FW: Re: FW: LVA Question of the Day - 23 MAY 2008

[MR_BOO_BOO_THE_BEAR]

So in theory if one plays 100 play they should hit the royal every 4000 hands (play) or so.

···

----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: FW: [vpFREE] LVA Question of the Day - 23 MAY 2008
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 22:09:44
From: Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>

            > Q: With video poker you have certain house odds (9/6 vs. 10/7)

on the game you're playing. If you're playing a multiple-game
machine, do the odds change or stay the same?

Read the answer here:
http://www.lasvegas advisor.com/ qod.cfm

WOLVES wrote:

According to the answer this would mean that on 100 play VP if you
make an error on the first hand you would compound that by 100x. Am I
wrong?

If there's any compounding, it would be a consequence of wagering
more on the play and not related to the number of lines being played.
There's no impact if the wagers in each case (multiline vs single) is
identical.

In an example of playing $.01 100-play vs $1 single-line play, the
impact of an error is exactly the same. Yes, 100 lines multiplies the
impact over a single line by 100, but the value of that single line is
1/100 of the $1 case.

- Harry

[Harry_Porter]

WOLVES wrote:

So in theory if one plays 100 play they should hit the royal every
4000 hands (play) or so.

Yes, but with a far greater irregularity than you see in single line play.

In both cases, you see a royal once in approx 40,000 hands. However,
there's a key implication in the fact you expect a royal outcome more
probably the more royal cards you hold.

In single line, these opportunities arrive with a reasonably dispersed
frequency. However, in multiline each time you hold 3 or 4 royal
cards, you now have 100 hands together in which you have a relatively
strong chance of completing a royal.

Thus, while each case has the same royal frequency over a given number
of total hands played, the multiline case has a greater probability of
an extended drought (and, conversely, getting a glut of them).

- Harry

[David4]

I have often wondered about multi line vs single line and the general
concept of long run. Let me outline the dilemma I am trying to
grapple with. If I play 9/6 JOB single line at the dollar level, it
is clear from the math simulations that the long run return is 99.54%
and a royal will come along appx very 40,000 hands. When that does
happen, the payoff is $4,000 which should bring one back closer to
long term return. If I play 1 cent 100 play, I am still playing
$5.00 per pull, which is equivalent to the dollar single line.
However, the only time I will ever hit the big royal payout is in the
instance I am dealt that royal. All the other instances where I am
dealt 2 or 3 or 4 to a royal and actually hit one on one of the
hundred hands, the payoff is only $40 on each hand that is converted
to a royal. While these interim small payoffs significantly lessen
the game variance (as compared to single line for the same level of
bet per pull), the long term seems to be much more elongated since
the instance of a dealt royal is so infrequent.

So my conclusion on these multiplay machines is this: An individual
can put through more money per unit of time in a multiplay machine
and have less variance. This would improve comps, tier levels etc.
However, since the real equalizer in payout is achieved only when a
royal is dealt, one would be operating at less than optimal payback
for a much longer period of time than under a single line machine.

I guess my question to the all the smart folks in the group is this:
Is my thinking wrong? If so, what am I missing. If I am right, how
much lower level will I be operating?

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

WOLVES wrote:
> So in theory if one plays 100 play they should hit the royal

every

> 4000 hands (play) or so.

Yes, but with a far greater irregularity than you see in single

line play.

In both cases, you see a royal once in approx 40,000 hands.

However,

there's a key implication in the fact you expect a royal outcome

more

probably the more royal cards you hold.

In single line, these opportunities arrive with a reasonably

dispersed

frequency. However, in multiline each time you hold 3 or 4 royal
cards, you now have 100 hands together in which you have a

relatively

strong chance of completing a royal.

Thus, while each case has the same royal frequency over a given

number

of total hands played, the multiline case has a greater probability

of

···

an extended drought (and, conversely, getting a glut of them).

- Harry

[Bob_M]

Wouldn't that be 400 hands, not 4,000?

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

WOLVES wrote:
> So in theory if one plays 100 play they should hit the royal

every

> 4000 hands (play) or so.

Yes, but with a far greater irregularity than you see in single

line play.

In both cases, you see a royal once in approx 40,000 hands.

However,

there's a key implication in the fact you expect a royal outcome

more

probably the more royal cards you hold.

In single line, these opportunities arrive with a reasonably

dispersed

frequency. However, in multiline each time you hold 3 or 4 royal
cards, you now have 100 hands together in which you have a

relatively

strong chance of completing a royal.

Thus, while each case has the same royal frequency over a given

number

of total hands played, the multiline case has a greater probability

of

···

an extended drought (and, conversely, getting a glut of them).

- Harry

[nightoftheiguana2000]

You are correct. On average, you expect to lose the amount of the
dealt royal before you hit one, assuming a breakeven game. The same
applies to single line play, except that since a dealt royal and a
drawn royal return the same in most single line, you are unlikely to
notice the difference given the expected distribution in number of
royals. For 16 royals, the standard deviation is 4, meaning about 70%
of the time you expect 12 to 20 royals over a 16 royal cycle. You also
expect to average about one dealt royal over that cycle, so if the
dealt and drawn royal pay the same it's hard to notice the difference,
but if there is a big ratio between the two, like you find on 50 and
100 plays, you will notice the difference.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "sarahmukasa10" <sarahmukasa10@...> wrote:

I guess my question to the all the smart folks in the group is this:
Is my thinking wrong? If so, what am I missing. If I am right, how
much lower level will I be operating?

[Harry_Porter]

sarahmukasa10 wrote:

I have often wondered about multi line vs single line and the general
concept of long run. Let me outline the dilemma I am trying to
grapple with. If I play 9/6 JOB single line at the dollar level, it
is clear from the math simulations that the long run return is 99.54%
and a royal will come along appx very 40,000 hands. When that does
happen, the payoff is $4,000 which should bring one back closer to
long term return. If I play 1 cent 100 play, I am still playing
$5.00 per pull, which is equivalent to the dollar single line.

However, the only time I will ever hit the big royal payout is in the
instance I am dealt that royal. All the other instances where I am
dealt 2 or 3 or 4 to a royal and actually hit one on one of the
hundred hands, the payoff is only $40 on each hand that is converted
to a royal. While these interim small payoffs significantly lessen
the game variance (as compared to single line for the same level of
bet per pull), the long term seems to be much more elongated since
the instance of a dealt royal is so infrequent.

So my conclusion on these multiplay machines is this: An individual
can put through more money per unit of time in a multiplay machine
and have less variance. This would improve comps, tier levels etc.
However, since the real equalizer in payout is achieved only when a
royal is dealt, one would be operating at less than optimal payback
for a much longer period of time than under a single line machine.

I guess my question to the all the smart folks in the group is this:
Is my thinking wrong? If so, what am I missing. If I am right, how
much lower level will I be operating?

In essence you're absolutely right, at least where the likelihood that
you're going to be running a subpar return from royals in your play is
concerned. But where it comes to your ultimate conclusion of
"operating at less than <overall> optimal payback for a much longer
period of time", you're off target.

···

------

As play progresses, it becomes far less likely that better than
expected drawn royal experience will compensate for the missing drawn
royal return while you're waiting for your first dealt royal, or while
your dealt royal success runs short of expectation.

In fact, having played through one dealt royal cycle (approx 640,000
plays), you have a 43% shot in single play at hitting at least one
more drawn royal than expectation in order to cover for the shortfall
in return from the missing dealt RF.

However, in the same situation with multiline play, you have a less
than 1% shot that you'll score the additional 100 drawn royals
necessary to cover for a single missing dealt royal.

This indeed skews things and given a desired probability that the
difference between actual RF return in play vs. ER is within a given
value, you need to play a far greater number of multiline plays
(compared to those necessary in single line play) to achieve that
probability.

------

On the other hand, where the big picture of overall actual play return
vs. expectation is concerned, 100-play is tremendously effective in
diminishing the variance of drawn hand results vs. expectation -- to
an extent that overwhelms the increase in variance related to dealt
hands.

The result is that multiline greatly reduces the "long term".
Consequently, a player can approach multiline with a considerably
smaller bankroll and look for overall results to adhere much closer to
expectation every step of the way.

- Harry