vpFREE2 Forums

Lenny Frome Article

#1

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). 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.

Sorry, Elliot. I didn't realize it was family. I thought that someone
else was taking advantage of your dad's good name.

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.

Sorry again, Elliot, but I have to say that you're wrong. You've
fallen into the same trap that your dad did, averaging the Double Up
return with the game's return. I'll have to admit that I fell into
that same trap, but finally realized that getting half the
probability of twice the payoff does not change the EV.

My advice on the Double Up remains the same as it always was: Double
if you would be willing to wager the amount of your payoff on the
flip of a fair coin.

Even when "payback" is calculated as coin out divided by coin in, the
Double Up does not change the game's payback. It only increases the
variance. (And, BTW, isn't expected coin out divided by coin in
exactly what the EV is?)

I suggest you read my articles in Video Poker Times issues 10.6 and 11.1.

But if you're looking for a forum for your articles, I would be happy
to publish them in Video Poker Times.

Best regards,
Dan

···

--
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]

#2

Dan,

First of all, let me say, there is no need for an apology regarding
my Dad's articles.

Let's focus on the issue at hand. I think the difference in our
points of view come from whether we consider playing a hand of VP
followed by Double-Up as a single gambling event or two distinct
events.

If I throw 5 coins into a VP machine and hit a High Pair returning
the 5 coins, and then decide to play Double-Up, in my mind I have
played 10 coins. If I win the Double-Up and stop, the machine
returns 10 coins. I consider this a return of 15 coins (5 for the
High Pair, an additional 10 for the Double-Up).

If, on the other hand, you consider this to be a single event, you
will consider it to be a return of 10 coins with a coin-in of 5.

Now, suppose the casino offered the 'Double-Up' option as a stand
alone game? I play JOB, put in 5 coins, get back 5 coins. I walk
over to Double-Up put in 5 coins and double it to 10. Take this
further, I play 1000 hands of JOB, putting in 5000 coins. It plays
to average and returns 4980. I then go over to a Double-Up machine
and play 215 hands of Double-Up. It too plays to average and after
putting at risk 1075 coins, it returns 1075 coins. My total coin in
for the 'day' is 6075. My total coins returned is 6055.

Now, I realize that in the real world there is a 'link' between VP
and the Double-Up option in that you can't play the latter unless
you get at least a High Pair in the former. I still consider them
independent events.

I will not go so far as to say if you choose to consider playing VP
and then Double-UP as a single event that you are 'wrong'. I simply
am defining the payback consistently with how I believe it should be
defined. Total coins returned divided by total coins in.

The real debate here seems to be on the clear definition of total
coins in in this case (which in turn effects total coins returned).

Differences of opinion are what makes life so much fun!

Elliot

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). 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.

Sorry, Elliot. I didn't realize it was family. I thought that

someone

else was taking advantage of your dad's good name.

>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.

Sorry again, Elliot, but I have to say that you're wrong. You've
fallen into the same trap that your dad did, averaging the Double

Up

return with the game's return. I'll have to admit that I fell into
that same trap, but finally realized that getting half the
probability of twice the payoff does not change the EV.

My advice on the Double Up remains the same as it always was:

Double

if you would be willing to wager the amount of your payoff on the
flip of a fair coin.

Even when "payback" is calculated as coin out divided by coin in,

the

Double Up does not change the game's payback. It only increases

the

variance. (And, BTW, isn't expected coin out divided by coin in
exactly what the EV is?)

I suggest you read my articles in Video Poker Times issues 10.6

and 11.1.

But if you're looking for a forum for your articles, I would be

happy

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan Paymar <Dan@O...> wrote:

to publish them in Video Poker Times.

Best regards,
Dan

--
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]

#3

Sorry again, Elliot, but I have to say that you're wrong. You've
fallen into the same trap that your dad did, averaging the Double Up
return with the game's return. I'll have to admit that I fell into
that same trap, but finally realized that getting half the
probability of twice the payoff does not change the EV.

Mathematically, the double up can be defined either as a separate play
or as a continuation of a single play which ends only when a new hand
is dealt. The EV depends on which definition is chosen, so it is important
to make it clear how one is defining the beginning and end of each "play".

My advice on the Double Up remains the same as it always was: Double
if you would be willing to wager the amount of your payoff on the
flip of a fair coin.

Even if one uses definition which cause the double up to make no
difference in EV, the double up will impact risk. If the game is
negative, and the player has a specific goal such as "turn $100
into $300 or go bust trying" then the double up will improve the
players probability of success by virtue of the reduced risk.

Even when "payback" is calculated as coin out divided by coin in, the
Double Up does not change the game's payback. It only increases the
variance. (And, BTW, isn't expected coin out divided by coin in
exactly what the EV is?)

I don't care much about variance, but risk matters, and the double up
will reduce risk in negative situations.

EV doesn't require coin in as part of its definition. In fact, in my own
programs I look only at outcomes and never at wagers. EV is the
expected value of the outcome. Many like to think in terms of a percentage
of the original wager, but there is no mathematical requirement to do so.

···

On Sunday 28 March 2004 08:24 pm, Dan Paymar wrote:

#4

Steve Jacobs wrote:

Even if one uses definition which cause the double up to make no
difference in EV, the double up will impact risk. If the game is
negative, and the player has a specific goal such as "turn $100
into $300 or go bust trying" then the double up will improve the
players probability of success by virtue of the reduced risk.

Steve,

You frequently cite this example of risk for the casual player (I
assume that's who we're talking about given the "negative" game
assumption.) I find the example misleading because it's an
unrealistic representation of what most recreational players view as
risk.

I understand why from your perspective this might be the only
reasonable manner in which to approach a negative game ("take the
money and run"). But even in the short run, players who are simply
interested in seeing themselves through a trip (or session) are much
more likely to define risk as the probability that they'll prematurely
lose their trip stake (i.e. before completing their desired play).

Under this definition, as Dan clearly advises, active doubling
increases volatility and this risk. It's ill-advised for the player
who seeks a greater probability of seeing their desired play through.
That's true no matter how you define EV for this player (a definition
that's a matter of semantics from a practical perspective -- it
doesn't change the consequences of doubling).

I think there's an inhererent danger, Steve, in your definition of
risk. While you're clear about it, I think few will come away with a
constructive understanding. Either they'll grasp the definition and
be satisfied that it doesn't apply to their own play goals or the less
mathematically inclined may simply walk with the conclusion that
doubling reduces risk ... period.

···

------

One comment about doubling and risk. Mathematically, if doubling is
restricted to risking no more than 10 credits on a single double
(maybe 15 for a more volatile game like DDB), play variance isn't
increased for most games.

In reality, though, I've yet to observe a player who engages in
doubling and quits with a 5 or 10 credit double. Their thrill is
achieved from taking a small win and parlaying it into 80+ credits.

From that perspective, doubling is best avoided. It represents
additional risk to the player without increasing expected win.

- Harry

#5

Steve Jacobs wrote:
> Even if one uses definition which cause the double up to make no
> difference in EV, the double up will impact risk. If the game is
> negative, and the player has a specific goal such as "turn $100
> into $300 or go bust trying" then the double up will improve the
> players probability of success by virtue of the reduced risk.

Steve,

You frequently cite this example of risk for the casual player (I
assume that's who we're talking about given the "negative" game
assumption.) I find the example misleading because it's an
unrealistic representation of what most recreational players view as
risk.

My main point in citing this example is to try to dispel the mistaken
(but widespread) notion that double up "can't help the player." While
that concept is true for players who only care about EV, it is false
for players who do not believe that "EV is everything."

I understand why from your perspective this might be the only
reasonable manner in which to approach a negative game ("take the
money and run"). But even in the short run, players who are simply
interested in seeing themselves through a trip (or session) are much
more likely to define risk as the probability that they'll prematurely
lose their trip stake (i.e. before completing their desired play).

I don't claim that this is the only reasonable manner to approach
negative games. It is merely one example where non-EV
considerations come into play.

Under this definition, as Dan clearly advises, active doubling
increases volatility and this risk.

I'm intentionally questioning that very advice. The mindset that
"variance is always bad" is simply wrong for negative situations,
and it is mathematically incorrect to go from "X increases variance"
to "therefore X increases risk."

If you want to just play as long as possible, then finding a
nickel machine and playing a single coin at a time may be
the best strategy. But, few play that way because it isn't
much fun.

It's ill-advised for the player
who seeks a greater probability of seeing their desired play through.

The problem here is that conventional wisdom is based on a false
premise. Your claim that doubling is ill-advised may also be based
in part or in whole on that same false premise.

That's true no matter how you define EV for this player (a definition
that's a matter of semantics from a practical perspective -- it
doesn't change the consequences of doubling).

What is false and misleading is to unilaterally declare doubling to
be ill-advised based solely on the fact that it increases variance.
The truth is that doubling is ill-advised for _some_ objectives and
very much the correct thing to do for other objectives. It depends
on what the player is trying to accomplish.

I think there's an inhererent danger, Steve, in your definition of
risk. While you're clear about it, I think few will come away with a
constructive understanding. Either they'll grasp the definition and
be satisfied that it doesn't apply to their own play goals or the less
mathematically inclined may simply walk with the conclusion that
doubling reduces risk ... period.

To me the real danger comes from being given incorrect (even
though well meaning) information.

Myth: increasing variance is always bad for the player.

Fact: for negative situations, plays which increase variance may
be correct, depending on the player's true objectives.

------

One comment about doubling and risk. Mathematically, if doubling is
restricted to risking no more than 10 credits on a single double
(maybe 15 for a more volatile game like DDB), play variance isn't
increased for most games.

You forgot the word "significantly". If you double, variance _will_
increase.

In reality, though, I've yet to observe a player who engages in
doubling and quits with a 5 or 10 credit double. Their thrill is
achieved from taking a small win and parlaying it into 80+ credits.

From that perspective, doubling is best avoided. It represents
additional risk to the player without increasing expected win.

I'm sorry, but this is just propagation of the same old myth.
If you are willing to admit that some doubling can be good, then
you have no basis for saying that "doubling is best avoided."
If you want to have your bankroll last long enough to maximize
your probability of hitting a royal flush, then doubling may in fact
be correct for anything short of the royal itself.

Variance isn't really what matters, and there is so much
mythology tied to the word "variance" that I try to avoid
basing any argument on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advising people to use doubling
unless they really understand what they are trying to accomplish
and unless doubling will truly help them reach their goals. All
I'm trying to do here is say "hold the phone, math does _not_
say that doubling is always wrong."

···

On Monday 29 March 2004 05:15 am, Harry Porter wrote:

#6

YOU consider the return of coins as a measure of EV, etc but the
casino does not.
With the very best cash back card available there are zero comps and
zero cashback for a double up. Therefore, they do not consider it the
same as a hand of VP.

···

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:59:59 -0000, you wrote:

Dan,

First of all, let me say, there is no need for an apology regarding
my Dad's articles.

Let's focus on the issue at hand. I think the difference in our
points of view come from whether we consider playing a hand of VP
followed by Double-Up as a single gambling event or two distinct
events.

If I throw 5 coins into a VP machine and hit a High Pair returning
the 5 coins, and then decide to play Double-Up, in my mind I have
played 10 coins. If I win the Double-Up and stop, the machine
returns 10 coins. I consider this a return of 15 coins (5 for the
High Pair, an additional 10 for the Double-Up).

If, on the other hand, you consider this to be a single event, you
will consider it to be a return of 10 coins with a coin-in of 5.

Now, suppose the casino offered the 'Double-Up' option as a stand
alone game? I play JOB, put in 5 coins, get back 5 coins. I walk
over to Double-Up put in 5 coins and double it to 10. Take this
further, I play 1000 hands of JOB, putting in 5000 coins. It plays
to average and returns 4980. I then go over to a Double-Up machine
and play 215 hands of Double-Up. It too plays to average and after
putting at risk 1075 coins, it returns 1075 coins. My total coin in
for the 'day' is 6075. My total coins returned is 6055.

Now, I realize that in the real world there is a 'link' between VP
and the Double-Up option in that you can't play the latter unless
you get at least a High Pair in the former. I still consider them
independent events.

I will not go so far as to say if you choose to consider playing VP
and then Double-UP as a single event that you are 'wrong'. I simply
am defining the payback consistently with how I believe it should be
defined. Total coins returned divided by total coins in.

The real debate here seems to be on the clear definition of total
coins in in this case (which in turn effects total coins returned).

Differences of opinion are what makes life so much fun!

Elliot

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan Paymar <Dan@O...> wrote:

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). 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.

Sorry, Elliot. I didn't realize it was family. I thought that

someone

else was taking advantage of your dad's good name.

>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.

Sorry again, Elliot, but I have to say that you're wrong. You've
fallen into the same trap that your dad did, averaging the Double

Up

return with the game's return. I'll have to admit that I fell into
that same trap, but finally realized that getting half the
probability of twice the payoff does not change the EV.

My advice on the Double Up remains the same as it always was:

Double

if you would be willing to wager the amount of your payoff on the
flip of a fair coin.

Even when "payback" is calculated as coin out divided by coin in,

the

Double Up does not change the game's payback. It only increases

the

variance. (And, BTW, isn't expected coin out divided by coin in
exactly what the EV is?)

I suggest you read my articles in Video Poker Times issues 10.6

and 11.1.

But if you're looking for a forum for your articles, I would be

happy

to publish them in Video Poker Times.

Best regards,
Dan

--
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]

vpFREE Links:

http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#7

Valid point. When computing overall payback including cashback,
this would have to be factored in.

I still believe, however, that the overall payback of your play
should be considered to be the weighted average as described before.

For what it's worth, keep in mind as the article was in essence
a 're-print' from a time long ago, there's a good chance that the
article was written before cash back was as prevalent as it is
today. My best guess is that the article was originally written in
the early 90's.

Elliot

YOU consider the return of coins as a measure of EV, etc but the
casino does not.
With the very best cash back card available there are zero comps

and

zero cashback for a double up. Therefore, they do not consider it

the

same as a hand of VP.

>Dan,
>
>First of all, let me say, there is no need for an apology

regarding

>my Dad's articles.
>
>Let's focus on the issue at hand. I think the difference in our
>points of view come from whether we consider playing a hand of VP
>followed by Double-Up as a single gambling event or two distinct
>events.
>
>If I throw 5 coins into a VP machine and hit a High Pair

returning

>the 5 coins, and then decide to play Double-Up, in my mind I have
>played 10 coins. If I win the Double-Up and stop, the machine
>returns 10 coins. I consider this a return of 15 coins (5 for

the

>High Pair, an additional 10 for the Double-Up).
>
>If, on the other hand, you consider this to be a single event,

you

>will consider it to be a return of 10 coins with a coin-in of 5.
>
>Now, suppose the casino offered the 'Double-Up' option as a stand
>alone game? I play JOB, put in 5 coins, get back 5 coins. I

walk

>over to Double-Up put in 5 coins and double it to 10. Take this
>further, I play 1000 hands of JOB, putting in 5000 coins. It

plays

>to average and returns 4980. I then go over to a Double-Up

machine

>and play 215 hands of Double-Up. It too plays to average and

after

>putting at risk 1075 coins, it returns 1075 coins. My total coin

in

>for the 'day' is 6075. My total coins returned is 6055.
>
>Now, I realize that in the real world there is a 'link' between

VP

>and the Double-Up option in that you can't play the latter unless
>you get at least a High Pair in the former. I still consider

them

>independent events.
>
>I will not go so far as to say if you choose to consider playing

VP

>and then Double-UP as a single event that you are 'wrong'. I

simply

>am defining the payback consistently with how I believe it should

be

>defined. Total coins returned divided by total coins in.
>
>The real debate here seems to be on the clear definition of total
>coins in in this case (which in turn effects total coins

returned).

>
>Differences of opinion are what makes life so much fun!
>
>Elliot
>
>> 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). 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.
>>
>> Sorry, Elliot. I didn't realize it was family. I thought that
>someone
>> else was taking advantage of your dad's good name.
>>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Sorry again, Elliot, but I have to say that you're wrong.

You've

>> fallen into the same trap that your dad did, averaging the

Double

>Up
>> return with the game's return. I'll have to admit that I fell

into

>> that same trap, but finally realized that getting half the
>> probability of twice the payoff does not change the EV.
>>
>> My advice on the Double Up remains the same as it always was:
>Double
>> if you would be willing to wager the amount of your payoff on

the

>> flip of a fair coin.
>>
>> Even when "payback" is calculated as coin out divided by coin

in,

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, videopoker@j... wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:59:59 -0000, you wrote:
>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan Paymar <Dan@O...> wrote:
>the
>> Double Up does not change the game's payback. It only increases
>the
>> variance. (And, BTW, isn't expected coin out divided by coin in
>> exactly what the EV is?)
>>
>> I suggest you read my articles in Video Poker Times issues 10.6
>and 11.1.
>>
>> But if you're looking for a forum for your articles, I would be
>happy
>> to publish them in Video Poker Times.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> 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]
>
>
>
>vpFREE Links:
>
>http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>