vpFREE2 Forums

Any Books Available on Short Term Play.

#21

Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:

There are a lot of really bright mathematically-oriented people
addressing gambling subjects. There are gaming professors at
universities such as UNLV, UNR (Reno), and elsewhere constantly trying
to find a new subject to write about. There are gaming journals. There
are gaming summits. If this subject were addressable intelligently, you
can bet that there would be A LOT of authoritative books and articles on
it. After all, it's what people want to know. People want this in the
same way that they want a super pill that would make them lose 50 pounds
immediately, safely, and with neither effort nor bad side effects.
People would pay bunches for that pill --- but it doesn't exist. Denny's
search for short-term solutions is very analogous to this.

Dave says - Thank goodness we've had more open-minded mathematically-oriented people and scientists in years past....otherwise, we might think the world to be flat. Afterall, that was the consensus of scholars at one time. And we all know that a consensus of scholars can't be wrong.

I Never Met A Winner That Didn't Bet - Joe The Craps Dealer

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

#22

<<Jean:
I know you don't want to give away too much before the book is out,
but can you give us a few teasers about what you cover? How much
detail? What games? I would love to hear what you have to say on the
subject.>>

Jim and I will have information about the book on our Web site within the
next few days, but here is a peek into the Introduction:

"Back in 1996 and l997, when I was writing my first book, The Frugal
Gambler, I saw the need for this book. At the beginning of the video poker
chapter I wrote: "My approach is a little different than the one that other
books take, in that I won't be providing a lot of how-to details on playing
video poker; that's a book in itself." And although at the time there were
some good VP resources, I'm amazed at the small number of them listed in the
1998 edition compared to the wealth of VP information we have today.

However, I always hoped that someone would write a VP how-to book that, one
step at a time, detailed the way that the beginner could learn to play video
poker and slowly but surely work up to becoming a knowledgeable player. I
thought perhaps one of the well-known VP gurus and/or a mathematician would
bring out this book. But although many of these writers provide us with
extensive writings on various general and specialized VP subjects - and I'm
grateful for every bit of information they give us - there's no one book
that the average gambler can go to for a comprehensive look at the video
poker situation in casinos today and learn how to play skillfully.

"I guess it's both the writer and teacher in me that refuse to let me
retire. If no one else will write a book that I can recommend to all those
who beg me for down-to-earth practical light-on-math help, well, I'll have
to do it myself. Not being strong in math - remember I taught English not
math - I identify strongly with these players. But the one thing my husband
Brad and I have learned from 22 years of gambling in casinos, the last 16
playing VP with great financial success, is that you don't have to be an
egghead mathematician to be a knowledgeable gambler. Not that you don't
have to understand some basic math principles - you do. And the more
math you can understand, the easier and quicker will be your walk up the VP
path. However, so many resources today have figured out the math for you
that all you have to do is study and apply the existing tools. This book
shows you how to do that.

"Which brings me to introducing those who helped me write this book. In the
background is Jim Wolf, my friend and the math and computer whiz that
developed Frugal Video Poker, the software that can help you overcome any
concerns you may have about learning to play a math-based game. Beside me
has been Viktor Nacht, skilled gambler and proprietor of RGE Publishing,
whose technical contributions will be invaluable both for the new and the
experienced VP player. He provides practical computer lessons that make the
text much easier for beginning players to understand and give them a chance
to practice at home without putting any of their money at risk. As the
book proceeds, his lessons teach more advanced skills, one concept at a
time, so you can wend your way along the VP road at your own speed and as
far as you wish to go. And perhaps most importantly, he keeps the humor
going when I tend to get too serious.

I couldn't have written this book without both Jim's and Viktor's
assistance. They filled all the gaping holes when my computer and math
skills came up short. So now, come along with us to explore the exciting
world of video poker and learn how it can make your casino fun cost you less
and last longer."

Here is a list of the chapter titles:

Chapter 1 - Stepping Out on the Right Foot
Chapter 2 - Choosing a Basic Practice Game

Chapter 3 - Gaining Strategy Skill

Chapter 4 - Building Your Frugal VP Tool Kit

Chapter 5 - Exploring Casinos

Chapter 6 - Choosing a Primary Game

Chapter 7 - Studying Game Charts

Chapter 8 - Evaluating Slot Clubs

Chapter 9 - Putting Together the Best Play

Chapter 10 - Estimating Session Bankroll, by Viktor Nacht

Chapter 11 - Session Risk-of-Ruin (ROR) Charts, by Viktor Nacht and Michael
Shackleford, the Wizard of Odds

Chapter 12 - Maximizing Players Club and Comp Benefits

Chapter 13 - Utilizing Promotions

Chapter 14 - Playing in a VP Tournament

Chapter 15 - Playing Multi-Line Games

Chapter 16 - Learning about Odd Ball Games

Chapter 17 - Playing Multi-Strike

Chapter 18 - Playing Progressives

Chapter 19 - Becoming a Good VP Scout

Chapter 20 - Fine-Tuning Your Strategy Accuracy

Epilogue

Then there are 5 Frugal VP software lessons in the back of the book by
Viktor Nacht:

1 - Practicing Jacks or Better

2 - Evaluating Your Progress

3 - Figuring Slot Club Benefits

4 - Changing a Paytable - the Basics

5 - Changing a Paytable - Quads and Other Bonuses

Then at the back of the book there is an extensive glossary and a very
comprehensive list of VP resources.

In conclusion, I want to quote from the Acknowledgements section of the
book, because that includes all of you who contribute to these forums:

"How can I list the countless influences on my video poker career over a
period of 16 years. Every book, every software program, every magazine
article, every e-mail, every strategy chart, every Internet forum posting,
every conversation with another player, every contact with a casino host -
hundreds of thousands of pieces of information have contributed to my
success as a video poker player. If I started listing names, I know I'd
regret that I missed some.

Many of the names are already in this book, either in the text itself or in
the Resources at the back of the book. But there are so many more names
that aren't as well known, but whose generous sharing of information will
never be forgotten. A special thanks to one particular group of 25 players,
my Volunteer Editors, who read the rough draft of many of the chapters in
this book and gave me valuable input."

Thanks to all of you who helped me write a book that I hope will help
multitudes of video poker players who want to lose less and win more in
casinos. When my Web site is updated with the book ordering information, I will let you know the "secret code" to use to get a pre-pub discount!!!

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott
New book coming this summer
"FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
http://www.FrugalGambler.biz

#23

Bob Dancer wrote:

Denny seemed not to care about mathematical rigor. I posted the
Singer suggestion before Denny identified himself sufficiently so
that I now know who he is. He is friendly towards me and my work, but
I still think he is searching for an elixir that doesn't exist.

When someone raises the question of short-term strategy it often
suggests that they may be a little overwhelmed by session volatility.
That may be Denny's motivation; possibly some other consideration.
That's why I pointedly asked what it is about the short-term that he's
focussing on. Short of that information, I don't think his question
can be adequately addressed.

It may well be that he doesn't have long term play prospects on his
radar to nearly the extent of short term concerns and that something
other than a long-term "max EV" strategy is appropriate for him.

That said, I'll remark that I think distinctions between "short term"
and "long term" typically reflect a distortion in perception about
video poker realities. Many aspects of the "long term" nature of
video poker bear themselves out in a remarkably short period of time.

Most notable is the case where someone aggressively pushes harder for
a royal, out of the conviction that it's the royal that separates the
winners from the losers. With very strong reliability, you can look
for their session to session performance to be impaired as they short
themselves of the straight/flush hands that are far more significant
to vp return than the royal (and, similarly, of 2 pair/full houses
when pushing too strongly for quad Aces).

Bottom line, there's no magical break between the short-term and
long-term along the play continuum -- simply a continuous shift in the
role luck and strategy serve in driving play results. Others speak of
the "long term" consisting of millions and millions of hands of play.
My perception runs much more tangibly shy of that ... quite possibly
into the Denny's "short term".

- Harry

#24

Well said!
   
  Lainie

  --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
wrote:

Gambling with negative expectation is a folly, yet people do it, of course people become

heroin addicts also.

Perhaps... but it seems a little too assuming and a bit harmfull to us advantage players. I
hope this doesn't prevoke a fight, but I prefer: "Gambling with negative expectation CAN
be folly (though not necessarily)"

(1) People may have very good, rational, well-thought out reasons for making a negative
EV-bet. If so, their actions are not folly, even if you don't agree with their actions. For
example, someone might highly value a certain payoff that is only available from a
negative EV game. While this payoff might not be valuable to you (or ME!), it can provide
value to the bettor beyonds its real dollar value (used in the EV computation). This is the
basis of so called "utility theory" of gamblings/investments. Sometimes, people even
sacrifice EV in favor of increased volatility. Indeed, I find myself bemused at VP players
who prefer a lower EV, higher variance situation over a higher EV lower variance one. [Ex;
'Dissing' boring and easy to play at 100% accuracy Pick'em poker +CB to play a negative EV
situation that's more 'fun']. Or as some other folks here might like to say "EV isn't
eveything and it certainly isn't the only thing"

(2) Some people win a despite with their negative EV bets. It's a fact of life. So their
negative EV bet wasn't a costly undertaling and wasn't ruinious-- After their win, it may be
it bit loose to call their actions folly-- I guess it's better to say it before hand!

(3) If it wasn't for all these folks and their negative EV bets we might not have anything to
play!

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

···

cdfsrule <groups.yahoo@verizon.net> wrote:

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

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

#25

Bob Dancer wrote:

Most mathematically knowledgeable people
will tell you that these principles are basically hogwash. When a
non-mathematical person like Jean says she wrote two chapters on it,
people should know up front that whatever she says will not come close
to addressing a subject that is basically not addressable. She is
popular here and will sell a lot of books to people here, but whatever
she says on this subject will have no more intellectual rigor than what
Skip refers to as Singer's magic system. At least Singer has enough
mathematical background to KNOW he is peddling snake oil. Jean doesn't.
She boasts about her ineptitude at math and tells people she is NOT a
video poker expert (and on that I agree with her 100%), and yet she
tries to convince people that she can still write authoritatively about
an applied-mathematical subject like video poker. Does anybody else find
this amusing? (Should anyone take the point of view that I'm picking on
Jean out the blue, please keep in mind that at least twice in this
thread she has claimed that she has the answer to this question in her
various books. To suggest that I am highly skeptical and believe people
should be warned about such claims is putting it mildly.)

Although Jean may admit that she is not a math or VP expert, she
appears to have tremendous people skills, and she has the ability to
find people who DO have those skills. (And she explained this in
another response to this topic). To me, a very valuable but
underappreciated skill is the ability to take the work of
theoreticians and academics and boil it down into something the masses
can understand. If something is lost in the translation, I can always
go to the experts myself and learn more. But that initial spark is
invaluable.

I have also found that novices can often see things that have been
missed by the experts. History is full of stories where the student
solved problems that teacher could not. On a slightly different note,
I have learned as much from my children as I have from my professors,
probably much more. My professors taught me a few important skills,
many of which I rarely use, but my kids teach me things I use every
day. Not that I think of Jean as a kid, but I do believe that I can
learn some things from her, including mathematical issues, even though
I have a masters in engineering, focused on statistical signal
processing. And if she can encourage a few people to learn a little
more about probability and statistics, then so much the better.

I understand your point that there may be nothing useful that can be
said about short-term play. I have great respect for your abilities,
and will tend to believe you are correct until shown otherwise, but I
will withold my final judgement until I have a chance to read what
others have to say.

- John

#26

Hear, hear!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David DeVore <porsche89y@...> wrote:

Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

If this subject were addressable intelligently, you can bet that there
would be A LOT of authoritative books and articles on it. After all,
it's what people want to know. People want this in the same way that
they want a super pill that would make them lose 50 pounds
immediately, safely, and with neither effort nor bad side effects.

#27

Bob, I disagree. While Jean may not be a "math person," she is extremely proficient at taking complex ideas and making them understandable to 'regular folk,' who could not understand the underlying math. That's a rare skill and should be appreciated.
   
  What you seem to be saying is that unless you're expert in ALL the underlying elements of something, that you're not qualified to be an expert in it.
   
  Following this logic, unless a professional chef such as Emeril Lagasse could explain how the molecular structure of the cookware that bears his name affects product development and affords his customers a better expience, he shouldn't have his name on the cookware. What Emeril knows is how to apply the work of others (e.g., the cookware makers) to come up with a product that consumers can use and enjoy. Emeril doesn't have to know how the cookware was made to be able to maximize the results achieved through its use -- and he doesn't have to know how the cookware was made to be able to explain cooking to others. Jean is a lot like Emeril in this regard, which is why both Jean and Emeril enjoy (and deserve) tremendous mass appeal.
   
  I believe that there are experts in theory and experts in application. Unquestionably, you are an expert in theory. Jean is an expert in application.
   
  Knocking down Jean, who partners and consults with recognized theory experts and ensures that her applications are accurate, just diminishes you. Since I respect your work (and enjoy it when I'm able to finish reading one of your columns without glazing over), I'd hate to get to the point where I stop reading your columns and posts because of your constant disparagement of others.
   
  Lainie

···

Bob Dancer <bob.dancer@compdance.com> wrote:
    When a non-mathematical person like Jean says she wrote two chapters on it, people should know up front that whatever she says will not come close
to addressing a subject that is basically not addressable. She is
popular here and will sell a lot of books to people here, but whatever
she says on this subject will have no more intellectual rigor than what
  Skip refers to as Singer's magic system. At least Singer has enough
mathematical background to KNOW he is peddling snake oil. Jean doesn't.
She boasts about her ineptitude at math and tells people she is NOT a
video poker expert (and on that I agree with her 100%), and yet she
tries to convince people that she can still write authoritatively about
an applied-mathematical subject like video poker. Does anybody else find
this amusing? (Should anyone take the point of view that I'm picking on
Jean out the blue, please keep in mind that at least twice in this
thread she has claimed that she has the answer to this question in her
various books. To suggest that I am highly skeptical and believe people
should be warned about such claims is putting it mildly.)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

#28

I would have said this just a tiny little bit different.

What you seem to be saying is that unless you're an expert in ALL the underlying elements of something, then you're not qualified to teach it.

I also believe that Jeans talent lies in her communication and marketing skills.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Lainie Wolf" <lainiewolf702@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Any Books Available on Short Term Play.

Bob, I disagree. While Jean may not be a "math person," she is extremely proficient at taking complex ideas and making them understandable to 'regular folk,' who could not understand the underlying math. That's a rare skill and should be appreciated.

What you seem to be saying is that unless you're expert in ALL the underlying elements of something, that you're not qualified to be an expert in it.

#29

Let me shed some light on this subject (that's my way of saying, "Bob, your email really
shows your ignorance" with actually attacking anyone. (But then again,didn't he attack Jean
by name; would a counter attack be wrong?). Claiming 'Investigating short term questions
falls under the domain of "money management" principles' is hogwash.

So, while it may not be clear exactly when the "short term" becomes "long term" (it is a
matter of arbitrary defintion) is very clear what the mathematical differences are in one's
expected results for (very) short term play and (very) long term play.

In the short term (for VP), ones expected results, the "PDF" is dominated by a single large
peak, whose maximun value always occurs at a negative return. This maximum value is
called the mode. The mode is always significanly less than the mean (EV) for the short
term. There is also a long tail to positive values. This tail contains very little probability
(area) and may have multiple peaks in it (not smooth). It is this tail that "pulls" the mean
away from the mode. The main peak contains most of the probaility (area)-- it dominates
the PDF, and it dominates your expexted results in the short term.

Yes, I think this bears repeating: in the short term, your results are likely dominated by the
mode not the EV. The mode is less than the EV, so in the short term, you are likely to be a
realtive loser ( more than the EV). In the long term, your results are likely to be closer to
the EV. There is aboslutley no reason why one can't come up with a rigourous mathematic
formula for these statements-- that depends only on the number of hands played (and
bankroll) [BTW, NO captures a bit of this, ignoring bankroll]. But why bother? Many
peopke can understand pictures or statements like: in the short term the EV overestimates
your expected return. Period. (Technically, I would say something like, one's shor term
results are a biased estimator of the EV, and that the bias is to lower returns. Moreover,
the bias is explicityl known if the number of hands is known-I can also show graphs, etc)

Ok, bake to the facts....
Distributions like this (for short term VP) have been well studied-- in many, many, many
fields by some smart people, even me. Perhaps the best way to understand what one's
short term VP play might look like (for infinite bankroll) would be to examine the
cumulative probability distribution or function (CDF) for the game. (One can also do the
same treatment for a finite bank roll, but this is a bit more complex, so we'll ignore what it
entails for now). Here is a quote from a page that talks a bit about CDF's for investments
and finance: "Cumulative Distributions: The most informative way to portray a distribution
utilizes a plot of the probability that the actual outcome will be less than or equal to each
of a set of possible values." Well, the same pretty much holds true for VP, especially
short-term VP. The most informative way to look at what's going on is to consider the
CDF. And in case you don't know it, CDF's are very well defined (computation method
invariant) and statistically mush more meaningful than PDF's (which are not well defined).

By the way, that quote is by a noble luareate in econmics, not me. (See http://
www.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/mia/rr/mia_rr1.htm ).

Now, even more interesting is how this short-term CDF (especially for a finite bank-roll)
affects strategy. BTW, this CDF (modified for finite bank roll) is actually closely related to
the RoR (indeed, the RoR is just 1-max value of the CDF). I'd think it is prudent, for short
term play to choose one's game (and best size) considering RoR-- and even better to
consider the complete CDF-- though doing so might be a bit confusing for some folks.
This choice is one of the most basic- if not the most basic-- strategy choice for VP. [Moral
here: the RoR (for a finite number of hands) is a valuable proxy for the CDF. The RoR can
be used to make the most basic and perhaps important strategy decision.]

That's enough ranting.

#30

Well said!
  
Lainie

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
wrote:

Gambling with negative expectation is a folly, yet people do it, of course people become

heroin addicts also.

Perhaps... but it seems a little too assuming and a bit harmfull to us advantage players. I
hope this doesn't prevoke a fight, but I prefer: "Gambling with negative expectation CAN
be folly (though not necessarily)"

(1) People may have very good, rational, well-thought out reasons for making a negative
EV-bet. If so, their actions are not folly, even if you don't agree with their actions.

I'd go further than this. Although it can be, I assume gambling with
negative expectation isn't a folly. It's not my cup of tea, but then
neither is white water rafting or bungee jumping. There's no one who
considers gambling with negative expectation to be a folly who doesn't
do many things with "negative expectation." I don't see any
difference between the pleasure that people get out of gambling and
the pleasure that a professional gambler gets by using the money that
s/he's made gambling. A professional golfer might consider the way a
novice golfer golfs to be "folly," and, just as professional gamblers
have a point in that gambling with negative expectation won't pay the
bills, a professional golfer may have a point that the novice isn't
going to win any championships by playing the way s/he does, but I'm
sure there are a lot of novice golfers who make many golfing
"mistakes" who enjoy golf more than professionals do. I stopped
thinking of gambling for fun as a "mistake" long ago. Only in a
narrow context is that true.

···

cdfsrule <groups.yahoo@verizon.net> wrote:

#31

I am quite new to this forum, but can see that Jean Scott is quite
popular, and Bob Dancer ain't!

I heard of Jean Scott long before I heard of Bob Dancer. Washington
Post carried a fairly long article on her a few years ago, when I was
not into Video oker. Still I read the article, forwarded it to a
couple of friends. Don't have it anymore. I posted a request here
sometime ago wondering if anybody here has it. I checked with Jean;
she doesn't.

Bob is usually courteous, but can be a bit brusque at times.
Unvarnished truth isn't as appetizing as a sugar coated pill!

I think he is absolutely right when he says that Short Term Strategy
is hogwash, notwithstanding philosophical discussions of what a Short
Term is. Any Short Term strategy, if the beast exists at all, has got
to have a lot of variance. So, to get an average Short Term strategy,
you have to average over several short terms, and voila, we have a
long term!

To take it to a ridiculous extreme, one might as well ask what is the
best strategy to draw a Royal Flush with one bet?

Bob Dancer wrote:

> Most mathematically knowledgeable people will tell you that
> these principles are basically hogwash. When a non-mathematical
> person like Jean says she wrote two chapters on it, people
> should know up front that whatever she says will not come close
> to addressing a subject that is basically not addressable.

I have a masters in engineering, focused on statistical signal
processing. And if she can encourage a few people to learn a little
more about probability and statistics, then so much the better.

That makes two of us, though I am not "focused" on stochastic signal
processing at present.

I understand your point that there may be nothing useful that can be
said about short-term play. I have great respect for your
abilities, and will tend to believe you are correct until shown
otherwise, but I will withold my final judgement until I have a
chance to read what others have to say.

- John

It is almost axiomatic. Statistics and very small sample sizes don't
go well together, except with a large dose of variance.

On the other hand, if one were to write a fairly readable book about
The Optimal Short Term Strategy, I think one could make a bundle, in
a short term. As can be seen by the success of miracle diets, and get-
rich-quick books.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "murphyfields" <jkludge@...> wrote:

#32

<< I stopped
thinking of gambling for fun as a "mistake" long ago. Only in a
narrow context is that true.>>

Way to go, Tom Robertson. That shows a very sensible professional gambler. What I call a "sensible" person is one who can see AND accept many points of view. For years I have stressed in my writings that every gambler has his own personal goals and life circumstances that must be taken into consideration when they choose a game, choose how complicated a strategy they want to use, what casinos they want to play in, whether they want to use coupons or not, and hundreds (maybe thousands) of other gaming decisions.

During these last 10 years or so as a gaming writer I have thrown out into the public thousands (probably hundreds of thousands or millions - I sometimes repeat myself) of tiny bits of gaming information. I never expect everyone to use every bit - Brad says you would have to be crazy to do all the frugal things I think up. I just want to help people make INFORMED decisions. How they use, or don't use, the information I provide is their personal right.

And by the way, when playing VP is no longer fun for me, that's when you won't see me at a VP machine!!!

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott
New book coming this summer
"FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
http://www.FrugalGambler.biz

#33

In one of your older artiles, you said you were considering moving to
Las Vegas. I gather you do live in Vegas now.

If one were to take a trip to Vegas for a few days, which casino could
one expect to see you? I am sure this is already known to many people
here, so I am not asking for any special information. What is your
favourite game and denomination?

How do you deal with people who recognize you and may hover around,
without actually bothering you?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@...> wrote:

And by the way, when playing VP is no longer fun for me, that's
when you won't see me at a VP machine!!!

The same question goes to Bob Dancer, and other "professional" video
poker players here. Who are they? (Wolf, Boyd, ...)

#34

Adams Myth wrote:

I am quite new to this forum, but can see that Jean Scott is quite
popular, and Bob Dancer ain't!

I hate to think of it as popularity. I would enjoy having either one
at my dinner table. But, I would expect more people to come to Jean's
defense over Bob's, if for no other reason than that she is "The
Gambling Grandma," and does this for fun, whereas Bob is more into the
professional aspects, and seems more likely to come out swinging on
his own.

I think he is absolutely right when he says that Short Term Strategy
is hogwash, notwithstanding philosophical discussions of what a Short
Term is. Any Short Term strategy, if the beast exists at all, has got
to have a lot of variance. So, to get an average Short Term strategy,
you have to average over several short terms, and voila, we have a
long term!

I agree if Short Term Strategy means a method you can use to come out
ahead in the short run. But I don't think the goal of this thread has
to do with Short term strategy as it does with what to expect over the
short term, and how to plan ahead to maximize the chances of turning
the short term into the long term. If you come home after losing
$50,000, your significant other will probably make sure that there is
no long term, or will make the short term seem like a VERY long term :wink:

- John

#35

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

Bob Dancer wrote:
> Denny seemed not to care about mathematical rigor. I posted the
> Singer suggestion before Denny identified himself sufficiently so
> that I now know who he is. He is friendly towards me and my work,

but

> I still think he is searching for an elixir that doesn't exist.

When someone raises the question of short-term strategy it often
suggests that they may be a little overwhelmed by session

volatility.

That may be Denny's motivation; possibly some other consideration.
That's why I pointedly asked what it is about the short-term that

he's

focussing on. Short of that information, I don't think his question
can be adequately addressed.

Harry et al:

I tried to post an answer to Harry's question regarding "what I am
looking for about the short run" last night , but must have hit the
wrong computer key and the message went into cyberspace. So I will
try again.
My Engineering training taught me that 4 + 4 = 8 always and without
exception. My MBA training taught me that 4 + 4 = some number
between 8 and 12. Some years back I ran the Electronic Manufacturing
Business for Chrysler (Engine and transmission controllers, radios
etc.) and prior to that I directed a group that designed these same
products. We are talking about an annual $1B per year activity at
the time. Tha Plants are now owned by Siemens. I learned much in
both jobs. Outside pressures (Short term Corporate Profit, Labor
Unions, Self Promotobility etc,) at times made one make seemingly
strange decisions because of circumstances above and beyond what the
mathematics say. Its the human factors. I knew what the numbers
said, but knowingly after much thought did something else.
I find an analogy in Video Poker. I read all I can read, played all
that I can play in 7 years in Vegas and tens of thousands of hands on
Zamzow's computer program and I believe I recognize the long run math
realities of optimal play.
Having said that, the thrill of a big score is wonderful. Its like
successfully designing and manufacturing an new electronic auto black
box. It makes up for countless failues. Therefore I ask myself how
do I maximize my highs, while keeping my number of lows to some level
that I can internally tolerate. Its like investing. I am a prudent
specultor and the more you know the better off I can be. I could buy
bonds. I know what the payoff will be. I'd rather try to decide
whether the Las Vegas Sands is tiday a food investment after it
announces that it will put $8B into Asian Casinos. I made money on
Wynn stock after my broker sneered at me. So I ask
What do people say about those who would trade off several long tern
losses for far fwer long term gains?
Can any of this be represented mathematically.
Now as a $25 machine player what would be my likelihood of wins
versus losses for 5 day plays at 4-5 hours per day with for example
double double bonus versus JOB where only a Royal will give you a
positive score.
Is $62.5K enough for a 5 day session or do I require $100K or more.
What happens to these numbers if I pay double bonus which gives me a
headache because my old brain has difficulty remembers the fine
points of penalty cards etc.
Is there a place in short term strategy for weird plays as Mr. Hughes
calls them.
What is the experience of people who ask these questions like I am
asking here? I always have felt that knowledge is power. Is it
wrong for me to ask these questions?

I hope this gives some flavor to what I am seeking. I thank all of
you respondents for your sincere comments even though many of you
think I am nuts. It truly is appreciated Denny
     

It may well be that he doesn't have long term play prospects on his
radar to nearly the extent of short term concerns and that something
other than a long-term "max EV" strategy is appropriate for him.

That said, I'll remark that I think distinctions between "short

term"

and "long term" typically reflect a distortion in perception about
video poker realities. Many aspects of the "long term" nature of
video poker bear themselves out in a remarkably short period of

time.

Most notable is the case where someone aggressively pushes harder

for

a royal, out of the conviction that it's the royal that separates

the

winners from the losers. With very strong reliability, you can look
for their session to session performance to be impaired as they

short

themselves of the straight/flush hands that are far more significant
to vp return than the royal (and, similarly, of 2 pair/full houses
when pushing too strongly for quad Aces).

Bottom line, there's no magical break between the short-term and
long-term along the play continuum -- simply a continuous shift in

the

role luck and strategy serve in driving play results. Others speak

of

the "long term" consisting of millions and millions of hands of

play.

My perception runs much more tangibly shy of that ... quite

possibly

···

into the Denny's "short term".

- Harry

#36

<<I agree (that it's hogwash) if Short Term Strategy means a method you can use to come out
ahead in the short run. But I don't think the goal of this thread has
to do with Short term strategy as it does with what to expect over the
short term, and how to plan ahead to maximize the chances of turning
the short term into the long term. If you come home after losing
$50,000, your significant other will probably make sure that there is
no long term, or will make the short term seem like a VERY long term :wink:

I love that last statement!!!!

To clarify, I have never embraced or promoted "short term" STRATEGY. As Steve Jacobs will attest, I have great reservations about "alternate strategies" except for the VERY math oriented who can figure out the whole math picture. The average player will use "alternate strategies" as an excuse to do "what feels good" without being knowledgeable of the disastrous consequences.

What Viktor and I do discuss in "Frugal Video Poker" is a way to estimate a realistic bankroll to have for a certain number of hours you want to play VP - your SESSION bankroll. Although reliable LONG-TERM ROR (risk of ruin) figures are needed for a certain segment of the VP-playing community who plan to make VP an important part of their life on a regular and/or heavy basis, the huge majority of players (advantage players or no) want to know how much to take to a casino for one session or one short trip for a reasonable chance of not going broke. There is a way to find this figure, using the Frugal Video Poker software. Viktor shows you how in Chapter 10 and you don't have to be a propellor head to easily do it!!!!! Then Michael Shackleford (The Wizard of Odds) provided us, for some of the common games, some charts he made up while wearing his propellor cap. It is amazing how close the two figures were between the two methods. The neat thing about using the Frugal Video Poker software is that you can use it to find a comfortable session bankroll figure for almost all casino VP games, even multi-line.

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott
New book coming this summer
"FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
http://www.FrugalGambler.biz

#37

(1) People may have very good, rational, well-thought out reasons

for making a negative

EV-bet.

The goal of gambling is to win. That someone thinks they can win
against a negative expectation is self-delusion, not rational thinking.

(2) Some people win a despite with their negative EV bets.

Some people are successful heroin addicts - Iggy Pop comes to mind.
Charlie Parker is another. Still, the lifestyle is not to be
recommended. It boggles the mind to think of what Parker could have
achieved without heroin.

(3) If it wasn't for all these folks and their negative EV bets we

might not have anything to

play!

The casinos make their big money from positive games, such as
Blackjack and full pay Video Poker and promotions. The average person
can't win even with a potential of positive expectation.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cdfsrule" <groups.yahoo@...> wrote:

#38

Sorry Albert if I was unclear. I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying that's what Bob seems to say, and he constantly uses his philosophy to belittle and demean others, such as Jean. I simply disagree with both his approach and his logic. I hope this clears things up. Lainie

Albert Pearson <a-p@sympatico.ca> wrote: I would have said this just a tiny little bit different.

What you seem to be saying is that unless you're an expert in ALL the
underlying elements of something, then you're not qualified to teach it.

I also believe that Jeans talent lies in her communication and marketing
skills.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lainie Wolf"
To:
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Any Books Available on Short Term Play.

Bob, I disagree. While Jean may not be a "math person," she is extremely
proficient at taking complex ideas and making them understandable to
'regular folk,' who could not understand the underlying math. That's a
rare skill and should be appreciated.

What you seem to be saying is that unless you're expert in ALL the
underlying elements of something, that you're not qualified to be an
expert in it.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

#39

My response to all this: LMAO!!! I read Bob Dancer's post last
night and I had to catch my breath from laughing. I KNEW the fur
would start flying.

Look, Bob is a also a fine writer and apparently pretty decent at
marketing himself as well (I've never had MY head on a VP machine).

You've got to hand it to him...you always know EXACTLY where he
stands on an issue, with little or no pussyfooting around. I happen
to think that's great. When he gets onery about something I just
take it as passion for the point he's trying to get across, and not
try to read anything else into it. Even in his columns, he sometimes
seems mad at the reader because he knows that s/he is thinking (like
when he says to work this problem out yourself before looking at the
answer, or you'll never really get it). It's passion for what he
does. I can appreciate that.

I would have said this just a tiny little bit different.

What you seem to be saying is that unless you're an expert in ALL

the

underlying elements of something, then you're not qualified to

teach it.

I also believe that Jeans talent lies in her communication and

marketing

skills.

Regards
A.P.

From: "Lainie Wolf" <lainiewolf702@...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Any Books Available on Short Term Play.

> Bob, I disagree. While Jean may not be a "math person," she is

extremely

> proficient at taking complex ideas and making them understandable

to

> 'regular folk,' who could not understand the underlying math.

That's a

> rare skill and should be appreciated.
>
> What you seem to be saying is that unless you're expert in ALL

the

> underlying elements of something, that you're not qualified to be

an

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Pearson" <a-p@...> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
> expert in it.
>

#40

I made a suggestion a few months ago for a definition of "long term",
as opposed to "short term". As you said, the consensus seemed to be it
was hogwash...defining the impossible, etc. Actually, I continue to
disagree with that, and I seriously doubt if any of the geniuses at
UNLV, etc. have spent 60 seconds considering this issue in their entire
careers. If they did, I'm sure they would come up with a mathematical
answer for VPers. The reason I believe this is we readily accept that
50,000 games is the "short term", but 2,000,000 games is the "long
term". So there must be a point (mathematically) where the short term
morphs into the long term. You've got contacts at UNLV I assume, maybe
you should ask them!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@...> wrote:

There are a lot of really bright mathematically-oriented people
addressing gambling subjects. There are gaming professors at
universities such as UNLV, UNR (Reno), and elsewhere constantly trying
to find a new subject to write about. There are gaming journals. There
are gaming summits. If this subject were addressable intelligently,
you can bet that there would be A LOT of authoritative books and
articles on it.