And for those chapter's alone, this book is a must have. I bought this book, and so far have read Mike Caro, Todd Brunson, Jennifer Harmon and Doyle's sections. I didn't care for where it was going, or the wrting style. It's not even an argument to say that the probability that they are indeed cheating is very small (which is what I argued).I never owned the first Super System, but I borrowed it from a friend and never read much past the first few pages of Brunson's no limit section. That is in no way an argument to say that they are in fact cheating. You require 100% certainty of not cheating and this machine doesn't offer it.

Give me an independent dealer, and then we talk. >And, by the way, as long as the machine can know what cards I am holding, I am not playing it either. We all know it could be done, that's why we discussed this in the first place. The discussion was around if they were doing it. If there is no independent dealer, this is not for me.ĭon't change the subject. >It is not a matter of whether they are doing it: it is a matter of whether they can do it. What I do argue is that no one has much of an incentive to cheat you in this case. No, I never said you could be sure of that. unbeatable hold'em player, can go to this machine, bet a million dollars and be sure that, in that perfect moment when I know I am going to crush it, it will not play tricks against me? Īdding a bunch of exclamations does not an argument make. >Because it is illegal!!!? Ohhh! Illegal! Surely nobody does illegal things? Not in a casino, not in a company, not in a government.

Fixing the games would only reduce their variance not their final outcome and they have enough scale that the variance isn't high at all. You don't risk a billion dollar business to nickel and dime a few customers.Ĥ) Casinos make their money milking gambling addicts, making sure they don't take their money fast enough that they'll give up. So there's no need to cheat.ģ) Casinos are heavily regulated and their hardware is known to be verified more thoroughly than both ATMs and voting machines. What I did say was that in this particular case that hypothesis is of low probability:ġ) The people building the machines don't make money on poker playing, but by selling them to casinosĢ) The article explicitly mentions that they actually have a machine that plays too well and that they've had to dumb it down to give players enough of an incentive to play. No I didn't make that generalized statement. >You are telling me that nobody would program a secret algorithm, standing to win loads of money, to tilt the chances at the right moment?

Poker books brunson