"Poof! ;-)"
Just like everthing else......didn't work!!
···
From: cmayhem@aol.com
how many hands in the long run.
Rob,
I found both Chandlers reply and your come back very funny. I don't
post on these forums much but I do read them and must say that your
presence here which was preceded by much wringing of hands and dire
predictions has been less than disasterous. Hows that for a ringing
endorsement.
As to the question how many hands in the long run? I am afraid that I
skipped much of the thread because it has been discussed many times
in the past. Excuse any redundancy but for what its worth here is
my 2 cents.
It takes an infinite number of hands played perfectly to be 100%
certain of obtaining a theoretical return. In the real world however
the goal is to get a return over 100% and playing games a few tenths
of a percent over 100% for several royal cycles gives you decent odds
of being in positive territory. If someone wants more than just
decent odds of winning I would ask why they gamble in the first
place. -JFR
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Singer <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
Just like everthing else......didn't work!!
JFR,
I like your reply. You have a sense of humor, and you are
mathematically correct. Strictly speaking, only after an infinite
number of hands played perfectly can one be 100% certain of obtaining
a theoretical return. Since no one lives forever to check that fact
empirically, then, in sentences reminiscent of Confusius, "if the
long term existed, we would not be here".
Infinity is not a practical quantity for gambling purposes, thus Skip
Hughes made the very pertinent remark tha one has to say what one
means by "long term". Dan Paymar had the intellectual honesty to
correct a past statement of his ("the long term is 200,000 hands")
and provide a more quantitative definition of the "long term"
introducing confidence factors, bankroll and percentage brackets.
Let me say that the presentation of the subject in FAQs is inaccurate
and misleading. I know, I risk being called myself a groundhog or a
nibelung by saying this, LOL. I do believe, though, that particularly
for people new to Video Poker, it is important to grasp this concept
of "long term". I have seen too many posts with wrong ideas that
develop otherwise. People often talk about being "due", and then
say "I know it's not so but...", etc. Or, as this thread shows,
people believe that after so many hands they will "win". None of this
is mathematically correct. In fact, mathematics can't guarantee
anyone to win in Video Poker, though it will perhaps enlighten them
to seek the better odds, and see where those better odds are.
To go back to FAQs.
"10. What is the long term? - It is when you have played enough hands
that actual results equal or approach expected results. Tom Ski
calculates (with a 95% confidence factor) that the actual results for
10/7 DB, played with perfect strategy, should be within 1.0% of
expected results after 1,085,465 hands, and within 0.1% after
108,546,482 hands."
The first phrase is wrong. Actual results can equal expected results
after just one hand. Take a machine that pays back 100%, play five
dollars, get a pair of Jacks, be paid five dollars, your actual
results are exactly the expected results after one hand. As for
approaching expected results, that applies only in statistical terms.
The second part contains a Tom Ski calculation. I have not checked
it, but I assume it is correct. Nevertheless, for the gambler the
important thing is the correct interpretation of the numbers. Let us
think of that 100% payback machine, and the 95% confidence factor.
Does the novice VP player realize that on a dollar machine those
numbers mean that after a million or so hands he could easily be
losing $50,000? Does the novice VP player realize that after one
hundred million hands instead of being confident to lose less, he
could be losing half a million dollars? Does he realize that the 95%
condifence factor is not guaranteed and that he could lose much more?
It is refreshing to read Rob Singer say "it does not work", an
intellectualy more honest statement than lots of misleading ones.
Thanks for bringing up infinity. Too many people say things
like "last trip I hit five royals, I should stay away from Las Vegas
for a while", or "I have not hit royals, I'm due". All these
misconceptions come from wrongly believing that if they play long
enough they approach some average. No, there is no tutelary divinity
guiding your gambling results so that you conform to average, at
least no one has presented evidence for this.
I would still advice any VP player that asks me to go ahead and play
the better paytable machines, and to use perfect strategy if
possible. Not because they will thus be assured to win, but because
some suppositions lead to some calculations that show the odds are
best doing things this way, as far as it is known, for a goal of long
term profit.
Enough said. I will go back to my cave. I hope you, Jerry Reller,
post more often. One does like the humorous and at the same time
balanced views. I hope I have not caused you aggravation, but a few
more laughs. Regards.
E
> Just like everthing else......didn't work!!
Rob,
I found both Chandlers reply and your come back very funny. I don't
post on these forums much but I do read them and must say that your
presence here which was preceded by much wringing of hands and dire
predictions has been less than disasterous. Hows that for a ringing
endorsement.As to the question how many hands in the long run? I am afraid that
I
skipped much of the thread because it has been discussed many times
in the past. Excuse any redundancy but for what its worth here is
my 2 cents.It takes an infinite number of hands played perfectly to be 100%
certain of obtaining a theoretical return. In the real world
however
the goal is to get a return over 100% and playing games a few
tenths
of a percent over 100% for several royal cycles gives you decent
odds
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Reller" <JFReller@a...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Singer <rsinger1111@c...> wrote:
of being in positive territory. If someone wants more than just
decent odds of winning I would ask why they gamble in the first
place. -JFR
Snip
Enough said. I will go back to my cave. I hope you, Jerry Reller,
post more often. One does like the humorous and at the same time
balanced views. I hope I have not caused you aggravation, but a few
more laughs. Regards.
E,
Thank you for the encouragement. I found your response to be right on
the money. It seemed a shame to snip it in this reply. The "long
term" concept is offered to new players as both a promise and an
obstacle and it is easy for them to become dissolusioned. I think
reading your response would be good therapy for them.
BTW you have provided a few more laughs and no aggravation. Don't
stay in your cave too long. -JFR
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mubowor" <erchalb@c...> wrote:
I considered this loophole, but opted for a shorter definition that is
probably understood by most people. Your comment makes me reconsider and
I have just changed the FAQ to read:
"Theoretically speaking, the long term is forever. For video poker
purposes, the long term is when you have played a lot of hands (several
million at a minimum) and actual results are about the same as expected
results. Tom Ski calculates (with a 95% confidence factor) that the
actual results for 10/7 DB, played with perfect strategy, should be
within 1.0% of expected results after 1,085,465 hands, and within 0.1%
after 108,546,482 hands."
I think there are other things that could/should be covered about the
long term in the FAQ, and it's on my list of things to do.
Thanks for the feedback,
vpFREE Administrator
···
On 10 Oct 2003 at 11:58, mubowor wrote:
To go back to FAQs.
"10. What is the long term? - It is when you have played enough
hands that actual results equal or approach expected results.
The first phrase is wrong. Actual results can equal expected results
after just one hand.
vpFREE Administrator,
I don't know why I'm posting again; it isn't February 2nd yet, LOL.
I think the change you made to point 10. is an improvement.
I think it is wrong to expect the FAQs to be a treatise on any branch
of mathematics; but the FAQs are useful if they are generally
understood by a novice new to these things. The way you have written
point 10 now, a person will not consider it puzzling and
contradictory to be told, for example, that the wheel at Monte Carlo
showed red in over twenty consecutive times on a certain occasion.
The numerical example included in point 10 shows the precise kinds of
statements mathematics is able to give, and no more.
You see, picture a novice. Someone tells him a machine pays back
100.7% played perfectly well; and then someone tells him this only is
true in the long term; and then someone tells him the long term is a
set number of hands. After a million hands, this novice could end up
very happy celebrating with Champagne, but he could also end up
ruined and taking tranquilizers. The way point 10 is phrased now, it
does not encourage people to have false expectations. This might
sound trivial, but it is not. I know a guy who is losing at VP. He
has wrong notions. He feels since he is so far behind his "average",
that a windfall is "due". He won't listen to me. I don't know who he
listens to, but he informs himself. He certainly does not read Bob
Dancer who is careful to phrase things well. Let me quote the end of
his most recent column,
"The idea that if you play well you'll always win and if you've lost
that means you've played poorly simply isn't true. Good players lose
most of the time. But when they do win, hopefully their good scores
more than make up for their previous losses."
Note how careful BD is in the last sentence. He does not say good
playes will get a windfall so that their Video Poker life balance
will become average. He does not say that at all. By using the
word "hopefully", he leaves the possibility open for those scores not
making up the losses in some cases. He knows that out of millions and
millions of players, the mathematics allows for a few to experience
really weird things.
Best wishes,
E.
"The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an
unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The
commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not
quite." Chesterton. (Hope you like this one, vppapi.).
> To go back to FAQs.
>> "10. What is the long term? - It is when you have played enough
>> hands that actual results equal or approach expected results.> The first phrase is wrong. Actual results can equal expected
results
> after just one hand.
I considered this loophole, but opted for a shorter definition that
is
probably understood by most people. Your comment makes me
reconsider and
I have just changed the FAQ to read:
"Theoretically speaking, the long term is forever. For video poker
purposes, the long term is when you have played a lot of hands
(several
million at a minimum) and actual results are about the same as
expected
results. Tom Ski calculates (with a 95% confidence factor) that the
actual results for 10/7 DB, played with perfect strategy, should be
within 1.0% of expected results after 1,085,465 hands, and within
0.1%
after 108,546,482 hands."
I think there are other things that could/should be covered about
the
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_FREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2003 at 11:58, mubowor wrote:
long term in the FAQ, and it's on my list of things to do.Thanks for the feedback,
vpFREE Administrator