Real vs. Fun VP

[rockycatt]

Here is an update:

FUN PLAY:

15 sessions, 7,117 hands, negative -$1,000.00 dollars

REAL PLAY

08 sessions, 3,325 hands, negative -$3.000.00 dollars

In addition all hands combined only three Joker Royals were hit and two 5oak were hit. One of the 5oak’s was hit in real play and the other 4 premier hands were hit in fun play.

So far if my real play sessions were anything like fun play, which I believe at one time it was, I certainly wouldn't be suspicious.

I'll probably risk only another 2k playing for real then at that point see how long it takes for fun play to catch up to real play losses. My average hands per minute are between 19 and 23.

no insult intended ,
you obviously have money to burn ,doing this for experimental purposes , but because it intrigues me can you show screen shots of above tests fun versus real once again all do respect from me \

interested R. C.

[4 of a kind]

no insult intended ,
you obviously have money to burn ,doing this for experimental purposes , but because it intrigues me can you show screen shots of above tests fun versus real once again all do respect from me \

interested R. C.

FUN
Sessions- Hands- Win / Loss - Time

8th- 3500- 0 - 0-
9th- 503- 0 - 500 - 22 minutes
10th- 361- 0- 150- 16
11th- 396- 0- 350- 19
12th- 318- 0- 500- 15
13th- 360- 500- 0- 17
14th- 876- 0- 500- 38
15th- 806- 500- 0- 34

Total Hands 7,117 Loss -$1,000.00

REAL
Sessions- Hands- Win- / Loss- Time
5- 2200- 0- 2000-
6th- 462- 0- 500- 21 minutes
7th- 399- 0- 250- 19
8th- 264- 0- 250- 12

Total Hands 3,325 Loss -$3,000.00


When test is complete I will expose the casino. These charts I do never look right when I copy and paste here.

I presently have fun play returning 98% and real play returning 82%

I ran these numbers by Wizard of odds and got this response from some mathematician named Matilta:



Fun game: -1000 of 35385 bet or .028 or 2.8%
Real game: -3000 of 16625 or .180 or 18%.

Apply the standard statistical z-test for two proportions with null hypothesis that the two games are equal in loss proportion against the alternative hypothesis that the two games are not equal in loss proportion.

The test statistic is z=27.24 which is highly significant.

Conclusion: the two games are not statistically the same at <.01 level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

test statistic: z = |p1-p2 |/s

where:

p1 = proportion 1
p2 = proportion 2

s = sqrt(p(1-p)/n1 + p(1-p)/n2) p = (p1n1+p2n2)/(n1+n2) n1 = sample size 1 n2 = sample size 2

significance test:
z >
2.576 for 99% level of confidence
1.96 for 95% level of confidence
1.645 for 90% level of confidence

[petro]

Sry for bringing up an old thread here, but I am an avid VP player too.
I can say that (depending on the variance of the VP) it takes millions of hands to see the ER of VP come true.
100, 1000, 10 000, 100 000, even 1 million hands will not provide accurate information in regards to most VPs. Especially the one OP mentions "Joker Poker." I just looked at the one I am assuming OP is talking about at iNetBet. The variance of the single hand Joker Poker (Kings or Better Sequential Royal Flush) is 24.4834. And you are looking at well over 1 million hands before this games payout starts to curve into its ER.

VP is not like blackjack or coin flipping, you need to play a great deal of hands to be able to tell if it is rigged or not.
I offer one example, I done 1 million simulated hands on Full Pay Deuces Wild ER of 100.76 and after a million hands it had a payout of 90%.
FPDW has a variance of 25.8374 which is very close to Joker Pokers' 24.4834.