How Do You Figure?
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.html</a>
Bob Dancer's Latest CasinoGaming.com Column
vpFREE wrote:
How Do You Figure?
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.html
OK, I'm dumbfounded.
I've read far more reasonable advice from far less reputable quarters.
- H.
So you are saying that risking a third of your bankroll on what might easily
be just a couple dozen hands of $2 triple play might be a questionable vp
strategy? Interesting;-)
Chandler
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Porter [mailto:harry.por…@…net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:12 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's Latest CasinoGaming.com Column
vpFREE wrote:
How Do You Figure?
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.html
OK, I'm dumbfounded.
I've read far more reasonable advice from far less reputable quarters.
- H.
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
******* bypass advertisment ******
Hopefully, remainder of this reply will be displayed as written.
Conclusions in Dancer's 4/12 column appear to be mathematically valid,
but I'd have used a somewhat-different approach.
Situations in which an "unusual" payoff table will apply pending a
specified event (receiving four of a kind here, a Royal Flush on a
progressive game, etc) require that correct strategy, for the actual
payoff table, be determined. When the payoff for four of a kind is
increased, it is "definitely possible" that holding a low pair, as
opposed to a four-flush, high four-straight, and/or three to an RF, may
become preferable.
Frugal VP, and/or VPSM, can be used. The choice is primarily a matter
of "personal preference"; both tend to be mathematically sound, and are
likely to return basically-similar answers. In the specific case of a
100-coin bonus, no strategy changes are indicated, but a small increase
in the bonus amount WOULD justify holding a low pair as opposed to a
four-flush.
Playing with a marginally-adequate bankroll, and a "loss limit" which
is likely to be reached after a relatively-small number of hands,
involves rather-complex considerations. Long-term, best ER (from any
positive-ER game) will result from playing the highest available
denomination, but one needs to realize that the risk of reaching a
specified "loss limit" varies almost directly with denomination.
Playing for lower denonminations increases the chance of collecting the
bonus prior to reaching "loss limit", at the cost of requiring
considerably-more playing time.
Bottom line, play of the specified game does appear to be worthwhile;
as long as one terminates play immediately after collecting the bonus.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
vpFREE wrote:
>
> How Do You Figure?
>
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.htmlOK, I'm dumbfounded.
I've read far more reasonable advice from far less reputable quarters.
- H.
Not to mention that, if you are normally a .25 player,
that at the $2.00 level, your heart might thump, your blood pressure
might soar, and of course, in your nervousness, you might forget
some key elements of the strategy. Sounds like a GREAT idea to me.
Anyone want to bet that Cubs will win the World series? Even money,
of course.
Babe
So you are saying that risking a third of your bankroll on what
might easily
be just a couple dozen hands of $2 triple play might be a
questionable vp
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Chandler" <omnibibulous1@c...> wrote:
strategy? Interesting;-)
Chandler
--------------------------------
From: Harry Porter [mailto:harry.porter@v…]
OK, I'm dumbfounded.
I've read far more reasonable advice from far less reputable
quarters.
- H.
I read this column and my first thought was, 'that would be crazy for
a 0.25 player to risk that much of his bankroll, and what are his
chances of success? I dont think very good.'
So I set up WinPoker for 3play 9/6 JOB with 200 credits ($400) and
autoplayed 15 hands at a time, then checked for a 4oak, and either got
the 4oak or went broke by needing another 200 credits.
Very Interesting
Out of 30 trials, 19 were successful (wow), of course 11 went bust and
twice there were 3 busts in a row (ouch), and amazingly in the first
few hands I got a RF, which would make a 0.25 player pretty happy, but
even without the RF the end result was +400 coins ($800) and 1900
coins in Bonuses ($3800), so it seems much more reasonable then I
first thought.
Jim
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
vpFREE wrote:
>
> How Do You Figure?
>
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.htmlOK, I'm dumbfounded.
I've read far more reasonable advice from far less reputable quarters.
- H.
It's irresponsible.
The casino also makes money on all the fools who try Dancer's strategy
and bust out before collecting the coupon.
Here's the responsible strategy:
use this tool:
http://www.wizardofodds.com/videopoker/analyzer/CindyProg.html
select Bonus poker, add the coupon (100/5=20) to each quad, hit get
return, result is 103.8922%
now, just for kicks, check the risk of ruin with a bankroll of $1,500
on 5 coin $2 (Dancer's strategy), in terms of bets it's $1,500/$10 =
150 bets, enter 150 bankroll and hit get RoR, result is 43%! But wait,
it gets worse! Dancer actually suggests you set a loss limit of $400!
Presumably if you lose $400 you would quit this promotion for good, of
course everyone knows the average gambler will take another shot at it
next week or next month, meaning the true loss limit is the $1,500.
But let's assume $400, that's 40 bets, so enter 40 bankroll and hit
get RoR, result is 80%! So, what would a responsible gambler do? How
much risk do you want to take? I suggest 10% but everyone has their
own answer. Obviously Dancer has no problem with 80%. Assuming a 10%
risk is acceptable, enter 10 for RoR and
hit get bankroll, result is 404 bets or $4,040 on 5 coin $2, so if you
are willing to take a 10% risk of losing $4,040, you should do it. And
that is RESPONSIBLE gambling. Not willing to risk $4,040? Well, on a
dollar machine it would be $2,020, and on a quarter it would be $505
...
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
>
> vpFREE wrote:
> >
> > How Do You Figure?
> >
> > http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.html
>
>
> OK, I'm dumbfounded.
>
> I've read far more reasonable advice from far less reputable
quarters.
>
> - H.I read this column and my first thought was, 'that would be crazy
for
a 0.25 player to risk that much of his bankroll, and what are his
chances of success? I dont think very good.'So I set up WinPoker for 3play 9/6 JOB with 200 credits ($400) and
autoplayed 15 hands at a time, then checked for a 4oak, and either
got
the 4oak or went broke by needing another 200 credits.
Very Interesting
Out of 30 trials, 19 were successful (wow), of course 11 went bust
and
twice there were 3 busts in a row (ouch), and amazingly in the first
few hands I got a RF, which would make a 0.25 player pretty happy,
but
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:
even without the RF the end result was +400 coins ($800) and 1900
coins in Bonuses ($3800), so it seems much more reasonable then I
first thought.Jim
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
It's irresponsible. The casino also makes money on all the fools who
try Dancer's strategy.........
<snip>
.............So, what would a responsible gambler do? How
much risk do you want to take? I suggest 10% but everyone has their
own answer. Obviously Dancer has no problem with 80%. Assuming a
10%
risk is acceptable, enter 10 for RoR and
hit get bankroll, result is 404 bets or $4,040 on 5 coin $2, so if
you
are willing to take a 10% risk of losing $4,040, you should do it.
And
that is RESPONSIBLE gambling. Not willing to risk $4,040? Well, on
a
dollar machine it would be $2,020, and on a quarter it would be
$505........
···
===================================
I agree with Iggy 100% on all his conclusions and
calculations. Why BD would recommend this type of play to the naive
vp player (who believe that everything he says is the gospel truth)
boggles my mind.
Just my opinion, of course.
Babe
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
It's irresponsible.
The casino also makes money on all the fools who try Dancer's strategy
and bust out before collecting the coupon.Here's the responsible strategy:
use this tool:
http://www.wizardofodds.com/videopoker/analyzer/CindyProg.html
select Bonus poker, add the coupon (100/5=20) to each quad, hit get
return, result is 103.8922%
now, just for kicks, check the risk of ruin with a bankroll of $1,500
on 5 coin $2 (Dancer's strategy), in terms of bets it's $1,500/$10 =
150 bets, enter 150 bankroll and hit get RoR, result is 43%! But wait,
it gets worse! Dancer actually suggests you set a loss limit of $400!
Presumably if you lose $400 you would quit this promotion for good, of
course everyone knows the average gambler will take another shot at it
next week or next month, meaning the true loss limit is the $1,500.
But let's assume $400, that's 40 bets, so enter 40 bankroll and hit
get RoR, result is 80%! So, what would a responsible gambler do? How
much risk do you want to take? I suggest 10% but everyone has their
own answer. Obviously Dancer has no problem with 80%. Assuming a 10%
risk is acceptable, enter 10 for RoR and
hit get bankroll, result is 404 bets or $4,040 on 5 coin $2, so if you
are willing to take a 10% risk of losing $4,040, you should do it. And
that is RESPONSIBLE gambling. Not willing to risk $4,040? Well, on a
dollar machine it would be $2,020, and on a quarter it would be $505
...
I did my 30 trials with $2 triple play 9/6 JOB, which is what Bob
recommends in the last paragraph of the column.
I did bust out 37% of the time with a $400 loss limit, but the 63% of
the time that the goal was met (a 4oak) resulted in a net win of
$4600. I know that 30 trials is not exactly scientific, but I think
that it is somewhat representitive of real life, and I did mention
that on 2 occasions there were 3 busts in a row, that would total
$1200 and be a serious blow if it were your first 3 attempts. I am not
recommending this for someone who has only $1500 total bankroll, but
my comment was more along the line of 'it certainly is not as crazy as
I first thought' and it actually looks like it may work out, which was
a surprise to me.
take care
Jim
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
vpFREE wrote:
>
> How Do You Figure?
>
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0412.htmlOK, I'm dumbfounded.
I've read far more reasonable advice from far less reputable
quarters.
- H.
Bob is a good player, but has been incedibly lucky early on (based on
the reading of his Million dollar vp book) - especially the 3 coin
10/7/80 DB $25 dollar game. He plays very fast and lose with Risk of
uin (RoR) considerations and "proper" bankrolls for a given play.
Based on his writings I assume he never went 5-10 cycles without a
royal. (yes Virginia it will happen to you if you play video poker
regularly).
I would almost consider this advice to be reckless, but RoR and
Bankroll are as much personal choices as anything. If you have a full
time job and can generate a replacement bankroll at will, then such
discussions become moot, because your bankroll is not really a
banroll, but a session stake. If on the other hand, this is it and
there is no more money to be made via a job or whatever, then banroll
becomes crucial to survival.
I used to think wow, a 1% edge that's great, but now it's hmmmmm a 1%
edge with a 1% RoR requiring a Million Bankroll, let's stop and look
at the details a little closer.
To get back to Bob's example, if I were a quarter player with a
minimum wage or slightly better job, I probably would not risk such a
significant portion of my banroll on any one opportunity such as the
one he proposes.
Your mileage WILL vary....
It may or may not be statistically significant.
As you mentioned, royals and straightflushes are not expected so if
they pop up in simulation they should be removed from the results. The
quad cycle is 423 hands, the probability of going 423 hands without a
quad is 37%, for 3 cycles (1269 hands) it's 5%, and for 5 cycles (2115
hands) it's 0.5%. You could run sims to measure quads or less, or full
houses or less, either way you need about 25 cycles (10,575 for quads,
2,275 for full houses) to get meaningful results. For 25 cycles of
something, you will get 25 +/-5 68% of the time, 25 +/-10 95% of the
time and 25 +/-15 99.7% of the time. In a pinch you might get away
with 9 cycles, then you will get 9 +/-3 68% of the time, 9 +/-6 95% of
the time and 9 +/-9 99% of the time.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:
I know that 30 trials is not exactly scientific,