vpFREE2 Forums

Lenny Frome Article

"vpFREE" <vpFREE@Cox.net>
Subject: Lenny Frome Article

Double-up Option

http://tinyurl.com/3atad

So now someone is making money by re-publishing Lenny Frome's old
articles? Of course on that site, accuracy isn't important. For
example, Lenny wrote (snip):

To illustrate, in a 98.5 percent payback Joker Wild session, the
players would average 15 bets lost in 1,000 games. These same 15
bets will now be lost 1n 1,900 games. This, in effect raises the
payback to 99.2 percent. But, for a 97 percent Video Poker machine,
the double-up feature increases the payback to 98.4 percent which
suggests we can do much better on other types of machines.

Actually, the Double Up does not change the game's expected return
(payback), but it does increase the variance significantly.

In spite of many errors, Lenny contributed a lot to video poker
players. Let's let him rest in peace.

Dan

···

At 3:15 PM +0000 3/28/04, vpFREE@yahoogroups.com wrote:

--
Dan Paymar, author of "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor and publisher of "Video Poker Times" newsletter
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com

"Chance favors the prepared mind"
- Louis Pasteur

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

Double-up Option

http://tinyurl.com/3atad

Dan Paymar wrote: <<"So now someone is making money by re-publishing Lenny Frome's old
articles? Of course on that site, accuracy isn't important. For
example, Lenny wrote (snip):

To illustrate, in a 98.5 percent payback Joker Wild session, the
players would average 15 bets lost in 1,000 games. These same 15
bets will now be lost 1n 1,900 games. This, in effect raises the
payback to 99.2 percent. But, for a 97 percent Video Poker machine,
the double-up feature increases the payback to 98.4 percent which
suggests we can do much better on other types of machines.

Actually, the Double Up does not change the game's expected return
(payback), but it does increase the variance significantly.

In spite of many errors, Lenny contributed a lot to video poker
players. Let's let him rest in peace.">>

The above article is found on http://www.casinocitytimes.com/ which is a Web site that used to be owned by someone else, and when it was sold or transferred, all the old articles stayed with the Site. For example, I have some very old articles on it. I do not write there any more. There are many good authors on that site - but some stuff is not as accurate as one would like.

Elliot Frome, Lenny's son, has taken over his father's business, and is now writing some new articles, i.e., in Gaming Today. He is rebuilding his dad's old Web site, www.vpheaven.com. (Not to be confused with the formerly troublesome and now defunct yahoo group called vpheaven.) It is now found at http://pages.prodigy.net/kilroydq/. You can go there and learn more about Elliot's plan to continue where his dad left off.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards; "frugal" books;
and the NEW "Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler."

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

Okay. Let's clear the air about this one.

The 'someone', I guess would be me, Elliot Frome. As a family, we
made a conscious decision 6 years ago to hold on to my dad's
business (we had several people offer to 'buy' it). Even back then
I had hoped to someday follow in his footsteps. That 'someday'
arrived several months ago, when I started writing for Gaming
Today. All the articles I write are based predominantly on my own
research and reflect my own opinions. Thanks to genetics, they
probably won't vary much from my Dad's.

As the new kid on the block, I am always in search of new places to
have my articles published. I contacted Casino City and they agreed
to make me one of the Contributing Authors. They also asked to set
up one for my Dad by using old articles. While these articles were
all in print SOMEWHERE over the past 15 years, they were not
inherited by CC Times based on a previous site. My Dad did
occassionally write for RGT Online which seems to have a
relationship with CC Times.

So, the person(s) 'profiting' from my Dad's articles are only the
rightful owners of said articles.

Now, onto the specifics of the article.

First of all, I realize that different people choose to calculate
payback slightly differently. My Dad used to (and I agree) believe
the most accurate way is coins returned divided by coins wagered.

For a Double-Up option which is a true 100% payback (no house
advantage), playing it intermingled with Video Poker (the roughly
45% of winning hands, or more realistically the 35-40% of non Major
winning hands (I personally wouldn't double down after hitting a
SFL!), does affect the payback of your entire gambling experience by
increasing coins returned and coins wagered. Given that Double-Up
can be a 100% payback, the result should be an identical increase in
both values, which will impact the payback. If you're playing a sub
100% game, the effect will be to increase the payback. If you're
playing a 100+% game, the effect will actually be to lower the
payback. Obviously, the payback of JUST the video poker is not
affected.

Example.

If you're playing JOB 9/6 and you play 1000 hands, you'll wager 5000
coins in an hour. With a 99.6% payback, you would expect to have
4980 coins when you are done. Making my life easy for a second,
let's assume you choose to only Double-Up on your High Pair hands.
About 215 hands will be Double Up, putting at risk an additional
1175 coins. With a 100% Payback, you would expect to have those
coins returned. You've now had 6155 coins returned having wagered
6175, raising your payback to 99.676.

You've still lost 20 coins. But, technically, you've wagered 1215
hands. If you constrained this to time instead of 1000 hands of VP,
you would actually cut your loss because the number of VP hands
played would decrease and that's where all the 'loss' is.

I'm sure over his many years writing, my Dad made a few mistakes
(who hasn't??). Having watched him Ace my Physics Exam at the
dinner table without the use of a calculator, I assure you the
mistakes were few and far between. What many called 'errors' were
purposeful decisions to keep strategy tables simple so that they
could be accurately followed by the masses. This was a choice he
made. Not everyone needs to agree with it.

Have a good day everybody!

Elliot Frome
Compu-Flyers

P.S. For simplicity sake www.vpheaven.com is probably the best way
to reach our website, for those that are interested.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...>
wrote:

>Double-up Option
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3atad

Dan Paymar wrote: <<"So now someone is making money by re-

publishing Lenny Frome's old

articles? Of course on that site, accuracy isn't important. For
example, Lenny wrote (snip):
>To illustrate, in a 98.5 percent payback Joker Wild session, the
>players would average 15 bets lost in 1,000 games. These same 15
>bets will now be lost 1n 1,900 games. This, in effect raises the
>payback to 99.2 percent. But, for a 97 percent Video Poker

machine,

>the double-up feature increases the payback to 98.4 percent which
>suggests we can do much better on other types of machines.

Actually, the Double Up does not change the game's expected return
(payback), but it does increase the variance significantly.

In spite of many errors, Lenny contributed a lot to video poker
players. Let's let him rest in peace.">>

The above article is found on http://www.casinocitytimes.com/

which is a Web site that used to be owned by someone else, and when
it was sold or transferred, all the old articles stayed with the
Site. For example, I have some very old articles on it. I do not
write there any more. There are many good authors on that site -
but some stuff is not as accurate as one would like.

Elliot Frome, Lenny's son, has taken over his father's business,

and is now writing some new articles, i.e., in Gaming Today. He is
rebuilding his dad's old Web site, www.vpheaven.com. (Not to be
confused with the formerly troublesome and now defunct yahoo group
called vpheaven.) It is now found at
http://pages.prodigy.net/kilroydq/. You can go there and learn
more about Elliot's plan to continue where his dad left off.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards; "frugal" books;
and the NEW "Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler."

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

Dan Paymar wrote:

>"vpFREE" <vpFREE@Cox.net>
>Subject: Lenny Frome Article
>
>Double-up Option
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3atad

So now someone is making money by re-publishing Lenny Frome's old
articles? Of course on that site, accuracy isn't important. For
example, Lenny wrote (snip):
>To illustrate, in a 98.5 percent payback Joker Wild session, the
>players would average 15 bets lost in 1,000 games. These same 15
>bets will now be lost 1n 1,900 games. This, in effect raises the
>payback to 99.2 percent. But, for a 97 percent Video Poker machine,
>the double-up feature increases the payback to 98.4 percent which
>suggests we can do much better on other types of machines.

Actually, the Double Up does not change the game's expected return
(payback), but it does increase the variance significantly.

snip

I agree with you because I view the double-up option as merely an extension of the same game, and if I play 1,000 hands of vp, then that's how many "games" I've played, regardless of whether, or how many times, I double-up; but your statement, above, with which I agree totally, is only correct from _that_ point of view, and is _not_ correct if we were to consider each attempt to double-up as entirely separate games, as Lenny Frome was doing -- and which he made clear in his post. In fact, he also considered RE-doubling as separate games, so from his point of view, if he played only a single hand of vp, won, successfully double, and then successfully redoubled, and then failed on his third successive redouble attempt, in his mind he would actually have played four games whereas you and I would apparently agree that he had played only one game. So, from _his_ way of looking at this, he was correct, too. So it's more like a problem of symantecs, talking apples and oranges, and while both sides are right in their conclusions, neither approach can be said to be wrong.

Bill Velek

···

At 3:15 PM +0000 3/28/04, vpFREE@yahoogroups.com wrote:

You are correct. I didn't see your post until I downloaded my email again after uploading my reply. Good luck with the continuation of your father's business. He was a very nice and helpful gentleman, and I enjoyed several nice private email exchanges with him.

Bill Velek

Elliot Frome wrote:

Okay. Let's clear the air about this one.

The 'someone', I guess would be me, Elliot Frome. As a family, we
made a conscious decision 6 years ago to hold on to my dad's
business (we had several people offer to 'buy' it).

snip

ER is unchanged
96% x 100% = 96% (not 98%)

EV/hour is changed if your hands per hour have changed, which they
probably would if you took the double up option (coin-in per hour
would decrease)

EV=ER x coin-in (see vpfree home page)

Variance is doubled

kruggerrands wrote:

ER is unchanged
96% x 100% = 96% (not 98%)

EV/hour is changed if your hands per hour have changed, which they
probably would if you took the double up option (coin-in per hour
would decrease)

EV=ER x coin-in (see vpfree home page)

Variance is doubled

Because you snipped the _ENTIRE_ previous post, I had no idea to whom you were replying and had to visit the vpFree homepage/messages to look at the thread; from your message, using the "Up Thread" command, it appears that your post was in response to mine (message #27873) wherein I agreed with Dan Paymar but then went on to explain that Lenny Frome was _also_ correct. Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is; i.e., are you disagreeing with my explanation?

I also said that ER is unchanged, provided that we agree that double-ups are not considered separate games. On the other hand, _if_ they _are_ treated as different, i.e., additional, games, then the overall ER, averaging the number of one type that are played with the number of the other type that are played, changes. Sort of like if you played 1,000 hands of JoB and also played 900 hands of Joker Poker, and for some reason wanted to express the ER of all games combined, then you would average them. In that case, along those lines, you would _NOT_ say:
"96% x 100% = 96% (not 98%)" ... but rather: "[(96% x 1000) + (100% x 900)] / 1900 = 97.89%

Bill Velek

I also said that ER is unchanged, provided that we agree that

double-ups

are not considered separate games.

clearly the "igt double up" feature as it exists today is not an
independent game

there is mathematical significance to that fact
(multiply probabilities, not average)

yes, you can suppose that something independent could exist, but that
is not "igt double up" as it exists today

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

CoolerPoker http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CoolerPoker has replaced vpheaven
and I can assure you it is as troublesome as vpheaven ever was!

Elliot Frome, Lenny's son, has taken over his father's business, and is now
writing some new articles, i.e., in Gaming Today. He is rebuilding his
dad's old Web site, www.vpheaven.com. (Not to be confused with the formerly
troublesome and now defunct yahoo group called vpheaven.)

···

From: "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@frugalgambler.biz>