--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
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
I'm not sure I'm saying what you say, maybe I am.
Another little calculation tells us that with 99% confidence, this
lady will get back after playing her 16,000 hands in the dollar
machine, between $51,702 and $107,562 in the 9/6 JB machine; and
between $51,057 and $100,937 on the 6/5 JB machine. The lady is not
playing "long term" at all, even if her play covers her lifetime;
thus the two probability distributions largely overlap. Sure, the one
here for 9/6 JB is slightly more favorable, but are those numbers
really that important for so few hands? Let's look at other things.
Mr. Boutout has said, "Machines will hit heavy for a while & will go
cold sometimes. That is probability/volatility over the lifetime." He
has said other things, and anyone can check his messages. I don't
want to twist what he is saying, but I wanted to quote this sentence
of his because I feel it is pertinent for the lady. Should the lady
hit one of those stretches of hands when the machine is cold, say
perhaps an extreme paucity of flushes and full houses and/or an
extended draught of quads, her results on 16,000 hands can be largely
determined by that if she does not have sessions when the machine
hits heavy. Of course, the results can go the opposite way should she
hit only windfalls. This behavior of the machine is more important
for the results of her 16,000 hands than the calculations above. The
short-term behavior of the machines she plays is more important than
probability considerations for her results, and since she is not
playing too many hands, there is no time for that short-term behavior
to "smooth out".
Another consideration is royals. There are about 40,000 hands on
average between royals on the two machines. The lady is only playing
16,000 hands, and she could possibly not get any royal at all, or she
could get one or more. Of course the number of royals obtained will
also determine her outcome more than the numbers calculated above. It
is amusing to note that the cycle of royals for the 6/5 machine,
40,172, is shorter than the cycle of royals of 40,390 for the 9/6
machine.
Now, if this lady were to play a lot more hands a different problem-
then her return would go up on each machine proportionally to the
number of hands, and the standard deviation only as the square root
of the number of hands. Thus, after many, many more hands than the
number she is playing, which is 16,000, the probability distributions
will look like two separate mountains with little overlap, and then
the advise to play 9/6 JB is very sound. This is not the case here.
Should this lady again ask me for advice on what machine to play, I
would have to tell her it does not really matter, if I'm being honest
with myself. The idea of sending her to play video Keno is not that
outrageous either, to address Glenbob's concerns. I saw in
thewizardofodds site a table of video Keno machines, and some of them
payback close to 95% which is close enough to the return of the 6/5
JB machine. Now, I would be careful before telling this lady, "go
play video Keno". I would have to find out something more about the
machine. If the volatility is too high the lower bracket above, say,
might go down to zero.
A crucial point in all of this, I repeat in a different way, is that
the lady has only one life. Should she have many lives, or should she
intend to play in her lifetime many, many more hands than 16,000, I
would tell her to worry about video poker pay tables. This would be a
different problem.
Now I ask you, am I giving this lady the wrong advice? Why? Is the
math incorrect? Is the logic faulty?
Thanks for your reply and thanks for not calling me a rodent or an
ignorant fool, though I might be both. Regards,
E.
"I have gathered a posy of other men's flowers, and nothing but the
thread that binds them is mine own." John Bartlett.