View Single Post
  #146 (permalink)  
Old 3rd May 2006, 09:37 PM
GrandMaster's Avatar
GrandMaster GrandMaster is offline
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,217
WTGs: 1
WTGd at 10 Times in 4 Posts
Thanks: 142
Thanked 684 Times in 402 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 3706
Rep Power: 50
GrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond reputeGrandMaster has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casinomeister
This just in from English Harbour:

Although the doubling component of Video Poker is theoretically deterministic, it's common knowledge that there are varying chances for winning and losing when picking a card out of four, to play against the card that is dealt face up.
Can someone help me? This sentence makes no sense to me.

Quote:
Randomness:

It's important that the frequency distribution of the cards in an adequate sample set are evenly distributed for each position in the doubling game. We have found, taking several sample sets over different and varying lengths of time, that they yield in our opinion, a non biased distribution of the cards.
And we have found, taking several sample sets over the past week-end, that they yield in our opinion, a biased distribution of the cards.

Quote:
Game Play:

In theory, the number of Wins versus the number of losses and (excluding ties) will converge to 50% over a sample set that is large enough. Should small sample sets be used to measure this metric, then results will vary as seems to be the case tracing through this thread.
Freudian slip? I would rather hope that the ratio of the number of wins to the number of losses should converge to 1. The doubling seems to be so biased that even few hundred hands give statistically significant results.

Quote:
We trust, that we have responded adequately and any doubt in peoples' mind are put to rest.

English Harbour Management
Not my mind, but I will wait for the Wizard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aindreas_Daoc
Just as I expected: they "fixed" the problem internally then denied it happened. If the Wiz tests the software now, of course he'll find that everything is back to normal, but the data set obtained by forum members here show that at one point the game was crooked.
I have not played at OddsOn for ages, but as I recall, there was some kid of a playcheck feature. It would be a good idea for players to save their play history now in as much detail as possible. Michael Shackleford should be able to test the cumulative results over the whole relevant period of time, not just whether it is fair now.
__________________
"The voice of reason"
http://mb.winneronline.com moderator