Playing my way out of a nasty losing streak

[tech58]

Certainly agree on the our benefit part. But if the RNG is working as intended by law there should be no difference.
If someone were to say we are imagining something on an insufficient number of trials, it would be hard to disagree.
But an abrupt change in the flow of the game,noticed by a number of players, after up-dates, seems to smell a bit fishy.

[wildman49]

Yes agree, just because the cards seem to deal different don't mean we still can't hit 99.54% on 9/6 JOB.

Why the reprogramming we may never know.

[OTABILL]

when you said "These new machines don't play like the old ones. They go into a dude cycle about every ten minutes."


could you explain a little more? ive noticed that too not only in real casinos but also kitchen table software video poker, i do feel like the older model vp machines RNG engines play fair oppose to these new VP machines..

Steve, I talked to many regular players on these machines. They are the same players that played the old ones the casino removed. They all see the same dead cycles as I see. You go 10 to 15 hands before a winning hand appears. Then things seem normal for 10 minutes give or take and it happens again. The old machines I very rarely go 5 to 6 hands without a winning hand.

Not only that but with this continuous shuffling of the remaining cards after the 5 dealt, I see very strange hits. Yesterday I hold 1 Ace and hit a full house. I can't remember the last time If ever I seen that. My wife and I both held 2 to the royal and hit the other three. I looked back at my last 100 royals and only hit one holding 2. A guy next to me holds a single face card and hits a royal. I have done that only one time in over 125 royals.

There are many other strange things I have seen in just the past 2 months playing these new machines. The old machines played more even keel, losing slowly over time. I have been on a few of these new ones that can wiped out a 100 dollar bill in 10 minutes playing 10 quarters JOB.

The four of a kinds come in all at once or none at all. It's still early with only 2 months of play on them but there is a noticeable difference of play from old to new.

Playing single hand on old machines from 2005 - 2017, I hit 4 royals holding one card (3 aces & a queen), none holding 2 to the royal and 1 (maybe 2) holding 4 to the royal. No single handed royals at all during that timeframe in over a dozen trips to Vegas and Laughlin yet 1 royal fooling around late night on a cruise. Just randomness and luck. At least that's how I look at it.

[olds442jetaway]

I have noticed the long died streaks since 2011. Lately to survive an entire session I have to abandon my usual Martingale clone method of playing and play this way. I make a minimal bit and flat that at that level until two pair or better comes in. I am play at a higher level the next three or four hands. I stay at the higher level as long as The game is winning. Then I either cash out or default back to playing he minimum bet. Latest examples 43 hands on deuces wild without ar least a straight and 47 hands on job without at least 2 pair

[stevel96a1]

when you said "These new machines don't play like the old ones. They go into a dude cycle about every ten minutes."


could you explain a little more? ive noticed that too not only in real casinos but also kitchen table software video poker, i do feel like the older model vp machines RNG engines play fair oppose to these new VP machines..

Steve, I talked to many regular players on these machines. They are the same players that played the old ones the casino removed. They all see the same dead cycles as I see. You go 10 to 15 hands before a winning hand appears. Then things seem normal for 10 minutes give or take and it happens again. The old machines I very rarely go 5 to 6 hands without a winning hand.

Not only that but with this continuous shuffling of the remaining cards after the 5 dealt, I see very strange hits. Yesterday I hold 1 Ace and hit a full house. I can't remember the last time If ever I seen that. My wife and I both held 2 to the royal and hit the other three. I looked back at my last 100 royals and only hit one holding 2. A guy next to me holds a single face card and hits a royal. I have done that only one time in over 125 royals.

There are many other strange things I have seen in just the past 2 months playing these new machines. The old machines played more even keel, losing slowly over time. I have been on a few of these new ones that can wiped out a 100 dollar bill in 10 minutes playing 10 quarters JOB.

The four of a kinds come in all at once or none at all. It's still early with only 2 months of play on them but there is a noticeable difference of play from old to new.

reminds me of atlantic city caesars 9/6 progressive, a year 1/2 ago i lost 100$ very very fast and my wife next to me lost her 50$ and won it back with another 50$ she did hit alot of full houses tho
i do recall playing 8/5 jacks at tropicana ac and able to win my 15$ slot bonus money very easy, im starting to think it was an older model machine/RNG engine

i've played alot of video poker inside and outside of casinos and each RNG has its own personality(for one you mentioned the dud cycles)

[olds442jetaway]

Wtg wildman!!!

[FAA]

Congratulations. I should only be so lucky. The 0-10 plus streaks are truly frightening. I was in free fall today until my $62.50 quad. NFL is a natural casino deterrent. Guaranteed action. Guaranteed BR retention if not a sports gambler. A vice I can live without.

[Lucky Larry]

Great way to break out of the cold slump. Those losing slumps can try your patience and sometimes they expand my vocabulary.

[olds442jetaway]

to Mine too! And not in a direction that I was brought up in.

[DougJ]

. . . .

These new machines don't play like the old ones. They go into a dude cycle about every ten minutes. I remember DaBurgler talking about dude rates and never understood what he was talking about till these machines came along. The casino also reprogrammed all the machines in the casino. The pay tables have remain the same however.
; . . . .

First THIS.