The "Greed Chip" strikes again

[olds442jetaway]

I have to be the bearer of worse news, but it is not that all unusual for me to go 2500 hands without a quad, then I will get 4 or 5 in a half hour. I still think there is something with the new rng chips. This never happened to me years ago.

[FAA]

The quoted rate is 1 in 423 JOB. What am I missing? I'm a slow player so I really notice when it's tight. If I go two cycles sans quad, I will one man boycott it. I lost $50 in 2.5 hrs on that thing. Peanuts in the larger scheme of things but enough to kill my day.

[onemoretry]

The quoted rate is 1 in 423 JOB. What am I missing? I'm a slow player so I really notice when it's tight. If I go two cycles sans quad, I will one man boycott it.

What you are missing is that it is not a rate, it is a long term statistical average. There are no "cycles", and there are no guarantees.

You can go hundreds, even thousands of hands without a quad. Conversely, you can hit a bunch of them in a small number of hands.

Dare I state: "It's totally random"?

[FAA]

Okay, I put too much stock in average. And we throw the term cycle around quite liberally. But you would still want that LT average to hold up, even in a relatively short session. I think giving it twice the LT average to produce is plenty of leeway. CYA Answer: That's why they call it gambling.  

[Vman96]

Okay, I put too much stock in average. And we throw the term cycle around quite liberally. But you would still want that LT average to hold up, even in a relatively short session. I think giving it twice the LT average to produce is plenty of leeway. CYA Answer: That's why they call it gambling.  



If you feel like leaving after a machine goes 2 cycles and never come back to it, that's ok, but unless you are in a big market, you'll eventually run out of machines to move to. A quadless drought of 2 cycles should happen 13.5% of the time.

[FAA]

Thanks for the stat, V. In the contracted but massive AC market, I can be more selective. Very frustrating experience.

[notes1]

 
What you are missing is that it is not a rate, it is a long term statistical average. There are no "cycles", and there are no guarantees.

You can go hundreds, even thousands of hands without a quad. Conversely, you can hit a bunch of them in a small number of hands.

Dare I state: "It's totally random"?
  to agree with your statement, one must presume that man can design and create something that can truely produce random results and that which is produced does not contain any allowable variations that casinos/manufacturers have injected, that are allowed by law, in any jurisdiction or tribal area, if any laws/regulations even exist.

[Minn. Fatz]

At some risk of repeating myself, here's where I come down. There are, what, 2-3 manufacturers of gaming machinery in the world? Each of them has to manufacture machines that meet the demanding standards of a Las Vegas where, from what I understand, machines get pulled for strict statistical testing constantly.If any one of these manufacturers were demonstrably found to have jiggered with the works in favor of the casinos, players would justifiably never, ever play any one of that firm's many, many machines again.Personally, I don't see where it makes sense for the manufacturers to make, and keep track of, some machines that are jiggered or jiggerable and others that are not, particularly in light of the strong probability they would bankrupt themselves if caught.The statement that a player's results lately are not as good as the results the player remembers getting previously or that a player didn't get any paying or high-paying hand in some period of time or number of attempts are anecdotes, not statistics. To conclude from anecdotal evidence that one or several of these kinds of occurrences, or even a general feeling that the games aren't paying off like people remember, means the manufacturers or casinos are jiggering machines one would first have to rule out a host of more likely causes including worse (but obvious) paytables, worse strategies, worse cash management, etc., etc., etc.

[djc32]

Great points MF.
What I cant understand is why any player who thinks the casinos can inject variations into the machines would continue to spend there time and $ on VP if they believe this to be true? And yet some of these same players post about spending thousands of $ and hundreds of hours a year playing. If you don't believe the game is fair, why play?

[FAA]

I do agree that all the machines are legitimate. But I've run into two machines in particular that I dub Icebox. I am much less inclined to play those given the choice. And in AC, there is always a choice. Again, losing $50 was not catastrophic. I well may have broken even on the next $50 and maybe a small win on the $50 after that.