I am playing a $5 9/6 machine. I get a garbage hand, ten of hearts is
the highest card of the dealt hand. Throw them all away and what do I
get. The first four cards are A,K.Q,J of hearts and the fifth card is
the 5 of heart. Would have been sweet. Ugggggh.
A win but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Start keeping single tens and the casino will love you!
JBQ
···
On 8/11/05, Victoria Rosado <ros4144@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am playing a $5 9/6 machine. I get a garbage hand, ten of hearts is
the highest card of the dealt hand. Throw them all away and what do I
get. The first four cards are A,K.Q,J of hearts and the fifth card is
the 5 of heart. Would have been sweet. Ugggggh.
-Victoria... I was playing a progressive bank at Fitzgeralds Casino
in Black Hawk, Colorado a few years ago for about ten hours on Double
Bonus and a newbie sat down next to me and held the ten of hearts and
prompty hit the pot. I asked her why she held it and she said it was
one of the cards on the board.
I think this goes to short term and long term playing and risks
of the individual gambler. A topic that I think is very much
understated on these boards and the strategy cards and discussions.
Not always are players playing an entire game cycle, and some
might have money to risk in expectations of a large payout. So to hit
a Royal... you need to hold pieced of it... STU
Greg wrote:
I think this goes to short term and long term playing and risks
of the individual gambler. A topic that I think is very much
understated on these boards and the strategy cards and discussions.
Not always are players playing an entire game cycle, and some
might have money to risk in expectations of a large payout. So to
hit a Royal... you need to hold pieced of it... STU
I understand what you're suggesting here. But I'd suggest that even
to the player in the short-run, significant strategy changes present
appreciable risk.
Consider, for example, a double bonus player who decides to push a
little harder for a RF hit. Let's say that they incorporate
relatively modest changes to their strategy -- holding any 3RF over a
4F; 2RF-2hi over 4S-2 hi; 2RF-w/10 over 2 hi cds; among a few other
modest changes. We'll have this player push quad Aces as well, simply
by holding a single pair over any 2 pair.
The effect of these changes in the example I ran (using Frugal VP)
would be to shorten the RF cycle from 48K to 40K, an increase in RF
occurance of about 20%. Aces increase correspondingly as well.
The net effect is that the return contribution of RF and q-Aces
increases by .70%. The overall effect on return is a relatively small
reduction of .06%.
Now, in very round numbers, it's suggested that the "long term" for
any component of hand return is between 20x-30x the longest hand cycle
involved (higher than this for high variance games). Of course, this
means that for overall game returns, one doesn't expect their results
to closely match expected results until after a million hands, in most
cases. This is what gives rise to the notion that adherance to
strategy isn't critical for the occasional player who isn't likely to
play into that length in anything under a decade (if ever).
However, a closer examination indicates that strategy deviation has a
reliable impact on player return, even in a far shorter measurement
period.
It should be clear that for most players the suggested strategy
changes above would result in great unpredictability as to whether
they actually hit more RF's and q-Aces. (Of course, it's more likely
that they would than not.)
However, when one looks at the roughly 95% of game return that isn't
derived from these hands (excl. SF as well), in as few as 40,000 hands
it can be expected with strong reliability that the related return
will decrese by about .75%.
In other words, in the time that this player plays through a RF cycle,
while it's uncertain as to whether they will hit more Aces or RF's (if
any at all, in the case of RF's), you can rely upon the fact that
they're return outside of these hands will be impaired by .75% --
about $380 for the quarter player.
Now, that's something that I think can be overlooked only at a
player's hazard. Bottom line, it's a mistake to think that you can
deviate from strategy without impunity because there's no way to
really know the impact on play in the "short run" -- and therefore you
might as well go for the gold. Contrarily, the downside is very
predictable and the prudent player will be mindful of this.
- Harry