Debate: are all VP games non-random?
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. I was originally of the opinion that a debate on the merits of his claims, without any evidence to support them, would just be a waste of time. However, I have reconsidered and now wish to extend to Mr. Singer the opportunity to 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 an equivalent to 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. I suggest a Las Vegas location.
If Mr. Singer has no additional evidence to substantiate his claims as stated herein, I predict he will lose. I thank the Wizard in advance for his prior offer to help facilitate such a forum.
If I allow that this claim is right:
...then how does he manage to post so many winning sessions?Quote: MathExtremist...This software acts as a safety-net, constraining the RTP (return-to-player, aka payback %)...
Quote: DJTeddyBearThere's one thing I don't get.
If I allow that this claim is right:...then how does he manage to post so many winning sessions?
As I understand his claims, Mr. Singer has the ability to detect when a machine is in a higher-than-average payback cycle to compensate for a recent losing streak. The safety-net would necessarily work both ways, heating a machine up when it has been cold, and cooling a machine down when it has been hot. (I don't buy any of this, but that'd be the logic if you did.)
However, he has also claimed that his belief in the lack of randomness has nothing do to with his play strategy. So I can't explain that inconsistency.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThere's one thing I don't get.
If I allow that this claim is right:...then how does he manage to post so many winning sessions?
1. Posting a winning session on one's website and actually having won are not the same thing.
2. Any player using a Martingale, playing any casino game, +EV or -EV, will post more winning SESSIONS than losing ones. His absolute results will, over time, approach the EV for his chosen methods, multiplied by his total action.
Quote: WizardPerhaps at the Suncoast or Red Rock, where hopefully I can spend my points on the meeting space.
If they don't give you a meeting space in exchange for bringing in these guys and their spectators, something is terribly wrong. It's not like we're talking about the national garden-watering society here...we're 100% guaranteed to gamble if we're on-site...
Quote: MathExtremistI will take the negative. The debate will be judged by a mock jury empanelled using an equivalent to 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. I suggest a Las Vegas location.
If Mr. Singer has no additional evidence to substantiate his claims as stated herein, I predict he will lose. I thank the Wizard in advance for his prior offer to help facilitate such a forum.
The issue that immediately comes up is that "winning" or "losing" the debate would be via convincing the jury, not via presenting the strongest or most unassailable arguments. Therefore, Singer, when he lost (as he must), would simply claim that he was judged the loser because the jury was full of biased APs who don't understand the undeniable truth about video poker and don't shave their legs. Or some such drivel.
So who would you/we be convincing? We already know that Singer's claims are bogus. Singer, for that matter, knows it as well. So what would be the point? Would you/we broadcast to the world at large that "Singer lost a VP debate on the WoV forum" or some such? Can you imagine any disciple of Singer seeing that, and the scales drop from his eyes, and he then gives his Singer text to Goodwill?
I respect the effort that you're making, but I think that the responses you've already gotten from RobJerry are indicative of how hopeless that effort is. I've been observing this guy for ten years. When pressed for evidence of his claims, he never--NEVER--produces it. But he drags out the process of failing to do so, hinting, insinuating, prevaricating, followed by a barrage of insults when the person asking for that evidence finally starts to lose patience.
In other words, you're more than wasting your time.
As far as format/rules, I'm pretty flexible. I don't think we'll need more than an hour as long as there's a properly-strict timeline to be followed (which is where you'd come in).
I also think we'll need a clear set of rules for adjudicating the winner, and some measure of certification that the process was rigorous and the parties accept the results as legitimate. What I don't want to happen is that Mr. Singer loses according to the judges but then he turns around and says "oh, that didn't matter, it was all a sham anyway."
Quote: mkl654321In other words, you're more than wasting your time.
Not if I get a free trip to Vegas out of it...
Quote: MathExtremistI also think we'll need a clear set of rules for adjudicating the winner, and some measure of certification that the process was rigorous and the parties accept the results as legitimate. What I don't want to happen is that Mr. Singer loses according to the judges but then he turns around and says "oh, that didn't matter, it was all a sham anyway."
Can I make a side bet--laying, say, 5,000 to 1--that if the debate actually occurs, that is EXACTLY what will happen?
Quote: MathExtremist2) There are confidential, non-public regulations in every relevant gaming jurisdiction which permit the intentionally-programmed non-randomness described above.
I wonder, how many people are there in Mr. Singer's employment?
Here's why I ask: there are a number of states and countries where VP, the real kind as opposed to the pull-tab machines, is permitted or not barred by regulations. The point quoted above suggests in all these states and countries there exist secret regulations. This is an old-fachioned conspiracy theory that reuqires secrecy by large amounts of people: regulators, legislators, executives (mayors, governors), casino exceutives, VP manufacturer executives, casino and VP maker's employees, outside consultants, plus the spouses, children and friends of many of these people.
I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin: One person can keep a secret. Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
Now add such things as the Freedom of Information Act, America's tradition of transparency, and not least nosy journalists who'd sell their souls for a scoop.
I'm not accusing Mr. Singer of everything. but if I wanted to sell a system, one way to go about it would be to pose a conspiracy like the one he claims. I'd keep my employee list short and treat them like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed, well, you know), if I had any employees. becasue, as in the case of dice control, if I knew of a way to beat VP, I'd be out in the casinos playing it, not telling the world about it.
Quote: WizardI think the winner of the debate will be decided in the jury selection. Maybe the point of the debate should not be to determine a winner, but for the debate itself.
Spot on. There's not much sense in a panel of judges deciding who won. After a political debate both sides claim they won no matter how badly their candidate did, and the media never declares a winner, if I remember right.
But anyway, who would attend this event? Would it actually draw more than 20 people?
I went to the state finals in Lincoln-Douglas debate and I could help if I'm in Vegas then, but I probably won't be.
And/or a recording posted on YouTube?
Quote: DJTeddyBearAny chance of getting media coverage?
Does "scant" count as a chance?
Quote:And/or a recording posted on YouTube?
I should think so, if it fits with its technical specs. Just amke sure to have signed releases from everyone involved.
Quote: rdw4potusBy "random" do we mean truly random or do we mean constrained only by the RNG engine utilized by the machine. I assume we mean the latter, but I think it's probably worth pausing to state that explicitly. Otherwise, I think an argument could be made that RS is actually kind-of right and the games are non random...
You are saying that the laws of states like Nevada and New Jersey hold no weight at all and are being continuously violated--that the pay tables alone do not guarantee the calculated house edge. Got any other radical theories about other aspects of casinos?
Quote: MathExtremistNot if I get a free trip to Vegas out of it...
Aw, c'mon, you can't be that hard up.
Quote: rdw4potusBy "random" do we mean truly random or do we mean constrained only by the RNG engine utilized by the machine. I assume we mean the latter, but I think it's probably worth pausing to state that explicitly. Otherwise, I think an argument could be made that RS is actually kind-of right and the games are non random...
No, obviously we mean PRNG-random. The regulations are very clear on the requirements for this. Moreover, the proposition doesn't just say "non-random", it says "safety-net programming". The regulations are very clear on the legality of that, too. Mr. Singer explains that away by insisting there are confidential regulations which countermand the public ones.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYou are saying that the laws of states like Nevada and New Jersey hold no weight at all and are being continuously violated--that the pay tables alone do not guarantee the calculated house edge. Got any other radical theories about other aspects of casinos?
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm just saying that "random" number generators aren't truly random. We've discussed that here before at length. Some are better than others, but the technology itself is limited and not perfectly random. I think the states accept the RNG output as random, but conceptually it's closer to an approximation of a random output.
Also, the paytables alone do not guarantee the calculated house edge at all. If you and I are playing a coinflip game with a fair coin, but heads pays 4:1, something is wrong, right?
Quote: MathExtremistNo, obviously we mean PRNG-random. The regulations are very clear on the requirements for this. Moreover, the proposition doesn't just say "non-random", it says "safety-net programming". The regulations are very clear on the legality of that, too. Mr. Singer explains that away by insisting there are confidential regulations which countermand the public ones.
That is quite obvious to me, but I don't behave (usually) like a small child. RS kind of does. So close the loophole before he uses it to "win" the debate.
As for the "confidential regulations," my favorite part was when he explained the difference between "confidential" and "secret" by referencing the DoD. Wouldn't a dictionary have been a better place to start? Mine lists those words as synonymous.
Quote: WizardI think the winner of the debate will be decided in the jury selection. Maybe the point of the debate should not be to determine a winner, but for the debate itself.
That might be true in the case where there is a joint desire to seek truth, but in that case it would be more a dialectic than a debate. The issue here is that for whatever reason, Mr. Singer clings to theories which are literally unbelievable to a great many people, myself included. What is the purpose of the debate if not for exposing that set of beliefs to proper scrutiny?
How would you suggest evaluating the results of the debate? Because if it's just a question of disproving the proposition, I can do that conclusively in short order without the need to discuss anything.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm just saying that "random" number generators aren't truly random. We've discussed that here before at length. Some are better than others, but the technology itself is limited and not perfectly random. I think the states accept the RNG output as random, but conceptually it's closer to an approximation of a random output.
The laws and regulations of the State of New Jersey require video poker machines to present an exact copy of the a regular poker game with cards. If you have any information that someone or something is in violation of that, it is your legal/moral responsiblity to report that information to the Casino Control Commissiion. Seeing as how neither nor anyone else has apparently done that, all such statements about non-random games stand as pure speculation and pure hot air.
Quote: rdw4potusAlso, the paytables alone do not guarantee the calculated house edge at all. If you and I are playing a coinflip game with a fair coin, but heads pays 4:1, something is wrong, right?
Of course they do. Stating that the paytables do not guarantee the house edge serves only to demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about video poker.
Quote: rdw4potusThat is quite obvious to me, but I don't behave (usually) like a small child. RS kind of does. So close the loophole before he uses it to "win" the debate.
As for the "confidential regulations," my favorite part was when he explained the difference between "confidential" and "secret" by referencing the DoD. Wouldn't a dictionary have been a better place to start? Mine lists those words as synonymous.
Right, and that's how I was using the terms as well. Invoking the US DoD is a red herring, but rather than getting side-tracked with that, I rephrased to the uncontroversial phrase "non-public". I don't dispute that non-public regulations may exist for certain industries, but I do dispute that non-public regulations exist in the gaming industry which specifically contradict the public ones.
Quote: rdw4potusI think you're misunderstanding me. I'm just saying that "random" number generators aren't truly random. We've discussed that here before at length. Some are better than others, but the technology itself is limited and not perfectly random. I think the states accept the RNG output as random, but conceptually it's closer to an approximation of a random output.
Also, the paytables alone do not guarantee the calculated house edge at all. If you and I are playing a coinflip game with a fair coin, but heads pays 4:1, something is wrong, right?
Don't forget that the scientific notion of "random" isn't required by the regulations. Here's what is:
Quote: NGC Regulation 14.0402. Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence limits using a standard chi-squared test for goodness of fit.
(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play.
(b) 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.
(c) The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method of play.
Intentionally-programmed safety-net code would violate every element of this regulation.
Quote: SanchoPanza
Of course they do. Stating that the paytables do not guarantee the house edge serves only to demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about video poker.
OK, I'll set up a 9/6 JoB machine so that I non-randomly start with the queen of hearts in each hand, then we'll see if the paytable effectively protects the 99.54% player return % (.46% HA) that the game is supposed to have.
The house edge is pretty obviously protected by both the paytable AND the random distribution of the cards. Also, why the hell are you attacking me?
*edited to correct HA %*
Shouldn't it be possible (with a machine employing random distribution of cards) to follow a really, really bad strategy, such as throwing away the good cards, holding five losers, etc., to basically guarantee a very low payout? If there actually were safety-net programming in place, wouldn't following such a strategy fairly quickly lead to the machine having to deal you some ridiculous pattern of cards to force you to have winners?
It seems to me that it should be straight forward to establish whether there is a lower limit imposed on the payouts. As to whether there is non-random behavior programmed in to kill your winning streaks, that would be more difficult to disprove.
Quote: DocShouldn't it be possible (with a machine employing random distribution of cards) to follow a really, really bad strategy, such as throwing away the good cards, holding five losers, etc., to basically guarantee a very low payout? If there actually were safety-net programming in place, wouldn't following such a strategy fairly quickly lead to the machine having to deal you some ridiculous pattern of cards to force you to have winners?
You've let the cat out of the bag. Yes, that's the disproof of safety-net programming. I was going to verify that with a sample of 100k hands (1000 plays of 100-play), but only if it becomes necessary. I predict that if Mr. Singer ever returns to address this topic, he'll claim that "safety-net programming" means something else.
Quote: DocAs to whether there is non-random behavior programmed in to kill your winning streaks, that would be more difficult to disprove.
It would be imnpossible to disprove, except as far as the cards behave as the laws of probability say they should, or close enough. Or by reviewing the VP machines' code and seeing there ain't no such thing as a winning streak killer app in there :)
I have an old backgammon program in my PC that, I often say, llikes to cheat by giving the computer player better rolls whenever I'm ahead. I know it probably doesn't do that, but that's easier for me than saying "Oh, maybe I shouldn't ahve left two pieces uncovered so close to the opponent's loose pieces!" Likewise ditching a pair for an inside straight and then whinning because ti dind't pay off. Keeping the pair was a better option.
Just because Mr. Singer suggests that there is a range, does not imply that the RNG isn't "random" (see lotto analogy).
I think the controversy is less that the machine is random or not, but rather you can actually identify and use to your advantage patterns in the outcomes of playing multiple sessions. And if Mr. Singer agrees with this latter line of reasoning, then I understand what he is trying to say which is that given a specified period of time, some entropy weighting in the RNG increases the likelihood that you will make money playing certain machines at certain times.
However, I caveat this by saying that RNG's are similar to writing decrytion codes. RNG's have embedded codes which allow you to reengineer a series of numbers. Figure out the coding, and you'll have your pattern. It might take you millions of sessions and a supercomputer crunching the numbers, but it can be done.........
Quote: NareedIt would be imnpossible to disprove, except as far as the cards behave as the laws of probability say they should, or close enough. Or by reviewing the VP machines' code and seeing there ain't no such thing as a winning streak killer app in there :)
I have an old backgammon program in my PC that, I often say, llikes to cheat by giving the computer player better rolls whenever I'm ahead. I know it probably doesn't do that, but that's easier for me than saying "Oh, maybe I shouldn't ahve left two pieces uncovered so close to the opponent's loose pieces!" Likewise ditching a pair for an inside straight and then whinning because ti dind't pay off. Keeping the pair was a better option.
Impossible to prove, but I have long suspected that there might be coding to increase losing streaks when you increase your bet size materially or if you have a long winning streak. For example......suppose you play the min bet over a 100 sessions, and feel lucky and ram it up to max bet......I've often wondered what would really happen at the mathematical level. I find on virtual machines of blackjack, craps, and roulette that the subsequent outcomes always appear negative under the equivalent time of play. The scariest part is watching someone or being someone that tried to martingale a roulette machine 32 times ..... he was busted before a Black ever showed up.
Quote: AsswhoopermcdaddyI'd like to offer my 2 cents if I may. I think we have to be careful to define what is random here. For example, it is perfectly possible to create a set of random numbers from 1-56 (analogous to the lotto anyone?). Just because a range is confined does not make it pattern like or non-random.
That's not what he means by range. There is obviously a range of outcomes to choose from - there are only 52! possible ways to shuffle the deck, and only 52P10 ways to draw the first 10 cards. The range Singer implies with the "safety-net programming" idea is on total payback percentage, not individual outcomes. He is claiming that the game will cease acting normally and will instead force certain outcomes with a greater percentage than would be expected under randomness, and that this happens because the game is either holding too much or too little.
And you can't decode the RNG because you don't have access to it. All you have access to are the cards that come up on the screen. If, by analyzing those cards, you could detect a pattern in the RNG output, the game would be in direct violation of the regulation that says "The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method of play."
Quote: rdw4potusQuote: SanchoPanza
Of course they do. Stating that the paytables do not guarantee the house edge serves only to demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about video poker.
OK, I'll set up a 9/6 JoB machine so that I non-randomly start with the queen of hearts in each hand, then we'll see if the paytable effectively protects the 99.54% player return % (.46% HA) that the game is supposed to have.
The house edge is pretty obviously protected by both the paytable AND the random distribution of the cards. Also, why the hell are you attacking me?
*edited to correct HA %*
The situation you describe would effectively alter the house edge (by decreasing it, since the Qh is significantly better than a random card), so are you saying that if the HA (as shown by results) was the same anyway after 1,000,000,000 trials, that would validate Singer's claim?
Quote: WizardI think the winner of the debate will be decided in the jury selection. Maybe the point of the debate should not be to determine a winner, but for the debate itself.
With no hard proof, how can there be a winner? You're debating hardware here, not philosophy. Whats the point if an actual demo isn't given or hard facts produced. It sounds like just more advertising for Singer's scam and y'all are playing along with it nicely. Who cares who wins the debate, what does it prove?
Quote: EvenBobWith no hard proof, how can there be a winner? You're debating hardware here, not philosophy. Whats the point if an actual demo isn't given or hard facts produced. It sounds like just more advertising for Singer's scam and y'all are playing along with it nicely. Who cares who wins the debate, what does it prove?
Quite. The onus is on Mr Singer to produce hard data. I'd certainly accept his previous results and method as a starting point over "I've written about this several times and said all there is to say about it", when it doesn't link back to those previous writings, webcasts or hard data. I've pressed Rob on this, and not had anything much back.
At the very least, I'd love to see the set up to do a continuous automated test of VP machine... as professional in that area its a professional curiosity on how you'd do it.
But instead it's heresay and speculation by all parties, that feeds a myth, either of Mr Singer's own devising or one that's built up around him.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that evidence should be provided by the person making the claim.
It actually reminds me of a article of supernatural claims in the latest Skeptical Inquirer... much the same thing is occurring here as it does with any proponent of voodoo medicine. The cry of "you don't believe me, so your hard headed, and changing your mind set would break your world" is something I've seen used by proponents of homeopathy, young Earth creationists, anti-vaccine proponents, moon landing deniers and others (*). Of course, giving up their own world beliefs in the face of other facts would break their own world they've set up for themselves, so the argument is mute.
Mr Singer would be far better served to present his claims cleanly and clearly, and defend the details, leaving the attacks on others out of the facts. And everyone else would be best of doing the same as well. However, I realise calling someone a raving f***wit idiot is fair easier and more short term satisfying when it gets down to it.
(*) I'm not trying to start a debate on any of those issues here, right now. I'm a miserable skeptical liberal atheist, just take that as a read and move on.
Quote: mkl654321Quote: rdw4potusQuote: SanchoPanza
Of course they do. Stating that the paytables do not guarantee the house edge serves only to demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge about video poker.
OK, I'll set up a 9/6 JoB machine so that I non-randomly start with the queen of hearts in each hand, then we'll see if the paytable effectively protects the 99.54% player return % (.46% HA) that the game is supposed to have.
The house edge is pretty obviously protected by both the paytable AND the random distribution of the cards. Also, why the hell are you attacking me?
*edited to correct HA %*
The situation you describe would effectively alter the house edge (by decreasing it, since the Qh is significantly better than a random card), so are you saying that if the HA (as shown by results) was the same anyway after 1,000,000,000 trials, that would validate Singer's claim?
No, that's not what I'm saying. But it'd be pretty damn odd if the game only had a 99.54% return to me over 1B trials if I started with every hand with one guaranteed premium card. I wasn't addressing RS's claim at all, I was addressing Sancho's. He said that "stating that the paytables do not guarantee the house edge...utter lack of knowledge..." I'm just saying that the paytables only provide the desired HA if the game is also random, and I've tried a couple examples to show why that's the case.
I absolutely *do not* agree with RS, and I think that VP is a fair and random game with no associated super-duper secret confidential regulations that allow a change from that.
Quote: thecesspit
Mr Singer would be far better served to present his claims cleanly and clearly, and defend the details, .
He has none. If he did, he would present them. All he has is what all scammers have: Talk. And more talk. And like all scammers, he's so incredibly busy all the time that you can never nail him down for anything. They always have plenty of time to write long, rambling posts, but never time for live demo's. What they have wet dreams over is exactly whats happening to Singer on this forum. His name in threads, his ideas discussed, all free of charge. Its all money in his pocket, he'll use whatever happens to prop up his scam.
Quote: EvenBobWith no hard proof, how can there be a winner? You're debating hardware here, not philosophy. Whats the point if an actual demo isn't given or hard facts produced. It sounds like just more advertising for Singer's scam and y'all are playing along with it nicely. Who cares who wins the debate, what does it prove?
As described herein, I can easily disprove the proposition as stated. So can you. And I mentioned earlier that I didn't really see the point in having a debate if Singer didn't come forward with anything else, since he's clearly failed to make his case under any reasonable evidentiary standard with his hearsay and statistical test of a single machine. But Singer was the one who proposed it in the first place, and the Wizard thought it might be a good idea. I can spare the hour especially after Singer picks up the tab for getting me to Vegas.
Quote: rdw4potus
I absolutely *do not* agree with RS, and I think that VP is a fair and random game with no associated super-duper secret confidential regulations that allow a change from that.
Of course it is! But how do you scam people into buying lessons when its a fair game? Its only by convincing them otherwise that you'll get their money. Suckers...... Singer doesn't care who wins the debate. He gets to add to his scam that somebody as important as the Wiz of Odds took him seriously enough to attend the debate and even set it up. You better believe that to a scammer, this is tantamount to an endorsement from Mike, which I'm sure he couldn't buy for love or money. Maybe if he sold his soul to him, maybe not even then.
Quote: rdw4potusI think that VP is a fair and random game with no associated super-duper secret confidential regulations that allow a change from that.
That is a significant change from what you posted around noon: "I think the states accept the RNG output as random, but conceptually it's closer to an approximation of a random output."
This isn't virginity, technical or otherwise. It's like pregnancy. Either one is or one is not. There is no gray area.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is a significant change from what you posted around noon: "I think the states accept the RNG output as random, but conceptually it's closer to an approximation of a random output."
This isn't virginity, technical or otherwise. It's like pregnancy. Either one is or one is not. There is no gray area.
No computer can ever possibly produce a random result at all, ever, no matter what. Computers use logic to determine every outcome, which is inherently absent from randomness. My point is simply that while there is no systemic bias in VP machines (and certainly no intentionally controlled outcomes), the machines are also incapable of purely random behavior. They are designed to approximate randomness as closely as possible.
This line of discussion is exactly why I suggested earlier that we need to be very careful about how we define "random" in the framework of any ME/RS debate. For our VP discussion, "random" MUST mean "generated in a fair and unbiased fashion by an RNG engine" and not "occurring with no discernible pattern or application of logic.'"
You're taking one quote from before ME commented on the definition of "random" and one from after. In between my two posts, he said "No, obviously we mean PRNG-random." From that point forward, I adopted his definition (analagous to my first definition above) of "random."
I would argue at this point that the definition that is in-force is NOT as obvious as ME thinks...
Quote: rdw4potusNo computer can ever possibly produce a random result at all, ever, no matter what. Computers use logic to determine every outcome, which is inherently absent from randomness.
I would disagree with this statement. True randomness is the result of Real-Time-Clock (RTC) readings which randomly seed the RNG on every hand. What rdw4potus says would be true if the machine only seeded the RNG upon boot up, and then determined the sequence of cards solely using the RNG agorithm from that point on. But, the fact is that a random clock time seed is used for every hand, with a very fine resolution down to, I believe, the nanosecond (1 billionth of a second). The process I am familiar with first takes the RTC reading when the event starts (i.e. you press a button), which results in a random 32 bit integer. It then uses the prior RTC reading as a multiplier (32 bits X 32 bits). This is then used as the seed for the RNG. As for the RNG itself, there are several approved algorithms for producing "pseudo" random numbers. The RNG algorithm is randomly chosen (using the same RTC mechanism). Once the algorithm/seed is determined, then another RTC reading is used to determine how many numbers the algorithm will produce until the random number is chosen.
So, you have two independent real time random readings producing a seed into a randomly chosen RNG, which in turns generates a series of pseudo random numbers, of which one is chosen at random to be the outcome (to prevent initial sequence analysis).
I claim this is pretty random, and anyone who says they can predict the next sequence of cards because they have "decoded" the RNG simply doesn't know what they are talking about.
Quote: rdw4potusI would argue at this point that the definition that is in-force is NOT as obvious as ME thinks...
I don't know what you mean by "definition that is in-force". The only relevant standard is the one used by the various regulatory agencies and/or testing labs. GLI's standard is basically the same as Nevada's. There is no other relevant meaning, I'm not inventing one, and any attempt (by Mr. Singer, for example) to bring in an extrinsic meaning will necessarily fall short. Context matters, and it is in the context of gaming machine regulations -- not number theory -- that "random" must be evaluated. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that we should also, for example, explicitly define "card" as "a graphical representation displayed on a video display indicating at least one indicia each from two disjoint sets of indicia" because otherwise someone might argue about the absence of physical playing cards in video poker. We don't have to do that because the definition of "card" is intrinsic to video poker. Likewise, the definition of "random", as used in "random number generator", is intrinsic to video poker and gaming machines generally.
But bringing this back on-topic, the question of whether the games are PRNG or TRNG random isn't really on the table. The question is whether the games are intentionally programmed to behave as if they weren't random at all by using a "safety-net program". A VP game which always draws hands using an RNG algorithm can have dramatic swings in RTP, while a VP game which is using risk-mitigation or "safety-net" programming will not, by design. All you have to do to distinguish the two is play them and determine if the games ever have RTPs which fall outside the alleged safety-net range. If they do, the safety-net theory is empirically debunked.
The only other question on the table is whether Mr. Singer will ever address the issue. From what I've read here, that may not happen.
Ooops! Sorry. I thought if that approach was valid, it would be obvious to VP players, including RS. I was basically asking for guidance on what I was overlooking.Quote: MathExtremistYou've let the cat out of the bag.
Quote: NareedI have an old backgammon program in my PC that, I often say, llikes to cheat by giving the computer player better rolls whenever I'm ahead.
I may have posted this before. Back about 1988, some of the people in the office where I worked played a PC-based version of Battleship -- computer vs. user. The computer was a formidable opponent. I suggested to one player that for a first game he cluster all of his ships actually touching each other, tightly packed in the center of the field. In the next game, he should spread his ships plastered flat around the border of the field. As you might guess, in the first game the computer fired its initial volley of shots scattered only slightly and near the center of the field and in the second game fired the shots mostly around the perimeter. Obviously from this quick test, the machine was "cheating" by using the user's input of ship locations to plan its shots.
After having seen that, I have been reluctant/unwilling to play video craps in tribal casinos -- the video dice would know what bets I had placed, and (right or wrong) I would suspect something other than the standard house edge was working against me. In contrast, I assume that Nevada VP games follow the regulations and are played fairly by the device (random cards), but the game just doesn't interest me.
I especially don't go on machines on Indian land. We stole their land from them, and now they're inviting us back to gamble with no laws protecting us.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I just enjoy real cards. For some reason it seems more legit.
Quote: NareedI have an old backgammon program in my PC that, I often say, llikes to cheat by giving the computer player better rolls whenever I'm ahead.
Jellyfish, perhaps? That son-of-a-gun seemed to double off at will, but kicked my ass enough otherwise that I realized that I'm not adept at backgammon or other games, such as live poker, where I have to evaluate board conditions. I see references from some APs that they started with backgammon before moving onto casino games, I wonder how backgammon acumen correlates to casino play.
Quote: allenwalkerJellyfish, perhaps? That son-of-a-gun seemed to double off at will, but kicked my ass enough otherwise that I realized that I'm not adept at backgammon or other games, such as live poker, where I have to evaluate board conditions. I see references from some APs that they started with backgammon before moving onto casino games, I wonder how backgammon acumen correlates to casino play.
I know a number of people who are extremely adept at both backgammon and other (casino) games, particularly poker and blackjack. I would imagine the ability to rapidly evaluate and calculate a shifting matrix of possibilities, as well as the ability to evaluate the flaws and strengths of a human opponent, translate well from backgammon to casino games.
Quote: MathExtremistTrying to bring this back on topic (please): I recall from the Wizard that Mr. Singer is coming off suspension tomorrow, and I'd like this thread not to be about backgammon AI by the time that occurs...
Do you mean that you seriously expect any kind of substantive contribution from Singer when that occurs?
I am wondering just why you continue to engage him. Isn't it obvious to you that he NEVER intends to allow any kind of rigorous challenge to/examination of his statements, his "system", or his position? Furthermore, don't you get at least some inkling that all he's doing is stringing you (and others) along, trying to garner the greatest amount of attention possible?
You're giving the man FAR more courtesy and respect than he deserves. Especially when you consider that he's also JerryLogan.
Quote: mkl654321Do you mean that you seriously expect any kind of substantive contribution from Singer when that occurs?
I am wondering just why you continue to engage him. Isn't it obvious to you that he NEVER intends to allow any kind of rigorous challenge to/examination of his statements, his "system", or his position? Furthermore, don't you get at least some inkling that all he's doing is stringing you (and others) along, trying to garner the greatest amount of attention possible?
You're giving the man FAR more courtesy and respect than he deserves. Especially when you consider that he's also JerryLogan.
No, I don't seriously expect any kind of substantive contribution from Singer, but I'll let him demonstrate otherwise. The point is this: Singer came here with some ridiculous notions of how VP is secretly programmed to be unfair. When we all pointed out that it's not, and the regulations wouldn't allow it, he retorted with more ridiculous notions about confidential, non-public regulations that override the public ones. I asked him on what evidence he based his incredible claims, and he fell silent except to suggest that he might like a public debate. The Wizard thought that might make for good theater, so I said okay - let's do it. But if he remains silent, I can only assume he's realized he has no way of making his case (not that he did to begin with). I'm curious as to whether he innocently but stubbornly misinterpreted something he may have been told years ago, or if he's intentionally fabricated the entire conspiracy from whole cloth. I can correct a misunderstanding, but I can't do anything about a deliberate falsehood other than to demonstrate its error.
I lose nothing in being courteous, and it tends to keep discussions more topical than the average flame war. I've read other forums (briefly) where Singer has gotten into name-calling matches, and I don't want this forum to turn into that. Neither do you.
