the casino responds to the player's actual play
it's a common newbie mistake to think they are just playing against a
machine
the game is much more complex than that, particularly today's game
where the edge is largely found in promotions
an individual plays against the casino and competes with the other
players, the casino plays against the group of players, but will
target individual players under certain circumstances
Good points, but the problem lies with the 2 player part. I guess I
should have been more
elaborative: VP is considered a 1 player game since only 1 player
requires a strategy. In
other words, the computer doesn't respond to the players actual play
and it doesn't need a
strategy.
BTW, though the mixed-stragtegy game theory stuff (developed by Von
Neumon, beleive)
has been known for a long time, until the recent hold-em frenzy very
few talked about it.
In (heads up) hold'em it is correct, actually optimal, at times to
play "randomly". What I
mean is that, for a cartain hand, the correct play may be to bluff
50% of the time and fold
50% of the time. Likewise, it would be wrong (for the same hand) to
always bluff or always
fold (because your opponent would figure this out!). These kind of
stratgeies pop up all
over the place. For example, in Ro Sham Bo (rock paper scissors or
RPS). You see, there is
actually some skill involved in RPS-- besides being able to read
your opponent. Since VP
is a single player game, this stuff doesn't really apply. That
said, if your VP stratgey
depended on your current bankroll, and that strategy required a bet
that could not be
made (given the current bankroll) due to machine limitations, one
might be able to use a
mixed-strategey apporach to acheive better results. The
mixed-strategy need not be
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cdfsrule" <groups.yahoo@v...> wrote:
random, but it does need to be probablistic.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan Paymar <Dan@O...> wrote:
>
> cdfsrule wrote (snip):
> >Now VP is NOT a zero-sum 2 player game.
>
> That statement is true only if the IRS is considered to be involved
> in the game. Other than personal income taxes, all exchanges of
> values are between the player and the casino, with nothing being
> added or subtracted by an outside party, so video poker IS a zero sum
> two-player game.
>
> If taxes are to be considered, then we can reduce the game's expected
> return by the amount of taxes, and from the player's point of view it
> can still be analyzed as a zero sum game.
>
> Dan
>
> --