Damn, I know that guy!
>I've also noticed that the same guy is usually pressing everything on those bets and often finds himself muttering "one more [whatever] and I would have won some cash".
George will be about as happy working for Caesars Entertainment as
Michael Gaughan was working for Boyd Gaming. Don't be surprised to see
George involved in a lot more public intoxication arrests in the near
future.
This is a very sad day for local video poker players. Remember when
the Rio was a "local's hangout". Can you imagine George trying to convince
the idiots at Caesars to send out bounceback mailers to locals under the
Total Crap Rewards system?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: harry.porter@verizon.net
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:18:00 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
Kudos to NOTI for clearing up some of the misconceptions about pigeons and the Monte Carlo problem. (Seriously)
What I want to offer up is that I think Frank introduced a red herring into the general topic when he suggested that "it's a bad idea to look for patterns in random events." Hell, scientists engage in queries all the time where they do just that. SETI is one of the most notorious examples.
The fallacy that I believe Frank desired to highlight was attributing meaning to patterns in random events without first having subject the phenomenon to appropriate statistical tests to evaluate the probability of such a pattern occurring "at random", as opposed through some distortion of natural odds.
When it comes to the belief that some have that they can improve their odds in the casino by strategically switching machines, it has to be conceded that the M.C. pigeon "switchers" were right on the money. But the math fully supports their call .. intuitively, they made the right choice.
But in some situations intuition is a poor play partner, and the casino "machine switch" has no such support in the underlying math. As I noted before, ideally, such behavior has no penalty (such as when the switch is to another equivalent machine and doesn't impact other aspects of play). But, in practice, I often see it give rise to sub-optimal choices that impact the player, and sometimes those around them.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
vpFREE-digest@yahoogroups.com
vpFREE-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Kudos to NOTI for clearing up some of the misconceptions about pigeons and the Monte Carlo problem. (Seriously)
What I want to offer up is that I think Frank introduced a red herring into the general topic when he suggested that "it's a bad idea to look for patterns in random events." Hell, scientists engage in queries all the time where they do just that. SETI is one of the most notorious examples.
The fallacy that I believe Frank desired to highlight was attributing meaning to patterns in random events without first having subject the phenomenon to appropriate statistical tests to evaluate the probability of such a pattern occurring "at random", as opposed through some distortion of natural odds.
When it comes to the belief that some have that they can improve their odds in the casino by strategically switching machines, it has to be conceded that the M.C. pigeon "switchers" were right on the money. But the math fully supports their call .. intuitively, they made the right choice.
But in some situations intuition is a poor play partner, and the casino "machine switch" has no such support in the underlying math. As I noted before, ideally, such behavior has no penalty (such as when the switch is to another equivalent machine and doesn't impact other aspects of play). But, in practice, I often see it give rise to sub-optimal choices that impact the player, and sometimes those around them.
I would complain to the Casino Control Commission if Harrah's customer service is of no help, although that may not get you anywhere either.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, coachvee@... wrote:
> The big news on that day, though, was our mystery multiplier. We were
> supposed to get either 3X, 6X or 12X but when Hedy swiped our cards after
> breakfast, the kiosk indicated that we both would be receiving 15X rewards
> credits that day. Eureka!
> So, we hankered down and began to play. After a couple of hours one of our
> casino buddies came over to us and said, "Did you hear about the foul-up?"
> We asked her what she was talking about and she explained that the kiosks
> had malfunctioned earlier and that the 15X was a "mistake." She told us we
> had to re-swipe our cards to see what we were really getting. We did and
> found that we were both getting the lower 3X multiplier. This was upsetting,
> as well as very misleading, to say the least.
> Some other friends of ours, who were guaranteed 11X points at Showboat and
> Bally's that day, had stayed at Harrah's since they thought they were
> getting 15X and had played for a few hours before we called them and told them
> the bad news. To say they were unhappy would be an understatement.
> We complained to the Total Rewards Desk but were given the same old story
> ... it was a computer glitch and they were sorry.
I'm pretty sure pigeons don't know probability. Instead, they have a randomizing algorithm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm
This allows them to discover that the grass is sometimes greener on the other side, in other words they discover a pattern in a random event, after all it's not guaranteed that there's always food in the other door, there's no direct and deterministic cause and effect, instead it's just more likely. Hence, for the pigeons, discovering a pattern in randomness is economically useful, not a folly as some might suggest. (I'm assuming the pigeons learned to increase their choice of the other door, but maybe they simply kept their randomizing ratio the same and weren't smart enough to learn).
What makes it more interesting is that the famous mathematician Paul Erdos, who thought he knew probability theory perfectly, was not at all convinced, until he looked at a Monte Carlo sim. A Monte Carlo sim is a brute force method, it simply spits out the possible results. The mathematician Paul Erdos instantly recognized a pattern in the random data, just as the pidgeons had recognized a pattern in the data they collected, namely that changing ones choice doubled ones odds, but Erdos was able to also correct the mistake he had made in his earlier judgement using probability theory. The moral of the story is that it is sometimes useful to run a Monte Carlo analysis, or simply start collecting data, and confirm that the patterns revealed are consistant with ones understanding of probability theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
Mickey's suggestion that one try dealing the cards to oneself first and watching the patterns is a form of the Monte Carlo method.
Other links that might be found useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Hall_Problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:
>
>
> "So, in the Monty Hall problem, can we perceive a pattern in the remaining two doors? When 1 and 2, more likely to be 1, when 2 and 3 more likely to be 2, etc.? I don't think the pigeons did - they learned to make a choice based on probability, not patterns, and I didn't see evidence that they then chose the correct door with any edge."
>
> What's the difference between "probability" and "pattern" though? The "pattern" is that your "probability" of reward is twice as great if you change your initial choice than not. If one group opts to change and ther other group opts to stand pat, the first group has recognized that pattern while the 2nd group has not.
>
> Honestly, as addressed by someone else before, the term " pattern" really needs to be defined more tightly for this discussion. I readily agree that my usage of the term in the preceeding paragraph does not comport with its definition as used in mathematics. If that is the definition being used for the term, however, then the discussion becomes far less interesting on the macro and micro level (at least to me).
>
>
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> From: allen-walker@...
> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:18:28 +0000
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gee, Frank, did you think that the religion aspect would turn out to be the definition of randomness?
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@> wrote:
> >
> > And sometimes it refuses to see patterns based on preconceived assumptions.
> > http://www.livescience.com/animals/pigeons-monty-hall-problem-100304.html
>
> So, in the Monty Hall problem, can we perceive a pattern in the remaining two doors? When 1 and 2, more likely to be 1, when 2 and 3 more likely to be 2, etc.? I don't think the pigeons did - they learned to make a choice based on probability, not patterns, and I didn't see evidence that they then chose the correct door with any edge.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
> >
> >American Coin scandal, the machines would still be operating today.
>
> American Coin involved gaffed machines - no randomness there.
>
> >even coin flips are up to dispute:
> >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1697475
>
> Diaconis' work proved that if we flip a coin, with the same initial conditions, we can predict, nay, control, the outcome - similar to placing a coin in our palm and turning our palm over - the coin still "flipped" - with predictable results - until we lose muscular control. This is not randomness.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator
>
> Do certain hardware (and pseudo) random number generators decay? Yes, pseudos will even repeat. Do they all? I don't know - counting neutrino arrival rates, e.g., may not. Even with decay, and absent of knowledge of initial conditions, I say such devices produce sequences that are random as far as we can tell. Do we think that we can track past output from such devices and discern a future pattern? I don't.
>
> I think that's Frank's question - 3 reds in a row so now bet black (or red)?, trip 6s in a row so now hold a single 6?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
>
> Heres a great game to play. Grab a deck of cards and sit down at the kitchen table. This is gonna take a while so quit your job.<snip>
The great benefit of doing all that is so when you are out playing video poker and see similar patterns you can say to yourself "This machine is rigged just as bad as that deck of cards I got back home."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mickey,
Your post reminded me of when I first started to learn blackjack card counting about 15 or 16 years ago. Early on I went through a stretch where I had the absolute worst luck imaginable. Seemed like every single time I put out a max bet the dealer would blackjack, or the dealer would beat every big bet 20 with a multiple card 21. Double down and split hands - automatic losers. It was just mind-numbing. My results were so bad that I was almost 100% certain that I was being cheated, except....
... that I was dealing all the cards to myself at home.
In the long run this was probably a benefit to me. I learned a good early lesson in just how badly things can go south, even when we have the advantage.
EE
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: allen-walker@sbcglobal.net
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:18:28 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
Gee, Frank, did you think that the religion aspect would turn out to be the definition of randomness?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:
>
> And sometimes it refuses to see patterns based on preconceived assumptions.
> http://www.livescience.com/animals/pigeons-monty-hall-problem-100304.html
So, in the Monty Hall problem, can we perceive a pattern in the remaining two doors? When 1 and 2, more likely to be 1, when 2 and 3 more likely to be 2, etc.? I don't think the pigeons did - they learned to make a choice based on probability, not patterns, and I didn't see evidence that they then chose the correct door with any edge.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
>
>American Coin scandal, the machines would still be operating today.
American Coin involved gaffed machines - no randomness there.
>even coin flips are up to dispute:
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1697475
Diaconis' work proved that if we flip a coin, with the same initial conditions, we can predict, nay, control, the outcome - similar to placing a coin in our palm and turning our palm over - the coin still "flipped" - with predictable results - until we lose muscular control. This is not randomness.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator
Do certain hardware (and pseudo) random number generators decay? Yes, pseudos will even repeat. Do they all? I don't know - counting neutrino arrival rates, e.g., may not. Even with decay, and absent of knowledge of initial conditions, I say such devices produce sequences that are random as far as we can tell. Do we think that we can track past output from such devices and discern a future pattern? I don't.
I think that's Frank's question - 3 reds in a row so now bet black (or red)?, trip 6s in a row so now hold a single 6?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
vpFREE-digest@yahoogroups.com
vpFREE-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
LVRJ: Equity groups seek controlling stake in Palms casino
http://www.lvrj.com/business/equity-groups-seek-controlling-stake-in-palms-casino-113019314.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/2dufjxg
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2dufjxg">
http://tinyurl.com/2dufjxg</a>
*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, nickdanger77 wrote:
> I think you underestimate the number of casinos that have an accounting
> system. If there is player-tracking, there is an accounting system. They
> are one in the same. This will only work in the smallest of casinos, but
> it is legit.
I was playing at Caesars Palace LV once when they came by and keyed an
entire bank of VP machines, showing the theo, actual hold, etc. Granted
this was 4-5 years ago.
Do not know if I missed this during the last FPVP purge but it appears that
machine #9203 actually moved rather than disappeared. It has 25c 9-6 jacks
and 9-7 DB. I have added it back to the database.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"A visitor to a hotel does have a certain right to privacy," said Maggie McLetchie, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. "Security guards just can't come into a room, search it and do what they want."
There's that nasty ACLU defending the bad guys once again. Oh, wait...
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, K/J Haka <kjhaka@...> wrote:
>
> Here's the link to your LVRJ article:
> http://www.lvrj.com/business/tourist-sues-hard-rock-hotel-over-incident-with-security-112835159.html
The "good old days" to me was playing full pay dueces at the Barbary Coast. When you were hungry you just asked for a meal ticket. They gave you a red card good for two meals at the Victorian restrauant. They also sent us three nights and free steak dinners to come out there. (of course I had the filet mignon).
I owe my correct playing to a guy sitting next to me helping me out. He told me about correct holds. I later attended a dueces seminar by Bill Dancer at the Palms and I was hooked. I could learn another game I guess. But I sure do like FPDW.
Brad
Amarillo
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobbartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
Or learn to specialize in something besides FPDW. Palms is still a good casino, with other decent games. But I feel your pain, and share a longing for the good old days(five years ago).
I think you underestimate the number of casinos that have an accounting system. If there is player-tracking, there is an accounting system. They are one in the same. This will only work in the smallest of casinos, but it is legit.
D
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK I'll just tell everybody. Please understand how big a deal this is. Not too many people know this. I'm giving you a big fish here.
>
> #3 = The accounting department has to key the machine while you are sitting there playing it. ALL the info is readily displayed.
>
> Usually, casinos key their machines once a month, or once a week for accounting purposes. It is almost always late at night and early in the month. You'll see then walking around with a clipboard and security guard escort. They'll walk up and say, "Could you stand back from your machine for just 1 second", it is a more like 5.
[...]
>
> Also, it probably isn't possible in casinos with real-time links from accounting to slots. Some do have it, but it's pricey software, probably only in the high-rent joints.
Hi Gang:
After two consecutive years of finishing in the black, Hedy and I dropped
back into red numbers in 2010, but thanks to a record amount of cashback
(over 25G) our gambling loss for the year was a manageable one. Taking into
account the comps we received ... rooms, meals, shows, trips, gifts,
cruises, etc. ... it certainly could be considered another "good year" for us in
the casinos.
Thankfully, we ended 2010 on a positive note New Year's Eve at Harrah's AC
and then added another win on New Year's Day to start 2011 off on a high
note. Friday (NYE) Hedy put us over the top immediately when she held a lone
ace and drew the other three and a trey for a 2G handpay. I chipped in with
a set of aces for $800 and fours with a kicker for another $800 and we
went to the party in the ballroom that night with smiles on our faces. We also
had an 11X multiplier that day and put close to 4,000 base points on
Hedy's card.
The party was the usual high-decibel, high-energy extravaganza Harrah's
puts on every year featuring the same-old, same-old shrimp cocktail, salad,
surf-and-turf dinner that is barely edible. But we did have a nice time
enjoying the evening with a host of friends at our table and actually rang in
the New Year standing on one foot, the right. It was Hedy's idea. She said
it was important to start off the New Year on the "right foot!!!" Clever
girl, eh.
New Year's Day was another good one as we made five $800 hits (aces twice
and two's, three's and four's with kickers) plus assorted other $250 quads.
The big news on that day, though, was our mystery multiplier. We were
supposed to get either 3X, 6X or 12X but when Hedy swiped our cards after
breakfast, the kiosk indicated that we both would be receiving 15X rewards
credits that day. Eureka!
So, we hankered down and began to play. After a couple of hours one of our
casino buddies came over to us and said, "Did you hear about the foul-up?"
We asked her what she was talking about and she explained that the kiosks
had malfunctioned earlier and that the 15X was a "mistake." She told us we
had to re-swipe our cards to see what we were really getting. We did and
found that we were both getting the lower 3X multiplier. This was upsetting,
as well as very misleading, to say the least.
Some other friends of ours, who were guaranteed 11X points at Showboat and
Bally's that day, had stayed at Harrah's since they thought they were
getting 15X and had played for a few hours before we called them and told them
the bad news. To say they were unhappy would be an understatement.
We complained to the Total Rewards Desk but were given the same old story
... it was a computer glitch and they were sorry.
We will be back at Harrah's this weekend hoping to continue the positive
trend in 2011. After all, it did all begin on the "right foot."
Regards,
CoachVee & Hedy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
