I forgot to post the meters on tonights show. Here they are.
Highest dollar is the JKR at $10,421
The Highest quarters are the Dbl BoPo at $2,914 & the JKR $2,764
The meter-rise is now 3.2% That's .4% on each meter.
~FK
M update
I'm shaking my head in amazement at this.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
The meter-rise is now 3.2% That's .4% on each meter.
What possible reason did they use to downgrade machines that were already only 99% with the mythic "computer perfect play"?
Disgusting. Thanks for trying though. I'll stick to FPDW. No hoops to jump through. No BS. No gimmicks.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
I forgot to post the meters on tonights show. Here they are.
Highest dollar is the JKR at $10,421
The Highest quarters are the Dbl BoPo at $2,914 & the JKR $2,764
The meter-rise is now 3.2% That's .4% on each meter.
~FK
Mike you're right. People who say they can play computer perfect or near-computer perfect really have no way to know, and in fact, what we DO know is the longer one sits at a machine the more fatigued and thus the more error-prone they become--especially at moving target progressives like these.
The M put a lot of these machines in. From my experience, if any of them were not making money they'd disappear in a heartbeat, and players like Frank and his team and others like them would never be allowed to sit at them. Lowering paytables and meters is simply a way to up profit margin to a more acceptable level.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <melbedewy1226@...> wrote:
What possible reason did they use to downgrade machines that were already only 99% with the mythic "computer perfect play"?
Disgusting. Thanks for trying though. I'll stick to FPDW. No hoops to jump through. No BS. No gimmicks.
Mike you're right. People who say they can play computer perfect or near-computer perfect really have no way to know, and in fact, what we DO know is the longer one sits at a machine the more fatigued and thus the more error-prone they become--especially at moving target progressives like these.
I am happy with .10 % error rate or less. Practice makes perfect, and I practice and practice. But mistakes happen, for various reasons. Don't you usually become aware of a mistake just as you are making it or immediately afterward? I know I do. And I am also quite aware when I am playing very well too, when I'm wide awake and feeling sharp. I know when I just played a perfect session.
The M put a lot of these machines in. From my experience, if any of them were not making money they'd disappear in a heartbeat, and players like Frank and his team and others like them would never be allowed to sit at them. Lowering paytables and meters is simply a way to up profit margin to a more acceptable level.
They went from feast to famine. Their cashback is already .30, so offering 2X and 3X is a little much. I never see South Point offering more than 2X, which is wise and satisfactory. And then bounceback too? No wonder M didn't make anything on these machines.
But now they've taken an unnecessary step in the other direction. They went from 8-5 DDB to 6-5 DDB on one game. Why would they not go to 7-5 DDB? They eliminated multipliers. And now they reduce meter rise? That is a bad move in my opinion. The one thing that should have remained intact was the meter rise. That was essentially the whole point of the experiment. Meter rise!
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:
It was almost midnight at past my usual bedtime when I stopped at M last night. On my way out I noticed a sign near the registration desk offering 10X (reels) and 3X on VP every M,W+F. I was very tired so I could easily have misunderstood their intent.
Could someone verify that the M will be having 3X pts on this schedule in August. This was not mentioned in the mailer I got for August.
If it is on a sign it may apply to everyone even if they don't get a mailer.
G'luck all,
Gamb00ler
Could someone verify that the M will be having 3X pts on this schedule
in August. This was not mentioned in the mailer I got for August.
I got a notice for this separate from the regular August mailer. The
3x points is only on Monday. There are other promos on Wed/Fri.
http://www.themresort.com/rewards/Winning-Weekdays.html
If it is on a sign it may apply to everyone even if they don't get
a mailer.
It's on the web site, so I assume it applies to everyone.
···
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:22 AM, gamb00ler <gamb00ler@yahoo.com> wrote:
It also says "up to" 3x so I assume that means some people will only
get 2x for VP.
I learned expert play on the games I play by practicing on my home computer also. But it is quite different than playing on and on for hours in a distraction-filled casino while risking money. It's like the difference between being a passenger in a car vs. being the driver on a 5-hour trip.
I'm aware of some mistakes and I know I'm not aware of others. I train lots of people and see it all the time, and they've even caught ME messing up when I just didn't see it. No one is immune. And it just makes sense that sensory distractions together with the onset of fatigue cuts into sharpness.
You also asked about vp machines in Australia and I mentioned that there's a good lot of IGT machines available. There's also other brands and types--some of which Im not familiar with. As far as playing in Asia, that would be a viable alternative for them these days with all the big resort hotel/casinos popping up in Macau, Singapore, etc.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
···
I am happy with .10 % error rate or less. Practice makes perfect, and I practice and practice. But mistakes happen, for various reasons. Don't you usually become aware of a mistake just as you are making it or immediately afterward? I know I do. And I am also quite aware when I am playing very well too, when I'm wide awake and feeling sharp. I know when I just played a perfect session.
Thank you.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:
You also asked about vp machines in Australia and I mentioned that there's a good lot of IGT machines available. There's also other brands and types--some of which Im not familiar with. As far as playing in Asia, that would be a viable alternative for them these days with all the big resort hotel/casinos popping up in Macau, Singapore, etc.
Anybody under the delusion that they can play rapidly for hour after hour after hour with "computer accuracy" is in serious need of an ego adjustment.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:
I learned expert play on the games I play by practicing on my home computer also. But it is quite different than playing on and on for hours in a distraction-filled casino while risking money. It's like the difference between being a passenger in a car vs. being the driver on a 5-hour trip.
I'm aware of some mistakes and I know I'm not aware of others. I train lots of people and see it all the time, and they've even caught ME messing up when I just didn't see it. No one is immune. And it just makes sense that sensory distractions together with the onset of fatigue cuts into sharpness.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <melbedewy1226@...> wrote: Anybody under the delusion that they can play rapidly for hour after hour after hour with "computer accuracy" is in serious need of an ego adjustment.
FK Reply:
Here's one of those rare posts where my having managed a VP team makes me uniquely qualified to answer.
If you mean 100% flawless then I would agree with you. If however we adjust this to attaining 99.9% accuracy it is very difficult, but not impossible.
If you'd like some hard numbers, out of 600 trainees we got 14 players that were capable of playing at an error rate of only one small mistake per hour.
That translates to 2% of the population being able to attain this level of accuracy and 98% being not up to the task. The "most people" argument wins here. The "Anybody" argument fails, I'm afraid to say.
In order to make our A team we required that trainees played 3 hours being watched by 2 supervisors with no more than 1 mistake per hour. We also followed that up with surprise inspections where a manager would sit next to a player and watch them during a long shift when they were fatigued. They still passed.
Only 11% of our 600 trainees made the team at all (2-3 mistakes per hour). And only 1 out of 5 of those made the A team...and this was to learn only one strategy.
It's fine to say it's hard. But suggesting it's impossible is like saying no one can type at 150 words a minute. At least one person in the world can. In fact the world is filled with people that can do things we can't. I'm curious as to why your post was so strong that you touted playing VP accurately as delusional?
Hard...sure! Impossible, no.
~FK
I'll input on this Frank since I agree with Mike. I'll start off by explaining why having others "watch" trainees is inconclusive to the point of being irrelevant.
When science is involved to a .1% accuracy, hard clean data is required--something you'll never get in trials with collections of people who sit at video poker machines. In the human factors engineering projects I've been involved in that required six-sigma accuracy rates, pilots in simulators were given very simple repitious tasks to do that went on for 8 hours at a time--and these of course were highly educated and trained figher pilots. Results were compiled electronically--not merely by having others watch them--and after just 1 hour their error rates went up exponentially by the hour the longer the shift went on.
The irrelevancy of having others "watch for accuracy and errors" is simply adding another imperfect parameter to the equation. As such, multiple assumptions and conclusions are arrived at that really have no basis in science. When the subject being watched makes an error, it may not be picked up by the verifier; when the subject does not make an error, it may be picked up as an error by the verifier. And because watching someone play is far more taxing on concentration levels than actually playing, the longer a session goes on the more imperfect it becomes.
Many of your sessions at the progressives go on for many, many hours, as you yourself explained to me. I believe that to be a very inefficient method of playing. There may be one or two "freaks" out there who can beat logic on any given day, but they would never do it on anything even resembling consistency.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote> If you'd like some hard numbers, out of 600 trainees we got 14 players that were capable of playing at an error rate of only one small mistake per hour.
···
That translates to 2% of the population being able to attain this level of accuracy and 98% being not up to the task. The "most people" argument wins here. The "Anybody" argument fails, I'm afraid to say.
In order to make our A team we required that trainees played 3 hours being watched by 2 supervisors with no more than 1 mistake per hour. We also followed that up with surprise inspections where a manager would sit next to a player and watch them during a long shift when they were fatigued. They still passed.
Only 11% of our 600 trainees made the team at all (2-3 mistakes per hour). And only 1 out of 5 of those made the A team...and this was to learn only one strategy.
It's fine to say it's hard. But suggesting it's impossible is like saying no one can type at 150 words a minute. At least one person in the world can. In fact the world is filled with people that can do things we can't. I'm curious as to why your post was so strong that you touted playing VP accurately as delusional?
Hard...sure! Impossible, no.
~FK
And I agree with you. What we did as part of our training was not close to a scientific experiment. Our goal was to turn out good players, not test a theory with control groups and double blind implementation. The possibility of bias in our training method is unquestionable. Obviously we tried to catch any errors, which is why we used two spotters overlapping.
I would still say, only as an educated opinion, that sufficient accuracy is possible for a select few.
Also, keep in mind that perfect accuracy was not required in the days of 2-4% overlays lying about all over the place. In the early 90's you couldn't swing a dead cat in a casino without hitting a high progressive.
~FK
P.S. Actually, they frowned on swinging dead cats in general.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:
I'll input on this Frank since I agree with Mike. I'll start off by explaining why having others "watch" trainees is inconclusive to the point of being irrelevant.
When science is involved to a .1% accuracy, hard clean data is required--something you'll never get in trials with collections of people who sit at video poker machines. In the human factors engineering projects I've been involved in that required six-sigma accuracy rates, pilots in simulators were given very simple repitious tasks to do that went on for 8 hours at a time--and these of course were highly educated and trained figher pilots. Results were compiled electronically--not merely by having others watch them--and after just 1 hour their error rates went up exponentially by the hour the longer the shift went on.
The irrelevancy of having others "watch for accuracy and errors" is simply adding another imperfect parameter to the equation. As such, multiple assumptions and conclusions are arrived at that really have no basis in science. When the subject being watched makes an error, it may not be picked up by the verifier; when the subject does not make an error, it may be picked up as an error by the verifier. And because watching someone play is far more taxing on concentration levels than actually playing, the longer a session goes on the more imperfect it becomes.
Many of your sessions at the progressives go on for many, many hours, as you yourself explained to me. I believe that to be a very inefficient method of playing. There may be one or two "freaks" out there who can beat logic on any given day, but they would never do it on anything even resembling consistency.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote> If you'd like some hard numbers, out of 600 trainees we got 14 players that were capable of playing at an error rate of only one small mistake per hour.
>
> That translates to 2% of the population being able to attain this level of accuracy and 98% being not up to the task. The "most people" argument wins here. The "Anybody" argument fails, I'm afraid to say.
>
> In order to make our A team we required that trainees played 3 hours being watched by 2 supervisors with no more than 1 mistake per hour. We also followed that up with surprise inspections where a manager would sit next to a player and watch them during a long shift when they were fatigued. They still passed.
>
> Only 11% of our 600 trainees made the team at all (2-3 mistakes per hour). And only 1 out of 5 of those made the A team...and this was to learn only one strategy.
>
> It's fine to say it's hard. But suggesting it's impossible is like saying no one can type at 150 words a minute. At least one person in the world can. In fact the world is filled with people that can do things we can't. I'm curious as to why your post was so strong that you touted playing VP accurately as delusional?
>
> Hard...sure! Impossible, no.
>
> ~FK
>
This whole point you are making is GIGO since what matters in evaluating the efficacy of a video poker player is not error rate per se, but the effect of what errors the player DOES make on EV. For instance: a player who makes an incorrect hold in FPDW because he failed to perceive a penalty card may cost himself 0.02 bets by doing so. Compare this with something basic, like holding KK instead of KQJs. Also, the frequency with which a situation comes up matters just as much. Again defaulting to FPDW, an error like holding all five cards from 22266 costs (if memory serves) 0.1 bets, but the frequency of dealt 5OAK with three deuces is so small, the impact of that error on overall EV is minuscule.
All that said, the technique of "qualifying" potential prog team members by watching them predates computer video poker practice programs, so it may be more of an artifact than anything else. Certainly, you can tell whether a player is skilled or not simply by watching him play for a few minutes. Quantifying his skill (i.e., how close to optimal he plays) is considerably more difficult, and consequently inadequate.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:
I'll input on this Frank since I agree with Mike. I'll start off by explaining why having others "watch" trainees is inconclusive to the point of being irrelevant.
The irrelevancy of having others "watch for accuracy and errors" is simply adding another imperfect parameter to the equation. As such, multiple assumptions and conclusions are arrived at that really have no basis in science.