4 To a Royal

[juliack]

I have played VP on and off today at my favorite MG casinos and I am absolutely amazed about how many 4 to a royal I received. I now believe it is part of the MG VP program. I play my local B&M quite often now and do quite well at VP, hitting many medium ( 3K to 6K ) wins with the occasional royal thrown in and very rarely do I see a 4 to a royal. I have never had a pat royal on multiplay online but received hundreds of 4 to a royal on multiplay few of which resulted in a royal. I have been watching the VP trends quite closely at both B&M and online to establish a pattern. Both are quite consistant in their own patterns but I find the online VP seems to go into a dead mode or a sort of tease mode after you hit. Not so with the B&M. Any thoughts ? Cheers

[peteyweestro]

sheez ia all my years gambling i never even had 4 to a royal,i had many 3 to a royal but no 4's

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by juliack

I have played VP on and off today at my favorite MG casinos and I am absolutely amazed about how many 4 to a royal I received. I now believe it is part of the MG VP program. I play my local B&M quite often now and do quite well at VP, hitting many medium ( 3K to 6K ) wins with the occasional royal thrown in and very rarely do I see a 4 to a royal. I have never had a pat royal on multiplay online but received hundreds of 4 to a royal on multiplay few of which resulted in a royal. I have been watching the VP trends quite closely at both B&M and online to establish a pattern. Both are quite consistant in their own patterns but I find the online VP seems to go into a dead mode or a sort of tease mode after you hit. Not so with the B&M. Any thoughts ? Cheers

We both know the answer despite the online evangelists! Now, we just need to execute it in entirety ((that said, I have been slaughtered in BandM's also if not worse but regardless the variance varies moreso (less predictable) than the online takedown mode that constantly occurs and defies the math/statistics but can only be labeled continual "very bad luck" due to sample size)) or if you continue to enjoy and like the convenience of online as I, then limit your play. Assuming you know what I know (at least about BJ for me), I believe we have to take responsibility for our own actions, no reason to keep complaining imo! Cheers!!

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by NASHVEGAS

We both know the answer despite the online evangelists! Now, we just need to execute it in entirety ((that said, I have been slaughtered in BandM's also if not worse but regardless the variance varies moreso (less predictable) than the online takedown mode that constantly occurs and defies the math/statistics but can only be labeled continual "very bad luck" due to sample size)) or if you continue to enjoy and like the convenience of online as I, then limit your play. Assuming you know what I know (at least about BJ for me), I believe we have to take responsibility for our own actions, no reason to keep complaining imo! Cheers!!

If MG are indeed partly "rigged" with a controlling "takedown mode", they will one day pay very dearly. This is because any such control is theoretically predictable, even if not accurately (like the weather). Predictions only need to achieve sufficient accuracy to lower the house edge enough (by the player lowering stakes to play through "takedown", and raising the later) for the player to have a small advantage.

These games are incredibly complicated though, and I expect online casinos do not expect there to be sufficient predictability to be a risk to their business model; BUT, then again, we had that episode with MiniVegas who confiscated winnings from players who engaged in "illegitimate play" - ON SLOTS; and these players did not even TAKE THE BONUS

This action ALONE, even though they were "persuaded" to pay in the end, shows that there IS SOMETHING in this "conspiracy theory" about online software and it's "randomness" - or why would ANY casino group, let alone an ACCREDITED one, even THINK of trying this excuse and expecting it to work.

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by juliack

I have played VP on and off today at my favorite MG casinos and I am absolutely amazed about how many 4 to a royal I received. I now believe it is part of the MG VP program. I play my local B&M quite often now and do quite well at VP, hitting many medium ( 3K to 6K ) wins with the occasional royal thrown in and very rarely do I see a 4 to a royal. I have never had a pat royal on multiplay online but received hundreds of 4 to a royal on multiplay few of which resulted in a royal. I have been watching the VP trends quite closely at both B&M and online to establish a pattern. Both are quite consistant in their own patterns but I find the online VP seems to go into a dead mode or a sort of tease mode after you hit. Not so with the B&M. Any thoughts ? Cheers

Am I having Déjà vu, or is it just my crazy thinking,,,wasn't there another thread just about the same thing that you started juliack about a week ago or so somewhere in here....

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by RobWin

Am I having Déjà vu, or is it just my crazy thinking,,,wasn't there another thread just about the same thing that you started juliack about a week ago or so somewhere in here....

You may think crazy Rob,lol, but you are correct Juliack has multiple threads/posts regarding this subject in the last couple weeks. Thus, the last sentence of my post so Juliack keeps this issue in proper perspective rather than an implied and/or expressed almost daily agenda!

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

If MG are indeed partly "rigged" with a controlling "takedown mode", they will one day pay very dearly. This is because any such control is theoretically predictable, even if not accurately (like the weather). Predictions only need to achieve sufficient accuracy to lower the house edge enough (by the player lowering stakes to play through "takedown", and raising the later) for the player to have a small advantage.

These games are incredibly complicated though, and I expect online casinos do not expect there to be sufficient predictability to be a risk to their business model; BUT, then again, we had that episode with MiniVegas who confiscated winnings from players who engaged in "illegitimate play" - ON SLOTS; and these players did not even TAKE THE BONUS

This action ALONE, even though they were "persuaded" to pay in the end, shows that there IS SOMETHING in this "conspiracy theory" about online software and it's "randomness" - or why would ANY casino group, let alone an ACCREDITED one, even THINK of trying this excuse and expecting it to work.

VWM, a few clarifications and more:
1. I was not specifically refering to MG but various software platforms for the game of BJ only.
2. BJ is not a complicated game and multiple software writers including one in gaming at least said fwiw, it would not be difficult to write a correlated program based on multiple situations.
3.I prefer the word correlated for BJ versus rigged and conspiracy theory.
4.Takedown mode was a figure of speech for various mathematical and statiscal anomalies(sp) that reoccur but the player will never be able to prove even if there might be such thing as a truly certified INDEPENDENT auditor and it/they audited for known stats/expectations specific to BJ rather than the meaningless type of audits PWC did. No clue what e-Cogra currently does but I can speculate but not here. Sample size will bail the software companies specifically where an individual has commisioned an audit. The exception if you had an occurence similiar in the software to where a coin is tossed 100 times and comes up 99 times heads. Practically all software platforms preserve the sample size bail out. If the HA on BJ is increased .5% from expectation by just a few needle in the haystack adjustments by any particular software company, it is vitually unprovable by any given individual under the "too small of a sample size" to make a conclusion of malfeasance and thus it is a fair game or so it is said. So who knows????
5.This post is a response to a post for clarification purposes only as I have stated before my conclusion is that I am personally more comfortable with my heavy play at BandM's as TRUST better not be an issue!
6.I need to proof this post,LOL

[GrandMaster]

Originally Posted by juliack

I have played VP on and off today at my favorite MG casinos and I am absolutely amazed about how many 4 to a royal I received. I now believe it is part of the MG VP program. I play my local B&M quite often now and do quite well at VP, hitting many medium ( 3K to 6K ) wins with the occasional royal thrown in and very rarely do I see a 4 to a royal. I have never had a pat royal on multiplay online but received hundreds of 4 to a royal on multiplay few of which resulted in a royal. I have been watching the VP trends quite closely at both B&M and online to establish a pattern. Both are quite consistant in their own patterns but I find the online VP seems to go into a dead mode or a sort of tease mode after you hit. Not so with the B&M. Any thoughts ? Cheers

Yes. We need hard data. That's how Casino Bar, Netgaming.com and English Harbour got busted.

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

These games are incredibly complicated though, and I expect online casinos do not expect there to be sufficient predictability to be a risk to their business model; BUT, then again, we had that episode with MiniVegas who confiscated winnings from players who engaged in "illegitimate play" - ON SLOTS; and these players did not even TAKE THE BONUS

This action ALONE, even though they were "persuaded" to pay in the end, shows that there IS SOMETHING in this "conspiracy theory" about online software and it's "randomness" - or why would ANY casino group, let alone an ACCREDITED one, even THINK of trying this excuse and expecting it to work.

It has been amply demonstrated that most casino managers have no clue about the mathematics of gambling. I am sure you can find statements by casino managers that martingaling can turn a negative expectation game for the player into a positive expectation one or that betting small eliminates the house edge and similar rubbish.

A lot of casinos seem to operate on the principle that the promotions are designed to get the players to deposit, and if they manage to win obeying the rules, then the casino will find some excuse not to pay them. Therefore flatbetting is abuse, martingaling is abuse, betting small is abuse, betting big is abuse.

Originally Posted by NASHVEGAS

VWM, a few clarifications and more:
1. I was not specifically refering to MG but various software platforms for the game of BJ only.
2. BJ is not a complicated game and multiple software writers including one in gaming at least said fwiw, it would not be difficult to write a correlated program based on multiple situations.
3.I prefer the word correlated for BJ versus rigged and conspiracy theory.
4.Takedown mode was a figure of speech for various mathematical and statiscal anomalies(sp) that reoccur but the player will never be able to prove even if there might be such thing as a truly certified INDEPENDENT auditor and it/they audited for known stats/expectations specific to BJ rather than the meaningless type of audits PWC did. No clue what e-Cogra currently does but I can speculate but not here. Sample size will bail the software companies specifically where an individual has commisioned an audit. The exception if you had an occurence similiar in the software to where a coin is tossed 100 times and comes up 99 times heads. Practically all software platforms preserve the sample size bail out. If the HA on BJ is increased .5% from expectation by just a few needle in the haystack adjustments by any particular software company, it is vitually unprovable by any given individual under the "too small of a sample size" to make a conclusion of malfeasance and thus it is a fair game or so it is said. So who knows????
5.This post is a response to a post for clarification purposes only as I have stated before my conclusion is that I am personally more comfortable with my heavy play at BandM's as TRUST better not be an issue!
6.I need to proof this post,LOL

What do you mean by correlated? Independent random variable are uncorrelated. If, for example, the outcomes of two consecutive hands blackjack are supposed to be independent, but they are not, then the game is rigged. Regarding the issue of sample size, the necessary sample size is proportional to the reciprocal of the square of deviation you want to detect. A change of 0.1% in the house edge could be detected in a few millions of hands which could be obtained by a groups of players gathering data together. A change of 0.01% would require hundreds of millions of hands, which is beyond amateurs, I think. If you know what you are looking for, there may be better ways of detecting the discrepancies requiring a smaller sample size.

[Slotster!]

Interestingly, I can't find anything anwhere that states Microgaming software is truly random. I can find things about payout percentages, and that 'free' play is the same as real play - but nothing to confirm it's based around random numbers.

It's a long shot, but if any friendly, regular MG casino forum members would like to chip in on this?..

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by Slotster!

Interestingly, I can't find anything anwhere that states Microgaming software is truly random. I can find things about payout percentages, and that 'free' play is the same as real play - but nothing to confirm it's based around random numbers.

It's a long shot, but if any friendly, regular MG casino forum members would like to chip in on this?..

Slotster, hasn't The Wizard of Odds, "Michael Shackleford" made statements somewhere about this IIRC...