bad pick 'em session

[John.G.Zaroff]

Harry, I assumed 1000 hph , so $4500 coin in for the 4 hour chunk. Works out to 80% return. Now, I know rare events happen but this one has a whole lot of zeroes to the right of the decimal place. 4000 hands with no more than a couple of hands over trips. Hard to do for that many hands.

I looked at Jazbo's site and didn't see the answer directly, but for similar number of hands the chances of losing that much were tiny.

···

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

Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.

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

[hockeystl]

Last Fall, Harrahs STL had a juicy promo going that was worth 1% CB.
I played numerous .25 PE sessions. My worst was $3070 coinin and a
loss of $432.50.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John.G.Zaroff" <John.G.Zaroff@d...>
wrote:

Harry, I assumed 1000 hph , so $4500 coin in for the 4 hour

chunk. Works out to 80% return. Now, I know rare events happen but
this one has a whole lot of zeroes to the right of the decimal
place. 4000 hands with no more than a couple of hands over trips.
Hard to do for that many hands.

I looked at Jazbo's site and didn't see the answer directly, but

for similar number of hands the chances of losing that much were tiny.

···

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

Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged

and confidential and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank
you.

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

[fordscks_jason_c_vp]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John.G.Zaroff" <John.G.Zaroff@d...>
wrote:
"Harry, I assumed 1000 hph , so $4500 coin in for the 4 hour chunk.
Works out to 80% return. Now, I know rare events happen but this
one has a whole lot of zeroes to the right of the decimal place.
4000 hands with no more than a couple of hands over trips. Hard to
do for that many hands."

I found Zaroff's mistake. The ***general*** reason anyone loses that
much money in video poker in such a short time is because that
person didn't hit his or her fair share of low-end hits as well as
the rare hands. I have done a lot of work in this area (Harry knows
what I'm talking about). Generally speakly, the bulk of the returns
are in the low-end hits, so Zaroff's theory of "no more than a
couple of hands over trips" is not realistic.

I ran two types of simulations - one on WinPoker, and I got a 85.10%
payback after 1,000 hands (easier to work with) and below is an
attribution report, which is commonly seen in asset management:

Hand Payoff For 1 Actual Theory Attribution
RF 6000 1200 0 0.0000 -0.00341
STFL 1199 239.8 0 0.0000 -0.00624
Quads 600 120 0 0.0004 -0.05083
FH 90 18 0.003 0.0024 0.01152
FL 75 15 0.003 0.0032 -0.00285
ST 55 11 0.002 0.0051 -0.03377
Trips 25 5 0.019 0.0300 -0.05505
2 Pairs 15 3 0.055 0.0621 -0.02127
99+ 10 2 0.235 0.2283 0.01340
  0 0 0.683 0.6685 0.00000
      1.0000 0.9995 -0.14850

It's not perfect, but you get the drift - the attribution is the
difference between actual and theoretical multiply by the payoff
(i.e. x coins for 1). The coin-in was 5,000 and the coin-out was
4,255 for a net-payout of 85.10%. In the fourth column was the
actual result and in the fifth column was the theoretical result.
Due to rounding error, I was able to explain 14.850% of the 14.90%
underperformance (again I am doing a quick and dirty attribution and
didn't scale the theoretical sum to 100%). The point is by not
hitting enough trips, the performance was off by 5.5% even though he
hit more FH than the theoretical result. This exercise is to show,
Zaroff's concept of not hitting anything about a trip is incorrect.

Then I ran a 10,000 hand simulation in Frugal VP to map the
volatility. The worst drought was a loss of 900 credits in about 500
hands or

[Harry_Porter]

John.G.Zaroff wrote:

Harry, I assumed 1000 hph , so $4500 coin in for the 4 hour chunk.
Works out to 80% return. Now, I know rare events happen but this one
has a whole lot of zeroes to the right of the decimal place. 4000
hands with no more than a couple of hands over trips. Hard to do for
that many hands.

I looked at Jazbo's site and didn't see the answer directly, but for
similar number of hands the chances of losing that much were tiny.

Yep. Just to be sure: You got that my post was in full agreement,
right? (I can be a little obscure in my wording at times

About that 1000 hph estimate: Was that simply to give the claim the
greatest advantage possible or have you played such a wonder? The
machines I've seen with pick'em have uniformly slowed the card deal
vs. other games on the machine so that even 800 hph was a challenge.

- H.