Hacking the Casinos for $1million

[jm002546]

  Interesting attack of the RNG. http://www.ethicalhacker.net/content/view/22/2/

[shadowman]

I saw this 3-4 years ago. With no reason to lie this report pretty much substantiates the games really are random (or, at least they were back in the early '90s).

[Eduardo]

I didn't read the whole thing but is it talking about what made them switch to a revolving RNG after the deal?

[shadowman]

I suspect this was one of the factors.

[cddenver]

I didn't read the whole thing but is it talking about what made them switch to a revolving RNG after the deal?
 
I read something once about the reason for the switch from parallel dealing to serial.  Even though serial dealing has since been changed I'll tell the story....
 
With parallel dealing 10 cards were generated at once, with the 5 dealt cards sitting on top of (masking) the other 5 cards.  On the draw, any cards not held would simply uncover the card underneath.  In the story I read, when players found that out there were howls of protest - example - cases where 3oak was held with the card needed to hit the quad underneath one of the held cards, knocking out the possibility of hitting the quad.  A silly complaint, IMO, because whenever the card needed to complete the quad wasn't under one of the held cards the player would have a slightly better chance of hitting it on the draw.  A wash, over time - the parallel deal would help sometimes, and hurt sometimes.  So the switch from parallel to serial dealing was done for marketing reasons.

[shadowman]

CD, I'm not surprised. When I used to explain the parallel method to people they almost always looked at me strange. I don't think anyone believed the machines could work that way. Of course, most of these people had no idea about RNGs and believed the results were pre-programmed.
 
This also reminds me of a remark by our favorite . He stated that the serial method gave a person a one chance out of five for hitting the royal since the 5 cards were already selected. He worded it in such a way that it didn't really mean that, but he argued vehemently that it was not a 1 in 47 chance.

[oej719]

He would call the sky yellow and not blue.

[cddenver]

 
This also reminds me of a remark by our favorite . He stated that the serial method gave a person a one chance out of five for hitting the royal since the 5 cards were already selected. He worded it in such a way that it didn't really mean that, but he argued vehemently that it was not a 1 in 47 chance.
 
Another author of one of the bad VP books I've bought over the years says basically the same thing regarding parallel vs. serial dealing.  He supports his view by giving an example of a hand like:
 
Dealt:  A A A 6 2
Draw:  A 7 K Q 9
 
With parallel dealing there wouldn't be any way to pick up that fourth Ace on the draw.  It would be underneath one of the held Aces; the Q and 9 would appear on the draw.  With serial dealing the A 7 would come up and complete the quad.  Ipso facto, serial dealing is better for the player.  What he doesn't say is that's true only for those times when the card or cards needed to complete a winning hand come up at the front of the list of the five cards available on the draw.  If we change my example just a little bit:
 
Dealt:  A A A 6 2
Draw:  K Q 9 A 7
 
This time, parallel dealing is better.  The A 7 are uncovered on the draw, completing the quad.  With serial dealing the K Q would come up.  Sometimes it helps you; sometimes it hurts you - over time it balances out.  This shows the danger in trying to support general arguments with specific examples.  In this case, for every hand where it can be shown a serial deal is better, there's a hand where a parallel deal would be better.
 
I mentioned in my previous message that I've read the switch from parallel dealing to serial dealing was done for marketing reasons (players complaining).  I have a friend in marketing who once told me that if everyone in the world woke up one day and decided that their cell phones just HAD to be pink with purple polka dots, then it would be silly for manufacturers NOT to change their production lines if they wanted to stay in business...same kind of thinking.
 
In my own VP simulation that I wrote many years ago (and still use sometimes) I use parallel dealing.  Never even thought about serial dealing, as I saw parallel dealing as being simpler to implement.  Probably the game manufacturers first used parallel dealing for the same reason.  Nothing wrong or nefarious with it. 
 
 
 
 

[cddenver]

He would call the sky yellow and not blue.
 
Oej, on a smoggy day in Denver the sky IS yellow!

[jm002546]

  I read the story mostly for amusement, but I came away with opinion that the RNG was really nothing of the kind.  Just a huge string of numbers (cards) in a line, and the random part was tapping into the line.  But then the string would be sequentially followed until a new session.  So the numbers were predictable from a known starting point.   They beat the machine because NO RNG existed.