What Would It Take???

[Frank Kneeland]

But show me that royals are rigged and I will be very interested.
Well sadly, I'm not going to be showing you anything. I'm just going to be making a utility for checking yourself and if you are most concerned about the BIG hands then it's going to take you a year or more of data to come up with anything conclusive. Oh and you'll need to play exactly the same machine or machine type for the entire trial, and at the end it will only tell you something definitive about THAT machine type.If your concern is for a particular casino then you could probably mix results on different games in that casino, but the answer you get is only as good as the question you ask.~FK

[moneyla]

Exactly right, Frank.  When you change machines, mix games, even have different hands dealt, exercises such as this require millons of hands to confirm anything.  Good luck with it.

[Frank Kneeland]

Exactly right, Frank.  When you change machines, mix games, even have different hands dealt, exercises such as this require millons of hands to confirm anything.  Good luck with it.No good luck to you with it.I'm not doing it remember. I'm just making the utility. I'm never going to use it myself. NEVER!Why, no matter how many times I say this, do you not seem to understand what I'm saying?I'm not doing a study into the fairness of machines, nor do I want to, nor would I. I'm making a utility for other people that are concerned about it to use themselves.There are many tests that only require a few thousand hands. Those are the ones I expect people might want to use.~FK

[moneyla]

Unfortunately, if everyone doesnt use this "utility" and doesn't report what they find for any given "test" what are we using it for? Each of us, with our own individual "small samples" will not be able to decide anythjing, will we? Or, have you devised some "small sample" test for randomness or non randomness?  If you have then I am really interested in this.  it could make finding "advantage machines" possible and we could clean up on the "errors" !!

[Frank Kneeland]

Unfortunately, if everyone doesn't use this "utility" and doesn't report what they find for any given "test" what are we using it for? Each of us, with our own individual "small samples" will not be able to decide anything, will we? Or, have you devised some "small sample" test for randomness or non randomness?  If you have then I am really interested in this.  it could make finding "advantage machines" possible and we could clean up on the "errors" !!I've explained, re-explained and explained yet again so many times to you, I officially give up. If you don't understand it yet, then no additional amount of explanation is going to make a difference.If you simply re-read what I've already written in this thread all your questions have already been answered over and over again to the point of nausea. I could answer every question you asked here by cutting and pasting from my previous posts. I'm sorry Money but I have better things to do than say the same things 5 times because you can't be bothered to read an entire thread at a speed where you can understand it.I'd rather not have to go so far as putting you my short list of the only person who's posts I ignore, like I did on the other forum, so I won't, yet. But I will ignore you from this point on in this thread, because you are simply wasting my time and nothing I'm saying is getting through.Also, your posts are no longer contributing anything to the utility, they are all focused on what won't work and what can't be done, which if you remember was the very reason I started this thread...to NOT do that and try to focus on what is doable.~FK

[moneyla]

Well then Frank, unless you come up with some sort of utility which provides a long term answer to any individual's short term play, I'm going to say that your exercise is pointless.  Much as most of your other exercies were on the other forum including your various puzzles. What I was hoping you would suggest is is a "utility" (as you put it) where the contributors could combine their various results and then all of us could see what others have found.  Now, that would make a contribution. Unfortunately any individual's results are meaningless and no better than someone saying they never hit a royal when dealt four to the royal, or that the Jack of Diamond replaces the Jack of Clubs too many times on a one card royal flush draw..  

[backsider]

I know this isnt popular around here and new2vp seems to have the same issue in reading that monyla has, but there is someone who has tested a machine a few billion hands worth, and this person has already identified that some things are not as random as we thought they are.

I am interested in working with this utility and see how things go. But alas, what if I or anybody else dscovers something that doesnt jive with what they want to believe in, and put it up for discussion here? The vocal ones wouldnt believe me, just as they do not want any part of the aforementioneds testing results. Im hoping for open minds, but it looks like thats a very challenging concept around here.

[shadowman]

I know this isnt popular around here and new2vp seems to have the same issue in reading that monyla has, but there is someone who has tested a machine a few billion hands worth, and this person has already identified that some things are not as random as we thought they are.

I am interested in working with this utility and see how things go. But alas, what if I or anybody else dscovers something that doesnt jive with what they want to believe in, and put it up for discussion here? The vocal ones wouldnt believe me, just as they do not want any part of the aforementioneds testing results. Im hoping for open minds, but it looks like thats a very challenging concept around here.


 
Show us your results and we'll look at them.

[feline57]

The title of the original post was What Would It Take??

I am beginning to wonder "What Would It Take??" to end this discussion.

[Frank Kneeland]

I know this isnt popular around here and new2vp seems to have the same issue in reading that monyla has, but there is someone who has tested a machine a few billion hands worth, and this person has already identified that some things are not as random as we thought they are.

I am interested in working with this utility and see how things go. But alas, what if I or anybody else dscovers something that doesnt jive with what they want to believe in, and put it up for discussion here? The vocal ones wouldnt believe me, just as they do not want any part of the aforementioneds testing results. Im hoping for open minds, but it looks like thats a very challenging concept around here. Backsider what I recommend is getting a little Zen. There's something very odd about people with beliefs that effect only themselves, that are dead set on convincing the rest of the world that they are right.Here's the thing, you don't have to share your beliefs on this forum or any forum and get people to agree with you. That's why I have no intention of result sharing, or proving or disproving anything. At the end of the day what matters most to people is their own results and their own opinions.Think of the utility as an opinion formation enhancer (for internal use only).As long as you don't try to share what you learn no one will or can disagree with you.As you said, "if something doesn't jive with what people want to believe", they'll just ignore, refute, or dismiss it. The concept should work great, so as long as people only use it on their own results and hold their conclusions.~FK