Casino Reps Please Respond Here

4 of a kind

Repeated violations of forum rule 1.16 - troll
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Location
New York
Many here are aware of my will to get a response from Reps concerning Video Poker software being used. It's not fair to ask them to respond in any of the threads concerning this topic that already have gone on for pages and already consist of many other topics and assumptions.

So, let's try to keep this thread on the one topic. Here's the questions:

If video poker is actually based on a random shuffle the hands will come up with their expected probability in the long run. If the cards are being drawn based on RTP settings (pre-determined house edge percentages) like slots then the decisions are being decided by variable programming with secondary decisions to eventually equate to the pre-set RTP setting eliminating expected probabilities if the RTP setting is to low.

So which type of software is being used?

1) Pre-set house edge percentages (RTP) (slot machine)

or

2) Random Draw (expected probabilities)
 
It would be very interesting to hear from all the different software reps, but I am not holding my breath. It is an excellent topic, but I personally feel like they won't want to answer. And, if they did, we might not like the answer, I am afraid.

Come on reps, step up to the plate here!!!!
 
Hiya: Well, there have been many other threads entitled, "Casino Rep's respond", or like that, and i can not remember anyone ever responding?

We always have, 'Plan-B".................:p
 
The answer to your question, is both. I think this question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of these concepts.

Random Draw = Random Number Generator = Random Results
This means that the results are random, based on set odds. For example, if you flip an evenly weight coin, it has a 50/50 chance of coming out. By flipping it you create the randomness. If you have a evenly weighed dice, it has a 1/6 chance of coming out. By throwing it you are creating randomness (assuming you aren't using dice control; whether it exist or not is not at debate here, please create a separate topic if you wish to debate dice control). Depending on the payout on of a bet and the odds of a an event happening, that is what makes a theoretical % of Return to Player, also known as RTP. So if in the coin flip game you are paid one on one, the theoretical RTP would be 100% (since there is a 50/50 chance and you are paid the same amount as you bet). If on the coin you were paid $0.95 on the dollar, then the theoretical RTP would be 95%. Theoretical RTP differs from actual RTP for the very reason that it is random. The coin flip that pays $1 for a $1 has a theoretical RTP of 100%, but if you are betting heads and heads come up only 1/4 of the time, your RTP will be 50%. Of course under this circumstance, someone else is winning with tails 3/4 of the time and therefore has an RTP of 150%, which completes the theoretical RTP of 100%.

Now that I made the differentiation between theoretical RTP and actual RTP, for the rest of the post I'm going to say RTP and by this mean theoretical RTP.

If on a dice game you are paid 6:1, then that would have a 100% theoretical RTP.

Randomness doesn't affect RTP. RTP is based on the number of potential results and the payout of a bet on those odds.

Now to bring this into cards. When you are sitting with a 2 of diamonds and a 7 of spades, and the dealer is sitting with a 4 of clubs and a 7 of clubs, there are real life odds of what will happen next if you stand or hit based on the number of decks being used and the rules of the specific blackjack game. Now online blackjack should imitate these natural odds using the casinos Random Number Generator.

Now you can ask, can a software provider NOT use the real odds in creating their software, and instead skew the real life odds to ensure a higher keep and a lower RTP to player? Yes. But that is exactly why there are reputed 3rd party companies that audit, test and certify that online gaming software is what is it supposed to be.

These are brilliant people, like the guys at wizard odds, people much smarter than myself, who I'm sure can answer better than I can. I'm simply giving it my best to answer your question.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager
 
Last edited:
Add "the then defunct" AA

The answer to your question, is both. I think this question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of these concepts.

Random Draw = Random Number Generator = Random Results
This means that the results are random, based on set odds. For example, if you flip an evenly weight coin, it has a 50/50 chance of coming out. By flipping it you create the randomness. If you have a evenly weighed dice, it has a 1/6 chance of coming out. By throwing it you are creating randomness (assuming you aren't using dice control; whether it exist or not is not at debate here, please create a separate topic if you wish to debate dice control). Depending on the payout on of a bet and the odds of a an event happening, that is what makes a theoretical % of Return to Player, also known as RTP. So if in the coin flip game you are paid one on one, the theoretical RTP would be 100% (since there is a 50/50 chance and you are paid the same amount as you bet). If on the coin you were paid $0.95 on the dollar, then the theoretical RTP would be 95%. Theoretical RTP differs from actual RTP for the very reason that it is random. The coin flip that pays $1 for a $1 has a theoretical RTP of 100%, but if you are betting heads and heads come up only 1/4 of the time, your RTP will be 50%. Of course under this circumstance, someone else is winning with tails 3/4 of the time and therefore has an RTP of 150%, which completes the theoretical RTP of 100%.

Now that I made the differentiation between theoretical RTP and actual RTP, for the rest of the post I'm going to say RTP and by this mean theoretical RTP.

If on a dice game you are paid 6:1, then that would have a 100% theoretical RTP.

Randomness doesn't affect RTP. RTP is based on the number of potential results and the payout of a bet on those odds.

Now to bring this into cards. When you are sitting with a 2 of diamonds and a 7 of spades, and the dealer is sitting with a 4 of clubs and a 7 of clubs, there are real life odds of what will happen next if you stand or hit based on the number of decks being used and the rules of the specific blackjack game. Now online blackjack should imitate these natural odds using the casinos Random Number Generator.

Now you can ask, can a software provider NOT use the real odds in creating their software, and instead skew the real life odds to ensure a higher keep and a lower RTP to player? Yes.But that is exactly why there are reputed 3rd party companies that audit, test and certify that online gaming software is what is it supposed to be.

These are brilliant people, like the guys at wizard odds, people much smarter than myself, who I'm sure can answer better than I can.
I'm simply giving it my best to answer your question.

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager
They may be brilliant but also totally unreliable which is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

See The Wiz's work on English Harbour.

Even better is Jacobson's BJ audit fiasco on 3 Dice where there has never been anything even close to full transparency to date. If so, heads would turn and that is a no-no!!

Ever heard of that reputable accounting/auditing firm Arthur Andersen?? What a crock!!.........and yes I know the then defunct AA had it's good name restored on appeal, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!

Try again pal!!
 
Last edited:
Even better is Jacobson's BJ audit fiasco on 3 Dice where there has never been anything even close to full transparency to date. If so, heads would turn and that is a no-no!!

Did I miss something? Can you point me to a link so I can catch up?
 
They may be brilliant but also totally unreliable which is giving them the benefit of the doubt. See The Wiz's work on English Harbour. Even better is Jacobson's BJ audit fiasco on 3 Dice where there has never been anything even close to full transparency to date. If so, heads would turn and that is a no-no!!

I'm sure a mistake has happened someplace somewhere. Even lunar landings don't go perfect. But that is different from what you are insinuating; which is a conspiracy. Also a small mistake may not alter the statistics (if you are sampling 20 million gaming results, one wrongly annotated result may not result in a statistically significant error).
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


If you believe that the Software providers, independent auditors, webmasters like casinomeister and everyone in this industry is conspiring to earn a little more, then I suggest you don't gamble online.

But if you truly believe that, then why do you think casinos bonus restrict you from Blackjack? I know, I know, what someone is going to answer: to keep up with the conspiracy. But don't you think that at least one operator out of thousands would go ahead and offer a 1000% cash able bonus with 5x play on blackjack and crooked software and be able to pay because of the artificial game play?

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager
 
I'm sure a mistake has happened someplace somewhere. Even lunar landings don't go perfect. But that is different from what you are insinuating; which is a conspiracy. Also a small mistake may not alter the statistics (if you are sampling 20 million gaming results, one wrongly annotated result may not result in a statistically significant error). There is no such thing as perfect, only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% perfect.

If you believe that the Software providers, independent auditors, webmasters like casinomeister and everyone in this industry is conspiring to earn a little more, then I suggest you don't gamble.

But if you truly believe that, then why do you think casinos bonus restrict you from Blackjack? I know, I know, what someone is going to answer: to keep up with the conspiracy. But don't you think that at least one operator out of thousands would go ahead and offer a 1000% cash able bonus with 5x play on blackjack and crooked software and be able to pay because of the artificial game play?

Kind Regards,
Nicolas Johnson
Bet Phoenix Casino Affiliates Manager
Thanks for the suggestion. I certainly can believe whatever I wish. Accountability, transparency, factual information, etc. are one of the primary basis(es) pal for what I believe and/or know.

The online gambling industry, nothing more than a bunch of fanantics that are an insult to the heads of the religious cults. Just a bunch of crap the masses are to believe as you just proved!!
 
Did I miss something? Can you point me to a link so I can catch up?
You can do a search but most is meaningless as the BJ audit SOF I was billed for and paid in full was pulled from this site 10 minutes after I posted it. There would eventually be another 4 or 5 more SOF's, LOLOLOLOLOL, with the last one (several months after the prior fiasco) being the most disturbing and unethical (in so many ways that still have never been revealed to this forum.)
 
... the BJ audit SOF I was billed for and paid in full was pulled from this site 10 minutes after I posted it ... the last one (several months after the prior fiasco) being the most disturbing and unethical (in so many ways that still have never been revealed to this forum.)

Not sure what you're on about Nash but could you direct us to where your posts were deleted? While you're at it perhaps you could clarify this "never been revealed to this forum" stuff.
 
Not sure what you're on about Nash but could you direct us to where your posts were deleted? While you're at it perhaps you could clarify this "never been revealed to this forum" stuff.
CM deleted the SOF (I was told per Eliot's request.....WTF?)........I would be more than happy to post all but as I said (to date) that was a no-no from your Boss and also Eliot requested time and time again that I not post it.......it's nasty and hundreds of pages of documents (from the chain of events over 3 to 4 months) and as mentioned I could not reveal the facts with proof per the powers that be......Give or get me permission to go head to head with all involved and it will happen!!
 
Give or get me permission to go head to head with all involved and it will happen!!

Please read what I posted. I said "show us where it was deleted". I did not say "please do it again". Big difference.

The conspiracy innuendo is my point here, not your "hundreds of pages of documents".

PS. I think we can read your text without the unnecessary bolding, SVP.
 
Please read what I posted. I said "show us where it was deleted". I did not say "please do it again". Big difference.
I know what you said, it dissappeared without a trace Einstein......I'm sure the thread is still there so like I said do a search.....I don't take orders from you, got it!
 
..I don't orders from you, got it!

Take a chill pill Nash. :rolleyes: It's not about taking orders, it's about backing up your conspiracy theories with facts as opposed to skating by on vague suggestions and innuendos.
 
Take a chill pill Nash. :rolleyes: It's not about taking orders, it's about backing up your conspiracy theories with facts as opposed to skating by on vague suggestions and innuendos.
Chilling;), the audit fiasco was before your hire here and it has a history that involved quite a few threads. I will go out on limb and predict Bryan can you fill you in on the deletion. Maybe later I will find some links here and PM you.
 

:thumbsup:

... the audit fiasco was before your hire here ... Bryan can you fill you in on the deletion.

I'm sure he could but he isn't here right now, as I'm sure you know.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you are going to take (what could be seen as) a swipe at Casinomeister then you need to back it up with some facts. In the absence of facts your statements come off as empty accusations and conspiracy theories. It's not Bryan posting this stuff so it's not up to Bryan to provide the supporting material.
 
:thumbsup:



I'm sure he could but he isn't here right now, as I'm sure you know.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you are going to take (what could be seen as) a swipe at Casinomeister then you need to back it up with some facts. In the absence of facts your statements come off as empty accusations and conspiracy theories. It's not Bryan posting this stuff so it's not up to Bryan to provide the supporting material.
Oh the irony!!..........There is not a statement I can not back up. See prior posts but it will not happen at command, lol!

Warm up with this though!! BTW, the audit fiasco would get worse after this post.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...t-i-think-even-3dice-will-vouch-for-me.21921/
 
Just to show that Nash is not losing his mind....his audit was definitely deleted. I remember it well...it was at the request of Eliot Jacobsen, to the best of my recollection. Post #63 and #64 here:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/3dice-support-issue.21587/

EDIT: You owe me Nash for digging that up, it took a while. :laugh:

Not trying to get in the middle of anything, but I did remember what Nash was speaking of, and thought it could settle this dispute, which I see headed down a not so nice route. Just trying to help.
 
....There is not a statement I can not back up. See prior posts but it will not happen at command, lol!

Jeez louise! I didn't say you __couldn't__ back your statements up, I said that if you are going to make out-of-context statements like that you __should__ back them up. Your prior posts provide no such back-up material, hence my request.

As to whether you will or will not take "orders" or "commands" I have no idea what you're on about. I'm telling you what is expected of you if you with to post stuff like that. If you don't want to comply then I'm asking you nicely to either keep it to yourself or take it elsewhere. It's not an order, it's a request to respect the forums and follow the rules.

... the audit fiasco would get worse after this post.

Sorry, that post tells me nothing. The guys says you hired him, he had a rough patch and dropped the ball, he thinks 3Dice needs an audit and he's trying to get his life together. That has zero to do with you saying that your posts were suppressed and "the full story was never told here", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Take it how you like but the bottom line is this: provide reverences if you are going to make such out-of-context claims -- if for no other reason than we can see what really happened -- or keep your accusations to yourself.
 
Jeez louise! I didn't say you __couldn't__ back your statements up, I said that if you are going to make out-of-context statements like that you __should__ back them up. Your prior posts provide no such back-up material, hence my request.

As to whether you will or will not take "orders" or "commands" I have no idea what you're on about. I'm telling you what is expected of you if you with to post stuff like that. If you don't want to comply then I'm asking you nicely to either keep it to yourself. It's not an order, it's a request to respect the forums and follow the rules. Otherwise take it elsewhere.



Sorry, that post tells me nothing. The guys says you hired him, he had a rough patch and dropped the ball, he thinks 3Dice needs an audit and he's trying to get his life together. That has zero to do with you saying that your posts were suppressed and "the full story was never told here", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Take it how you like but the bottom line is this: provide reverences if you are going to make such out-of-context claims -- if for no other reason than we can see what really happened -- or keep your accusations to yourself.
Dude you are a tool............now delete my membership........another member who has had enough of you, yep just you!
 
Just to show that Nash is not losing his mind....his audit was definitely deleted.

Thank you Pina, and yes, apparently it was. And the reasons (as made obvious in posts there)?

(1) Apparently Elliot, the guy who wrote it, requested that it be deleted.

(2) In Bryan's words:
I think it may be a little premature to post Dr. J's findings until a thorough audit is 100% complete. I don't want this to be misconstrued or misinterpreted as faulty BJ software thus unfairly damaging a company.

Eliot stated "I have no reason to doubt the fairness of the software at 3Dice.com". Let's keep it at that for now.

Hardly the suppression of incendiary material that Nash implied above. At that's exactly my point: context is critical and the onus was on Nash to provide it if he's going to dredge up stuff that is almost three years old. Failure to do so is irresponsible at best. At worst it is being a troll and that get's us into Forum Rules territory.

...now delete my membership.....

I'll forward your request to Bryan.
 
On topic first:

The answer to your question, is both. I think this question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of these concepts.

I think you misunderstood it, you have below this perfectly described 4oaks example 1. :)

Now online blackjack should imitate these natural odds using the casinos Random Number Generator.

First of all, 4 of a kind asked for Video Poker, you haven't mentioned this.

To imitate natural odds, you definately use an RTP based software.
4oaks other example, Random Draw, means that your software actually have one virtual deck in Video Poker and deals from that.

Now you can ask, can a software provider NOT use the real odds in creating their software, and instead skew the real life odds to ensure a higher keep and a lower RTP to player?

This is not the issue, even if the RTP is set to 99.99% it's not the Random Draw method.

Off topic/derail

At that's exactly my point: context is critical and the onus was on Nash to provide it if he's going to dredge up stuff that is almost three years old.

In this issue it doesn't matter if the stuff was three years old. Or 4 years old if we instead use the "Wiz work on English Harbour".

When I read 4 of a kinds post I almost knew that some casino rep would mention that the games are random and that their games are tested and proved to be random. The reps are used to defend their casino when many losing players screams that the games are rigged or the RTP is below 80%.

Nash answered this:

But that is exactly why there are reputed 3rd party companies that audit, test and certify that online gaming software is what is it supposed to be.

These are brilliant people, like the guys at wizard odds, people much smarter than myself, who I'm sure can answer better than I can. I'm simply giving it my best to answer your question.

If you believe that the Software providers, independent auditors, webmasters like casinomeister and everyone in this industry is conspiring to earn a little more, then I suggest you don't gamble online.

And with this in mind I can't see that those three years matter. Nicolas thinks that independent auditors are trustworthy, Nash feels different.

Don't forget that Nash already has published the story/proof/whatever and it was deleted!

When I read the two linked threads I get the feeling that Dr J. uses a more advanced method than others to test BJ. I might be wrong, but this is what I read from this:

For example, in blackjack, from what I understand PWC samples subsets of cards of various sizes and makes sure that no matter what subset they choose, those cards are equally distributed between the 52 cards. They sample subsets of dealer cards, player cards, and other subsets, and in every case they verify the normal distribution of the cards.

That is not how I proceed. I have 10 tests that I have designed, plus I also do whatever tests a particular client requests. For example, I verify distribution of every possible 2 card starting hand. I look at blackjacks and aces. I consider draw cards to hard totals for the player, draw cards for double downs. I have many more tests. This is much more detailed (from what I understand) than the PWC proceedure. It is not possible to say that my methods are any better. Both PWC and myself are just looking for some indication that something should be looked at in more detail.

This can indicate that Nash himself had found something strange that some independent auditors would have missed and that Dr J. also found this strange. Maybe we will never know? :confused:

Nash!

You are so stupid! ;) If you are planning to end your membership, at least be such a PITA that you will be banned instead..:p

Stay!
 
Other then Nicolus's response I have received a PM from Louise directing me where to find this answer (which of course I will pursue) and one answer surprisingly from SEGA.

Sega said their games run from RTP settings and are set at 97% with a 3% house edge. I only would assume that this could be adjusted since that is a discussion for another topic.



Nicolus,

Your theory's and examples defining random are much appreciated but don't respond to the direct question posed here. So to make the question much easier;

Can your casino (RTG software) regardless if it could be done at the back-end or needed to be requested and approved via RTG provider; change the HOUSE EDGE PERCENTAGE Setting on Video Poker?
 
And with this in mind I can't see that those three years matter. ... Don't forget that Nash already has published the story/proof/whatever and it was deleted!

At no point did I say that the old post, deleted or otherwise did not matter.

What I did say is that if Nash is going to dig up three-year-old posts, and make accusations and innuendos about it being deleted and "the full story" not being told here as if it was suppressed or somesuch, then the least he can do is provide a reference to whatever it was he was talking about.

How many people reading this thread would have had a clue what he was referring to? Not a lot I reckon, me included. Asking for a reference is not unreasonable, especially not in this case.

Whatever else this was it certainly was no cause for him to start calling me fool and a "tool" and openly stating that he was happily ignoring what I said. I asked him to provide references to back up his statements, he responds by being rude and abusive. :what: And then he takes that as his queue to quit the forums. :confused: I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that a reality check is in order here.

That said I realize this has become one big fat derail so I'm sure everyone welcomes a return to the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top