Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 26 MAR 2013
"The Secret to Success"
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/0326.cfm
*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************
Bob wrote:
I talk about luck versus skill in video poker. I say that over the >next two hours luck accounts for probably 80% of your results. Over >the next 200 hours, luck accounts for probably 20%.
I have to disagree. For two hours, 2000 hands of video poker?, luck has to be over 99%. At 200 hours, 200,000 hands?, 20% luck is very low, that would be a video poker game with an unusually low N0. At N0 luck is 50%. Typical video poker has N0's around a million hands. FPDW+0.25% is 50% luck at about 260,000 hands. Of course this is taking "luck" to be the standard deviation, a common definition for an ill defined term.
[For those that don't know, N0=variance/edge^2 hands]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:
Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 26 MAR 2013
"The Secret to Success"
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/0326.cfm
*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************
I seen Mike Schmidt, the long retired third baseman for the Philadelphia Phillies, in an interview on ESPN a couple of years ago. When asked about how the game differs today from back in the day, his response was "The game was much tougher before free agency and multi-year contracts." When asked why his response was "Because we were fighting for raises every year."
noti ... you seem to be limiting the skill component of return to the positive edge of a game. If you instead allow a more commonly attributed 2%-3% advantage (vs relatively unskilled play), aren't Bob's estimates in the general ballpark?
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
Bob wrote:
>I talk about luck versus skill in video poker. I say that over the >next two hours luck accounts for probably 80% of your results. Over >the next 200 hours, luck accounts for probably 20%.I have to disagree. For two hours, 2000 hands of video poker?, luck has to be over 99%. At 200 hours, 200,000 hands?, 20% luck is very low, that would be a video poker game with an unusually low N0. At N0 luck is 50%. Typical video poker has N0's around a million hands. FPDW+0.25% is 50% luck at about 260,000 hands. Of course this is taking "luck" to be the standard deviation, a common definition for an ill defined term.
[For those that don't know, N0=variance/edge^2 hands]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@> wrote:
>
> Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 26 MAR 2013
>
> "The Secret to Success"
>
> http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/0326.cfm
>
>
> *************************************************
> This link is posted for informational purposes
> and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
> of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
> discussion of the article must be done in
> accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
> *************************************************
>
Edge can be positive or negative, one side or the other has the edge, for example here's perfect 9/6 Jacks (a negative edge game):
at 1 hand, luck = 99.9%
at 100 hands, luck = 98.9%
at 1,000 hands, luck = 96.5%
at 2,000 hands, luck = 95.2%
at 10,000 hands, luck = 89.8%
at 100,000 hands, luck = 73.6%
at 200,000 hands, luck = 66.4%
at 400,000 hands, luck = 58.3%
at 800,000 hands, luck = 49.7%
at 2,000,000 hands, luck = 38.4%
at 5,000,000 hands, luck = 28.3%
at 10,000,000 hands, luck = 21.8%
at 100,000,000 hands, luck = 8.1%
I guess you're postulating a player who plays Jacks so badly that they have a -3.5% edge? That would look like this (close to Bob's numbers):
at 1 hand, luck = 99.2%
at 100 hands, luck = 92.7%
at 1,000 hands, luck = 80%
at 2,000 hands, luck = 73.8%
at 10,000 hands, luck = 55.8%
at 100,000 hands, luck = 28.5%
at 200,000 hands, luck = 22%
at 400,000 hands, luck = 16.6%
at 800,000 hands, luck = 12.4%
at 2,000,000 hands, luck = 8.2%
at 5,000,000 hands, luck = 5.3%
at 10,000,000 hands, luck = 3.8%
at 100,000,000 hands, luck = 1.2%
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
noti ... you seem to be limiting the skill component of return to the positive edge of a game. If you instead allow a more commonly attributed 2%-3% advantage (vs relatively unskilled play), aren't Bob's estimates in the general ballpark?
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
>
> Bob wrote:
> >I talk about luck versus skill in video poker. I say that over the >next two hours luck accounts for probably 80% of your results. Over >the next 200 hours, luck accounts for probably 20%.
>
>
> I have to disagree. For two hours, 2000 hands of video poker?, luck has to be over 99%. At 200 hours, 200,000 hands?, 20% luck is very low, that would be a video poker game with an unusually low N0. At N0 luck is 50%. Typical video poker has N0's around a million hands. FPDW+0.25% is 50% luck at about 260,000 hands. Of course this is taking "luck" to be the standard deviation, a common definition for an ill defined term.
>
> [For those that don't know, N0=variance/edge^2 hands]
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@> wrote:
> >
> > Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 26 MAR 2013
> >
> > "The Secret to Success"
> >
> > http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/0326.cfm
> >
> >
> > *************************************************
> > This link is posted for informational purposes
> > and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
> > of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
> > discussion of the article must be done in
> > accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
> > *************************************************
> >
>
There is a lot of unnecessary speculation on a topic for which we could do some straight forward math to figure it out. There are two obvious ways to proceed. One is simulate a bunch of samples of millions of hands and look at the distribution. A quicker approximation can be calculated using the central limit theorem.
For those that aren't aware, the distribution of any average is approximately normally distributed in large samples. This allows us to get an estimate of the standard deviation of an extremely large number of hands, and approximate the whole distribution with a normal. We need a large number to make the Clt approximation close to accurate.
Variance grows linearly with hands and standard deviation grows with the square root of hands for independent trials. If we take fpdw, the variance of one hand is 25.84 bets, the sd is 5.0833. If we take 1 million hands, the distribution starts looking normal with an sd of sqrt(1000000)*5.0833=5083.3. A 95% confidence interval is plus or minus 1.96 times the sd or plus or minus 9963.28. Now the edge on 1000000 hands in 7620 units so a 95% confidence interval includes plenty of negative numbers. In fact, the range of the confidence interval is more than twice as large as the edge. A million hands is approximately 6 months of full time play.
You can do this for any game and it takes a bit of time to learn but not that long to use once you figure it out. If anyone has a critique of this method or the math, let me know.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@...> wrote:
Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 26 MAR 2013
"The Secret to Success"
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/0326.cfm
*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************