It was over 40%

[New2vp]

I am starting a new topic rather than responding where this was originally posted out of respect for Frank's request to refrain from discussions of whose beliefs are correct.  Obviously, some have less respect for that request than others.

For once I read through all of Franks and new2vps posts to see how this
experiment was going, and it looks like it is going very well. As usual
however, New is making sly references to that special someone who must
reside inside his head. But also as usual, his reference is incorrect. If
you go back somewhere on the wizzards forum you will see that when RS
tested the machine for that flipover you guys are nuts about, it was not
a 40% affair but something like 12%. I remember that number because he
said it was just about 2 times what was expected after several billion
hands. Frank would now be proud of me, I did the math and came up with
6% as being normal. So
New, why, if you dont want to believe the guy, do you need to
exagerrate to the tune of 40%? Why not tell the truth about it? Im
glad no arguments are allowed here. Besides, Im a lover, not an arguer.
Ive got a week off coming up and Ill explain it to you when I get back
from my visit home.Convenient, you DO read what I write!  Why not tell the truth about that?



Why are you carrying his water since you have no real interest here and
are not being influenced any way by him in what you post?  I know you
know what you wrote was wrong.  And your answer when you get back will
be no answer or "never mind."  You just want more attention, but it was
one of his really lowest points if he had any pride at all, so I don't
know why you/he would want to relive it.  We do not have to look
elsewhere to see who is telling the truth.  There is plenty of
documentation if you were really interested in the truth rather than
simply trying to get more blog space for yourself and him.

He wasn't telling the truth then and you aren't now.

First set your options to Oldest Post First and then everyone can read about it on this forum under

Topic name:  An open offer to R o b  S i n g e r. under Video Poker Strategy

For the set up to the experiment you can read Webman's introduction
forum.videopoker.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2193&PN=1

For a statistical analysis before the experiment happened, you can read my post at
forum.videopoker.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2193&PN=2

To see the results of the test,
forum.videopoker.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2249

[shadowman]

Good job, new. A silly attempt at best to rewrite history by BS.

[faygo]

Pesky search button.

[New2vp]

Post unable to migrate

[New2vp]

Maybe I influenced Brokopp to change his column of June 24, 2009.brokopp.casinocitytimes.com/article/video-poker-maverick-is-a-man-on-a-mission-46781I know, this is all a setup, started nearly 3 years ago.  A conspiracy!  We're all in on it!Moo-hoo-hoo-hoo-ha-ha-ha!Do you feel like you are going through a little cold cycle?

[moneyla]

In a video taped interview done about 9 months ago ago, He said his "flip over rate was 18 percent."  See it here on this page:  http://alanbestbuys.com/id132.html The discussion about this point is at about 2:50 into the interview.  The interview is in the story titled: THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL NAME IN
VIDEO POKER I'm not posting this because I believe in what he says, but I present it so we know what he said in that interviewe.

[New2vp]

Yeah, thanks for the update.  I know you mean well, but he has been backtracking from his original numbers ever since he was embarrassed by his session with Webman.  No doubt he read that I chastised him for coming up with such an outlandish claim in the first place.  Somewhere in one of those links, I suggested that it would have been much harder to check his fabrication if he had chosen a more conservative number.  Of course, when you just make up numbers rather than running a real experiment, you can say whatever you want about them.His strategy now perhaps is to keep changing, hoping that it is harder to hit a moving target.  I apologize if I am not up on what his current claims are; they are not really worthy of noting, based on his past reputation.As shadowman intimated, it wouldn't be the first time he has tried to rewrite things, hoping that people will simply forget. John Grochowski also organized an effort by 23 separate checkers back in mid-2009 to recheck these figures.  I don't recall if he ever published his findings.  It is sad really; for others to put in effort to debunk a study that doubtless was never done.  All he wants is attention and he is getting it here, despite that it is bad attention.  But perhaps that is all he can hope for.  The original figures were discussed by Mr. Grochowski on the Boyd's Eye View forum, but it seems that Midwest Gaming & Travel Websites are either temporarily or permanently down.The Wizard of Odds also gave him a interview that was more generous than he deserved in which similar numbers were discussed.  You can find that here.  You'll see that this is still more than 40%, as this topic title advertises.He hasn't made up anything new to crow about for a while.  I guess that is why we are seeing this attempt at a retread. 

[backsider]

While you guys were bantering Im glad I was busy doing something productive, as in working.

New, Im sure you knew you would get cover from the sharpie group here when you knew you were digging up information I did not mention and you pretended I did anyway. It was not 40% where I said it came from, admit your lie here please. Ill accept the times, instances, and percentages you tossed into the mix as historical since I have not seen them before but now I do. But as an analyst and I expect you as a mathematician, I would expect a lot more accuracy without the obfuscation.

Go back and look at what I wrote vs. what you pretend I wrote. Paraphrasing, I said that on the wizzards forum I remember he reported a double rate of these flipovers from electronic testing of a few billion hands on a machine he had for a few months. So if anything, you should be explaining why you pulled up other much smaller/really tiny and insignificant samples when I clearly stated only what was discussed on wizzards forum., and if you go read it, youll see he wanted to show it to wizzard and friends until people wanted him to pay their airfare etc. just so they could duck it all. Are you not the first anal math person here who would admit that a couple billion hands for a sample renders the others irrelevant?   

[New2vp]

Post unable to migrate

[New2vp]

Since we are on the subject, let's examine another puzzling quote by the experimenter himself:   "But their is one very interesting point to make here. Although I am certain the machines are not programmed in totally random fashion, based on the way most people play it is very difficult to determine if this hurts the players - and if so, to what extent. Strangely enough, I had the best year of my playing life in 2008, winning slightly over $192,000 in just 25 hours of play."  It is fairly obvious that someone realized it would be hard to win much money if the machines were gaffed.  What self-respecting greedy casino owner or gaming executive would gaff the machines in favor of the player?  But of course, another part of the Rob persona is that he is a habitual winner.  How do we reconcile the two disparate ideas? With all these repeating ranks, how could anyone be able to win so much money.  Special plays?  I got it!   Pretend that we cannot tell if an 8-fold increase in repeating ranks would be good or bad for a player's wallet.  Pretend that it is just too difficult a problem to solve, that it baffles the experts.Let's see if this is a problem requiring an Einstein to figure it out.1.  We can hold onto and discard any cards we want to improve our chances of winning money.2.  On some hands, we decide to hold onto 4 cards and toss 1 away.3.  So, in these cases, we are willing to trade a card with a known rank for an unknown card from the remaining unseen 47 cards.4.  We get that rank back way too often.  Is that good?I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and suggest that if we are willing to take an unknown card rather than retain a card of a specific rank, we really don't want to see the same rank back.  Otherwise, we would have retained the card in the first place.  Certainly we won't be making any straights, flushes, or full houses on these 1-card draws if we get back the same rank that we just tossed.The backsider persona hops back and forth between not understanding difficult concepts and wanting to impress you with his military intelligence, so he could credibly be lost here, but the video poker "guru" (at least guru wannabe) who identified this point should probably be able to tell that an 8-fold increase in getting the same rank as one discarded is not a good thing and hurts your profitability.It's not really that hard to understand.How does spx put it?  I'm just saying...