Gold Exclusive
My Favorites
@billyjoe
This is the part I don't like
"mapping of the usable values to game elements, the evaluation of the selected game elements"
Mapping reminds me of the slot machine technique where each value is not treated equal. Such as spinning the wheel of fortune bonus. You don't have a 1 in 22 chance of getting the 1,000 because in the mapping table there may only be:
1 x 1,000
2 x 750
3 x 500
10 x 250
30 x 100
74 x $20
So while it appears you have a 1 in 22 of getting the 1,000 because their are only 22 spots on the wheel each element of the wheel is mapped to a number between 1 - 120 so you really have a 1 in 120 chance not 1 in 22 to get the $1,000. If that makes sense.
IS THIS TRUE?
-
BillyJoe
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3198
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:00 pm
@billyjoe
This is the part I don't like
"mapping of the usable values to game elements, the evaluation of the selected game elements"
Mapping reminds me of the slot machine technique where each value is not treated equal. Such as spinning the wheel of fortune bonus. You don't have a 1 in 22 chance of getting the 1,000 because in the mapping table there may only be:
1 x 1,000
2 x 750
3 x 500
10 x 250
30 x 100
74 x $20
So while it appears you have a 1 in 22 of getting the 1,000 because their are only 22 spots on the wheel each element of the wheel is mapped to a number between 1 - 120 so you really have a 1 in 120 chance not 1 in 22 to get the $1,000. If that makes sense.
Yes - that is true for 'bonus' features on a game, like the one that you mentioned. It also applies in VP for multipliers in games like STP. The regulations have a section to specifically cover bonus features, stating that the bonus opportunity has to be spelled out in the "Help" section of the game for the patron to review.
For non-bonus VP, like simple JOB, I believe they are refering to the card selection, ensuring that it does not match a card already diplayed or discarded. It then needs to evaluate the completed hand to determine your payout.
This is the part I don't like
"mapping of the usable values to game elements, the evaluation of the selected game elements"
Mapping reminds me of the slot machine technique where each value is not treated equal. Such as spinning the wheel of fortune bonus. You don't have a 1 in 22 chance of getting the 1,000 because in the mapping table there may only be:
1 x 1,000
2 x 750
3 x 500
10 x 250
30 x 100
74 x $20
So while it appears you have a 1 in 22 of getting the 1,000 because their are only 22 spots on the wheel each element of the wheel is mapped to a number between 1 - 120 so you really have a 1 in 120 chance not 1 in 22 to get the $1,000. If that makes sense.
Yes - that is true for 'bonus' features on a game, like the one that you mentioned. It also applies in VP for multipliers in games like STP. The regulations have a section to specifically cover bonus features, stating that the bonus opportunity has to be spelled out in the "Help" section of the game for the patron to review.
For non-bonus VP, like simple JOB, I believe they are refering to the card selection, ensuring that it does not match a card already diplayed or discarded. It then needs to evaluate the completed hand to determine your payout.
-
kennybobby
- Senior Member
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:08 am
I was just wondering if Billy is actually a lawyer?
I believe someone mentioned 'pointless'...here I am
I believe someone mentioned 'pointless'...here I am
-
DaBurglar
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 4535
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:11 pm
I was just wondering if Billy is actually a lawyer?
I believe someone mentioned 'pointless'...here I ambillyjoe is our resident voice of reason, the guy everyone likes who always knows which way to the booze and broads. I highly DOUBT he is a lawyer, he seems too much a human being......Yes, much of what we have been debating is pointless.....my statistically abysmally ABNORMAL results playing in AC, while everywhere else I have played receiving statistically NORMAL results, will not be changed or rectified by me "convincing" anyone else here that AC video poker is not the same as Nevada....What I have been hoping is that someone somewhere will see and read all this verbiage about video poker in AC being so horrible, see the debate we have, and THAT PERSON will be the one with the Answer(s), the clear convincing proof one way or another, that AC is just like Nevada......or that AC is NOT just like Nevada.Such a person (or group or people) is out there.....I just know it.
-
BillyJoe
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3198
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:00 pm
[QUOTE=kennybobby]I was just wondering if Billy is actually a lawyer?
I believe someone mentioned 'pointless'...here I ambillyjoe is our resident voice of reason, the guy everyone likes who always knows which way to the booze and broads. I highly DOUBT he is a lawyer, he seems too much a human being......[/QUOTE]
Not a lawyer. Don't even play one on TV. I have dealt with plenty, though, in business and personal matters, spending a lot of time dissecting contract language. If I sound like one, I hope I do not offend anyone, as that is not my intent.
-
olds442jetaway
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 10809
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:08 pm
Never pegged Billy for a lawyer. The pretty girls would have shyed away from him if he was.
-
whyaskwhy
- Forum Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:06 am
This is how I'd do it.
The RNG software looks at the last Z numbers of the clock chip output. If Z=2, that gives a number from 00 to 99. We'll call this number C.
The RNG then takes Pi, and begins drawing strings of X numbers beginning at the Cth number. These strings of X numbers have to be further processed to correspond to individual cards from a simulated deck.
Let's say that that C=04 and X=4. RNG then spits out the following strings: 1592, 6535, 8979, and so on. Let's call these "the strings." The strings are a predetermined series of numbers from 0 to 9999. Every time C=4 and X=4, the exact same sequence of numbers will be output. Should C=05 and X=4, it's easy to see that the strings will instead be 5926, 5358, and so on.
Then multiply each string by 52 (or 53 or whatever for joker games). The multiplied strings start at 0000 X 52 = 0 ...and go as high as 9999 X 52 = to 519948.
Now truncate the multiplied string. Divide by 10^X, rounding downward. Now all the multiplied and divided strings go from 0 to 51. That gives us 52 "random" numbers.
All well and good? Maybe. Problem is, the exact same sequence of cards will occur very frequently if Z is 1. Even if Z=2, heavy players will eventually notice repetitions in the dealt and draw cards. "Pair of black threes with garbage drawn, pair of red threes with garbage drawn, pair of fours, garbage, two pair aces and eights, etc."
After a few hundred cards, the RNG reseeds and begins a new series. However "random" the play might feel to the human player, it isn't random at all. The series of cards will always be dealt in a predetermined order after each reseed.
The program could also check to see if a card is being redealt in your draw, and instead go on to the next "random" card. Very realistic, but not at all what happens in a deck of real playing cards. It's more like what happens to a used, dirty deck of cards that any smart player would ask to have removed.
Now, here's how the casino could cheat: lower X to 3 or 2 (and divide the multiplied strings by 10^3 or 10^2). It'll lower the frequency at which a few of the multiplied strings occur. Map one of the aces to a low-frequency "random" number. Map a kicker to another. Always map superstitious "lucky numbers" like 7, 8, or 4 to high- or normal-frequency "random" numbers.
Maybe have another part of the program monitor the number of times the door has been opened recently to reset after hand pays. When the door has been opened a lot, lower X and remap to tighten up. Heck, monitor the churn and drop while you're at it. Why not? After the machine tightens for awhile, the recent payout rate lowers, and it loosens up again. Over time, the payouts would approach some average (say 84%) that is way less than the long-session frequent players should achieve (and less than auto hold should achieve).
Having said this, a contradictory fact is that most casinos are removing video poker, little by little, and tightening the pay tables. Of course, this could be used to plausibly deny a less-than-random "random" number generator. "Well, the pay tables are tighter, look right here on the machine. Well, fewer people want to play it, and they're not as good anymore, since they're playing other games and we turned off auto hold." The idiots run around mumbling that video poker pays over 100% at such-and-such casino, and wonder why they're so unlucky when everyone else gets 100% payback.
On another issue, I don't see why it would be so impossible to have the network monitor pays and override royals or quads, or lower X and remap according to some other program that tracks individuals' play (if they have the players' card inserted). Why couldn't they? Because you don't want to believe they could? It could happen without the knowledge or participation of anyone but a few code-writers in India who thought they were making game software for a company that went bankrupt shortly afterward. Heck, how many people here could even explain how their cell phones transmit a phone call? Nowadays, technology crime can be hidden in public view. Most people won't even understand what happens if it's all going right, much less how it could be shaved. Casino execs? IGT salesmen? Pshaw! They're too busy wining and dining and taking each other to the nudie bar. They don't know how their systems run, and they don't care. Of course they never answer questions about the technical working of their machines. They can't!
The RNG software looks at the last Z numbers of the clock chip output. If Z=2, that gives a number from 00 to 99. We'll call this number C.
The RNG then takes Pi, and begins drawing strings of X numbers beginning at the Cth number. These strings of X numbers have to be further processed to correspond to individual cards from a simulated deck.
Let's say that that C=04 and X=4. RNG then spits out the following strings: 1592, 6535, 8979, and so on. Let's call these "the strings." The strings are a predetermined series of numbers from 0 to 9999. Every time C=4 and X=4, the exact same sequence of numbers will be output. Should C=05 and X=4, it's easy to see that the strings will instead be 5926, 5358, and so on.
Then multiply each string by 52 (or 53 or whatever for joker games). The multiplied strings start at 0000 X 52 = 0 ...and go as high as 9999 X 52 = to 519948.
Now truncate the multiplied string. Divide by 10^X, rounding downward. Now all the multiplied and divided strings go from 0 to 51. That gives us 52 "random" numbers.
All well and good? Maybe. Problem is, the exact same sequence of cards will occur very frequently if Z is 1. Even if Z=2, heavy players will eventually notice repetitions in the dealt and draw cards. "Pair of black threes with garbage drawn, pair of red threes with garbage drawn, pair of fours, garbage, two pair aces and eights, etc."
After a few hundred cards, the RNG reseeds and begins a new series. However "random" the play might feel to the human player, it isn't random at all. The series of cards will always be dealt in a predetermined order after each reseed.
The program could also check to see if a card is being redealt in your draw, and instead go on to the next "random" card. Very realistic, but not at all what happens in a deck of real playing cards. It's more like what happens to a used, dirty deck of cards that any smart player would ask to have removed.
Now, here's how the casino could cheat: lower X to 3 or 2 (and divide the multiplied strings by 10^3 or 10^2). It'll lower the frequency at which a few of the multiplied strings occur. Map one of the aces to a low-frequency "random" number. Map a kicker to another. Always map superstitious "lucky numbers" like 7, 8, or 4 to high- or normal-frequency "random" numbers.
Maybe have another part of the program monitor the number of times the door has been opened recently to reset after hand pays. When the door has been opened a lot, lower X and remap to tighten up. Heck, monitor the churn and drop while you're at it. Why not? After the machine tightens for awhile, the recent payout rate lowers, and it loosens up again. Over time, the payouts would approach some average (say 84%) that is way less than the long-session frequent players should achieve (and less than auto hold should achieve).
Having said this, a contradictory fact is that most casinos are removing video poker, little by little, and tightening the pay tables. Of course, this could be used to plausibly deny a less-than-random "random" number generator. "Well, the pay tables are tighter, look right here on the machine. Well, fewer people want to play it, and they're not as good anymore, since they're playing other games and we turned off auto hold." The idiots run around mumbling that video poker pays over 100% at such-and-such casino, and wonder why they're so unlucky when everyone else gets 100% payback.
On another issue, I don't see why it would be so impossible to have the network monitor pays and override royals or quads, or lower X and remap according to some other program that tracks individuals' play (if they have the players' card inserted). Why couldn't they? Because you don't want to believe they could? It could happen without the knowledge or participation of anyone but a few code-writers in India who thought they were making game software for a company that went bankrupt shortly afterward. Heck, how many people here could even explain how their cell phones transmit a phone call? Nowadays, technology crime can be hidden in public view. Most people won't even understand what happens if it's all going right, much less how it could be shaved. Casino execs? IGT salesmen? Pshaw! They're too busy wining and dining and taking each other to the nudie bar. They don't know how their systems run, and they don't care. Of course they never answer questions about the technical working of their machines. They can't!
-
whyaskwhy
- Forum Newbie
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:06 am
Oh, yeah, almost forgot. What's this stuff about how video poker has to play like real poker? No it doesn't. All the law says is that video poker has to play like video poker. There's no "raise" button in video poker like real poker. There's no "ante" button in video poker. There's no way to write a marker, or pass and just watch a few rounds being played. Video poker isn't poker. It can never play like real poker.
Law governing casinos is like all other law: tortuous double-talk that gives the appearance of consumer protection while in reality protecting the business from the customer.
Law governing casinos is like all other law: tortuous double-talk that gives the appearance of consumer protection while in reality protecting the business from the customer.
-
BillyJoe
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3198
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:00 pm
Interesting. Except - the casino doesn't have to. If that was their approach, and they were able to set VP at a return rate lower than the paytable without triggering a regulation violation, the number of machines on the casino floor would be astounding.
Look at the number of slot machines on a typical casino floor, most at some abysmal return rate. Have you EVER seen ALL slot machines being played at the same time? I haven't.
I believe that the reduction of available VP in most casinos is a trend that is the function of the changing demographics. Most VP players were card players of some sort, while a slot player, especially one that plays less than max coin, is just a casual chance taker, looking for that one big score. As the 'older' generation dies out, the shift, I believe, will continue.
Look at the number of slot machines on a typical casino floor, most at some abysmal return rate. Have you EVER seen ALL slot machines being played at the same time? I haven't.
I believe that the reduction of available VP in most casinos is a trend that is the function of the changing demographics. Most VP players were card players of some sort, while a slot player, especially one that plays less than max coin, is just a casual chance taker, looking for that one big score. As the 'older' generation dies out, the shift, I believe, will continue.
-
Vman96
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3298
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:49 am
Oh, yeah, almost forgot. What's this stuff about how video poker has to play like real poker? No it doesn't. All the law says is that video poker has to play like video poker. There's no "raise" button in video poker like real poker. There's no "ante" button in video poker. There's no way to write a marker, or pass and just watch a few rounds being played. Video poker isn't poker. It can never play like real poker.
Law governing casinos is like all other law: tortuous double-talk that gives the appearance of consumer protection while in reality protecting the business from the customer.
(b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game.
http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocume ... entid=2957
But I guess ~20 states could make laws about electronic gaming machines solely to deceive people. But if you really believe this, simple answer is..."Quit, right now!"
Law governing casinos is like all other law: tortuous double-talk that gives the appearance of consumer protection while in reality protecting the business from the customer.
(b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game.
http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocume ... entid=2957
But I guess ~20 states could make laws about electronic gaming machines solely to deceive people. But if you really believe this, simple answer is..."Quit, right now!"
