jaycee5353@a... wrote:
Could this coupon be used by anyone or does it have your
account imprinted on it?
The double point coupons do have my name and account number
printed on them.
Horseshoe
playing perfect, 10/7 double bonus.....800 hands an hour, how much
per HOUR should a player earn, @ the quarter level?......THANKS, bish.
Over the very long term, the roller coaster ride will even out and
you will earn $1.72 per hour. It's fun but don't quit your day job.
Slowpoke
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bishqqq" <bishqqq@y...> wrote:
playing perfect, 10/7 double bonus.....800 hands an hour, how much
per HOUR should a player earn, @ the quarter level?......THANKS,
bish.
bish.
$/hr=(er-1) x bet x bets/hours=(1.001725-1) x $1.25 x 800=$1.73/hr
bankroll(11%ror)=variance/(er-1)=28.25554/(1.001725-1)=16,380 bets x
$1.25/bet =$20,475!
N0=variance/(er-1)^2=28.25554/(1.001725-1)^2=9,495,666 hands
(N0=hands that must be played to get 84% chance of net winning)
9,495,666 hands / 800hands/hr / 8hr/day / 365days/yr=4 years!
recommendation: try full pay deuces wild instead:
(er=1.00762,variance=25.83462)
to get er, variance and bankroll of various games:
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ.htm
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bishqqq" <bishqqq@y...> wrote:
playing perfect, 10/7 double bonus.....800 hands an hour, how much
per HOUR should a player earn, @ the quarter level?......THANKS,
bankroll(11%ror)=variance/(er-1)=28.25554/(1.001725-1)=16,380 bets
x
$1.25/bet =$20,475!
Nice illustration of the calculations involved, iguana. I'd suggest
that whenever someone asks a question like this, rather than just
give the answer like slowpoke did, we should show how the answer was
obtained.
You know the saying, Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him
how to fish and next thing you know he'll buy a bass boat and stand
in his back yard casting one of those rubber plugs until 3 am and
then be gone from home all weekend long during the summer and get
this wierd tan just in certain spots.... well, maybe I pulled the
wrong quote but you know what I mean.
One note - I'd be cautious with a Risk-of-ruin calculation for any
game that yields close to 100%. The problem is that that formula
assumes infinite time, and with only a slightly positive ER, it takes
so long for profits to lift you out of danger that a significant
proportion of the ruin it predicts may occur after the millionth or
ten-millionth hand. I would want to have the calculation constrained
to the first 200K-500K hands, some reasonable multi-year number. I
don't have the formula to do this (and would like to have it if
anybody does and will post it).
blaw57 wrote:
Nice illustration of the calculations involved, iguana. I'd suggest
that whenever someone asks a question like this, rather than just
give the answer like slowpoke did, we should show how the answer was
obtained.
An excellent observation.
> bankroll(11%ror)=variance/(er-1)=28.25554/(1.001725-1)=16,380
bets
x
> $1.25/bet =$20,475!
I would want to have the calculation constrained
to the first 200K-500K hands, some reasonable multi-year number. I
don't have the formula to do this (and would like to have it if
anybody does and will post it).
for one standard deviation (15.87%ror) your worst results would be:
(er-1) x hands - sqrt(variance x hands)
for fpdb at 500k hands:
(1.001725-1) x 500,000 - sqrt(28.25554 x 500,000)= -2896 bets
notes:
two standard deviations is 2.28%ror:
(er-1) x hands - 2sqrt(variance x hands)
these formulas don't work well for less than 50k hands, for further
info see:
http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/
VP Probabilities 1/9/99
(near the royal cycle the distribution will match the game without a
royal ...
fpdb without the royal is er=0.985075228,variance=14.96887234)
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "blaw57" <blaw57@y...> wrote:
bish.
PER others, BISH- if FPDW is available, play that instead.
This game can give you big profits shortrun, with a plethora (MORE
THAN YOUR AVG) of quads, OR conversely, it can DRAIN you bankroll
more quickly, with nothing higher than a FH.
Even multiple ST/FL/FH's will drain off, until you hit a 4K or higher.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bishqqq" <bishqqq@y...> wrote:
playing perfect, 10/7 double bonus.....800 hands an hour, how much
per HOUR should a player earn, @ the quarter level?......THANKS,
> playing perfect, 10/7 double bonus.....800 hands an hour, how
much
> per HOUR should a player earn, @ the quarter level?......THANKS,
bish.PER others, BISH- if FPDW is available, play that instead.
This game can give you big profits shortrun, with a plethora (MORE
THAN YOUR AVG) of quads, OR conversely, it can DRAIN you bankroll
more quickly, with nothing higher than a FH.Even multiple ST/FL/FH's will drain off, until you hit a 4K or
higher.
OK....another question....i estimated that i've played
1,019,200 hands of quarter double bonus the last 3 years..... how
many royals, on average, should i get on a million hands.....thnx
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mm4vegasvp" <mmoy@l...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bishqqq" <bishqqq@y...> wrote:
Assuming they were all non-progressive games played with perfect
strategy, you should have 21.
How to calculate: look at a game analysis that shows how much return
comes form each hand. You'll see DB royals contribute 1.6655%. Divide
this by 800 (800 to 1 payout), then multiply by 1,019,200 to get
21.21.
Now, if some of the hands were played in progressive games and if you
modified your strategy perfectly for those situations, you would need
a more complex calculation to take into account the more frequent
royals in those situations.
> > playing perfect, 10/7 double bonus.....800 hands an hour, how
much
> > per HOUR should a player earn, @ the quarter
level?......THANKS,
> bish.
>
> PER others, BISH- if FPDW is available, play that instead.
>
> This game can give you big profits shortrun, with a plethora
(MORE
> THAN YOUR AVG) of quads, OR conversely, it can DRAIN you bankroll
> more quickly, with nothing higher than a FH.
>
> Even multiple ST/FL/FH's will drain off, until you hit a 4K or
higher.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bishqqq" <bishqqq@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mm4vegasvp" <mmoy@l...> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bishqqq" <bishqqq@y...> wrote:
OK....another question....i estimated that i've played
1,019,200 hands of quarter double bonus the last 3 years..... how
many royals, on average, should i get on a million hands.....thnx
21 royals?.........ok....i've played 91 days x 14 hours a day...thats
1274 hours........800 hands per hour x 1274 is 1,019,200..........
274 x $1.72= $2,191......i've only hit 6 royals & i'm up over
$6,000.......whats the story?
bishqqq wrote:
21 royals?.........ok....i've played 91 days x 14 hours a day...thats
1274 hours........800 hands per hour x 1274 is 1,019,200..........
274 x $1.72= $2,191......i've only hit 6 royals & i'm up over
$6,000.......whats the story?
I'm not able to follow _all_ of your math; what is the "274 x $1.72= $2,191"?
Bill
bishqqq wrote:
> 21 royals?.........ok....i've played 91 days x 14 hours a
day...thats
> 1274 hours........800 hands per hour x 1274 is 1,019,200..........
> 274 x $1.72= $2,191......i've only hit 6 royals & i'm up over
> $6,000.......whats the story?I'm not able to follow _all_ of your math; what is the "274 x
$1.72=
$2,191"?
Bill
my error......should be 1,274 hours x $1.72 = $2,191...on an
earlier thread,a person said i should "earn" $1.72 per hour, playing
perfect double bonus 10/7 so in other words.... i played
1,019,200 hands , i should avg. 21 royals....I got only 6 royals,
yet i'm up over $6,000.....no progressives were played
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
14 hours per day of 800 hands per hour perfect double bonus?
why do i feel like i'm being baited?
anyhoo:
average return=(er-1) x hands=(1.001725232-1) x 1,000,000=1725bets
standard deviation=sqrt(variance x hands)=sqrt(28.25553947 x
1,000,000)=5316bets
one standard deviation (1sd) is 68% likely, two standard deviations
(2sd) are 95% likely, three standard deviations (3sd) are 99.7% likely
so, 1 million hands of perfect 10/7 double bonus:
68% (1sd) likely: 1725 +/- 5316 bets
95% (2sd) likely: 1725 +/- 10,632 bets
99.7% (3sd) likely: 1725 +/- 15,948 bets
(formulas work for any game, negative or positive, if you know the er
and variance)
21 royals?.........ok....i've played 91 days x 14 hours a
day...thats
···
(--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bishqqq" <bishqqq@y...> wrote:
1274 hours........800 hands per hour x 1274 is 1,019,200..........
274 x $1.72= $2,191......i've only hit 6 royals & i'm up over
$6,000.......whats the story?
21 royals?.........ok....i've played 91 days x 14 hours a
day...thats
1274 hours........800 hands per hour x 1274 is 1,019,200..........
274 x $1.72= $2,191......i've only hit 6 royals & i'm up over
$6,000.......whats the story?
I'm a little skeptical of the number of hands here - tell us more how
you came up with that number. Is it supported by cashback? For the
time being, I'm going to assume your true speed was 400 hph and so
you played 500,000 hands. Under this scenario, you're still short
royals by nearly half, but it's fairly easy to explain you still made
big profits.
First, keep in mind 2 things. One is what a classic bell curve looks
like. Remember those flanks curving away into infinity? There is
nothing unusual, in retrospect, in occupying one of those flanks.
Somebody has to be out there. What would make it unusual is if you
predicted it in advance. Thus, because 3 or however many people hit
two royals within an hour this past weekend does not make those
events unusual at all. With x million people playing every weekend,
the odds say it is going to happen to a certain, small percent of
them. The only way it would be unusual is if you could predict it in
advance.
This is where iguana's numbers come into play. He gave you the SD for
a million hands of as 5316 bets, or $6645 in quarters. Thus, even
assuming you really played a million hands, your variance of $4725
isn't even one whole SD, so you're really not very far out on the
flanks of that bell curve. 32% of people who play a million hands
will have a variance greater than $6645, half presumably to the good,
so at least 16%+ would easily beat your performance.
Second, normalization of long odds results takes far longer than for
short odds. If you did a million coin flips, you're going to get very
close to 500,000 heads. But it you play a million hands of DB, you
might get 21 royals, or you might get 60, or you might get 5. You
need to get the number of events well into the thousands before they
normalize, which means 2-pairs will begin to normalize in a few
hundred thousand hands, but quads and especially royals take much
longer.
Okay, with that background, let's look at the predicted result of
500,000 hands of DB. The hand distribution is shown in the first
column below - you should get 10.4 royals, 99 quad aces, and 99,000
high pair, among other hands. You should have a net profit of $1,077.
If we do nothing but cut back the royals from 10.4 to 6, this turns
your net into a loss of over $3,300. But then let's start increasing
the frequency of some of the other rare hands, the ones that haven't
normalized yet and in fact are still far from normalizing, the SF and
the 4OAK. As it turns out, these only have to increase in frequency
9.4% overall to give you a $6,000 profit. In other words, in the same
number of hands you would have expected to get 11 of each of these,
you actually got a little over 12 (or some combination with a
weighted average increase of 9.4%). That's not even enough to notice
a difference while you're playing, and very much within the realm of
possibility.
pay table expected hypothet
800 10.4 6.0
50 56.6 61.9
160 99.4 108.7
80 262.0 286.7
50 803.8 879.4
10 5,595.0 5,595.0
7 7,476.6 7,476.6
5 7,509.7 7,509.7
3 36,099.7 36,099.7
1 62,329.0 62,329.0
1 96,189.5 96,189.5
total value 500,861.5 504,845.6
minus CI 500,000.0 500,000.0
net 861.5 4,845.6
x $1.25 1,076.9 6,057.1
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bishqqq" <bishqqq@y...> wrote:
great reply, blaw57....thank you for explaing it the way you
did.....you should be a teacher.....what i thought was the "LONG
RUN", aint NOWHERE , NOWHERE, nearly the long run....i now have a
whole new outlook on video poker.....bish
I'm a little skeptical of the number of hands here - tell us more
how
you came up with that number. Is it supported by cashback? For the
time being, I'm going to assume your true speed was 400 hph and so
you played 500,000 hands. Under this scenario, you're still short
royals by nearly half, but it's fairly easy to explain you still
made
big profits.
First, keep in mind 2 things. One is what a classic bell curve
looks
like. Remember those flanks curving away into infinity? There is
nothing unusual, in retrospect, in occupying one of those flanks.
Somebody has to be out there. What would make it unusual is if you
predicted it in advance. Thus, because 3 or however many people hit
two royals within an hour this past weekend does not make those
events unusual at all. With x million people playing every weekend,
the odds say it is going to happen to a certain, small percent of
them. The only way it would be unusual is if you could predict it
in
advance.
This is where iguana's numbers come into play. He gave you the SD
for
a million hands of as 5316 bets, or $6645 in quarters. Thus, even
assuming you really played a million hands, your variance of $4725
isn't even one whole SD, so you're really not very far out on the
flanks of that bell curve. 32% of people who play a million hands
will have a variance greater than $6645, half presumably to the
good,
so at least 16%+ would easily beat your performance.
Second, normalization of long odds results takes far longer than
for
short odds. If you did a million coin flips, you're going to get
very
close to 500,000 heads. But it you play a million hands of DB, you
might get 21 royals, or you might get 60, or you might get 5. You
need to get the number of events well into the thousands before
they
normalize, which means 2-pairs will begin to normalize in a few
hundred thousand hands, but quads and especially royals take much
longer.Okay, with that background, let's look at the predicted result of
500,000 hands of DB. The hand distribution is shown in the first
column below - you should get 10.4 royals, 99 quad aces, and 99,000
high pair, among other hands. You should have a net profit of
$1,077.
If we do nothing but cut back the royals from 10.4 to 6, this turns
your net into a loss of over $3,300. But then let's start
increasing
the frequency of some of the other rare hands, the ones that
haven't
normalized yet and in fact are still far from normalizing, the SF
and
the 4OAK. As it turns out, these only have to increase in frequency
9.4% overall to give you a $6,000 profit. In other words, in the
same
number of hands you would have expected to get 11 of each of these,
you actually got a little over 12 (or some combination with a
weighted average increase of 9.4%). That's not even enough to
notice
a difference while you're playing, and very much within the realm
of
···
possibility.
pay table expected hypothet
800 10.4 6.0
50 56.6 61.9
160 99.4 108.7
80 262.0 286.7
50 803.8 879.4
10 5,595.0 5,595.0
7 7,476.6 7,476.6
5 7,509.7 7,509.7
3 36,099.7 36,099.7
1 62,329.0 62,329.0
1 96,189.5 96,189.5
total value 500,861.5 504,845.6
minus CI 500,000.0 500,000.0
net 861.5 4,845.6
x $1.25 1,076.9 6,057.1