-I played the Bally's AC IGT 8/5 bonus with royal prog .25 triple
plays as much as anyone in the late 90's, early 2000s ( millions of
$$$ coin in= at least 10K through per week average) and results were
correct Most regular players ( especially overnighters- not bus
patrons) that I observed were close to perfect strategy , some
played 9/6 strategy and/or did not take into account royal progs =
i.e. QJs often much better than QJ8s. I also played 9/6 $1
machines , but without enough stats to truly mathamatically verify.
My slight losses were offset by great rooms = usuallylarger
corner Tower rooms with big tubs , plus all my meals and some cash
back = doubled once a week. A great deal.
ALL first changed to me when all the Bally's/Caesar's machines were
converted to TITO. The games have also improved in payback lately
all over AC - this makes me wonder even more.
Combine this with harrah's takeover of Bally's implementing
decreased comps and offers and some silly marketing, they have
lost me.
I remember old casino player articles saying "it is cheaper to fly
to Vegas than play in AC". True now for sure, though Vegas is
being cleaned out- but at least you will get rooms and food.
I have been successful with 9/6s @ borgata, but not enough sessions
to give stats, plus comps are low on 9/6's- at least you can drink
for free while playing @ the BBar( not the case in most of AC).
I do not trust VP in either Conn. casinos - foxwoods or Mohegan.
I may have to try out Reno for the last few years we all have left.
Excellent points JBQ.
I thought I'd run some of this through Dunbar VP Risk Analyzer.
I used
$2 9/6 JB with a 99.9% accuracy (I figured the 99% was a typo) .5%
cashback and 800 hands an hour. I also entered a total of 50 hours
for
the trip (figuring about 5 days at about 10 hours a day). The RoR
for a
$10,000 bankroll was 19%. Leaving everything else the same, I
then
removed the CB, since one might very well be getting only
bounceback,
it's not reflective of the actual cash you would leave with - or
without. RoR goes up to 26%. That's giving the casino a pretty
good shot
at cleaning you out. Then, just in case the 99% was real, I
changed the
hourly loss to reflect that and the RoR jumped up to 50%!
That brought up an interesting point that's somwhat outside the
scope
of this thread (but interesting to me). A lot of folks really do
play at
99% accuracy, even decent enough players who play unfamiliar
games, will
often be playing at this level. We all know that short-term
results are
mostly dependent on luck, but when your RoR can double due to a 1%
error
rate, it's obvious that at least moderately accurate play (better
than
99.5%) is very important, even in the short run.
If one were playing 9/6 DDB (the game of choice for the "singer
rmethod") instead of 9/6 JB with these parameters, the RoR jumps
to
66%! Of course, using the "Singer Method" will just accelerate
all of
this if you are getting bad cards.
I have no idea about whether the AC machines are OK or not, but I
know
of some very smart people who play there. I'm sure there are
people here
who know about the NJ gaming regs.
Skip
Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
>I agree with what Harry said. VP is very volatile.
>
>In general, it makes little sense in gambling to do statistics on
an
>event that is expected to occur less than about 20 to 30 times;
below
>that value the variations are too large for any significant trend
to
>emerge. Around 20 to 30 times, a trend is likely to start to
emerge
>from the variation, but any deviation can still be considered
totally
>normal. It takes many more cycles for the underlying trend to
strongly
>overcome the variations.
>
>Our human brains tend to have a hard time grasping the notion of
>variance, and what we may perceive as being "far from average"
might
>actually be entirely expected.
>
>A few observations:
>
>-in VP, the median is less than the average, i.e. you're more
likely
>to have a below average session than an above average session.
>
>-Since big hands are independent, you're more likely to be in a
>drought than in a streak.
>
>-99% accuracy is pretty low in JoB. That level of accuracy triples
>your average long-term losses. I hope for you that you've been
>truncating some decimals. Personally I'm unhappy below 99.95% in
JoB,
>99.8% in DB. YMMV.
>
>-As far as I'm concerned, I bankroll at least 1.1 royals for a 2-
day
>week-end of single-line JoB. That's an amount that I wouldn't be
>surprised to lose. Since I like to feel comfortable with my
bankroll,
>I typically give myself an extra margin. With your bankroll and my
>rule of thumb, you may be somewhat underbankrolled to play above
the
>dollar level.
>
>-Playing single-line JoB for an entire week-end, I wouldn't find
it
>entirely surprising to hit no RF, no SF, and fewer quads and FH
than
>usual. Within those conditions, I wouldn't be surprised to only
see a
>95% return over a week-end. Switching denominations increases the
>likelihood of such an event happening.
>
>-Never forget that all plays are independent. The fact that you've
>been losing in your last few sessions means absolutely nothing
for the
>future ones: you're still more likely to have a losing session
than a
>winning one.
>
>JBQ
>
>
>
>>While I don't think any comments I might offer are going to
change
>>your perceptions, I'll note that video poker is far more
volatile than
···
.- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@...> wrote:
>On 2/21/06, Harry Porter <harry.porter@...> wrote:
>>most any player expects
>>
>>
>
>
>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com