Paytables mean NOTHING

[onemoretry]

 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....  

 The most probable outcome of 60 consecutive deals  in a fair, random game  is that there will be no full houses, or better, dealt.  i simply cannot understand how you can argue that the fact that this highly probable result occured supports your theory. 

[rayj]

Let me try to clarify a few things from my original post here.  My main point was that the paytables are not the most important factor in determining whether you will do well in a longer term session or various sessions on a particular machine.  I play in AC.  As I originally tried to explain, during the last quarter of last year, machines at Harrahs were absolutely dead.  Nobody was going to the casino, machines were dead, and Harrahs needed more revenue.  They tightened up the machines (changed chips) during that time but people weren't coming.  I talked to other VP players as well who all agreed.  Furthermore, some bartenders there that I know were in agreement that machines were dead and people weren't going there anymore.  They were not happy as well.  All of a sudden, come January, those same machines were hitting (not particularly jackpots but you can play long sessions and make money or at least not lose much - many 4 of a kinds though).  Others at the bar as well were experiencing the same thing.  You could physically hear the machines getting good hands all over the bar vs last quarter of last year when you hear nothing because the all the machines were all dead.   I'm talking about many days and sessions of playing.  These are 8-5 machines.  There is no doubt in my mind that they "loosened" up the machines.  They changed chips.  The casinos in AC can change chips but can't go under a certain limit.  They tighten machines when they need more revenue and they loosen them at times to generate interest and get more people in the casino. Those of you that don't believe this, and only believe in pure mathematics and the "law of large numbers" as one poster said, are in denial.   Here is another example that I referred to in my original post.  They brought in 4 new machines to the high limit area at Harrahs in January.  They were all hitting.  I was playing for days and racked up many tier points without losing money (not making alot).   Other players were doing the same thing on those machines.   In February, things changed.  You would just lose and lose and lose.  The players that were there all the time stopped playing those machines.  Many times with new machines, as most of you know,  they juice up the machines to get interest which I believe happened.  Then they changed chips and tightened them up.  Also, look at the discussion between TKO and DaBurglar in the topic SHOWBOAT.  They are talking about similar things that I am.   If you are an occasional player, you would look for a  machine with a higher paytable.  However, in AC, if you have the time and patience to observe and try to determine thru play, observation, talking to people (even the slot techs), and figure out if a machine is loose or tight, you will do better, no matter what the paytable is.  That was my point to begin with.  The chip that the casino puts in the machine is more important than the paytable.  DaBurglar brings up another interesting point about the NJ Gaming Commission.  Its true that they are not on sight anymore and only check machines once in awhile. My information is that they check very few machines.  Can they set machines even lower than the lower limit set by NJ Law.  Its possible but not likely.  Too risky and not worth it because if they only tighten the machines to the NJ lower limits, that enough for them to make plenty of revenue.  Wow...I actually tend to agree with you based on what I have been seeing over the years.  At first I thought results were strictly random.  Then over the past 2 years I beganto think maybe it's not that random.  Sure you have an RNG, big deal.  What;'s the RNG pointing at?  A stacked deck?  When I see someone catch 4Aces 6 times in 10 hands,  I throw randomness out the window and become suspicious...

[Vman96]

  When I see someone catch 4Aces 6 times in 10 hands,  I throw randomness out the window and become suspicious...

Well, I'd be suspicious too if that happened because that would be less likely than the rarest thing I have ever seen. But weird things can occasionally happen. Once I was playing a form of poker online where the worst ranking hand after 3 draws wins the pot (2-7 Triple Draw Lowball). Straights and flushes count as high hands and an Ace is always high, so the best hand is 75432 without a flush.

Well, in a span of 16 hands, I was dealt this 4 times. The probability of being dealt this in any given hand is 1 in 2548 (about 67% more likely than getting 4 Aces or 4 AWAK in a single hand of DDB). To get 75432 unsuited 4 times in your very next 16 hands: 1 in 23.25 billion. To experience this at any point over 300,000 hands of 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball (rough amount of hands I have played): 1 in 311,849.

I also have proof of this (includes PokerStars hand numbers/time and date stamps):
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp ... stcount=17

After all this, do I think PokerStars is rigged? No.