For what it's worth.

[shadowman]

But has anyone checked out the Nevada Gaming Commission lately?  Rules for VP machines lately?

Think those payoff schedules determine payoff percentages?
Think there's a rule that says the draw has to be random?

Think again.


 
Yes, the rules are at:
 
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm#regs
 
The NV gaming regs state that VP must be random and fair and no secondary programming is allowed. You are also wrong on the implementation. All possible deals are NOT stored in EPROM, they are generated by the RNG. This is common knowledge. Just how much research did you do before posting here? Please "think again" before posting next time.
 

[shadowman]

Shadowman:  I hear you, but I also know there is random streakiness in video poker and these streaks do not follow bell curves but have bigger tails in either the positive or negative direction in the short run.  Therefore the optimal short run math is not bell curve math. 
 
Denny, the type of curve is irrelevant. Curves are tools that can be used to show future results across thousands, if not millions of trials. They cannot be used to predict your next hand or the next N hands. Nothing I have stated has anything to do with curves.
 
Now I would agree that there is a question whether one can know when he is in a streak.  Lets assume for a moment that after some one or more consecutive positive hands  or two out of four positive or any other rules you set , you assume are in a streak and increase your wager by some means lets pick a number 5% and you do the reverse on the negative side.  Some times you will guess right and sometime wrong.  When you guess right you put a floor under your accumulated  gain or a stop loss in the other direction. You don't give it back either by changing machines, stopping play or other.  Seems to me you'd be ahead of conventional play.  I don't think I can be proven wrong without a long computer study.  I assume you would say it would all even out anyway so don't waste the time.
 
Right you are.
 
I am not saying you know what the proper plays are in streak, therefore increasing the bet size, hands played etc. is my approach, but there may be others.  This way you account for a swings as opposed to changing methodology  for any particular hand  in  a streak.  Now I don't want to get in a drawn out debate on this, I just want to say I understand what you and 99% of the vp pros out there are saying, I just refuse to believe it without an exhaustive study that streaks cannot be taken advantage of in both positive and negative directions some percent of the time.  If you bet a lot of money it doesn't take much of an edge to pay off.    
 
Now if you don't believe there is streakiness in video poker, then we have a different kind of  argument.
 
I will continue to read more (3 more books coming) , practice more and go to Vegas more (May 24-29) and we'll see what happens.  I've always had a tendency in life to go against the grain, and video poker is no different.  I listen to everyone I can, read all I can and use live experiences to help me come to a conclusion.  Its my decision, not a consensus.  So far in life I am very happy with my batting average.  
By the way everything you say I agree with for the long run, but I question the applicability to some of the short run swings that make up the long run.  Like you, I enjoy these discussions when I find the time for them.          Denny
 
 
I also enjoy these discussions. I will see if I can come up with a more telling argument. Obviously, I have not got my points across yet.
 

[denflo60]

Shadowman:  Just read an article titled "How long is the Long Run" part 2 in the May issue of Strictly Slots by a  John Robinson.  I don't know Mr Robinson's credentials but as I read the article , it seems to me in the second last paragraph of his article he is suggesting that in the short run (1,000 hands)  the mean point of the distribution  of hands can vary +/- 25% from  the 99.5-6% of the long run run 100,000,000 hands for Jacks or Better VP.  I quote " The possible results after a small number of hands aren't normally distributed" unquote.
While Fa La La La La.... La la la la may bet more when he is behind and I bet more when I am ahead, we both agree there is something significantly different about the short run  that is worth going after in a way that differs from the traditional methodology of the long run advantage player. 
Shadowman,  if you find something you think I should read, let me know.  Otherwise I'll shut up for now.  Maybe in a few years, I think I have that many left, we can compare notes and see how our respective methods of play have treated us.  I keep quite good contemporaneous records for tax purposes.       
Hi Rob;  I'm Denny.  I lived in Northern Alabama for four years and the persona you portray in your writings is quite different than what  I picture for someone with a" babby bubba" moniker.  While I don't necessarily share some of your sarcastic  approach, I find you very stimulating.  I personally think that your challenge to the traditionalist is a great thing for Video Poker.  You are challenging  them in VP much like a few people today are challenging the great Paul Samuelson in Economics.  It took 20 or more years for them to prove that Samuelson's doctrine was only as good as his assumptions which are now being proved not to  be always correct for the short run.          Denny       

[babybubba]

Denny: I'll discuss anything about vp with you any time. The primary difference between shadow and myself is he obsesses over me and envy's everything I am and do--including the fact that I have a wife who's always worked in a professional position....while I don't care a thing about him and continually expose his biases and irrelavant assertions with ease. And oh, his wife is just an extention of his video poker addiction. Adding to the pain.
 
Game, set & match: Fa La La La La.... La la la la. Again and again.

[Truth Teller]

[QUOTE=Truth Teller] But has anyone checked out the Nevada Gaming Commission lately?  Rules for VP machines lately? Think those payoff schedules determine payoff percentages?Think there's a rule that says the draw has to be random?Think again.
 
Yes, the rules are at:
 
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm#regs
 
The NV gaming regs state that VP must be random and fair and no secondary programming is allowed. You are also wrong on the implementation. All possible deals are NOT stored in EPROM, they are generated by the RNG. This is common knowledge. Just how much research did you do before posting here? Please "think again" before posting next time.
 [/QUOTE]You're wrong.And don't just post a link to the Gaming Commission and say I'm full of it...post the link to where it says VP is random and fair, and no secondary programming is allowed.You made three claims.Now I challenge you to prove themOf course, others can go click on that link and search far and wide...and they'll search, and search, and in the end, nowhere does it say that VP has to be fair, or random, etc.

[Truth Teller]

Here we goooooooooo.......14.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices. All gaming devices submitted for approval:1. Must theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts wagered, which must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device.(a) Gaming devices that may be affected by player skill must meet this standard when using a method of play that will provide the greatest return to the player over a period of continuous play.Regulation 14, Manufacturers, Distributors, etc. Page 5(Rev. 3/06)(b) The chairman may waive the 75 percent standard if the manufacturer can show to the chairman’s satisfaction that this requirement inhibits design of the device or is inappropriate under the circumstances, the device theoretically pays out at least 75 percent of all wagers made whenall wagers are played equally, and the device otherwise meets the standards of subsections 2through 6. A waiver will be effective when the manufacturer receives written notification from the chairman that this standard will be waived pursuant to this paragraph. A waiver of this standard pursuant to this paragraph is not an approval of the device.2. 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.(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. For other gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any gameoutcome must be constant.(c) The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method of play.3. Must display an accurate representation of the game outcome. After selection of the game outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary decision which affects the result shown to the player.4. Must display the rules of play and payoff schedule.5. Must not automatically alter paytables or any function of the device based on internal computation of the hold percentage.6. Must meet the technical standards adopted pursuant to section 14.050.7. Except for devices granted a waiver pursuant to subsections 1(b), or 8, each gaming device exposed for play in the State of Nevada by any gaming licensee, including an operator of a slot machine route, must meet the  standards and requirements set forth within subsection 1, as though the gaming device had been submitted for approval subsequent to September 28, 1989.8. The chairman of the board or his designee may waive the requirements of subsection 7 for a licensee exposing a gaming device to the public for play, if the licensee can demonstrate to the chairman’s satisfaction that:(a) After the waiver the aggregate theoretical payout for all amounts wagered on all gaming devices exposed for play by the licensee at a single establishment meets the 75 percent standard of subsection 1, and(b) The licensee is unable to bring the device into compliance with the requirements of subsection 1, because of excessive cost or the  unavailability of parts.Nowhere does it say that VP has to be fair.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.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.

[babybubba]

Oh no, here we go. I see another accusation of my using another alias coming. The shadow knows all. This has to be the last one because I do only have "3 computers"....unless I have friends.

[shadowman]

Oh no, here we go. I see another accusation of my using another alias coming. The shadow knows all. This has to be the last one because I do only have "3 computers"....unless I have friends.
 
Don't worry Rob. If what this guy is stating were true then all YOUR advice about using expert play 95% of the time would be useless. He's claiming your system is as worthless as any other.

[shadowman]

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.

 
 

[MikeA]

3. Must display an accurate representation of the game outcome. After selection of the game outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary decision which affects the result shown to the player.

 
I think this part of the reg is pertinent.  It would not be acceptable for a game to have logic built in that would, for example, insure that if a hand of 4 to a Royal was dealt, the program could NOT insure that the last card for the Royal would NOT be dealt on the draw.  That would be "secondary programming."
 
In fact, I seem to recall reading where exactly that happened in Las Vegas and the Gaming Commission took pretty heavy exception to it!