Thoughts For Beginners

[rapidbison]

On paytables.....represents what you win per hand and absolutely nothing more--unless payback otherwise displayed above the bank you are playing [which very few casinos do].
All states--including Nevada--only require "95% Confidence" for certifying RNG chips...Simply put, technically-legally we are playing 95% games--regardless of pay-tables. Casinos have been spending millions of dollars to thwart cardcounters/ cheats....they also actively thwart dancerheads...Casinos/manufacturers in compliance with the state's regs may technically-legally modify RNG chips to deliver 5% fixed-losers....that's 1 out of 20 hands for vp.....Poker sites use better than 98% chips....any MIT dropout would scoff at less than 99% randomness......95% is scientifically established randomness benchmark for professionally-shuffled events by live dealers....The positive flipside, however is that fixed-winners may also be added....which may also account for so-called "hot/cold cycles".

[billryan]

You, Sir, are truly clueless. The payback table tells you exactly what the payback is.A little reading will explain just how that works.
If the machine you are on pays 9 per coin on a Full House and Six on a Flush, the payback for the machine is 99.54
For each coin you are shorted, the payback drop approximately one percent.
Please tell me you knew this.

[rapidbison]

Is that based on a 95% random generator????Your not-so cluefull theoretical infinite returns were calculated last century.....literally....and probably not based on today's legalized "95% RNG chips.
Is Dancer's multi-million dollar software empire completely based on a 95% RNG?????

[Vman96]

On paytables.....represents what you win per hand and absolutely nothing more--unless payback otherwise displayed above the bank you are playing [which very few casinos do].
All states--including Nevada--only require "95% Confidence" for certifying RNG chips...Simply put, technically-legally we are playing 95% games--regardless of pay-tables. Casinos have been spending millions of dollars to thwart cardcounters/ cheats....they also actively thwart dancerheads...Casinos/manufacturers in compliance with the state's regs may technically-legally modify RNG chips to deliver 5% fixed-losers....that's 1 out of 20 hands for vp.....Poker sites use better than 98% chips....any MIT dropout would scoff at less than 99% randomness......95% is scientifically established randomness benchmark for professionally-shuffled events by live dealers....The positive flipside, however is that fixed-winners may also be added....which may also account for so-called "hot/cold cycles".

Winners or losers can't be added at will legally, that violates the "live game correlation law".

Is that based on a 95% random generator????Your not-so cluefull theoretical infinite returns were calculated last century.....literally....and probably not based on today's legalized "95% RNG chips.
Is Dancer's multi-million dollar software empire completely based on a 95% RNG?????

You don't understand what the regulations meant by being "95% confident". The more data you test for a RNG, the more confident you can be that data is random.

For example, let's say you analyze 1000 dealt poker hands and there is one dealt royal flush in it.

And in another sample you take 65 million dealt poker hands and you find 98 dealt royals in it.

Which of these two are you more confident in being random?

Now I agree the Nevada standard is unnecessarily low. Some other states require 99% confidence, and IGT has no issues making that standard either. If you test long enough, you probably can find 99.9999% or more confidence in their RNGs. But at some point, you have to say it's "good enough" from a confidence interval perspective because higher confidence levels take more data and time to prove.

[rapidbison]

5% loophole is big enough to drive a month's worth of quads through......it is undefined, therefore technically-legally open to interpretation and manipulation.....Any high-frequency trader on Wall Street would scoff at your notion of "testing in nanoseconds"..to be labor-intensive.

[billryan]

Small wonder the casinos impose stupidity taxes.

[FloridaPhil]

No matter what the odds or how perfect your play, there is "NO" guarantee anyone not even Bob Dancer will win long term playing video poker.  If the games are truly 100% random as I believe they are, there will always be an element of chance to a win.  Playing the best games with computer perfect strategy puts you in the best position to win, but it does not and never will force it to happen. I don't believe anyone ever said it would, but the inference is there none-the-less.  If someone wins long term playing video poker there was math and skill involved.  There was also some luck along the way.What we are talking about in this thread is not the accuracy and/or rigging of RNGs.   We are discussing the fact that most of today's casinos only offer negative VP games and what to do about it.  In my view sitting on a negative game, flat betting max coins waiting for a royal is an obsolete strategy guaranteed to drain your bankroll.  In most cases flat betting bigger denominations on the same game makes it an even bigger loser even if you gain extra comps by doing so.  No strategy can turn a negative game positive, but there are strategies that may lessen the damage.  If you are going to play negative games and most of us will, we need new strategies that take into account the realities of today's video poker games, not the games of 16 years ago.

[billryan]

There are strategies that turn negative games positive. The same ones that have existed for years. The same ones that can been shown to work mathematically.

Phil talks about needing to use new strategies, offers none and offers proof of even less.
What exactly are the new strategies you recommend, Phil?
Hit more Royal Flushes?

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=billryan]Phil talks about needing to use new strategies, offers none and offers proof of even less.
What exactly are the new strategies you recommend, Phil?
[/quote]If you are truly interested in having a civil discussion, I will be happy to offer them in detail.  Other forum members may have a few that I have not thought of.  If on the other hand all you want is a platform where you can rebut every suggestion with insults and criticism, I'll pass. This forum is suppose to be where we learn from the experiences of others.  I never said I had all the answers, but I do know a ruse when I see one.  Playing into the casino's trap by pumping more money into a losers game will only yield one result... losing.  If on the other hand you are making money playing video poker your way, you certainly don't need any of my suggestions and we should be listening to you.  I'm all ears.   Are you ahead playing VP long term?

[billryan]

As usual, deflection.
Are you going to share your strategies and the math that supports them or not.
After all, isn't your whole shtick supposed to be about helping newcomers?
If your new strategies are valid, shouldn't they withstand simple scrutiny?