vpFREE2 Forums

A clarification

mkl54321 wrote:

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".

Earlier, there was an assertion that mk1's (Kevin) overall RF results
(a success rate of 1 in 155,000 over the course of 2 mil + hands) lay
somewhere in the range of "six sigma".

I'm still curious about that calculation but am willing to accept it,
although that sounds a little extreme. "four sigma" is equivalent to
a record that only 1 out of 30,000 players would see in a given 2+ mil
run of hands. I believe "six sigma" sets the record out in the
stratosphere of only being seen by something like 1 in over 1 million
players. That certainly would set Kevin apart, but it seems a tad high.

···

------

However, what I want to address is the excerpt above and examine just
how far out this stat is. That's one I can handle.

The probability of missing a given one-card draw to a royal is 46/47.

Now, to determine the likelihood of Kevin's one RF in 283 attempts we
look at the probability of one specific sequence in which this is the
success rate (say 1 hit, followed by 282 failures) and then multiply
that result by the total 283 ways in which the attempts can be
sequenced with only 1 success. (I hope it's clear that in a sequence
of 283 attempts with only 1 success, there are 283 possible positions
in that sequence in which that single success can occur.)

Ok, for the first case (1 success, 282 failures), we multiplay out the
individual probabilities of each event. The probability of a success
is 1/47; a failure is 46/47. We multiply the one success by 46
failures. Using an exponential calculation -- allowing us to
calculate this easily with a calculator or spreadsheet using the "^"
function -- the equation is (1/47)*[(46/47}^282].

(I'm stating what is obvious to many for the sake of the statistically
uninitiated who might be drawn to run the calcs. themselves.)

The value of that equation is: .000049433
Multiply this by 283 and we get: .013989

In other words, the likelihood of this streak is 1.4% for each 283
attempts made by a player. A player who runs two such trials of 283
draws will have a probability of 2.8% of managing only one RF on at
least one of those trials.

I'd say that these probabilities give Kevin a reasonable number of
players with similar runs as company in his travels through the
casinos and isn't a result that's "so far out there". Nonetheless,
rest assured that I feel his pain.

My point here isn't to suggest that Kevin is off his rocker. I
imagine all of us, without exception, have aspects of our play that
we're quite confident damn few others experience. It's the nature of
the beast.

However, the reality of the game is that it's almost inevitable that a
player will experience a pretty nasty streak in some element(s) of
their play; ones which bear a sharp cost. The fortunate thing is that
it's very likely that good fortune in some other aspect of play will
balance out that cost to a large extent.

However, when the element involved is RF frequency it's not to be
expected that this cost will be readily covered by luck on other
hands. And Kevin's overall subpar RF results suggests that other RF
draws haven't done the trick.

But again, I'm not sure that even that costly record lies beyond the
realm of imagination, or the future experience of one or more players
here -- provided they have the stamina and bankroll to stick it
through as Kevin has.

- Harry

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

and .50 denoms, means SOMETHING is likely to have changed.

Is that result just the VP play itself, or is it inclusive of
cashback, bounceback, etc?

refering to the small percentile of players who can play a near
perfect game and still lose more than the maximum defined by sigma 3
or 3 standard deviations which is losing -10,000 units. for $,25
FPDW but considering mk's half play I dont think he is really there
but fits in the sigma 3 catagory. sigma 6 is roughly 9 in a billion
or 0.00000009% if Im not mistaken. and is that mathamatical
aberration that describes a player who does every thing correct but
still can never win. this can be compaired to thousands of poker
players who do every thing wrong but can never seem to lose.

Pro 1: that fish in the cut off seat is a card rack.
Pro 2: Card Rack !?!? hes sigma 6 material.

timmer
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

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

  sigma 6 is roughly 9 in a billion
or 0.00000009% if Im not mistaken. and is that mathamatical
aberration that describes a player who does every thing correct

but

still can never win.

I think I might have overestimated this by 1000X

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "timmer" <timmr21@y...> wrote:

timmer wrote:

>
> sigma 6 is roughly 9 in a billion
> or 0.00000009% if Im not mistaken. and is that mathamatical
> aberration that describes a player who does every thing correct
> but still can never win.

I think I might have overestimated this by 1000X

timmer, setting aside where you think Kevin's results lie on the
statistical curve (i.e. "x" sigma), what are you suggesting the
probability of his results was? (expressed as a %)

- Harry

I was at Main Street for the seafood buffet Friday night and none of the full pay machines have
changed. Another case of mis-information. This pskofield person seems to be a pretty prolific
poster on LVA and the spelling is pretty much the same on all the posts. This person seems to be
as careless about his typing as he is at looking at pay tables. He probably was looking at the
wrong denominations.

Jim

pskofield posted on a Las Vegas Advisor forum

Duces at MSS have been downgraded (Post Reply)

The Duces Wild at MSS are no longer using Full Pay Scheduals. They have moiified them so they now
yield about 96$ per win poker. Yet the sings saaw they are still full pay. The best you now can
get are a couple of NSUD gamesw in MUtidemon machine,

PS the Plaza has a single Full Dueces in the middle of their casino

···

From: pskofield
Date: 9-12-03 3:14 PM

I was there all weekend and they are fully in tact.

I really hate when people report this sort of crap with such definitiveness
and then it turns out wrong and even worse, purposely wrong.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Tsalikis [mailto:tsali…@…com]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:12 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com; vp-mail@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vp-mail] Re: MSS FPDW downgrade??

I was at Main Street for the seafood buffet Friday night and none of the
full pay machines have
changed. Another case of mis-information. This pskofield person seems to
be a pretty prolific
poster on LVA and the spelling is pretty much the same on all the posts.
This person seems to be
as careless about his typing as he is at looking at pay tables. He probably
was looking at the
wrong denominations.

Jim

pskofield posted on a Las Vegas Advisor forum

Duces at MSS have been downgraded (Post Reply)

From: pskofield
Date: 9-12-03 3:14 PM

The Duces Wild at MSS are no longer using Full Pay Scheduals. They have
moiified them so they now
yield about 96$ per win poker. Yet the sings saaw they are still full pay.
The best you now can
get are a couple of NSUD gamesw in MUtidemon machine,

PS the Plaza has a single Full Dueces in the middle of their casino

NEED HELP?
Want to unsubscribe or change delivery method? Web page page says you're not
subscribed?
Before emailing Skip, please visit
http://www.vphomepage.com/VPMAILPROBSFAQ.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/