vpFREE2 Forums

Isn't it just one long game?

#1

In a message dated 7/16/2003 8:59:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
NL7HT@barrow.com writes:

The math purists say that a given machine, with a given payout, will,
over time, pay out over 100% with perfect play. We all know this. That
is why we play FPVP. However when asked about results, it all of the
sudden falls on the individual and their long term and not the
machine's. The only thing the person doing is trying to play it with
perfect play. If a person were to buy a brand new machine from the
factory and only play that machine for the rest of their life, I would
agree with you. Until that happens, forget it.

I don't think there is any mathematical notation indicating "human" or
"machine." I may be wrong. I was a fairly bad mathematics student:-) The problem
I have with this statement is that it implies a certain non randomness. It
implies that each individual machine's previous results affect its future
results... perhaps because it is a spooky computer that controls our emotions and
fortunes or simply because the mathematics that describe the probability of the
games are above many, including myself, sometimes we assign a quality to
video poker that we would not in other games. Would we say that a given set of
dice or deck of cards have a "long run?" Would you change a deck of cards
because you had gotten a particularly good hand at a poker table? If you had
rolled four sevens on the comeout would you ask for a different set because you
used up all of the sevens in the previous dice? These changes along with
changing machines or taking a break, are IMO personal preference and don't much
matter. I occasionally let my psychology make the same irrational decisions, but
the implication that vp is a non random event is a very important, and I think
wrong, position. All of the math determining each game's properties and
correlative strategy is absolutely dependent on the assumption of randomness.
    
Chandler

"...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat,
plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

In a message dated 7/16/2003 8:59:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
NL7HT@b... writes:

> The math purists say that a given machine, with a given payout,

will,

> over time, pay out over 100% with perfect play. We all know

this. That

> is why we play FPVP. However when asked about results, it all of

the

> sudden falls on the individual and their long term and not the
> machine's. The only thing the person doing is trying to play it

with

> perfect play. If a person were to buy a brand new machine from

the

> factory and only play that machine for the rest of their life, I

would

> agree with you. Until that happens, forget it.
>

I don't think there is any mathematical notation indicating "human"

or

"machine." I may be wrong. I was a fairly bad mathematics

student:-) The problem

I have with this statement is that it implies a certain non

randomness. It

implies that each individual machine's previous results affect its

future

results... perhaps because it is a spooky computer that controls

our emotions and

fortunes or simply because the mathematics that describe the

probability of the

games are above many, including myself, sometimes we assign a

quality to

video poker that we would not in other games. Would we say that a

given set of

dice or deck of cards have a "long run?" Would you change a deck

of cards

because you had gotten a particularly good hand at a poker table?

If you had

rolled four sevens on the comeout would you ask for a different set

because you

used up all of the sevens in the previous dice? These changes

along with

changing machines or taking a break, are IMO personal preference

and don't much

matter. I occasionally let my psychology make the same irrational

decisions, but

the implication that vp is a non random event is a very important,

and I think

wrong, position. All of the math determining each game's

properties and

correlative strategy is absolutely dependent on the assumption of

randomness.

    
Chandler

"...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem--

neat,

plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I enjoyed your post Chandler ... as I could not help but remember the
many stories about casino staff falling into the same mind trap when
they try to deal with a hot table player by bizarre measures such as
changing dealers, or cards, or dice etc. to disturb the
player's "rhythmn" ... as if these measures would somehow immediately
change the mathematics of the game even MORE in the casino's favor.
Weird, but oh so human, to focus on short-term fluctuations.

And your point on randomness is well-stated. In that sense, your
only argument is with Bob's BELIEF (changing machines is helpful) but
NOT his practice ... which is totally acceptable.

2-W

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, cmayhem@a... wrote: