Double up or not

[New2vp]

   DB made one simple mistake.
Had he posted this in the Recreational Section, his post would be considered 100 percent accurate as the denizens of those depths simply don't believe in math.
Make an outrageous statement here, you'll get called for it. Go to the recreational forum and non-mathematical assumptions are rewarded.   Making 2 points in 1 short post.  I credit your economy of words.I actually think Webman should make a section for "Suspicion of Rigged Video Poker."  There really is no reason when a discussion about strategy is happening in the Strategy Forum for it to be derailed in this manner.   If 99% of class III machines are not rigged, then it seems to be disproportionate always to be bringing up rigging to drown out the main strategy discussion.  Talking about strategy on rigged machines is essentially talking about strategy on an ordinary slot machine.  Actually the main strategy in the case of rigging should be how to detect and "out" the particular violators, not to paint all those that comply with the law with the same brush of suspicion.  Unfortunately, probably 90% or more of the people who think they are educated or experienced enough to determine when something is not quite right are not at all qualified to do that detection.  Trusting your gut is not going to work for most people in this endeavor.And, best of all, if people get tired of hearing about this subject, they can just steer clear of the subject entirely, while others can revel in it.  However, I guess it probably would not be in IGT's or VP.com's best interest to encourage posts in such a section.

[New2vp]

Proven over and over to be a fraud yet million word responses= zero credibility! Give it up already DBYes, I thought his shot at you while he was mostly angry with me was over the top.  Probably name-calling either way isn't the best way to communicate, but I certainly get it once someone starts it.  Thanks for your post.  It's hard to know how many are actually reading or actually care one way or other.

[DaBurglar]

Proven over and over to be a fraud yet million word responses= zero credibility! Give it up already DBObviously I made a mistake posting 3 years ago with such 100% certainty about stuff that happened OVER A DECADE before that "3years ago threshold".....what precisely I got wrong I am not sure and I am not going to try and guess.   However, there was no "FRAUD" ..... unless you want to tell me you yourself AVOIDED playing double up based on what I wrote, and you now have proof that you would have WON a lot of money if you HAD 'doubled up' instead of heeding my cautionary words.....?If you really are bothered by me calling you a "turd" then I am sorry, but it was meant to be a non-serious, funny type insult ("turd" itself is usually a pretty humorous word whenever it appears.....say "turd" ten times and try not to giggle)  I felt justified in calling you a turd simply because you seem so overjoyed and ecstatic at the level and volume and scope and detail of shredding done to me concerning my double up history by others here......  

[New2vp]

Obviously I made a mistake posting 3 years ago with
such 100% certainty about stuff that happened OVER A DECADE before that
"3years ago threshold"...
So, I think what is being said, after all the fussing and complaining, outrage, and indignation is over, is that it was correct to doubt the veracity of what was claimed, perhaps much like Vman was suggesting .. despite the denial just 3 nights ago while this was being discussed.  That statement follows: I stand by what I originally said, the experience and data is exactly what I recall. If some of you refuse to believe I used to record large chunks of data back in the day, that's your problem. This last statement wasn't a mistake made 10 years ago or 3 years ago.  It was a matter of less than 72 hours ago.  This false denial of what is now being admitted was used as the basis for ... well, let's just call it less than mature forum etiquette.  I am not certain what changed in the last 3 days except that denials seemed more futile as it became clear to everyone that at least some of the claimed statements had to be false.  However, there was no "FRAUD"I agree that without a confession and proof of financial harm, the evidence wouldn't hold up, at least in the definition of criminal fraud.  It may even depend on what the definition of "is" is.  Some who are not familiar with that part of the criminal code may have not followed the logic of (paraphrasing here) "there was no fraud unless pokerforme could prove he had lost money based on reliance on DaBurglar's false statements."  That definition is something like the following and probably varies from state to state:  "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."To be precise, in pokerforme's defense, he did not accuse DaBurglar of commiting fraud.  He said that DaBurglar was proven to be a fraud.  There is an alternate definition for that, listed 2nd in the Google dictionary:  "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by
unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or
qualities."  The synonyms listed for that 2nd definition are "impostor," "fake," "sham," "charlatan," "quack," and "mountebank."  I don't think I've ever seen that last word before.  I will have to look that one up.  And to be fair to DaBurglar, the "intent" portion of that 2nd definition is always the sticking point and hardest to prove, whether or not the person knew or should have known he was making false statements.  A smart person so accused should simply never admit to "intent."*  And it looks like we're in agreement on that last strategy.*Well, a really smart honest person doesn't need to insincerely deny intent, due to actually not intending to deceive in the first place.

[DaBurglar]

I'm still certain the double up is not the advantageous utility others feel it is...can you explain why so many casinos would allow a 50-50 element into a game that already is one of their least reliable profit sources (VP)? Unless it really doesn't work like it seems.....

[advantage playe]

if the double up is fair then there is a slight disadvantage to the casino in that it takes time away from u playing a neg exp game.unless you are playing a psoitve situation like fp deuces or some good promo.if u get tier points for the double up then very good.i don't know if u do.

[Eduardo]

I know this may sound like crazy talk, but maybe they offer the feature because they believe they will get more player participation with the feature enabled than they would without it?

[billryan]

   To be really fair, they should offer it on losses, as well.

[New2vp]

I'm still certain the double up is not the advantageous utility others feel it is...can you explain why so many casinos would allow a 50-50 element into a game that already is one of their least reliable profit sources (VP)? Unless it really doesn't work like it seems.....Certainty again from you ... so soon, at least for now?  Nevertheless, thanks for returning the thread to its original subject.Well, I'm uncertain, but I if was pressed on it, I would have to guess that double-up works as it seems in most places.  Why?  The laws call for the depictions of playing cards to appear with the same probabilities as if they were from a well-shuffled deck.  Anyone who chooses to make the game work differently, if caught, could be subject to the liability of being prosecuted for something akin to or exactly like fraud, the criminal kind that was defined earlier.  On the other hand, people commit fraud or bend the truth all the time, so many things are possible, especially in locally isolated pockets.

[New2vp]

I know this may sound like crazy talk, but maybe they offer the feature because they believe they will get more player participation with the feature enabled than they would without it?Wow.  I think that is the LEAST crazy thing that has been said for pages and pages.