vpFREE2 Forums

[acvpp] Old Grumpy Is Back

#61

I read that page. I must be missing something. I will read it again. I was looking for the data as far as actual detailed strat changes...

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "vpFREE" <vpFREE@Cox.net>
To: <vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 10:58 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Harrah's diamond in a day

On 17 Aug 2005 at 15:48, ednar wrote:

I have read Steve's verbal explanation of the strategies. Has he printed
anything showing the difference in plays?

There's comparative JoB data at the bottom of the VP Playing
Strategies page: <http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm>.

vpFREE Administrator

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#62

A little progress inside. Some construction walls have come down revealing the new company. Some other sections of the casino are now walled off for the revamping. So far the new VP machines are like what they did at the Silverton, the old short pay machines in new wrappers. What gets me about the new decor is the knotty pine style. I'm tempted to stick my finger nail into it and test the softness. Maybe when the Hooters girls arrive I'll lose that obsession.

Charlies East has a new promtion, giving $100 cash to random players 3 times per hr from Thur Thru Sun. I counted roughly the total number of players in the casino and came up with an average of 300. So your EV would increase $3 per hr. Further calculations in my Densa not Mensa brain revealed if you were to play 2 hrs a day during promo times ( more hrs some days to make up for the 12 days with no promo) you'd hit the random $100 an average of 2 times per month. I don't understand what I just said and it makes me dizzy. I have to sit down.

OK, I'm back. I got to thinking about how they include the players at the Blackjack tables in the random selections so I asked the Mafia looking pit boss how that part would be done. "Sparklers in the seat cushions that would ignite if the player is a winner" I suggested? "No." he said, "They call down from upstairs and ask which seats have players.

JT

···

---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#63

9/6 JoB Min-Risk and Min-Cost-Royal strategies:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/26440

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/26440">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/26440</a>

···

On 17 Aug 2005 at 23:29, ednar wrote:

I read that page. I must be missing something. I will read it again. I
was looking for the data as far as actual detailed strat changes...

*************************************

From: Steve Jacobs <jacobs@xmission.com>
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:33 am
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Max ER VS "other" startegies

On Thursday 19 February 2004 08:14 pm, deuceswild1000 wrote:

Has anyone ever published a min risk, or a min hands between royal
strategy or anyothers besides max ER?

Thanks for asking. Here's the min-risk strategy of 9/6 JoB:

Jacks or Better 8/5
Distribution of Final Hands
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final Hand Payoff % Hit Cycle % Return
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Flush 4739.34 0.00262748499 38059.208845780 2.49050733251
Straight Flush 252.55 0.01108750376 9019.162664848 0.56002517891
4/Kind 125.62 0.23596653297 423.788910835 5.92850942875
Full House 45.07 1.15019961527 86.941430576 10.36892413547
Flush 30.03 1.10507892600 90.491274105 6.63732726690
Straight 20.01 1.12795809186 88.655776063 4.51462983967
3/Kind 15.01 7.43423688537 13.451279740 22.31192828874
Two Pair 10 12.91500168368 7.742933563 25.83534035749
High Pair 5 21.35280817162 4.683224764 21.35280817162
-----------------------------------------------------------------
45.33496489552 2.205802965 100.00000000006

cost: 0.9999999999989

Min-Risk Strategy
High cards: AKQJ
------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Return Cards to keep
------------------------------------------------------------
1 947.8674 Royal Flush
2 50.5096 Straight Flush
3 25.1244 4/Kind
4 21.8523 4/royal
5 9.0149 Full House
6 6.0062 Flush
7 4.3098 trips
8 4.0025 Straight
9 3.5764 4/str-flush (0 holes)
10 2.5974 two pair
11 2.3932 4/str-flush (1 hole)
12 1.6326 suited KQJ
13 1.6295 suited QJT
14 1.5505 suited AQJ/AKJ/AKQ
15 1.5440 suited KJT/KQT
16 1.5372 pair (AKQJ)
17 1.4501 suited AJT/AQT/AKT
18 1.2170 4/flush
19 0.8723 unsuited KQJT
20 0.8244 pair (T98765432)
21 0.8085 unsuited QJT9
22 0.7447 unsuited JT98
23 0.7323 3/str-flush (1 hole, 2 high)
24 0.7281 3/str-flush (0 holes, 1 high)
25 0.6809 4/straight (0 holes, 0 high)
26 0.6371 3/str-flush (2 holes, 2 high)
27 0.6322 3/str-flush (1 hole, 1 high)
28 0.6269 3/str-flush (0 holes, 0 high)
29 0.6172 suited QJ
30 0.6012 suited KJ/KQ
31 0.5957 unsuited AKQJ
32 0.5847 suited AJ/AQ/AK
33 0.5367 3/str-flush (2 holes, 1 high)
34 0.5319 4/straight (1 hole, 3 high)
35 0.5313 3/str-flush (1 hole, 0 high)
36 0.5153 unsuited KQJ
37 0.5067 suited JT
38 0.5025 unsuited QJ
39 0.4925 suited QT
40 0.4894 unsuited KJ/KQ
41 0.4809 Jack
42 0.4786 suited KT
43 0.4772 unsuited AJ/AQ/AK
44 0.4770 Queen
45 0.4727 King
46 0.4712 Ace
47 0.4698 suited AT
48 0.4354 3/str-flush (2 holes, 0 high)
49 0.3602 (draw 5 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the min_cost_royal strategy:

Jacks or Better 9/6
Distribution of Final Hands
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final Hand Payoff % Hit Cycle % Return
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Flush 4879.97 0.00278247476 35939.229867036 2.71567641434
Straight Flush 250 0.01112788140 8986.436534213 0.55639407022
4/Kind 125 0.23551041940 424.609663779 5.88776048512
Full House 45 1.14852750261 87.068006446 10.33674752346
Flush 30 1.11215238799 89.915735541 6.67291432792
Straight 20 1.13084611820 88.429361334 4.52338447281
3/Kind 15 7.41651292395 13.483425570 22.24953877184
Two Pair 10 12.89193329458 7.756788506 25.78386658916
High Pair 5 21.27371734508 4.700635925 21.27371734508
-----------------------------------------------------------------
45.22311034797 2.211258784 99.99999999994

cost: 1.0000000000011

Recommended Strategy
High cards: AKQJ
------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Return Cards to keep
------------------------------------------------------------
1 975.9932 Royal Flush
2 50.0000 Straight Flush
3 25.0000 4/Kind
4 22.4487 4/royal
5 9.0000 Full House
6 6.0000 Flush
7 4.3025 trips
8 4.0000 Straight
9 3.5551 4/str-flush (0 holes)
10 2.5957 two pair
11 2.3825 4/str-flush (1 hole)
12 1.6582 suited KQJ
13 1.6545 suited QJT
14 1.5694 suited AQJ/AKJ/AKQ
15 1.5664 suited KJT/KQT
16 1.5365 pair (AKQJ)
17 1.4761 suited AJT/AQT/AKT
18 1.2170 4/flush
19 0.8723 unsuited KQJT
20 0.8237 pair (T98765432)
21 0.8085 unsuited QJT9
22 0.7447 unsuited JT98
23 0.7313 3/str-flush (1 hole, 2 high)
24 0.7266 3/str-flush (0 holes, 1 high)
25 0.6809 4/straight (0 holes, 0 high)
26 0.6366 3/str-flush (2 holes, 2 high)
27 0.6312 3/str-flush (1 hole, 1 high)
28 0.6254 3/str-flush (0 holes, 0 high)
29 0.6188 suited QJ
30 0.6028 suited KJ/KQ
31 0.5957 unsuited AKQJ
32 0.5864 suited AJ/AQ/AK
33 0.5362 3/str-flush (2 holes, 1 high)
34 0.5319 4/straight (1 hole, 3 high)
35 0.5304 3/str-flush (1 hole, 0 high)
36 0.5153 unsuited KQJ
37 0.5079 suited JT
38 0.5024 unsuited QJ
39 0.4941 suited QT
40 0.4893 unsuited KJ/KQ
41 0.4810 Jack
42 0.4800 suited KT
43 0.4771 unsuited AJ/AQ/AK
44 0.4770 Queen
45 0.4728 King
46 0.4714 suited AT
47 0.4712 Ace
48 0.4349 3/str-flush (2 holes, 0 high)
49 0.3602 (draw 5 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------

Entries 46 and 47 change places in priority. A more detailed strategy
using penalty cards would likely show additional exceptions.

#64

Thanks, Harry.

This is EXACTLY the answer I think I was seeking. I was always
assuming, in this thread, the fact that there would ALWAYS be
a "loss" in seeking the "one-day" Diamond status.

Your answer indicates that, in most instances, the loss would be
substantial and probably not be "worth" the gains attained with
Diamond status.

bl

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

bornloser1537 wrote:
> I understand, but I was specifically referring to making the
< "diamond" level.
>
> I was just wondering if the short coin and the modified strategy
> (and the resulting lower variance) would "guarantee" more "coin
> "through", which is the purpose of this exercise, not so much
> "making money"

Anyone looking to go at Diamond in a day by pursuing a play above
their comfortable denomination or variance tolerance is looking

for a

case of gambler's remorse.

There is no modified strategy that will reduce loss risk to an

extent

that converts an "uncomfortable" play to comfortable one ... a
"little-less-uncomfortable" is as good as it gets.

There's nothing about Diamond that warrants undertaking a

significant

risk of a $1500+ loss in one day unless this already characterizes
your play.

If a low-denom multi-play strong ER option is available, it's

perhaps

the ideal route to go if you're not generally a $1 player

othrewise..

···

- Harry

#65

bornloser1537 wrote:

Thanks, Harry.

This is EXACTLY the answer I think I was seeking. I was always
assuming, in this thread, the fact that there would ALWAYS be
a "loss" in seeking the "one-day" Diamond status.

Your answer indicates that, in most instances, the loss would be
substantial and probably not be "worth" the gains attained with
Diamond status.

Glad my reply was appreciated. Now let me qualify that a bit for the
sake of clarity.

Let's assume that the game you play is roughly B/E with cashback. In
that case, should you not hit a RF, you expected loss would be about $400.

Now, I'm not a pessimist by any means. In fact, I always look for the
best in things but give considerable weight to the downside. In this
case, if things go well, great! However, speaking for myself, were I
to undertake a play that otherwise would be outside my standard
regimen and wound up absorbing a significant loss, I'd be kicking
myself black and blue for months to come.

In my case, I suffered a $1300 loss on my one day Diamond renewal
quest this year playing $1 Jacks (offset by a generous $45 in cashback
from Harrah's AC -- which is why my AC Harrah's play has been limited,
something that may change with recent added inventory at Showboat).
If I didn't hit $1 machines other than this, I'd have considered it an
unfortunate choice. But, that not being the case, it's simply part of
the $ ride that happened to coincide with this play.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that "in most instances, the loss would
be substantial". I simply assert that the risk is significant and if
this risk is something that is excessive vs. that of your standard
play, it's an unwarranted undertaking weighed against what Diamond
offers -- particularly if you have the option to earn it at a slower
pace on most comfortable plays. If you expect to be an occasional
player at Harrah's over the year, there's nothing onerous about the
$100K play requirement (particularly when considered as an option to
undertaking $20K in a single day).

- Harry

#66

Again, my original conjecture was very simply (or, at least I thought it
was)...LOL

I do not want to mix apples and oranges but just concentrate on this one,
single goal,

The goal was to make "Diamond in a Day" as cheaply as possible, playing 9/6
JOB. It has been my conjecture that playing with a single coin (say $5), and
playing an appropriate single coin strategy might allow one to reach that goal
more cheaply than playing the 5-coin $1 version.

One may play any coin/line combination one desires and this will affect the
"time" needed to attain the "coin in" goal. But, my goal is, simply, comparing
the final "coin in" when using a 1-coin strategy, versus using a 5-coin strategy
to attain a particular "coin-in" goal, like, for example, that needed to attain
"Diamond in a Day"..

My argument is that, for this exercise, the Royal, statistically, becomes virtually
meaningless and thus the one-coin strategy lowers the variance by a rather
substantial margin, and the "coin in" goal is not that large..

Over the next couple of days, I will try to run some simulations with WinPoker.
I might just find that I am horribly wrong in my conjecture and will be willing to
put my tail between my legs and slink into the corner with a dunce cap on my
head.

bl

···

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

Glad my reply was appreciated. Now let me qualify that a bit for the
sake of clarity.

#67

Hmmmm, I'm not quite sure that I follow the numbers.

If the casino gives $300 per hour to 300 players, that's $1 per player per hour.

If there are 300 players and 3 prizes per hour, each player wins on
average once every 100 hours of play. That's once every 5 weeks,
playing 5 hours a day 4 days a week. At about 600 HPH you'll hit a
royal approximately once every 70 hours (to give a comparison).

JBQ

···

On 8/18/05, JT Hughes_iii <jt_hughes_iii@yahoo.com> wrote:

A little progress inside. Some construction walls have come down revealing the new company. Some other sections of the casino are now walled off for the revamping. So far the new VP machines are like what they did at the Silverton, the old short pay machines in new wrappers. What gets me about the new decor is the knotty pine style. I'm tempted to stick my finger nail into it and test the softness. Maybe when the Hooters girls arrive I'll lose that obsession.

Charlies East has a new promtion, giving $100 cash to random players 3 times per hr from Thur Thru Sun. I counted roughly the total number of players in the casino and came up with an average of 300. So your EV would increase $3 per hr. Further calculations in my Densa not Mensa brain revealed if you were to play 2 hrs a day during promo times ( more hrs some days to make up for the 12 days with no promo) you'd hit the random $100 an average of 2 times per month. I don't understand what I just said and it makes me dizzy. I have to sit down.

OK, I'm back. I got to thinking about how they include the players at the Blackjack tables in the random selections so I asked the Mafia looking pit boss how that part would be done. "Sparklers in the seat cushions that would ignite if the player is a winner" I suggested? "No." he said, "They call down from upstairs and ask which seats have players.

JT

---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#68

Well, quick numbers. Don't give them too much weight, we're talking
about a small number of games, and the statistics might not be that
accurate (I assume a normal distribution, and for such a small number
of hands the distribution isn't quite normal).

I assume that you want to reach $20K of coin-in.

Playing 4000 games, 5-coin @$1, you will lose an average of $91, and
the standard deviation is $1397. You have a 47% chance of coming out
ahead. You have a 4% chance of losing more than $2535.

Playing 4000 games, 1-coin @$5, you will lose an average of $325, and
the standard deviation is $702. You have a 32% chance of coming out
ahead. You have a 4% chance of losing more than $1553.

There's a 63% chance of losing more money playing short-coin $5.

Playing 4000 games, 20-hands 5-coin @5c, you will lose an average of
$91, and the standard deviation is $533. You have a 43% chance of
coming out ahead. You have a 4% chance of losing more than $1023.

Like I said, those are based on the assumption of a normal
distribution. If you plot the actual distribution the the single-line
play you'll probably find a large bump for the case with no RF and a
small bump for the case with a royal (plus minor ripples if you hit
more than 1), and on each of those a large bump for the case with 1 SF
and some small bumps for the cases with 0 and 2, plus some minor
ripples.

JBQ

···

On 8/18/05, bornloser1537 <bornloser1537@yahoo.com> wrote:

Again, my original conjecture was very simply (or, at least I thought it
was)...LOL

I do not want to mix apples and oranges but just concentrate on this one,
single goal,

The goal was to make "Diamond in a Day" as cheaply as possible, playing 9/6
JOB. It has been my conjecture that playing with a single coin (say $5), and
playing an appropriate single coin strategy might allow one to reach that goal
more cheaply than playing the 5-coin $1 version.

One may play any coin/line combination one desires and this will affect the
"time" needed to attain the "coin in" goal. But, my goal is, simply, comparing
the final "coin in" when using a 1-coin strategy, versus using a 5-coin strategy
to attain a particular "coin-in" goal, like, for example, that needed to attain
"Diamond in a Day"..

My argument is that, for this exercise, the Royal, statistically, becomes virtually
meaningless and thus the one-coin strategy lowers the variance by a rather
substantial margin, and the "coin in" goal is not that large..

Over the next couple of days, I will try to run some simulations with WinPoker.
I might just find that I am horribly wrong in my conjecture and will be willing to
put my tail between my legs and slink into the corner with a dunce cap on my
head.

bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
> Glad my reply was appreciated. Now let me qualify that a bit for the
> sake of clarity.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#69

bornloser1537 wrote:

The goal was to make "Diamond in a Day" as cheaply as possible,
playing 9/6 JOB. It has been my conjecture that playing with a
single coin (say $5), and playing an appropriate single coin
strategy might allow one to reach that goal more cheaply than
playing the 5-coin $1 version.

I apologize for not tracing back this discussion to provide an
on-topic reply.

In brief, there's no doubt that playing any strategy that is based
upon a reduced RF payout will have a higher ER for any session in
which a RF isn't hit.

In playing a strategy based upon a 250-bet RF payout, the non-RF
related ER increases from the 97.56% of standard strategy to 97.88%.
That represents a 13% reduction in the expected loss from any session
in which a RF isn't hit.

···

------

As discussed in another post, it's not necessary to play a short coin
game in order to achieve this "benefit". You can simply, in your
example, play full coin $1 JB with the shorted RF strategy through
which you intend to approach single coin play. This has the benefit
of still addinging the additional ER of an 800-bet RF vs. 250-bet.

------

The question is whether this reduced loss expectation in the event
that you don't hit the RF is warranted given the sacrifices.

First, in terms of overall play ER, you give up .1% in return,
increasing the total expected loss on play (including the RF) by 22%
(and by an even greater percent once cashback is taken into account).

Second, the total risk of a loss exceeding any threshold isn't
appreciably reduced. As one would expect, the variance of non-RF
related return actually increases when playing a RF-shortpay strategy
(pretty nominally). What this says is that the risk someone will
experience the 6.5% loss ($1300) that I did in the course of $20K of
play isn't going to be appreciably effected by the modest 0.32%
increase in ER for a non-RF session.

You can interpret this information according to your risk/return
preferences. However, my take is that there's no deviation from
standard strategy that's warranted by this play given your goals.

- Harry

#70

Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:

Well, quick numbers. Don't give them too much weight, we're talking
about a small number of games, and the statistics might not be that
accurate (I assume a normal distribution, and for such a small
number of hands the distribution isn't quite normal).

"isn't quite normal" ... that's one of the greater understatements
I've seen here in the last few days.

How about "no where near normal". Playing $5 per hand, $20K coin-in,
you're looking at 4000 hands. In Jacks, 6% of the return comes from
quads and you're looking for about 9-10 of these on average. If you
think the deviation on these will contribute to anywhere near a
"normal" distribution you're looking for great disappointment should
you someday become a several-session-a-month player. (In bonus quad
games, the distortion is much more severe.)

Your statistics are interesting and, in a relative context, likely
provide reasonable insight into expectations. But the cited loss
probabilities are more than likely wildly off for what is a
considerably skewed distribution over 4000 hands.

- Harry

#71

You're right, I should have insisted much more on the fact that,
indeed, for 4000 hands the distribution is absolutely not normal.

JBQ

···

On 8/18/05, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> Well, quick numbers. Don't give them too much weight, we're talking
> about a small number of games, and the statistics might not be that
> accurate (I assume a normal distribution, and for such a small
> number of hands the distribution isn't quite normal).

"isn't quite normal" ... that's one of the greater understatements
I've seen here in the last few days.

How about "no where near normal". Playing $5 per hand, $20K coin-in,
you're looking at 4000 hands. In Jacks, 6% of the return comes from
quads and you're looking for about 9-10 of these on average. If you
think the deviation on these will contribute to anywhere near a
"normal" distribution you're looking for great disappointment should
you someday become a several-session-a-month player. (In bonus quad
games, the distortion is much more severe.)

Your statistics are interesting and, in a relative context, likely
provide reasonable insight into expectations. But the cited loss
probabilities are more than likely wildly off for what is a
considerably skewed distribution over 4000 hands.

- Harry

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#72

Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:

You're right, I should have insisted much more on the fact that,
indeed, for 4000 hands the distribution is absolutely not normal.

Have you considered constructing a Monte Carlo simulation to determine
the actual distribution? I'm sure it's well within your capabilities.

- H.

#73

excellent. thank you...

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "vpFREE" <vpFREE@Cox.net>
To: <vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:29 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Alternate strategies for 9/6 JoB

On 17 Aug 2005 at 23:29, ednar wrote:

I read that page. I must be missing something. I will read it again. I
was looking for the data as far as actual detailed strat changes...

9/6 JoB Min-Risk and Min-Cost-Royal strategies:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/26440

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/26440">
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/26440</a>

*************************************

From: Steve Jacobs <jacobs@xmission.com>
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:33 am
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Max ER VS "other" startegies

On Thursday 19 February 2004 08:14 pm, deuceswild1000 wrote:

Has anyone ever published a min risk, or a min hands between royal
strategy or anyothers besides max ER?

Thanks for asking. Here's the min-risk strategy of 9/6 JoB:

Jacks or Better 8/5
Distribution of Final Hands
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final Hand Payoff % Hit Cycle % Return
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Flush 4739.34 0.00262748499 38059.208845780 2.49050733251
Straight Flush 252.55 0.01108750376 9019.162664848 0.56002517891
4/Kind 125.62 0.23596653297 423.788910835 5.92850942875
Full House 45.07 1.15019961527 86.941430576 10.36892413547
Flush 30.03 1.10507892600 90.491274105 6.63732726690
Straight 20.01 1.12795809186 88.655776063 4.51462983967
3/Kind 15.01 7.43423688537 13.451279740 22.31192828874
Two Pair 10 12.91500168368 7.742933563 25.83534035749
High Pair 5 21.35280817162 4.683224764 21.35280817162
-----------------------------------------------------------------
45.33496489552 2.205802965 100.00000000006

cost: 0.9999999999989

Min-Risk Strategy
High cards: AKQJ
------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Return Cards to keep
------------------------------------------------------------
1 947.8674 Royal Flush
2 50.5096 Straight Flush
3 25.1244 4/Kind
4 21.8523 4/royal
5 9.0149 Full House
6 6.0062 Flush
7 4.3098 trips
8 4.0025 Straight
9 3.5764 4/str-flush (0 holes)
10 2.5974 two pair
11 2.3932 4/str-flush (1 hole)
12 1.6326 suited KQJ
13 1.6295 suited QJT
14 1.5505 suited AQJ/AKJ/AKQ
15 1.5440 suited KJT/KQT
16 1.5372 pair (AKQJ)
17 1.4501 suited AJT/AQT/AKT
18 1.2170 4/flush
19 0.8723 unsuited KQJT
20 0.8244 pair (T98765432)
21 0.8085 unsuited QJT9
22 0.7447 unsuited JT98
23 0.7323 3/str-flush (1 hole, 2 high)
24 0.7281 3/str-flush (0 holes, 1 high)
25 0.6809 4/straight (0 holes, 0 high)
26 0.6371 3/str-flush (2 holes, 2 high)
27 0.6322 3/str-flush (1 hole, 1 high)
28 0.6269 3/str-flush (0 holes, 0 high)
29 0.6172 suited QJ
30 0.6012 suited KJ/KQ
31 0.5957 unsuited AKQJ
32 0.5847 suited AJ/AQ/AK
33 0.5367 3/str-flush (2 holes, 1 high)
34 0.5319 4/straight (1 hole, 3 high)
35 0.5313 3/str-flush (1 hole, 0 high)
36 0.5153 unsuited KQJ
37 0.5067 suited JT
38 0.5025 unsuited QJ
39 0.4925 suited QT
40 0.4894 unsuited KJ/KQ
41 0.4809 Jack
42 0.4786 suited KT
43 0.4772 unsuited AJ/AQ/AK
44 0.4770 Queen
45 0.4727 King
46 0.4712 Ace
47 0.4698 suited AT
48 0.4354 3/str-flush (2 holes, 0 high)
49 0.3602 (draw 5 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the min_cost_royal strategy:

Jacks or Better 9/6
Distribution of Final Hands
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final Hand Payoff % Hit Cycle % Return
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Flush 4879.97 0.00278247476 35939.229867036 2.71567641434
Straight Flush 250 0.01112788140 8986.436534213 0.55639407022
4/Kind 125 0.23551041940 424.609663779 5.88776048512
Full House 45 1.14852750261 87.068006446 10.33674752346
Flush 30 1.11215238799 89.915735541 6.67291432792
Straight 20 1.13084611820 88.429361334 4.52338447281
3/Kind 15 7.41651292395 13.483425570 22.24953877184
Two Pair 10 12.89193329458 7.756788506 25.78386658916
High Pair 5 21.27371734508 4.700635925 21.27371734508
-----------------------------------------------------------------
45.22311034797 2.211258784 99.99999999994

cost: 1.0000000000011

Recommended Strategy
High cards: AKQJ
------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Return Cards to keep
------------------------------------------------------------
1 975.9932 Royal Flush
2 50.0000 Straight Flush
3 25.0000 4/Kind
4 22.4487 4/royal
5 9.0000 Full House
6 6.0000 Flush
7 4.3025 trips
8 4.0000 Straight
9 3.5551 4/str-flush (0 holes)
10 2.5957 two pair
11 2.3825 4/str-flush (1 hole)
12 1.6582 suited KQJ
13 1.6545 suited QJT
14 1.5694 suited AQJ/AKJ/AKQ
15 1.5664 suited KJT/KQT
16 1.5365 pair (AKQJ)
17 1.4761 suited AJT/AQT/AKT
18 1.2170 4/flush
19 0.8723 unsuited KQJT
20 0.8237 pair (T98765432)
21 0.8085 unsuited QJT9
22 0.7447 unsuited JT98
23 0.7313 3/str-flush (1 hole, 2 high)
24 0.7266 3/str-flush (0 holes, 1 high)
25 0.6809 4/straight (0 holes, 0 high)
26 0.6366 3/str-flush (2 holes, 2 high)
27 0.6312 3/str-flush (1 hole, 1 high)
28 0.6254 3/str-flush (0 holes, 0 high)
29 0.6188 suited QJ
30 0.6028 suited KJ/KQ
31 0.5957 unsuited AKQJ
32 0.5864 suited AJ/AQ/AK
33 0.5362 3/str-flush (2 holes, 1 high)
34 0.5319 4/straight (1 hole, 3 high)
35 0.5304 3/str-flush (1 hole, 0 high)
36 0.5153 unsuited KQJ
37 0.5079 suited JT
38 0.5024 unsuited QJ
39 0.4941 suited QT
40 0.4893 unsuited KJ/KQ
41 0.4810 Jack
42 0.4800 suited KT
43 0.4771 unsuited AJ/AQ/AK
44 0.4770 Queen
45 0.4728 King
46 0.4714 suited AT
47 0.4712 Ace
48 0.4349 3/str-flush (2 holes, 0 high)
49 0.3602 (draw 5 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------

Entries 46 and 47 change places in priority. A more detailed strategy
using penalty cards would likely show additional exceptions.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#74

Yes, but I'm too lazy :slight_smile: (or too busy, which typically amounts to the same).

I'll give it a shot at some point, and I'll post the results.

JBQ

···

On 8/18/05, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> You're right, I should have insisted much more on the fact that,
> indeed, for 4000 hands the distribution is absolutely not normal.

Have you considered constructing a Monte Carlo simulation to determine
the actual distribution? I'm sure it's well within your capabilities.

- H.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#75

Actually, I'll incrementally construct a probability table, it's
easier, faster, and yields more accurate results.

JBQ

···

On 8/18/05, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, but I'm too lazy :slight_smile: (or too busy, which typically amounts to the same).

I'll give it a shot at some point, and I'll post the results.

JBQ

On 8/18/05, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
> Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> > You're right, I should have insisted much more on the fact that,
> > indeed, for 4000 hands the distribution is absolutely not normal.
>
> Have you considered constructing a Monte Carlo simulation to determine
> the actual distribution? I'm sure it's well within your capabilities.
>
> - H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

#76

Well, quick numbers. Don't give them too much
weight, we're talking
about a small number of games, and the statistics
might not be that
accurate (I assume a normal distribution, and for
such a small number
of hands the distribution isn't quite normal).

So later on, JBQ retracts this stuff because of the
severe skew of this distribution. I'm not trying to
pile on here, but it's worth re-emphasizing the
following in case anyone's confused:

I assume that you want to reach $20K of coin-in.

Playing 4000 games, 5-coin @$1, [...]
You have a 4% chance of losing more than $2535.

Playing 4000 games, 1-coin @$5, [...]
You have a 4% chance of losing more than $1553.

These aren't right, and more importantly, they're not
wrong in an equal way that makes the relationship
stand.

**You are more likely to lose any fixed amount playing
1-coin $5 than 5-coin $1 over the same amount of
coin-in.** Reduction in variance USUALLY makes it less
likely that you suffer a bad swing. But here the
reduction in variance isn't coming from smoothing the
payouts out at a higher level, it's coming from
swiping thousands of credits from the royal payout.

In case this isn't clear, here are two quick games.

Game 1: Flip a coin. Heads, win $2. Tails, lose $1.
Game 2: Flip a coin. Heads, win $1. Tails, lose $1.

Game 1 has higher variance than Game 2. But I bet you
can guess which game will get you broke faster.

Jerrod Ankenman

···

--- Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@gmail.com> wrote:

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

#77

I thought I had made it somewhat clear that I was making an
assumption which was known to not be accurate. But let
me re-emphasize it: the distribution is not normal, and people
shouldn't read too much in the percetages that I wrote
(I believe that they are accurate within the assumption of
a normal distribution, at least as accurate as I could make
them in a few minutes right after waking up).

I will write down some code when I find enough time to compute
the actual distribution, and I'll post the plot and the result
since it looks like this is something. I will not be studying the
case of multi-line play because I don't know the probabilities
of all the possible outcomes of a hand.

JBQ

···

On 8/18/05, Jerrod Ankenman <jerrodankenman@yahoo.com> wrote: