vpFREE2 Forums

A clarification

#1

I am violating my own rule of not posting in order to clarify a
misapprehension: Some people, having misread my post, are reflecting
that my stated royal frequency of one in 155,000, while low, is no
real indication of anything to be suspicious of, or alarmed at. This
might be true if the number of hands played WAS ONLY 155,000.
However, what I actually SAID was, "royal frequency of one in
155,000". This is after playing OVER TWO MILLION hands. Those
posters who used fuzzy thinking to whip up some kind of unjustified
criticism made the chacteristic mistake of little minds---ASSUMPTION.
They ASSUMED that I had only played 155,000 hands. Now, if you
factor in a speed of 800 hands an hour you get the rather absurd
premise that I only played VP an average of ten hours a month for
the last two years!! Yeah, right!

So, to make my statement, and its underlying premise, ABSOLUTELY
CLEAR, even to the MOST OBTUSE:

For the period 2002-2003, in two million-plus hands, I am
approximately twenty-eight royals short of my "expected" total
royals. I have actually suffered losses that are about 85% of what
could be expected given the above, which is due to the fact that my
4 deuces frequencies on FPDW and my 4 Aces frequencies on 10/7 DB
are somewhat higher than expectation.

This is why it really tees me off when some self-appointed "expert"
on this board, using the fact that he played six hands of VP last
year and got two full houses, so what's the problem, tells me I
don't know what I'm talking about. I have EXPERIENCE under my belt,
for chrissake. Being down $18,000 this year, playing mostly .25
and .50 denoms, means SOMETHING is likely to have changed. Either I
suddenly don't know how to play VP (at ALL), I've just gotten
unlucky in the manner and magnitude of someone getting hit by
lightning three times in an hour, while being struck by a falling
meteor, and then carried off by a tidal wave, OR there's something a
LEEEETLE funny about some of the machines out there.

So: TWO MILLION HANDS. At what point should I stop considering this
a statistical aberration, oh, assembled wise ones? When I lose all
my money?

#2

Please do not violate your rule anymore. Thanks.

I am violating my own rule of not posting in order to clarify a
misapprehension: Some people, having misread my post, are

reflecting

that my stated royal frequency of one in 155,000, while low, is no
real indication of anything to be suspicious of, or alarmed at.

This

might be true if the number of hands played WAS ONLY 155,000.
However, what I actually SAID was, "royal frequency of one in
155,000". This is after playing OVER TWO MILLION hands. Those
posters who used fuzzy thinking to whip up some kind of unjustified
criticism made the chacteristic mistake of little minds---

ASSUMPTION.

They ASSUMED that I had only played 155,000 hands. Now, if you
factor in a speed of 800 hands an hour you get the rather absurd
premise that I only played VP an average of ten hours a month for
the last two years!! Yeah, right!

So, to make my statement, and its underlying premise, ABSOLUTELY
CLEAR, even to the MOST OBTUSE:

For the period 2002-2003, in two million-plus hands, I am
approximately twenty-eight royals short of my "expected" total
royals. I have actually suffered losses that are about 85% of what
could be expected given the above, which is due to the fact that my
4 deuces frequencies on FPDW and my 4 Aces frequencies on 10/7 DB
are somewhat higher than expectation.

This is why it really tees me off when some self-appointed "expert"
on this board, using the fact that he played six hands of VP last
year and got two full houses, so what's the problem, tells me I
don't know what I'm talking about. I have EXPERIENCE under my belt,
for chrissake. Being down $18,000 this year, playing mostly .25
and .50 denoms, means SOMETHING is likely to have changed. Either I
suddenly don't know how to play VP (at ALL), I've just gotten
unlucky in the manner and magnitude of someone getting hit by
lightning three times in an hour, while being struck by a falling
meteor, and then carried off by a tidal wave, OR there's something

a

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321" <mkl54321@y...> wrote:

LEEEETLE funny about some of the machines out there.

So: TWO MILLION HANDS. At what point should I stop considering this
a statistical aberration, oh, assembled wise ones? When I lose all
my money?

#3

SNIP... OR there's something a
LEEEETLE funny about some of the machines out there.

So: TWO MILLION HANDS. At what point should I stop considering this
a statistical aberration, oh, assembled wise ones? When I lose all
my money?

KL, The solution to your problem seems apparent to me. You've been
playing the wrong machines the wrong way in the wrong casinos. You
should instantly call your travel agent for a flight to Topeka. Just
a little distance from the airport, you can join dipy (see post 20309)
at the Prarie Band Harrah's where the two of you can enjoy smashing
success while chasing the little devils in Triple Trouble, all while
not using your slot card. I'll bet you've been using your slot card,
haven't you? C'mon, fess up. Well, don't do that anymore! I hope
this is all perfectly clear and not at all obtuse. :slight_smile:

Pete

#4

you seem to be in the sigma 6 group. my advice to you quit playing
vp and take up tennis.

I am violating my own rule of not posting in order to clarify a
misapprehension: Some people, having misread my post, are

reflecting

that my stated royal frequency of one in 155,000, while low, is no
real indication of anything to be suspicious of, or alarmed at.

This

might be true if the number of hands played WAS ONLY 155,000.
However, what I actually SAID was, "royal frequency of one in
155,000". This is after playing OVER TWO MILLION hands. Those
posters who used fuzzy thinking to whip up some kind of

unjustified

criticism made the chacteristic mistake of little minds---

ASSUMPTION.

They ASSUMED that I had only played 155,000 hands. Now, if you
factor in a speed of 800 hands an hour you get the rather absurd
premise that I only played VP an average of ten hours a month for
the last two years!! Yeah, right!

So, to make my statement, and its underlying premise, ABSOLUTELY
CLEAR, even to the MOST OBTUSE:

For the period 2002-2003, in two million-plus hands, I am
approximately twenty-eight royals short of my "expected" total
royals. I have actually suffered losses that are about 85% of what
could be expected given the above, which is due to the fact that

my

4 deuces frequencies on FPDW and my 4 Aces frequencies on 10/7 DB
are somewhat higher than expectation.

This is why it really tees me off when some self-

appointed "expert"

on this board, using the fact that he played six hands of VP last
year and got two full houses, so what's the problem, tells me I
don't know what I'm talking about. I have EXPERIENCE under my

belt,

for chrissake. Being down $18,000 this year, playing mostly .25
and .50 denoms, means SOMETHING is likely to have changed. Either

I

suddenly don't know how to play VP (at ALL), I've just gotten
unlucky in the manner and magnitude of someone getting hit by
lightning three times in an hour, while being struck by a falling
meteor, and then carried off by a tidal wave, OR there's something

a

LEEEETLE funny about some of the machines out there.

So: TWO MILLION HANDS. At what point should I stop considering

this

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321" <mkl54321@y...> wrote:

a statistical aberration, oh, assembled wise ones? When I lose all
my money?

#5

Kevin, where are you playing? No, never mind - if I recall correctly you play at a LOT of places. All I can say is that me and mine and everyone I know are doing somewhere between OK and and above average over the last year. Most of my action over that time is at Palms, Fiesta Rancho, LV Hilton, Texas Station, and Gold Coast.

Anybody else (with a significant number of hands: say, at least 500,000) stinking it up?

john

mkl54321 wrote:
Being down $18,000 this year, playing mostly .25

···

and .50 denoms, means SOMETHING is likely to have changed. Either I suddenly don't know how to play VP (at ALL), I've just gotten unlucky in the manner and magnitude of someone getting hit by lightning three times in an hour, while being struck by a falling meteor, and then carried off by a tidal wave, OR there's something a LEEEETLE funny about some of the machines out there.

So: TWO MILLION HANDS. At what point should I stop considering this a statistical aberration, oh, assembled wise ones? When I lose all my money?

#6

timmer wrote:

you seem to be in the sigma 6 group. my advice to you quit playing
vp and take up tennis.

timmer, as preface, trust me my question isn't a challenge of your
reply -- just an indication that my statistics has gone rusty.

What formula did you use to determine the sigma (standard deviation)
of the number of RF's expected in n hands when deriving this answer?

- Harry

#7

Anybody else (with a significant number of hands: say, at least

500,000)

stinking it up?

john

While not as bad a year as Kevin's, I'm down a little over a third on
expected royals (12 received, 18.4 expected). The summer has been a
death march, with 112,000 hands before a royal, followed by 148,000,
followed by 177,000 and counting.

Only fair to mention that last year my expectation was 20 royals and
I snagged 28. For some obtuse reason, odd numbered years have been my
beta noire since the mid-90's.

#8

Anybody else (with a significant number of hands: say, at least 500,000)

stinking it up?

John

I don't mind admitting when "I stink." I don't think I have to remind
you about my 4-to-the-royal disaster from last year. (Never hit one the
entire year between the two of us playing.) While I've done a little
better there, my latest "stinky" streak is 36 hands of three-aces-dealt
and missing the fourth on every one of them. (I have had 4 aces from one
and two dealt in between.)

Scot

···

-----Original Message-----
From: John Kelly [mailto:jwke…@…net]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 9:59 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: A clarification

#9

Scot Krause wrote:

While I've done a little better there, my latest "stinky" streak is 36
hands of three-aces-dealt and missing the fourth on every one of them.
(I have had 4 aces from one and two dealt in between.)

While I suspect it's of little comfort, the odds of such a streak in
36 draws is about 1 in 5 - an uncomfortable fact, to be sure.

(I think I did my math right, but it is past my bedtime :).

- Harry

#10

While I suspect it's of little comfort, the odds of such a streak in
36 draws is about 1 in 5 - an uncomfortable fact, to be sure.

- Harry

What's even more disconcerting is that the next time 3 aces are dealt;

my chances of getting the 4th remain the same. The long "missing" steak
doesn't change my "odds."

Scot

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Porter [mailto:harry.por…@…net]

#11

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
wrote:

Please do not violate your rule anymore. Thanks.

I will do what I wish, including posting to this board, the
likelihood of my doing so having doubled since I now know it will
annoy you. Have a nice day.

#12

Kevin, where are you playing? No, never mind - if I recall

correctly you

play at a LOT of places.

Perhaps 20% at the Palms (where a ghastly royal drought has endured
since February; over 300 hours of play), about 10% at Stations
(GVR/Sunset), 15% at Fiesta Henderson, 5% at Fiesta Ratso, and the
rest scattered far and wide at the Hacienda, Cannery, LV Hilton, AZ
Chuckies Decatur, Coasts/Orleans before the three-property VP enema,
NYNY, Paris, Aladdin, El Corpse, LV Club, etc etc etc.

The REALLY stupid thing is that the only two casinos I am ahead any
significant amount in are....Paris and Aladdin....(JOB with mailed
multipoint offers made these positive plays for a limited time)

Additional stat: "The streak" is now at 155, namely, missed one-card
draws to royals. The previous streak ended at 127, so the aggregate
is one royal in 282 tries. Another statistic that is so far out
there, I can't attribute it to simple "bad luck".

Glad to hear you are doing OK, though...nobody that I know is!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:

#13

Scot Krause wrote:

What's even more disconcerting is that the next time 3 aces are dealt;
my chances of getting the 4th remain the same. The long "missing"
steak doesn't change my "odds."

That indeed is one of the sadder facts of video poker.

This is one place where I unknowingly betray myself as a pessimist:
Whereas many have a gut feel in this instance that they're "due", I
have a sinking feeling my luck won't change.

(Or were you referring here to a tenderloin that you once used as a
good luck charm ...)

- Harry

#14

mkl54321 wrote:

Kevin, where are you playing? No, never mind - if I recall

correctly you

play at a LOT of places.

Perhaps 20% at the Palms (where a ghastly royal drought has endured since February; over 300 hours of play), about 10% at Stations (GVR/Sunset), 15% at Fiesta Henderson, 5% at Fiesta Ratso, and the rest scattered far and wide at the Hacienda, Cannery, LV Hilton, AZ Chuckies Decatur, Coasts/Orleans before the three-property VP enema, NYNY, Paris, Aladdin, El Corpse, LV Club, etc etc etc.

We're $820 ahead this year at the Palms (one royal, lotta quads), not including $3200 in freeplay and all the chimichungas we can gag down. We don't get down to Fiesta H or Hacienda any; nor do we venture downtown, but otherwise we seem to play at the same places. About the only places that have been "cursed" for us this year have been AC-Decatur and Ellis Island...I seem to have found a correlation between bad smells and bad luck.

The REALLY stupid thing is that the only two casinos I am ahead any significant amount in are....Paris and Aladdin....(JOB with mailed multipoint offers made these positive plays for a limited time)

The irony! I believe you coined the term "megatoilet", correctly pointing out the perils of playing at shiny new strip megaresorts. God is cruel, but He has a sense of humor.

Anyway, I wish you better luck. I won't presume to know how lift a casino curse (not that I haven't tried), but I'd quit for awhile if I were in your shoes - for sanity's sake. My worst streaks cannot compare to yours, but I do know that there aren't many more aggravating and depressing ordeals than a losing streak that JUST WILL NOT END.

john

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:

#15

> Kevin, where are you playing? No, never mind - if I recall
correctly you

.
.
.

Additional stat: "The streak" is now at 155, namely, missed one-card
draws to royals. The previous streak ended at 127, so the aggregate
is one royal in 282 tries. Another statistic that is so far out
there, I can't attribute it to simple "bad luck".

Or 3 in 284 (actually 285 if you count the one between the 155 and 127) tries to put it in a
slightly better light.

···

--- mkl54321 <mkl54321@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:

#16

Hi,

Two million hands should produce about 50 Royals, shouldn't they?
Just make a bunch of simulated runs at Frugal, for example, for two
million hands. Sure, you almost never get 50 royals exactly, but most
of the times you closely do.

So tell me. With your ironic post I'm not sure what your point is.
What is it?

I was just in Las Vegas for five nights. I hit five Royals. I don't
think I played 200,000 hands even though I did play multi play
machines.

My view of things is that luck kills statistics. I prefer luck to
trusting math and the long term. Sure, you can't control luck. I try
to figure what it is. In any case, luck is something, whatever. If
you put a hundred pepole in a room full of Jacks or Better machines
and give each $1,000 and let them play for ten hours, some will go
broke, and some will come out much richer. Statistics allows you,
with the machine numbers, to figure ahead of time how many will do
whatever. The ones that come out richer are the lucky ones. They had
something called luck, whatever that is.

Statistics does not rule out that a guy playing all his life will
never hit a Royal. The probability of that happening is not great,
but it is not zero.

Unrelated to all of the above -maybe not-, I hated to see Spin
machines on the Strip out of order. I asked and attendant at one
casino, and she told me they were waiting for IGT people to come and
change the program. I have read about the problems, but still I
thought they would be fixed before my trip. I hated not to be able to
play Spin Poker. I like it because it makes me feel I'm watching a
laundry spinning cycle rather than losing at a casino. Not being able
to play Spin poker was bad luck.

Royals often come when least expected. Hope you are dealt one in a
Triple Double Bonus dollar ten play machine on the first line. Now
that is the type of luck I would want!

Good luck!

E

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321" <mkl54321@y...> wrote:

So: TWO MILLION HANDS. At what point should I stop considering this
a statistical aberration, oh, assembled wise ones? When I lose all
my money?

#17

ML and I are also on board the same boat with you and Kevin. And the
damn boat's taking on water! For the record, since switching to
nearly all vp play in '95, we've not had a down year. Got a while to
go, but this could be the streak breaker.

Pete

> Anybody else (with a significant number of hands: say, at least
500,000)
> stinking it up?
>
> john
>

While not as bad a year as Kevin's, I'm down a little over a third

on

expected royals (12 received, 18.4 expected). The summer has been a
death march, with 112,000 hands before a royal, followed by 148,000,
followed by 177,000 and counting.

Only fair to mention that last year my expectation was 20 royals and
I snagged 28. For some obtuse reason, odd numbered years have been

my

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "uscswan" <uscswan@y...> wrote:

beta noire since the mid-90's.

#18

> Additional stat: "The streak" is now at 155, namely, missed one-

card

> draws to royals. The previous streak ended at 127, so the

aggregate

> is one royal in 282 tries. Another statistic that is so far out
> there, I can't attribute it to simple "bad luck".
>

Or 3 in 284 (actually 285 if you count the one between the 155 and

127) tries to put it in a

slightly better light.

I wish. Actually, "the streak" is measured conservatively since I
(we) started counting at the moment we perceived we had had (and
missed) an inordinate number of these one-card draws lately. In
other words, the count didn't BEGIN with a made one-card draw; it
just started somewhat arbitrarily in the midst of an
existing "streak".

The 128th draw is the lone successful one. After that, we started a
new count, so it's true, the actual statistic is 1/283 rather than
1/282. Great, I feel (1/283-1/282) worse now :frowning:

#19

The probability of missing 127+ is about 6.5%, or one chance in 15.4.

The probability of missing 155+ is about 3.6%, or one chance in 28.

The numbers are significant, but certainly not astronomical.

···

On Tuesday 09 September 2003 04:07 pm, Jim Tsalikis wrote:

--- mkl54321 <mkl54321@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:
> > Kevin, where are you playing? No, never mind - if I recall
>
> correctly you

.
.
.

> Additional stat: "The streak" is now at 155, namely, missed one-card
> draws to royals. The previous streak ended at 127, so the aggregate
> is one royal in 282 tries. Another statistic that is so far out
> there, I can't attribute it to simple "bad luck".

#20

Um, no. You don't count the misses on BOTH sides of a lone
win. If you had the unlikely string of 99 misses followed by a hit,
and repeated this 100 times in a row, you'd clearly be averaging
one hit per 100 attempts, not one hit per 199 as you assert above.

Anyone who has the level of expertise that you claim should know
better than this.

···

On Tuesday 09 September 2003 08:32 pm, mkl54321 wrote:

The 128th draw is the lone successful one. After that, we started a
new count, so it's true, the actual statistic is 1/283 rather than
1/282. Great, I feel (1/283-1/282) worse now :frowning: