|
[QUOTE=SteveCut;268297]Path wrote:
Good to see some lively and informed comments in response to my post.
I have tried to simplify what is a complex subject (take a look at SlotMonster’s excellent post to see what I mean by complex) and apologies if my statements have been construed as misleading in any way.
I would just like to clarify the points raised by SteveCut.
This is not true. The RNG has no say in the payout percentage. It's task is simply to generate random numbers.
Fully agree and as I previously stated, the RNG exists solely to churn out an outcome as random as man can make.
The RNG does not make it impossible to track players or influence the outcome of bets. It's true that it does not do this itself, but that is hardly the point. This is like saying that a car engine set to rev at 3000 r.p.m. guarantees that the car will progress at a constant speed! It ignores the rest of the car (gears, clutch, brakes etc.). You are ignoring the rest of the software where it would be perfectly possible to control these things. A perfect RNG is no guarantee of fairness!
I like the analogy and sticking with that theme, if the engine isn’t up to scratch then everything else is superfluous and the overall performance is greatly affected. I would just add that any computer equipment that we use to facilitate the gaming transaction is subject to the same Licence Condition as explained. I would re-iterate that we are unable to track and influence the outcome of any bet placed, based on previous outcomes and patterns of play.
This is a very disingenuous statement. You must know very well that you do not shuffle the pack to reduce the house-edge and to give the players an advantage. You shuffle after every game to thwart card-counting and thereby protect the house-edge.
I offered this fact up to illustrate the differences between land based and on line environments and to indicate that it was not necessarily a bad thing for the player excepting, of course, those who card count.
Cheers
Pat
|