The game is not the same !

[BillyJoe]

[QUOTE=shadowman]  Randomness is pretty well defined. Any algorithm that doesn't generate cards with equal frequencies at each position is not random. /QUOTE]

I'm hesitant to weigh in here. I do not have a math degree.

However, when I use the word random I do not use the definition SM does. SM is combining "random" with "fair." Those are different concepts.

Random includes the concept of unknowable in advance. Fair includes each unseen card has an equal chance of appearing.

For example, let's assume we had a program that conceptually rolled fair dice --- except that if 66 were rolled, the dice would be conceptually rolled again. (You would still get 66 if the machine rolled it twice in a row .)

We all agree that this machine wouldn't be fair --- but I believe the results are still random. Neglecting for simplicity the chance of 66 twice, a roll like 21 (or 12) would have a 2-in-35 chance of appearing. Same with 45 (or 54) and any other non-pair. Pairs (11, 22, 33, 44, 55 but not 66) would each have a 1-in-35 random chance of appearing.

This is very definitely a semantic disagreement as to what 'random' means. SM and WJ aren't in agreement as what the definition of that word is. If they agreed on the definition, they are both knowledgeable enough to agree on the conclusions. But hurling insults back and forth because they don't agree on the definition doesn't move the discussion along in a useful fashion

Bob


Good observation, Bob, and a nice analogy.
 
I think that we can all agree that things like continuous shuffling and more frequent re-seeding in VP can help ensure that any particular hand outcome is random.
 
But, from your experience and knowledge, is there ANY evidence in the VP world that would suggest that an IGT VP machine can be set-up to run a "do-over" if a particular random hand, such as an RF, occurs?

[Vman96]

However, when I use the word random I do not use the definition SM does. SM is combining "random" with "fair." Those are different concepts.Random includes the concept of unknowable in advance. Fair includes each unseen card has an equal chance of appearing.

This is a good point. Class II video poker units are "random" too. It's just that the probabilities of final hands, which are predetermined via bingo draws, are skewed toward the lower ends of the paytable.

Example of a Class II Video poker game with 9/6 JoB

Hand...Probability...Payout
Royal...0.00025...800
SF...0.00011111...50
4 of a Kind...0.002...25
Full House...0.01...9
Flush...0.01...6
Straight...0.125...4
Three of a Kind...0.07...3
Two Pair...0.12...2
Jacks or Better...0.23...1
Nothing...0.5453666667...0
Total...1.00000...0.9533333

This game is random, but would also violate Nevada and many other states' laws including New Jersey since they demand that cards must appear with equal probability. But as long as the player knows it isn't from a poker deck where each card is equally likely and they know that wins are predetermined, you could even argue the paytable above is "fair". But to 99.9% of players it's misleading since they assume the cards of the deck appear with equal probability like they would in Vegas. So personally I think Class II video poker is a bunch of crap and really shouldn't be allowed. But, nevertheless, it is still a random game.

Because if doing something like above was legal in New Jersey, Revel should have done this for their loss promo instead of changing all the pay tables to < 98%!    Well, maybe, Revel's management is probably too dumb to do something like above even if it was legal to do so.   

[Onenickelmiracl]

Random is such a vague word, but the public automatically assumes random must have to be fair, but it doesn't often. Player clubs promotions are usually random but not fair, because nobody has to prove anything to anyone. Random by itself doesn't mean anything I agree. If someone thinks something isn't fair which should be, they need to prove it, though proving it may need to include breaking laws yourself since in NJ you need permission to tape in the casino. I never believed the taping thing was illegal if not playing tables, but a CBC article about Google Eye mentioned it specifically, though I have never seen the regulation nor heard of it before.

[Vman96]

Another good point, videotaping results would be beneficial in proof, but casinos obviously frown on that. So the best hope you have is to have detailed written records of every result. Casinos tend to frown on that too after they see you recording results for hours.

[shadowman]

Bob is correct that I simplified the discussion to avoid getting too technical. The regs in every state I have reviewed use "random and fair" so I usually try and keep it simple and just refer to it as randomness.

The main problem occurs with any algorithm that attempts to skew the results in any fashion. They generally end up with an unfair distribution of cards.

[williejoe]

ok----now let me see if i can respond to chips original post that "something" has changed in vp play without   getting into the mathematical details of the workings of dprng algorithms and how they are quantitatively evaluated----and i will admit that while i understand much of the math, there is stuff that is beyond me.
i restate that i do agree with chips that "something" has changed over the years in vp----and has really been more of an "evolution" rather than a sudden change. i would personally characterize these changes as the continuous efforts of igt to refine their dprng algorithms ( as well as card assignment and seeding schems ). the basic result of their efforts has been to create algorithm outputs that---as judged by very specific techincal criteria of a good dprng----produce a higher quality of "randomness". you can go to wikipedia and read about some of these characteristics of a dprng that are used to measure how good a particular dprng is.
in a technical sense the output of these refined algorithms has a higher quality of "randomness" than the vp programs that we played----lets say ten years ago.
the end results of all of this is that we get a vp game that in a technical sense is more "random", meets all the requirements of the state gaming regulations, is "fair"----and in theory should not change anyone's long term results in vp play.
so, what is the change that many of us long term vp players have noticed as a result of the above----just this---these extremly long non-repeating number streams generated by the dprng have fewer and shorter "hot" and "cold" ( hot/cold = good/bad hands) number segments-----the dprng number stream has been "smoothed".
that's enough for now----the next threads can debate how thses changes might impact the average vp player and the casinos.

[Vman96]

i restate that i do agree with chips that "something" has changed over the years in vp----and has really been more of an "evolution" rather than a sudden change. i would personally characterize these changes as the continuous efforts of igt to refine their dprng algorithms ( as well as card assignment and seeding schems ). the basic result of their efforts has been to create algorithm outputs that---as judged by very specific techincal criteria of a good dprng----produce a higher quality of "randomness". you can go to wikipedia and read about some of these characteristics of a dprng that are used to measure how good a particular dprng is.
in a technical sense the output of these refined algorithms has a higher quality of "randomness" than the vp programs that we played----lets say ten years ago.
the end results of all of this is that we get a vp game that in a technical sense is more "random", meets all the requirements of the state gaming regulations, is "fair"----and in theory should not change anyone's long term results in vp play.
so, what is the change that many of us long term vp players have noticed as a result of the above----just this---these extremly long non-repeating number streams generated by the dprng have fewer and shorter "hot" and "cold" ( hot/cold = good/bad hands) number segments-----the dprng number stream has been "smoothed".
that's enough for now----the next threads can debate how thses changes might impact the average vp player and the casinos.


RNGs have improved over the years, yes. But unless I misunderstand the level of improvement over the years, RNGs have been advanced enough to argue the game has always been random enough to be considered "fair" by people who understand this better than I do.

[shadowman]

One of the biggest changes that occurred about 10-15 years ago was a move to continuous shuffle. This adds another element of randomness. A person is not directly seeing the result of RNG. They are sampling the RNG at various points in time and skipping over thousands of RNG outputs. This essentially means that whatever algorithm used by the machine is unimportant as far as the results we see.

[BillyJoe]

So, the arguement could be made, then, that the "increase" in randomness should not be able to be "sensed" by the VP player, since it could just as easily move a good draw (ie - that 4th Ace) into your hand as it could keep it away from you. Your 'target card(s)' are screaming by you. Whether they are moving faster now, and with no detectable pattern, than they were 10 years ago should not alter an individual's results. It is still a 52 card deck (except Joker Poker and Five Aces).  
 
So why do people still claim that the game "feels' different?    

[onemoretry]

 
So why do people still claim that the game "feels' different?    
 Probably, they are experiencing a tough unlucky spell, (i.e. a losing streak), and are unwilling to accept that such down times can be a normal, but unwelcomed, part of the game.