Why does he play it AP? His bankroll is enormous compared to mine and is likely to be more than yours. The answer however is simple "an edge is an edge".
···
Sent from my iPhone
Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
I agree that there isn't a bankroll concern, but when a play is considered to be good over a well defined long run as it was here, and when that long run will not be reached, again as well defined here, then why play it ?
It seems to me that if you aren't likely to complete enough cycles to get the average return, and the edge isn't large to begin with why play it.
We were given lots of good reasons not to play it, but I saw no good reasons to play it. I just want to know the logic behind the decision.
A.P.
···
________________________________
From: "Nordo123@aol.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: "vpFREE@yahoogroups.com" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
Why does he play it AP? His bankroll is enormous compared to mine and is likely to be more than yours. The answer however is simple "an edge is an edge".
Sent from my iPhone
I agree that there isn't a bankroll concern, but when a play is considered to be good over a well defined long run as it was here, and when that long run will not be reached, again as well defined here, then why play it ?
It seems to me that if you aren't likely to complete enough cycles to get the average return, and the edge isn't large to begin with why play it.
We were given lots of good reasons not to play it, but I saw no good reasons to play it. I just want to know the logic behind the decision.A.P.
The "long run" is never "reached." The expected result, in percentage
terms, is generally more closely approached as the number of trials
increases.
True, the long run as we normally view it is not reached. I really should have quoted the article more precisely, Bob said that a full cycle, which he defined could be reached, but he said that it was unlikely for him to reach it.
That is what caused me to raise my question. If you aren't going to complete the cycle, which would give you the expected return, then why play it ?
A.P.
···
________________________________
From: "007 007@embarqmail.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
I agree that there isn't a bankroll concern, but when a play is considered to be good over a well defined long run as it was here, and when that long run will not be reached, again as well defined here, then why play it ?
It seems to me that if you aren't likely to complete enough cycles to get the average return, and the edge isn't large to begin with why play it.
We were given lots of good reasons not to play it, but I saw no good reasons to play it. I just want to know the logic behind the decision.A.P.
The "long run" is never "reached." The expected result, in percentage
terms, is generally more closely approached as the number of trials
increases.
I think they call it gambling!
···
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 12/17/14, Albert Pearson ehpee@rogers.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
To: "vpFREE@yahoogroups.com" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Received: Wednesday, December 17, 2014, 7:59 AM
That is what caused me to raise my question. If you
aren't going to complete the cycle, which would give you
the expected return, then why play it ?
.
<smile> I like Dunbar's adage (or is it Shackleford's?). It seems a good explanation to Dancer's play.
It is not whether you win or lose, it is whether it is a good bet.
..... bl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
According to Nordo123's post it would take 150 years to do a full cycle on the game. The E.V. takes into account a full cycle. If you don't complete a full cycle then the E.V. should be adjusted to account for that.
I am questioning whether the game is a good bet. I suggest that the E.V. he is using is not accurate because it takes into account hands that are extremely rare. It's not like a regular royal which you know you will hit numerous times. Here we are looking for Royals with big multipliers, and dealt royals that were preceded by dealt flushes, full houses and straights. to get the mega payoffs, and I would guess that hitting any one of the mega payouts would cause the game to disappear, and you'd probably never get a chance to hit another one.
When I am playing games that have big bonuses for dealt royals or sequential royals, I give no value to those bonuses, because it is so unlikely to hit for me, that I believe it would be an unwise move to
add that into the E.V. to determine if the game is a good play.
So for the math whizzes out there. Here is the problem. What would the E.V. be on the game if you totally discounted dealt royals that were preceded by a dealt straight, flush or full house ?
A.P.
···
________________________________
From: "bornloser1537@yahoo.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
<smile> I like Dunbar's adage (or is it Shackleford's?). It seems a good explanation to Dancer's play.
It is not whether you win or lose, it is whether it is a good bet.
..... bl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'll disagree strongly with the notion that the "long run" is never "reached". That depends on one's notion of "long run".
For my play, I define it as the play length required to be reasonably confident of a positive play result (incl cash play incentives). (This definition obviously reflects the concept of "N0", introduced here by NOTI)
Under that definition, I and most other knowledgeable players can reasonably look to "reach the long run" in a very managable length of time. All this requires is the discipline to restrict gaming to plays having a reasonable edge (0.5-1.0% min), keep play variance moderate, and not excessively stretch one's bankroll.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <007@...> wrote :
>I agree that there isn't a bankroll concern, but when a play is considered to be good over a well defined long run as it was here, and when that long run will not be reached, again as well defined here, then why play it ?
>
>It seems to me that if you aren't likely to complete enough cycles to get the average return, and the edge isn't large to begin with why play it.
>We were given lots of good reasons not to play it, but I saw no good reasons to play it. I just want to know the logic behind the decision.
>
>A.P.
The "long run" is never "reached." The expected result, in percentage
terms, is generally more closely approached as the number of trials
increases.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
bornloser wrote: "<smile> I like Dunbar's adage (or is it Shackleford's?). It seems a good explanation to Dancer's play.
It is not whether you win or lose, it is whether it is a good bet."
But what makes a bet a good bet?
I would propose that good bets are ones that end with a net win in the tax year. Under that definition, it's not whether or not a particular bet wins or loses, but the net of bets for the tax year has to be a win. If it's a loss, there's a tax penalty (gambling losses can not legally be carried forward) that has to be accounted for.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Harry wrote: Under that definition, I and most other knowledgeable players can
reasonably look to "reach the long run" in a very managable length of
time. All this requires is the discipline to restrict gaming to plays
having a reasonable edge (0.5-1.0% min), keep play variance moderate,
and not excessively stretch one's bankroll.
I have no problem with that explanation in general. The half-percent-at-least edge goal is sometimes elusive if you want to play $50 a hand or more. The "keep play variance moderate" part is a bit tougher when you're talking Ultimate X. That was the whole point of the article. Put in other words, if you can afford to play dollar Ten Play, then playing the Ultimate X version of the same game should be limited to quarter Five Play or less. IF you can find a good pay schedule at that level (good luck!)
Whether I'm going to receive the dealt straight or better followed by a dealt biggie hand or not is not part of what I worry about --- or what I dream about. It's nice to hit a big jackpot --- but the sizes possible on this game are hardly life changing.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
NOTI wrote: I would propose that good bets are ones that end with a net win in the
tax year. Under that definition, it's not whether or not a particular
bet wins or loses, but the net of bets for the tax year has to be a win.
If it's a loss, there's a tax penalty (gambling losses can not legally
be carried forward) that has to be accounted for.
I strongly dislike that definition. It’s actually contrary
to Shack’s original quote.
Shack was referring to a good bet being one with positive
EV. NOTI is saying it doesn’t matter whether it has positive EV or not, it’s
whether you win or lose. And in particular, it’s whether you win or lose in the
current tax year.
Let’s say somebody is ahead $150,000 for the year right now.
Under NOTI’s definition, EVERY “reasonably small” bet is a good bet. It doesn’t
matter whether you go down to $1 ahead for the year in the next two weeks. The
only thing that matters is that you’re ahead. An uncoordinated person could
play HORSE with LeBron James for $10,000 a pop. This is a good gamble so long
as he quits after 14 of these games? Hardly.
I do not think most people believe that being $1 ahead for
the year is as good as being ahead $100,000.
Tax year considerations are important. And it certainly
makes for an interesting discussion about how your gambling strategy should
change near year end because of the asymmetric tax laws regarding wins and
losses. But most of what I consider to be a “good bet” has little to do with my
annual score.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
speaking of taxes I have an old years (2014) resolution for some of you to make. If for 2014 you are "close to even" gambling your resolution should be I will quit gambling for the rest of the year. The logic is infallible: if you win closing out the year you have a partner - The IRS. If you lose your "partner" abandons you. With friends like these you don't need enemies. You may begin gambling on Jan. 1, 2015 when hopefully your swings will be much larger.
···
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 18, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Bob Dancer bobdancervp@hotmail.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
NOTI wrote: I would propose that good bets are ones that end with a net win in the
tax year. Under that definition, it's not whether or not a particular
bet wins or loses, but the net of bets for the tax year has to be a win.
If it's a loss, there's a tax penalty (gambling losses can not legally
be carried forward) that has to be accounted for.I strongly dislike that definition. It’s actually contrary
to Shack’s original quote.Shack was referring to a good bet being one with positive
EV. NOTI is saying it doesn’t matter whether it has positive EV or not, it’s
whether you win or lose. And in particular, it’s whether you win or lose in the
current tax year.Let’s say somebody is ahead $150,000 for the year right now.
Under NOTI’s definition, EVERY “reasonably small” bet is a good bet. It doesn’t
matter whether you go down to $1 ahead for the year in the next two weeks. The
only thing that matters is that you’re ahead. An uncoordinated person could
play HORSE with LeBron James for $10,000 a pop. This is a good gamble so long
as he quits after 14 of these games? Hardly.I do not think most people believe that being $1 ahead for
the year is as good as being ahead $100,000.Tax year considerations are important. And it certainly
makes for an interesting discussion about how your gambling strategy should
change near year end because of the asymmetric tax laws regarding wins and
losses. But most of what I consider to be a “good bet” has little to do with my
annual score.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
Appreciate the feedback, Bob. You grasp that my comment was prompted by the posted notion that one never reaches the "long term". I'm hardly suggesting that my "guidelines" are the only viable play approach -- there's no question that there are worthy and attractive higher variance plays that fall outside those guidelines.
What I find most notable is that a sentiment of long-term results being unattainable potentially can tempt a player into some unwise play strategies. Mistaking variance for unattainability might suggest inappropriately discounting improbable hits even though such hits, when considered in aggregate over a lifetime of play, are statistically significant and very tangible.
In my experience, players who largely run a play profit year after year, seldom sweat whether they'll ever hit a rare jackpot. They simply focus on those factors that keep their play expectations strong, with reasonable reliability. (Repeatedly pressing a significant advantage is key.) So it is, for those with such concerns, I identify those factors that tend to make play more reliably profitable ... assuming opportunities at hand that fit the bill.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bobdancervp@...> wrote :
Harry wrote: Under that definition, I and most other knowledgeable players can
reasonably look to "reach the long run" in a very managable length of
time. All this requires is the discipline to restrict gaming to plays
having a reasonable edge (0.5-1.0% min), keep play variance moderate,
and not excessively stretch one's bankroll.
I have no problem with that explanation in general. The half-percent-at-least edge goal is sometimes elusive if you want to play $50 a hand or more. The "keep play variance moderate" part is a bit tougher when you're talking Ultimate X. That was the whole point of the article. Put in other words, if you can afford to play dollar Ten Play, then playing the Ultimate X version of the same game should be limited to quarter Five Play or less. IF you can find a good pay schedule at that level (good luck!)
Whether I'm going to receive the dealt straight or better followed by a dealt biggie hand or not is not part of what I worry about --- or what I dream about. It's nice to hit a big jackpot --- but the sizes possible on this game are hardly life changing.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There's a relatively narrow band of annual play results, near-breakeven, where a player incurs tax liability on winnings, but has no expectation of a tax benefit from losses. (From a simplified standpoint, above this band, wins and losses have equivalent tax implications, assuming you itemize ... below this band, both are without consequence)
This merely suggests an appropriate discount to your EV when in the band ... not hanging up your hat until next year. Some play may become inadvisable, given a greater tax liability. However, it's entirely possible that other strong play is still viable.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <Nordo123@...> wrote :
speaking of taxes I have an old years (2014) resolution for some of you to make. If for 2014 you are "close to even" gambling your resolution should be I will quit gambling for the rest of the year. The logic is infallible: if you win closing out the year you have a partner - The IRS. If you lose your "partner" abandons you. With friends like these you don't need enemies. You may begin gambling on Jan. 1, 2015 when hopefully your swings will be much larger.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
···
Sent from my iPhone
NOTI wrote: I would propose that good bets are ones that end with a net win in the
tax year. Under that definition, it's not whether or not a particular
bet wins or loses, but the net of bets for the tax year has to be a win.
If it's a loss, there's a tax penalty (gambling losses can not legally
be carried forward) that has to be accounted for.
Bob wrote: "I strongly dislike that definition. It�s actually contrary
to Shack�s original quote."
I think you probably misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
Bob wrote: "Shack was referring to a good bet being one with positive
EV. NOTI is saying it doesn�t matter whether it has positive EV or not, it�s
whether you win or lose. And in particular, it�s whether you win or lose in the
current tax year."
I did say, more or less: "it's whether you win or lose in the current tax year." But it doesn't follow that therefore EV doesn't matter. EV does in fact matter, but so does variance, and likely some other considerations, such as days left in the current tax year and current running results for the current tax year.
Bob wrote: "Tax year considerations are important. And it certainly
makes for an interesting discussion about how your gambling strategy should
change near year end because of the asymmetric tax laws regarding wins and
losses. But most of what I consider to be a �good bet� has little to do with my
annual score."
That would imply that you don't let tax considerations affect your play, at least not significantly. And you consider ignoring tax considerations to be for the most part a "good bet"?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Albert,
I don't see why not having enough play opportunities to 'complete the cycle' should keep you from a good play. Completing the cycle doesn't guarantee you will make money on the play. It's just that you have more opportunities at a positive play.
At a local casino, there was a promo where you would get $5 in free play ( usually $5 but rarely a larger value) for $150 coin in. The best game is NSUD. You could do this once a day for 3 weeks. So, I would play 120 hands of $0.25 single line NSUD each day. 120 hands is no where near a royal or deuces cycle. Even for the 15 days, it is only 1800 hands. But this is still a 3% play ( admittedly for very low coin in). If I were at this particular casino and this play were available, I would play it every chance I could. Even though I am unlikely to hit a royal or deuces in 120 hands, it's still a good play.
Here's another example. You decide to flip a coin with me and will pay 11:10 if I guess correctly but will only flip the coin once. Would I take the bet? Sure I would. And I would be willing to wager a pretty good chunk on my gambling bankroll on this wager.
There is a tradeoff between EV and variance. If you had a $1 vp machine that paid $1,000,000 for a royal flush and 0 for every other hand, would you play it if you were only allowed to play 100 hands? You have a 216% game with a royal cycle of 23,000 hands but a variance of 108,000. You might not play that one. But I would certainly do the coin flip or the NSUD example above. Just because you aren't expected to win that particular session or play doesn't mean you shouldn't play it. If you play enough 102% situations ( of all different games) you should approach that 102% return, whether it takes a week, a month or even a year ( or several years).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I guess I'm not expressing my thoughts well enough.
I think the play that Bob is doing on the ultimate x platform has to be viewed a little like your all or nothing example.
On paper it looks like a good E.V. and a game that one might want to play. When you delve deeper into the game you find that a portion of that E.V. is comprised of hands that occur once every 100 years or so.
As a player, I would want to take that fact into consideration when deciding to play.
It could be that I am completely wrong and the E.V. shouldn't be discounted. Maybe the only concern here should be an astronomical variance rating.
Can somebody come up with a good reason to play this game aside from the excitement of maybe hitting a monster hand.
Heck, I even play it a little, but not for long and not for much.
My main play on these games is harvesting left over multipliers, and I don't go out of my way to do that.
I think this is a subject that deserves some discourse. At what time if ever does volatility override E.V.?
Would Bob Dancer play a $25 single line 9/5 jacks or better game that offered a jackpot for a sequential Royal (left to right only) in spades that brought the game to an E.V. of 101% ? I know I would not play such a game at any denomination.
I'd love to hear the justification from anybody that would want to play this game.
Regards
A.P.
···
________________________________
From: "greeklandjohnny@aol.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
Albert,
I don't see why not having enough play opportunities to 'complete the cycle' should keep you from a good play. Completing the cycle doesn't guarantee you will make money on the play. It's just that you have more opportunities at a positive play.
At a local casino, there was a promo where you would get $5 in free play ( usually $5 but rarely a larger value) for $150 coin in. The best game is NSUD. You could do this once a day for 3 weeks. So, I would play 120 hands of $0.25 single line NSUD each day. 120 hands is no where near a royal or deuces cycle. Even for the 15 days, it is only 1800 hands. But this is still a 3% play ( admittedly for very low coin in). If I were at this particular casino and this play were available, I would play it every chance I could. Even though I am unlikely to hit a royal or deuces in 120 hands, it's still a good play.
Here's another example. You decide to flip a coin with me and will pay 11:10 if I guess correctly but will only flip the coin once. Would I take the bet? Sure I would. And I would be willing to wager a pretty good chunk on my gambling bankroll on this wager.
There is a tradeoff between EV and variance. If you had a $1 vp machine that paid $1,000,000 for a royal flush and 0 for every other hand, would you play it if you were only allowed to play 100 hands? You have a 216% game with a royal cycle of 23,000 hands but a variance of 108,000. You might not play that one. But I would certainly do the coin flip or the NSUD example above. Just because you aren't expected to win that particular session or play doesn't mean you shouldn't play it. If you play enough 102% situations ( of all different games) you should approach that 102% return, whether it takes a week, a month or even a year ( or several years).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
AP wrote: Would Bob Dancer play a $25 single line 9/5 jacks or better game that offered a jackpot for a sequential Royal (left to right only) in spades that brought the game to an E.V. of 101% ? I know I would not play such a game at any denomination. I'd love to hear the justification from anybody that would want to play this game."
That would be a "good play" if your current bankroll was over the Kelly limit (roughly betsize * variance / edge) and you can play several cycles of the one way sequential royal before the end of the current tax year.
Roughly speaking but with more math, a "good play" is when:
A. your current bankoll is over the Kelly limit (approx. variance/edge bets)
AND
B. you can play at least N0 (variance/edge/edge) hands before the end of the current tax year with the caveat of watching out for long cycle problems such as above
You might be tempted to play something that is a likely loss in the short term if you're well ahead for the current tax year, but this is dangerous because you could end up paying taxes on noise or variance, which is negative EV.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
NOTI wrote:
<<You might be tempted to play something that is a likely loss in the short
term if you're well ahead for the current tax year, but this is dangerous
because you could end up paying taxes on noise or variance, which is
negative EV.>>
I'm not getting this. Can you give an example?
Cogno
NOTI wrote about me: That would imply that you don't let tax considerations affect your play,
at least not significantly. And you consider ignoring tax
considerations to be for the most part a "good bet"?
What you said I implied is certainly not what I thought I implied --- and definitely not what I meant to imply
I'm always looking for positive EV plays and for most of the year, the plays I select would be identical if I were behind $50,000 since January 1 or ahead $50,000 since January 1. I assume my gambling score at the end of the year will be positive (it has been for 18 out of the last 20 years. I'm way ahead this year. I lost last year.) I assume I'll have to pay taxes. (I do that more than I like.) But I spend little time during the year worrying about whether I'll be plus or minus at the end of the year. It's more relevant to me whether or not I'll be ahead or behind +$100,000 at the end of the year than +$0. And at that level, tax wins and losses are treated symmetrically.
I know I'll have tons of W2Gs, and the tax ramifications of that have been accepted. When you have a relatively small amount in W2Gs, additional W2Gs can disproportionately cost you tax-wise. But when your W2Gs sum into the millions of dollars, you have already surpassed the threshold where additional W2Gs hurt you.
In terms of when I collect free play or various other cash goodies, I collected all I could last year before December 31 and postponed paying certain creditors (such as Munchkin, for his share of the rather meager radio show income and Liam W. Daily's widow for her share of the Dancer/Daily royalties) until after January 1. This year I'll do the opposite because I'm ahead, so my 2014 tax return will show I paid Munchkin and Daily's widow for two year's worth of services. (Obviously Munchkin and Daily's widow sometimes have tax planning issues of their own and may prefer to receive money in 2015 rather than 2014. I'll talk to them. The amounts are small enough that personal relationships are more important to me than small tax considerations. Some years we'll do it in the way that benefits them and some years we'll do it in the way that benefits me.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]