Paytables mean NOTHING

[BillyJoe]

As I have said before, I think this an excellent topic for Bob Dancer's radio show. I would like to have Bob invite AC Gaming Commision on, and ask straight out " in NJ, can you legally adjust VP machines to restrict dealing payable hands? " How about it, Bob?

[jetermacaw]

Excellent idea billyjoe!

[Vman96]

I am really hoping Bob is going to respond to this thread.

[sam434343]

Yes, billyjoe that is a good idea, and also if the machine there are inline with being slot programed(percentage pay out) or by the paytable pay outs!

[DaBurglar]

I totally would like to know Byb Dancer;s opinion on a 76% dead hand rate over 300K plus hands over the course of 6 months.....I'd like to know if he has ever played in AC for any length of time in the past, say before 2008 when the paytables in AC were not totally putrid. If he could talk about AC in his show, that would be super as well, but I'll settle for his input here for now..... Edited to add:    I just figured a real, DEFINITE way to prove my results to anyone who cares to help out or is interested.    I will post it in a new thread with a clear obvious title so that everyone will see it, rather than risk putting it in this cumbersome, long drawn out tedious thread.....look for it!

[sam434343]

Okay, Daburglar, I will read your post and try not to write a book back in my responce.LOL!Sam

[tshock]

Great idea from billyjoe about getting Bob Dancer involved.  Its been fun and informative reading the posts from all you folks.  Many of you have tons of knowledge about VP.  I have a stupid question to ask:  What the heck is the correlation between the percentage implied by the Paytable vs the RTP of the machine??  I don't get it.   If your playing a decent machine with a good paytable and its supposed to give you a return of say 99.5%, what does the RTP of equal or greater than 83% (in AC) mean?  Whats the correlation? 

[onemoretry]

  Instead, this little observation/experiment FITS into my overall point as just one more small piece of evidence to back up the TREND that I have observed.    Do ya Get that???? 
 The point I was trying, apparantly unsuccessfully, to make was that the lack of a dealt full house or better in 60 consecutive hands, and your earlier example of the lack of a royal flush in 20000 - 25000 hands are completely normal occurances.  In fact, these results are to be expected. So, these observations/experiments do NOT support your "things ain't right in AC" theory! Do ya get that?

[onemoretry]

As I have said before, I think this an excellent topic for Bob Dancer's radio show. I would like to have Bob invite AC Gaming Commision on, and ask straight out " in NJ, can you legally adjust VP machines to restrict dealing payable hands? " How about it, Bob?
 Assuming an AC Gaming Commission rep would actually agree to this, and assuming they would confirm that it is illegal to tamper with the randomness of VP machines, the next question would have to be: "and what do you do to enforce that?" And, no matter what the answer is, there will undoubtedly be folks who will argue that just being illegal doesn't mean it won't happen anyways.

[DaBurglar]

  So, these observations/experiments do NOT support your "things ain't right in AC" theory!
  Sure they do, cuz you just said it, my "theory".... if my "theory" is correct, and things are NOT right with VP in AC, then of course,  there would be NO full houses or Royals in the sampling(s) i observed, exactly what I got.... See, I still concede (just not to people like YOU) that I very well may have just had unbelievably crappy crappy luck....it's possible.     But given the actual magnitude of my crappy results, and the STARK STARK contrast with any other so-called "cold" snap in my 20 years of VP, I have put forth and constructed this "theory" based on my results. That's what a "theory" is, and quite frankly, a bonafide AC gaming official getting on the RADIO WITH Bb Dancer and stating emphatically that all VP machines in AC conform to a clearly defined set of standards and parameters would go a long way to proving my theory wrong.  Which leads me to next state that: [quote] And, no matter what the answer is, there will undoubtedly be folks who will argue that just being illegal doesn't mean it won't happen anyways[/quote]    is nothing but pure cynicism on your part, as well as a ridiculous statement.  You actually want to argue that it is unreasonable to believe that "illegal" things can happen BECAUSE they are in fact.....Illegal????   geezus......