Poker Today vs Poker Yesteryear

[spxChrome]

I think its fair to say VP today does not play the way it did years ago but how can that be if its all random.

Well I found this read without pimping the book here is an excerpt. And this guy apparently has talked to some of the developers of these new machines.

He claims that the new VP machines have "games have a much more sophisticated randomness program, using the limited-universe AI models of Meta-Game randomness."

He talks about a "Meta-Game that kicks in after the RNG has picked its cards... and this has the effect of further randomizing the results. To you, the player, this means that regularly occurring wins now seem to appear far less regularly. And that’s a fact. Although the final results are mathematically still the same... the frequency of common wins is no longer frequently apparent."

He also says that after the Meta-Game runs their is a third protocol that mathematically does not alter the machines pre-programmed payback percentage as based on the paytable. But it basically means that players now will see fewer common wins but now you will also hit fewer jackpots as a result with the third protocol.

He goes into depth about it but that's the just of it. So with the new machines and with the old machines getting new CPUs I guess this explains it.

[notes1]

appreciate the info, i just do not know what it means. how can the newer machines be more random, 'reglarly occurring wins less regular; 'common wins no longer frequently apparent' and still be mathematically the same. i know you did not write this but it sounds like double talk.call me a pessimist, but if the casinos/manufacturers have done something to the machines, they did not do it with the best interest of the players in mind. 

[FloridaPhil]

My results are not in any way scientific or factual and they most likely fall well within the bounds of randomness.  That said, I have made two observations in reference to how the new machines play. The first is that single coin jackpots seem to be more frequent and the second is max coin jackpots bunch up and have longer dead streaks between them.  It also seems more common these days to be dealt a jackpot out of the blue than to hit one with cards in the hand.   I don't know if this is factual but it sure seems like it on the machines I play.   Maybe in 1GB of hands it will even out for me... 

[Eduardo]

Right. If there are fewer jackpots and also fewer "common wins" and also the payback is not altered, then that means more mid-range wins to make up the difference. Unless I am missing something.

If that is the case then you would see a different percentage of winning "jacks or better" on a game like DDB than is shown in a program like video poker for winners. And JOB is easy to track (about 21% of the time in 9-6) so this would actually be pretty easy to determine with a modest amount of play.

Any of the regular players here with meticulous records interested in taking on the task?

Ideally other win types would be tracked as well. With the more common wins we can determine the truth of this fairly quickly.

Is this just a perception that more and more people seem to be having, or does the data back it up?

[wildman49]

I think its fair to say VP today does not play the way it did years ago but how can that be if its all random.

Just reading up on the sever base platform we as players are toast. The links  below are 7-8 year old, so today this is going on all over today as we all feel the casino tighten up.http://casinogambling.about.com/od/slot ... dKdo31Qxdg

[notes1]

Right. If there are fewer jackpots and also fewer "common wins" and also the payback is not altered, then that means more mid-range wins to make up the difference. Unless I am missing something.

 eduardo, this is an interesting possibility you brought up. if 'common wins' were described as pairs, two pairs and trips and 'jackpots' were quads, then mid-range could be FH, flush and straights. some players have commented they see longer dead periods, where they would get few common wins and many also complain they see less jackpots, aka quads. a lot of players will cash out or take their gains from a quad, but few cash out from the mid range wins. if there were more mid range wins, to make up the overall percentages stay the same, but players were not cashing them out, the casinos would benefit by players just playing those wins back into continued play and eventually losing. in other words, how many would cash out a win when they get a couple of FH and a flush, as opposed to those who cash out after a quad?    

[Vman96]

Once again...ILLEGAL with a vast majority of state laws.

And if it truly paid back the same percentage, why would the casino rig the variance of the game?? The casino actually wants a little variance! Otherwise, no one would play!!!

Edit: Notes explains a scenario where altering variance may help the casino. But once again...still ILLEGAL.

[notes1]

casinos and game manufactures employ experts that understand player behavior. they deploy this advice at every phase within the casino. draw them in, keep them playing and empty their wallets. if a game program was offered for gaming approval that had improved randomness and produced acceptible legal payouts, i would guess it would be authorized for use. if that same program just happened to reduce cashouts and benefited the casinos, that would be beyond the gaming control scope. 

[Vman96]

casinos and game manufactures employ experts that understand player behavior. they deploy this advice at every phase within the casino. draw them in, keep them playing and empty their wallets. if a game program was offered for gaming approval that had improved randomness and produced acceptible legal payouts, i would guess it would be authorized for use. if that same program just happened to reduce cashouts and benefited the casinos, that would be beyond the gaming control scope. 

The way laws are currently written in most states, this is wrong. Cards being displayed at you are supposed to be random at all times. This leads to a specific payout distribution thanks to the paytable and mathematics. Any other payout scheme (i.e. middle payouts are increased at the expense of higher and lower payouts) is illegal!

For those that think that IGT and casinos are in cahoots on breaking state laws about cheating the player, that I cannot prove.

This is the only forum I post at that claims it consistently though. I'm not shocked that Bob is frustrated here. At times I start to be...because no one on this forum wants to say, "I think casinos are actually breaking the law", people think it's still legally possible to manipulate VP games like slots (in most areas it is not!)

As for the other forums I post at as "tringlomane"...

Wizard of Vegas...yeah, people that believe this to be possibly true would be insulted left and right for even thinking it.

Vegas Message Board...most would still disagree with this idea even though they aren't math-oriented, but you wouldn't be insulted over it.

[notes1]

where did i state the cards were not random? where did i state there was collusion? i did not start this thread. i simply responded to a possible 'legal' programming modification, that could result in a change in player behavior.   as far as questioning the integrity and adherence to the strictest letter of the law by a casino or any other business or government agency, i apologize. i am just not capable of reading stories every day where laws were broken, some were not enforced or businesses tried to lobby for advantages, and then believe that casinos are beyond scandal. anytime money is involved, anything is possible. some may be weary of reading comments about how some feel the machines have changed, but i can assure you that there are also those of us who do not look forward to another post about a how a 1 or 2 tenths of a percent advantage is going to produce some great change in results. i am still waiting for a group of these math advantaged folks to produce results that show us 'recreational' players, how they are removing money from the casinos. verified results, not just claims to do so.