The game is not the same !

[BillyJoe]

well, the issue here is not wether a given number is available to be selected within the number stream-----it almost certainly is given any significant length of number segment------it's an issue of the "regional" probability that that number will be selected amongst all the other numbers within the number stream segment you find yourself in when you hit the deal button. and it is true that as time progresses the little 'ol dprng cranks out thousands of numbers ( representing cards )----and the card you want goes flying by with some regularity------but even with a processor running (or shuffeling ) thousands of cards per second you will remain in a realitive very small segment of the full number stream of the algrorithm before it starts to repeat----for example for the mersenne twister that non-repeating number stream is about ten with 600 zeros behind it----a very, very large number. so even the "short" number stream we are talking about is very large and even a fairly fast processor speed would spend some time in it. one thing we do know is that the navada regulations require that running the processor for 10,000 outcomes the chip must meet a 95% confidence limit using the chi-sqare test for randomness. this is encouraging in terms of assuring short term randomness at slower processor speeds----but continuous shuffling and faster processor speeds makes it easier to meet this randomness requirement since numbers are being selected over a much longer segment of the number stream-----and this is one reason why i personally believe that faster processor speeds and continuous shuffling "smooths" the output ( hands dealt ) of the processor. this doesn't make the game unfair or compromise randomness----but it does change the "personality" of the game and i think this is the change that many long-term, experienced vp players are saying they see.
Willie, thanks for taking the time to contribute on this subject. I am still, personally, skeptical  of your conclusions, but there seems to be ample evidence that the machines are running differently today than they were just a few years ago. Whether this translates to different results, though, I am not convinced.
 
All I know is, in the relatively short term (ie - a 4 day gaming trip), VP is hard to win at consistently.
 
If it was ever proven, however, that I was not dealing or drawing cards from a randomly shuffled 52 card deck on VP machines, I would be playing table games.

[williejoe]

billyjoe----i do think we are playing a random game when we play vp at most of the casinos that have regulations that are similar to navada's ( especially igt machines ). the game is more or less "fair". and most of us know that even in the old days ( five to ten years ago ) that in the long term you are not going to be beat the math of vp and be a long term winner-----unless you consistenly play 100% payback games and perfect play strategy. i play vp for entertainment---not because i think i can beat the math of vp----long term this is not going to happen. i believe that by far the biggest impact to us vp players are the lower paytables implemented by the casinos. my post are directed at trying to take my knowledge of algorithms and vp----- and attempt to validate those on this site who believe that something more than the paytables have changed in vp. and i have tried to offer what i think are the most likely things that igt has done in making these changes.
i won't go into it on this forum---but i do believe these changes do have a long term negative impact on certain playing stratagies that a few of us long term vp player employ------not saying it's unfair or compromises randomness of play-----but i believe it does offer a little more "protection" to the casinos against players like me.