dddddmike wrote:
My response to all this: LMAO!!!
Ditto (for other reasons) ... It's rather humorous that a simple
"short term strategy" query sets a bunch of us off (myself included)
in a flurry like a bunch of seagulls on the AC boardwalk after a
little ol' lady tosses out a handful of birdseed.
The only modest consolation is that Denny doesn't show indications of
being a troll. (But one would likely admire his accomplishment 
- H.
I disagree. You can say that 2,000,000 hands is "A" long term, but it is not "THE" long term.
Let's face reality and here is my quotable quote,
" A person playing expert Video Poker over a lifetime has no guarantee of achieving the theoretical return that all of
the computer programs spit out".
It is not that I believe that the programs are wrong, or that expert strategy is not good, it's just that I believe that if you start
playing VP perfectly and run into a really nasty run of bad luck early in your career, you may never reach the theoretical levels
that exist, and even without that early bad streak there are still no guarantees.
I will concede happily that the machines with the best E.V. and promotions certainly raise your chances of achieving a long term positive result.
I guess that is why they call it gambling.
My advice for the average person that wants to play VP as anything other than a pro, learn to play well, learn how to recognize the best games,
get the best comps and freebies that are available, enjoy cheap vacations for life, or if you're a local substitute vacations for never having to cook again.
Regards
A.P.
----- Original Message ----- From: "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 4:27 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Any Books Available on Short Term Play.
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!
"Half the fun of gambling is trying to find a loophole."
--VP Pappy
Keep looking for those loopholes for us Jean.
TM & VP
-------------------------------
--- 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!!!
________________________________________
Jean $˘ott
New book coming this summer
"FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
Harry: I remember as a kid (a long long time ago) the Old Troll who
lived under the bridge, but what is the definition of a troll for those
using this VP blog. Denny
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
dddddmike wrote:
> My response to all this: LMAO!!!Ditto (for other reasons) ... It's rather humorous that a simple
"short term strategy" query sets a bunch of us off (myself included)
in a flurry like a bunch of seagulls on the AC boardwalk after a
little ol' lady tosses out a handful of birdseed.The only modest consolation is that Denny doesn't show indications of
being a troll. (But one would likely admire his accomplishment- H.
What's the big problem?
The inflection point between short and long term is N0.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/refer/N0.htm
Can I collect my Nobel Prize now?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@...> wrote:
--- 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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!
Video Poker, unlike Live Action Poker, is played against a machine. No
human factors involved, just cold hard math.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:
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.
Sounds like min-risk strategy:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:
What do people say about those who would trade off several long tern
losses for far fwer long term gains?
I s'pose you'll be wantin a mathematical proof?
in the short term, deviation > average return
in the long term, average return > deviation
What's the big problem?
The inflection point between short and long term is N0.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/refer/N0.htm
Can I collect my Nobel Prize now?
>
> >
> > 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 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
at N0, deviation = average return, thus, ipso facto, N0 is the inflection point --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Dancer" <bob.dancer@> wrote:
> you should ask them!
>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
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.
I have no data to quote, but I was always of the impression that most
of their money comes from slots.
Can you reference any data to substantiate your statement?
DWK
http://www.gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/1g_06may.pdf
06/01/05 to 05/31/06 statewide casino win:
multidenom slots = 3B
$0.25 slots = 1.4B
21 = 1.3B
$0.01 slots = 1.1B
$1 slots = 1.1B
total win = 12B
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
> 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.
>I have no data to quote, but I was always of the impression that most
of their money comes from slots.Can you reference any data to substantiate your statement?
DWK
These aren't broken out by positive/negative, but I bet much of the
multidenom is potentially positive when you consider piggybanking
slots, promotions and progressives. Just about any Blackjack game is
potentially positive if your act is good enough to fly below radar,
just about any craps game is potentially positive if you can learn to
set the dice: http://www.google.com/search?q=Wong+on+Dice ...
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
http://www.gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/1g_06may.pdf
06/01/05 to 05/31/06 statewide casino win:
multidenom slots = 3B
$0.25 slots = 1.4B
21 = 1.3B
$0.01 slots = 1.1B
$1 slots = 1.1B
total win = 12B--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@>
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> <nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> I have no data to quote, but I was always of the impression that most
> of their money comes from slots.
>
> Can you reference any data to substantiate your statement?
>
> DWK
>
denflo60 wrote:
... 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 ...
What do people say about those who would trade off several long tern
losses for far fewer 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?
Okay ... now there's something to work with here! 
As preface, it's clear that Dancer has a conviction that max-EV is the
only way to go for a successful player. I'm largely in agreement, but
I recognize that each individual player may have goals at odds with
max-EV that could warrant an alternate approach for them -- but they
ideally should recognize the tradeoffs. (I suspect that Bob is
comfortable with that idea as well, provided that the tradeoffs
involved are rational.)
I know several players who have an modest dislike for Jacks because
they find it dull. My answer to them is to jump denomination until
the stakes at risk begin to quicken their pulse. That obviously isn't
very applicable to you
The prospect of a big hit makes a game particularly appealing.
Frankly, variance is the spice of video poker and, just as with
cuisine, we all have different palates and cravings. One man's curry
is another's porridge. The key to a smart play decision, grasping all
factors at work, is to make the choice that gives you the greatest
satisfaction.
------
All right, enough of the platitudes ...
You obviously have no difficulty grasping the implications of
deviating from max-EV play. If you shift your play in favor of
volatility and sacrifice .5% in the offing, you can expect it will
cost you. There are no assurances in that given the nature of
variance, but the active player would do well to count on it.
If you pop through a relaxed 500 hph at $25 play (I might be assuming
that you switch machines while waiting for the handpays to be
processed on the quad hits, or that the attendent are simply quick on
the draw), you're looking at $75K coin-in per hour. Half a percent
works out to be a $375/hr. sacrifice. (Adjust these numbers as is
appropriate to reflect reality.)
A number of that magnitude would be cause for me to seek out the
strongest EV on my play. But again, one man's medicine ... you know?
Still, were I looking for thrills, skydiving comes to mind as a more
palatable alternative ... or perhaps a couple of hookers -- even if my
conviction for faithfulness deems that I merely watch (ok, so Bev
wouldn't buy on to that).
The point is to recognize the EV sacrifice likely inherent in a
deviation from 9/6 Jacks at the $25 level (which may well involve a
game with an ER that's subpar by 1% or more).
You might, of course, be able to boost variance and ER at the same
time, by cutting denomination and moving to a LV local offering a game
such as $1 10/7 DB. But I expect that involves sacrifices of other
types that you would likely be loathe to tradeoff.
------
The transition to a higher variance game such as DDB brings, as you
suggest, a higher probability of a net session win. There are many
more possibilities through which a few exceptionally strong hits can
offset the steady drain of the ER sans a RF.
But the trade off is on the negative side of that variance -- your
prospect for a boot shaking loss increases significantly as well.
There are consequences to this.
If you're not sufficiently bankrolled for the greater swings
(physically or emotionally), you may find yourself terminating your
play prematurely on a trip. That may wreak havoc if you look to
establish a given level of play to sustain the comps/house treatment
that you desire (although I suspect you're prepared to sustain enough
of a loss to satisfy most any property -- this is mostly a
consideration for more modest stakes players).
And, of course, there's a stronger likelihood that you might suffer a
string of trips the yield a much stronger loss that would be
anticipated playing Jacks (understanding that you might also come away
with bags full of bucks that a Jacks player would be unlikely to see).
------
You make an allusion to an investing analogy in your post. There's no
escaping the fact that no prudent investor accepts greater risk
(translating into a more volatile investment) without a stronger
expected return. To do so is simply foolish in any sense (not to
suggest that there aren't more than a handful of fools out there).
I have a decent taste for volatility myself. Presented with the right
opportunity, I'd gladly ditch Jacks as a steady play diet. However,
I've satisfied a decent portion of my craving for variance by jumping
denomination. That at least magnifies the swings in my play, even if
not increasing the frequency with which I move into profit territory
on any given session.
But I've got my eyes on a long-term prize of at least breaking even on
my play, if not turning a decent gain. And I can get an absolute
charge out of a 2% trip loss, particularly if it's predominantly
offset by cb and a good cash promotion.
------
I can only offer perspective on your concerns, but no real advice.
You've travelled enough vp mileage that you can set a course on your
own. Feel free to follow with questions, of course
- Harry
(btw, FWIW, my "troll" aside wasn't mentioned as a slur against
anything you've put forth. I was simply noting that your post stirred
a surprisingly strong level of sentiment.)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
denflo60 wrote:
> ... 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 ...
> What do people say about those who would trade off several long
tern
> losses for far fewer 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?Okay ... now there's something to work with here!
Harry: We must have similar backgrounds as you seem to understand
exactly the question I am stuggling with. I also appreciate your
cogent answer. ITs clear what you are saying. Truthfully I have not
considered $100.00 Jacks or Better, but I will now. Maybe I try a
little for a change next month at Wynn. The passing thought that
comes to mind immediately is that I would need to play many machines
because 3 of a kind will generate a W2G. It would keep the Casino
folks busy even with an accrual. Before I try this in any big way, I
have to have that discussion next week with the tax accountant I
retained to insure that Jean Scott's daily accrual method is
acceptable to the Feds. Otherwise my state will tax me to death. I
toyed with a Nevada move but real estate when up too much, my wife of
40 years doesn't like it and it may be possible to get carried away
and my life becomes only dedicated to Video Poker. Right now VP is
just one of my hobbies which include reading, Flower Gardening ( I
imagine my Waterfall would be expensive to operate in LV, investing
(prudent speculation may be a better term and stamp collecting where
I am considered very knowledgable on the Spanish Civil War for which
I also write articles for the Spanish Philatelic Society. Anyway
being retired 7 years gives me a bit
As preface, it's clear that Dancer has a conviction that max-EV is
the
only way to go for a successful player. I'm largely in agreement,
but
I recognize that each individual player may have goals at odds with
max-EV that could warrant an alternate approach for them -- but they
ideally should recognize the tradeoffs. (I suspect that Bob is
comfortable with that idea as well, provided that the tradeoffs
involved are rational.)I know several players who have an modest dislike for Jacks because
they find it dull. My answer to them is to jump denomination until
the stakes at risk begin to quicken their pulse. That obviously
isn't
very applicable to you
The prospect of a big hit makes a game particularly appealing.
Frankly, variance is the spice of video poker and, just as with
cuisine, we all have different palates and cravings. One man's
curry
is another's porridge. The key to a smart play decision, grasping
all
factors at work, is to make the choice that gives you the greatest
satisfaction.------
All right, enough of the platitudes ...
You obviously have no difficulty grasping the implications of
deviating from max-EV play. If you shift your play in favor of
volatility and sacrifice .5% in the offing, you can expect it will
cost you. There are no assurances in that given the nature of
variance, but the active player would do well to count on it.If you pop through a relaxed 500 hph at $25 play (I might be
assuming
that you switch machines while waiting for the handpays to be
processed on the quad hits, or that the attendent are simply quick
on
the draw), you're looking at $75K coin-in per hour. Half a percent
works out to be a $375/hr. sacrifice. (Adjust these numbers as is
appropriate to reflect reality.)A number of that magnitude would be cause for me to seek out the
strongest EV on my play. But again, one man's medicine ... you
know?
Still, were I looking for thrills, skydiving comes to mind as a
more
palatable alternative ... or perhaps a couple of hookers -- even if
my
conviction for faithfulness deems that I merely watch (ok, so Bev
wouldn't buy on to that).The point is to recognize the EV sacrifice likely inherent in a
deviation from 9/6 Jacks at the $25 level (which may well involve a
game with an ER that's subpar by 1% or more).You might, of course, be able to boost variance and ER at the same
time, by cutting denomination and moving to a LV local offering a
game
such as $1 10/7 DB. But I expect that involves sacrifices of other
types that you would likely be loathe to tradeoff.------
The transition to a higher variance game such as DDB brings, as you
suggest, a higher probability of a net session win. There are many
more possibilities through which a few exceptionally strong hits can
offset the steady drain of the ER sans a RF.But the trade off is on the negative side of that variance -- your
prospect for a boot shaking loss increases significantly as well.
There are consequences to this.If you're not sufficiently bankrolled for the greater swings
(physically or emotionally), you may find yourself terminating your
play prematurely on a trip. That may wreak havoc if you look to
establish a given level of play to sustain the comps/house treatment
that you desire (although I suspect you're prepared to sustain
enough
of a loss to satisfy most any property -- this is mostly a
consideration for more modest stakes players).And, of course, there's a stronger likelihood that you might suffer
a
string of trips the yield a much stronger loss that would be
anticipated playing Jacks (understanding that you might also come
away
with bags full of bucks that a Jacks player would be unlikely to
see).
------
You make an allusion to an investing analogy in your post. There's
no
escaping the fact that no prudent investor accepts greater risk
(translating into a more volatile investment) without a stronger
expected return. To do so is simply foolish in any sense (not to
suggest that there aren't more than a handful of fools out there).I have a decent taste for volatility myself. Presented with the
right
opportunity, I'd gladly ditch Jacks as a steady play diet. However,
I've satisfied a decent portion of my craving for variance by
jumping
denomination. That at least magnifies the swings in my play, even
if
not increasing the frequency with which I move into profit territory
on any given session.But I've got my eyes on a long-term prize of at least breaking even
on
my play, if not turning a decent gain. And I can get an absolute
charge out of a 2% trip loss, particularly if it's predominantly
offset by cb and a good cash promotion.------
I can only offer perspective on your concerns, but no real advice.
You've travelled enough vp mileage that you can set a course on your
own. Feel free to follow with questions, of course- Harry
(btw, FWIW, my "troll" aside wasn't mentioned as a slur against
anything you've put forth. I was simply noting that your post
stirred
a surprisingly strong level of sentiment.)
Denny,
overall bet) a better approach than simply raising the denom. For
example, $10 five play vs. $25 single play is a $250 bet per hand
(double your usual bet). What this does is increase the arrival rate of
quads, SFs, RFs, etc. In addition, the much bigger wins of dealt quads,
etc is even more exciting. It goes a long way to make JOB more fun.
Of course, it does reduce the win amount for individual RFs and you'd
need to decide if this is a problem. If so, then maybe 3 or 5-play at
the $25 level would be more attractive (if you can find them).
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:
Harry: We must have similar backgrounds as you seem to understand
exactly the question I am stuggling with. I also appreciate your
cogent answer. ITs clear what you are saying. Truthfully I have not
considered $100.00 Jacks or Better, but I will now. Maybe I try a
little for a change next month at Wynn. The passing thought that
comes to mind immediately is that I would need to play many machines
because 3 of a kind will generate a W2G. It would keep the Casino
folks busy even with an accrual.
From my own viewpoint I find going to multi-play (and hence a higher
There is such a thing as "making the most of a bad situation."
If you need $2000 to pay off Guido before he smashes your kneecaps,
and the only games available are negative EV, then your best shot at
saving your kneecaps may be to take that last $200 and try to turn
into $357 for airfare to a far away place where you hope that Guido can't
find you.
Given such circumstances, a Martingale may give the mathematically
highest probability of boarding the plane. If it is that or kiss your
kneecaps goodbye, then playing a negative game is completely
rational.
Of course, there is no magic that will transform a negative game into
a positive game, but one can still control the damage to some
extent by using a better strategy. For negative games, the strategy
that maximizes the probability of reaching a fixed dollar goal before
going broke is quite different than the max-EV strategy.
On Friday 28 July 2006 1:17 pm, nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cdfsrule" <groups.yahoo@...> wrote:
> (1) People may have very good, rational, well-thought out reasonsfor 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.
mroejacks wrote:
From my own viewpoint I find going to multi-play (and hence a higher
overall bet) a better approach than simply raising the denom.
Excellent suggestion. I'll vouch that in my more modest play I get a
bigger kick out of $.25 10-play than $1 single line any day.
One of the beauties is that you can risk a larger total wager per play
and yet potentially be at lower overall risk (as is the case with $.25
10-p vs. $1-s). The excitement is intensified - particularly when it
comes to dealt wins - translating into bigger bang for the buck.
Both Wynn and Bellagio (among others) have some very fine high-limit
JB multiplay selections, with 3/5/10 play in a number of denominations.
The tax concerns are magnified with multiline, where dealt quads and
even FH's can result in W2-G reporting. A key concern is exposure to
itemized deduction phase out as your AGI increases from reported
gambling income, even if taxible income isn't once you deduct gambling
losses.
That factor alone would give me pause for thought when it came to $10+
single line play (were I sufficiently bankrolled That's something
best reviewed with your tax advisor before venturing to heady stakes.
- Harry
Bob Dancer wrote:
> Most mathematically knowledgeable people
> will tell you that these principles are basically hogwash.
Most mathematically knowledgeable people also claim that
maximizing EV is the "only" way to play. They are mistaken.
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.
The real problem with "short term play" is that the experts generally
have a hard time thinking outside the "long term" box.
One example of a short term play is to target a fixed number of units
and play to maximize the probability of turning your current bankroll
into the target bankroll. Max-EV strategy is not optimal for reaching
this goal, and the optimal strategy changes drastically as your
bankroll gets closer to the goal. The most extreme strategy change
happens when you are a single unit short of the goal.
An interesting aspect of this strategy is this: when you are one unit
short of reaching the target bankroll, the optimal strategy becomes
completely independent of the payoff values. This means that the
same plays are optimal for all JoB games, and it makes no difference
whether it is 9/6 Job or 8/6 JoB. The payoff values are irrelevant
because any net win will reach the target, and a net push will leave
you one unit short of the target. So, for JoB games, the optimal play
comes from assigning a value of 3.24164 "virtual units" to outcomes
of two pair or higher, and a value of 1 virtual unit for a high pair, and
using your favorite VP program to maximize the "virtual EV" based on
these payoffs. This maximizes the ratio of net wins to losses, which
gives the best chance of hitting the goal rather than losing one unit to
move further away from the target. This strategy gives the player
a 30.97% chance of reaching the target before losing one unit. In
contrast, the max-EV strategy has a 30.55% chance of reaching the
target before losing one unit. Of course, the player takes a big hit in
EV when making this play -- for 9/6 JoB the return drops to 92.69%.
The playing strategy changes rapidly as you move further away from
the target, so it is more of a mathematical curiosity rather than a
practical strategy. However, I think it clearly refutes those who
claim there is no mathematical basis for short-term strategies.
Of course, this should not be construed as support for authors who
make claims which are based on voodoo rather than mathematics.
On Friday 28 July 2006 7:59 am, murphyfields wrote:
Whether any strategy is hogwash is completely dependent on one's objective.
The fact that one is looking for a "short term strategy" suggests a
fundamental misunderstanding of the MAX EV strategy (within the bounds of
our given bankrolls) that most of us here use or at least a questioning of
one's current objective. In fact, MAX EV strategy could easily be looked as
a short term strategy. It just maximizes the expected value for any given
hand and I cannot think of a shorter term than one hand. This objective of
maximizing the value of any hand (roll, whatever) is not exactly original to
vp and is used in other games. That one cannot expect to approach any
expected return within a given session or even numerous sessions is more a
function of the game of vp and its paytables.
I think if one changed the objective of maximizing the value of any given
hand a perfectly valid strategy could be built around that objective, and I
appreciate the discussions in this regard that Steve Jacobs and others have
provoked to the extent of my abilities to understand them. For myself, I
modify MAX EV slightly when my objective is to simplify or when I am in a
tournament (of any sort) when strict adherence to MAX EV often dooms one to
failure. No surprise with that last as the basic objective has changed from
maximizing EV to doing better than anyone in a given field in a set amount
of time or trials. A MAX RF strategy is not so preposterous if the only way
one can win is hitting a RF.
Chandler
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Adams Myth
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 12:41 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Any Books Available on Short Term Play.
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?
I don't accept that as a "ridiculous extreme." If you are playing a
VP tournament and you are down to your last unit, and the only way
to claim a prize is to hit a royal, then it is absolutely the correct way
to play. For 9/6 JoB, the playing strategy that gives the best shot
at hitting a royal on the very next play gives a royal cycle of 23164.7
compared to the max-EV royal cycle of 40390.5.
If you're not playing in a tournament, and some random Millionaire
walks up to you and says "Here's $5 to play on this 9/6 JoB game, and
if you can play long enough to hit a royal flush, the I'll give you a cool
$1 million" then the best strategy for this "short term" goal will give
you a one in 1038.7 chance of winning the prize. For comparison,
max-EV strategy gives one chance in 1054.5. But every little bit
helps.
Short term strategies do exist. That goes against the mainstream view
of VP experts, but I'm used to that by now. The problem with the
mainstream is that it is so focused on EV that it can't think outside the
EV box.
On Friday 28 July 2006 11:40 am, 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 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?
> Harry: We must have similar backgrounds as you seem to
understand
> exactly the question I am stuggling with. I also appreciate your
> cogent answer. ITs clear what you are saying. Truthfully I have
not
> considered $100.00 Jacks or Better, but I will now. Maybe I try
a
> little for a change next month at Wynn. The passing thought that
> comes to mind immediately is that I would need to play many
machines
> because 3 of a kind will generate a W2G. It would keep the
Casino
> folks busy even with an accrual.
Denny,
From my own viewpoint I find going to multi-play (and hence a
higher
overall bet) a better approach than simply raising the denom. For
example, $10 five play vs. $25 single play is a $250 bet per hand
(double your usual bet). What this does is increase the arrival
rate of
quads, SFs, RFs, etc. In addition, the much bigger wins of dealt
quads,
etc is even more exciting. It goes a long way to make JOB more fun.
Of course, it does reduce the win amount for individual RFs and
you'd
need to decide if this is a problem. If so, then maybe 3 or 5-play
at
the $25 level would be more attractive (if you can find them).
Dick
Dick: A couple years ago I started playing 100 way 25c machines at
the Palms. Then I tried 50 and 100 way $1.00 at Wynn and I either
couldn't get a machine or I was waiting on all three for a W2G as
these are out on the floor. Multiple machines seemed to screw up my
concentration and record keeping. Truthfully I never played much ten
way, but three, five or ten may work. I find these multiple games
have both pros and cons regarding necessary bankroll size of stake
for the trip etc. I never hit 4 OAK on the deal yet, but I just
haven't played enough hands in Vegas. Would be a real thrill if you
hit one. You suggestion is worthy of consideration. These are the
kinds of things I would have hoped to have found in the literature,
but not yet in the manner I would have liked to see. Denny
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@> wrote: