vpFREE2 Forums

Happy days are here again!

#1

This is so cool - the turkey is settling in, a nice long day come to
an end and what do I stumble upon?

YES! That's right folks, vpheaven is back! God, how I've missed it....

Righteous indignation over.....well, I'm not sure what. Robby is back
rippin' people like only he can. This is so cool. I feel like a kid
on Christmas morning. Kinda like deja vu all over again, isn't it?!

Keep up the good work boys, you have been very entertaining. I'd love
to see you all together in one room. Probably be one
big ....Arguement? Or would you all just kiss and make up?

Better than visions of sugar plumbs..............Wow

SK

#2

Sort of like "vpheaven" but not exactly. Now we've got a
conglomeration of confusion whereby previously accepted posters who
used to be able to 'do no wrong' on what is being described as a
somewhat sacred forum, are now having their comments re-directed over
here. It's an interesting twist. I'm just waiting for the Queen to
step over the vpFREE line and see little dicky find fault with her
too!

But the overall 'entertainment factor' of watching the gurus rip each
other a new one is close to being off the charts--not to mention the
added BONUS of seeing Dick try to step into it all only to see his
attention-seeking opinions go up in smoke time after time AGAIN! That
truly can be described as 'vpheaven'!

What would be prescious is if Dan P. could scrape the bucks together
to be at this Gaming Expo at beautiful Fiesta Rancho next weekend. I
can see it now....Bob Dancer at the podium, and Dan in the crowd
shouting out unpleasantries brought on by his extreme jealousy of the
man's success as a video poker entrepreneur! Of course, the feud
between Bob & the Queen won't publicly amount to much - at least on
that particular day - since they're both on the same payroll. I like
Bob's vpFREE attempt at coddling her by indirectly including her in
his 'top 5% of players' list by virtue of her passion to redeem
coupons, but that was just cheap lip service. You could tell he
struggled to write that.

Yes, losing eventually gets to EVERYONE who plays video poker with a
theoretical/make-believe/phantom bucks approach----aka, long-
term/optimal play strategy. What vpFREE's simply witnessing is how it
affects those perceived to be at the top. And the little dicky
factor? I wonder if he's still a guru-wannabee now....... HAHAHA!!

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bayfieldkent" <stevenb34@h...>
wrote:

This is so cool - the turkey is settling in, a nice long day come

to

an end and what do I stumble upon?

YES! That's right folks, vpheaven is back! God, how I've missed

it....

Righteous indignation over.....well, I'm not sure what. Robby is

back

rippin' people like only he can. This is so cool. I feel like a

kid

on Christmas morning. Kinda like deja vu all over again, isn't it?!

Keep up the good work boys, you have been very entertaining. I'd

love

···

to see you all together in one room. Probably be one
big ....Arguement? Or would you all just kiss and make up?

Better than visions of sugar plumbs..............Wow

SK

#3

Robbie, the monkey boy, is back.

It's been so nice not having to hear his form of logic, you know 1+1=3
and the laws of physics somehow don't apply to him.

I guess the vacations over.

Dick

#4

Yup! And do I have a story to tell about you and your pathological play
at the Edgewater! But I'll wait for the right time.

In the meantime, let's hear some more from your poison pen regarding
the Administrator. What's the matter---gettin' frustrated again like
you do with me when someone else makes a whole lot more sense than you??
I'm lovin this more and more every time you make one of your
neurotic "I Have To Set The Record Straight" posts. You actually don't
get along with ANYBODY!! HA! What a loser. Think about it. Me, Dancer,
the Administrator....you can't stand any of us. That's because you hate
successful people and you envy them no end. Think about more. the one
paducah you've supported is Dan 'the man' Paymar, and he's no more
successful than a bowl of turkey soup! In fact, he's probably your new
idol, because you see a lot of yourself in him. LV eventually got to
him as it will to you. The only way to beat the habit is to leave the
source.

God, I love this country!!!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

Robbie, the monkey boy, is back.
It's been so nice not having to hear his form of logic, you know 1+1=3
and the laws of physics somehow don't apply to him. I guess the
vacations over.
Dick

#5

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

>Robbie, the monkey boy, is back.
>It's been so nice not having to hear his form of logic, you know

1+1=3

> and the laws of physics somehow don't apply to him. I guess the
>vacations over.
>Dick

Yup! And do I have a story to tell about you and your pathological

play

at the Edgewater! But I'll wait for the right time.

Sure you do. I guess starting right out with another lie puts you in
pretty good form.

In the meantime, let's hear some more from your poison pen

regarding

the Administrator. What's the matter---gettin' frustrated again

like

you do with me when someone else makes a whole lot more sense than

you??

I'm lovin this more and more every time you make one of your
neurotic "I Have To Set The Record Straight" posts. You actually

don't

get along with ANYBODY!! HA! What a loser. Think about it. Me,

Dancer,

the Administrator....you can't stand any of us.

I have no problem with either the administrator or Dancer. I just
happen to disagree with them at times. On the other hand, you are
just a complete moron and I pity you as much as anything.

By the way, I have recently started working on a simulator to test
out progressive betting strategies. So, if your system has any merit
then it will show up in my tests.

Dick

#6

> Yup! And do I have a story to tell about you and your

pathological play at the Edgewater! But I'll wait for the right time.

Sure you do. I guess starting right out with another lie puts you

in pretty good form.

What? A DENIAL?? Oh my goodness!!!
  

I have no problem with either the administrator or Dancer. I just
happen to disagree with them at times. On the other hand, you are
just a complete moron and I pity you as much as anything.

What? Backpeddaling again?? HAHAHA! Re-read all your posted nonsense
and stop making theories up about what they REALLY mean. You're an
argumentative old man who disagrees with everyone with a name.
Imagine living with you? WAIT----the only way one could do so is by
being a carbon-copy gambling addict as you, who moved to Las Vegas
just to be able to gamble every day JUST LIKE YOU...and you're living
that nightmare with her! Now there's the real pity!

By the way, I have recently started working on a simulator to test
out progressive betting strategies. So, if your system has any
merit then it will show up in my tests.

Then by definition and as any true analyst requires, you would want
to sit with me for several hours to fully understand all aspects of
how I do what I do, when and why. Let's set up a date. Unless, of
course, you don't WANT it to be that it's successful. Let me
guess.....

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

Dick

#7

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing it be successful. It woud mean
additional income for myself and anyone else who tried it. However, it
seems pretty unlikely. My primary goal is to see if there is ANY power
in using a progressive approach with altered strategies. When I have
completed that task then I will know if there is any possible merit in
your approach. If you still want me to simulate your strategy at that
time we can talk.

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:

Then by definition and as any true analyst requires, you would want
to sit with me for several hours to fully understand all aspects of
how I do what I do, when and why. Let's set up a date. Unless, of
course, you don't WANT it to be that it's successful. Let me
guess.....

#8

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing it be successful. It woud mean
additional income for myself and anyone else who tried it. However,

it seems pretty unlikely. My primary goal is to see if there is ANY
power in using a progressive approach with altered strategies. When I
have completed that task then I will know if there is any possible
merit in your approach. If you still want me to simulate your strategy
at that time we can talk.

Dick

Huh? You're supposed to be unkind, miserable, and calling me names.
Otherwise no one will read this forum.

I've actually gotten this far with other programmers, and then all of a
sudden they all digress into the same old tune of "If it's being played
with mostly negative games then mathematically you will lose, and if
the EV is slightly positive overall then mathematically you will win".
I was on some radio show in the midwest Tues. night, and this only
momentarily came up. What my strategy does when it deviates from expert
play is give a mathematically better chance of hitting some big winners
when I need more than a small winner to attain a goal. Since every hand
is an individual event, who's to say exactly what will come out on the
draw---every single time you draw. Play the hand millions of times and
yes, expert strategy is the only way to go. Once in a while, giving up
a sure or more probable small winner in favor of taking a small risk
and going for the jackpot or high-paying quad does pay off. And when
the system is progressive and its operation is driven by strict
discipline, that's how it becomes a successful strategy. The other night
the host--as do you and others--couldn't really figure out how my
progression is any different from Martingale--which I agree is a losing
proposition. A VP progression such as mine is very different. I've
figured out that most people who diss my approach do so only because
they can't really fathom playing at the levels I sometimes must go to
be successful, so they just come out and say I'll lose because it's
like Martingale - and thus they talk themselves into feeling better
about not doing it or even trying it at lower levels. Too much work.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#9

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing it be successful. It woud mean
> additional income for myself and anyone else who tried it.

However,

it seems pretty unlikely. My primary goal is to see if there is ANY
power in using a progressive approach with altered strategies. When

I

have completed that task then I will know if there is any possible
merit in your approach. If you still want me to simulate your

strategy

at that time we can talk.
>
> Dick

Huh? You're supposed to be unkind, miserable, and calling me names.
Otherwise no one will read this forum.

I've actually gotten this far with other programmers, and then all

of a

sudden they all digress into the same old tune of "If it's being

played

with mostly negative games then mathematically you will lose, and

if

the EV is slightly positive overall then mathematically you will

win".

I was on some radio show in the midwest Tues. night, and this only
momentarily came up. What my strategy does when it deviates from

expert

play is give a mathematically better chance of hitting some big

winners

when I need more than a small winner to attain a goal. Since every

hand

is an individual event, who's to say exactly what will come out on

the

draw---every single time you draw. Play the hand millions of times

and

yes, expert strategy is the only way to go. Once in a while, giving

up

a sure or more probable small winner in favor of taking a small

risk

and going for the jackpot or high-paying quad does pay off. And

when

the system is progressive and its operation is driven by strict
discipline, that's how it becomes a successful strategy. The other

night

the host--as do you and others--couldn't really figure out how my
progression is any different from Martingale--which I agree is a

losing

proposition. A VP progression such as mine is very different. I've
figured out that most people who diss my approach do so only

because

they can't really fathom playing at the levels I sometimes must go

to

be successful, so they just come out and say I'll lose because it's
like Martingale - and thus they talk themselves into feeling better
about not doing it or even trying it at lower levels. Too much work.

The problem is you've never been able to quantify or explain just why
your system should work. Until that happens you will never change the
minds of anyone who looks at the game mathematically.

Dick

#10

I don't disagree with that. The issue seems to be that I would only do
so in a face-to-face in order not to have any misunderstandings at all.
I know it's a time-consuming process and why waste time? As you've seen
me say many times before, I've even responded to public critics by
offering in my GT column to meet with any programmer for any amount of
time to fully explain all the details--even after I was challenged to
do so by several others. But when they say it's possible and I OK it,
the escape clauses begin to take effect and the opportunity disappears.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

The problem is you've never been able to quantify or explain just why
your system should work. Until that happens you will never change the
minds of anyone who looks at the game mathematically.

#11

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> The problem is you've never been able to quantify or explain just

why

> your system should work. Until that happens you will never change

the

> minds of anyone who looks at the game mathematically.

I don't disagree with that. The issue seems to be that I would only

do

so in a face-to-face in order not to have any misunderstandings at

all.

I know it's a time-consuming process and why waste time? As you've

seen

me say many times before, I've even responded to public critics by
offering in my GT column to meet with any programmer for any amount

of

time to fully explain all the details--even after I was challenged

to

do so by several others. But when they say it's possible and I OK

it,

the escape clauses begin to take effect and the opportunity

disappears.

I've completed the basic simulator. However, I should warn that it
will only work with a consistent strategy. If a you "sometimes" make
one hold and another time make a different hold for the same type of
hand, it does not do that kind of play.

I have set up the framework with several variables that you can
change.

1) 1-8 levels in the progression
2) The base number of plays (credits) are played at all levels and
that number can be changed for each simulation.
3) A variable amount can be set for a subgoal. Once this amount is
won it is pocketed and the play at that level restart.
4) If a large win occurs then play at previous levels can be restart
or just the play at the current level.
5) A variable can be set for the final goal and if achieved at any
level the play is stopped.
6) Any number of sessions can be simulated. The results are the total
wins and average win/session, total losses and average loss/session,
the expected EV based on the games played and the actual EV.
7) Any game can be played at any level. As of right now the pay table
must be programmable into winpoker. I have JOB, BP, DB, DDB, SA, TBP
games already available.

If you can provide your values for these items I can give you the
results.

Dick

#12

I've completed the basic simulator. However, I should warn that it
will only work with a consistent strategy. If a you "sometimes"

make

one hold and another time make a different hold for the same type

of

hand, it does not do that kind of play.

I have set up the framework with several variables that you can
change.

1) 1-8 levels in the progression
2) The base number of plays (credits) are played at all levels and
that number can be changed for each simulation.
3) A variable amount can be set for a subgoal. Once this amount is
won it is pocketed and the play at that level restart.
4) If a large win occurs then play at previous levels can be

restart

or just the play at the current level.
5) A variable can be set for the final goal and if achieved at any
level the play is stopped.
6) Any number of sessions can be simulated. The results are the

total

wins and average win/session, total losses and average

loss/session,

the expected EV based on the games played and the actual EV.
7) Any game can be played at any level. As of right now the pay

table

must be programmable into winpoker. I have JOB, BP, DB, DDB, SA,

TBP

games already available.

If you can provide your values for these items I can give you the
results.

An interesting result of some of the initial runs I've made is the
large number of hands required to approach an expected return. One
run yielded a return of 100.63% for 1000 sessions yet normalized
within .1% of the expected return, 99.62, over 10,000 sessions and
exactly the EV at 30,000 hands. In any event these are very large
numbers of hands. In the first case, it took 7871*1000 = 7,871,000
hands and was still 1% off the expected return. It took 78 million
hands to get close and 250 million to be exact.

With this type of slow appraoch to the mean it's not surprising that
Rob has experienced reasonable success over only 250 session. The
games in the run were full pays versions of BP, DB, TripleBonus+,
TripleBonusKings and SuperAces.

One conclusion is that the progression intensifies the variance. Not
to hard to understand given the high variance of the games played at
the higher end of the progression.

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#13

I'll do my best to answer/clarify. First, I understand about
a 'consistent' strategy--which I do not use in the conventional
sense. It's all based on attaining the most immediate goals with the
most practical & advantageous holds, and takes into account the
advanced denomination at which I'm playing.

1) My progression is $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100. Now again, I don't always
go to the $100 machines when you would expect I would. That's based
on if my current week's loss would put me ahead or behind my minimum
$2500/trip goal for the current calendar year. There's also times I
would stop at a loss before the $25 games, but that is more rare.

2) All levels get 100 credits of BP and 300 of 10/7DB, 10/6DDB, SDBP,
TBP+, etc. and in that order of availability in the casino I choose
to play. Most don't have the positive games above $1.

3) The subgoal is 40 credits minimum. It is always pocketed, never
played, and never becomes anything other than soft profit unless it
can contribute to other wins resulting in the attainment of the
overall trip goal ($2500 minimum). Once it is pocketed, if all
pocketed wins within that denomination recovers all previous credits
lost within that denomination PLUS recovers the value of all 400
credits lost in the previous denomination PLUS at least a 40 credit
profit within the current denomination, play is resumed at the lower
denomination on BP. If I'm at the $10 level and recover all lost $10
credits (we'll say 140 for an example), all lost $5 credits, and all
lost $2 credits (a total of $4600) PLUS a profit of at least 40-$10
credits, I restart at the $2 level. The soft profits I've collected
add up, and the most common way I win and "drive home to Az." is when
these soft profits are added together with a good quad hit to total
at least +$2500 profit.

4) I believe my info in #3 covers this.

5) The win goal is always $2500. The loss stop $57,200.

6) Choose your number of sessions.

7) I'd use 8/5 BP & 9/5 TBP+.

> I've completed the basic simulator. However, I should warn that

it will only work with a consistent strategy. If a you "sometimes"

make one hold and another time make a different hold for the same

type of hand, it does not do that kind of play.

>
> I have set up the framework with several variables that you can
> change.
>
> 1) 1-8 levels in the progression
> 2) The base number of plays (credits) are played at all levels

and

> that number can be changed for each simulation.
> 3) A variable amount can be set for a subgoal. Once this amount

is

> won it is pocketed and the play at that level restart.
> 4) If a large win occurs then play at previous levels can be
restart
> or just the play at the current level.
> 5) A variable can be set for the final goal and if achieved at

any

> level the play is stopped.
> 6) Any number of sessions can be simulated. The results are the
total
> wins and average win/session, total losses and average
loss/session,
> the expected EV based on the games played and the actual EV.
> 7) Any game can be played at any level. As of right now the pay
table
> must be programmable into winpoker. I have JOB, BP, DB, DDB, SA,
TBP
> games already available.
>
> If you can provide your values for these items I can give you the
> results.

An interesting result of some of the initial runs I've made is the
large number of hands required to approach an expected return. One
run yielded a return of 100.63% for 1000 sessions yet normalized
within .1% of the expected return, 99.62, over 10,000 sessions and
exactly the EV at 30,000 hands. In any event these are very large
numbers of hands. In the first case, it took 7871*1000 = 7,871,000
hands and was still 1% off the expected return. It took 78 million
hands to get close and 250 million to be exact.

With this type of slow appraoch to the mean it's not surprising

that

Rob has experienced reasonable success over only 250 session. The
games in the run were full pays versions of BP, DB, TripleBonus+,
TripleBonusKings and SuperAces.

One conclusion is that the progression intensifies the variance.

Not

to hard to understand given the high variance of the games played

at

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

the higher end of the progression.

Dick

#14

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

I'll do my best to answer/clarify. First, I understand about
a 'consistent' strategy--which I do not use in the conventional
sense. It's all based on attaining the most immediate goals with

the

most practical & advantageous holds, and takes into account the
advanced denomination at which I'm playing.

1) My progression is $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100. Now again, I don't

always

go to the $100 machines when you would expect I would. That's based
on if my current week's loss would put me ahead or behind my

minimum

$2500/trip goal for the current calendar year. There's also times I
would stop at a loss before the $25 games, but that is more rare.

2) All levels get 100 credits of BP and 300 of 10/7DB, 10/6DDB,

SDBP,

TBP+, etc. and in that order of availability in the casino I choose
to play. Most don't have the positive games above $1.

3) The subgoal is 40 credits minimum. It is always pocketed, never
played, and never becomes anything other than soft profit unless it
can contribute to other wins resulting in the attainment of the
overall trip goal ($2500 minimum). Once it is pocketed, if all
pocketed wins within that denomination recovers all previous

credits

lost within that denomination PLUS recovers the value of all 400
credits lost in the previous denomination PLUS at least a 40 credit
profit within the current denomination, play is resumed at the

lower

denomination on BP. If I'm at the $10 level and recover all lost

$10

credits (we'll say 140 for an example), all lost $5 credits, and

all

lost $2 credits (a total of $4600) PLUS a profit of at least 40-$10
credits, I restart at the $2 level. The soft profits I've collected
add up, and the most common way I win and "drive home to Az." is

when

these soft profits are added together with a good quad hit to total
at least +$2500 profit.

4) I believe my info in #3 covers this.

5) The win goal is always $2500. The loss stop $57,200.

6) Choose your number of sessions.

7) I'd use 8/5 BP & 9/5 TBP+.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > I've completed the basic simulator. However, I should warn that
it will only work with a consistent strategy. If a you "sometimes"
> make one hold and another time make a different hold for the same
type of hand, it does not do that kind of play.
> >
> > I have set up the framework with several variables that you can
> > change.
> >
> > 1) 1-8 levels in the progression
> > 2) The base number of plays (credits) are played at all levels
and
> > that number can be changed for each simulation.
> > 3) A variable amount can be set for a subgoal. Once this amount
is
> > won it is pocketed and the play at that level restart.
> > 4) If a large win occurs then play at previous levels can be
> restart
> > or just the play at the current level.
> > 5) A variable can be set for the final goal and if achieved at
any
> > level the play is stopped.
> > 6) Any number of sessions can be simulated. The results are the
> total
> > wins and average win/session, total losses and average
> loss/session,
> > the expected EV based on the games played and the actual EV.
> > 7) Any game can be played at any level. As of right now the pay
> table
> > must be programmable into winpoker. I have JOB, BP, DB, DDB,

SA,

> TBP
> > games already available.
> >
> > If you can provide your values for these items I can give you

the

> > results.
>
> An interesting result of some of the initial runs I've made is

the

> large number of hands required to approach an expected return.

One

> run yielded a return of 100.63% for 1000 sessions yet normalized
> within .1% of the expected return, 99.62, over 10,000 sessions

and

> exactly the EV at 30,000 hands. In any event these are very large
> numbers of hands. In the first case, it took 7871*1000 =

7,871,000

> hands and was still 1% off the expected return. It took 78

million

> hands to get close and 250 million to be exact.
>
> With this type of slow appraoch to the mean it's not surprising
that
> Rob has experienced reasonable success over only 250 session. The
> games in the run were full pays versions of BP, DB, TripleBonus+,
> TripleBonusKings and SuperAces.
>
> One conclusion is that the progression intensifies the variance.
Not
> to hard to understand given the high variance of the games played
at
> the higher end of the progression.
>
> Dick

I think I got most of it right. I plan on doing a little more testing
before feeling fully confident. With that said, I have some results.
Each odd level is a 100 credit BP play, the even levels are 300
credits and the games are shown at the beginning. Each credit is
worth one dollar. I used Robs' denominations for the play at each of
the levels. The results are:

Run 1) 100 sessions

seed = 12100
8-5BP 0.99166 10-7DB 1.001725 8-5BP 0.99166 10-7DB 1.001725 8-5BP
0.99166 10-6DDB 1.00067 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5TB+ 0.998033 8-5BP 0.99166 9-
5TB+ 0.998033 8-5BP 0.99166 8-5SA 0.998371
Hands played at level 1 = 383836
Hands played at level 2 = 411560
Hands played at level 3 = 100333
Hands played at level 4 = 125120
Hands played at level 5 = 38708
Hands played at level 6 = 47515
Hands played at level 7 = 20230
Hands played at level 8 = 27924
Hands played at level 9 = 11294
Hands played at level 10 = 15283
Hands played at level 11 = 4785
Hands played at level 12 = 7487
Number of wins = 76 for 8979.605263
Number of losses = 24 for 53937.708333
Subgoal hits = 6131 Level resets = 4753 Level losses = 5187
Total wagered = 2.025291e+07 for payback of 96.97794
Expected payback = 99.677765 Total hands per session = 11940.75

Run 2) 100 sessions

seed = 0
8-5BP 0.99166 10-7DB 1.001725 8-5BP 0.99166 10-7DB 1.001725 8-5BP
0.99166 10-6DDB 1.00067 8-5BP 0.99166 9-5TB+ 0.998033 8-5BP 0.99166 9-
5TB+ 0.998033 8-5BP 0.99166 8-5SA 0.998371
Hands played at level 1 = 374656
Hands played at level 2 = 405288
Hands played at level 3 = 97682
Hands played at level 4 = 113124
Hands played at level 5 = 31062
Hands played at level 6 = 43008
Hands played at level 7 = 16619
Hands played at level 8 = 23295
Hands played at level 9 = 9472
Hands played at level 10 = 10841
Hands played at level 11 = 3608
Hands played at level 12 = 3170
Number of wins = 89 for 15124.213483
Number of losses = 11 for 54028.181818
Subgoal hits = 5956 Level resets = 4596 Level losses = 4933
Total wagered = 15783355 for payback of 104.762897
Expected payback = 99.646438 Total hands per session = 11318.25

As one can see the results are quite different in each of the 100
session runs. Clearly, you can win or lose dramatically with this
approach.

Comments?

Dick

#15

Does this mean that the AVERAGE win is $8979 and the AVERAGE loss is
$53,937 on Run 1)? And likewise on Run 2? If so, that's way out of
whack and something's wrong.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

Run 1) 100 sessions
Number of wins = 76 for 8979.605263
Number of losses = 24 for 53937.708333

Run 2) 100 sessions
Number of wins = 89 for 15124.213483
Number of losses = 11 for 54028.181818

#16

This is what I used. $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100 progression with 400 credits
at each level (100/300). If you lost at all levels this would yield
a total of $57,200. The losses are offset by some wins, but they
wouldn't severely effect the total. I'm not surprised it's fairly close
to the max.

Note that the average win was around $15K for the 2nd run. The second
run would yield a net win of over $750K for the 100 sessions while the
1st run would net a loss of over $600K. These two runs demonstrate the
volatility of this type of progression not to mention the bankroll
requirements.

Given your own results appear somewhat closer to run #2, this run
should be much closer to what you have experienced. Naturally, if you
skip level 6 sometimes this would significantly reduce your losses.
With this understanding do you still think the results are out of
whack? What would you expect? Would you prefer I do a 5 level
simulation (without the $100 bets)?

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> Run 1) 100 sessions
> Number of wins = 76 for 8979.605263
> Number of losses = 24 for 53937.708333

> Run 2) 100 sessions
> Number of wins = 89 for 15124.213483
> Number of losses = 11 for 54028.181818

Does this mean that the AVERAGE win is $8979 and the AVERAGE loss is
$53,937 on Run 1)? And likewise on Run 2? If so, that's way out of
whack and something's wrong.

#17

I went ahead and did a 5 level run. The average wins came in around $7K
and the average losses around $16K.

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> Run 1) 100 sessions
> Number of wins = 76 for 8979.605263
> Number of losses = 24 for 53937.708333

> Run 2) 100 sessions
> Number of wins = 89 for 15124.213483
> Number of losses = 11 for 54028.181818

Does this mean that the AVERAGE win is $8979 and the AVERAGE loss is
$53,937 on Run 1)? And likewise on Run 2? If so, that's way out of
whack and something's wrong.

#18

> > Run 1) 100 sessions
> > Number of wins = 76 for 8979.605263
> > Number of losses = 24 for 53937.708333
>
> > Run 2) 100 sessions
> > Number of wins = 89 for 15124.213483
> > Number of losses = 11 for 54028.181818
This is what I used. $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100 progression with 400

credits at each level (100/300). If you lost at all levels this would
yields a total of $57,200. The losses are offset by some wins, but
they

wouldn't severely effect the total. I'm not surprised it's fairly
close to the max. Note that the average win was around $15K for the
2nd run. The second run would yield a net win of over $750K for the
100 sessions while the 1st run would net a loss of over $600K. These
two runs demonstrate the volatility of this type of progression not
to mention the bankroll requirements. Given your own results appear
somewhat closer to run #2, this run should be much closer to what
you have experienced. Naturally, if you
skip level 6 sometimes this would significantly reduce your losses.
With this understanding do you still think the results are out of
whack? What would you expect? Would you prefer I do a 5 level
simulation (without the $100 bets)?

I'm more concerned with the fact that my average win per session with
this particular strategy is right near $3800--of course, that
includes the sessions lost in the average. The average loss seems too
high because my largest ever lost is just under $34k--because of the
cashouts along the way, including several at the $100 level. Much
more often than not I do not play the $100 machines, so maybe a 5-
session sim would help. I also understand this does not include any
of the special shots I take that deviate from expert play. Also, how
does it handle the 40+ credit cashouts again? Does it continue on
from that point, or does it take you back to BP within the next lower
BP denomination and/or the lowest recovered BP denomination?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#19

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > > Run 1) 100 sessions
> > > Number of wins = 76 for 8979.605263
> > > Number of losses = 24 for 53937.708333
> >
> > > Run 2) 100 sessions
> > > Number of wins = 89 for 15124.213483
> > > Number of losses = 11 for 54028.181818
> This is what I used. $1/$2/$5/$10/$25/$100 progression with 400
credits at each level (100/300). If you lost at all levels this

would

yields a total of $57,200. The losses are offset by some wins, but
they
> wouldn't severely effect the total. I'm not surprised it's fairly
>close to the max. Note that the average win was around $15K for

the

>2nd run. The second run would yield a net win of over $750K for

the

>100 sessions while the 1st run would net a loss of over $600K.

These

>two runs demonstrate the volatility of this type of progression

not

>to mention the bankroll requirements. Given your own results

appear

>somewhat closer to run #2, this run should be much closer to what
>you have experienced. Naturally, if you
> skip level 6 sometimes this would significantly reduce your

losses.

> With this understanding do you still think the results are out of
> whack? What would you expect? Would you prefer I do a 5 level
> simulation (without the $100 bets)?

I'm more concerned with the fact that my average win per session

with

this particular strategy is right near $3800--of course, that
includes the sessions lost in the average. The average loss seems

too

high because my largest ever lost is just under $34k--because of

the

cashouts along the way, including several at the $100 level. Much
more often than not I do not play the $100 machines, so maybe a 5-
session sim would help. I also understand this does not include any
of the special shots I take that deviate from expert play. Also,

how

does it handle the 40+ credit cashouts again? Does it continue on
from that point, or does it take you back to BP within the next

lower

BP denomination and/or the lowest recovered BP denomination?

It sounds like the numbers may be reasonable. These two sims are
clearly at both extremes even though they were part of my first ten
sims. In one case you'd have and overall average win of $7500 and in
the other case you'd have an average loss of $6000.

The method I use for the 40 credit win is to look at the any win >40
credits. If that win is enough to cover the loss at the previous
level then I subract that amount from the win and reset to the
previous level. I continue along that path until I can no longer get
to another level and pocket what's left. This may get me to either a
100 or 300 credit game. If you only reset to the 100 credit games
then I will need to make a change.

Dick

#20

For clarity, the only times I retreat back to a lower level is when I
have a hit that recovers all lost credits in the current denomination,
and recovers 400 credits in the previous denomination--and sometimes,
but not often, it retreats more than one. I also must pocket at least a
40-credit profit he same time I'm doing the retreat, meaning, if I
recover all lost credits as just stated then I still can't retreat
until I also make at least a 40-credit profit at the current level.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

The method I use for the 40 credit win is to look at the any win >40
credits. If that win is enough to cover the loss at the previous
level then I subract that amount from the win and reset to the
previous level. I continue along that path until I can no longer get
to another level and pocket what's left. This may get me to either a
100 or 300 credit game. If you only reset to the 100 credit games
then I will need to make a change.