... she actually favors video poker, frequents different
Henderson-area casinos a few nights a week
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/dzxxh">
http://tinyurl.com/dzxxh</a>
LVRJ - Oops, she hits a million again
Interesting story, but I was surprised by the quotes of Anthony
Curtis and Bill Thompson, excerpted as follow:
""That is fricken' amazing," said Anthony Curtis, president of Las
Vegas Advisor.com. "You're looking at odds in either the billions or
trillions. I don't think I've ever heard of somebody doing something
like that. The Aristocrat game is popular, but it hasn't hit all that
often. For this woman to do this twice is a pretty amazing
accomplishment."
University of Nevada, Las Vegas professor Bill Thompson, who
specializes in gaming issues, called Argyris, "one very lucky lady."
He said it would be "mind-boggling" to come up with the odds of that
particular occurrence.""
These guys are supposed to be professionals, let's take an amateur
stab at it with some back of the envelope calculations.
They said the prize requires $2 bet and that the lady visits casinos
a few nights a week. Let's make a few assumptions: The grand prize is
1% of payback, hence it hits every 50,000,000 qualified bets and that
the lady makes 1,000 per week, 50,000 per year, her chance of hitting
at the end of a years play is one in a 1,000. Given that she hits it
once the chance that she will hit it again within a year is still
1,000 to one, since the events are independent the chance of both
events happening, using my assumptions, are about one in a 1,000,000,
long odds to be sure but far short of trillions to one( 1 trillion is
1,000 billion or a million millions) If we up her play per year we
get odds well below a million to one, if I was too generous in my
assumptions we're talking multilple millions, even if I'm off by a
factor of 100 in jackpot hits we're still at 100 million to one, and
I think my play numbers are very conservative for somone who vists a
casion a few nights a week, with an extra $400,000 in the bank, I
very seriously doubt we're talking about billions to one, trillions
is just laughable
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
... she actually favors video poker, frequents different
Henderson-area casinos a few nights a week<a href="http://tinyurl.com/dzxxh">
http://tinyurl.com/dzxxh</a>
<<Interesting story, but I was surprised by the quotes of Anthony
Curtis and Bill Thompson."
Not being a math person, I didn't think about questioning their figures - but I did question something else Bill Thompson said. I don't have the article at hand but it was something about he wondered why she was even gambling since she had hit such a big jackpot earlier. I was amazed that an "authority on gaming" who lives in Vegas could make such a statement. He must not be a gambler himself, or he would understand that it's not the destination (winning a life-changing jackpot) but the fun trip along the way!!!
···
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards and for the
Frugal series of books. NEW - Blackjack Strategy
Cards
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118" <jaydavidson118@y...>
wrote:Y
They said the prize requires $2 bet and that the lady visits
casinos
a few nights a week. Let's make a few assumptions: The grand prize
is
1% of payback, hence it hits every 50,000,000 qualified bets and
that
the lady makes 1,000 per week, 50,000 per year, her chance of
hitting
at the end of a years play is one in a 1,000. Given that she hits
it
once the chance that she will hit it again within a year is still
1,000 to one, since the events are independent the chance of both
events happening, using my assumptions, are about one in a
1,000,000,
long odds to be sure but far short of trillions to one( 1 trillion
is
1,000 billion or a million millions) If we up her play per year we
get odds well below a million to one, if I was too generous in my
assumptions we're talking multilple millions, even if I'm off by a
factor of 100 in jackpot hits we're still at 100 million to one,
and
I think my play numbers are very conservative for somone who vists
a
casion a few nights a week, with an extra $400,000 in the bank, I
very seriously doubt we're talking about billions to one, trillions
is just laughable
Your comments are a joke....right? Because it's amusing how
you
work down one in 50,000,000 odds down to one in a thousand. Like to
see how you do it for one in 40,000, like for a royal flush.
thank you
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...>
wrote:
Interesting story, but I was surprised by the quotes of Anthony
Curtis and Bill Thompson. Not being a math person, I didn't think
about questioning their figures - but I did question something else
Bill Thompson said. I don't have the article at hand but it was
something about he wondered why she was even gambling since she had
hit such a big jackpot earlier. I was amazed that an "authority on
gaming" who lives in Vegas could make such a statement. He must
not be a gambler himself, or he would understand that it's not the
destination (winning a life-changing jackpot) but the fun trip along
the way!!!
···
------------------------------
Hi Jean,
I had exactly the same thought when I read Thompson's comment.
There is no way that a Big Winner (no matter how BIG) is going to
give up "the thrill of the chase" because of one big win. As a
matter of fact, I think that the winner is much more likely to
continue playing since they now have lots more bankroll.
wally_l2001 wrote:
Your (Jay D's) comments are a joke....right? Because it's amusing how
you work down one in 50,000,000 odds down to one in a thousand. Like
to see how you do it for one in 40,000, like for a royal flush.
Gee, guess I was taken in too easily by Jay ...
The math of 50,000,000/50,000 = 1000 worked for me, as did the idea
that one might expect a reasonably active player would have to play
for a thousand years to play through a jackpot "cycle" on these machines.
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
wally_l2001 wrote:
> Your (Jay D's) comments are a joke....right? Because it's amusing
how
> you work down one in 50,000,000 odds down to one in a thousand.
Like
> to see how you do it for one in 40,000, like for a royal flush.
Gee, guess I was taken in too easily by Jay ...
The math of 50,000,000/50,000 = 1000 worked for me, as did the idea
that one might expect a reasonably active player would have to play
for a thousand years to play through a jackpot "cycle" on these
machines.
- H.
I agree with Jay too. Once the first game is won, winning the next
one has high odds, but not "billions and billions to one". Also,
after winning the first million bucks, I'll bet she hammered the game
very very hard for months on end.