Oh, Steve, where to start? Well, if you were well aware of that, you would not take results of 3 out of 4 as evidence of bias. And yes I am aware of experiments determining whether coin tosses actually are fair. But for what I wrote, it doesn't really matter whether a quarter has a 50% chance of heads or a 50.01% chance, or even a 51% chance (or more, so please don't think it matters to me whether you spin the coin or use one with two heads). The example that I cited was tossing a "fair" coin, which by the use of the word "fair" is assumed (by most) to have a 50% chance. If that was too subtle a point, I apologize for not explaining it more fully.stevel96a1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:56 ami am well aware of that. are you aware if you toss a quarter heads facing up has a tiny more chance of landing on heads?
I guess I shouldn't have left so difficult an example as an exercise to the reader. Citing 3 out of 4 chances going in one direction doesn't quite reach the level of a statistically significant difference. You, of course, are free to conclude whatever you want, but you may need to be satisfied that your experiment may not be compelling to others. Even if all 4 had gone in one direction, there is still a 6.25% chance that would happen when you were comparing identical processes. "Identical" meaning there is no actual theoretical difference between the two. Two different samples from the same process do not generally produce identical results.
I am not advocating for or against the adequacy of the random number generators (RNGs) in any video poker trainers, whether it is Masque, WinPoker, Wolf, or others. Maybe they are good, perhaps not.stevel96a1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:56 amWolf video poker engine always had that pattern of variance behavior to it, i will say this i did a simulation on 1991 dos masque video poker 9/6 jacks on better manage to run it on my phone and it stayed even with the house all the way to a hand # over 3mil it was down around 10k credits at that point.
i ran the same simulation and software on my pc but instead of using magic dox box i used windows xp to run it and it ran 10x faster and it had a hard time staying a float with its bankroll at its speed x10 faster
i aslo ran win poker 6 on running windows 95 (on my samsung tablet) and the variance on triple double bonus for the first time a 97% game reached a winning profit of over 30k credits again highest peak under same conditions exception running my gaming laptop (and windows 10) with a faster processor barely reached 20k high peak
i suspect the older machines have a slower processor which allows us to see the bouncyness of variance
Certainly, none of those are likely to be the RNGs that are used in casino video poker machines. I would be hesitant to infer that imperfections in trainer software implied imperfections in casino software. Years ago, my experience with running trainer simulations showed results that were reasonably representative of the games expected value.
Checking peak values is not the most efficient statistic to see if the variance is accurate. Peak value is a really unstable statistic. It is not worth the trouble to run enough simulations to be able to determine if the variance is off by looking at peak values.
The speed at which most RNGs run may take longer to produce, say, a million random numbers; however, it does not mean that those random numbers will be different. I suppose if one was inefficiently reseeding with the internal clock that could occur; however, that still would not be responsible for producing a different card distribution.stevel96a1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:56 ami suspect the older machines have a slower processor which allows us to see the bouncyness of variance