A Puzzle from 10-7-80 Double Bonus
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/1215.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/1215.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/1215.html</a>
Bob Dancer's Latest CasinoGaming.com Column
Is this game still available anywhere?
Scot
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE [mailto:vpF…@…net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:45 PM
To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's Latest CasinoGaming.com Column
A Puzzle from 10-7-80 Double Bonus
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/1215.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/1215.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2004/1215.html</a>
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Scot Krause" <krauseinvegas@w...>
wrote:
Is this game still available anywhere?
Scot
I thought that this column was the ultimate waste of time since:
1. The 10/7/80 Double Bonus game has been ruthlessly hunted to
extinction. It was EXTREMELY rare in the dollar version (only at the
El Cortez as far as I know).
2. We're talking about a play that comes up maybe once an hour, and
at the dollar level has a value (per Dancer) of 2.5 cents. Therefore
the quarter play (if the game exists anywhere, it's in the quarter
version) would be worth a little more than half a cent an hour. An
expert .25 10/7/80 DB player playing 800 hands/hr earns $5/hr
(exclusive of slot club benefits). So he earns a little more than 8
cents a minute; one cent every six seconds. Therefore if he pauses
to think about this play for more than three seconds, he's losing
money. If it takes him five minutes to read the Dancer article, he
could have made forty cents playing 10/7/80 DB instead, and the hand
in question would have to come up eighty times, or roughly that many
hours of play, to justify the mental effort.
I have always had this objection to mathematicians, that the farther
removed from the real world a mathematical construction is, the
happier they seem. This column, while perhaps interesting to those
delving into the mathematical minutae of VP, contained approximately
0.0000000346 microbleems of useful information*. It's a pity that
Dancer's column has descended into discussions of penalty card
minutae; he has so much other knowledge that would be useful to the
recreational VP player. After all, it's a NEWSPAPER column; I would
hazard a guess that 99% of the paper's readers don't know what in
the world he's talking about. But then, helping the recreational VP
player may not be part of his agenda.
*It's a known fact that 43.2 percent of all statistics are made up
on the spot.
I REALLY hate to correct you, since you mistakenly think you're always
right. 
43.3 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot NOT 43.2
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
···
*It's a known fact that 43.2 percent of all statistics are made up
on the spot.
It's well known that this game is still available in Reno at the Atlantis. In vegas it was available at the Gold Coast at one of their bars for quite a while until a pro team killed it off. I've only played about 100,000 hands at this game at the $ level and have a personal record of 99.5% return on it. I wish I could keep playing this one more, as eventually as you play over 10 royal cycles one should see skill as the determining factor rather than luck ( but I did hit it for $4000 at the peppermill in reno a couple of years ago ).
PS- Does anybody still remember , of all places, Fitzgeralds in downtown vegas use to have this? It didn't last long - but was fun and you would wait forever to get a coin refill when you hit a 234 special.
regards...Tom
···
----- Original Message ----- From: "Scot Krause" <krauseinvegas@worldnet.att.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:01 AM
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's Latest CasinoGaming.com Column
Is this game still available anywhere?
Scot
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118"
<jaydavidson118@y...> wrote:
I REALLY hate to correct you, since you mistakenly think you're
always
right.
43.3 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot NOT 43.2
Actually, 60.25347653009754 percent of all statistics are just
approximations, so who knows who's right.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333"
<rockofjello333@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Scot Krause" <krauseinvegas@w...>
wrote:
> Is this game still available anywhere?
>
> Scot
>
I thought that this column was the ultimate waste of time since:1. The 10/7/80 Double Bonus game has been ruthlessly hunted to
extinction. It was EXTREMELY rare in the dollar version (only at
the
El Cortez as far as I know).
2. We're talking about a play that comes up maybe once an hour,
and
at the dollar level has a value (per Dancer) of 2.5 cents.
Therefore
the quarter play (if the game exists anywhere, it's in the quarter
version) would be worth a little more than half a cent an hour. An
expert .25 10/7/80 DB player playing 800 hands/hr earns $5/hr
(exclusive of slot club benefits). So he earns a little more than
8
cents a minute; one cent every six seconds. Therefore if he pauses
to think about this play for more than three seconds, he's losing
money. If it takes him five minutes to read the Dancer article, he
could have made forty cents playing 10/7/80 DB instead, and the
hand
in question would have to come up eighty times, or roughly that
many
hours of play, to justify the mental effort.
I have always had this objection to mathematicians, that the
farther
removed from the real world a mathematical construction is, the
happier they seem. This column, while perhaps interesting to those
delving into the mathematical minutae of VP, contained
approximately
0.0000000346 microbleems of useful information*. It's a pity that
Dancer's column has descended into discussions of penalty card
minutae; he has so much other knowledge that would be useful to
the
recreational VP player. After all, it's a NEWSPAPER column; I
would
hazard a guess that 99% of the paper's readers don't know what in
the world he's talking about. But then, helping the recreational
VP
player may not be part of his agenda.
*It's a known fact that 43.2 percent of all statistics are made up
on the spot.
Rock,
I agree that that the play discussed is of miniscule practical or
monetary value. However, I enjoy these articles as a theoretical
exercise, and find the thinking involved to be helpful in playing or
analyzing unfamiliar games.
My objection is that the analysis is overly simplified. In choosing
between (98) 542 and (87) 432 Dancer point out that the hands are of
equal value but the remaining deck is better for the (87) 432 since
5 makes more straights than the 2 from the other hand. However, he
doesn't consider that one hand has the possibility of making more
valuable quads in db, 2s rather than 5s. Evidently the straight
effect outweighs the quad differential, but there is no analysis of
how to weigh these factors.
Also in Dancer's article in this month's Strictly Slots he lists
games where you can come close to even, considering slot club benies
and food comps, w/o drawing a RF. I was supprised that he didn't
list PE as a royal comprises approx 0.34 of the ev in this game as
opposed to just below 2% for the listed games.
David
d_richheimer wrote:
Also in Dancer's article in this month's Strictly Slots he lists
games where you can come close to even, considering slot club
benies
and food comps, w/o drawing a RF. I was supprised that he didn't
list PE as a royal comprises approx 0.34 of the ev in this game asopposed to just below 2% for the listed games.
Hi David;
I'll apologize for leaving out PE if you'll apologize for
attributing my article to Bob Dancer<g>. The article is a somewhat
condensed version of a two-parter that appears in the November and
December Video Poker Player*. Here's the numbers for PE:
Return without RF or SF (the sf cycle for PE is simiar to the RF
cycle for most games so I include it for PE only)=
98.99%; adding .5% CB (Casino Montelago 2x days for instance) brings
it up to 99.49%; and adding the arbitrary .3% for food makes it
99.79%. Obviously, as stated in the article, there are other items
of value for each game that can be added to this equation, such as
mailed free play or cash, promotions,etc. For PE, I think LVH is the
better play for a number of reasons.
*Part two includes a special "no-royal" strategy for KBJW that
lowers the variance and increases the return for royaless play a
little more (but also reduces over all return with royals).
Thanks,
Skip
...
Hi David;
I'll apologize for leaving out PE if you'll apologize for
attributing my article to Bob Dancer<g>. The article is a somewhat
condensed version of a two-parter that appears in the November and
December Video Poker Player*. Here's the numbers for PE:Return without RF or SF (the sf cycle for PE is simiar to the RF
cycle for most games so I include it for PE only)=
98.99%; adding .5% CB (Casino Montelago 2x days for instance)
brings
it up to 99.49%; and adding the arbitrary .3% for food makes it
99.79%. Obviously, as stated in the article, there are other items
of value for each game that can be added to this equation, such as
mailed free play or cash, promotions,etc. For PE, I think LVH is
the
better play for a number of reasons.
*Part two includes a special "no-royal" strategy for KBJW that
lowers the variance and increases the return for royaless play a
little more (but also reduces over all return with royals).
Thanks,
Skip
Skip,
I apologize for the misattribution. I must comment you for the quick
response and analysis of PE under the article's criteria.
David
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@e...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "d_richheimer" <d_richheimer@y...>
wrote:
Skip,
I apologize for the misattribution. I must comment you for the
quick
response and analysis of PE under the article's criteria.
David
I meant "commend" not "comment"; there are certain dumb mistakes a
spelling checker doesn't pick up.
Much be a little tired after returning from Vegas earlier this week.
The good news was I hit a RF at the Sun Coast on $1 NSU dueces on
the Monday the last day, so couldn't blow all the money and came
home a winner. The bad news was someone slashed our tires at long
term parking at Kennedy airport in NYC and the long day after the
redeye flight got longer.
David
*Part two includes a special "no-royal" strategy for KBJW that
lowers the variance and increases the return for royaless play a
little more (but also reduces over all return with royals).
Thanks,
Skip
I've basically done the same thing for those rare occasions when
I've played dollar KBJW (fullpay). If the royal was 4000 and not
4700 coins (those were the days), then I felt it was a reasonable
compromise to "flatten out" the play, even if it meant sacrificing a
small amount of EV.
Essentially, I killed the 2RF A high from the "no joker" part of the
table (except AK of course), and only played 2RF K high with no
penalties, and even then eliminated K10. I also removed 2RF Q, J
high from the bottom of the chart (drawing five instead).
Now, I can't believe that this cost me very much, as I would be
getting more pushes on these bad hands (for example, drawing 4 to an
A rather than keeping the almost always useless suited Jack).
What adjustments did you use for your modified strategy, and what
were the net effects on EV and variance?
ROJ;
Thanks for the question. I used the following method - using FVP:
I changed the RF pay to match the SF pay for Jacks or Better based
games. For Deuces Wild and KBJW, I used the wild royal pay. I then
created a new game and then imported that strategy to the original
game, analyzed it and gathered the stats from there.
I tried this with all the games in the article except PE, which
really has nothing to work with, since RF draws are so rare - PE is
fine the way it is as a no-royal game.
The results for most of the games was a small decrease in overall
return but also a very small increase in "no royal" return. The best
result was for A/A and KBJW. KBJW was just a little better. I did a
KBJW strategy based on the output from FVP.
Here are the stats:
Regular Strategy "Noroyals Strategy" Difference
Return: 100.65% 100.37% -.28%
Variance: 26 21 -5(19%)
Return w/o royal: 98.71% 99.09% +.38%
With cashback, food and other items of value this can be very close
to 100% w/o royals.
Of course it's up the individual to decide whether he wants to
pursue a "defensive" (reduced risk) strategy.
Thanks,
Skip
rockofjello333 wrote:
···
>
> *Part two includes a special "no-royal" strategy for KBJW that
> lowers the variance and increases the return for royaless play a
> little more (but also reduces over all return with royals).
> Thanks,
> SkipI've basically done the same thing for those rare occasions when
I've played dollar KBJW (fullpay). If the royal was 4000 and not
4700 coins (those were the days), then I felt it was a reasonable
compromise to "flatten out" the play, even if it meant sacrificing
a
small amount of EV.Essentially, I killed the 2RF A high from the "no joker" part of
the
table (except AK of course), and only played 2RF K high with no
penalties, and even then eliminated K10. I also removed 2RF Q, J
high from the bottom of the chart (drawing five instead).Now, I can't believe that this cost me very much, as I would be
getting more pushes on these bad hands (for example, drawing 4 to
an
A rather than keeping the almost always useless suited Jack).What adjustments did you use for your modified strategy, and what
were the net effects on EV and variance?vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[click here]---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.