Bob Dancer wrote in his "Million Dollar VP" about a woman who
played next to him once at the Rio and short coined a Royal on a
dollar machine. She was unhappy about winning a thou rather than 4
thou. I agree, particularly in this case, 1000$ is hardly a tragedy.
However I sypathize with the womans sentiment about 'wasting'one of
her royals. 95% of my play is on 25cent VP. The other 5% is relax time
on nickel keno and once a blue moon 1 and 2 cent spin poker. Well once
in a blue moon sure bit me in the ole buttocks! After 3 weeks and
approx. 70,000 hands on quarter single line, I pop a 2cent spin poker
royal 10 minutes after I sit down! Arghhhh! I manage a 70$ profit and
cash put, very frustrated. I happen to be in the camp whom belives you
only hit a finite amount of any given hand, including royals. Some
belive it doesnt matter, how you do on quarters should be kept separte
from what you do on any other denomination. Either way, it sucks
hitting a 80$ royal when ive gone 70,000 thousand hands and 1700$ for
a mere 1000$ royal! I realize thats the chance I took and came up
snake eyes. Did I really waste one of my royals? Spin Poker is really
fun! Its a shame you cant find at least a 10cent 10/7DB version
somewhere, but what can you do.
Im ready to pull my hair out! (the 10 strands I have left!)
If the machine is fair and the random number generator is working then you can have royals on successive hands. There is a mathematical principle called "Null hypothesis" that says, in short, that each time you hit the button on a video poker machine it is a brand-new event, totally unrelated to any other event and the likeliness of any particular hand is the same for EACH event. Period. That is mathematics, not theory.
Karen
···
-----Original Message-----
From: davidmontelago <davidmontelago@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:23:11 -0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Im ready to pull my hair out! (the 10 strands I have left!)
Bob Dancer wrote in his "Million Dollar VP" about a woman who
played next to him once at the Rio and short coined a Royal on a
dollar machine. She was unhappy about winning a thou rather than 4
thou. I agree, particularly in this case, 1000$ is hardly a tragedy.
However I sypathize with the womans sentiment about 'wasting'one of
her royals. 95% of my play is on 25cent VP. The other 5% is relax time
on nickel keno and once a blue moon 1 and 2 cent spin poker. Well once
in a blue moon sure bit me in the ole buttocks! After 3 weeks and
approx. 70,000 hands on quarter single line, I pop a 2cent spin poker
royal 10 minutes after I sit down! Arghhhh! I manage a 70$ profit and
cash put, very frustrated. I happen to be in the camp whom belives you
only hit a finite amount of any given hand, including royals. Some
belive it doesnt matter, how you do on quarters should be kept separte
from what you do on any other denomination. Either way, it sucks
hitting a 80$ royal when ive gone 70,000 thousand hands and 1700$ for
a mere 1000$ royal! I realize thats the chance I took and came up
snake eyes. Did I really waste one of my royals? Spin Poker is really
fun! Its a shame you cant find at least a 10cent 10/7DB version
somewhere, but what can you do.
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "davidmontelago" <davidmontelago@...>
wrote:
I happen to be in the camp whom belives you
only hit a finite amount of any given hand, including royals. Some
belive it doesnt matter, how you do on quarters should be kept
separte
from what you do on any other denomination.
It doesn't make any difference if you've had zero or a thousand RFs
when you hit the deal button. The chances are the same. This has been
stated before, however, I don't think it can be emphasized too much.
There is no quota, there is no one keeping track. It doesn't matter
whether you're playing any particular denom. If you practice using a
software program before you go out gambling your results there have no
bearing on your results at the casino. All that matters is WHEN you hit
the deal/draw buttons. Keep in mind that there is a non-zero
probability that you will hit a RF every time you play. There is also a
non-zero probability that you will never have a winning hand.
Dick
The gist of what you are saying below is correct, but I do feel
compelled to clean up the language. Hypothesis testing is a
statistical process whereby you posit a null and alternative
hypothesis and use statistical theory to test these hypothesis and
hence reject or accept the null hypotheisis, e.g. one could set up a
test to determine if a machine is dealing hands in a random manner
and then use statistical measures to see if the machine "passes" the
test within a given confidence level.
The concept you are discussing below is independence, which is a
concept from probability theory. The idea is that individual hands of
video poker are independent from one another, in that the outcome of
one hand has no impact on the outcome of future hands. Remember that
all vidoe poker machines are NOT truly random but, pseudo-random, in
which the pseudo-rng attemps to deal in a purely random manner.
Randomnes is the ideal, the machines never achieve this end state,
but, get close enough for government/regulatory authority work.
vp_mavin
Video_Poker_Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Video_Poker_Forum/
If the machine is fair and the random number generator is working
then you can have royals on successive hands. There is a
mathematical principle called "Null hypothesis" that says, in short,
that each time you hit the button on a video poker machine it is a
brand-new event, totally unrelated to any other event and the
likeliness of any particular hand is the same for EACH event.
Period. That is mathematics, not theory.
Actually, the probability is zero. Doesn't mean that it's impossible,
just infinitely unlikely.
JBQ
···
On 3/10/06, mroejacks <rgmustain@att.net> wrote:
There is also a
non-zero probability that you will never have a winning hand.
Given any limited time, such as a lifetime, it's not infinitely
unlikely to never have a winning hand.
···
Actually, the probability is zero. Doesn't mean that it's impossible,
just infinitely unlikely.JBQ
On 3/10/06, mroejacks <rgmustain@att.net> wrote:
There is also a
non-zero probability that you will never have a winning hand.vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
That's a triple-negative post.
···
On 3/10/06, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote:
Given any limited time, such as a lifetime, it's not infinitely
unlikely to never have a winning hand.>Actually, the probability is zero. Doesn't mean that it's impossible,
>just infinitely unlikely.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hey this stuff happens all the time if your spaceship has an
Improbability Drive.
Why does a forum on advantage video poker with so many mathematically
correct contributors regularly receive so many posts from people who
think their last poker hand somehow affects their next hand or future
hands?
Chris
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Baptiste Queru" <jbqueru@...>
wrote:
···
Actually, the probability is zero. Doesn't mean that it's impossible,
just infinitely unlikely.JBQ
On 3/10/06, mroejacks <rgmustain@...> wrote:
> There is also a
> non-zero probability that you will never have a winning hand.
Although Tom already corrected this statement, the easiest way to look
at it is by looking at coin flips. Call heads a winner and tails a
loser. The probability of ALWAYs getting heads is 1/2^number of trials.
Since the "1" never goes away the probability IS non-zero.
As the number of trials increases the value gets very, very low. In
fact, it quickly becomes zero for any practical application. The reason
I made this statement was simply to point out that little is excluded
when looking at random, independent events.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Baptiste Queru" <jbqueru@...>
wrote:
···
Actually, the probability is zero. Doesn't mean that it's impossible,
just infinitely unlikely.JBQ
On 3/10/06, mroejacks <rgmustain@...> wrote:
> There is also a
> non-zero probability that you will never have a winning hand.
"The probability of ALWAYs getting heads is 1/2^number of trials.
Since the '1' never goes away the probability IS non-zero....As
the number of trials increases the value gets very, very low. In fact,
it quickly becomes zero for any practical application."
So, is it non-zero or zero?
···
On 3/10/06, mroejacks <rgmustain@att.net> wrote:
Although Tom already corrected this statement, the easiest way to look
at it is by looking at coin flips. Call heads a winner and tails a
loser. The probability of ALWAYs getting heads is 1/2^number of trials.
Since the "1" never goes away the probability IS non-zero.As the number of trials increases the value gets very, very low. In
fact, it quickly becomes zero for any practical application. The reason
I made this statement was simply to point out that little is excluded
when looking at random, independent events.Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Baptiste Queru" <jbqueru@...>
wrote:
>
> Actually, the probability is zero. Doesn't mean that it's impossible,
> just infinitely unlikely.
>
> JBQ
>
> On 3/10/06, mroejacks <rgmustain@...> wrote:
> > There is also a
> > non-zero probability that you will never have a winning hand.
Non-zero as I stated. Note the use of "practical" in the second
sentence.
Within "practical" boundaries you will never come across a veteran VP
player that has lost every VP hand. That does not mean the same thing
as impossible.
Understanding that random results are a continuum of possible results
can be helpful in feeling comfortable with seemingly strange
occurrences. It helps us remember that just because something is
unlikely does not equate to impossible.
To make it worse, the more you gamble, the more strange events you will
see.
Dick
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Curtis Rich" <LGTVegas@...> wrote:
"The probability of ALWAYs getting heads is 1/2^number of trials.
Since the '1' never goes away the probability IS non-zero....As
the number of trials increases the value gets very, very low. In fact,
it quickly becomes zero for any practical application."So, is it non-zero or zero?
Does this start a discussion on "martingale" gambling....doubling
your bet everytime you lose, then dropping back to original bet when
you win. I've always believed, you give me a game where I have
about a 50/50 chance, ie. blackjack or red/black roulette, a chance
to continue my bet indefinately and guts enough to keep going, and
I'll make a killing. I've tried this with limited sucess at those
two games(usually lacking the "guts" factor, but as yet haven't been
able to roll it over to VP play.
Non-zero as I stated. Note the use of "practical" in the second
sentence.Within "practical" boundaries you will never come across a veteran
VP
player that has lost every VP hand. That does not mean the same
thing
as impossible.
Understanding that random results are a continuum of possible
results
can be helpful in feeling comfortable with seemingly strange
occurrences. It helps us remember that just because something is
unlikely does not equate to impossible.To make it worse, the more you gamble, the more strange events you
will
see.
Dick
>
> "The probability of ALWAYs getting heads is 1/2^number of trials.
> Since the '1' never goes away the probability IS non-zero....As
> the number of trials increases the value gets very, very low. In
fact,
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Curtis Rich" <LGTVegas@> wrote:
> it quickly becomes zero for any practical application."
>
> So, is it non-zero or zero?
chevy59el wrote:
Does this start a discussion on "martingale" gambling....doubling
your bet everytime you lose, then dropping back to original bet when
you win. I've always believed, you give me a game where I have
about a 50/50 chance, ie. blackjack or red/black roulette, a chance
to continue my bet indefinately and guts enough to keep going, and
I'll make a killing. I've tried this with limited sucess at those
two games(usually lacking the "guts" factor, but as yet haven't been
able to roll it over to VP play.
···
=============================================================
Keep in mind that you don't get to indefinitely keep doubling your
bet (and that killing you mention is probably called suicide). It's
not that you can't have fun with this, but you should look at the
following links before you get too carried away.
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/oofqf
http://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/bettingsystems-martingale.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/m4a9r
For VP play, you'll want to read
http://www.vptruth.com/stratsingleplay.cfm
This is NOT a recommendation, just FYI.
Jeff
....and, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Testing just how non-random a pseudo-random number generator in a LV VP machine is,
would not ger a practically useful result for any of us (except, maybe, NOTI....LOL)
Come on, lighten up and quit picking nits..
.....bl
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_mavin" <vp_mavin@...> wrote:
Remember that
all vidoe poker machines are NOT truly random but, pseudo-random, in
which the pseudo-rng attemps to deal in a purely random manner.
Randomnes is the ideal, the machines never achieve this end state,
but, get close enough for government/regulatory authority work.