Debate: are all VP games non-random?
January 6th, 2011 at 12:13:59 AM
permalink
Rob Singer has made several controversial claims about video poker in his books and other writings. Among them are the assertions that:
1) All video poker machines everywhere are intentionally programmed with non-random software. This software acts as a safety-net, constraining the RTP (return-to-player, aka payback %) of the games to a specific range, the bounds of which are not outside the minimum and maximum allowable paybacks for a given jurisdiction (e.g. in Nevada, 75% lower bound).
2) There are confidential, non-public regulations in every relevant gaming jurisdiction which permit the intentionally-programmed non-randomness described above.
Elsewhere in this forum, I have asked Mr. Singer to provide evidence to support his claims #1 and #2, above. He has not done so. Mr. Singer is serving a suspension from this forum due to a violation of its rules, but he has contacted me by email. Per the forum rules, I may not quote from his messages to me, but they too contained no evidence. He did, however, offer that a public debate would be a suitable forum to address the question further and went so far as to suggest that he would be willing to attend such a debate. I believe he has indicated as much on this forum as well.
I therefore offer Mr. Singer a debate on the following proposition:
"All video poker machines contain intentionally non-random 'safety-net programming' which prevents the payback of a video poker machine from falling outside a specified payback range, and moreover there exist non-public regulations in all relevant gaming jurisdictions which permit such non-random programming."
I will take the negative. The debate will be judged by a mock jury empanelled using the voir dire process, will proceed in a recognized, mutually-agreeable timed debate format (e.g. Lincoln-Douglas), will be moderated by the Wizard, and will be otherwise open to the public. The prevailing party’s reasonable travel expenses shall be reimbursed by the defeated party.
If Mr. Singer has no additional evidence to substantiate his claims as stated herein, I predict he will lose.
1) All video poker machines everywhere are intentionally programmed with non-random software. This software acts as a safety-net, constraining the RTP (return-to-player, aka payback %) of the games to a specific range, the bounds of which are not outside the minimum and maximum allowable paybacks for a given jurisdiction (e.g. in Nevada, 75% lower bound).
2) There are confidential, non-public regulations in every relevant gaming jurisdiction which permit the intentionally-programmed non-randomness described above.
Elsewhere in this forum, I have asked Mr. Singer to provide evidence to support his claims #1 and #2, above. He has not done so. Mr. Singer is serving a suspension from this forum due to a violation of its rules, but he has contacted me by email. Per the forum rules, I may not quote from his messages to me, but they too contained no evidence. He did, however, offer that a public debate would be a suitable forum to address the question further and went so far as to suggest that he would be willing to attend such a debate. I believe he has indicated as much on this forum as well.
I therefore offer Mr. Singer a debate on the following proposition:
"All video poker machines contain intentionally non-random 'safety-net programming' which prevents the payback of a video poker machine from falling outside a specified payback range, and moreover there exist non-public regulations in all relevant gaming jurisdictions which permit such non-random programming."
I will take the negative. The debate will be judged by a mock jury empanelled using the voir dire process, will proceed in a recognized, mutually-agreeable timed debate format (e.g. Lincoln-Douglas), will be moderated by the Wizard, and will be otherwise open to the public. The prevailing party’s reasonable travel expenses shall be reimbursed by the defeated party.
If Mr. Singer has no additional evidence to substantiate his claims as stated herein, I predict he will lose.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
