On 9/13/2013 9:19 AM, Barry Glazer wrote:
> As I understood the article, the poker-slot had to be "dumbed down"
> not so much to make it interesting, as to comply with gaming
> regulations that prohibit a machine from changing its operation in
> response to a particular player's play; the article said:
> "Casino commissions, however, mandate that a gaming machine cannot
> change its playing style in response to particular opponents. A poker
> game must play a World Series of Poker champion the same way it does a
> neophyte, so Dahl's machine would not be able to learn from its
> experience in a casino."
That is not the only problem. The machine also violates laws like the
one in New Jersey that require the machine game mimic as closely as
possible to the real. The machine admittedly does not, as in its effort
to lessen its dominance over the bettors it takes "dives" every now and
then:
"Because a never-beatable game will not succeed in a casino, the machine
was programmed to occasionally play in a weak, passive style, seeming to
reduce the game's edge and re-engaging casual players. The result is
that this game "gets accused of having leaks," Giuffria says; posters
gloat online about its weaknesses. Inevitably, he adds, the take-away
is: " 'Of course I will beat it.' They don't know that it might be one
of the hands that falls into a gray area where the machine takes a dive
deliberately.""
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (8) |
