vpFREE2 Forums

Gaming Today Online - Experts dispute significance of slot percentages

#1

"You are twisting this article to fit views you have expressed in past. It most certainly does matter what she plays though there will be variance from the norm. It will be less random than described in the article due to the rules regarding how a game representing cards must work; rules you laugh off. She still loses three coins on a full house on a 6/5 vs a 9/6 - period."

Why would you take a poster's opinions so personally? There's a lot of different opinions out there - some by experts that may or may not know more than you about the game. It's just an article---I believe written by GT's long-time editor.

···

From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@yahoo.com>

#2

I am puzzled by the fact people seem to often take personally some
comment about video poker.

Yes, I don't play the "orthodox" way all the time, but I often do. I
like to hear about different approaches people take to gambling.
Sometimes I adopt those, sometimes not, sometimes partially. I might
find some approaches strange, but it never occurs to me to get
offended by the way someone else plays or thinks about the game.

I hope I did not twist the article too much. It is natural for
someone to be glad to see something reminiscent of his notions
expressed by other people, particularly by people in the field. Makes
you more confident you are not totally crazy.

As to the lady, even without the article and accepting the "dogmatic"
ways you must agree she was absurd. I said she played at most half an
hour to an hour of VP a year. Give her a 40 year gambling life and an
amateurish 400 hands per hour, that is 16,000 hands of lifetime play.
That is too insignificant to use machine statistics to predict her
results. Just make a bunch -at least 20 for each machine- of 16,000
hand simulations in Frugal or WinPoker, if you don't believe me, with
any paytable, and you will see the results will be all over the place
for all the machines.

In any case, I laughed at the ladies concerns but did not get
offended. To finish the story, she was going to Caesars, and I told
her there were a lot of quarter JB machines that were low volatility,
and had 99.54% return. I told her it did not matter much in her case,
she would do just as well playing Double Diamonds. She insisted,
wrote things down, went to Las Vegas. Later I asked her how she did
on the JB machines, and she replied "lousy machines" and changed the
subject.

Yes, the article is about slots, but they do hint it might also apply
to VP. Same companies make the RNGs for both type of machines. I
don't know for sure one way or the other, so I won't say more, but I
have experienced VP machines at times that go on paying for hours. It
is quite nice when that happens, and when I'm fortunate enough to
happen to be in one of those sessions, I see dozens of people come,
play the machines nearby and go after losing.

If everyone thought exactly the same thing about everything, how
boring life would be. Regards,

E

"What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence
of self-criticism." Chesterton.

From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
"You are twisting this article to fit views you have expressed in

past. It most certainly does matter what she plays though there will
be variance from the norm. It will be less random than described in
the article due to the rules regarding how a game representing cards
must work; rules you laugh off. She still loses three coins on a full
house on a 6/5 vs a 9/6 - period."

Why would you take a poster's opinions so personally? There's a lot

of different opinions out there - some by experts that may or may not
know more than you about the game. It's just an article---I believe
written by GT's long-time editor.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Singer <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:

#3

Not a matter or taking it personally but seeing him yet again try to
justify his "feelings" about hot/cold that really show he does not
understand volatility/probability. Machines will hit heavy for a
while & will go cold sometimes. That is probability/volatility over
the lifetime. To say this article even remotely supports playing
lesser pay machines is just foolish then he gets defensive when he is
called out again & again. There is no basis behind the quaint ntion
put forward.

From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
"You are twisting this article to fit views you have expressed in

past. It most certainly does matter what she plays though there will
be variance from the norm. It will be less random than described in
the article due to the rules regarding how a game representing cards
must work; rules you laugh off. She still loses three coins on a full
house on a 6/5 vs a 9/6 - period."

Why would you take a poster's opinions so personally? There's a lot

of different opinions out there - some by experts that may or may not
know more than you about the game. It's just an article---I believe
written by GT's long-time editor.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Singer <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:

#4

From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
"You are twisting this article to fit views you have expressed in

past. It most certainly does matter what she plays though there will
be variance from the norm. It will be less random than described in
the article due to the rules regarding how a game representing cards
must work; rules you laugh off. She still loses three coins on a full
house on a 6/5 vs a 9/6 - period."

Why would you take a poster's opinions so personally? There's a lot

of different opinions out there - some by experts that may or may not
know more than you about the game. It's just an article---I believe
written by GT's long-time editor.

Regardless of the poster's opinions, the article is claptrap. It was
a reprint of an article I read a year ago when Shackleford's study
was being distributed. Telling a casino that it needs to be more
competitive by increasing the returns on their machines is like
telling a business that they need to lower their prices. For all the
crap this article says, the machine return is the only direct affect
on the casino's bottom line, and they want to kep it as low as
possible. So they publish this article, twice now, telling gamblers
that they shouldn't care what the return on their game is, cause
they'll never notice the difference. Then they confuse the matter,
by implying that all these other factors are more important. But
simulations have shown over and over that a machine with a higher
return means that your money will last longer, that your winning
sessions will be more profitable and most importantly, that
the "average" amount you expect to lose will be less. As long as
casinos can convince the gambler that the "return" doesn't mean
anything to them, the more that the casinos can reduce their
paytables and ER with impunity.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Singer <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:

#5

tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar wrote:

Regardless of the poster's opinions, the article is claptrap. It
was a reprint of an article I read a year ago when Shackleford's
study was being distributed. Telling a casino that it needs to be
more competitive by increasing the returns on their machines is like
telling a business that they need to lower their prices. For all
the crap this article says, the machine return is the only direct
affect on the casino's bottom line, and they want to kep it as low
as possible. So they publish this article, twice now, telling
gamblers that they shouldn't care what the return on their game is,
cause they'll never notice the difference. Then they confuse the
matter, by implying that all these other factors are more important.
But simulations have shown over and over that a machine with a
higher return means that your money will last longer, that your
winning sessions will be more profitable and most importantly, that
the "average" amount you expect to lose will be less. As long as
casinos can convince the gambler that the "return" doesn't mean
anything to them, the more that the casinos can reduce their
paytables and ER with impunity.

That's a refreshing assessment. Far less kinder words surfaced in my
mind when reading the article.

Just about the time that I make an effort to restore Gaming Today to a
modicum of respectability in my mind they come up with a piece of dirt
like this.

- Harry

#6

With no disrespect intended, I must disagree from a business standpoint. In many cases, retail operations can, in fact, make significantly higher profits by lowering prices thereby generating more volume.

Look at Coast. Their foot traffic is down noticeably. While the average hold is almost certainly higher than it was, does this make up for reduced volume? I have long been on record as suspecting not and their last published numbers (several months old, now) seemed to support this supposition.

Lowering the hold on machines for casinos is a strong competitive move. Remember, a few years ago Stations raised their hold and lost a lot of business and goodwill and still have many people suspicious of them. Only by lowering the hold again have they recovered from being the "Evil Empire".

Advantage Video Poker players can be a boon to a casino, if they are treated as loss-leaders. There are many factors that need to be taken into account, but a reputation for having loose machines is priceless advertising.

B

···

Telling a casino that it needs to be more
competitive by increasing the returns on their machines is like
telling a business that they need to lower their prices. For all the
crap this article says, the machine return is the only direct affect
on the casino's bottom line, and they want to kep it as low as
possible.

#7

Now I am being told I don't understand volatility/probability.

It does not really take very much knowledge of volatility/probability
to deal with the lady's lifetime VP play. Let us look at it. Assume
the 16,000 hands she plays in her lifetime, she plays full coin on a
dollar machine. Let us look at the numbers in that case. In 9/6 JB
her EV would be $79,632. 6/5 JB has a return of 94,9961%, so her EV
there would be $75,997. The standard deviation on the first machine
would be $2,793. On the 6/5 JB machine one should use its different
variance to compute a standard deviation of $2,494. Now we have to
use Chebyshev's theorem to obtain that, with 75% confidence, her
return should be between $85,218 and $74,046 for the 9/6 JB machine;
and it should be between $80,985 and $71,009 for the 5/6 JB. When I
look at the big overlap the two intervals make, I must admit it does
not make any difference at all at which machine she played those
16,000 hands. Of course, someone else might conclude something
differently than I do from the figures. Please set me straight if I
am missing anything about what volatility/probability is saying about
this example.

As far as the lady choosing a machine, the article certainly does not
imply at all she should be very careful about what paytable she must
look for in a video poker machine. Sure, the article is not about the
lady, but if the lady read it, there is nothing in it to encourage
her to carefully search for the good machines for her lifetime pay.

As far as hot or cold streaks, they refer to the behavior of a
machine, not to predictions of probability theory. A mathematical
theory is one thing, a machine is another. To say a machine behaves
exactly like the theory, is a statement of faith, not a correct
interpretaion of mathematics. I know many people, based on different
facts that have nothing to do with mathematics, facts about Nevada
laws, about behavior of chips, etc., conclude that the machine
behaves exactly as the mathematical theory they use. I am a little
more careful. Call me skeptic. This is not being defensive, it is
being careful expressing what I really feel. I certainly do not rule
out absolutely any behavior of a machine, including the one believed
by "orthodox" video poker theory. Mathematics does not talk about
machines, it talks about its theories, that I'm certain about.

The comfortable thing about mathematics is that whatever the machine
does at one point, does not violate any volatility/probability. If
after playing for five or six hours, the money obtained from the
machine is so many standard deviations away from the EV, one can
always say "it happens". When it happens to me many times, I'm fond
to wonder. I'm willing to be that if a machine pays back to back
royals too many times in a year, the casino, no matter how great a
probability expert its slot manager is, will remove such machine.

But enough about defending myself. I'm sure it serves no purpose at
all. Someone might decide my numbers above are wrong thus confirming
their belief that I'm a total ignoramus in probability. Failing that,
I will be accused of faulty logic. I'm tired of these accusations and
defenses. Just give me a good reason the lady in my example -and
don't change the example- should really bother with video poker
paytables. Regards,

E.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
Aristotle

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
wrote:

Not a matter or taking it personally but seeing him yet again try

to

justify his "feelings" about hot/cold that really show he does not
understand volatility/probability. Machines will hit heavy for a
while & will go cold sometimes. That is probability/volatility over
the lifetime. To say this article even remotely supports playing
lesser pay machines is just foolish then he gets defensive when he

is

called out again & again. There is no basis behind the quaint ntion
put forward.
>
>
> From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
> "You are twisting this article to fit views you have expressed in
past. It most certainly does matter what she plays though there

will

be variance from the norm. It will be less random than described in
the article due to the rules regarding how a game representing

cards

must work; rules you laugh off. She still loses three coins on a

full

house on a 6/5 vs a 9/6 - period."
>
>
> Why would you take a poster's opinions so personally? There's a

lot

of different opinions out there - some by experts that may or may

not

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Singer <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
know more than you about the game. It's just an article---I believe
written by GT's long-time editor.

#8

mubowor wrote:

Now we have to
use Chebyshev's theorem to obtain that, with 75% confidence, her
return should be between $85,218 and $74,046 for the 9/6 JB machine;
and it should be between $80,985 and $71,009 for the 5/6 JB. When I
look at the big overlap the two intervals make, I must admit it does
not make any difference at all at which machine she played those
16,000 hands.

So, you're saying that the fact that should this woman look at the
likelihood that she'll come away from her play with more than $80K,
she should simply shrug her shoulders at the immense difference is
probabilities. Hell, since she's likely to fall into the middle
ground anyways, why worry about the relative magnitude of upside and
downside potentials.

- Harry

#9

Harry Porter wrote:

Just about the time that I make an effort to restore

Gaming Today to a
modicum of respectability in my mind they come up with
a piece of dirt
like this.<

It seems to me the responses to the Gaming Today
article are missing the point. How about the claim
that "the odds of hitting 7 out of 7 spots (video
Keno) are less than the odds of hitting a Royal Flush
(VP)while paying 7000-1 vs. 800-1". Another: "for
every RF you hit on VP ,the VK machine will hit at
least six 7 out of 8 spot jackpots paying $1652 for 4
quarters bet".

If true, Video Keno looks like a much better "short
term" play.

Glenbob

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

#10

glen bob wrote:

How about the claim
that "the odds of hitting 7 out of 7 spots (video
Keno) are less than the odds of hitting a Royal Flush
(VP)while paying 7000-1 vs. 800-1". Another: "for
every RF you hit on VP ,the VK machine will hit at
least six 7 out of 8 spot jackpots paying $1652 for 4
quarters bet".

If true, Video Keno looks like a much better "short
term" play.

I have little doubt about the truth of these statements. The question
that should be considered is how much can you expect to lose before
hitting big on that "short term" play.

- H.

#11

Harry Porter wrote:

I have little doubt about the truth of these

statements. The question
that should be considered is how much can you expect
to lose before
hitting big on that "short term" play.<

I may try to convince the Wife to play Video Keno
instead of the slots!:slight_smile:

Glenbob

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

#12

I hope for your sake, you are kidding. the "claim" is completely
true. The difference is that in VP, the RF jackpot only represents
2% of the players total return. Nearly 70% of the paybeck in 9/6
Jacks is in pairs, 2 pair, and 3 of a kind.

In contrast, hitting the 7-spot keno card represents about 20% of the
overall return. This means that if you wager $1000 on VP and don't
get a royal flush, you only expect to lose $20 of your money. If you
wager $1000 on Keno and don't hit the equally likely 7-spot, you have
likely lost over $300.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, glen bob <glenbob@y...> wrote:

Harry Porter wrote:

>Just about the time that I make an effort to restore
Gaming Today to a
modicum of respectability in my mind they come up with
a piece of dirt
like this.<

It seems to me the responses to the Gaming Today
article are missing the point. How about the claim
that "the odds of hitting 7 out of 7 spots (video
Keno) are less than the odds of hitting a Royal Flush
(VP)while paying 7000-1 vs. 800-1". Another: "for
every RF you hit on VP ,the VK machine will hit at
least six 7 out of 8 spot jackpots paying $1652 for 4
quarters bet".

If true, Video Keno looks like a much better "short
term" play.

Glenbob

#13

tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar wrote:

I hope for your sake, you are kidding. the "claim"

is completely
true. The difference is that in VP, the RF jackpot
only represents
2% of the players total return. Nearly 70% of the
paybeck in 9/6
Jacks is in pairs, 2 pair, and 3 of a kind.<

Actually, I presented the statement to the forum to
see what kind of reaction I would get from you math
wizards. As expected, you have set me straight. :slight_smile:

Thanks,
Glenbob

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com