How do cards work in video poker?
Dealt 3H TC TS 3C 4S
Held the 3's and T's
Hit draw and got 3H TC TS 3C 4S
It was my understanding of VP that if you threw away a card, it couldn't show up as a newly drawn card.. Has anyone else noticed this before? I wish I could remember the exact hand, but it seems as though the drink service was pretty good that day, so maybe my mind was playing tricks on me..
Basically I just want to know if there is a set of cards that can be drawn (52) and, once shown, are the cards removed from said set as they should be in standard draw poker?
For augments sake Ill assume you played in a place regulated like NV with class III VP.Quote: ajemeisterI'm fairly new to VP and just got started this last weekend. I'm curious as to how cards work in video poker because of something I saw that was strange.. I was playing Jacks or Better and while I don't remember the exact hand, I'll use this as a similar hand:
Dealt 3H TC TS 3C 4S
Held the 3's and T's
Hit draw and got 3H TC TS 3C 4S
It was my understanding of VP that if you threw away a card, it couldn't show up as a newly drawn card.. Has anyone else noticed this before? I wish I could remember the exact hand, but it seems as though the drink service was pretty good that day, so maybe my mind was playing tricks on me..
Basically I just want to know if there is a set of cards that can be drawn (52) and, once shown, are the cards removed from said set as they should be in standard draw poker?
Yes people have noticed this before unfortunately they are usually crazy. Multi-hand is different but only on subsequent hands.
I have played millions of hands of VP for years. I have only ever heard ROOMERS of a malfunction like this. Usually it's the dealt 4 Aces getting the 5th Ace story.
Because a friend (slightly crazy?) who played for me often thought this was happening ALL the time. I made a nice size bet with him. He had months to see it again, and call me when it happened. Guess what? He never seen it again(spooky).
Because of this, A group of us had a bounty for years after, on any such hand. Over 30 million hands went by and nothing.
PS. Holding 10 3 off is a horrible hold even if its an imaginary example.
Quote: ajemeisterBasically I just want to know if there is a set of cards that can be drawn (52) and, once shown, are the cards removed from said set as they should be in
standard draw poker?
Quote: GLI-113.3.6 Live Game Correlation. Unless otherwise denoted on the payglass, where the gaming
device plays a game that is recognizable to be a simulation of a live casino game such as Poker,
Blackjack, Roulette, etc., the same probabilities associated with the live game shall be evident in
the simulated game. For example, the odds of getting any particular number in Roulette where
there is a single zero (0) and a double zero (00) on the wheel, shall be 1 in 38; the odds of
drawing a specific card or cards in Poker shall be the same as in the live game.
3.3.8 Card Games. The requirements for games depicting cards being drawn from a deck are
the following:
a) At the start of each game/hand, the cards shall be drawn fairly from a randomly-shuffled
deck; the replacement cards shall not be drawn until needed, and in accordance with
game rules, to allow for multi-deck and depleting decks;
b) Cards once removed from the deck shall not be returned to the deck except as provided
by the rules of the game depicted; and
c) As cards are removed from the deck they shall be immediately used as directed by the
rules of the game (i.e., the cards are not to be discarded due to adaptive behavior by the
gaming device).
In most reputable places, they require somewhat fair games. GLI (a game certification organization) says that to pass their tests and get their blessing, the chances of drawing a card have to be the same as in the live game. A number of regulating authorities accept GLI certification as part of the approval process.
GLI-11 is a fascinating read, or a soporific, or both, depending on your state of mind.
The fact my friend was seeing it daily before he actually had to look and pay better attention. Then he never seen it again, once he started really looking, says it all for me. Then again, apparently electrons move just by knowing they are being watched.Quote: DRichI have a gold key (2341) on my keychain so on the rare occasion that it happens, I discreetly insert my key and go to the game recall screen. Amazingly, it never shows up as a duplicate.
Quote: DieterIn most reputable places, they require somewhat fair games. GLI (a game certification organization) says that to pass their tests and get their blessing, the chances of drawing a card have to be the same as in the live game. A number of regulating authorities accept GLI certification as part of the approval process.
GLI-11 is a fascinating read, or a soporific, or both, depending on your state of mind.
Thanks for this!
Quote: AxelWolfI have only ever heard ROOMERS of a malfunction like this
Come on man, you are killing me.
Quote:PS. Holding 10 3 off is a horrible hold even if its an imaginary example.
It was 2 pair.
Quote: AxelWolfThe fact my friend was seeing it daily before he actually had to look and pay better attention. Then he never seen it again, once he started really looking, says it all for me. Then again, apparently electrons move just by knowing they are being watched.
I have always wanted to witness a mistake such as duplicate cards. I don't care if it causes me to lose the hand, just to be able to take a picture of it would be worth more to me.
Quote: DRichI have a gold key (2341) on my keychain so on the rare occasion that it happens, I discreetly insert my key and go to the game recall screen. Amazingly, it never shows up as a duplicate.
Seriously?
Quote: ajemeisterThanks everyone! I think i just need to layoff the free drinks so much next time i guess.. and pay better attention, rather than mashing buttons so fast.. lol
Naaah, drink more and pay less attention. Forget what you discarded as soon as it's gone from the screen. And don't even look at your cards after the draw; the machine will pay you whether you notice your hand or not.
Ah yes i see now, I didn't really pay attention. I have yet to see this happen. Other strange things but not this.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceCome on man, you are killing me.
It was 2 pair.
Quote: ajemeisterI wish I could remember the exact hand, but it seems as though the drink service was pretty good that day, so maybe my mind was playing tricks on me..
This likely means you misremembered the exact suit and rank of the 5th card and got a 5th card of the same rank but a different suit back. Getting a card of the same rank back will happen 3/47ths of the time, or about 6.38% for any one card draw.
Quote: tringlomaneThis likely means you misremembered the exact suit and rank of the 5th card and got a 5th card of the same rank but a different suit back. Getting a card of the same rank back will happen 3/47ths of the time, or about 6.38% for any one card draw.
The good ol' Singer flip.
My best Singer flip ever was playing DDB. Dealt AA446. Held AA. drew... 446. Triple Singer Flip!!! The 4s were even in the same position.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe good ol' Singer flip.
My best Singer flip ever was playing DDB. Dealt AA446. Held AA. drew... 446. Triple Singer Flip!!! The 4s were even in the same position.
Why is it called that? Did he claim it happened too much? I know it annoys me when it happens though...
Quote: tringlomaneWhy is it called that? Did he claim it happened too much? I know it annoys me when it happens though...
I never followed the whole Rob Singer drama but my understanding is that he claimed that certain machines were gaffed and would give you the same rank back on a 1-card draw more often than they should.
The Wizard actually met up with him and tried to perform an experiment to test his theory. There is a page about it somewhere on WoO.
It is annoying, and very easy to notice, so it is perfect for "selective memory" to take over.
Quote: tringlomaneWhy is it called that? Did he claim it happened too much? I know it annoys me when it happens though...
Yeah, he claims that the fifth card flip over would often be the same rank but different suit. And far to often for chance.
Rob Singer said he hooked up some German oscilloscope tool to a machine and ran millions of tests to prove it. Considering he couldn't explain -how- he did that or show documentation of the results, I'd suggest he was spinning a yarn.
Quote: thecesspitYeah, he claims that the fifth card flip over would often be the same rank but different suit. And far to often for chance.
Rob Singer said he hooked up some German oscilloscope tool to a machine and ran millions of tests to prove it. Considering he couldn't explain -how- he did that or show documentation of the results, I'd suggest he was spinning a yarn.
Well if he used an oscilloscope he must be right. I use one of those when debugging software all the time. gdb is for suckers.
HOWEVER...
First of all, the chance of a non-random (i.e., cheating) video poker machine, in ANY jurisdiction, is much, much, much higher than the general public believes and the casinos would have you trust in. You probably have a smaller chance of encountering a dishonest machine on the Vegas Strip than you do in Big Wampum Indian Casino and Smoke Shop in western Kansas, but that chance is by no means zero, or even close to it. That said...
Quite a few years ago, a major slot machine manufacturer programmed some of the first non-mechanical determinant slots (these are slots where the final reel positions are determined by a computer, not by the physical motion of the reels; all slot machines work this way now). The individual reel outcomes were perfectly, acceptably random, but how they were presented was not. For example, let's say that Reel 1 was a blank, Reel 2 was a 7, and Reel 3 was a 7. Instead of showing blank-7-7, the results would be rearranged to 7-7-blank, creating a false impression of an "almost" win. A few gamblers took exception to this deception and filed suit. The suit was tossed because a) a gaming industry company was the defendant and b) the decision was that the outcome of the game wasn't being altered (a loss was a loss).
What I am leading up to is that this false "almost win" presentation was incorporated into video poker machines, too. You would, for example, hold the K of spades and draw four, and it would come out spade-spade-spade-heart--never heart-spade-spade-spade. Again, the result was not affected but the player's perception of it was. This "intentional bug" was eliminated on newer machines but is by no means gone. For one thing, software for a newer version of a machine is usually not completely rewritten.
What happened in many of these older machines is that you would discard, say, the A of spades and hold 5-6-7-8, and, if the card that was drawn (or, to be drawn) wasn't a 4 or 9, then the machine would treat all outcomes as equal, including an (illegal) redraw of the same discarded card. This was truly a bug but wasn't universally fixed. It would only happen under certain conditions and not all the time would it be possible. One anecdotal occurrence was, in fact, the one-card draw to an outside straight. I've had it happen to me, dozens of others have reported it, and I'm sure most of those who are reading this are sneering and about to post some scathing comment on selective memory and how I must be a complete idiot, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Folks, don't bother.
I have several contacts in the slot/VP machine industry who have provided me with the above information and who have repeatedly warned me that no, VP machines are NOT random insofar as CARD SELECTION, just RESULTS. Because of the abovementioned court decision, all losing draws (or spins) are treated as equivalent and can be presented/rearranged in any manner the machine manufacturer desires. The glitch that produced the identical redraw is an artifact of this. NOTE: this did NOT alter the odds of completing the straight, as the redrawn card would only be randomized if the hand was going to be a loser anyway.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI never followed the whole Rob Singer drama but my understanding is that he claimed that certain machines were gaffed and would give you the same rank back on a 1-card draw more often than they should.
The Wizard actually met up with him and tried to perform an experiment to test his theory. There is a page about it somewhere on WoO.
Chat with Rob Singer
Quote: tringlomaneQuote: ajemeisterI wish I could remember the exact hand, but it seems as though the drink service was pretty good that day, so maybe my mind was playing tricks on me..
This likely means you misremembered the exact suit and rank of the 5th card and got a 5th card of the same rank but a different suit back. Getting a card of the same rank back will happen 3/47ths of the time, or about 6.38% for any one card draw.
Likely but by no means the only explanation. This has happened far too many times to far too many people--many of whom were NOT drunk or even close to it--for it to be solely an alligators-in-the-sewers type of urban legend. See my previous post. I don't doubt that most of the time, the discarded card was misremembered. But we should NOT--should NEVER--take it on faith that a given game, machine, etc. is random and fair, and therefore, we should have our antennae up at all times. Part of that SHOULD be not lifting our legs and peeing on anyone who reports seemingly anomalous results. The casinos have, in fact, been caught cheating thousands of times. We aren't dealing with priests and monks here, but rather, greedy, amoral, profit-driven entities staffed by people who barely comprehend ethics, let alone practice them.
Quote: EaglesnestThe short answer is, "no, you're not supposed to get the same card back--it's not in the (virtual) deck for the redraw."
HOWEVER...
First of all, the chance of a non-random (i.e., cheating) video poker machine, in ANY jurisdiction, is much, much, much higher than the general public believes and the casinos would have you trust in. You probably have a smaller chance of encountering a dishonest machine on the Vegas Strip than you do in Big Wampum Indian Casino and Smoke Shop in western Kansas, but that chance is by no means zero, or even close to it. That said...
Quite a few years ago, a major slot machine manufacturer programmed some of the first non-mechanical determinant slots (these are slots where the final reel positions are determined by a computer, not by the physical motion of the reels; all slot machines work this way now). The individual reel outcomes were perfectly, acceptably random, but how they were presented was not. For example, let's say that Reel 1 was a blank, Reel 2 was a 7, and Reel 3 was a 7. Instead of showing blank-7-7, the results would be rearranged to 7-7-blank, creating a false impression of an "almost" win. A few gamblers took exception to this deception and filed suit. The suit was tossed because a) a gaming industry company was the defendant and b) the decision was that the outcome of the game wasn't being altered (a loss was a loss).
What I am leading up to is that this false "almost win" presentation was incorporated into video poker machines, too. You would, for example, hold the K of spades and draw four, and it would come out spade-spade-spade-heart--never heart-spade-spade-spade. Again, the result was not affected but the player's perception of it was. This "intentional bug" was eliminated on newer machines but is by no means gone. For one thing, software for a newer version of a machine is usually not completely rewritten.
What happened in many of these older machines is that you would discard, say, the A of spades and hold 5-6-7-8, and, if the card that was drawn (or, to be drawn) wasn't a 4 or 9, then the machine would treat all outcomes as equal, including an (illegal) redraw of the same discarded card. This was truly a bug but wasn't universally fixed. It would only happen under certain conditions and not all the time would it be possible. One anecdotal occurrence was, in fact, the one-card draw to an outside straight. I've had it happen to me, dozens of others have reported it, and I'm sure most of those who are reading this are sneering and about to post some scathing comment on selective memory and how I must be a complete idiot, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Folks, don't bother.
I have several contacts in the slot/VP machine industry who have provided me with the above information and who have repeatedly warned me that no, VP machines are NOT random insofar as CARD SELECTION, just RESULTS. Because of the abovementioned court decision, all losing draws (or spins) are treated as equivalent and can be presented/rearranged in any manner the machine manufacturer desires. The glitch that produced the identical redraw is an artifact of this. NOTE: this did NOT alter the odds of completing the straight, as the redrawn card would only be randomized if the hand was going to be a loser anyway.
Do you have a citation for this? If there was a lawsuit and it was thrown out for the reasons that you claim, there must be a public record.
Quote: MidwestAP
I like the last line. His pseudonym is Rob Singer because of his nemesis Bob Dancer!
Quote: RSQuote: MidwestAP
I like the last line. His pseudonym is Rob Singer because of his nemesis Bob Dancer!
Hey your username is "RS".... Rob Singer's intials are RS.....
Quote:"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." Source: Regulation 14.020.2b (PDF, 87K)
Which means that we can safely discard what Eaglesnest is saying as complete nonsense. The probability of a symbol appearing must be correct, not just the probability of an outcome. This only applies to Nevada, of course, although it's my understanding that many states have similar laws or regulations.
Quote: Eaglesnest
I have several contacts in the slot/VP machine industry who have provided me with the above information and who have repeatedly warned me that no, VP machines are NOT random insofar as CARD SELECTION, just RESULTS. Because of the abovementioned court decision, all losing draws (or spins) are treated as equivalent and can be presented/rearranged in any manner the machine manufacturer desires.
I have programmed both Class II & III video poker games for major manufacturers and I can tell you that none of them have worked that way.
I assume the slot machine scenario you were referring to was the "near miss" that Universal Magnificent 7's games got in trouble with. I believe that was in the late 1980's and Nevada Gaming required all manufacturers to refrain from "programmed near misses" in the future.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDo you have a citation for this? If there was a lawsuit and it was thrown out for the reasons that you claim, there must be a public record.
It was quite a while ago--as I said, it was when reel slots changed over to computer-generated rather than mechanical results. I'm sure it's in the public record, but I'm not inclined to go digging for it. You can, of course, take this to mean that I'm full of shit and call me a few (misspelled) names if you wish.
Steve Bourie mentions a similar scandal in http://www.americancasinoguide.com/slot-machines/are-slot-machines-honest.html which relates to the "near-miss feature" I alluded to. He also mentions the American Coin video poker scandal. I can't find anything about the lawsuit that I mentioned, but it's old enough that it might not be mentioned anywhere on the internet. It was at least twenty years ago--predating the issues that Bourie discusses.
My personal take on the "chip inspection" practice for the purposes of verifying randomness is that I have never, nor has anyone I know, seen Gaming Control officials march onto a casino floor, shut down a randomly selected machine, and then confiscate the chip/motherboard that contains the machine's software. Without such a practice or something similar, any "inspection" would be meaningless.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAlso from that article:
Quote:"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." Source: Regulation 14.020.2b (PDF, 87K)
Which means that we can safely discard what Eaglesnest is saying as complete nonsense. The probability of a symbol appearing must be correct, not just the probability of an outcome. This only applies to Nevada, of course, although it's my understanding that many states have similar laws or regulations.
Yes, I was certain that someone would react the way you did, and as insultingly as possible. You may disagree with what I said but it's not "complete nonsense." So a law exists prohibiting casino cheating. So what?
Touching naivete such as yours about the lily-white purity and honesty of casinos is what keeps them in business. As does faith in the shining white knights of state-run casino regulatory agencies.
Enjoy your tinfoil-hat theories. What keeps the casinos in business is not cheating, it's is the simple fact that their games have a built-in house edge even if you play perfectly, and most people play far (very, very far) from perfectly, significantly increasing the house edge. Simple math is all you need, no tinfoil required.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAnd I heard that if no one takes a hit at the blackjack table the dealer won't bust!!!
Enjoy your tinfoil-hat theories. What keeps the casinos in business is not cheating, it's is the simple fact that their games have a built-in house edge even if you play perfectly, and most people play far (very, very far) from perfectly, significantly increasing the house edge. Simple math is all you need, no tinfoil required.
Your silly tinfoil-hat analogy discarded as it should be, cheating increases profits. This is true in the casino industry AND the outside world. Businesses that are already profitable cheat their customers ALL THE TIME. To say that they are already profitable and therefore don't need to cheat is, again, breathtakingly naïve.
That aside, the cheating I have been discussing is not altering results per se; it's altering the appearance of said results in order to induce people to play longer. That's a subtle distinction from garden-variety cheating, but well within your ken. (Do you REALLY think that casinos never cheat???)
Quote: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.
But don't do it in a way that increases their edge?
Do you have any proof?
Just 99.9999% of the time. Of course there have been situations of unfair machines. however it's not enough to keep an antenna up, that's for sure, that leads to tinfoil hat's. Perhaps some people should keep an open mind, but anything like this should be meet with absolute skepticism first.Quote: Eaglesnest
Likely but by no means the only explanation.
If you are talking about what the OP claims. Its not happening to any more of a degree than a simple urban legend. The odds of it happening are astronomical. You are welcome to show proof. happy to make a wager of some kind.Quote: Eaglesnest
This has happened far too many times to far too many people--many of whom were NOT drunk or even close to it--for it to be solely an alligators-in-the-sewers type of urban legend.
People claim all this crap is happening but they are almost never willing to back any claims up or put money were there mouth is.
If i'm willing to make a claim I believe in, no matter how crazy , I'm willing to show proof, wager on it or just exploit it. I have done all of that in various situations.
To the OP: Your mind is playing tricks on you. Most likely you had a 5 of hearts and re-drew and got a 5 of diamonds or something along those lines. I could have sworn, I re-drew the same card like 6 different times. You notice it most when you hold 4 cards and redraw, whether 2 pairs, 4 of the same suite or the biggie, holding 4 to a royal. Finally after I could have sworn (and I don't even drink anymore) this happened about 6 times, I started verbally saying the discard out loud, whenever I hold 4 and discard one, and in the couple years since I have been practicing this, I have never had one of those "could have sworn" moments again. But I have had plenty of the drawing the same number and even color. If you are not REALLY paying attention, your mind works against you.
What you are saying is that the slot machines manufactures are cheating the player. Why would a manufacturer ever cheat when the same result can be achieved by legal means without any transparency to the player?
Your anecdotal experience of never seeing a machine taking off the floor by GCB is really irrelevant. I have never seen a cheater handcuffed at the blackjack table, however, I do know that it happens. I have also never seen nor has anyone I personally know physically witnessed someone win $1 million on a machine before, but it doesn't mean that it has never happened.
Quote: tongniAFAIK, there's a regulation that determines how often that the "near-miss" can come up. It's like 6:1 in terms of near miss to actual hit.
It's not on the books of any state I'm aware of. Also no longer in GLI-11. But it supposedly used to be there though according to CrystalMath I think. All that's required now is "no near misses" (i.e. near-misses not naturally caused by RNG results). I would assume IGT and most other major manufacturers roughly follow this 6:1 ratio in practice though.
Quote: Eaglesnest
My personal take on the "chip inspection" practice for the purposes of verifying randomness is that I have never, nor has anyone I know, seen Gaming Control officials march onto a casino floor, shut down a randomly selected machine, and then confiscate the chip/motherboard that contains the machine's software. Without such a practice or something similar, any "inspection" would be meaningless.
I have witnessed Nevada Gaming and GLI test thousands of slot machines on a casino floor. They do not need to confiscate anything to do this. In the past they used a Kobetron machine to verify the EPROM signatures against a database of approved chips. The testing is done right at the machine by either removing the EPROMS and putting them in the Kobetron machine or by removing whatever type of media it is and connecting it to a laptop to verify it. Today most of the newer games have hard drives, DVD ROMS, SD cards, etc. They are verified using standard hashing algorithms.
Quote: DRichI have witnessed Nevada Gaming and GLI test thousands of slot machines on a casino floor. They do not need to confiscate anything to do this. In the past they used a Kobetron machine to verify the EPROM signatures against a database of approved chips. Today most of the newer games have hard drives, DVD ROMS, SD cards, etc. They are verified using standard hashing algorithms.
Clearly you are in on the conspiracy.
Quote: AxelWolfJust 99.9999% of the time. Of course there have been situations of unfair machines. however it's not enough to keep an antenna up, that's for sure, that leads to tinfoil hat's. Perhaps some people should keep an open mind, but anything like this should be meet with absolute skepticism first.
If you are talking about what the OP claims. Its not happening to any more of a degree than a simple urban legend. The odds of it happening are astronomical. You are welcome to show proof. happy to make a wager of some kind.
People claim all this crap is happening but they are almost never willing to back any claims up or put money were there mouth is.
If i'm willing to make a claim I believe in, no matter how crazy , I'm willing to show proof, wager on it or just exploit it. I have done all of that in various situations.
It's "their." (And "where.") Don't trust your autocorrect.
As this effect does not actually affect the outcome as far as the decision on the wager, it's not exploitable. Also, by its very nature, it's impossible to prove that it has happened unless you were somehow able to successfully demand that the machine be opened up and the hand record shown (and good luck with that). I fully agree that most of the time, a person who perceives this effect is simply misremembering and that nothing untoward has occurred. My point was more along the lines of: if you see something strange happening, you shouldn't automatically assume that your eyes are playing tricks on you--nor should you automatically assume that the person who tells you of such an event was similarly afflicted. And of course, the obvious--you should never assume that a casino is honest.
Quote: tongniAFAIK, there's a regulation that determines how often that the "near-miss" can come up. It's like 6:1 in terms of near miss to actual hit. So, on a mechanical three reel slot, the empty stops below and above the jackpot symbol would occur 6 times more often than the jackpot symbol, aka weighted stops. On your typical machine that has 128 (?) positions for each symbol, you didn't really think the reel in the machine was 128 units long?
What you are saying is that the slot machines manufactures are cheating the player. Why would a manufacturer ever cheat when the same result can be achieved by legal means without any transparency to the player?
Your anecdotal experience of never seeing a machine taking off the floor by GCB is really irrelevant. I have never seen a cheater handcuffed at the blackjack table, however, I do know that it happens. I have also never seen nor has anyone I personally know physically witnessed someone win $1 million on a machine before, but it doesn't mean that it has never happened.
This doesn't strike you as cheating--that the manufacturer can alter an otherwise randomly generated outcome? Well, the court in the case I mentioned said it was perfectly legal, too, so maybe it isn't really cheating to fool the player into thinking he has "almost" won. Casino morality is different than Earth morality, after all :)
Why would a casino cheat when doing so would increase its profits and be completely undetectable? I know--because that would be WRONG!
My "anecdotal evidence" includes having asked over 100 people who have spent extensive amounts of time in the casino (VP pros) whether they had ever witnessed such a thing. So I give it a fair amount of weight. I haven't, nor has anyone else seen, any SURPRISE inspection--and that's the key. If they remove a chip/motherboard and take it somewhere to analyze it, that's an utterly meaningless gesture if the casino has any warning.
Your comparisons are invalid from my own experience at least, because I've seen two people get arrested at the BJ table and also watched someone hit Megabucks. I realize, duh, that my not having seen something happened doesn't mean it never has. I do think, though, that of over 100 people over the course of a decade, one would have witnessed a surprise machine inspection (again, the only kind that would have any significance) if such inspections ever happened.
Quote: EaglesnestIt's "their." (And "where.") Don't trust your autocorrect.
If there's one person on this forum who should trust their autocorrect...
Quote: EaglesnestThe short answer is, "no, you're not supposed to get the same card back--it's not in the (virtual) deck for the redraw."
HOWEVER...
First of all, the chance of a non-random (i.e., cheating) video poker machine, in ANY jurisdiction, is much, much, much higher than the general public believes and the casinos would have you trust in. You probably have a smaller chance of encountering a dishonest machine on the Vegas Strip than you do in Big Wampum Indian Casino and Smoke Shop in western Kansas, but that chance is by no means zero, or even close to it. That said...
Quite a few years ago, a major slot machine manufacturer programmed some of the first non-mechanical determinant slots (these are slots where the final reel positions are determined by a computer, not by the physical motion of the reels; all slot machines work this way now). The individual reel outcomes were perfectly, acceptably random, but how they were presented was not. For example, let's say that Reel 1 was a blank, Reel 2 was a 7, and Reel 3 was a 7. Instead of showing blank-7-7, the results would be rearranged to 7-7-blank, creating a false impression of an "almost" win. A few gamblers took exception to this deception and filed suit. The suit was tossed because a) a gaming industry company was the defendant and b) the decision was that the outcome of the game wasn't being altered (a loss was a loss).
What I am leading up to is that this false "almost win" presentation was incorporated into video poker machines, too. You would, for example, hold the K of spades and draw four, and it would come out spade-spade-spade-heart--never heart-spade-spade-spade. Again, the result was not affected but the player's perception of it was. This "intentional bug" was eliminated on newer machines but is by no means gone. For one thing, software for a newer version of a machine is usually not completely rewritten.
What happened in many of these older machines is that you would discard, say, the A of spades and hold 5-6-7-8, and, if the card that was drawn (or, to be drawn) wasn't a 4 or 9, then the machine would treat all outcomes as equal, including an (illegal) redraw of the same discarded card. This was truly a bug but wasn't universally fixed. It would only happen under certain conditions and not all the time would it be possible. One anecdotal occurrence was, in fact, the one-card draw to an outside straight. I've had it happen to me, dozens of others have reported it, and I'm sure most of those who are reading this are sneering and about to post some scathing comment on selective memory and how I must be a complete idiot, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Folks, don't bother.
I have several contacts in the slot/VP machine industry who have provided me with the above information and who have repeatedly warned me that no, VP machines are NOT random insofar as CARD SELECTION, just RESULTS. Because of the abovementioned court decision, all losing draws (or spins) are treated as equivalent and can be presented/rearranged in any manner the machine manufacturer desires. The glitch that produced the identical redraw is an artifact of this. NOTE: this did NOT alter the odds of completing the straight, as the redrawn card would only be randomized if the hand was going to be a loser anyway.
Eaglesnest, we've all seen this movie here many times before. A poster makes uncited, unsourced, suspect, claims....that get disagreed with from many quarters on WoV. When the poster see's the number of subsequent posters who disagree with his claims he develops a seige mentality....then claims that those who disagree are scathing, sneering, ranting, etc. No one is doing any of that. We just disagree.
Forget the seige mentality and cite the lawsuit. Cite your several contacts in the slot/VP machine industry. Don't leave us in the lurch. Deliver some meat and potatoes.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIf there's one person on this forum who should trust their autocorrect...
If you mean me, I don't use autocorrect at all, because of the many errors it makes. I trust my own spelling, and live with the occasional typo. If you were trying to make some kind of snide backhanded attack, it just failed miserably, as so many of your other little swipes have.
You seem unable to admit the possible validity of any opinions that disagree with your own. This is a valid attitude when you are utterly, completely knowledgeable. Otherwise, not so much.
Quote: EaglesnestIf you mean me
I mean AxelWolf. I think that's pretty clear. Don't be so paranoid.
Quote: mickeycrimmEaglesnest, we've all seen this movie here many times before. A poster makes uncited, unsourced, suspect, claims....that get disagreed with from many quarters on WoV. When the poster see's the number of subsequent posters who disagree with his claims he develops a seige mentality....then claims that those who disagree are scathing, sneering, ranting, etc. No one is doing any of that. We just disagree.
Forget the seige mentality and cite the lawsuit. Cite your several contacts in the slot/VP machine industry. Don't leave us in the lurch. Deliver some meat and potatoes.
Didn't I already say I couldn't locate any references to the lawsuit, because it was quite a while ago? I do further recall that it was in 1988, and that the Nevada Gaming Control Board sued the manufacturer--but I still don't remember who that manufacturer was, nor am I inclined to drive to Carson City and search the archives. I, in point of fact, don't really give a rabbit's rectum whether anyone here believes me or not. You can think that I made the whole thing up if you wish (though you COULD read the article I provided a link to--that is enough of a "citation" IMHO).
As far as "just disagreeing"---I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is to screech "prove it!!!!" at anyone who makes a claim that sounds dubious. However, on the internet, a phenomenon exists which I will call "the unbenefit of the doubt." It's when everyone is more or less automatically assumed to be lying, and that is said so directly to the poster/blogger/etc. I suspect one of the reasons that the unbenefit is the default setting is that in the real world, calling someone a liar/full of shit has negative consequences. Not so on the internet! It's rather easy to develop what you call a "siege mentality" when everyone who disagrees with you does so with a lack of social grace that would shame a four-year-old child.
I didn't say, because it seemingly didn't need to be said, that actually NAMING any of the people who gave me the information I referenced could be very harmful to their careers, so I didn't violate their confidence! And anyway--given your (plural) already hyper-skeptical mentality about this topic, would my actually saying, "Fred Fonebone, director of IT Operations at Bally Slots, told me this" afford it any additional weight whatsoever in your mind? Don't demand something that you know wouldn't make any difference in your perceptions!
Again, this particular incident didn't happen in isolation. There are many, easily searchable subsequent instances of slot/VP machine manufacturer malfeasance. And to name a particular, yes, I admit anecdotal and lacking proof instance from your stomping ground of Montana, I encountered several VP machines on the Blackfoot reservation that SHOULD have returned 112% based on the paytable, but somehow everyone always lost. They were double joker machines, and one thing I noticed is that when dealt both jokers, one NEVER finished with better than three of a kind (a push). And the machines were made by Bally.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI mean AxelWolf. I think that's pretty clear. Don't be so paranoid.
It's clear NOW.
Well then, don't fail to name someone at whom you're flinging (what sounds like) an insult and then be indignant at the confusion it causes.
Also, don't do that and then call someone paranoid when they react to it. The error was yours. I accept your unapology :)
Quote: EaglesnestI suspect one of the reasons that the unbenefit is the default setting is that in the real world, calling someone a liar/full of shit has negative consequences.
Not among intelligent people. It is common to ask for references when someone makes a dubious claim.
The fact that there was a lawsuit against a slot machine manufacturer several decades ago is irrelevant. The claims that you have made about video poker have been discredited by knowledgeable, credible people who actually work in the industry.
You are all over the place on this one. First you claimed that they do it because they are allowed to, due to some lawsuit about slot machines (not video poker) in the 80s. Then when you were shown a regulation that says that they are not allowed to, and, in fact, the probability of a card being displayed must exactly match the probability in a non-machine game, you claimed that they do it anyway because they cheat, and the regulations are meaningless, and Gaming never checks the machines anyway. When it was pointed out that they do, in fact, check the machines, you clammed up and started to go after different lines of argument.
You are clearly wrong. I suspect that at this point you know that you are wrong, but you are too proud to admit it, so you continue to fight this losing battle and spew this paranoid nonsense. Either that or you are really so paranoid and delusional that you have convinced yourself that you are right and that the casinos are cheating you in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
It sure is a nice coping mechanism to explain your losses. "It's because they are cheating! No way I lost fair and square!" We have all heard this a million times. It's tiring.
