nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
if their goal is to win ...
Don't treat everything I write with such serious contemplation ... I
was just tweaking Skip's nose (so to speak)
- H.
Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 NOV 2005
Iggy wrote: if their goal is to win, then mathematically speaking, they
are
idiots
I don't share this view. There is a big difference between being
uninformed in a particular area and being an idiot. All of us are
uninformed about a HUGE number of things. Do you speak Croatian for
example? Or have origami mastered? If not, using the logic presented
here, that would you an idiot. Indeed, it would make all of us idiots.
And I don't thnk I are one.
Bob Dancer
For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I knew that.<g>
Skip
Harry Porter wrote:
···
nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
if their goal is to win ...
Don't treat everything I write with such serious contemplation ... I
was just tweaking Skip's nose (so to speak)- H.
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com
I believe that anyone on these forums and readers of gambling
publications are adults (or should be) and if they read the stuff
I've
written and the stuff Bob and others have written and still insist
on
playing 9/6 DDB or 9/7 DB, well, fine - it's their dough and it's
not my
place to tell them they are idiots for not following my advice.
I am sure that all on this forum agree with that.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@e...> wrote:
I know that some of the comments on this thread have been somewhat
tongue in cheek, but I still feel the need to respond to this...
I'd accept your statement below if you said "if their ONLY goal is to
win". Many of use try to balance several goals when choosing what
games to play on our relatively short & infrequent visits to LV:
excitement, variety, hanging out with friends, gambling in a
particular casino... and having at least a good chance of having a
winning session/trip. I've made the decision many times to play 9/6
DDB after weighing factors such as those and don't feel particulary
uninformed, foolish or idiotic!
To me, the only idiots are the people who are aware that there are
games with different payouts in the same casino (often adjacent to
each other) and still choose the lower-paying game. The best example
of that is 6:5 blackjack, and from seeing the crowds playing that
game there seem to be plenty of idiots around.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
if their goal is to win, then mathematically speaking, they are
idiots, assuming there isn't a strong promotion involved
mathematically speaking, if your goal is to win, an even gamble is
unwise (unless you have the greater bankroll), a negative gamble is
a
folly, and equally foolish is a positive gamble begun with
insufficient bankroll--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
>
> Skip Hughes wrote:
> > I believe that anyone on these forums and readers of gambling
> > publications are adults (or should be) and if they read the
stuff
> > I've written and the stuff Bob and others have written and
still
> > insist on playing 9/6 DDB or 9/7 DB, well, fine - it's their
dough
> > and it's not my place to tell them they are idiots for not
following
···
> > my advice.
>
> But, implicitly, we can assume that you THINK they are
>
> - H.
>
sure, probably more specifically:
only goal is to win, meaning running coin-out > running coin-in
(running is total lifetime to date)
if your goal is to have a chance at a winning session, just about any
gamble will do, in fact that is the hook (or drug) of gambling, almost
anyone has a chance at a winning session, the key to beating the drug
is to realize the running cost of that winning session
in the end, how you define win is the key, keeping in mind that even
heroin junkies think they are winners
if your goal is a winning session, then singer's strategy, which is a
modified progressive system or Martingale is the way to go:
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems.html
The feature of the Martingale is that most of your sessions are
winners, the downside is that your eventual rogue wave wipes out all
those relatively small wins, thus running coin-out < running coin-in,
and per my previous statement, if your only goal was to win, win
cummulatively, then you are an idiot, but hopefully with skills in
other areas, who knows, maybe you could be president
as for 9/6ddb, as long as you are aware of the costs of playing that
game, and that doesn't bother you, then you are not an idiot:
9/6ddb, assuming perfect play, has an average house hold of about a
percent, meaning for every 100 bets in, you average 99 bets return, or
on a dollar five coin machine at 500 hands/hr, the average cost to
play is 500 x $5 x 1% = $25/hr, but this is assuming perfect play, the
average house hold is more like 2% or more because of incorrect play.
And this completely ignores the volatilaty issue: If your goal is to
play till you hit a royal flush, the RORBR is 0.999353812835425,
meaning the midpoint is ln(.5)/ln(0.999353812835425) = 1072.325857
bets, meaning 50% of the time it will cost you more than 1072 bets to
hit a royal, keeping in mind a royal only pays 800 bets, and keeping
in mind the rogue wave of 1% is ln(.01)/ln(0.999353812835425) =
7124.378782 bets, meaning, over years of play, you have a 1% chance of
losing over 7000 bets ($35,000 on a five coin dollar machine) and
still not hitting a royal. in contrast, a game like FPDW (or NSUD + 1%
cashback which is similar), assuming perfect play, has an RORBR of
0.998713370017895, a midpoint of ln(.5)/ln(0.998713370017895) of 538
bets, a 1% rouge wave of ln(.01)/ln(0.998713370017895) of 3577 bets.
Notice the 9/6ddb rouge wave is almost double that of FPDW.
Finally a quote from the actor George Clooney in the movie The Perfect
Storm: I was told to expect fair winds and calm seas:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0177971/
And, Samuel L. Jackson once told me:
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great
waters; These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep.
For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the
waves thereof. They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the
depths: their soul is melted because of trouble. They reel to and fro,
and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits' end. Then they
cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their
distresses. He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are
still. Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them
unto their desired haven.
Psalms, 107:23-30, KJV
Ok, one more, from Pulp Fiction:
There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the
righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish
and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity
and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.
For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you
will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been
sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your
ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a
cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in
his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm
thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous
man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass
in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and
I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like
that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And
I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real
hard to be a shepherd.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/quotes
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "larsonsm" <larsonsm@y...> wrote:
I know that some of the comments on this thread have been somewhat
tongue in cheek, but I still feel the need to respond to this...I'd accept your statement below if you said "if their ONLY goal is to
win". Many of use try to balance several goals when choosing what
games to play on our relatively short & infrequent visits to LV:
excitement, variety, hanging out with friends, gambling in a
particular casino... and having at least a good chance of having a
winning session/trip. I've made the decision many times to play 9/6
DDB after weighing factors such as those and don't feel particulary
uninformed, foolish or idiotic!To me, the only idiots are the people who are aware that there are
games with different payouts in the same casino (often adjacent to
each other) and still choose the lower-paying game. The best example
of that is 6:5 blackjack, and from seeing the crowds playing that
game there seem to be plenty of idiots around.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
>
> if their goal is to win, then mathematically speaking, they are
> idiots, assuming there isn't a strong promotion involved
> mathematically speaking, if your goal is to win, an even gamble is
> unwise (unless you have the greater bankroll), a negative gamble is
a
> folly, and equally foolish is a positive gamble begun with
> insufficient bankroll
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
> >
> > Skip Hughes wrote:
> > > I believe that anyone on these forums and readers of gambling
> > > publications are adults (or should be) and if they read the
stuff
> > > I've written and the stuff Bob and others have written and
still
> > > insist on playing 9/6 DDB or 9/7 DB, well, fine - it's their
dough
> > > and it's not my place to tell them they are idiots for not
following
> > > my advice.
> >
> > But, implicitly, we can assume that you THINK they are
> >
> > - H.
> >
>
If your goal is a winning session/trip, looks like 9/6 Royal Aces
Bonus is the way to go. The Aces pay the same as a Royal (800 bets)
and its risk of ruin before royal or aces is 0.998806671243068,
meaning the ror for 800 bets is 39%, 61% of the time you will win. Of
course there is a catch, the magnitude of the average win is less than
the magnitude of the average loss, and over the long term the casino
will win/grind its edge out of you. But if you play this game with a
starting bankroll of 800 bets, play perfect or near perfect strategy,
and then quit the session/trip when you hit a royal or aces or lose
800 bets, then your session/trip chances of winning are 61%. Another
game which should be similar is Royal Deuces where the deuces pay the
same as a royal. If you can't find these games, Triple Double Bonus,
where Aces plus the kicker pays the same as a royal is probably
similar and seems to be popular, perhaps these games will overtake the
old favorite double double bonus.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "larsonsm" <larsonsm@y...> wrote:
Many of use try to balance several goals when choosing what
games to play on our relatively short & infrequent visits to LV:
excitement, variety, hanging out with friends, gambling in a
particular casino... and having at least a good chance of having a
winning session/trip.
nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
If your goal is a winning session/trip, looks like 9/6 Royal Aces
Bonus is the way to go. The Aces pay the same as a Royal (800 bets)
and its risk of ruin before royal or aces is 0.998806671243068,
meaning the ror for 800 bets is 39%, 61% of the time you will win.
But if you play this game with a starting bankroll of 800 bets, play
perfect or near perfect strategy, and then quit the session/trip
when you hit a royal or aces or lose 800 bets, then your
session/trip chances of winning are 61%.
I hope those reading this grasp just how amazingly short some of those
4000-cr loss "sessions" may run ...
- H.
Can anyone run a PDF for this game?
Paytable is:
800 Royal Flush
100 Straight Flush
800 Aces Quad
80 4-2 Quads
50 K-5 Quads
9 Full House
6 Flush
4 Straight
3 Trips
1 Two Pair
1 Pair of Aces (not Jacks or Better!)
Also, the session size to get a 50% chance of hitting a royal or aces
is: ln(.5)/ln(1-.0000218-.000246)= 2,588 hands, 90% chance is
ln(.1)/ln(1-.0000218-.000246)= 8,597 hands, 99% chance is
ln(.01)/ln(1-.0000218-.000246)= 17,194 hands.
Definitely the game for those who can't be bothered with the "long
term". If you're one of those 39% who lose, definitely complain loudly
to your host, you should certainly be well comped for your loss and
get the best bounceback cash for your next attempt at riding the wild
mustang.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
> If your goal is a winning session/trip, looks like 9/6 Royal Aces
> Bonus is the way to go. The Aces pay the same as a Royal (800 bets)
> and its risk of ruin before royal or aces is 0.998806671243068,
> meaning the ror for 800 bets is 39%, 61% of the time you will win.
> But if you play this game with a starting bankroll of 800 bets, play
> perfect or near perfect strategy, and then quit the session/trip
> when you hit a royal or aces or lose 800 bets, then your
> session/trip chances of winning are 61%.I hope those reading this grasp just how amazingly short some of those
4000-cr loss "sessions" may run ...- H.
...and, that happens 31% of the time, on average.
.....bl
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
I hope those reading this grasp just how amazingly short some of those
4000-cr loss "sessions" may run ...- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
Can anyone run a PDF for this game?
Paytable is:
I can calculate PDFs for finite or infinite bankrolls and any number
of hands played (at least up to ~100K or so for finite bankrolls).
What are you interested in? You seem to have a pretty good handle on
the RORBR calculation.
From Winpoker I get an expected return of 99.584% and variance of
181.73 (!). Is that right?
Where do you find this game? I don't think I've seen it on the strip.
It looks too scary for me anyway.
Mike
I played $.01 hundred play Royal Aces Bonus at the Peppermill last weekend.
Never got dealt three aces.
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Michael Peck
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 6:35 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Royal Aces Bonus, was Re: More penalty card stuff (sorry!)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
Can anyone run a PDF for this game?
Paytable is:
I can calculate PDFs for finite or infinite bankrolls and any number
of hands played (at least up to ~100K or so for finite bankrolls).
What are you interested in? You seem to have a pretty good handle on
the RORBR calculation.
From Winpoker I get an expected return of 99.584% and variance of
181.73 (!). Is that right?
Where do you find this game? I don't think I've seen it on the strip.
It looks too scary for me anyway.
Mike
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
I can calculate PDFs for finite or infinite bankrolls and any number
of hands played (at least up to ~100K or so for finite bankrolls).
What are you interested in?
Cool, can you post 3000 hands, infinite bankroll?
From Winpoker I get an expected return of 99.584% and variance of
181.73 (!). Is that right?
Yup, that's the one. It's a good game for people who think variance
doesn't matter.
Where do you find this game? I don't think I've seen it on the strip.
It looks too scary for me anyway.
It should be on the strip, probably the 9/5 form. It's one of the new
IGT games, along with Royal Deuces and the older Triple Double Bonus
that feature a second jackpot with same win as a royal.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Peck" <mpeck1@i...> wrote:
My original post mentioned a reasonable chance at a winning
trip/session as just one of the goals I try to balance on a trip. My
point was really that to choose a 99.0-99.5% paytable is not
something that should be viewed as idiotic as a previous post
suggested. The "reasonable" chance of winning just means I will
search out the abundant full-pay machines for DDB, JOB, etc. rather
than settle for short-pay in the 95-96% range. I won't necessarily
drive off the Strip by myself to find a positive play rather than
hang out with my buddy who loves to play DDB. In the short run, I
feel that playing a 99%+ game gives me a "reasonable" chance at a win
(and experience has backed that up). Over the long run I am aware
that I will likely lose money on these games, but there is always the
chance that after one of these winning sessions when I "re-invest"
some of the winnings in a higher denomination that I will hit a
really big jackpot and come out ahead. (or more likely I will just
eventually blow that too playing higher stakes!)
As I also said before, I think some of the posts on this subject were
less than serious - but there are plenty of people on this board who
do really think people are idiots for ever playing negative games.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
>
>
> I hope those reading this grasp just how amazingly short some of
those
···
> 4000-cr loss "sessions" may run ...
>
> - H.
>...and, that happens 31% of the time, on average.
.....bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
Cool, can you post 3000 hands, infinite bankroll?
> From Winpoker I get an expected return of 99.584% and variance of
> 181.73 (!). Is that right?Yup, that's the one. It's a good game for people who think variance
doesn't matter.
This is kind of fascinating. Here are graphs of the probability
density and cumulative probability for 600 and 3000 hands of this game:
600 hands pdf: <http://www.wildlife-pix.com/vpoker/pdfrab600.png>
600 hands cdf: <http://www.wildlife-pix.com/vpoker/cdfrab600.png>
3,000 hands pdf: <http://www.wildlife-pix.com/vpoker/pdfrab3k.png>
3,000 hands cdf: <http://www.wildlife-pix.com/vpoker/cdfrab3k.png>
These show the distributions of return per unit bet, and in all graphs
the blue dotted line shows the distribution of 9/6 Jacks for
comparison. Here's a table of quantiles:
%ile 600RAB 3,000RAB 3,000JOB
1 -0.450 -0.328 -0.102
5 -0.398 -0.289 -0.080
10 -0.367 -0.265 -0.068
25 -0.302 -0.213 -0.047
50 -0.205 -0.014 -0.022
75 -0.058 +0.107 +0.006
90 +1.050 +0.333 +0.043
95 +1.178 +0.453 +0.224
99 +2.310 +0.711 +0.286
Seems to me a major downside of this game is if you play at the $1
level or higher you're likely to earn a W2G just about every day and
you can still lose your shirt.
Mike