Re: [vpFREE] Royal Cycle

 

Can anyone provide a number indicating the reliability of a given number of hands being used to decide if a machine is dealing a random or less-than-random distribution of hands?  For example, would 30,000 hands be 98% reliable (with there still being a 2% chance that any variance found, or for that matter not found, was due to being at the end of the bell-shaped curve).  It's been a LONG time since I learned basic statistics, but I seem to remember this number as a level of confidence that the outcome of a set of data is / is not consistent with a normal distribution.  As sample size goes up, level of confidence goes up.

And what do you need to track -- quads, full houses, lesser hands?  I assume you aren't going to get a FULL set of data from zip to royals...but then the outcome you're not tracking could be the one costing you money, if the machine is rigged to produce non-random outcomes on something your're not looking at.

Since we have a lot of players on this site, playing a lot of hands (until recently), it would not be unusual, if that confidence level is 98%, for 1 in 50 players to collect data that says the distribution is NOT random, when it is, but they're just at the periphery of the data collectors.  In fact, not only would it not be unusual, that's what you would expect at a 98% confidence level.  If I understand correctly, 1% would have data saying the machine is paying below-expected, and 1% would say its not-random for the better.

I think I might want an even higher confidence level that a machine was rigged before I decided I shouldn't play it.  Of course, how high that confidence level has to be (95%, 98%, 99.9%) is an individual's choice to use as a sign to go to a different place to play.  Medical research routinely accepts a 5% level of possible random outcomes, which is why many will consider such studies preliminary until replicated, with greater samples creating a lower "p" for the study, such as 1%.  Even then, in medicine we regularly find practices based on low "p" studies that turn out later to have been incorrect in their conclusions.  Thankfully, a game like VP doesn't have as many variables as human medical research :) 

Personally, I can play 500-1000 hands an hour of single line JoB, and I wouldn't want to slow that down to 100-200 hands an hour, which is probably the best I could do if I were trying to collect data on every hand I played, or even on less-frequent ones, even if I had some kind of spreadsheet on my cell phone.  Probably quad occurrences would be infrequent enough that I wouldn't go nuts collecting the data.

In the end, for most of us, it's a question of "am I still having a good time" (and the answer is usually dependent on how we're doing, even though that is no measure of how fair the machine is).  For the rest, i.e. any surviving VP pro's, the question is more serious, but presumably there is a network of info flowing between them so they can avoid any cheating casinos out there.  And as important as it is not to be superstitious for a pro, when you're running bad, it has to seep into your mind (the alternative is accepting the possibility that you're not playing as flawlessly as you think you are).

I think I would feel comfortable playing in any regulated environment, even if the level of oversight is not that close, just because the cost of being shut down is so out of proportion.  But I can see how a machine that's set to cut returns to the player down by just 1-2% could easily escape detection, if the operators are smart enough to not be any greedier than that (perhaps not likely for already-dishonest people).  On the other hand, if I'm at a non-regulated casino (?most Indian casinos?), my level of suspicion would be higher, whether there's a good reason for that or not -- and I'm not talking anti-Native American bias, I'm strictly talking about the fact that the operation is running with no outside oversight.

=====================

On Monday, April 20, 2020, 03:56:23 PM EDT, harry.porter@verizon.net [vpFREE] <vpfree@yahoogroups.com> wrote:




I'll disagree on what to track.  If I were to "gaffe" a machine, I'd insert a subroutine that shaved 10% of otherwise paying flushes and straights by changing them to non-paying hands.  That would very reliably pare 2% of each session's payout.  This should be reasonably evident in tracking, perhaps, 200 cycles of actual flush and straight hits, or looking at session results (I'd think 30 2000-hand sessiosn would be sufficient to see a clear aberration, more to conclude with a 95% confidence that an assertion that the machine isn't gaffed is wrong.  In this case, dealt card frequency wouldn't disclose any problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: greeklandjohnny@aol.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 20, 2020 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Royal Cycle



Harry, that is true. Also, hands like AcKc8cJh6d, you hold the 3 flush cards. I'm sure there are many other examples as well. 

You also touch on another point. If you really want to track if a game is 'fair', all you would really need to do is track the dealt cards and sure they are distributed equally.

You can phrase it a lot of ways but after a 1000 hands or 10,000 hands, the number of hearts dealt should be about the same as the diamonds or clubs or spaces. It should really come down to the dealt card level. That is what is really going on. More to follow. 

JZ

-----Original Message-----
From: harry.porter@verizon.net [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 20, 2020 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Royal Cycle

 
FWIW, I'd speculate that it's the instances in 10/7 DB where you hold 3 flush cards with at least 1 high card, vs JB where that's not a viable hold, that accounts for much of the RF cycle increase in 10/7 DB.

As you suggest, Barry's pretty much nailed the concept re what drives the RF cycle.  I'd rather his first sentence be completed: "... which means that the distribution of dealt cards should be the same."  He clarifies that he grasps that the "frequency of occurrence of royals" is both a function of card distribution (unchanged from one fair machine to another) and player hold strategy.



-----Original Message-----
From: greeklandjohnny@aol.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 20, 2020 2:30 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Royal Cycle



Barry, right on track. 

JOB has a cycle of about 40,300. 10/7 DB is about 48,000 hands. In 10/7 DB, there are a ton of very close decisions, mostly around 2 or 3 high cards. And how you play these will affect your royal cycle. 

Frugal Video Poker had a feature where you could tweak the strategy table to reflect how you play and then see the cycles for the various hands. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Glazer b.glazer@att.net [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 20, 2020 11:53 am
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Royal Cycle

 
I only play Jacks or Better, but I thought that all the ("legal" / non-fixed) games dealt from a random deck, which means the frequency of occurrence of royals should be the same, no matter the game.  

I of course understand that how you play the game (strategy, if that's what you're using) can obviously influence the occurrence of royals -- it's possible to always toss any draw to any possible royal and assure the only ones you ever get are either dealt, or drawn on a five card draw.  That's the most obvious extreme example of how you play influencing the outcome; the opposite direction would be if you always drew to any possible royal no matter what you already had (e.g., breaking quads to draw to an ace) -- which would give you more royals, but at a far greater cost.

I also understand that different games and pay tables call for different correct / optimal play strategies, and that playing the correct strategy for one game might therefore produce a different frequency of royals occurring than playing the correct strategy for a different game -- am I correct in understanding your explanation below of different frequencies / cycles for different games and pay tables is based on these variations in strategy ("how the person plays the game"?

==================

On Monday, April 20, 2020, 11:36:54 AM EDT, greeklandjohnny@aol.com [vpFREE] <vpfree@yahoogroups.com> wrote:




Scared maybe wasn't the right word. Substitute concerned, but the message is the same.

And it is very true that the actual number could be far less than 16 or far greater than 23. The idea was to show that the number of royals is not determined by the machine but by pay table and how the person plays the game. Some people make non optimal plays that increase or decrease the royal cycle.

By game, I meant type of game ( Jacks or better, double bonus, etc). By rules, I meant pay table 9/6 JOB has a different royal cycle than 6/5 JOB.  I didn't choose those terms very well. Sorry for the confusion.

The individual machine is a reflection of the overall royal cycle of the game and pay table. The machine does not drive the royal cycle. 

JZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Gimmeaquad gimmeaquad@yahoo.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 20, 2020 12:30 am
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Royal Cycle

 
I'm not "scared" to play it now or a year from now.  Interesting that you would say that.  As for you 810K scenario, you could have far less than 16 or more than 23.  It is true that it is based on the pay table of the game, but not by the rules.

GimmeaQuad

On Sunday, April 19, 2020, 12:29:44 PM PDT, greeklandjohnny@aol.com [vpFREE] <vpfree@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Machines don't have individual royal cycles. The royal cycle ( assuming perfect play) is based on the pay table of the game. If the royal cycle is 40,500 hands, that is the royal cycle and it doesn't matter if the game is idled for a month or not. 

If you have 1000 of these machines and they each accumulate 810,000 hands ( 20 royal cycles), some machines will have 16 royals and some will have 23 royals but it is not because of the machine. It is because of the game and the rules. 

So, if you are scared to play when the machines first turn on, you should be scared to play a year later. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Gimmeaquad gimmeaquad@yahoo.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpfree <vpfree@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 19, 2020 3:02 pm
Subject: [vpFREE] Royal Cycle

 
Since I'm tired of all the discussions regarding the coronavirus, I have a question that is VP related.  With all of the gaming machines shut down or inactive, will it make a difference on the royal cycle of each machine if it was put in standby or completely turned off?  Just prior to the shutdown, I noticed all gaming machines were put into a standby inactive mode with just a small message showing.  What about like the El Cortez with their coin droppers in the back of the property?  Will the RNG start a fresh cycle if the machine is completely turned off?  If it was in a standby mode, will it pick back up once a machine is turned back on and cycle thru from the moment it went into hibernation?  Will the old coin droppers behave the same way.

If it was me, I would not play right after the machines are all back on line.  Maybe wait a few days.

GimmeaQuad   








__._,_.___
Posted by: Barry Glazer <b.glazer@att.net>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (30)
vpFREE Links:

http://usma1955.com/20228//V/Links.htm

                            ***************************************

vpFREE Messages (since 10 OCT 2019):

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/vpfree-archives

                            ***************************************

Old vpFREE Yahoo archives:

http://usma1955.com/20228/V/Yahoo/vpFREE_Yahoo_Archives.htm

.

__,_._,___