PDA

View Full Version : James Woods claimed the NSGC and casinos rigged video poker


Easy E
03-29-2006, 11:54 AM
<font color="blue">In fact, I'll tell you how I got really interested in Texas hold'em. A year ago this August, I was with a friend of mine in Vegas and we were playing double bonus video poker, where you actually had a slight advantage, and, according to the Nevada gaming regulations, you had to pay out according to the specified percentages. But I noticed after 9/11 that the video poker machines just weren't streaking. It was just a gambler's feeling, but I got to talking to one of the slot hosts and he mentioned something about a new chip. I said, come on, don't [censored] me, what's going on. He said nothing and shrugged it off. So I got into my detective instincts and got to talking to one of the tech guys and I said: "So how is that new chip in the video poker machines?" and he said: "You mean the new yield management chip?" and I say: "Yeah that's the one, the yield management chip. What's the deal there?" <font color="red"> And he said that after 9/11 the casinos were suffering and they petitioned the Nevada State Gaming Commission and asked them if they could still pay the same percentages, but defer the streaks by like a million hands.</font></font>


I don't know if he's screwing with the heads of Bluff magazine (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=bluff_magazine&amp;id=2387444) or if he really believes this.

stigmata
03-29-2006, 12:26 PM
sounds pretty daft.

just wait like a million hands and bam $$$$$

AlienBoy
03-29-2006, 02:09 PM
Defer streaks??

If he means force a normal distribution, I don't see what the issue is there.


AB

cardcounter0
03-29-2006, 02:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If he means force a normal distribution, I don't see what the issue is there.


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? If you have to "force" it, it isn't normal.

And a million hand delay would be good for less than 6 months -- 9/11 was how many years ago?

AlienBoy
03-29-2006, 04:41 PM
Eh... I didn't state what I actually meant. What I meant was force a "reduced variance" distribution.... Though that still doesn't make much sense as I think about it.

What James Woods said makes no sense.

I'm curious though what the underlying "truth" is to this...

AB

SheetWise
03-29-2006, 04:46 PM
Doesn't make much sense.

Thinking out loud -- one thing they are allowed to do, is move progressive JPs from one machine to another -- so they could systematically keep the JPs averaged so they they don't get hit for a big one all at once ...