casino integrity

[BillyJoe]

[QUOTE=billyjoe] That said, the increase in speed and string re-seeding increases the probability that a 'bad' draw is the one available when you hit that deal/draw button.

I'm not so sure about that one!   What difference does it make if the cards are whizzing by at millions per second, or one every five minutes? If you're trying to fill a royal on a one card draw, it's a 1 in 47 shot, period.[/QUOTE]
Because, in the example cited, you have 46 'bad' draws to deal with. So, those bad draws monopolize the selection opportunity, since they appear more frequently. Yes, the 'good' card comes around more often also, but is dwarfed by all the bad cards reappearing, at a ratio of 46 to 1.

You spend a finite amount of time (maybe a second or two) holding those four to the royal and hitting draw. The overwhelming opportunity for a bad card being drawn takes hold.

That is not to say that it can't happen - because it can and does happen. It is the opportunity that is created for the overwhelming number of bad cards to appear that makes success a function of the speed of the VP machine.   

[onemoretry]

Yes, the 'good' card comes around more often also, but is dwarfed by all the bad cards reappearing, at a ratio of 46 to 1.

It is the opportunity that is created for the overwhelming number of bad cards to appear that makes success a function of the speed of the VP machine.

You initially state that the ratio of "bad" to "good" cards is consistent, at 46 to 1.

Then, you go on to suggest that the speed of the machine increases the likelihood of drawing a "bad" card. Can you see the contradiction?

[rascal]

I agree with onemoretry. The speed is not going to affect the ratio, unless someone monkeys with the RNG

[BillyJoe]

[QUOTE=billyjoe] Yes, the 'good' card comes around more often also, but is dwarfed by all the bad cards reappearing, at a ratio of 46 to 1.

It is the opportunity that is created for the overwhelming number of bad cards to appear that makes success a function of the speed of the VP machine.

You initially state that the ratio of "bad" to "good" cards is consistent, at 46 to 1.

Then, you go on to suggest that the speed of the machine increases the likelihood of drawing a "bad" card. Can you see the contradiction?
[/QUOTE]

No contradiction in my mind. Let's look at it this way, with two scenarios.

Scenario 1 - A very slow RNG
If the RNG was slow enough that it did not re-cycle cards while you are waiting to hit the deal button (ie a static deck), you would have to 'beat the odds' of 46 to 1 to get your desired card ONLY ONCE.

Scenario 2 - Current RNG at a screaming speed
The card you are ready to select is continuously being exposed to a 46 to 1 shot each time it cycles. As a result, to get the desired card, you have to beat those 46 to 1 odds either EVERY TIME a selection cycles, or beat the odds on the PARTICULAR selection cycle when you make your selection. Add to that the fact that these cycles, of course, are not linear, and number in the thousands within this short selection timeframe, so the desired card may NEVER even appear within the RNG string, since there is a much higher likelihood of the 'bad' cards being present, simply because there are more of them.

I am no rocket scientist, but if you continuously have more 'bad' stuff thrown at you than 'good' stuff, chances are the 'bad' one will hit you.

[notes1]

The original topic to be discussed asked this simple question, do you find the cost of visiting a casino to be more/less/same as pre 2009, and do you believe all/most casinos are operating their video poker machines in ethical manner? I assumed it was understood that to compare, one would need to be playing the same game/same denomination.    It appears many posters here believe the cost of a vp session has increased. I can also confirm that many fellow gamblers i have traveled with on junket trips also confirm the cost of a casino visit has indeed increased. To be honest, many of the fellow gamblers i spoke with, were also slot players, not only vp players. I have gone on dozens of these junket trips and you get to know your fellow travelers pretty well. Is everyone completly honest about the amount they lost...i doubt it. But, at least you get a good feel about what you are experiencing is also happening to others. So, if the cost has playing vp has increased, some are trying to convince us that the reason is either/or the machines are more random or the speed of shuffling is too fast. I find this hard to accept as a reason for not getting the payoff card on premium hands. Whether a card goes by every second or a micro second, should present the same opportunity to draw a card.    For all who believe everything is on the up and up, i guess they would think no car company would sell a car with a defective ignition switch to save $2, a country would not spy on their own citizens, a president would not say...keep your doctor/keep your plan and know it was not true, etc.    I still think, our best bet is to play at casinos that are busy and profitable. They are less likely to be tempted to tinker, because they have enough business to let the math make them money. Beware of those casinos that are losing money.    

[gregorio]

I believe another good reason why the cost of gambling increased since 2009 and continue to increase as we speak is the proliferation of "multi-hand" machines whether it's VP or slot. 100/50/25/10 play VP machines dominate casino VP section. Slot machines are now a 1000-line behemoth! I sometimes wonder if there are 1000 ways to win, how do we draw blanks????  Obviously playing multi-lines requires a bigger bankroll so if you are somewhat on a budget, I can see the bankroll disappear quite fast nowadays.  

[BillyJoe]

The original topic to be discussed asked this simple question, do you find the cost of visiting a casino to be more/less/same as pre 2009, and do you believe all/most casinos are operating their video poker machines in ethical manner? I assumed it was understood that to compare, one would need to be playing the same game/same denomination.    It appears many posters here believe the cost of a vp session has increased. I can also confirm that many fellow gamblers i have traveled with on junket trips also confirm the cost of a casino visit has indeed increased. To be honest, many of the fellow gamblers i spoke with, were also slot players, not only vp players. I have gone on dozens of these junket trips and you get to know your fellow travelers pretty well. Is everyone completely honest about the amount they lost...i doubt it. But, at least you get a good feel about what you are experiencing is also happening to others. So, if the cost has playing vp has increased, some are trying to convince us that the reason is either/or the machines are more random or the speed of shuffling is too fast. I find this hard to accept as a reason for not getting the payoff card on premium hands. Whether a card goes by every second or a micro second, should present the same opportunity to draw a card.    For all who believe everything is on the up and up, i guess they would think no car company would sell a car with a defective ignition switch to save $2, a country would not spy on their own citizens, a president would not say...keep your doctor/keep your plan and know it was not true, etc.    I still think, our best bet is to play at casinos that are busy and profitable. They are less likely to be tempted to tinker, because they have enough business to let the math make them money. Beware of those casinos that are losing money.    
With all due respect, I think that your conclusions are flawed. Using casino junket players, for example, as a representative sample of the VP playing population, is not a sound sampling.

I live in FLA, and I travel to gaming locations outside FLA to play all my VP in casinos. I am both a Seven Star with Caesars, and up until this month, a NOIR (now Platinum) with MGM. The bankroll required to play at those levels needs to be sizeable, since you will encounter numerous down periods.

For a knowledgeable VP player, they understand that there will be more losing sessions than winning sessions, due to the math of the game. As a result, enjoying the comps that have value to a player (travel reimbursement, rooms, food, FreePlay, golf, spa treatments, limos, etc) make the gaming worthwhile.

The 'cost of a casino trip' is what you choose to put at risk at any point in time. To use this as a barometer for casino fairness is not appropriate.    

[notes1]

billyjoe, I take no offense at your comments. One of the big problems we have these days is that folks cannot seem to accept a different opinion without being offended and nasty. The whole point of this discussion was to get imput from everyone.  I live in North Carolina, and this year alone, i have played vp at casinos in Florida, N. Carolina, Tunica, Biloxi, Atlantic City and Niagara Falls,NY. My own experience has been a decrease in the number of winning/breakeven casino trips and an increase the cost of a gambling visit, over the past 5 years. I am and have been a diamond member for a number of years. The only thing that status means at any casino is that one loses more money and gets extra perks for higher losses. Higher status is not an indicator of wealth or skill.    I do consider myself a reasonably knowledgeable vp player, and i am well aware that there are many more losing sessions than winning. Every game a casino offers favors the casino. While i do not count the comps we receive when i compute my results for a casino visit, i recognize the rooms, free planes, food do have a value. In my opinion, pre the recession, all the extras made a casino trip a pretty good value for the dollar lost. My contention is that the payouts now are now so reduced, there is much less value than before.  I began this discussion with a simple question, if one thinks the cost of a casino visit has increased, what does one think has caused it to happen. You are obviously of the opinion that nothing has changed over the past 5 years. i wish i had the same experience as you.  

[BillyJoe]

billyjoe, I take no offense at your comments. I began this discussion with a simple question, if one thinks the cost of a casino visit has increased, what does one think has caused it to happen. You are obviously of the opinion that nothing has changed over the past 5 years. i wish i had the same experience as you.  
Actually, I think the enhanced technology in VP machines can have a negative influence on drawing to premium hands, as I noted in a post on this thread earlier. This can, in fact, have a negative effect on bankroll preservation, if no Money Management disciplines are employed.

That is not meant to imply, though, that there is any 'machine fixing' in VP, as many folks believe.

[olds442jetaway]

jmo, but playing multi line machines increases the variance and also chances of that day's budget being wiped out before some nice premium hands hit.