My Point Of View
Quote: nope27
After programming his 2 popular styles of play in a computer to simulate his results, with most of his "special plays" accounted for, I ran 10,000 runs of 427 sessions and have showed over an 86% session overall profit
86% or 10,000 runs of 427 or 86% of sessions?
Regardless, this number is not very meaningful without the actual values. What is the total profit after 10,000 runs? What is the average loss per 427 sessions?
Do you mind PM'ing me your code to take a look? I can promise to never make a public comment on it or its results if you want (just tell me if it is so).
Quote: SanchoPanzaNothing was mentioned about the machine testing issue, at least I did not see anything.
That is because no one has apparently seen the results of that so-called "testing."
Sure they have, on video anyway. We've also seen the machine and the test equipment.
Quote: MathExtremistSinger started this thread, and he and I were exchanging messages frequently until recently (which, oddly, corresponded with your return...). If you think he hasn't seen the past few days' worth of material, by all means send him a link. Tell him the entire forum wants to see his evidence that all video poker machines are intentionally programmed with non-random behavior, whatever that evidence may be.
I have already asked multiple times to see his results, here on this public forum and not in a private email. That's what "peer review" means. If he's unwilling to submit his evidence in a public forum to a skeptical audience, it's as if there is no evidence at all. That's just basic science. And without any evidence at all, Singer's assertions are supported by nothing.
I mean, presumably you wouldn't believe Singer if he said "Hey look, I've just discovered secret laws of mathematics that show 2 + 2 = 56. I verified it with a supercomputer at MIT. But the people at MIT asked me not to discuss it publicly, so I won't." There is overwhelming evidence that two plus two is not, in fact, fifty-six (and that there are no secret laws of mathematics). Before buying into this theory, I would think you'd want to see some form of evidence, right?
There is just as much overwhelming evidence that video poker machines are not, in fact, intentionally non-random (and that there are no secret gaming regulations). Before buying into this theory, I would think you'd want to see some form of evidence, right?
Yeah yeah I was released from suspension right aarter Singer left for Christmas break or something. Speak to the Wizard on why he did what he did when he did it.
If you've asked him to see the info, again, where is it and did he see it or respond? Why is it that you're so afraid to contact him directly? Here's his e-mail address> rob_singer@q.com It's really easy if you really want to do it. And how do you know he wouldn't post whatever it is you're looking for here? My guess is you don't want him to have any insight into who your are. That is questionable of you to say the least. These things might be life and death to you and one of your main reasons for living, but is it really to him? Could that also be a reason for you being afraid to contact him?
PS: When I want something I do everything I can to get it. You're the one who wants the info. Step up to the plate and stop using excuses.
Quote: JerryLogan...That is cowardly of you to say the least. These things might be life and death to you and one of your main reasons for living, but is it really to him? Could that also be a reason for you being afraid to contact him?
"We see in others what we find fault with in ourselves."
Jerry, if you find that baiting people by demeaning them and tossing childish taunts in their direction is the only way you know how to communicate, it's no wonder you're always at odds with many members of this forum. Have you considered simply asking a question or making your point without tacking on a juvenile insult or thinly veiled personal attack? To continually accuse people of being afraid is akin to saying, "So, do you want to step outside?". Is bullying the only device you understand? Has it been successful for you?
If it comes to a comparison of proof and evidence between ME and RS, as much as you'd like to beleve that Singer will prevail, I suggest you use more than emotion to make your decision about which side you back. If you don't know what crow tastes like you may find out soon. Rob Singer will most likely stand by his claims to his dying day but for you to stand by him without so much as a shred of real proof that he has done what he claims shows your complete disregard for logic and common sense. Despite the number of diplomas on his wall, RS has no hard evidence that he can do what he claims to have done and no one else has been able to reproduce what he claims to have done.
Why don't you let Rob Singer fight his own fight (which he seems to have done admirably for the past decade or so) and let this one go. Whether or not RS can prove his claims remains to be seen and whether or not he even wants to make the effort is questionable but why on earth do YOU think that you can advance his cause in the least? You do not know his strategies, you do not know the math of the game, you do not know how RNG's work or even how they're designed and you certainly have not claimed to make $985,000 at VP.
So, what DO you bring to the table in this discussion apart from a curiously fierce loyalty to Rob Singer? By the way, in case you're wondering, I'm not on the side of any one person but I am on the side of math, fact and logic. I can think of surprisingly few instances where a combination of those three has failed to win an argument.
Quote: TheNightfly"We see in others what we find fault with in ourselves."
Jerry, if you find that baiting people by demeaning them and tossing childish taunts in their direction is the only way you know how to communicate, it's no wonder you're always at odds with many members of this forum. Have you considered simply asking a question or making your point without tacking on a juvenile insult or thinly veiled personal attack? To continually accuse people of being afraid is akin to saying, "So, do you want to step outside?". Is bullying the only device you understand? Has it been successful for you?
If it comes to a comparison of proof and evidence between ME and RS, as much as you'd like to beleve that Singer will prevail, I suggest you use more than emotion to make your decision about which side you back. If you don't know what crow tastes like you may find out soon. Rob Singer will most likely stand by his claims to his dying day but for you to stand by him without so much as a shred of real proof that he has done what he claims shows your complete disregard for logic and common sense. Despite the number of diplomas on his wall, RS has no hard evidence that he can do what he claims to have done and no one else has been able to reproduce what he claims to have done.
Why don't you let Rob Singer fight his own fight (which he seems to have done admirably for the past decade or so) and let this one go. Whether or not RS can prove his claims remains to be seen and whether or not he even wants to make the effort is questionable but why on earth do YOU think that you can advance his cause in the least? You do not know his strategies, you do not know the math of the game, you do not know how RNG's work or even how they're designed and you certainly have not claimed to make $985,000 at VP.
So, what DO you bring to the table in this discussion apart from a curiously fierce loyalty to Rob Singer? By the way, in case you're wondering, I'm not on the side of any one person but I am on the side of math, fact and logic. I can think of surprisingly few instances where a combination of those three has failed to win an argument.
You said that in a decent way, but it still has holes and problems.
First, ME would like to review some info. RS has that info. RS does not read this forum much and I still can't find where ME said he already asked him for it. So, where in the world is the problem with ME directly contacting RS and ASKING for it? I even supplied the e-mail address! I see no bullying in any of that, just common sense.
Next. I'm no intellectual, but I have seen on video what ME's asking for, maybe it's still available, and how in heck can ME get it if he's afraid to ask the guy? And what's with the ananymous handle anyway? If he's such a genius why can't we all know who he is? I personally think he is one, but I also know he underestimates RS with all those put downs and insinuations. There may well be a reason behind why he's reluctant to do what he can to get the info he wants.
Are you referring to RS's claims of winning, of results from the machine testing, or both? In the former, I've already said a million times why I believe him to be credible. He published several high dollar challenges to people of means who called him a liar in the media, and because they ran the critics can remain happy in their own safe little worlds. I'm also 3-0 so far with his strategy. Those are the TWO MAIN REASONS why I support the guy, plus he's turned into a good friend. The Testing? On and on we go.
Math, fact, logic. I seem to remember RS saying those exact words in a video with one other word: luck.
Quote: JerryLoganNext. I'm no intellectual, but I have seen on video what ME's asking for, maybe it's still available, and how in heck can ME get it if he's afraid to ask the guy?
Don't divert the conversation by accusing your critics of cowardice. Ad hominem attacks aren't relevant. This is about one thing, and one thing only: whether Singer will post his alleged evidence of intentionally programmed non-randomness in VP machines here, in this public forum for peer review. At least one other member of this forum has asked the same thing. Still no response from Singer or from you. If he doesn't read this forum any longer (curious, considering he *started* this thread this past weekend) then please tell Singer of this request when you meet him next. Or email him yourself and let him know we're waiting.
To put it in as straightforward a statement as I can, the issue boils down to:
1) Singer claims all VP machines are intentionally programmed to be non-random, and he alleges to have evidence to support that claim.
2) Several members of this forum, including myself, dispute the claim and the existence of any evidence that could support it.
I've already acknowledged that if Singer's evidence is conclusive, I'll admit it. You should acknowledge that if Singer's evidence isn't forthcoming, it's likely because he doesn't have any.
Quote: TheNightfly"We see in others what we find fault with in ourselves."
Jerry, if you find that baiting people by demeaning them and tossing childish taunts in their direction is the only way you know how to communicate, it's no wonder you're always at odds with many members of this forum. Have you considered simply asking a question or making your point without tacking on a juvenile insult or thinly veiled personal attack? To continually accuse people of being afraid is akin to saying, "So, do you want to step outside?". Is bullying the only device you understand? Has it been successful for you?
So, what DO you bring to the table in this discussion apart from a curiously fierce loyalty to Rob Singer? By the way, in case you're wondering, I'm not on the side of any one person but I am on the side of math, fact and logic. I can think of surprisingly few instances where a combination of those three has failed to win an argument.
He truly knows no other way to communicate. He does not have the ability to be civil for any length of time. He has been engaging in his confrontational insulting and baiting tactics for so long that such tactics have become not just automatic and reflexive for him, but involuntary. He can no more refrain from being nasty than a baby can refrain from crying. Bullying IS, in fact, the only device he understands. His discourse comes straight from the amygdala, not the cerebrum.
Therefore, I suggest that you acknowledge the futility of trying to engage in an adult discussion with him. Aside from the frustration factor, I think he's shown that his urge to believe in Singer is far more powerful than any possible vestigal trace of logic that may lie buried deep in his mind, screaming to get out. You're wasting your time, in other words.
Quote: MathExtremistSeveral members of this forum, including myself, dispute the claim and the existence of any evidence that could support it.
I've just been lurking on this thread. There is no hope convincing Rob Singer and his minions that he is wrong. As I've said many times, the more ridiculous a belief is, the more tenaciously it tends to be held. So I don't waste my time.
However, you can add my name to the list of those who request to see this so-called evidence of the secret regulations. If they are too sensitive to post, I am willing to meet with Singer again and view anything he has to show me. Until then, I also doubt its existence.
Quote: JerryLoganWe've also seen the machine and the test equipment.
But not the results. And that is what counts, so to speak.
Quote: weaselman86% or 10,000 runs of 427 or 86% of sessions?
Regardless, this number is not very meaningful without the actual values. What is the total profit after 10,000 runs? What is the average loss per 427 sessions?
Do you mind PM'ing me your code to take a look? I can promise to never make a public comment on it or its results if you want (just tell me if it is so).
Quote: nope27After programming his 2 popular styles of play in a computer to simulate his results, with most of his "special plays" accounted for, I ran 10,000 runs of 427 sessions and have showed over an 86% session overall profit. Some even higher than his reported close to $1 million profit to date. I used his bankroll and betting limits he claims he has used from his post at his website.
But I say only 427 sessions?
What would the next 427 sessions hold?
The other 14% of the sessions had losing net results.
Above is the actual post you quoted from.
Singer has played "ONLY 427 Professional Sessions".
That is it. That is all. A very low number.
The code (Excel VBA, I know... and C++) is not mine alone, 90% the help of a close friend and until I have time when I get back home to Spain to go over all his code to verify that we actually did everything right, I can not share it with anyone.
It was work doing it.
Way harder than I thought.
Too much hard work takes the fun out of programming as you well know!
The average win session and average loss session for now is meaningless until the code is verified and validated 100% accurate.
And since Mr Singer has many more "special plays" that go against the math, I will need to contact him about them so I can be 100% certain that I have accounted for all of them.
I do hope he is an easy person to work with.
But then, as Mr Singer also has stated, he believes that the VP machines are not 100% random all the time, can one then believe simulation results over actual (his) results?
Quote: nope27But then, as Mr Singer also has stated, he believes that the VP machines are not 100% random all the time, can one then believe simulation results over actual (his) results?
Here's another test, perhaps a more useful one.
Singer says the machines are not 100% random all the time. Instead, he says, they're intentionally programmed with non-randomness. If he suggests *how* that intentional non-randomness is programmed, then it can be modeled. I propose the following test:
1) Given the specifics of how VP machines are intentionally programmed to be non-random (when and how often they behave differently than "randomly deal 5 and draw up to 5"), program a simulation to adhere to this model.
2) Then test Singer's system against it.
3) Then test the standard strategy -- optimal under the assumption of randomness -- against the same simulation.
I suspect that even with an intentionally non-random simulation, the standard optimal play will still yield better results than Singer's strategy. But the only way to test that is to know the exact details of how and when Singer believes each VP game deals cards in a non-random manner. All we've seen so far is hunches and suppositions, backed up by allegations of having done some testing (but without seeing any results). For example, given an initial hand of 6c 6s 8s 8h Qc, the proper play is to hold the two pair and discard the Qc. There are 47 remaining cards in the deck, and the regulations say the probability of each remaining card should be equal at 1/47. Singer's claim of non-randomness implies that the probability of the remaining cards for this case are not each 1/47, and instead that some are higher and some are lower. What are those probabilities?
Quote: MathExtremistI propose the following test:
1) Given the specifics of how VP machines are intentionally programmed to be non-random (when and how often they behave differently than "randomly deal 5 and draw up to 5"), program a simulation to adhere to this model.
2) Then test Singer's system against it.
3) Then test the standard strategy -- optimal under the assumption of randomness -- against the same simulation.
Excellent idea and an easy one to accomplish as long as the non-randomness can be accurately programmed.
Quote: MathExtremistSinger's claim of non-randomness implies that the probability of the remaining cards for this case are not each 1/47, and instead that some are higher and some are lower.
What are those probabilities?
Between Singer stats and my acquaintance friend, I call him Mr X
202,000 hands
23,627 hands in question (2 pair, 4 to a flush and 4 to an outside straight)
11.6965347% qualifying hands (looks to be accurate)
9494 same rank flips 40.1828417%
(EV: 1508, 6.38%)
But then does he claim the other way? Certain large hits will happen more than expectation?
Quote: nope27Excellent idea and an easy one to accomplish as long as the non-randomness can be accurately programmed.
Between Singer stats and my acquaintance friend, I call him Mr X
202,000 hands
23,627 hands in question (2 pair, 4 to a flush and 4 to an outside straight)
11.6965347% qualifying hands (looks to be accurate)
9494 same rank flips 40.1828417%
(EV: 1508, 6.38%)
But then does he claim the other way? Certain large hits will happen more than expectation?
I don't think he claims anything in that regard at all, and that's where the whole story starts to unravel. We can easily examine the implications of Singer's theory.
If there really were a 40.2% chance of seeing one of a specific 3 in 47 cards instead of 6.4%, then what is the probability of seeing one of the other 44 cards? It'd be 59.8%/44 or 1.36%, assuming the rest are equally distributed. That's instead of the "equal probability" number of 1/47 = 2.13%. That means the overall probability of *winning* on one of those 4-to-a-X hands would be dramatically lower than what's on the par sheet. Not just a little, but dramatically lower - in the range of 36% (=1 - 1.36%/2.13%)
Think about it. The claim boils down to "11.7% of the time, the VP game skews the results so you win 36% less often than you would if the game was random." And those are high-value hands - flush, straight, 2 pair. I don't know what the weighted average pay is based on 2-pair, 4-flush or 4-straight, but I'll guess 2-1. That means the VP game pays 36% * 2 coins less than it should 11.7% of the time, for a total impact of -8.45% on the edge. In other words, Singer's claim leads to the conclusion that the RTP of a 9/6 Jacks or Better game is actually 91.1%.
I'll leave the commentary on this result to others...
Quote: AussieI don't believe for a second that Singer is right but you'd think someone so keen to see and test his "evidence" would spend the two minutes it would take to email the guy.
Private email won't work -- it's a question of verifiability. Who's to say I haven't already emailed Singer, and he's said he won't publish his results here, or that he will next April, or that he's changed his tune and retracts everything about the games being non-random, or that he'd like to give the proof but his agreement with his confidential sources preclude it... None of that would be verifiable.
No, the only way to cut through the whole private he-said/she-said is to handle the evidence publicly. It needs to be posted here by him directly, not through a 3rd party. This is Singer's thread, after all. He started it, let him finish it. If he won't, that's on nobody but him.
Quote: MathExtremistPrivate email won't work -- it's a question of verifiability. Who's to say I haven't already emailed Singer, and he's said he won't publish his results here, or that he will next April, or that he's changed his tune and retracts everything about the games being non-random, or that he'd like to give the proof but his agreement with his confidential sources preclude it... None of that would be verifiable.
No, the only way to cut through the whole private he-said/she-said is to handle the evidence publicly. It needs to be posted here by him directly, not through a 3rd party. This is Singer's thread, after all. He started it, let him finish it. If he won't, that's on nobody but him.
I think you're coming unravelled again. First of all, you may or may not have e-mailed RS yet. He said adios until after he trains me just before New Years and he is probably not even thinking of reading or posting anything here because he has a houseload of visitors. Give him that time and he'll tell us if he got any e-mails or not.
You keep dancing around that issue just as you keep making believe if you e-mail him he won't respond publicly. It more and more seems like you want nothing to do with that data.
Next point: I don't know where these percentages of 38% and 40% come from, but in his newsletter he clearly explained that the machine he ran tests on for I think 10 million hands had a flipover rate of about double what it's suppose to be. I believe that's around 6% and he got 12.
How do I k ow you haven't already emailed him and he has refused? Well for one you'd have already been on here crowing about how he had refused to provide you with any of his results. Quite simple really.
Quote: AussieRubbish. Emails are perfectly acceptable as evidence for anything. They are easily proven to have occurred, when they were sent, from where etc etc. They are easily verifyable. Saying the only acceptable way to do this is for him to post it publicly is just a cop out and shows you aren't seriously interested in testing anything.
How do I k ow you haven't already emailed him and he has refused? Well for one you'd have already been on here crowing about how he had refused to provide you with any of his results. Quite simple really.
You're missing the point, my Australian friend. The evidence is not mine to collect, but Singer's to provide. If I posted here and said "hey, I created cold fusion in my kitchen and I verified it with a high-tech digital thermometer from Williams-Sonoma", you'd be justified in asking me for the evidence. If I choose not to publish that evidence, it's not your responsibility to email me for it, and you'd be justified in disputing my claim merely in the absence of that evidence. Or do you disagree?
Quote: SOOPOOHow extensive a conspiracy would there have to be to have VP machines be 'non-random' and not been exposed as of now?
For one important factor, it would have to include the extensive testing and laboratory facilities of the State of New Jersey.
Quote: SanchoPanzaFor one important factor, it would have to include the extensive testing and laboratory facilities of the State of New Jersey.
And GLI, and Nevada, and TST, and BMM, and Eclipse...
And IGT, and Bally, and ...
Thousands upon thousands of people have worked for those companies and/or organizations over the years. Not one whistleblower. Ever.
Quote: JerryLoganYou keep making believe if you e-mail him he won't respond publicly. It more and more seems like you want nothing to do with that data.
Whatever Mr. or Ms. Extremist's position on the data, others of us have repeatedly requested precisely that information here. Such an action would automatically go a long way toward quelling the growing chorus of skepticism. The response, other than some vague hand waving, has been complete silence.
Quote: SanchoPanzaFor one important factor, it would have to include the extensive testing and laboratory facilities of the State of New Jersey.
You mean the state where The Sopranos was filmed, and for good reason?
Total disbelief.
Quote: JerryLoganNext point: I don't know where these percentages of 38% and 40% come from, but in his newsletter he clearly explained that the machine he ran tests on for I think 10 million hands had a flipover rate of about double what it's suppose to be. I believe that's around 6% and he got 12.
https://wizardofodds.com/news/Chat-wih-Rob-Singer.html
"Of those 4,685 hands, he claims he received the same rank as the discarded card 2,211 times."
2211/4685 = 47.1931%
http://www.vptruth.com/articlesdetail.cfm?Counter=439
"The deals I described above occurred exactly 423 times, and the draw card came up a FLIP OVER 233 times – or about a 55% occurrence."
also from Mr Singer:
" I consider it a very good telltale sign that the machines are indeed programmed just a bit beyond what anyone has been told they are or has been able to determine from reading the limited and incomplete Gaming Regulations on-line or on paper that we the public are allowed to see."
I trust the information on the Wizard's site and Rob Singers site as well to be accurate.
Where did Mr. Singer post his other information of only double on a test machine?
Quote: JerryLoganYou mean the state where The Sopranos was filmed, and for good reason?
The exterior shots were done in Jersey. All the interiors, like their house, the Bada Bing, the shrinks office, and all the rest, were done in a studio in NYC. The pine barrens, where they whacked the irritating girlfriend, was shot in Pensicola FL.
Quote: JerryLoganYou mean the state where The Sopranos was filmed, and for good reason?
Any time you want to compare the history of organized crime in Nevada casinos with the history of organized crime in New Jersey casinos, let us know.
Again, it is a cop out to refuse to email him and shows you aren't serious about wanting to test it. Maybe you will test it if it's put in your lap. You seem to expect him to go to the effort of posting it here but you won't even make the minimal effort to email him to ask. That says it all.
Quote: MathExtremistI don't think he claims anything in that regard at all, and that's where the whole story starts to unravel. We can easily examine the implications of Singer's theory.
http://www.vptruth.com/articlesdetail.cfm?Counter=440
Mr Singer says:"I took this as a signal that something was about to occur, so I switched over to the $25 game."
and he goes on
"So what happened? It was very odd. Just two hands into the TBP+ game I was dealt a SF, and on this particular game that meant 500 credits – or $12,500. Surprising? One might think so at first, but I’m starting to feel very comfortable with my choices after seeking out and spotting these signals and patterns on what might be expected from the machines."
and more...
"At times I’m able to read what the machines’ algorithms are telling me, and I adjust my bet size accordingly."
Seems Mr Singer believes that the non-random programming does go both ways.
Even more interesting.
Quote: AussieActually it's you who is missing the point. You're right I would be justified in asking for evidence but if I want that evidence it is reasonable to expect that I would email you and ask for it. You're assuming every single person on this forum wants to test the so called evidence. They don't. Only you ad one or two others have said they are interested in testing it. The rest of us are perfectly happy to read the conclusions of someone else who has tested it. He does not need to provide something to the entire forum when only a couple are interested. Remember it is YOU who allegedly wants to test it not Singer asking for it to be tested.
Again, it is a cop out to refuse to email him and shows you aren't serious about wanting to test it. Maybe you will test it if it's put in your lap. You seem to expect him to go to the effort of posting it here but you won't even make the minimal effort to email him to ask. That says it all.
Very well - I have sent Mr. Singer a request as follows, using the contact information from his website:
From: MathExtremist
To: progambler@vptruth.com
Subject: Wizard of Vegas forum
Dear Mr. Singer,
Several of the members of the Wizard of Vegas forum would appreciate a kind reply to the requests posted in the thread you started at this URL:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/3768-my-point-of-view/
Sincerely yours,
MathExtremist
I trust this is satisfactory.
Quote: SOOPOOME- you showed a reasonable analysis of the EV if the new card was not random, that is, it was more likely to be the rank of the discarded card. But you assumed that the other 48 possibilities were equally divided. If the machine is programmed as non random so that the same rank appears 5 times as often as it should, then why would you believe that it is a fair machine? If someone rigged it that much, then it is quite possible that it is rigged to favor quads over flushes, or whatever. I am mostly playing devil's advocate here, I can't really believe the data presented by nope's 'acquaintance' is true. But IF that data is true, then since the basic premise of randomness is broke, then...
That's entirely correct - if the basic premise is broken, then there is *no way* to verify the results without actually cracking open the box and testing it -- not just for the 4-to-a-X scenario, but for all of them. Either via inspection of the source code (and checksum verification with the EPROM) or via histogram testing of outcomes. We don't know how Singer suggests the game works - we just know one example. It's currently impossible to test.
However, if the premise holds, then it would not be the case that the VP game would either show (a) the proper probabilities of each video poker hand being dealt, or (b) equally-likely individual card frequencies. The absence of these traits makes a VP game illegal under at least Nevada regulation 14, and the only rebuttal we've heard is that "there are secret regulations that overrule the public ones." But there again we're not going to see any evidence -- just empty conjecture based on heresay (and potentially based on a conversation that never occurred).
It's sent - what more would you like?Quote: AussieAnd I trust it didn't put you out too much spending 2 minutes composing the email.
Hopefully when Jerry gets it, he'll log back in as Singer and respond.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's sent - what more would you like?
I am under the impression that come Jan 1, 2011 his website will be closed down.
I wonder if he will still receive emails through it?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/3768-my-point-of-view/16/
JL posted another email address. Here's his e-mail address> rob_singer@q.com
Quote: nope27I am under the impression that come Jan 1, 2011 his website will be closed down.
I wonder if he will still receive emails through it?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/3768-my-point-of-view/16/
JL posted another email address. Here's his e-mail address> rob_singer@q.com
Forwarded.
It's out of my hands at this point, no?
Quote: MathExtremistAnd GLI, and Nevada, and TST, and BMM, and Eclipse...
And IGT, and Bally, and ...
Thousands upon thousands of people have worked for those companies and/or organizations over the years. Not one whistleblower. Ever.
No, I disagree.
It would only take a few people to pull off a caper like this, if true.
Why?
Code can be programmed into existing code, adds no extra size to the existing size of the code and unless you were looking for it you would never find it. There is a computer science about it, the name eludes me at this moment.
The name "Ronald Dale Harris" comes to mind from the excellent book "License to Steal Nevada's Gaming Control System in the Megaresort Age". You can Google it and preview the first few chapters.
Ronald Dale Harris did his computer work in the late 80s and early 90s and if you think that there are not those can do even more today, you got another thing coming.
If true, who then is behind the conspiracy?
If you only need a few people, then look to the NGC and the State of Nevada first. They profit from the profits of the casinos.
They could be a dangerous group to mess around with. I am just thinking out loud. I point my finger at no one.
In "License to Steal", a whistle blower about a scam with VP had his brains blown out before given his day to testify. Seems to me the NGC and the State of Nevada should have had him in protective custody. They did not, he was a fish in a bowl! Not a good track record for whistle blowers to come forth in Nevada.
Think I will go back to College Basketball and gay parties.
Quote: nope27No, I disagree.
It would only take a few people to pull off a caper like this, if true.
Why?
Code can be programmed into existing code, adds no extra size to the existing size of the code and unless you were looking for it you would never find it. There is a computer science about it, the name eludes me at this moment.
The name "Ronald Dale Harris" comes to mind from the excellent book "License to Steal Nevada's Gaming Control System in the Megaresort Age". You can Google it and preview the first few chapters.
I think you're talking about CRCs or other checksums. They're hard, but not impossible, to defeat. CRC isn't just about the size of the code, it's about the contents.
I have the book - it's a good one - but Harris was an acknowledged cheat. He rigged the games in flagrant violation of the regulations, and when he got caught, it was those regulations he was hung by. That's not what Singer is claiming at all.
Singer is claiming that the games are *not* rigged. He claims that they are intentionally non-random but are nevertheless in compliance with a secret set of regulations that the public cannot see. His claim implies that every gaming manufacturer must know about these regulations, because how else would they be able to intentionally program this non-randomness into their games in a compliant manner? We're not talking about a back-door hack pulled off by one or two clever engineers (and don't forget, the only way Harris was able to pull it off was with significant advanced planning, first by installing a back-door hack into the game EPROM while he worked for a vendor, and then installing it as a gaming agent). Here, we're talking about a pervasive, international government and corporate cover-up. At a minimum, hundreds of people would be involved, from gaming vendors through to public officials.
How plausible do you find that scenario?
Anyway, I'm the one who has asked for examples of regulation in action, and I actually witnessed such an occurrence this morning, at Ameristar in Council Bluffs. I was playing DDB video poker, and a slot tech and another person with a clipboard were opening and inspecting each machine. I asked what they were doing, she (the slot tech) said they were doing the yearly audit. I asked the other person, "Do you work for the gaming commission". He said "Yes, we check each machine to make sure the tape hasn't been disturbed. They can't change anything without removing the tape." He was not wearing any identification, and I did not ask for any. And I don't know anything about how the "tape" prohibits changes to the program, perhaps ME can expand on this.
A few minutes later they walked by going the other way, and I happened to have an unusual hand on the screen, a flush, with 4 to a royal. So I asked them if they knew the correct play. Neither one did, or wouldn't admit to it anyway. The slot tech said she'd probably keep the sure thing. I kept the 4 to a royal, and got another of that suit and ended up with just a flush.
And I hope this is my last post. I admit I find some of the content interesting, but there's just too much Jerry and mkl bullshit. Actually, it's not just them.
Quote: HeadlockHe said "Yes, we check each machine to make sure the tape hasn't been disturbed. They can't change anything without removing the tape." He was not wearing any identification, and I did not ask for any. And I don't know anything about how the "tape" prohibits changes to the program, perhaps ME can expand on this.
I haven't been to that jurisdiction, but it's likely a tamper-evident seal over the EPROM with the game code. In order to hack the game, you'd need to swap out the physical chip with the game firmware on it, and if that's protected by a tamper-evident tape, it'd be obvious if it had happened. In many gaming machines, especially older ones, the math model is stored on an EPROM - a write-once, non-volatile memory device.
That inspection technique only works with EPROM-based games, though. If it's a game using another program-storage medium (e.g. secure, encrypted drives), you'd have to use a manufacturer's checksum or some other method. But those systems usually go through a power-on self-test to self-verify the checksums against the code. There is a lot of gaming machine IP around doing that in a secure way.
Quote: MathExtremistI think you're talking about CRCs or other checksums. They're hard, but not impossible, to defeat. CRC isn't just about the size of the code, it's about the contents.
I have the book - it's a good one - but Harris was an acknowledged cheat. He rigged the games in flagrant violation of the regulations, and when he got caught, it was those regulations he was hung by. That's not what Singer is claiming at all.
I brought up the book to point out the fact that a whistle blower, Larry Volk, in the American Coin Caper was not protected and got his brains blown out. So I would never trust the NGC or State of Nevada for that simple fact of how they protected a star witness. And Ron Harris then went off the deep end for what ever reason since he knew about Larry Volk and probably feared for his life also. Can not condone what he did, but I say the State of Nevada and the NGC should all spend some time in HELL for the death of Larry Volk. Hey, just my opinion.
Quote: MathExtremistSinger is claiming that the games are *not* rigged. He claims that they are intentionally non-random but are nevertheless in compliance with a secret set of regulations that the public cannot see. His claim implies that every gaming manufacturer must know about these regulations, because how else would they be able to intentionally program this non-randomness into their games in a compliant manner? We're not talking about a back-door hack pulled off by one or two clever engineers (and don't forget, the only way Harris was able to pull it off was with significant advanced planning, first by installing a back-door hack into the game EPROM while he worked for a vendor, and then installing it as a gaming agent). Here, we're talking about a pervasive, international government and corporate cover-up. At a minimum, hundreds of people would be involved, from gaming vendors through to public officials.
How plausible do you find that scenario?
I still do think 100s could keep a secret. I have been to many surprise parties where 100s knew of the party but the guest of honor, even on a birthday, knew nothing.
If the secret is very valuable, then there should be no problem in keeping it a secret.
It has only been 20 years since Larry Volk was killed, the NGC learned a lot from that case and from Ron Harris.
They easily could use it to their advantage.
But...
I believe neither side without evidence, just like you..
But wait until I test 2 VP machines next week in Vegas for the 5th card flip. My friend that lives there said he would play a few hours to get the hands needed to see if we find 3/47 or 40% or more.
But then...
IF I had evidence of Singers claim, I might run to the hills and never tell anyone.
I want to die of old age not an assassins bullet.
Quote: MathExtremist
Singer is claiming that the games are *not* rigged. He claims that they are intentionally non-random but are nevertheless in compliance with a secret set of regulations that the public cannot see.
His claim implies that every gaming manufacturer must know about these regulations, because how else would they be able to intentionally program this non-randomness into their games in a compliant manner?
I think you may have arrived at a wrong conclusion.
Why would it have to be "every" gaming manufacturer?
Singer has shown over 45% same rank 5th card flip, what ever you call it, when it should be around 6.4%. But he also has shown on some machines that it is, in the very short run, as expected.
That tells me not "every gaming manufacturer" has to be in on it.
That sounds more plausible to me.
I play a lot of VP and have noticed something about the same rank coming up but thought nothing of it. Sometimes the 6 of hearts looks like the 6 of diamonds when you play fast.
Now it will make me think the next time it happens.
Damn, I just might have to carry a pencil and notepad with me to see which manufacturer's games are random.
Singer!
Quote: guido111Singer has shown over 45% same rank 5th card flip, what ever you call it, when it should be around 6.4%.
Where has he "shown" it? And that result has to be reproducible to be regarded as empirical and not just a once or twice fluke.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhere has he "shown" it?
I do not think he has "shown" it like in a HBO TV special.
He has written about it on his website.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAnd that result has to be reproducible to be regarded as empirical and not just a once or twice fluke.
You are absolutely 100% correct!
My friend, Mr X, that has exactly 162,000 VP hands documented, has 3 VP machine numbers at the Plaza Casino that I will be visiting next week.
What better than to reproduce results from the same machines.
I have machine numbers, dates, times, hit frequencies, streak frequencies...more data than the law allows.
Just to see if I can duplicate the results.
Then I will try a different manufacture just to get a set of different results and let the chips fall where they may!
Should I post all my findings?
Say the flip over rate comes in at 45%, should be 6.4% for 1 manufacture but exactly 6.4% for a different manufacture.
Should that raise one or both of my eyebrows?
Would it really matter if I did or not?
Quote: SanchoPanzaAny time you want to compare the history of organized crime in Nevada casinos with the history of organized crime in New Jersey casinos, let us know.
Who's talking about casinos?
I haven't been paying much attention to the higher %'s because they never included that many hand. The 12%er was shown on one of his videos from his machine test, and he was a little embarrassed that it was so low because of what he actually tested inside casinos.
Quote: nope27I brought up the book to point out the fact that a whistle blower, Larry Volk, in the American Coin Caper was not protected and got his brains blown out. So I would never trust the NGC or State of Nevada for that simple fact of how they protected a star witness. And Ron Harris then went off the deep end for what ever reason since he knew about Larry Volk and probably feared for his life also. Can not condone what he did, but I say the State of Nevada and the NGC should all spend some time in HELL for the death of Larry Volk. Hey, just my opinion.
Because most people don't know the story and don't have the book, here's a link to a news article about Larry Volk.
The important takeaway is that what Larry did was *also illegal*. It was expressly against the regulations, and the regulators were the ones trying to prove that. From the article:
"In 1990, Nevada's Gaming Control Board began to suspect that the company's poker systems were rigged to generate higher profits. That's when Volk took a fateful step forward. In the summer of 1990, he told state gaming authorities that American Coin's owners instructed him to rig their machines to boost profits."
In other words, AmCoin's machines actually were rigged, and there was a whistleblower that came forward to prove it. The games were intentionally programmed to be non-random in royal-flush situations, but everyone involved agreed that was illegal.
In contrast, Singer claims that there is a vast conspiracy between the vendors of VP machines AND the regulators, based on some set of secret regulations that *allow* intentionally non-random programming. Singer claims that the VP games are both non-random but *not rigged*. In other words, if Singer is to be believed, maybe American Coin did nothing wrong by intentionally programming non-randomness into its games to avoid the royals. The reaction of the regulators would seem to tell a different story, however.
Think about it. Do you believe that video poker games are (a) intentionally programmed to be non-random and (b) operating as designed, and (c) operating as a set of secret regulations permit them to operate? How could all of those possibly be true simultaneously, in light of the known regulatory actions you've cited thus far?
Quote: guido111I think you may have arrived at a wrong conclusion.
Why would it have to be "every" gaming manufacturer?
Singer has shown over 45% same rank 5th card flip, what ever you call it, when it should be around 6.4%. But he also has shown on some machines that it is, in the very short run, as expected.
That tells me not "every gaming manufacturer" has to be in on it.
That sounds more plausible to me.
I play a lot of VP and have noticed something about the same rank coming up but thought nothing of it. Sometimes the 6 of hearts looks like the 6 of diamonds when you play fast.
Now it will make me think the next time it happens.
I wasn't specific enough - I should have said "all VP manufacturers". Not all gaming vendors produce VP. Many do not, and IGT sells the majority (with Bally far behind and, last I checked, not spending too much trying to catch up.)
But Singer's premise is that *all* VP games are filled with intentionally non-random programming, not just the machines from IGT or from Bally. If that's the claim, then all those vendors need to be in on the conspiracy, plus all the regulators in every jurisdiction where those VP games are operated.
Plus, consider the situation where a heretofore slots-only vendor comes to market with a new VP product. How would they find out about the secret regulations so they could comply with them?
On the other hand, perhaps Singer's theory is instead that only one vendor's machines are intentionally programmed with non-randomness, say the IGT '960 machines. That is perhaps even a more serious charge since it would imply that there is a cover-up between one gaming vendor and the gaming regulators to the detriment of the other vendors. Imagine the lawsuits...
If it's even implied by someone credible (let's say the Wizard) there is indeed some monkey business with programming has been confirmed. As soon as that's implied even without telling us what, probably a bunch of people are going to the gaming commision, the news agencies, congress people, attorney general etc.,
I will be. I doubt if I will be alone.
So it can't even happen.
Not in any credible way.
But go for it. Hah.
I think it's all bollocks anyway.
Quote: TheNightfly... Jerry, if you find that baiting people by demeaning them and tossing childish taunts in their direction is the only way you know how to communicate, it's no wonder you're always at odds with many members of this forum. ...
OK, so my post here is a bit off-topic for the main discussion of this thread, but there is a thought that has been bouncing around in my head for a while, and I thought I would let it out. The above quotes relate to this thought but may not be the best introductory comments -- I just picked them because they spurred my action.Quote: mkl654321He truly knows no other way to communicate. He does not have the ability to be civil for any length of time....
Anyone who has been reading this forum for more than five or ten minutes is well aware of the battles between JerryLogan and mkl654321, with all of the name calling and overwhelming nastiness. It doesn't take much more reading of the forum than that to recognize how wide spread Jerry's nasty comments have been to numerous other members. In recent weeks (perhaps months), mkl's nasty posts have pretty much been directed at Jerry, but if you look back to August or maybe September, he too was quite offensive in his comments to a number of members.
So both of them have plenty of talent and experience at attacking others on this forum.
On the other hand, my personal experience in communicating with both of them has been quite civil, even polite, in both directions. And perhaps even productive or enlightening. While I don't hold with some of Jerry's views on gambling, that has not led to either of us attacking the other, as it should not. Just this evening in another thread, I had occasion to specifically note that I agreed with him. And mkl and I have both agreed and disagreed on a fairly wide range of topics, with essentially no discord between us ever that I can remember.
So I have been wondering: How can it be that two individuals who both clearly have the ability to engage in intelligent, polite discussions with me find it so difficult to EVER conduct similar conversations with each other? I understand that there are those people who just prefer to pick fights or taunt others, but it really seems strange to me that they can both be so reasonable for me to talk with (via postings) while they constantly have conflicts when interacting with each other or with other members of the forum.
Any thoughts on this? (If someone thinks this warrants a thread of its own, I have no objection to it being moved.)
In Phase II, I have in recent months made somewhat of a friend with the apparent forum nemesis RS, which means I have talked to him and we have been to each other's homes. Mr. Singer is a total decent person and is very likeable, but I never thought that until I did meet him. Mkl continually calls him a liar without support, he calls him names, and he makes up more lies about him that a straight married guy would if he "accidentally" spent 3 hours in a gay SF bath house. The Wizard even let him get away with it in one post even when his assertions made no sense, were untrue, and were born of hatred. Now, because I defend the guy, it bothers mkl even more so I have to turn my efforts to schooling the him on proper forum etiquette.
