6,000 hands at the Strat this Monday/Tuesday, got one (1) quad.
That's >10 deviations. VP is rigged at this joint as well :-)
Discussion of "gaffed" VP reminds me of similar threads from back in the day.
And there's always the DVD about Larry Volk's murder:
"...Larry Volk knew better than most the truth about Vegas-that the promise of the big payout is rarely fulfilled. As a programmer for a gaming machine company, he was ordered to rig video poker machines so they would never deliver big-money winnings to the players. And when the authorities discovered the scam, Volk was tapped to be the star witness for the prosecution. But before his court appearance, he was killed by Mob wanna-be acquaintances..."
http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=66985&SESSID=760ae5708d7df4f5842235236dfc005a&v=history
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
>
> Stuart wrote:
>
> >misscraps@ wrote:
> >> Played some single line DDB at Palms tonight and sure enough,
> >> lots of quads. It reconfirmed my feelings that the NCL Epic
> >> VP didn't just have bad pay tables, but was gaffed.
> >
> >Playing single line, and accurately recording the number of hands vs number of quads, how long would you have to play in order to have even a 75% confidence that your results reflect the expectation of the machine, rather than random short-term fluctuation? There must be math experts here who know exactly. Personally, I'd guess it'd take much more than one day.
> >
> >If not recording the quads and hands played exactly, but relying on feelings, I'm not sure that anyone could ever get a reliable conclusion re whether a machine is a little gaffed.
> >
> >Stuart
> >http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
>
> If it's possible, how long it would take depends on how much it's
> gaffed. But I'm not sure there's any way to tell that a machine is
> gaffed using trials. How far results deviate from expected, as per a
> particular theory, can be measured, but that's not enough. If one's
> results deviate from expected, based on the theory that all cards have
> an equal chance of occurring, by 8 standard deviations, is that an
> indication that the machine is gaffed? How about 3 standard
> deviations? 2? Where is the line at which the probability that the
> machine is gaffed exceeds 50%? It's still a guess. If being "off" by
> 8 standard deviations is an indication that the machine is gaffed,
> isn't the result of every hand some indication that the machine is
> gaffed?
>
