vpFREE2 Forums

Any Books Available on Short Term Play/Optimizing Solutions

#1

In a message dated 8/5/06 3:15:41 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
bob.dancer@compdance.com writes:

···

Steve Jacobs wrote a lengthy discussion of various strategies.

Thank you, Steve. I understand your points better now. I suspect that
part of it is that you've been saying these things for a while, but I
haven't devoted the mental energy to understanding what you were talking
about.

*****
I first thought Steve Jacobs as a crack-pot a couple years ago. Who could go
against the maximum Expected Value/Return way of thinking.

But I thought back about that linear programming math class I took at the Big
U in the 1970's. Matrix Algebra can be cool. Draw a bunch of lines on a
Cartesian Coordinate graph and you end up with a bunch of intersecting lines.
Each intersection of these lines could be an optimum solution depending upon the
constraints (goals).

Giving up .03% in one area for a 12% gain in another component should be
examined.

John Bardeen and his buds were probably swimming uphill when they proposed
that a little bit of electrical current coming out of one device could fire up a
whole bunch of other similiar devices. Transitors and a Nobel Prize anyone?

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

#2

I never thought Steve was a crack-pot, but I did (for a short time) think he
might be a little nutty. My misconception didn't last long.

This was well over a decade ago, even before he started using "EV isn't
everything" as a .sig.

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

···

On 8/5/06, GRAYTLEEGRAY@aol.com <GRAYTLEEGRAY@aol.com> wrote:

I first thought Steve Jacobs as a crack-pot a couple years ago.

#3

GRAYTLEEGRAY wrote:

Giving up .03% in one area for a 12% gain in another component should
be examined.

Just be certain that you fully grasp what that 12% is about. Is there
any value in securing 12% more royals in and of itself? Why not sweat
the quads, FH's, etc. that have been foregone?

- H.

#4

Harry, you must be completely immune to adrenalin. :wink:

I think that 12% figure is pretty interesting in and of itself. The fact that
strategy changes can vary the royal cycle by such a large amount, without
having hardly any impact on EV, is really a bit startling.

···

On Saturday 05 August 2006 8:58 pm, Harry Porter wrote:

GRAYTLEEGRAY wrote:
> Giving up .03% in one area for a 12% gain in another component should
> be examined.

Just be certain that you fully grasp what that 12% is about. Is there
any value in securing 12% more royals in and of itself? Why not sweat
the quads, FH's, etc. that have been foregone?

#5

> I first thought Steve Jacobs as a crack-pot a couple years ago.

I never thought Steve was a crack-pot, but I did (for a short time) think
he might be a little nutty. My misconception didn't last long.

So, you quickly concluded that I'm a _lot_ nutty? :wink:

My wife still thinks I'm a more than a little nutty, and she has passed that
on to my children.

This was well over a decade ago, even before he started using "EV isn't
everything" as a .sig.

Nitpick: the .sig was "Expectation isn't everything" but I mostly meant
for "expectation" to imply "EV". I couldn't get a Google search to go
back far enough to find my first post with that quote. I've used it for so
long that I can't remember when that got started. Probably very early
'90s, not too long after I started posting to rec.gambling newsgroups.

···

On Saturday 05 August 2006 6:53 pm, King Fish wrote:

On 8/5/06, GRAYTLEEGRAY@aol.com <GRAYTLEEGRAY@aol.com> wrote:

#6

How about 1994?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling/browse_frm/thread/ba9b12bbfd21cf93/b47bca212c09ecd5?lnk=st&q=&rnum=535&hl=en#b47bca212c09ecd5

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

···

On 8/5/06, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@xmission.com> wrote:

Nitpick: the .sig was "Expectation isn't everything" but I mostly meant
for "expectation" to imply "EV". I couldn't get a Google search to go
back far enough to find my first post with that quote. I've used it for
so
long that I can't remember when that got started. Probably very early
'90s, not too long after I started posting to rec.gambling newsgroups.

#7

Right you are! I was using a different .sig on Feb. 3 and switched some time
between that date and Feb. 8 of 1994. Now I'll have to see if I can find the
first time I used it in a post...

···

On Sunday 06 August 2006 5:37 am, King Fish wrote:

On 8/5/06, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@xmission.com> wrote:
> Nitpick: the .sig was "Expectation isn't everything" but I mostly meant
> for "expectation" to imply "EV". I couldn't get a Google search to go
> back far enough to find my first post with that quote. I've used it for
> so
> long that I can't remember when that got started. Probably very early
> '90s, not too long after I started posting to rec.gambling newsgroups.

How about 1994?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling/browse_frm/thread/ba9b12bbfd21c
f93/b47bca212c09ecd5?lnk=st&q=&rnum=535&hl=en#b47bca212c09ecd5

#8

The earliest reference I could find was on Dec. 6, 1990 in a post with the
phrase "expected value isn't everything". In a post around the 1994 .sig
I claimed to have is "it" a thousand times already, but most of those posts
appear to have vanished :wink:

···

On Sunday 06 August 2006 10:07 am, Steve Jacobs wrote:

On Sunday 06 August 2006 5:37 am, King Fish wrote:
> On 8/5/06, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@xmission.com> wrote:
> > Nitpick: the .sig was "Expectation isn't everything" but I mostly meant
> > for "expectation" to imply "EV". I couldn't get a Google search to go
> > back far enough to find my first post with that quote. I've used it
> > for so
> > long that I can't remember when that got started. Probably very early
> > '90s, not too long after I started posting to rec.gambling newsgroups.
>
> How about 1994?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling/browse_frm/thread/ba9b12bbfd2
>1c f93/b47bca212c09ecd5?lnk=st&q=&rnum=535&hl=en#b47bca212c09ecd5

Right you are! I was using a different .sig on Feb. 3 and switched some
time between that date and Feb. 8 of 1994. Now I'll have to see if I can
find the first time I used it in a post...

#9

(Preface: Forgive me if I make a miscalculation---I'm not that good
at this stuff)

I think this leads us back to the original question about short term
play, and this strategy can serve some very well. For many friends
of mine, their long term is really short term when we're talking
about results that happen once every 40,000 attempts or so.

Say you're a recreational player who plays 8 days per year, 3000
hands per day. In 10 years, that's 240,000 hands. Long term in
time, relatively short term in VP. That's 5.94 "cycles" for MER JOB
and 6.68 for MCR. And let's say your goal is to actually have a
reasonable chance of coming out a little ahead in JOB or get more
royals and have more fun. In either case, the average is 6 royals,
and 7 would be "over royaled." If you can get one extra royal out
of the MCR strategy in this limited play, you come out ahead, I
think.

Using std Poisson Distribution (thanks to Excel), I come up with a
38.4% chance of getting 7 or more royals using MER, but 50.1% chance
of getting 7 or more using MCR.

Looking at the chance of being a BIG winner under this scenario,
your chances of getting at least TWELVE royals (double your
allotment) is 1.88% under MER and 4.01% under MCR. So you more than
double your chances of becoming a big winner playing JOB without
giving up that much ER.

And I'd say 10 years is quite long-term for anyone. The strategy
seems very useful in this scenario, and more fun at a very
reasonable cost.

> GRAYTLEEGRAY wrote:
> > Giving up .03% in one area for a 12% gain in another component

should

> > be examined.
>
> Just be certain that you fully grasp what that 12% is about. Is

there

> any value in securing 12% more royals in and of itself? Why not

sweat

> the quads, FH's, etc. that have been foregone?

Harry, you must be completely immune to adrenalin. :wink:

I think that 12% figure is pretty interesting in and of itself.

The fact that

strategy changes can vary the royal cycle by such a large amount,

without

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@...> wrote:

On Saturday 05 August 2006 8:58 pm, Harry Porter wrote:
having hardly any impact on EV, is really a bit startling.

#10

dddddmike wrote:

I think this leads us back to the original question about short term
play ... Say you're a recreational player who plays 8 days per year,
3000 hands per day. That's 5.94 "cycles" for MER JOB and 6.68 for
MCR. And let's say your goal is to actually have a reasonable chance
of coming out a little ahead in JOB or get more royals and have more
fun. In either case, the average is 6 royals, and 7 would be "over
royaled." If you can get one extra royal out of the MCR strategy in
this limited play, you come out ahead, I think.

Using std Poisson Distribution (thanks to Excel), I come up with a
38.4% chance of getting 7 or more royals using MER, but 50.1% chance
of getting 7 or more using MCR.

Looking at the chance of being a BIG winner under this scenario,
your chances of getting at least TWELVE royals (double your
allotment) is 1.88% under MER and 4.01% under MCR. So you more than
double your chances of becoming a big winner playing JOB without
giving up that much ER.

And I'd say 10 years is quite long-term for anyone. The strategy
seems very useful in this scenario, and more fun at a very
reasonable cost.

It's an interesting application of the concept.

Bear in mind that MCR will only yield a greater probability of more
royals in the case of a negative game (and that a game is evaluated
including cashback and any other cash value that's returned
proportionally to play).

As cashback increases, the increase in MCR royal frequency vs MER
diminishes. Jacks ceases to be a negative game once the cb and other
supplemental return reaches .46%.

As an aside, my guess is that this player will find that a game with
higher variance will better suit his/her goals -- e.g. DW, DB, DDB.
Jacks tends to be a poor choice if you're looking for a good chance of
coming out ahead in the short run on a negative game. Odds improve
substantially with DDB (though with greater downside risk).

For that matter, I'd expect Steve might have a strategy up his sleeve
for the player whose goal is specifically to score more royals or have
a stronger chance of ending up ahead -- rather than the strict goal of
minimizing bankroll drain between royals.

- Harry

#11

I've been thinking about such things as a result of this discussion. I don't
have anything specific yet, but it is easy to devise strategies that gives
more royals or fewer royals -- simply change the royal payoff while keeping
the other payoffs at their true values, and you get strategies that are more
aggressive or less aggressive toward royals. Of course, the same principle
works with quads or any other payoff that one might want to adjust.

···

On Sunday 06 August 2006 6:49 pm, Harry Porter wrote:

dddddmike wrote:
> I think this leads us back to the original question about short term
> play ... Say you're a recreational player who plays 8 days per year,
> 3000 hands per day. That's 5.94 "cycles" for MER JOB and 6.68 for
> MCR. And let's say your goal is to actually have a reasonable chance
> of coming out a little ahead in JOB or get more royals and have more
> fun. In either case, the average is 6 royals, and 7 would be "over
> royaled." If you can get one extra royal out of the MCR strategy in
> this limited play, you come out ahead, I think.
>
> Using std Poisson Distribution (thanks to Excel), I come up with a
> 38.4% chance of getting 7 or more royals using MER, but 50.1% chance
> of getting 7 or more using MCR.
>
> Looking at the chance of being a BIG winner under this scenario,
> your chances of getting at least TWELVE royals (double your
> allotment) is 1.88% under MER and 4.01% under MCR. So you more than
> double your chances of becoming a big winner playing JOB without
> giving up that much ER.
>
> And I'd say 10 years is quite long-term for anyone. The strategy
> seems very useful in this scenario, and more fun at a very
> reasonable cost.

It's an interesting application of the concept.

Bear in mind that MCR will only yield a greater probability of more
royals in the case of a negative game (and that a game is evaluated
including cashback and any other cash value that's returned
proportionally to play).

As cashback increases, the increase in MCR royal frequency vs MER
diminishes. Jacks ceases to be a negative game once the cb and other
supplemental return reaches .46%.

As an aside, my guess is that this player will find that a game with
higher variance will better suit his/her goals -- e.g. DW, DB, DDB.
Jacks tends to be a poor choice if you're looking for a good chance of
coming out ahead in the short run on a negative game. Odds improve
substantially with DDB (though with greater downside risk).

For that matter, I'd expect Steve might have a strategy up his sleeve
for the player whose goal is specifically to score more royals or have
a stronger chance of ending up ahead -- rather than the strict goal of
minimizing bankroll drain between royals.