New machines unplayable.

The lighter side... playing for entertainment, less concerned about "the math."
Post Reply
New2vp
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1793
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:02 am

Re: New machines unplayable.

Post by New2vp »

stevel96a1 wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:56 am
i am well aware of that. are you aware if you toss a quarter heads facing up has a tiny more chance of landing on heads?
Oh, Steve, where to start? Well, if you were well aware of that, you would not take results of 3 out of 4 as evidence of bias. And yes I am aware of experiments determining whether coin tosses actually are fair. But for what I wrote, it doesn't really matter whether a quarter has a 50% chance of heads or a 50.01% chance, or even a 51% chance (or more, so please don't think it matters to me whether you spin the coin or use one with two heads). The example that I cited was tossing a "fair" coin, which by the use of the word "fair" is assumed (by most) to have a 50% chance. If that was too subtle a point, I apologize for not explaining it more fully.

I guess I shouldn't have left so difficult an example as an exercise to the reader. Citing 3 out of 4 chances going in one direction doesn't quite reach the level of a statistically significant difference. You, of course, are free to conclude whatever you want, but you may need to be satisfied that your experiment may not be compelling to others. Even if all 4 had gone in one direction, there is still a 6.25% chance that would happen when you were comparing identical processes. "Identical" meaning there is no actual theoretical difference between the two. Two different samples from the same process do not generally produce identical results.
stevel96a1 wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:56 am
Wolf video poker engine always had that pattern of variance behavior to it, i will say this i did a simulation on 1991 dos masque video poker 9/6 jacks on better manage to run it on my phone and it stayed even with the house all the way to a hand # over 3mil it was down around 10k credits at that point.

i ran the same simulation and software on my pc but instead of using magic dox box i used windows xp to run it and it ran 10x faster and it had a hard time staying a float with its bankroll at its speed x10 faster

i aslo ran win poker 6 on running windows 95 (on my samsung tablet) and the variance on triple double bonus for the first time a 97% game reached a winning profit of over 30k credits again highest peak under same conditions exception running my gaming laptop (and windows 10) with a faster processor barely reached 20k high peak

i suspect the older machines have a slower processor which allows us to see the bouncyness of variance
I am not advocating for or against the adequacy of the random number generators (RNGs) in any video poker trainers, whether it is Masque, WinPoker, Wolf, or others. Maybe they are good, perhaps not.

Certainly, none of those are likely to be the RNGs that are used in casino video poker machines. I would be hesitant to infer that imperfections in trainer software implied imperfections in casino software. Years ago, my experience with running trainer simulations showed results that were reasonably representative of the games expected value.

Checking peak values is not the most efficient statistic to see if the variance is accurate. Peak value is a really unstable statistic. It is not worth the trouble to run enough simulations to be able to determine if the variance is off by looking at peak values.
stevel96a1 wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:56 am
i suspect the older machines have a slower processor which allows us to see the bouncyness of variance
The speed at which most RNGs run may take longer to produce, say, a million random numbers; however, it does not mean that those random numbers will be different. I suppose if one was inefficiently reseeding with the internal clock that could occur; however, that still would not be responsible for producing a different card distribution.

tech58
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1369
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:21 pm

Post by tech58 »

Steve, love that term "bouncyness.
Adding it to the list of maligned terms from this thread such as: streakyness, dead streaks, dud streaks,
different, changed flow of game, cold cycle, unfair pattern, and the ignominious "FEELING"

Not maligned yet, but give it a page or two.

tech58
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1369
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:21 pm

Post by tech58 »

Seriously, i am still on my quest for knowledge.
As i stated, last fall, my only dog in this fight is an attempt to find out who, if anyone, verifies the integrity and legality of the machines i play at an Indian casino in MI.?
Casinos in NV. NJ., and in fact commercial casinos in MI., are subject to random unannounced inspections including the randomness factor.
Questions at the casino level, State level, Fed. level, have so far yielded answers ranging from "none of my business, to "don't know", to no response.

Still questing, but beginning to think about re-reading Don Quixote, again.

stevel96a1
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 5:52 am

Post by stevel96a1 »

i played alot of video poker in casino and at home and i manage to capture 2 royal flushes within 30min time frame, once at home and on a 95% video poker game app and one at casino IGT, i know i said i quit after a big win at the casino but that night my wife said try another 100$ and it came 25min roughly from the previous one, i have not locked eyes on 2 royals within 1hr or 30min other than IGT software and Boris video poker app

i have locked 2 big wins tho on triple double bonus on various other softwares

stevel96a1
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 5:52 am

Post by stevel96a1 »

i got alot of time on my hands and access to different software and different machines to run them

ofcourse i have yet seen a negative game yield a postive result after a mil turns but that 31k+win on triple double bonus stands out running on a windows 95 operating system witha slower procccesor vs a windows 10 with modern processors barely reaching 20k, remembering the cards and hands have no memory just strange the peaks went so high on one machine and the other can't reach the same goal,
although i did see it win 38k+ win on 99.9% game same conditions in caesaer progressive joker game but thats 99.9%vs 97%

tech58
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1369
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:21 pm

Post by tech58 »

Steve, strange is kind of an operational word in a lot of what we have been trying to say.
When changes seem to become apparent to a growing number of players in different areas of the country who put millions of $ thru machines every year, a QUESTION is just that,not a conspiracy theory!!

For me the question remains the same,who verifies the integrity and legality of the machines i play?

Players in NV. and NJ. have at least a theoretical inspection protocol. What do i have in MI.?

stevel96a1
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 5:52 am

Post by stevel96a1 »

just frustrating that i played 95% video poker 40k hands landed 8 royals won 60k+ credits win is 8k and bet is 10 so still proportioned

Jstark
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1306
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:16 pm

Post by Jstark »

stevel96a1 wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:56 am
New2vp wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:47 am
You do understand that if you toss a fair coin 4 times, the odds of it coming up 3 of one side and 1 of the other are actually greater than the odds of it coming up 2-2, don't you?

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine how that result applies here.
i am well aware of that. are you aware if you toss a quarter heads facing up has a tiny more chance of landing on heads?

Wolf video poker engine always had that pattern of variance behavior to it, i will say this i did a simulation on 1991 dos masque video poker 9/6 jacks on better manage to run it on my phone and it stayed even with the house all the way to a hand # over 3mil it was down around 10k credits at that point.

i ran the same simulation and software on my pc but instead of using magic dox box i used windows xp to run it and it ran 10x faster and it had a hard time staying a float with its bankroll at its speed x10 faster

i aslo ran win poker 6 on running windows 95 (on my samsung tablet) and the variance on triple double bonus for the first time a 97% game reached a winning profit of over 30k credits again highest peak under same conditions exception running my gaming laptop (and windows 10) with a faster processor barely reached 20k high peak

i suspect the older machines have a slower processor which allows us to see the bouncyness of variance
Those Masque video poker games used improper strategy. For instance, in 9/6 JoB, it'll hold AJ offsuit over J10 suited. J10 suited is the better hold

stevel96a1
Video Poker Master
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 5:52 am

Post by stevel96a1 »

i didnt find out about masque had video poker on dos operating system, i played the hell out of it on blackjack and it puts up a nasty fight, even on simulation (with counting cards )it matches what cvcx predicts a measly edge of 0.31+, so when i played masque video poker i was excited to see how it faired after 3million hands it stayed very close even before the houses edge bit into the player.

im starting to think i should blame the operating system not the software, i only seen wolf video poker survive a mil hands rare events, but masque went through 3million hands but that was w/ a slower processor again back to my thoery, older machine = slower variance = older processor which reflects my small sample size.

Vman96
Video Poker Master
Posts: 3288
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:49 am

Post by Vman96 »

tech58 wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:56 am
Vman96 wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 1:53 am
stevel96a1 wrote:
Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:04 pm
https://imgur.com/a/RaGpcRv
here i show
action gaming RNG
Wolf Video poker RNG
both 3 play both 97% games

100k each hands on each software

time and time again action gaming always comes out on top, im suspecting the older/newer machine have this type of glitch/bug in their software "the fishy smell" that were smelling ofcourse i dont know know how the story is going to end or even which card is going to show up next but if its up to me id rather play action gaming aka the older machine stick w/ what works best.

i threw in boris video poker for fun 12k+hands and still a winner on 94.85% game what a show
This is definitely within the realm of statistical possibility from the pics you posted. This is only one simulation.

Now i don't know exactly what you mean by "time and time" again. But it your insinuating the action gaming simulator returns a higher payback percentage a vast majority of the time in these simulations, like 80+ of 100 100k hand sims tested, then there could be a programming issue in one of the programs.
Vman,A comment and a question.
Webster uses words such as "slyly and devious" to define "insinuating",i am certain that was not on your mind, only a word choice thing. BTDT. ;)

What could "a programming issue" possibly involve, with only the pay-table and RNG seeming to be significant?
You're right, I really like that word, but I hadn't looked at its true definition in a very long time. I meant it in a neutral context like "suggesting" there. My apologies.

And well the RNG is programmed by humans, so if done poorly, it wouldn't be a good example of randomness. Posters that posted ahead of me have some examples. An extreme one would be to use the same seed, which would yield the same string of random numbers. Also Jstark mentioned the Masque VP poker software had used incorrect 9/6 JoB strategy, so that could also be a possible problem for any program. If both simulations don't play "computer perfect", there could be unexpected bias in the result.

Post Reply