Does anyone chase the "good game" in VP?

[roveer]

I'll get right to the point.
 
I find that when I'm playing VP that somewhere in the bunch of games and denominations one of them is paying well while the others are not doing much at all.  I tend to bounce between DDB (my current favorite) and DW (my previous favorite).
 
What I find is if I'm doing crappy on .25 I'll find things better on .50 or 1.00 or sometimes changing the game all together.  Anyone else find this?  Kinds of annoys me to think that when I know this should all be pay table driven and statistical.  Oh, I'm playing at the big name casinos so I guess I'm not suspecting that the machines are rigged.

[Frank Kneeland]

It is all pay table driven, with a little thing called randomness tossed in just to confuse you. Your mind is playing tricks on you. The past does not effect the future on a random machine. If it did, the game manufactures would have their licenses revoked, be fined and jailed.What you are describing is perfectly normal, garden verity randomness...nothing more.~Never through a stone when a pebble would suffice.~FK

[spxChrome]

For fun, check this next time.  Put it on .25 and pick a game then notice what hand it shows on the screen.  Then switch the denom to .50 same game, and see if it shows the same hand and then also 1.00 and so on.  Whatever hands are the same are on the same chip, the others are running another chip.
 
The bank I used to play was like this, then one day they changed all the chips.  Nothing else changed, no games added or removed no edited paytables.  Nothing just a random of change of the chip.  Now the .05, .10, .25 run on one chip and the .50 and 1.00 run on another chips.  Ever since then none of us have had any luck on this bank of machinces. I'm sure it all just coincidence.  But nonetheless we found another bank of machines that all run on the same chip no matter what demon and we had much better luck at this bank.  I'm sure its all just a coincidence but we will go with what works.  It took us a few times but after several times of going through 4,000 to 6,000 hands without a quad on the old bank of machines we finally found or rythm on this new old bank of machines that nobody ever used to play because they were way of in the back and older.

[New2vp]

Frank, I've seen you running the Best "Misattribution of Cause Story" contest for some time on vpFREE.  And I know from a recent post that the contest closes tomorrow.  Does the person entering have to realize that they are misattributing cause?  Or is it a better story if they believe they have isolated a cause?Because if not, there is a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc conclusion drawn in this forum every few days.  Roveer's and spx's here are two examples today just in this thread alone.  I nominate either one of them.

[SaraTG]

    I don't usually switch games or amounts but will switch machines quickly if I get a bad feeling from one that it is "dead". I know that they are all suppose to be totally random and in reality there is no such thing as a "hot" or "cold" machine but if I'm putting bills in and getting nothing I'm moving down the line.  The game I play they have 3 seperate banks of machines and as the poster above says if one "bank" or area seems dead I'll head off to another. Not logical or scientific but....

[roveer]

For fun, check this next time.  Put it on .25 and pick a game then notice what hand it shows on the screen.  Then switch the denom to .50 same game, and see if it shows the same hand and then also 1.00 and so on.  Whatever hands are the same are on the same chip, the others are running another chip.
 
The bank I used to play was like this, then one day they changed all the chips.  Nothing else changed, no games added or removed no edited paytables.  Nothing just a random of change of the chip.  Now the .05, .10, .25 run on one chip and the .50 and 1.00 run on another chips.  Ever since then none of us have had any luck on this bank of machinces. I'm sure it all just coincidence.  But nonetheless we found another bank of machines that all run on the same chip no matter what demon and we had much better luck at this bank.  I'm sure its all just a coincidence but we will go with what works.  It took us a few times but after several times of going through 4,000 to 6,000 hands without a quad on the old bank of machines we finally found or rythm on this new old bank of machines that nobody ever used to play because they were way of in the back and older.




 
I did read your "chips" post and found it quite interesting.  I really wonder why they would be changing chips if you noticed no pay table changes.  It could be feature upgrades or bug fixes but this far into the game.  We all play games that have been around for ages.
 
I know that this is all supposed to be quite random, but sometimes it really feels like it's not.  I suppose we are so imperfect that we can't properly detect that something is amiss and that it's all rather random.  Guess I've got to get some more of my brain opened up to work on this problem.
 
I've been tinkering with a theory on RND seeding having to do with the seed value being placed into the RND by a function of the RTC (Real Time Clock).  That's the way we were tought back in the early days of programming.  The function used to convert the RTC into seconds since the 0 AD or something like that so no matter what it was always a different seed value.  use the same value, get the same RNG string.  Anyway.  I've got this theory that these values can have a statistical pattern very much like weak and strong WEP encryption values to those who crack WEP.  This would literally mean you should play the machine when the "time is right".  Not the exact second, but lets say some period of minutes or 10's of minutes in relation to a 24 hour period.  I know, quite outlandish, but remember this whole thing is based on embeded Windows NT and PC based programming.  I bet somewhere deep inside there would be a way to pattern the RNG and figure out when it was "weak".  Of course this is just one of my beer induced frenzies.  I'd like to think I'm genius on some level.  I guess that level is in my mind.  My beer fueled mind...
 
Roveer
 
 

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, I've seen you running the Best "Misattribution of Cause Story" contest for some time on vpFREE.  And I know from a recent post that the contest closes tomorrow.  Does the person entering have to realize that they are misattributing cause?  Or is it a better story if they believe they have isolated a cause?Because if not, there is a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc conclusion drawn in this forum every few days.  Roveer's and spx's here are two examples today just in this thread alone.  I nominate either one of them.
You know it's a good thing most people don't know Latin, or understand logical fallacy or your comment might be considered derogatus, instead of tersely obsequious. And while we are on the subject of Latin:~vidi vici veni (I've done a bit of Latin in my time, but I can control it)~FKP.S. You can't nominate other peoples stories for the contest, no matter how perfect they are.

[New2vp]

I don't know any Latin.  I only know a phrase or three, those that have passed over into English usage through repetition, and I don't know their direct translation.  I'm not really very good with most SAT-style English words either,  but "derogatus" and "obsequious" don't sound like good things.I think the phrase I used has probably been around a bit longer and is more common usage to depict what you described as, "Misattribution of Cause," although I agree that your phrase is more universally explanatory.  Both of the phrases that I chose in recent posts would be used and learned in a college freshman economics class (that was taught in English) and both were on point rather than contrived just to suggest an overly expansive vocabulary.  You might better understand this as "my employment of the expressions was intended to be more pedagogical than pedantic."I didn't figure you would want to take entries from people who didn't intend them as such; that would be a bit too mean.  I probably shouldn't have suggested it, even tongue in cheek; I just see so many of these and thought many might be good as examples.  Since my reading of those was temporally juxtaposed with my reading of one your posts, it just seemed logical to make the post that I did.  I may tend to use sarcasm more than I should.  My serious posts generally involve numbers.Good luck with your contest!  (I knew if I instead said "Bon chance!" that you'd probably respond with French words that I'd never seen.) 

[shadowman]

While I don't know the RNG algorithm used in VP machines I have investigated other RNG algorithms. While there are "better" places in the algorithm to start a given run of hands, the difference is generally not that big. And, the big deal is that the RNG runs continuously. That means, while you take a break to sip some coffee or stretch your back, you progress further into the RNG string. For even fast players you may be sampling only a few RNG values out of every million generated. Therefore, your results are far more dependent on your exact timing then on anything relative to the seed value. Finally, it's possible the RNG is seeded quite often (that's what I'd do if I were the programmer), so whatever happened a few minutes ago gets changed and is no longer relevant. 

[New2vp]

S-man, as usual, you're right on point.  Recognizing exactly where you are in a pseudo-random number algorithm might have helped in the past if sequential numbers were selected.  Even then, it may take a while to determine the exact location and require a computer.  Depending on the magnitude (number of digits) of the sequence chosen, it may even take a computer a relatively long time to determine it.But with continual "shuffling," after all that work, at best you could "know" a probability distribution of what the next cards generated over the next few seconds would be rather than knowing the cards exactly.  And guess what?  That probability distribution would most likely be uniform with each card having a probability near 1/52 on the deal and close to 1/47 on the draw (for non-joker games) and that distribution would itself be....fairly random.