Pardon me for imposing...

[CarnalCanaan]

I'm not a statistician. Nor a computer programmer. I got a C in College Algebra.

But it seems to me that the complaints people are voicing about "unfair" combat results are very similar to the slots-playin' granny who swears up and down the machine was rigged against her when she loses $50 in one sitting. (And I DO live in Reno, so gambling I've seen my share of.)

I certainly understand the frustration when a string of supposedly advantageous attacks go against me. It's enough to make a guy commit assault on an inanimate object.

To my understanding, no streak of unlikeliness - no matter how long or convincingly unfair - is ever proof of faulty odds.

Now, I HAVE seen a few %100.00 odds appear from time to time. If these were to lose, then maybe there's reason to suspect the program.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Pardon me for imposing...

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
But it seems to me that the complaints people are voicing about "unfair" combat results are very similar to the slots-playin' granny who swears up and down the machine was rigged against her when she loses $50 in one sitting. (And I DO live in Reno, so gambling I've seen my share of.)

Yeah, the granny is right, though. The machines are indeed rigged against them

Seriously - the casinos always have the edge.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Not only that but they are programmed to give near misses to jackpots to keep you feeding it.

[LordShiva]

Re: Re: Pardon me for imposing...

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yeah, the granny is right, though. The machines are indeed rigged against them

Seriously - the casinos always have the edge.

But how can you make this claim without a control???

[devincutler]

This is not true. Slot machines are rigged in the sense that the chances of certain combinations to come up are set by the house, but beyond that the actual results are random. It is, indeed, theoretically possible for a slot machine to come up with 5 jackpots in a row.

The way they are fixed is that the house might set the chances of a jackpot at 1 in 60 when the payout is 50 times the bet. But once the house sets the odds at 1 in 60, there is nothing but propbability stopping that results from coming up 5 times in 60 spins.

Devin

[rjmatsleepers]

Re: Pardon me for imposing...

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
I'm not a statistician. Nor a computer programmer. I got a C in College Algebra.

But it seems to me that the complaints people are voicing about "unfair" combat results are very similar to the slots-playin' granny who swears up and down the machine was rigged against her when she loses $50 in one sitting. (And I DO live in Reno, so gambling I've seen my share of.)

I certainly understand the frustration when a string of supposedly advantageous attacks go against me. It's enough to make a guy commit assault on an inanimate object.

To my understanding, no streak of unlikeliness - no matter how long or convincingly unfair - is ever proof of faulty odds.

Now, I HAVE seen a few %100.00 odds appear from time to time. If these were to lose, then maybe there's reason to suspect the program.

Actually, the situation in the thread concerned is that our granny kept track of the results for a number of days and then said her results showed that the house percentage was actually much larger than the casino claimed.

And you are right in saying that no individual sequence of results is proof. But if your sequence is unlikely enough, you are entitled to suspect something odd is hapening. If I toss a coin fifty times and it comes up heads each time, I'm more inclined to believe that I am using a double headed coin than I am to believe Lady Luck is smiling on me.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Kinjiru]

Hey Tony, dat graybird is back yappin' 'bout our machines again.

Okay Boss, you want I should go make sure her car has no 'accidents'?

[Fried-Psitalon]

Oh boy, here we go again...