vpFREE2 Forums

"Guaranteed Play" Could Change VP-Very Interesting

#21

There's been a bid of a misleading misconception (er, a redundancy I
suppose -- are misconceptions every NOT misleading :wink: in the phrasing
of there being a "cost" to play the game. The $20 is merely a buyin
for the standard 80 $.25 credits.

I'm not sure you are quite right here, Harry. I think the $20 can
(and should) be viewed both ways. You pay $20, but you do not start
with a credit meter at $20 -- rather you start with a credit meter at
$0.

In a traditional JoB game, if you hit a high pair on every single hand
for 150 hands, you would cashout the $20 you put in. It is my
understanding, however, that on a GP machine, you would cashout $0.

What you "pay" in exchange for the play guarantee is playing a
paytable that may be weaker than you'd otherwise accept (for John Q,
that supposition may be dubious :wink:

I think you are paying both ways. But I think the loss in EV from
paying for the loss-limit is far far smaller than the gain in EV from
the loss-limit.

Details such as this are the key that will need to be better
understood before a full analysis can be performed.

Ken

···

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

#22

jackessiebabe wrote:

Though I have every confidence in the accuracy of the math and
computer strategies developed by the minds that are capable of
producing this kind of brilliant work, I am (unfortunately) the
furthest thing from a math head imaginable.

Under the circumstances, I just can't figure out why I would be
happy playing 8/5JOB. Can you attempt to enlighten me, Ken?

I hope I'll be forgiven the intercession (my enthusiasm for the game
concept abounds - plus there's a certain pre-holiday manic
predisposition on display here ;).

Now Babe ... you accept with confidence that 10/7 DB is a good
proposition. No doubt, that's based upon much subsequent empirical
experience subsequent to first testing the waters based upon
assertions of the "math heads" :wink:

Ultimately, it should be the same here. If the knowledgable (and not
merely the amateurs such as myself) put forth a paytable as strong,
surely an intrepid soul such as yourself with dip your toe in the
water to test it out!

- Harry

#23

John Grochowski Guaranteed Play Report:

http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.com/articles/31654.html

<a href="http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.com/articles/31654.html">
http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.com/articles/31654.html</a>

#24

Thanks, Ken. The coin-flipping post was helpful in this respect.

Methinks, after carefully reading your and friend, Harry's posts,
that I've made one of my possibly erroneous rush-to-judgements, for
which EH occasionally has need to chastise me.

I have decided to withhold further judgement on the possible
profitability of GP, until the pay tables are revealed, in a casino
setting, and more knowledgeable heads have calculated the EV.

Thanks for the good advice!
~Babe~

···

=============================================
-In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kkirschner" <ken.kirschner@...> wrote:

I hope the posts on the coin-flipping help to explain this somewhat.
Basically, it is my belief that the increase in EV from the loss-
limit
will be substantial. I do not think the loss in EV from buying this
loss-limit will be too high...though a full analysis would be
necessary. I suspect that 8/5 GP JoB will have a return above that
of
9/6 JoB...and for this reason I would think you would regret not
playing the game.........

#25

- Harry

···

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

Now Babe ... you accept with confidence that 10/7 DB is a good
proposition. No doubt, that's based upon much subsequent empirical
experience subsequent to first testing the waters based upon
assertions of the "math heads" :wink:

Ultimately, it should be the same here. If the knowledgable (and not
merely the amateurs such as myself) put forth a paytable as strong,
surely an intrepid soul such as yourself with dip your toe in the
water to test it out!

============================================================

I have come to agree with you, Harry. I will certainly wait till
some brilliant math guru crunches the numbers, and settles the
debate.

At this point in time, until the pay tables are revealed, and the
calculations run, it is mere speculation as to whether this game has
a real possibility of being an "advantage" play or not.

My mind will remain open as to any decision about actually playing
this fascinating new game, until the pertinent data has been
revealed.

I appreciate your taking the time to try to illustrate the possible
error in my original statement.

At the least, for now, this does make for interesting speculation.

Happy Holidays!

~Babe~

#26

OOPS, I had some mistakes in my original post, so I deleted it and I'm
fixing it here...

Re: "Guaranteed Play" Could Change VP-Very Interesting

I'll suggest another perspective on this. You buy in for $20. You
crap out after the first 100 spins. But you're guaranteed 150 spins.
The next 50 spins are essentially all on the house. If you come out
ahead, it's your's to keep. You paid nothing for the additional 250
credits of play since they wouldn't be yours on a standard game with
the same paytable. If you lose another $10 on those plays, you're out
nothing. Hence the translation of the guaranteed play feature into a
"loss limit". Your risk for those 150 plays is limited to your $20
buy in.

Harry:

I want to look at this a little differently. You play the game, and I
sit next to you. I keep track of every hand you play.

You give me $20, and I lend you money to play, $1.25 at a time. If at
any point
before 150 hands you lose it all, I'll feed my own money (which used
to be yours) into the machine. If you win, you can
pay me back anything I have lent you. If you have anything left, then
play on until you lose it all again, and I have to feed in another $1.25.

At the end of 150 hands, here are some possible outcomes:

Win big, say you get Jack or better 149 time and a royal once. You
are ahead, but $20 behind where you would have been had you just
played without me.

In fact, any win, or just break even, and you will be $20 behind where
you would have been had you just played without me.

The only way I am out anything is if you are so unlucky that you would
have lost more than $20 over 150 hands. The rest of the time, I am ahead.

I'd have to think it over, but I think things lood pretty good for me
even if you play FPDW.

Or, stick $200 into a machine, and give me $20. Play 150 hands (which
you will be able to no matter what) then cash out. I'll pay you back
for your losses on the game. If you win or break even, I'm up $20.
If you lose less than $20, I'm still ahead. But occasionally, I'll
lose a little. This sounds like a good problem for Dunbar.

So what am I missing with this analogy?

- John

···

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

#27

vpFae wrote:

http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.com/articles/31654.html

As I noted in an earlier post today, as additional details come out,
they'd change my assessment of the economics of the game.

John clearly states that you start with 0 credits. The statement that
you buy the "Guaranteed Play" feature for $20 (in a quarter game) is
entirely accurate.

That by no means makes this a poor proposition. It now takes a good
paytable (7/5 Jacks won't do ;). The question is if, in starting with
0 credits, does the Guaranteed Play feature add at least $20 in value
(and for what paytables is that true).

An interesting aspect of this is that the feature has greater value
for a poorer paytable than stronger one (since you have greater loss
exposure).

No doubt, IGT has the math down solidly. And, ultimately we'll see a
Dancer column (and/or a Shackleford website entry) that spells that
math out succinctly.

Sheerly for the intellectual enjoyment, I'll take a stab at a back of
the envelope exercise exploring the economics and what an attractive
paytable would entail over the course of the next few days (taking a
little more care than my stab to date) and report back.

- Harry