enough to agree on the conclusions. But hurling insults back and forth because they don't agree on the definition doesn't move the discussion along in a useful fashionBob

[Quad Deuces]

For example, let's assume we had a program that conceptually rolled fair dice --- except that if 66 were rolled, the dice would be conceptually rolled again. (You would still get 66 if the machine rolled it twice in a row .)To state the obvious, that would be an example of secondary programming.