Are you talking about the Washington rule that doesn't allow poker rooms to use Bravo's RNG because: "Licensed card rooms are authorized to give promotional prizes or items as part of a physical drawing, spinning a wheel, or selecting from a group of concealed items."

Or are you talking about how using the RNG in conjunction with a Tribal Lottery System requires the tribal casino to go through the process of submitting it for testing and approval and probably no poker room at an Indian casino in Washington has bothered to do that?

Yes, this is key and often overlooked when people imagine the odds against something happening several times in a row..
Assuming there are 20 tables, the chance of the first drawing hitting one of them = 100% = 1. Then the chance of the next drawing hitting the same table would be 1/20 = .05 = 5%.
BUT if there are multiple drawings/ day, then each new drawing starts a new sequence, so the probability of 2 in a row in the day starts to go up exponentially. If there are always 20 eligible tables, and 13 hourly drawings from 10:15 AM to 10:15 PM (I don't know this to be true, just assuming for discussion), then there would be 13 sequences of 2 drawings per day (if we consider carrying over sequences to the next day). Then the chance of at least one of them resulting in 2-in-a row would be 1 - (.95 to the 13th) = 1 - .513 = .487 = 49% (or almost 50/50 on any given day).
By the same math, 3-in-a-row would be about 3.2%, or about 31/1 on any given day. Not too likely, but not 8000 to 1, either.
Probabilities can be very counter-intuitive.
I wouldn't worry too much about the RNG...…..

Also, when you string together all the days of the promo, the likelihood of 3-in-a-row happening on at least one day goes from rare to probable.

Just to be clear, it is actually the opposite of exponential growth. It is sub-linear growth at first, and eventually becomes something much closer to logarithmic if not logarithmic. But it does grow up to a bound of 100% probability as the number of drawings increases.

As a trained computer programmer I am always amused by RNG discussions.

It all boils down to how the RNG function is being seeded. And we don't know the answer to that.

If it is seeded by the time function and the selection always starts at exactly the same time, then we would expect to see the the same results. Every day. Not just the same table three times in a row. But every table in the same order.

If it is seeded by some non-random constant then we would expect the exact same results as stated above.

Because this is not happening, I would suspect this is just another conspiracy theory

I think MJ88 has the most likely rationale of why this could look suspicious but just be random. It would be more suspicious to me if the same table was never selected twice in a row...

Now is it possible? Yes. But for me to believe it is not truly random, then the following would have to be true. In the same configured environment, when the same table # comes up 3 straight times, and this happens more than once, if it is the same table # each time it happens then I would be truly suspicious. That would indicate to me a non-random seeding sequence that is leading to the same sequence of "random" numbers being generated. Then it is not just the same table coming up 3 times in a row but the following tables should be identical as well each time this happens.

Oops, you're correct. But the math is right. We have the makings of a great prop bet here.

There's no such thing as truly random. If you gave the NSA access to your source code and incentive to crack it, they probably could.

The question isn't whethwr something is truly random. It's whether something is random *enough*.

For somethibg as low stakes as a hourly drawing, rolling a 20-sided die is probably good enough. Totally crackable given infinite time infinite effort, but there's no incentive to put in that much effort.

Just because the OP is wrong doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the RNG. It's quite possible the RNG is flawed, and we just don't have the statistics to prove it.

Genesis gaming has to produce a GLI letter to the gaming commission in order for their RNG to be used in casinos. This is at least true where I work and I personally have a copy of their GLI letter as I had to present that to the gaming commission before I could use the Bravo RNG for one of the promotions in my poker room. A GLI letter simply states that Gaming Laboratories International has tested the RNG and confirms its randomness.

I'm confused...table draw for what?

For something like a splash pot promotion.

Which table gets the most physically attractive dealer.

To be honest I thought the "omg its so rigg3d!!11!" posts weren't allowed here.

Not that I mind them too much. They're always good for a laugh.

So, let me get this straight. I'm a former horse-player. if there are 20 tables, the odds of any table hitting, assuming you were betting on which table would hit, would actually be 19-1. (If 20 guys each put $2 in a hat and picked a table#, and your # came out, you get $40 back....so you won $38 or 19x your money. So if I wanted to bet on table #3 hitting three straight times, (a 3-table parlay) before the day started.....19 x 19 x 19 = 6,859 -1.

But if table #3 hits before I get in the room, and I wanted to bet that it would hit the next 2 drawings...19 x 19 = 361-1.




Katman

Close. The 19-1 translates to 1/20 chance... Or conversely, 1/20 chance translates to 19-1. So (1/20 * 1/20 * 1/20), or 1/8000, translates to 7999-1... and, (1/20 * 1/20) = 1/400, or 399-1.

Thanks!...I'm good with close.

That's why I moved it here from the MGMNH thread instead of simply deleting it. If the community would like the thread closed, let me know.

I don't really have any opinion or care to educate myself on the merits of the case that the RNG is failing. But this is a great example of why pseudorandom processes need to not only be pseudorandom (to some definition) but also look random.

I don't understand why any room would have the Bravo determine the lucky table once even a hint of controversy arises. Dealing cards out of two shuffled and cut decks would accomplish the same thing in about 60 seconds. (You could come up with various mechanisms for using two decks cut by two different dealers; for example, Deck 1 assigns a cards to each table and Deck 2 chooses the card whose table is the lucky table.)

What do you do when people complain that the decks must be rigged because they think there are too many repetitive table choices?

Whatever method you use will be determined to be rigged, because poker players.

That's why you should just rig them, throw everyone for a loop.

Ignore them. The difference is in the level of transparency and hence plausibility. There may be someone complaining that two different dealers are rigging their cuts but they won't gain any traction because the procedure is right there for everyone to see. It's somewhat more plausible to complain about an opaque randomization system within the Bravo than no one in the room can audit, even though it's still pretty implausible that Bravo is rigging the table draw.

Bad beats happen in casino poker every day, and superstitious players demand new setups, but when was the last time you saw someone rack up claiming that the deck is rigged in live casino poker? It's a pretty rare occurrence.

What do you think they are saying when the ask for a wash or a new setup? They aren't saying, necessarily, that the game is rigged or that someone is cheating, but that the psuedorandomness of physical shuffling is not adequate to prevent biased cards.

They are wrong of course, but you can't really explain that to them.

I actually know multiple players who claim shuffle machines are rigged. They still keep playing, but they prefer hand shuffles.

Right, but most places the dealer cuts the cards coming out of the shuffler. Once or twice I've seen a room that told the dealers to stop cutting them after they come out (or worse, to cut them before putting them in the shuffler). A policy suppressing the cut after the shuffle is idiotic, because the cut is the one ironclad refutation to anyone who thinks the house is rigging the deck against them.

It is actually possible to configure a deck such that the winner is the same regardless of where the deck is cut. Cutting the deck after the shuffle is therefore not an ironclad refutation to the possibility of rigging.

Source: https://www.benjoffe.com/holdem