RF On A MG Machine??????

[New2vp]

Trust me.The difference between independent thinkers and sheep:  Independent thinkers are capable of forming their own opinions by using logic and reason.  Sheep can blindly, happily follow simply by trusting whether or not the "leader" is worthy.Can a sheep become an independent thinker?  I don't know for certain; though, so far, the evidence suggests the hopes are ble-e-e-e-e-ak!  

[Eduardo]

[backsider]

[QUOTE=backsider]Trust me.The difference between independent thinkers and sheep:  Independent thinkers are capable of forming their own opinions by using logic and reason.  Sheep can blindly, happily follow simply by trusting whether or not the "leader" is worthy.Can a sheep become an independent thinker?  I don't know for certain; though, so far, the evidence suggests the hopes are ble-e-e-e-e-ak!  
[/QUOTE]
 Why the need for namecalling? What was your New Years resolution? I somehow dont see that you gave up trying to protect SMs butt when he takes a flop either. By the way, you misfired anyway. I carefully thought about the input of those who believe in total randomness, then I just as carefully listened to what the other side had to say. Aka, "independent thinking".  The other side won out for me because they made more sense, and I believe your side is the one thats being led around by input from what youre shown as regulations on the internet. "Put it in print and the sheep will run with it" to use a phrase you seem familiar with. Also "Believe no big business ever does anything wrong or else they'll be closed down and jailed". Check out Wall Street and get back to me on who of those people have seen a day of jail time.  

[Eduardo]

You sure showed Shadowman, backsider. He took a flop. You took teh high ground and he lost a bowl of virtual cereal that you created. You are winning. WINNING! Have you met Charlie Sheen?

[faygo]

[OTABILL]

I have a problem with the certainty in the infallibility of
the RNG chip  and the individuals
programming them expressed by a number of individuals in this forum.  I agree with Shadowman that "casinos buy
their machines from companies like IGT who gain nothing from programming
machines to break the law," and with Frank that one must "believe
they {VP machines} are fair and random." Otherwise, I would not play these
machines at casinos in the US.

 

Nevertheless, while casinos and manufacturers may have no reason
or desire to alter RNG chips, a disgruntled employee or someone with another
malicious agenda may want to do so. Additionally, chips like any other
manufactured item, can be flawed for a variety of reasons either individually
or in a batch. That's why we have recalls of some products or one may
unfortunately purchase a car that is a lemon. Hopefully, a rogue or imperfect
chip would be discovered before distribution but can anyone guarantee with 100
percent certainty that neither of these scenarios is feasible. I think not. I
gather from earlier posts that Backsiders' professional background would lead
him to never accept anything at face value.

 

The bottom line is to play VP machines based on the math and
the integrity of the RNG chips, the casinos and the manufacturers with the
expected return  based on the paytable.
However, there is a possibility, while probably remote,  something may be awry.

[New2vp]

Why the need for namecalling?Where's the namecalling? To quote Larry the Cable Guy about my last post:  "Now, that's funny!  I don't care who you are!"  Oh, now I remember, even when someone doesn't call you a name after you have been insulting to others, it is ok to accuse others.  It has been a while so I almost forgot the Standard Deflection (or Reflection) Techniques that I posted earlier.  You just cannot seem to post without invoking some of them."3.  Complain when others point out that you're addition to content is insulting others.4.  Pretend to be the victim and chastise those who you have previously insulted about insulting you."Since you are probably going to accuse me of being mean no matter what I say, I might as well eliminate any subtleties in what follows.I somehow dont see that you gave up trying to protect SMs
butt when he takes a flop either.Here's another one:"Employ...tortured sentence structure"  Did I say something about shadowman here?  I could guess what you mean here, but what's the point?  I think others can judge for themselves what I'm saying. By the way, you misfired anyway. I carefully thought about the input of those who believe in total randomness, then I just as carefully listened to what the other side had to say. Aka, "independent thinking".Oh yeah, my bad.  That must have been someone else long ago who said, "my base psychologist says its [my IQ's} only average.  But its other
smarter people Ive read who lead me to believe the machines are not
always random."By the way, you never answered who are these clear-thinking brainiacs who caused you to form your beliefs.  Frank referred you to some sources that might help your thinking.  What superior reference do you have for us?  The other side won out for me because they made more sense, and I believe your side is the one thats being led around by input from what youre shown as regulations on the internet. "Put it in print and the sheep will run with it" to use a phrase you seem familiar with. Also "Believe no big business ever does anything wrong or else they'll be closed down and jailed". Check out Wall Street and get back to me on who of those people have seen a day of jail time.Did I say I had a side?  And when have you noticed me quoting regulations to support any viewpoint?  I know, facts are not always the friends of your pet theories.  But at least base your complaints about me on something that I have said, not something that you have imagined.Here is something that you can complain about that I have said.  I didn't say it about you before; it was about a different reflection, but fits fairly well here:  "I think the personal attacks are all he understands.  He misinterprets
most of what is said as some kind of affront anyway and then lashes into
anyone within reading distance.He seems to be the type who could start a fight in an empty room."It is fairly clear that the claims and opinions in your posts are not backed up by any evidence and are primarily geared towards the intent of later insulting shadowman (and others) and hoping to accuse them of insulting you.  Disagreeing with misguided conjectures that you might make based on groundless premises is not an insult.  Contribute something that is worthy and then see if someone still "insults" you by disagreeing.You have singled Frank out as being more compassionate towards you yet he is equally as dismissive of your "idea."Frank, mutually exclusive is a good point, but I have to believe in
something so those people who say things are not always random are the
ones I choose to believe in.Do you have any idea how lame this is?  Maybe the reason you like Frank is that you don't understand what he is saying to or about you.  When Frank said that the two thoughts that you were basing your belief on were mutually exclusive, that meant that both thoughts cannot be true.  Your answer:  I agree.  I think my belief is sound.Can you guess what might have been a better answer to Frank for someone employing reason and logic?  Choose one of the following:A.  Frank, I disagree that the statements are mutually exclusive.  Since I still believe that both statements are true, my belief is sound.B.  OK, Frank, I agree that the statements are mutually exclusive.  Since one of them must be false and my beliefs are based on those statements, I will have to rethink my beliefs and come back when my beliefs are consistent with the evidence that I believe to be true.Is this really beyond someone with "an average IQ?"Oh well, it is probably time for you to employ that other device and bring in reinforcements."When possible, use the double-reflection (or very difficult triple-reflection) maneuver by using other rarely-used or new screen names to compliment the posts of the then current primary reflection in an effort to achieve reflective goals."I can hardly wait.

[backsider]

New, I didnt read your post because its such a long-looking diatribe that could only have been invested in because you are not happy with the way things are going. You often get like that when disturbed.  PS, Id check it for spelling errors but whats the chance you didnt do that too?

[mightwin]

Happy New Year. I really liked someone's opinion years ago up here about explaining randomness. I'm not going to take the hours it will take to look it up - but the jest of it was: Randomness, being random itself has the appearance of patterns, but true randomness - since it's random is random. The point being (I thought at the time) was to say the machine's being random means it's unpredictable and may appear like it's on some sort of streak, but really isn't. All I know for sure it - it a machine gives me a hand with a higher payout - I pet the screen and say thank you. Again Happy New Year - and wishes for royal flushes for everyone.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, mutually exclusive is a good point, but I have to believe in something so those people who say things are not always random are the ones I choose to believe in. They just make more sense to me than those who say it cant be unrandom because of something or other thatll close them down or some other silliness. I dont know how to do a chisquare test and I dont know of anyone whos ever done that at a machine. Neither side has ever proven anything and they only are good at making semi-convincing statements. So Ive chosen my side. Shadowman, you do have problems. Take note how Frank addresses disagreements without defensive posturing, personal attacks, sweating, or losing it.  No ones taking your cereal away. Trust me.Myself and half my current partners have done Chi Squared Tests on numerous machines.  There are other good tests such as Bayesian Inference, Z test, etc...  In order to understand this issue and know you are choosing the right side you simply have to understand these mathimatical principles.I think we can all agree that decisions of any kind are best made with as much information as possible.Here's what I would suggest. Learn these math forms with an open mind and after you understand them, then choose your side.Knowing that you don't understand these types of math, which are specifically designed to reveal what is and is not the result of randomness, surly you must lack faith in your chosen path.Wouldn't it be so much nicer not to have to listen to the words of others and be able to figure this stuff out on your own???And if you learned your way around this branch on statistical math and it turned out machines weren't random you'd have proof rather than opinion.I see this as a good thing. Rather than telling you that you are wrong, I'd like to see you prove you are right. "Prove" is the key word here. There's a lot to be said for certainty.~FK