vpFREE2 Forums

full moon

Hi guys,

First post on this list, been reading all discussions with much interest. Anyway, girlfriend of mine doesn't know anything about gambling (and of course she got dealt a RF for $ 1000,- after being in Vegas for 5 minutes), but she claims that when there's a full moon, people are more likely to win in the casino. Hogwash, naturally, but is this belief wide spread or is it just her? TIA for your comments, and I'll be posting more about saner topics in the future.

Greetings from Amsterdam, the Netherlands,

Michiel

Michiel wrote:

Hi guys,

First post on this list, been reading all discussions with much interest.
Anyway, girlfriend of mine doesn't know anything about gambling (and of
course she got dealt a RF for $ 1000,- after being in Vegas for 5 minutes),
but she claims that when there's a full moon, people are more likely to win
in the casino. Hogwash, naturally, but is this belief wide spread or is it
just her? TIA for your comments, and I'll be posting more about saner
topics in the future.

Greetings from Amsterdam, the Netherlands,

Michiel

Welcome to the group, Michiel.

The moon physically affects a number of things, but I'm pretty sure that the electronics in a vp machine is designed to be unaffected by it; that's just a somewhat education guess or hunch on my part.

The moon also slightly affects some people physically, and I presume that that _might_ translate over to possibly having a very slight mental/psychological/emotion effect, as well. I would therefore imagine that it is _possible_ that there is some _very_ slight impact on how well people play -- e.g., whether they are careless or careful, focused no not, etc. It might slightly affect the speed at which they play, too, with some consequences regarding accuracy. In any event, it sounds to me more like rumor or speculation, and probably has no statistical study to support it. But maybe not.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

Hi guys,

First post on this list, been reading all discussions with much

interest.

Anyway, girlfriend of mine doesn't know anything about gambling

(and of

course she got dealt a RF for $ 1000,- after being in Vegas for 5

minutes),

but she claims that when there's a full moon, people are more

likely to win

in the casino. Hogwash, naturally, but is this belief wide spread

or is it

just her? TIA for your comments, and I'll be posting more about

saner

topics in the future.

Hi Michael,

People for thousands of years have been claiming that gambling
results are influenced by all sorts of extraneous factors. A lot of
people still believe in "luck" (there is no such thing as "luck"); a
distressingly high proportion of people, actually.
The thing that destroys superstition is science and rationality. If
your girlfriend feels that way, well, then, it's easy enough to
verify. Just phone up your favorite casino and ask them what their
slot win percentage was on a day-to-day basis over the last year.
Since this is a matter of public record, you can probably get
SOMEONE to give you this info; or call Gaming Control and ask for
statewide figures. If your girlfriend is correct, the house win
percentage ought to SIGNIFICANTLY drop off during the full moon, A
LARGE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. Here's what debunks most silly theories
of this type: I say that wearing polka dot ties causes cancer. Why
do I think that? Why, because Uncle Maury liked to wear them, and he
got pancreatic cancer when he was 52, and died. Of course this
proves nothing, until we start following around EVERYBODY who wears
polka dot ties and see what happens to them. (If one gets run over
by a cement truck, for example, we would have to do an autopsy to
see if that person had contracted cancer.)
The thing is, people do not want to believe in the scientific
method. The only way to verify a given phenomenon is to re-create
the conditions that lead to the phenomenon and observation thereof.
If under identical conditions, the same result occurs and this can
be done over and over, then the phenomenon is validated as "real".
So if your girlfriend says nutty things like this, demand that she
PROVE her premise. "I saw somebody hit a jackpot, and looked up in
the sky later that night, and it was a full moon" doesn't cut it.
Her limited observations alone are insufficient to prove the premise.
Frankly, I'd look for a new girlfriend. This one sounds like you
cound listen in her ear and hear the sound of the ocean.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Michiel <europica@c...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333"
<rockofjello333@y...> wrote:

>
> Hi guys,
>
> First post on this list, been reading all discussions with much
interest.
> Anyway, girlfriend of mine doesn't know anything about gambling
(and of
> course she got dealt a RF for $ 1000,- after being in Vegas for

5

minutes),
            ... SNIP...
>
Hi Michael,

People for thousands of years have been claiming that gambling
results are influenced by all sorts of extraneous factors. A lot

of

people still believe in "luck" (there is no such thing as "luck");

a

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Michiel <europica@c...> wrote:
distressingly high proportion of people, actually.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Rock,

I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but I really think you're
off the mark with this one. I don't think that there is anything
about believing in "luck" that precludes someone from also believing
in science/math etc. I also don't think that luck has anything to
do with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I truly believe that some people
are luckier than others, in gambling and in life.

How else to explain the vp player, playing FPDW, using perfect
strategy, for 4 hours, losing his butt, and quiting the machine.
Down sits "Ms. Lucky", who never heard of Bob or Jean, never heard
of optimal strategy, etc. etc., and on her 1st hand she snags the
Ducks, and then on her 4th hand, grabs a Royal (by holding A/K!!)

I've seen it with my own eyes.

If this isn't luck, I guess I don't what luck is.

Now, certainly, this is NO disclaimer regarding optimal strategy
usuage. In my vp life I've found that the harder I work/practice,
the "luckier" I get. However, the element of luck (certainly in the
short-term, which is what interests me the most) plays a large part
in determining whether or not I leave the casino with a (O: or a )
O: on any given day.

                  Babe

I will go to bat for Rock on this,

A knowlegable player who sits at one machine for 4 hours and loses the
whole time (this has happened to all of us) is experiancing the bad
side of randomness, It isnt because his stars are not right or he
forgot his lucky rabbits foot, or whatever, it happens and none of us
like it. then when 'ms. lucky' or 'ms. clueless' sits down at the
same machine and happens to hit two royals in 20 minutes (I have done
this) that person is experiancing the wonderful side of randomness.
That doesnt mean the person who lost money was playing incorrectly or
badly, and it doesnt mean the other person did anything correctly,
except hit the deal button at the correct time, and we dont know that
until the results are in (unfortunately !!!) I, like almost all of
us, believe in the math, (just like the casinos) and we all win and
lose the same amount on full moons and on friday the 13th, but
individual results may vary.

thank god I had my lucky penny yesterday when I got that royal from
holding only a Ace.

Jim

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Rock,

I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but I really think you're
off the mark with this one. I don't think that there is anything
about believing in "luck" that precludes someone from also believing
in science/math etc. I also don't think that luck has anything to
do with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I truly believe that some people
are luckier than others, in gambling and in life.

How else to explain the vp player, playing FPDW, using perfect
strategy, for 4 hours, losing his butt, and quiting the machine.
Down sits "Ms. Lucky", who never heard of Bob or Jean, never heard
of optimal strategy, etc. etc., and on her 1st hand she snags the
Ducks, and then on her 4th hand, grabs a Royal (by holding A/K!!)

I've seen it with my own eyes.

If this isn't luck, I guess I don't what luck is.

Now, certainly, this is NO disclaimer regarding optimal strategy
usuage. In my vp life I've found that the harder I work/practice,
the "luckier" I get. However, the element of luck (certainly in the
short-term, which is what interests me the most) plays a large part
in determining whether or not I leave the casino with a (O: or a )
O: on any given day.

                  Babe

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Rock,

I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but I really think

you're

off the mark with this one. I don't think that there is anything
about believing in "luck" that precludes someone from also

believing

in science/math etc. I also don't think that luck has anything to
do with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I truly believe that some

people

are luckier than others, in gambling and in life.

I'm afraid that this is a notion that, while widely held, is
irrational and leads to people making all sorts of bad decisions.

If you say that "luck" exists, I have to challenge you to define it.
The way that most people think of it is that it's some kind of
mysterious "force", like gravity or magnetism, that causes a person
to experience fortunate events. A person who is "lucky" has managed,
knowingly or unknowingly, to harness this force for a certain time.

Now, let's ignore the apparent absurdity of this premise, and take
it at face value. We have a lottery with ten million entrants, and
one winning ticket will be drawn. One person does indeed win. Was
that person "lucky"? In other words, did he have more of the "mojo",
the "force", the "luck", than any other entrant, and this
supernatural force guided the computer selecting the winning entry,
or the hand of the bejeweled babe reaching into the glass bowl or
manipulating the blower or whatever, and FORCED the selection of
the "lucky" person's entry? This is the "luck"-based explanation of
why the "lucky" winner won.

OK, sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? But that's precisely what you
believe in if you believe in "luck". A supernatural force that:
1. Attaches itself to s person for some indeterminate period of time
2. During that time, manipulates events so that things like random
events, cards dealt, falling safes pushed aside, etc. occur to the
benefit of the "lucky" one
3. Said force is indeed both prescient and omniscient enough to know
that the fortunate events caused are indeed fortunate in the long run

It's like when I win three or four pots in a row at hold'em.
Everybody pulls into a shell and is afraid of me for the next
several hands. They ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the "luck spirit" (WHO
OBVIOUSLY KNOWS THE RULES OF HOLD'EM POKER) is manipulating the deck
so that I get better cards!

Isn't this a stupid way to think? Doesn't this smack of witchcraft
and alchemy and voodoo and superstition? We pride ourselves on being
rational in our daily lives and decisions. We send our kid to Honor
Student Academy even though we have a STRONG feeling that Homer T.
Freed Memorial School down on Martin Luther King Blvd. would
be "luckier". We blow our paychecks on groceries and rent when the
lottery is RIGHT THERE next to the Slim Jims. Yet we still speak
of "luck" AS IF WERE A REAL PHENOMENON.

The reason that guy won the lottery is that SOMEONE HAD TO. Let's
use an example I've used in the past:

We have a game where 100 people each put $1 in a pot and sit in
chairs numbered 1-100. A corresponding number is drawn out of a bowl
and the person sitting in that chair wins $100. Now, if we play this
game 100 times, there will be several people who don't win at all;
there will also be several people who win twice or more. We will say
that the losers were "unlucky" and that the winners were "lucky".
Does this have any real meaning? Was the "luck force" moving from
the "lucky" chair or person and manipulating the outcome of the
drawing? If #24 was drawn four times, does that mean that the "luck"
fairy or spirit or force was dragging the hand of the picker toward
the number 24 in the bowl? Or could it simply be that it's extremely
unlikely that everyone playing would win EXACTLY ONCE, and therefore
if someone wins twice or three times, it's because someone HAD to?

If we can all drop the idea that "some people are luckier than
others", we can assess events more rationally. In reality a lifetime
is an insufficient sample size to determine whether someone has good
or bad "luck". We say the lottery winner was "lucky". But how do we
know whether his mother died when he was ten, his cat just got run
over by a truck, and for that matter one week after he cashes the
check he'll get struck and killed by lightning?

If you believe that someone is indeed "luckier" or "unluckier" than
others, then you say that the force or influence or spirit you
call "luck" has found favor with that person and alters events so
that they occur to that person's benefit. This "luck" thing would
have to be pretty all-powerful and all-knowing, wouldn't it? No
wonder humans have spent so much time and effort trying to
propitiate it!

Perhaps the logical error is to assume that an unexpected result is
CAUSED by someone or something. In reality, most of the time strange
things just happen. Why? Because they do!

Now, this is an unsatisfying explanation in the extreme. It goes
against our instinctual nature, which is to observe events closely
and to try and perceive PATTERNS. Our ancestral ape-brains needed to
be able to do this in order to survive on the savannah. The devotees
in the racebooks poring over the meaningless statistics in the
Racing Form, looking for some tendency to take advantage of, are no
different than the proto-human squatting high in a tree, observing
the movement of the game animals. Nonetheless, for some phenomena
there IS no apparent correlation; why was there flood this year and
drought the next?. This, as noted before, is deeply unsatisfying,
and led man to create gods and the supernatural as a means of
supplying an explanation.

The reason, therefore, that you believe in "luck", (and that people
believe in "God", or the numerous variations thereof), is that your
brain is hardwired to seek explanations; to perceive patterns. In
reality, much of life IS truly random, and no pattern can be
perceived because no true pattern exists.

I play perfect VP and lose for eight straight days; a clueless LOL
sits down next to me, holds a single 10, and gets a royal. It's
tempting to ascribe this to some supernatural force ("luck!"). In
fact, because of the way your brain is wired, it's almost
irresistable to do so. But it's a snare and a delusion.

we would all probably be a lot more at peace with the world if we
could discard the concept of "luck" (we would also be a lot more at
peace with the world if we discarded the related concept of "God",
but I won't go there); it's a pity that our hominid root-brains so
fiercely resist the idea.

If this isn't luck, I guess I don't what luck is.

  However, the element of luck (certainly in the

short-term, which is what interests me the most) plays a large

part in determining whether or not I leave the casino with a (O: or
a O: on any given day.

Nope. Mathematics are what determines that. You lost $350 today
because that was one of the possible results of playing .25 VP for
four hours. You weren't "lucky" OR "unlucky". Sometime during the
sum of your lifetime playing sessions, this result HAD to occur. The
fact that it occured on this particular day is simply an expression
of randomness, NOT because the "luck" force or spirit or fairy
abandoned you that day.

Resist the urge to believe in the unreal, the irrational and the
supernatural!

I don't buy your argument because I don't buy your definition of luck. I don't believe in mysterious forces, but I do believe that when one hits the lottery that for that 1 moment in time the person was lucky. Using the word "lucky" is more convenient than saying happened by chance .

Regards
A.P.

From Webster's online dictionary....

Luck :n. 1. That which happens to a person; an event, good or ill, affecting one's interests or happiness, and which is deemed casual; a course or series of such events regarded as occurring by chance; chance; hap; fate; fortune; often, one's habitual or characteristic fortune; as, good, bad, ill, or hard luck. Luck is often used by itself to mean good luck; as, luck is better than skill; a stroke of luck.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: rockofjello333
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:41 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: "Luck"

  If you say that "luck" exists, I have to challenge you to define it.
  The way that most people think of it is that it's some kind of
  mysterious "force", like gravity or magnetism, that causes a person
  to experience fortunate events. A person who is "lucky" has managed,
  knowingly or unknowingly, to harness this force for a certain time.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jeeez, Rock, ya got a little windy there. Now, I
don't believe anyone could argue with you about luck,
nor would anyone want to.

gsang

···

--- rockofjello333 <rockofjello333@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you say that "luck" exists, I have to challenge
you to define it.
The way that most people think of it is that it's
some kind of
mysterious "force", like gravity or magnetism, that
causes a person
to experience fortunate events. A person who is
"lucky" has managed,
knowingly or unknowingly,AND ON, AND ON, AND ON....................................

I don't buy your argument because I don't buy your definition of

luck. I don't believe in mysterious forces, but I do believe that
when one hits the lottery that for that 1 moment in time the person
was lucky.

But you must define "was lucky"! Possessed some quality which CAUSED
that person to hit the lottery? If you don't buy my definition, then
come up with a better one. The Webster definition, below, refers to
things that "are DEEMED causal". The way most people believe in luck
is that it is a QUALITY that the lucky person POSSESSES (if only for
a brief time) that CAUSES a fortunate event to happen to the "lucky"
person. In this way the Webster definition and mine agree
completely; that luck is considered a CAUSAL FORCE, and not simply
as an after-the-fact manifestation, as you might be referring to it.

Using the word "lucky" is more convenient than saying happened by
chance .

Doesn't it mean the exact same thing to most people? In
fact, "happened by chance" is considerably more accurate than "was
lucky", because the former avoids the fallacious causality reference.

Regards
A.P.

From Webster's online dictionary....

Luck :n. 1. That which happens to a person; an event, good or ill,

affecting one's interests or happiness, and which is deemed casual;

I strongly suspect you misread and/or mistyped the word "CAUSAL",
without which, of course, the definition loses its meaning.

a course or series of such events regarded as occurring by chance;
chance; hap; fate; fortune; often, one's habitual or characteristic
fortune; as, good, bad, ill, or hard luck. Luck is often used by
itself to mean good luck; as, luck is better than skill; a stroke of
luck.

When I checked online Webster I got:

1 a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity b : the events
or circumstances that operate for or against an individual

Exactly as I said it was commonly perceived; "a force" that
allegedly affects the fate of individuals. By definition this force
would have to be both omniscient and omnipotent. If such a thing
indeed exists, we are wasting our time studying strategy tables....

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Pearson" <a-p@s...> wrote:

Albert Pearson wrote:

I don't buy your argument because I don't buy your definition of
luck. I don't believe in mysterious forces, but I do believe that
when one hits the lottery that for that 1 moment in time the person
was lucky.
Using the word "lucky" is more convenient than saying happened by
chance.

I'll appear the fence sitter I am (I prefer "conciliator" ... or
"consiglieri" :wink: ...

I'm with both of you (though perhaps to a lesser degree, "rock").

···

------

You've nailed "luck" A.P. We say a person has had luck or is lucky
when they have a stroke of good fortune that they were no more likely
to hit than the next guy.

As far as "rock", I'm inclined to read deeply between the lines. He
writes almost exclusively about luck defined in terms of past events.
However, the spirit of his words smacks strongly of another concept
of being "lucky" ...

------

Invariably, when a person is called "lucky" it's not merely a limited
statement about their past fortune. There's a very strong implication
that they possess some quality that has not only INFLUENCED past
events in their favor, but will continue to do so.

I don't think there's any arguing with this extended definition or
interpretation. You hear it all too often. And this is where rock's
points become very salient. When people begin to sense that they
themselves are lucky in some aspect of a particular endeavor, it can
lead to behavior that's less than rational.

------

In the case of video poker, a person's past "luck" in winning at 8/5
Bonus Poker may cause them to concentrate their play on that game
rather than 9/6 Jacks when it's available. (Substitute any two games
of your choice, if you prefer.) That past good fortune yields
satisfaction with the prospects of future play to an extent where they
intentionally sacrifice appreciable EV. They're likely to continue to
do so for some time given that the difference is a modest drip that
only over time (but not ages) begins to mount up into sizable dollars.

-----

People claim to prefer more volatile games simply because other lesser
volatile games are "boring" (ok, you know I have Jacks in mind ;).
But I think the larger factor is that because higher volatility games
lend themselves more to "lucky" streaks, people's experience leads
them to believe that they can persistently beat the inferior EV of
some of those games.

I'll speculate that if all game paytables were equalized in terms of
EV, but a player had to ante up a penalty to play a higher volatility
game - consistent with the otherwise negative EV, low volatile/higher
EV games would become much more popular among the $.50+ player crowd.
But obscure that reduced EV in the paytable and mask it with higher
volatility and the games become much more appealing.

------

Reject this last section if you will ... I won't be offended :wink: But
the basic point evoked by rock's post (if not explicitly stated) is
that the concept of "being lucky" frequently yields behavior that in
economic terms is irrational (and try to tell me that the economics of
vp -- the hard nickles and dimes -- isn't a, or "the", primary driving
force in play ...)

- Harry

(I'll out-"word" you any day, rock :wink: ... who I expect will tell me
this in no way relates to his post and that I've pulled it out of my
a** instead. That's "arm", for those more sensitive.)

The word in the definition I used was casual not causal .

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: rockofjello333
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 5:50 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: "Luck"

  --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Pearson" <a-p@s...> wrote:
  > I don't buy your argument because I don't buy your definition of
  luck. I don't believe in mysterious forces, but I do believe that
  when one hits the lottery that for that 1 moment in time the person
  was lucky.

  But you must define "was lucky"! Possessed some quality which CAUSED
  that person to hit the lottery? If you don't buy my definition, then
  come up with a better one. The Webster definition, below, refers to
  things that "are DEEMED causal". The way most people believe in luck
  is that it is a QUALITY that the lucky person POSSESSES (if only for
  a brief time) that CAUSES a fortunate event to happen to the "lucky"
  person. In this way the Webster definition and mine agree
  completely; that luck is considered a CAUSAL FORCE, and not simply
  as an after-the-fact manifestation, as you might be referring to it.

  Using the word "lucky" is more convenient than saying happened by
  chance .

  Doesn't it mean the exact same thing to most people? In
  fact, "happened by chance" is considerably more accurate than "was
  lucky", because the former avoids the fallacious causality reference.
  >
  > Regards
  > A.P.
  >
  > From Webster's online dictionary....
  >
  > Luck :n. 1. That which happens to a person; an event, good or ill,
  affecting one's interests or happiness, and which is deemed casual;

  I strongly suspect you misread and/or mistyped the word "CAUSAL",
  without which, of course, the definition loses its meaning.

  a course or series of such events regarded as occurring by chance;
  chance; hap; fate; fortune; often, one's habitual or characteristic
  fortune; as, good, bad, ill, or hard luck. Luck is often used by
  itself to mean good luck; as, luck is better than skill; a stroke of
  luck.
  >
  When I checked online Webster I got:

  1 a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity b : the events
  or circumstances that operate for or against an individual

  Exactly as I said it was commonly perceived; "a force" that
  allegedly affects the fate of individuals. By definition this force
  would have to be both omniscient and omnipotent. If such a thing
  indeed exists, we are wasting our time studying strategy tables....

  vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Harry: I agree completely with everything you say. My problem with Rock's theory is that he thought that most people believed it was some force .
I don't go along with that. I believe that most rational people believe that it was just "one of those things" when they get something outside of the norm and not to depend on it.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Harry Porter
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:50 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: "Luck"

  Albert Pearson wrote:
  > I don't buy your argument because I don't buy your definition of
  > luck. I don't believe in mysterious forces, but I do believe that
  > when one hits the lottery that for that 1 moment in time the person
  > was lucky.
  > Using the word "lucky" is more convenient than saying happened by
  > chance.

  I'll appear the fence sitter I am (I prefer "conciliator" ... or
  "consiglieri" :wink: ...

  I'm with both of you (though perhaps to a lesser degree, "rock").

  ------

  You've nailed "luck" A.P. We say a person has had luck or is lucky
  when they have a stroke of good fortune that they were no more likely
  to hit than the next guy.

  As far as "rock", I'm inclined to read deeply between the lines. He
  writes almost exclusively about luck defined in terms of past events.
  However, the spirit of his words smacks strongly of another concept
  of being "lucky" ...

  ------

  Invariably, when a person is called "lucky" it's not merely a limited
  statement about their past fortune. There's a very strong implication
  that they possess some quality that has not only INFLUENCED past
  events in their favor, but will continue to do so.

  I don't think there's any arguing with this extended definition or
  interpretation. You hear it all too often. And this is where rock's
  points become very salient. When people begin to sense that they
  themselves are lucky in some aspect of a particular endeavor, it can
  lead to behavior that's less than rational.

  ------

  In the case of video poker, a person's past "luck" in winning at 8/5
  Bonus Poker may cause them to concentrate their play on that game
  rather than 9/6 Jacks when it's available. (Substitute any two games
  of your choice, if you prefer.) That past good fortune yields
  satisfaction with the prospects of future play to an extent where they
  intentionally sacrifice appreciable EV. They're likely to continue to
  do so for some time given that the difference is a modest drip that
  only over time (but not ages) begins to mount up into sizable dollars.

  -----

  People claim to prefer more volatile games simply because other lesser
  volatile games are "boring" (ok, you know I have Jacks in mind ;).
  But I think the larger factor is that because higher volatility games
  lend themselves more to "lucky" streaks, people's experience leads
  them to believe that they can persistently beat the inferior EV of
  some of those games.

  I'll speculate that if all game paytables were equalized in terms of
  EV, but a player had to ante up a penalty to play a higher volatility
  game - consistent with the otherwise negative EV, low volatile/higher
  EV games would become much more popular among the $.50+ player crowd.
  But obscure that reduced EV in the paytable and mask it with higher
  volatility and the games become much more appealing.

  ------

  Reject this last section if you will ... I won't be offended :wink: But
  the basic point evoked by rock's post (if not explicitly stated) is
  that the concept of "being lucky" frequently yields behavior that in
  economic terms is irrational (and try to tell me that the economics of
  vp -- the hard nickles and dimes -- isn't a, or "the", primary driving
  force in play ...)

  - Harry

  (I'll out-"word" you any day, rock :wink: ... who I expect will tell me
  this in no way relates to his post and that I've pulled it out of my
  a** instead. That's "arm", for those more sensitive.)

  vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rock uses the exact same arguments regarding luck that Kevin did.
Another shocking coincidence.

George, I think the 2 of you were separated at birth. :wink:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:

I'm afraid that this is a notion that, while widely held, is
irrational and leads to people making all sorts of bad decisions.

If you say that "luck" exists, I have to challenge you to define

it.

The way that most people think of it is that it's some kind of
mysterious "force", like gravity or magnetism, that causes a person
to experience fortunate events. A person who is "lucky" has

managed,

···

knowingly or unknowingly, to harness this force for a certain time.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe"

<jackessiebabe@y...> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Rock,
>
> I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but I really think

you're

> off the mark with this one. I don't think that there is

anything

> about believing in "luck" that precludes someone from also

believing

> in science/math etc. I also don't think that luck has anything

to

> do with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I truly believe that some

people

> are luckier than others, in gambling and in life.
>
> How else to explain the vp player, playing FPDW, using perfect
> strategy, for 4 hours, losing his butt, and quiting the

machine.

> Down sits "Ms. Lucky", who never heard of Bob or Jean, never

heard

> of optimal strategy, etc. etc., and on her 1st hand she snags

the

> Ducks, and then on her 4th hand, grabs a Royal (by holding A/K!!)
>
> I've seen it with my own eyes.
>
> If this isn't luck, I guess I don't what luck is.
>
> Now, certainly, this is NO disclaimer regarding optimal strategy
> usuage. In my vp life I've found that the harder I

work/practice,

> the "luckier" I get. However, the element of luck (certainly in

the

> short-term, which is what interests me the most) plays a large

part

> in determining whether or not I leave the casino with a (O: or

a )

> O: on any given day.
>
> Babe

I will go to bat for Rock on this,

A knowlegable player who sits at one machine for 4 hours and loses

the

whole time (this has happened to all of us) is experiancing the bad
side of randomness, It isnt because his stars are not right or he
forgot his lucky rabbits foot, or whatever, it happens and none of

us

like it. then when 'ms. lucky' or 'ms. clueless' sits down at the
same machine and happens to hit two royals in 20 minutes (I have

done

this) that person is experiancing the wonderful side of

randomness.

That doesnt mean the person who lost money was playing incorrectly

or

badly, and it doesnt mean the other person did anything correctly,
except hit the deal button at the correct time, and we dont know

that

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:

until the results are in (unfortunately !!!) I, like almost all of
us, believe in the math, (just like the casinos) and we all win and
lose the same amount on full moons and on friday the 13th, but
individual results may vary.

thank god I had my lucky penny yesterday when I got that royal from
holding only a Ace.

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your response. O.K ! I can live with "the wonderful
side of randomness" instead of "good luck" and the "bad side of
randomness" instead of "bad luck". I think we're talking semantics
here. We are both in agreement that math/strategy/practice etc. all
count, over the long term. I also happen to believe that the "WSOR"
(or luck) count heavily in the short term. There is NOTHING eerie
or superstitious about this either. I think superstition is an
entirely different subject (on which I've posted before) and has
nothing whatever to do with believing in luck.....oops...the WSOR.

I hope you are finding the WSOR instead of the BSOR. most of the
time. Anyway, don't lose that lucky penny !

                 Babe

One addition; the word luck is just used wrong much of the time. A
couple years ago I was lucky enough to hit a JOB progressive for
$9800. (If I was really lucky I would have hit it when I played it
at 12-13 thousand.) Some with me said I was really lucky to hit it so
high. Not true. I never play the game unless it is near $8800. So if
I was "lucky" enough to hit it, I wasn't lucky to get a high payday.
In many cases luck is the residue of design. Many folks don't
understand the reason a person was so lucky. "Lucky" people put
themselves in the position to get the lucky breaks......in most cases.

  Another thing that gets me on how people use luck. Say a person is
in a bad car wreck. He's laid up in hospital and there are those who
say, "He's lucky. He could have been killed." Darn it, if he was so
lucky he wouldn't have had the wreck to begin with.

  However, I'd rather have luck than skill anytime.

  Have a good one....Jeep
  

In the case of video poker, a person's past "luck" in winning at 8/5
Bonus Poker may cause them to concentrate their play on that game
rather than 9/6 Jacks when it's available. (Substitute any two

games

of your choice, if you prefer.) That past good fortune yields
satisfaction with the prospects of future play to an extent where

they

intentionally sacrifice appreciable EV. They're likely to continue

to

do so for some time given that the difference is a modest drip that
only over time (but not ages) begins to mount up into sizable

dollars.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333"
<rockofjello333@y...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe"

<jackessiebabe@y...>

wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Rock,
>
> I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but I really think
you're
> off the mark with this one. I don't think that there is

anything

> about believing in "luck" that precludes someone from also
believing
> in science/math etc. I also don't think that luck has anything

to

> do with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I truly believe that some
people
> are luckier than others, in gambling and in life.
>
I'm afraid that this is a notion that, while widely held, is
irrational and leads to people making all sorts of bad decisions.

If you say that "luck" exists, I have to challenge you to define

it.

···

++++++++++++++++++++++

Not TOO much of a challenge, really. I would define it as

having good fortune & success at what one is endeavoring to
accomplish. Luck in relation to playing vp could be winning a
sizeable sum, on a less than fullpay schedule, without utilizing
whatever mathmatic strategy was available. Or, if you prefer, as I
captioned luck, in another post, the "wonderful side of randomness"
(WSOR)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, let's ignore the apparent absurdity of this premise, and take
it at face value. We have a lottery with ten million entrants, and
one winning ticket will be drawn. One person does indeed win. Was
that person "lucky"?

IMO, YES, INDEED!!!

the "force", the "luck", and this
supernatural force guided the computer(into) selecting the winning

entry,

                          <snip>

and FORCED the selection of

the "lucky" person's entry? This is the "luck"-based explanation

of

why the "lucky" winner won.

OK, sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

Not to me! I don't consider myself "pretty

stupid" either. Actually I will admit to fitting half of that
defintion (and it's NOT the Stupid half!)

  But that's precisely what you

believe in if you believe in "luck". A supernatural force that:
1. Attaches itself to s person for some indeterminate period of

time

2. During that time, manipulates events so that things like random
events, cards dealt, falling safes pushed aside, etc. occur to the
benefit of the "lucky" one
3. Said force is indeed both prescient and omniscient enough to

know

that the fortunate events caused are indeed fortunate in the long

run

To much of this Rock, I say "hogwash"! And

I'm NOT, as I've said repeatedly, talking about long-term results.
Only that "WSOR" that occurs on that day when one one is "lucky".

                           <snip>

Isn't this a stupid way to think? Doesn't this smack of witchcraft
and alchemy and voodoo and superstition?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again with the "stupid" word. Do you truly believe that

those that disagree with you are always stupid?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                    <snip>

The reason that guy won the lottery is that SOMEONE HAD T

                 <snip>

Right, and that person was sure LUCKY on that Day!!

++++++++++++++++++++

                <snip>

If you believe that someone is indeed "luckier" or "unluckier"

than

others

ONLY IN THAT PARTICULAR SESSION OF VP!!

Certainly luckier that day, than the knowledgable player who lost
his bankroll, while playimg correctly, on a fullpay machine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

then you say that the force or influence or spirit you

call "luck" has found favor with that person and alters events so
that they occur to that person's benefit. This "luck" thing would
have to be pretty all-powerful and all-knowing, wouldn't it? No
wonder humans have spent so much time and effort trying to
propitiate it The
fact that it occured on this particular day is simply an

expression

of randomness, NOT because the "luck" force or spirit or fairy
abandoned you that day.

Resist the urge to believe in the unreal, the irrational and the
supernatural!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

O.K. Rock, you've ceratinly tried to make your

point with your usual style and flair for words. I suppose the next
thing you'll try to convince me of is that Santa and the Easter
Bunny do not exist.

I enjoy conversing with you.

Babe

The more you study the "luckier" you will be.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards and for the
  Frugal series of books.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm guessing bottom-posting is the norm here -- see below

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi Rock,
>
> I usually agree with a lot of your posts, but I really think
you're
> off the mark with this one. I don't think that there is anything
> about believing in "luck" that precludes someone from also
believing
> in science/math etc. I also don't think that luck has anything to
> do with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. I truly believe that some
people
> are luckier than others, in gambling and in life.
>
I'm afraid that this is a notion that, while widely held, is
irrational and leads to people making all sorts of bad decisions.

If you say that "luck" exists, I have to challenge you to define it.
The way that most people think of it is that it's some kind of
mysterious "force", like gravity or magnetism, that causes a person
to experience fortunate events. A person who is "lucky" has managed,
knowingly or unknowingly, to harness this force for a certain time.

... <snipped> ...

Here's my definition of luck:

"luck" is that psychological force that allows a human to believe that
a bad outcome is not their fault and a positive outcome is the result
of skill or otherwise deserved.

Is it rational? No.

Is it potent? Yes. Take a look at the "day trading" phenom during
the bubble. Legalized online gambling, with brokers getting the rake.
People believing they had won by skill and going seriously postal when
they lost, believing that their luck was rotten (or they were cheated).

Jean Scott wrote:

The more you study the "luckier" you will be.

I might question that, Jean (getting tiresome, huh? :wink:

If we look at luck in terms of jackpot wins, which is typically the
circumstance in which the term is invoked, then a skilled player might
well be LESS "lucky" than someone winging it.

I'd expect most unskilled players to play harder for the royal flush
than optimal strategy would dictate, in which case they'd tend to be
"luckier".

Besides, the more your intelligent approach to play gives you added
edge, the less you have to rely upon luck to put you ahead.

- Harry

"rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...> wrote:

If you say that "luck" exists, I have to challenge you to define
it.

Everything happens through natural cause and effect. Sometimes, the
chain of cause and effect is simple enough for our puny primate
brains to comprehend. Sometimes it isn't.

So if I work all week & then get a paycheck on Friday, I can
understand the natural process, so I say I earned it. When I get
dealt a royal, this is also natural cause & effect, but the
complexity of the process is such that I don't have a clue, so I call
it "luck."

It's like... when someone throws the dice at a craps table, the
result is completely determined by physical forces. However, the
complexity of these forces are such that I could never understand
them (at least to the extent that I could never predict the result in
advanced). So we say the dice throw is "random," that if we hit our
point we're "lucky." "Randomness" isn't an attribute of the dice
throw. It's an attribute of the limits of my mind.

Stuart (RandomStu)
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm