vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 19 FEB 2008

#1

Thanks, Dick!

Howard's number's showed, with a simple distribution, an average multiplier
of 4.05, which is correct, so I assumed his distribution was correct. Occam's
razor has always made perfect sense to me!

However, the numbers you provide below also show an average of multiplier of
4.05, and account for Michael's observation of the 3X appearing much more
often than the 2X/4X/5X.

And they also make Harry's "one in 400" Royal observation closer than my
"one in 300."

Brian

···

===========================================

Harry wrote:

In looking back, it would appear that this information is from an
earlier howard.stern post. In addition to the Shackleford site I
noted, another internet search yielded another suggestion that
howard's info may not be accurate.

Then Dick wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, bjaygold@... wrote:

Minor correction. In STP, multipliers occur, on average, every 15

hands. And

10X multipliers represent 1 out of 20, on average, of appearing

multipliers.

So, make that one in 15 * 20 = 300 hands of any type, including

Royals.

Frequency of multipliers in STP is, out of every 40 occurrences:
2X/3X/4X/5X, 9 each; 8X/10X, 2 each.

I believe this table is more accurate:

Multiplier Probability Rounds to get it
1 0.9333333 1.07
2 0.0113333 88.24
3 0.0220000 45.45
4 0.0106667 93.75
5 0.0160000 62.50
8 0.0040000 250.00
10 0.0026667 375.00

**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)

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

#2

Dick, was the forum discussion on videopoker.com the source of the
stats you cite?

(Generally speaking, it's always helpful and preferred to see the
source of cited information.)

- H.

bjaygold wrote:

···

Thanks, Dick!

Howard's number's showed, with a simple distribution, an average
multiplier of 4.05, which is correct, so I assumed his distribution
was correct. Occam's razor has always made perfect sense to me!

However, the numbers you provide below also show an average of
multiplier of 4.05, and account for Michael's observation of the 3X
appearing much more often than the 2X/4X/5X.

And they also make Harry's "one in 400" Royal observation closer than
my "one in 300."

Brian

Harry wrote:
In looking back, it would appear that this information is from an
earlier howard.stern post. In addition to the Shackleford site I
noted, another internet search yielded another suggestion that
howard's info may not be accurate.

Then Dick wrote:
I believe this table is more accurate:

Multiplier Probability Rounds to get it
1 0.9333333 1.07
2 0.0113333 88.24
3 0.0220000 45.45
4 0.0106667 93.75
5 0.0160000 62.50
8 0.0040000 250.00
10 0.0026667 375.00

#3

Yes, it was. I believe these numbers came from the game developers. I
didn't put in the reference because it does require signing up and I
figured just copying the numbers would be easier for everyone. If you
are a member you can use the search facility to find the discussion.

Dick

···

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

Dick, was the forum discussion on videopoker.com the source of the
stats you cite?

#4

FWIW, non-members can browse the forum on videopoker.com. Only
members can post.

- H.

Dick wrote:

···

> Dick, was the forum discussion on videopoker.com the source of the
> stats you cite?

Yes, it was. I believe these numbers came from the game developers. I
didn't put in the reference because it does require signing up and I
figured just copying the numbers would be easier for everyone. If you
are a member you can use the search facility to find the discussion.