For what it's worth.

[royal flush]

t t is talking fuzzy math with about 2,6 million hands the chances of each combination coming is equal

[bigboy]

[QUOTE=bigboy][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.

[/QUOTE]
 
If anyone understands TT's above answer, help me out.

[MikeA]

Well, from a programmer's point of view, it sounds like a total nightmare. 
 
What it seems is that TT is changing the focus of ramdomness from a simple 52 decreasing possibilities in a deck of cards to select 5 randomly, to a random sellection of one hand out of a table consisting of ALL the millions of potential hands (or however many unique hands are possible in a deck of 52 cards). 
 
And that represents only the initial draw. 
 
After that initial draw, there would have to be another table derived from the first table that would contain all the possible non-improving hands and possibly another table of hands that show improvement of that initial hold.
 
It boggles my mind to conceive of the number of tables that TT's ABSOLUTE TRUTH would require. 
 
Remember, there is only one hand in even a simple game like JOB that cannot be improved upon.  The first is a Royal Flush and that can be improved on in all but one case if there is a sequential royal bonus!
 
Even 4 Aces can be improve upon by throwing away all but one Ace and going for a Royal.
 
Think about it.  If you were dealt KKxxx, how many different hands are possible after the discard of the 3 insignificant cards?  There would have to be a table of all of those possibilities just for the KK hold.  Then, for every other possible combination of cards a player might hold from the initial draw!  And, to complicate matters further, I believe TT used two tables, one resulting in improvement and the other for non-improvment with the non-improvment one weighted.  Or maybe I got a little confused by the specs provided.
 
I wonder how many eProms it would take to store that many table entries?  I wonder how physically large the machine would have to be to house them?
 
Makes perfect sense to me though.  I'm just glad that I wasn't asked to either develop the data for the eProms, maintain them or develop the logic to access them!  But as we always say in our industry, "ANYTHING is possible through programming!"
 

[shadowman]

We're way beyond ignorance or stupidity now...

This is just downright disinformation, and you serve someone's agenda, and it ain't the players'...

As I mentioned previously, if one EPROM stored all possible combinations (roughly 2.5 million), and another EPROM stored nothing but crap (let's use 500,000 for this example) hands (with symbols distributed equally within +- 5%), and a random generator picked a number between 1 and 3,000,000, the random generator would choose a "fair" hand 5/6 of the time, and a crap hand 1/6 of the time.

The symbols would be distributed equally.
The combinations would not be distributed equally.

The regs allow this.  The regs do not require combinations to have an equal chance.

You know this.  Yet you pretend otherwise.

Why?

 
The regs state that symbols (cards) are selected randomly. Not hands. Your example above is ILLEGAL. Try again.
 

[shadowman]

Let's make this disinformation-proof...

Let's use coins.  Let's design a game.

Two coins.
If you toss them and get 2 heads, you win.
If you get anything other than 2 heads, you lose.

Let's store these combinations in an EPROM.
There are four possible outcomes - HH, HT, TH, TT.

Let's add a second EPROM.  Store 2 combinations - HT and TH.

We now have 6 possible combinations.
Yet the heads and tails have equal chances.

Now let's choose a random number from 1 to 6.

The random numbers represent the following outcomes:

1 - EPROM #1, HH
2 - EPROM #1, HT
3 - EPROM #1, TH
4 - EPROM #1, TT
5 - EPROM #2, HT
6 - EPROM #2, TH

So if our random number generator picks a "1," we get heads-heads, and we win.

But if our random number generator picks a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, we lose.

The chances of winning ARE NOT 1 out of 4, they are 1 out of 6.
Yet, the symbols H and T will have an equal chance.

THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT FOLKS.
AND THE REGS DO NOT STOP THEM.


 
According to the regs the "H" and the "T" would be symbols. They are required to be selected randomly on each play. Anything else (like your example) would be illegal. Yawn.
 
PS. MikaA's example just touches on the volume of electronics required to implement TT's claim for VP. The cost would be enormous. TT still hasn't answered several other critiques of his claims. I wonder why ...
 

[shadowman]

On machines that, by law, do not have to deal a random combination of cards.
On machines that, by law, only have to have a min payout of 75%, regardless of how they appear.

Is it any wonder I am attacked?
 
Where has TT been attached? As far as I can tell TT is the only one doing ANY attacking. The members of this forum have been very patient and responded with factual data to refute TT's claims. Yet, TT continues to ignore those facts and state the same disproven claims over and over. Here's the facts one more time...
 

"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 game outcome must be constant."

[Webman]

Note to all:
"Truth Teller" has been suspended indefinitely for obvious violations of the rules of this forum.
 
As a parting note, had you taken the time to read this forum before jumping in to your accusations, you would know that the member you were getting into arguments with is not at all who you accuse him of being.
 
For others who did not read his messages prior to removal, various inflamatory statements were made about members of this forum as well as companies.

[royal flush]

thank you

[Minn. Fatz]

 
According to the regs the "H" and the "T" would be symbols. They are required to be selected randomly on each play.
 
 
For those who might object, "but if the individual symbols are each appearing half the time, who's to say the game isn't 'fair' even if it only pays once out of six trials instead of four?"
 
What shadowman (and the regs) is saying is that, for video games that use cards, dice, wheels, or anything else used in a "live" game, the symbols have to be selected randomly independently of each other. The regulators know that, if that is the case, the machine will pay off one time out of four; they can calculate what the hold for that machine would be; and if a lot of machines are way off, they can (in most jurisdictions) just take them away and investigate and charge the people who are responsible for making them that way.
 
In the dear departed TT's example, even though the symbols appear in accordance with random expectations, the second symbol is not independent of the first (it's more likely to be T if the first is H; conversely it's more likely to be H if the first is T!)
 
It would be like going to the craps table and getting two dice, one with two ones, two fives and two sixes and the other with two twos, threes and fours. The individual numbers would each show up one time out of six as expected, but there would be no doubles and fewer sevens. Probably no one would play that game, and it wouldn't be allowed to run on any machine.
 
Apologies if I'm plowing old ground here.

[shadowman]

Apologies if I'm plowing old ground here.
 
None required. It never hurts to clarify.
 
I suspect there may have been a few lurkers who were tempted to believe TT. The gambling world is full of myths about casinos and machines. Some folks will never believe VP (or any game) is on the up and up without strong evidence to the contrary.