4 To a Royal

juliack

Experienced Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Location
Canada
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
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
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!!
 
Last edited:

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
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:what:

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

closed account
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Location
A Vault!
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 Dj 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....:confused:
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
Am I having Dj 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....:confused:
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

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
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:what:

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;)
 
Last edited:

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
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.

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:what:

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.


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!

I predict a riot.
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Location
Location, Location!
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

closed account
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Location
A Vault!
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...:confused:
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
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.
We are talking two totally different situations as usual...for one you are talking groups and I was talking about an individual (where applicable)....no need to discuss what is self explanatory and a play on semantics!!!...Cheers mate!!!
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
Slotster, hasn't The Wizard of Odds, "Michael Shackleford" made statements somewhere about this IIRC...:confused:
Well respected man but until Bodog gets out of his pocket, I will reserve all judgement on MS-rumor and nothing more so leave this at rumor there may be a problem with the MS/Bodog relationship...maybe MS has seen the light!!.....GM do you know anything about this, not sure but I heard you and MS were tight???
 
Last edited:

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
We are talking two totally different situations as usual...for one you are talking groups and I was talking about an individual (where applicable)....no need to discuss what is self explanatory and a play on semantics!!!...Cheers mate!!!
What's your problem with collecting data from different players, unless you feel that the games are fair for most users and only certain players are selected for the rigged games?
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
What's your problem with collecting data from different players, unless you feel that the games are fair for most users and only certain players are selected for the rigged games?
No problem with that at all as long as one can logistically do and assure the data has not been tampered with, you know the old cooking the books (at least an individual can video there own play and reference for accuracy against log files), I do not want to go into detail in fairness to all parties but on the audit I commissioned there were 3 parties including moi,the auditor,and the casino. Exclude moi and one of the other 2 parties basically accused the other of tampering with the log files. FTR, in the end I do not think the accusation was an issue but it caused major problems and discension between the 2 parties. Do you see my point? I would not know about other players as I have only accumalated stats on my own play and that is what my basis relies upon which brings us full circle as I do not have enough data for a professional to conclude malfeasance. As I have stated I know after the audit process what is best for me and lets respectively leave it at that as there is no reason to continually rehash!
 
Last edited:

Slotster!

I predict a riot.
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Location
Location, Location!
I meant information from Microgaming or its licencees, as opposed to third party opinion...

Thinking about it, wouldn't you want to promote this as a positive point with your software? I'm sure others o.
 

RobWin

closed account
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Location
A Vault!
No problem with that at all as long as one can logistically do and assure the data has not been tampered with, you know the old cooking the books (at least an individual can video there own play and reference for accuracy against log files), I do not want to go into detail in fairness to all parties but on the audit I commissioned there were 3 parties including moi,the auditor,and the casino. Exclude moi and one of the other 2 parties basically accused the other of tampering with the log files. FTR, in the end I do not think the accusation was an issue but it caused major problems and discension between the 2 parties. Do you see my point? I would not know about other players as I have only accumalated stats on my own play and that is what my basis relies upon which brings us full circle as I do not have enough data for a professional to conclude malfeasance. As I have stated I know after the audit process what is best for me and lets respectively leave it at that as there is no reason to continually rehash!

Nash, I'm trying to find my " 3D Glasses " :eek2: so I can read your post man...have you saw them...JK !! :lolup::lolup::lolup:
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
I was referring to VP as "complicated". Juliack seemed to have a very lucky run with RF after RF seemingly on a daily basis. This has now been replaced by a similar anomaly of 4 to a Royal but never the Royal. Strangely, I too have had this experience with MG, as I had a long spell of getting RF after RF, about 1 a week it seemed. This died, and I hit far fewer RF's, but then last year I had 5 Rams on THunderstruck a DOZEN times within a couple of 100K of spins, almost 12x expectation. This "streak" too ended.

As for "random", and "plays the same in fun mode as real" - well, just try playing "Treasure Ireland", and it is CLEARLY "percentage controlled", and exhibits "takedown" modes in between the flurry of nudges and feature entries.

I suspect that more than one MG operator is breaking into a sweat now that a UK based "Fruitie Pro" is taking apart the 7 "AWP" offerings in MG casinos. Fun Mode has enabled me to establish the full "cycle" for Treasure Ireland, however, just like the Crypto Marvel slots, real mode does NOT seem the same as "fun mode". I suspect that "fun mode" is an individual percentage-controlled Fruit Machine, as if in your house, but "real play" is like one in a pub, where it could have been played before you start, and previous players either won, or filled it up for you. This is a pretty accurate "Fruit Machine" model, and MG appear to have excelled themselves, however, they may suffer from the same problems that have afflicted the UK Fruit Machine industry, mainly due to their laziness in fully testing games prior to release, something that seems to afflict MG as well, shown by the many game "recalls" that have needed corrective updates.

If anyone gets busted for "illegitimate play" on MG "Fruit Machines", we will have our "proof" that their slots (or at least some of them), can be beaten.

Every time I see this refuted by the statement that the games are random, and cannot be beaten, we have the problem of the MiniVegas "illegitimate play on slots without a bonus" issue. They were pretty determined to keep to their position, even ignoring attempts from Bryan to mediate at first, before they eventually had to pay out after eCogra looked into the cases that involved merely their "illegitimate play", rather than fraud or "bonus abuse".

We DID have Cipher a while back, who claimed to be able to beat online Blackjack, but was eventually exposed as a fraud - a damn clever one at that as he managed to keep the story going long enough to rake in significant amounts of "investment" into his system before it all went pear-shaped.

If my play on Treasure Ireland in fun mode is close to real mode behaviour, I should be able to predict the liklihood of making a profit within around 3 feature board entries played to "lose". By returning to the game periodically, I can see if the state changes between visits, which would indicate the "pot" to be shared over all players at the casino. I have already determined that the "pot" is NOT shared over the whole of MG, as if this were the case the game would exhibit a similar "mood" wherever played. I cannot play at more than ONE account at any casino, so cannot show that the "pot" is shared, rather than individual (which would be pretty pointless, as a player could NEVER WIN OVERALL whatever "luck" they had).
 

Slotster!

I predict a riot.
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Location
Location, Location!
I cannot play at more than ONE account at any casino, so cannot show that the "pot" is shared, rather than individual (which would be pretty pointless, as a player could NEVER WIN OVERALL whatever "luck" they had).

No, but a collaborator(s) could play the exact same slot at the exact same casino at the exact same time...
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
No, but a collaborator(s) could play the exact same slot at the exact same casino at the exact same time...

Quite, and the experiment can be done from as little as 10c (10p) a spin.


In all but one case, I found the slot to be "dead", i.e - right at the beginning of the cycle.

The "cycle" is not fixed, but depends on how much the player takes out during play. The more small prizes accepted, the longer the cycle takes to pay off, which is hitting the "Treasure Ireland" on the feature stack at the top. This is clearly the top one (fun mode experiment) since it cannot be refused, and is automatically collected - again just like a real Fruitie.

My fun mode payoff was over 1000x bet. This is because "Treasure Ireland" is the jackpot, and then a sequence of repeat chances for extra wins. I got another Jackpot, and some "shrapnel" totalling some 280 from a 20p bet.

Fruit Machine players have playing methods that shorten the cycle to reach the top payoff more quickly, and if these really ARE at 95%, this could be very good indeed:D

Land Fruit machines have been played this way for ages, and can be profitable at 78%, even less if not played by too many "players".

Unfortunately, if it turns out the pot is individual, and not shared throughout the casino, there can never be a return greater than 95% for ANY strategy, or even luck, as there is no chance of hitting big UNTIL the game has taken in enough to pay the top prize.

The earlier ones like Pub Fruity MAY be different. I played this at 32Red in a wager tournament, and did indeed get well ahead overall on it at one stage, which seems to indicate the pot on that one to be shared.

Until I have played this enough in REAL mode, I will not know if fun mode is a proper guide to how it might perform in real mode.
If I get the top feature in real mode ONLY after having fed it a fortune, I will know the pots are individual, but the game will at least then be useful for wager challenge events as the return will be pretty much guaranteed at 95%, even with the high variance involved, since wager challenge events usually require enough playthrough that the cycle will probably complete.

If MG have cocked-up though, even slightly, this percentage control could create a +EV situation under limited circumstances, such as if the cycle were partly complete when a new account were registered, although (sadly) this seems not the case.
Were these "Fruit Machines" available in the Viper versions when MiniVegas had that "trouble"?
Having a cycle incorrectly set at registration of an account would create a guaranteed +EV situation ON A SLOT, and not taking a bonus, but knowing that, say, Treasure Ireland will pay top feature (1000x +) BEFORE it has taken in anything close to 1000x. Perhaps this is why they now ALWAYS start out "dead" the first time they are played, maybe it wasn't always so;)

Are those MG reps sweating some more now?;)
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
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
:what::confused::what:
 

Nobunaga

Dormant Account
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Location
Cambridge ON
Video Poker issues.

Hi there.In the B and M's, the video poker machines that use the RNG chip, the casino can lock the Royal Flush out and Straight Flush out.There are video poker machines in New York State, that have a genie come up when you make a playing mistake in a video lottery terminal for video poker.You could fold a pat quad, and you would still win, by having the genie, show up and give you the quad again.

The software that the online casinos use, could lock out the Royal Flush, 5 Aces, Straight Flush, a key card like a Joker, and leave the opposition screwed.It gets worst for games like Roulette, Craps, Sic Bo, poker, Pai Gow Poker, even Blackjack and Spanish 21.Card flow manipulation, when you bet red, you lose on black, it's all manipulation of something.

Same can be applied to slots.The one casino I was at, shut down their Mega Jackpot machines, reprogrammed their chip, once the jackpot was at around 4 million dollars to win.Now the jackpot is at 7 million, the last time I visited the casino.

These people, programmers, casino operators, online casinos, can do evil things to trustworthy people, and the rogue casino list on here, is a clear example of this misuse of trust.Look at how real casinos treat people.

You also have the American gamblers involved with regulations on certain types of online gambling is illegal and banned, but have trouble enforcing these rules, as shown by a thread by casinomeister himself.

You're dealing with the same types of people who would con their own families out of money.

"Money is the root of all evil" and you will see this period.

Online gambling is a global version of the Wild West days and early days of Vegas casinos, or even casinos in Europe.

Not every real video poker machine will be legit.There are machines in Atlantic City that are playing fraudulently.There's bad probably that exist in these games, then there's patterns that would show fraud.

When you have online casinos taking people's money like con artist, that angers groups, that operate above the law to deal with them.Las Vegas has the Mob, and why wouldn't the internet.

We still live in modern times and vigilantes still exist.

Buyer beware, because these gambling laws are still being reviews by all global governments, when trillions of dollars are at stake.

"The haves vs the have nots".

Good luck with it all.

Nobunaga
 
Top