For what it's worth.

[Truth Teller]

[QUOTE=Truth Teller] Here we goooooooooo.......
 
TT, I didn't make it easy for you for a reason. BTW, I have posted most of this same reg previously on this website. Too bad you didn't check that out first.Nowhere does it say that VP has to be fair.
 
"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."
 
It says it right there.
Nowhere does it say that VP is random, uses a 52-card deck, or that the chances of getting a hand, such as 4 aces, are the same as a 52-card deck.
 
"(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play."
Yep, along with what I quoted about. Also, the number of cards are not always 52. Joker games have 53 or more. The regs simply state that ALL symbols (that means cards in VP) have the same probability of occurring.It says "Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game."  This is not the same as playing random...it simply means a random selection process must be used to determine the game outcome.  If 800,000 crap hands are stored in one EPROM, and 3,000,000 possible hands representing all combinations are stored in another, and a random selection is made to pick one of the 3,800,000 stored hands, it satisfies this requirement.So VP is not fair.  The minimum payoff percentage is 75%, per the above rules.
 
Wrong. When all sections of this regulation are met you end up with a random/fair game. Storing 800K crap hands would mean that
 
"(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. " 
 
would be violated. The results would no longer be "representative of live gambling games".
 
It's really sad how someone can completely ignore the facts when the facts don't agree with their beliefs. It's all there. Next time try "understanding" the words rather than just copying and pasteing.
 
If you'd like we can go over each and every requirement and see how that leads to a random/fair results. You can't win this one. The regs were worded precisely to eliminate situations like the ones you are proposing.
 
 [/QUOTE]3 STRIKES, AND YOU'RE OUTTA THERE!1a) I said "Nowhere does it say that VP has to be fair."1b) The reg says "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."
 
1c)  You claim "It says it right there."1d)  The truth - nowhere in that paragraph does it say VP must be fair.  The reg states that the mathematical probability of each symbol or element must be equal...blah blah blah.  This DOES NOT MEAN that that VP deals as if there are 52 cards (or 53, as our genius pointed out lol).  This DOES NOT STOP game designers from storing crap hands in a 2nd EPROM.  As long as the crap hands use all the 52 or 53 symbols equally, they do not violate the reg.PUTTING THIS INTO EVEN EASIER TO UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE - IF ALL THE CRAP HANDS HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF ACES OF SPADES AS THEY HAVE 4s OF SPADES, AND 8s OF CLUBS, ETC., THEY ARE ALL LEGAL.  THE REG DOES NOT SAY THAT THE MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY OF EACH POSSIBLE COMBINATION MUST BE THE SAME AS THE GAME IT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF.2a) I said "Nowhere does it say that VP is random, uses a 52-card deck, or that the
chances of getting a hand, such as 4 aces, are the same as a 52-card
deck."2b) The reg says "Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce
winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection
at the initiation of each play."2c) You pointed out correctly that a game could have 53 symbols.  Duh.2d) The truth - The reg does not prohibit some combinations occurring more than others.  The reg simply requires that each combination can occur.  IT DOES NOT STOP BOGUS, DUPLICATE, CRAP HANDS.3a) I said "So VP is not fair.  The minimum payoff percentage is 75%, per the above rules."3b) We already know what the reg says.3c) You said "Wrong. When all sections of this regulation are met you end up with a random/fair game. Storing 800K crap hands would mean that
 
"(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. " 
 
would be violated. The results would no longer be "representative of live gambling games"3d) The truth - As pointed out previously, storing crap hands most certainly does not violate this reg, as long as the crap hands use all the symbols equally.  As for the statement "representative of live gambling games," THE REG IS TALKING ABOUT THE SYMBOLS, NOT THE RESULTS!!!!NOWHERE DOES THE REG SAY THE RESULTS MUST BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LIVE GAMBLING GAME.NOWHERE DOES THE REG SAY THAT THE GAME MUST ONLY HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF COMBINATIONS AS THE LIVE GAMBLING GAME.AS LONG AS THE ODDS OF GETTING AN ACE OF SPADES ARE THE SAME AS THE ODDS OF GETTING A 9 OF HEARTS, AND AS LONG AS EACH POSSIBLE COMBINATION CAN OCCUR, THE GAME IS LEGAL.And that means they can cheat...in a sense, by not playing the way people think they are supposed to play...random, equal chance for any combination, 95%+ payoff percentages, etc.I rest my case...except to point out that a bunch of people are being suckered.

[shadowman]

TT,
I can see that you are unwilling to view this topic logically. Picking out a single sentence in the regulations and claiming that that allows "bogus" results is ridiculous. You must look at all parts of the reg as I demonstrated.
Since all cards (symbols) must have the same chance of appearing and card selection must be random ... your argument just bit the big one.
 
Casinos make plenty of money with random/fair VP. Most paytables are set less than 100% (why would they even have to bother if you were correct) and the vast majority of players play less much less than optimally. Your assertions are unnecessary. In addition, a 75% payback would chase away gamblers in droves.

[bigboy]

2d) The truth - The reg does not prohibit some combinations occurring more than others.  The reg simply requires that each combination can occur.  IT DOES NOT STOP BOGUS, DUPLICATE, CRAP HANDS.
3a) I said "So VP is not fair.  The minimum payoff percentage is 75%, per the above rules.
3d) The truth - As pointed out previously, storing crap hands most certainly does not violate this reg, as long as the crap hands use all the symbols equally.  As for the statement "representative of live gambling games," THE REG IS TALKING ABOUT THE SYMBOLS, NOT THE RESULTS!!!
GAME.NOWHERE DOES THE REG SAY THE RESULTS MUST BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LIVE GAMBLING GAME.
NOWHERE DOES THE REG SAY THAT THE GAME MUST ONLY HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF COMBINATIONS AS THE LIVE GAMBLING
AS LONG AS THE ODDS OF GETTING AN ACE OF SPADES ARE THE SAME AS THE ODDS OF GETTING A 9 OF HEARTS, AND AS LONG AS EACH POSSIBLE COMBINATION CAN OCCUR, THE GAME IS LEGAL.
And that means they can cheat...in a sense, by not playing the way people think they are supposed to play...random, equal chance for any combination, 95%+ payoff percentages, etc.

I rest my case...except to point out that a bunch of people are being suckered.

 
O.K., here's the 64K question: Oh wait, who should i direct the question to since i'm seeing so many mirror images on this forum in the past week? Well with so many of you someone will be able to give a direct, concise answer. Question: If the programming is rigged, than why do casinos keep decreasing the paytables? If it really does'nt matter what the paytable says(on a Class III machine), than why are'nt the casinos  offering only the highest percentage paytables? All anyone who does not live in Nevada(or a state that prohibits 100% payback) has to ask themselves is: Did your local casino(s) offer "full-pay" machines and if they did, how long did they last???

[Truth Teller]

TT,
I can see that you are unwilling to view this topic logically. Picking out a single sentence in the regulations and claiming that that allows "bogus" results is ridiculous. You must look at all parts of the reg as I demonstrated.
Since all cards (symbols) must have the same chance of appearing and card selection must be random ... your argument just bit the big one.
 
Casinos make plenty of money with random/fair VP. Most paytables are set less than 100% (why would they even have to bother if you were correct) and the vast majority of players play less much less than optimally. Your assertions are unnecessary. In addition, a 75% payback would chase away gamblers in droves. Imagine folks for a moment that someone from IGT was posting on the boards, or someone who manages a casino was posting on the boards.Ok.Now for the facts...Shadowman said "Since all cards (symbols) must have the same chance of appearing"This is trueShadowman went on to say "and card selection must be random"This is not true, and Shadowman cannot provide a specific reference, specific quote, or anything in the regs that says this.This is really simple to understand...All symbols must have the same chance as in real life.However, all combinations of symbols (known as the hand) are not required to have an equal chance.Nothing in the regs requires this.As for paytables, etc...paytables do serve a purpose - they help create the illusion that the games of today are like the games from 15 years ago.  They add excitement.  They supposedly distinguish between good machines and tighter machines.  And they tell us what we win in advance.All of that is meaningless however in this discussion....like potholes in the road, meant to distract.Gaming regulations DO NOT SAY that VP must be fair.Gaming regulations DO NOT SAY that VP hands must have an equal chance.Gaming regulations allow payoff percentages as low as 75%.And casinos make money, and the more they make, the happier they are.Don't be fooled by false arguments, people quoting non-existent passages in the regs, etc.Shadowman has said some things that he cannot back up.  He cannot show you where in the regs it says what he claims.I have shown exactly what the regs say, and pointed out exactly what they do not prevent.

[shadowman]

TT, you can assert whatever you want. You are wrong and the regs say exactly what I've been saying. Ignoring the facts is a very poor debating technique.
 
Just how do you interpret?
 
"Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence limits using a standard chi-squared test for goodness of fit.
(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play."
 
How can you ignore "random selection" and state that "Shadowman cannot provide a specific reference, specific quote, or anything in the regs that says this"?
 
I just did it ... again
 
I suppose I should also help you understand what "game elements" means. The "game elements" are cards. Therefore, it states that all CARDS are available for RANDOM selection. This is EXACTLY what you said was missing.
 
What next? (sigh)

[bigboy]

Imagine folks for a moment that someone from IGT was posting on the boards, or someone who manages a casino was posting on the boards.



 
 
 
 
Yes, just "imagine" folks. I have to admit that i never thought of a bogus IGT "employee" joining the forum. I covered the "casino manager" prospect in the dr. strangelove thread. Now, if i could only convert this "ESP" into seeing some Royals.

[Truth Teller]

TT, you can assert whatever you want. You are wrong and the regs say exactly what I've been saying. Ignoring the facts is a very poor debating technique.
 
Just how do you interpret?
 
"Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence limits using a standard chi-squared test for goodness of fit.(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play."
 
How can you ignore "random selection" and state that "Shadowman cannot provide a specific reference, specific quote, or anything in the regs that says this"?
 
I just did it ... again
 
I suppose I should also help you understand what "game elements" means. The "game elements" are cards. Therefore, it states that all CARDS are available for RANDOM selection. This is EXACTLY what you said was missing.
 
What next? (sigh)Shadowman, you know exactly how to interpret it.1.  "Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game"Notice that this line from the reg DOES NOT SAY:each possible outcome must have the same chance...or that all outcomes must have the same chance.It merely says that the game outcome must be chosen at random.  So as I said before, if a bunch of crap "outcomes" were stored for possible selection, as well as all possible outcomes, your chances of winning are significantly less, because sometimes the machine will choose the crap hands.2.  "Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce
winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection
at the initiation of each play"Notice that this line from the reg DOES NOT SAY each possible permutation or combination must have the same chance of being selected.It merely states it must be available for selection.Now Shadowman can't be so stupid as to not understand that these regs have loopholes as wide as the Grand Canyon.No one could be that stupid.And yet, here he is, defending the regs, pretending there are no loopholes, and pretending the regs state that all hands have an equal chance of occurring.SHADOWMAN - POST THE PART OF THE REG THAT STATES THAT ALL HANDS MUST HAVE AN EQUAL CHANCE OF OCCURRING.go ahead...pull an ace out of that sleeve and show us all where it says this.

[bigboy]

O.K., here's the 64K question: Oh wait, who should i direct the question to since i'm seeing so many mirror images on this forum in the past week? Well with so many of you someone will be able to give a direct, concise answer. Question: If the programming is rigged, than why do casinos keep decreasing the paytables? If it really does'nt matter what the paytable says(on a Class III machine), than why are'nt the casinos  offering only the highest percentage paytables? All anyone who does not live in Nevada(or a state that prohibits 100% payback) has to ask themselves is: Did your local casino(s) offer "full-pay" machines and if they did, how long did they last???
 
Perhaps you can answer this one, TruthTeller?
 

[shadowman]

TT, I've given you all you need to understand the regs. Although, it's becoming clear your mind won't be changed by mere facts. 
 
If you took a moment to look up the definition of random then you would know that all cards being selected randomly is equivalent to (that means exactly the same as) all hands having an equal chance of occurring. This means your entire last post is invalid. There is no "loophole". Now, pleeeeaaaassssseeee make an effort to UNDERSTAND what is written before posting next time.

[Truth Teller]

[QUOTE=bigboy]
O.K., here's the 64K question: Oh wait, who should i direct the question to since i'm seeing so many mirror images on this forum in the past week? Well with so many of you someone will be able to give a direct, concise answer. Question: If the programming is rigged, than why do casinos keep decreasing the paytables? If it really does'nt matter what the paytable says(on a Class III machine), than why are'nt the casinos  offering only the highest percentage paytables? All anyone who does not live in Nevada(or a state that prohibits 100% payback) has to ask themselves is: Did your local casino(s) offer "full-pay" machines and if they did, how long did they last???
 
Perhaps you can answer this one, TruthTeller?
 [/QUOTE]Well first of all, casinos don't keep "decreasing the paytables."  Yes, there's 9-6 and 8-5 machines, etc., etc., and yes, 9-6 basic JOB machines appear to pay out more.My point, which Shadowman continues to pretend is not valid (very suspicious IMO), is that the regs have loopholes which allow machines to be unfair.