Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
DonDiego has no dog in this fight. To his knowledge he has never met any of the active participants or subject-people mentioned in the posts.
He doesn't recall commenting much on the topic of this thread; what he has commented on is its interminable nature and tedious repetition.
DonDiego understands probability and statistics, . . . part of his job used to be to design tests of weapons systems, tests which were seldom sufficiently carried out to yield significant results, . . . but that was someone else's decision.
And DonDiego understands how and why he can win at blackjack. He also understands sometimes it's just luck, . . . like last month at a West Virginia Casino where teechur and DonDiego sat at a lucky table, doubled their buy-ins in less than an hour, and left.
He doesn't understand how he can win at video poker available nowadays, . . . other than with seldom experienced good luck or an abnormally high progressive and luck-so-far-never-experienced.
All he knows is what he reads, . . . like, f'rinstance, articles by Michael Shackleford at the Wizard of Odds: A Chat With Rob Singer . (note i, below)
Application of the scientific method to the apparent conundrum seems relatively simple. Why it seems to poor old DonDiego that if someone were to claim a method by which the video poker machines presently available in Nevada could be beaten, it would not be a particularly difficult exercise to simply demonstrate it, . . . play some randomly selected machines with known rules and paytables, from which expected returns can be calculated, . . . for a sufficient length of time to achieve statistical confidence in the result.
If the "math guys" methodology approximates the mathematically-expected results, well they are right. If the "winners-way" methodology achieves significantly better results, then he is right.
Tedious argument punctuated by occasional name-calling and insult is unlikely to resolve the issue on this or any forum. Such quarrelsome dialogue can be entertaining and amusing, . . . but not forever !
note i: If Mr. Shacklford's contention that: " . . . [he] absolutely believe[s] that every video poker machine made by a major manufacturer is completely fair and random." is the real issue, well, . . . then somebody oughta prove otherwise. DonDiego opines if somebody could prove that in todays litigious world he would become a mighty wealthy fellow indeed. On the other hand, if it were not true - provable or not, . . . and this contributes to Mr. Singer's success, . . . then that should show up in the results of the test proposed.
Your idea is great until we realize that to prove or disprove the RS system with statistical significance would take 8 hours a day of play for about 6 months straight. The whole 2.6 million possible dealt hands in VP makes this a difficult if not impossible task. Also, Rob has essentially blocked this method since he says the "secret" to winning is not playing too much and allowing the odds to catch up with you. Yes I know that makes no sense. Look, I just work here. Would you like to try the frozen yogurt?
