A year of Quads - 2011

[backsider]

This is crazy. spx wrote specific details and keeps meticulous records. The math peoples dont record the details because they think everyones results will be just like Mr. Geekers taught us in high school.(or maybe theyre fearful of what might turn up if they kept similar details) But watch out! If your record keeping doesnt jive with what the math class says then youre off base and not doing things right, or you are telling white lies.  Couldnt POSSIBLY be that the IGT machines arent completely random.

[shadowman]

  
Then on the calander app I log time played, # of hands and win/loss on the day of the session.

 


How do you determine the number of hands?

[shadowman]

This is crazy. spx wrote specific details and keeps meticulous records. The math peoples dont record the details because they think everyones results will be just like Mr. Geekers taught us in high school.(or maybe theyre fearful of what might turn up if they kept similar details) But watch out! If your record keeping doesnt jive with what the math class says then youre off base and not doing things right, or you are telling white lies.
 
Couldnt POSSIBLY be that the IGT machines arent completely random.

 
I think your icon does a good job of describing your statement.
 
As Frank and I have both stated, we have tracked our results. Hence, your statement, as usual, is pure nonsense.

[onemoretry]

 
 Couldnt POSSIBLY be that the IGT machines arent completely random.

Isn't that exactly what is being alluded to by others - the quad results are so extremely highly improbable as to suggest non randomness?
 





If someone told you they flipped a coin 1000 times and heads came up 990 of them, wouldn't you wonder a bit?

[Frank Kneeland]

This is crazy. spx wrote specific details and keeps meticulous records. The math peoples dont record the details because they think everyones results will be just like Mr. Geekers taught us in high school.(or maybe theyre fearful of what might turn up if they kept similar details) But watch out! If your record keeping doesnt jive with what the math class says then youre off base and not doing things right, or you are telling white lies.  Couldnt POSSIBLY be that the IGT machines arent completely random.That's about 180' contrary to my position. I was taking his results very seriously and proof of non-randomness. When information comes along that contradicts well established paradigms it is appropriate and correct to apply the scientific method in an effort to duplicate the results and confirm the hypothesis.The burden of proof is higher for contradictory evidence than it is for confirmatory evidence in support of a well established paradigm. Every first year science student knows this.I had no problem with SPX's information and was all too happy to incorporate it into my knowledge set if it had been actionable.By SPX's own account he played outside Nevada in non-regulated areas where the machines aren't guaranteed random and surprise surprise; he got non-random results.This is not news! (Well, it's old news)I have done similar, but larger sample studies in Nevada and came up with nothing amiss.In three months I'm publishing an article in BJI entitled The Death of Doubt. One month after that I can post some of it here. My deal with BJI is they get my stuff first. So more on this later.

[OTABILL]

By SPX's own account he played outside Nevada in non-regulated areas where the machines aren't guaranteed random and surprise surprise; he got non-random results.
 

I don't recall SPX saying where he played was
non-regulated. I assume both tribal and commercial casinos are regulated in the US. Here in Arizona, the Department of Gaming is responsible for regulating the Arizona
Tribal-State Gaming Compact. Other states have similar compacts presumably ensuring
Native American casinos are strictly regulated. I assume state laws allowing commercial casinos are equally strnggent. There
follows an excerpt from the Arizona Department of Gaming website. The
paragraph on RNGs is very well done, easily understood and should put to rest the RNG issue (at least in Arizona). The second paragraph clearly states how slots are
regulated. Hope everyone finds this enlightening.

[onemoretry]

 


. The paragraph on RNGs is very well done, easily understood and should put to rest the RNG issue (at least in Arizona). The second paragraph clearly states how slots are regulated. Hope everyone finds this enlightening.

[Frank Kneeland]

Regulated yes, but their rules are different. I should have said non-regulated by Nevada rules.RNG's are still used in class two machines. But the frequencies of jackpots need not be that which is predicted by simple probability and 52 card deck math.SPX said, "I only had 1 - 6 day trip to Nevada this year". Yet he played 1.3 million hands. For me this means he played mostly outside Nevada.~FK

[shadowman]

Spx indicated he played in primarily MS. Yes, it is regulated and uses class III machines.
 


http://www.mgc.state.ms.us/pdf/regs/mgcregs.pdf
 

(c) Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each playof a game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence limitsusing a standard chi-squared test for goodness of fit.
(1) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play.
(2) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game. “Equal to” shall mean within the thousandths of a percent – i.e., .001% to .009%. For other gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game outcome must be constant.
(3) The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method of play.
(d) Must display an accurate representation of the game outcome. After selection of the game outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary decision which affects the result shown to the player.
(e) Must display the rules of play and payoff schedule.
(f) Must not automatically alter pay-tables or any function of the device based on internal computation of the hold percentage.
 .... etc.

[Frank Kneeland]

If MS has the same rules as NV and this is where SPX played, then we are back at square one in figuring out if he or the machines are at fault.One thing is clear, the results he stated are impossible on fair random machines.There has to be something rotten in Denmark (MS).Another thing that is clear is that one could not run that bad on four of a kinds playing TDB without a commensurate loss of epic proportions. Though he won't give us particulars, SPX claims not to be doing all that bad, which would make a strong case for an error in his hand count somewhere.If he had lost a proportionate amount to how bad he ran, I'd be leaning towards thinking there was something wrong in the casinos he's playing at. But since he claims not to be doing poorly his results are not in line with his stats.You could certainly be running bad on 4K on TDB and losing a lot. What you couldn't do is run that bad on TDB and not be losing. As New2vp stated 4k accounts for about 20% of the return in TDB. Getting half as many would be a -10% deviation.~FK