vpFREE2 Forums

Math v. Superstition?

I understand the math and that is part of why I play video poker; however, I also have a superstitious hang up as well:
I tend to change machines that are "cold."

Since I have a stubborn streak and at some level know that the math will work out, I have not moved from machines that are taking my money as fast as I can repeatedly reach into my pocket for more. A couple of these really stubborn and deep-pocketed days were sessions where I did not hit any 4 of a kinds in about 5 hours each day playing at about 800 hands/hr on DDB.

I typically rate a "cold" machine as losing 12 to 13 hands out of about 15 to 16 played with the only wins (if any) being paying pairs.

The next day or sometimes, if I come back 5 hrs later that machine will start providing a statistically normal distribution. But it seems that the RNG in machines can yield really bad hand distributions for extended periods of time. At least that is my mathmatical justification for my superstititous machine changing attitude.

Anyone share this? Have other behavior besides the earlier discussion about playing 1 vs. 5 coins?

armchairpresident wrote:

I have not moved from machines that are taking my money

If you replaced "are taking" with "took," that should eliminate a lot
of misconceptions. The phrase "are taking" is based on an
unsupportable, hopelessly complicated theory.

I have never understood the "purists" scoffing at people who change machines after a "cold" streak. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which machine you use - the odds are identical - so if one chooses to change machines because of an annoying draft, bad lighting, an obnoxious player nearby, wanting a change of scenery, or tiring of putting money in and getting none back, it makes no difference. One can continue on the same machine or move, and it should make no difference - so why the flap if you decide to move to a new machine? Makes no sense to me.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "armchairpresident" <smellypuppy@...> wrote:

I understand the math and that is part of why I play video poker; however, I also have a superstitious hang up as well:
I tend to change machines that are "cold."

Since I have a stubborn streak and at some level know that the math will work out, I have not moved from machines that are taking my money as fast as I can repeatedly reach into my pocket for more. A couple of these really stubborn and deep-pocketed days were sessions where I did not hit any 4 of a kinds in about 5 hours each day playing at about 800 hands/hr on DDB.

I typically rate a "cold" machine as losing 12 to 13 hands out of about 15 to 16 played with the only wins (if any) being paying pairs.

The next day or sometimes, if I come back 5 hrs later that machine will start providing a statistically normal distribution. But it seems that the RNG in machines can yield really bad hand distributions for extended periods of time. At least that is my mathmatical justification for my superstititous machine changing attitude.

Anyone share this? Have other behavior besides the earlier discussion about playing 1 vs. 5 coins?

bobappic wrote:

I have never understood the "purists" scoffing at people who change machines after a "cold" streak. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which machine you use - the odds are identical - so if one chooses to change machines because of an annoying draft, bad lighting, an obnoxious player nearby, wanting a change of scenery, or tiring of putting money in and getting none back, it makes no difference. One can continue on the same machine or move, and it should make no difference - so why the flap if you decide to move to a new machine? Makes no sense to me.

I classify your reasons for moving machines into 2 categories. The
first, which you described as "an annoying draft, bad lighting, an
obnoxious player nearby, wanting a change of scenery," to which I'd
add buttons that don't work well, better access to beautiful scenery
(a. k. a. cocktail waitresses, usually), etc., isn't based on any
mathematical misconceptions. The other one is. By putting it in the
same list and the same sentence as the others, it's as if you were
trying to "smuggle" an illegitimate reason for moving machines into
the category of legitimate reasons. The negative consequences of
errors in logic such as this aren't significantly manifested in the
negligible cost of moving from one machine to another with an
identical payback and, presumably, identical qualities as mentioned in
the first category of reasons to move machines. But it doesn't take
much imagination to show significant negative consequences of the same
errors in logic in other situations. Maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis
would have turned out catastrophically worse for billions of people if
a few people had been a little less logical. Maybe World War 1,
which, in a way, to some extent, is still being fought, would have
been avoided had a few people been a little more logical. And I'm
very skeptical of anyone's ability to be selective in being logical.
To use one of my favorite phrases, I believe the correlation of the
degree to which someone is logical in one area with the degree to
which the same person is logical in another area "borders on 100%."

Understanding the math includes understanding that the RNG is truly random, and that there will be streaks, both good and bad. It would be nice if there were an even progression and that every 46,00 hands one were awarded a RF. But that's not the case.

My own particular process is that I put in $200 on a $1 machine, and if I lose that, I move on. That's a net loss of 40 hands, against whatever winning hands occur during the session. When I more than double the $200, I'll play off an odd amount (say $15 when I get to $415), then cash out the doubled amount. I'll then put in a new $100, and see where the machine takes me. If I'm in the middle of a good streak, that $100 will grow, and if it reaches $300 or more, I'll repeat the process. If the machine wipes out the $100, I'll move to the next machine in the bank, and start over with $200.

Of course the odds don't change by changing the machines, but I'd rather start fresh, and not have the feeling that I've given everything back after I've made a decent hit. I firmly DON'T believe that I'm playing with the "house's" money after I make a nice hit. Its MY money now, and the house lost all claim to it when I hit that good hand. And I'd rather it stayed in my pocket instead of migrating back to theirs.

Now playing DDB and TDB, you often get well above the $400 mark, just by hitting a bonus quad, but when I get to an even figure, I just cash it out. On those rare occasions when you hit a really nice score, like $800 quad aces, if I'm at a figure like $985 or $990, I'll throw in a Jackson and play down to an even number. Than just keeps the tickets nice and easy to keep track of and count. Then I give them another shot with the $100.

Just my way of doing things, YMMV.

Certainly the game is rigged. Don’t let that stop you; if you don’t bet, you can’t win. -Lazarus Long
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. -Yogi Berra
There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe. -Robert Heinlein

________________________________

I understand the math and that is part of why I play video poker; however, I also have a superstitious hang up as well:
I tend to change machines that are "cold."

Since I have a stubborn streak and at some level know that the math will work out, I have not moved from machines that are taking my money as fast as I can repeatedly reach into my pocket for more. A couple of these really stubborn and deep-pocketed days were sessions where I did not hit any 4 of a kinds in about 5 hours each day playing at about 800 hands/hr on DDB.

I typically rate a "cold" machine as losing 12 to 13 hands out of about 15 to 16 played with the only wins (if any) being paying pairs.

The next day or sometimes, if I come back 5 hrs later that machine will start providing a statistically normal distribution. But it seems that the RNG in machines can yield really bad hand distributions for extended periods of time. At least that is my mathmatical justification for my superstititous machine changing attitude.

Anyone share this? Have other behavior besides the earlier discussion about playing 1 vs. 5 coins?

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

GURU PERF wrote:

If I'm in the middle of a good streak

How do you know you're in the mid ...

Never mind.

Well, let's see:

Coin-inCash out
$200 $400 min.

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
(I'm in the middle of a good streak now)

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
$100 $0
End of good streak.

See, its not really too difficult a concept to grasp. Just concentrate ; )

Certainly the game is rigged. Don’t let that stop you; if you don’t bet, you can’t win. -Lazarus Long
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. -Yogi Berra
There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe. -Robert Heinlein

________________________________
From: Tom Robertson <007@embarqmail.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Math v. Superstition?

GURU PERF wrote:

If I'm in the middle of a good streak

How do you know you're in the mid ...

Never mind.

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

Here we go again.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Robertson <007@embarqmail.com>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 14, 2011 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Math v. Superstition?

GURU PERF wrote:

If I'm in the middle of a good streak

How do you know you're in the mid ...

Never mind.

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

You haven't actually answered Tom's question.

What you have described above is a technique for determining where the
middle was for a streak that has already ended.

How do you know, as you play the current hand, that you are in the
middle of a streak that will continue, as opposed to a streak that
just ended on the previous hand?

···

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM, GURU PERF <guruperf@att.net> wrote:

Well, let's see:

Coin-inCash out
$200 $400 min.

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
(I'm in the middle of a good streak now)

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
$100 $0
End of good streak.

See, its not really too difficult a concept to grasp. Just concentrate ; )

That response was jocular, not mathematical, much in the way (I believe) Tom's response to Jean Scott was: I teach "bad" machines the worst lesson of all. I stay on them.

You know you are in a good streak while you keep on winning. When you lose a net 20 hands, I consider it to be over. That means that your winning hands along the way, straights, trips, flushes, etc. have been wiped out by the accumulation of losing hands. I don't worry about whether any one particular hand is a continuation of a streak.

That's my way of doing it, which is why I wrote YMMV. It is not for everyone, perhaps for no one else. But for me it is a control mechanism that allows me to continually assess my current situation, and avoid such things as throwing good money after bad, beating dead horses, and the classic definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

Certainly the game is rigged. Don’t let that stop you; if you don’t bet, you can’t win. -Lazarus Long
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. -Yogi Berra
There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe. -Robert Heinlein

________________________________
From: Peter M. <midnight1626@gmail.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Math v. Superstition?

Well, let's see:

Coin-inCash out
$200 $400 min.

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
(I'm in the middle of a good streak now)

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
$100 $0
End of good streak.

See, its not really too difficult a concept to grasp. Just concentrate ; )

You haven't actually answered Tom's question.

What you have described above is a technique for determining where the
middle was for a streak that has already ended.

How do you know, as you play the current hand, that you are in the
middle of a streak that will continue, as opposed to a streak that
just ended on the previous hand?

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

···

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM, GURU PERF <guruperf@att.net> wrote:

GURU PERF wrote:

Well, let's see:

Coin-inCash out
$200 $400 min.

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
(I'm in the middle of a good streak now)

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
$100 $0
End of good streak.

See, its not really too difficult a concept to grasp. Just concentrate ; )

I get it! First you play. Then you record your results as you did
above. And then, after you're done playing, you go back and find a
winning streak and, in the middle, you insert the message "I'm in the
middle of a good streak now." And when you're done playing, since the
last result was a loss, you insert the message "End of good streak."
I finally understand. I was always a little slow. But didn't you
insert the message "End of good streak" one line too late? Maybe I
still don't get it. :frowning:

You say that like it's not a good thing.

marc wrote:

···

Here we go again.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Robertson <007@embarqmail.com>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 14, 2011 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Math v. Superstition?

GURU PERF wrote:

If I'm in the middle of a good streak

How do you know you're in the mid ...

Never mind.

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

Peter wrote:

···

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM, GURU PERF <guruperf@att.net> wrote:

Well, let's see:

Coin-inCash out
$200 $400 min.

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
(I'm in the middle of a good streak now)

$100 $300min.
$100 $300min.
$100 $0
End of good streak.

See, its not really too difficult a concept to grasp. Just concentrate ; )

You haven't actually answered Tom's question.

What you have described above is a technique for determining where the
middle was for a streak that has already ended.

How do you know, as you play the current hand, that you are in the
middle of a streak that will continue, as opposed to a streak that
just ended on the previous hand?

Someone had to do it. GURU PERF wrote a perfectly funny answer and
you had to go and ruin it by asking something like that. Oh well.

GURU PERF wrote:

You know you are in a good streak while you keep on winning.

But, but ...

the classic definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

I've never understood this statement. Doesn't it say that persistence
is a vice? Einstein seemed to have trouble believing in inherent
probability. People who believe only in determinism don't make very
good gamblers. They say things such as, regarding the results of a
sporting event, when a heavy underdog won, that "it was the best team
that day."

That response was jocular, not mathematical, much in the way (I believe)
Tom's response to Jean Scott was: I teach "bad" machines the worst
lesson of all. I stay on them.

Sorry if I missed your intended humor. But then I'm not sure what to make of:

But for me it is a control mechanism that allows me to continually
assess my current situation, and avoid such things as throwing good
money after bad, beating dead horses, and the classic definition of
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.

Are you still joking here? Staying on a machine that has been cold
isn't throwing money after bad. And gambling by its nature is about
doing the same things and not knowing which result to expect.

i.e. the suggestion that there's even something to avoid implies that
the past results are somehow an indicator of what's to come.

Maybe it's just too subtle for me :slight_smile:

···

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:39 PM, GURU PERF <guruperf@att.net> wrote:

Peter wrote:

···

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:39 PM, GURU PERF <guruperf@att.net> wrote:

That response was jocular, not mathematical, much in the way (I believe)
Tom's response to Jean Scott was: I teach "bad" machines the worst
lesson of all. I stay on them.

Sorry if I missed your intended humor. But then I'm not sure what to make of:

But for me it is a control mechanism that allows me to continually
assess my current situation, and avoid such things as throwing good
money after bad, beating dead horses, and the classic definition of
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.

Are you still joking here? Staying on a machine that has been cold
isn't throwing money after bad. And gambling by its nature is about
doing the same things and not knowing which result to expect.

i.e. the suggestion that there's even something to avoid implies that
the past results are somehow an indicator of what's to come.

Maybe it's just too subtle for me :slight_smile:

Understanding how to ride out winning streaks and quit before a losing
streak starts is VERY subtle, Peter. It's not for everyone.

No,it's good...just having fun.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Robertson <007@embarqmail.com>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 14, 2011 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Math v. Superstition?

You say that like it's not a good thing.

marc wrote:

Here we go again.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Robertson <007@embarqmail.com>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 14, 2011 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Math v. Superstition?

GURU PERF wrote:

If I'm in the middle of a good streak

How do you know you're in the mid ...

Never mind.

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

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

You know, video poker is full of streaks. Since every hand is independent ( meaning the results of hand n don't influence the results of hand n+1), you are playing a whole bunch of 1 hand sessions and will have all kinds of winning and losing streaks.

Play hand 1, lose. Must be on a losing streak ( 1 hand long). Play hand 2. Hit 2 pair, woo hoo, what a hot streak ( of 1 hand). Every hand in this session has been a winner. I'm having a 200% session ( assuming Jacks or better type pay table). Hand 3, hit a straight. This is fantastic, I'm on a real hummer. This is a 400% session. Hand 4 is a loser. Darn, another losing streak.

Sure sounds silly, doesn't it? But if you believe video poker hands are independent and the hand selection is at least as random as a person dealing cards with 7 shuffles, streaks are just reporting your results. If you believe that hand number 8 is more likely to be a winner if hand 1 -7 are winners, then you don't buy into the independent trials idea.

Here's another way of looking at it. Flip a coin 10 times. If the events come out HHHHHTTTTT and you think that is 'more rare' than the sequence HHTHHTHTTT, then you don't believe in the independent trials concept.

And if you don't believe in independent trials, why would you play? I guess if you can figure out the non randomness you think exists, you would have a very profitable situation.

Try your winning streak theory on win poker. Play 1000 hands and record the results. Also, try to guess what the next hand will be based on your streak definition. I think you will find that defining a 'winning streak' is a lot tougher than you think and the n+1 hand cannot be predicted based on the previous hands.

Flip a coin 1000 times, you will probably have 'winning streaks' of 8 or 9 heads in a row. But you try to predict the next coin flip for the 1000 hands, I'd guess that your success rate would be about 50%, even with all these streaks in there.

I disagree with your categorization. There ARE no "legitimate" or "illegitimate" reasons for changing machines - or staying with a single machine for that matter. It truly doesn't matter which machine you use - so change or stay for any reason whatsoever - max nix. I understand the math full well - and if I change after losing a bunch, I"m not expecting that to "change my luck" - I'm just tired of throwing my money into THIS machine and choose to throw it into another. No difference.

Bob in San Antonio

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:

bobappic wrote:

>I have never understood the "purists" scoffing at people who change machines after a "cold" streak. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which machine you use - the odds are identical - so if one chooses to change machines because of an annoying draft, bad lighting, an obnoxious player nearby, wanting a change of scenery, or tiring of putting money in and getting none back, it makes no difference. One can continue on the same machine or move, and it should make no difference - so why the flap if you decide to move to a new machine? Makes no sense to me.

I classify your reasons for moving machines into 2 categories. The
first, which you described as "an annoying draft, bad lighting, an
obnoxious player nearby, wanting a change of scenery," to which I'd
add buttons that don't work well, better access to beautiful scenery
(a. k. a. cocktail waitresses, usually), etc., isn't based on any
mathematical misconceptions. The other one is. By putting it in the
same list and the same sentence as the others, it's as if you were
trying to "smuggle" an illegitimate reason for moving machines into
the category of legitimate reasons. The negative consequences of
errors in logic such as this aren't significantly manifested in the
negligible cost of moving from one machine to another with an
identical payback and, presumably, identical qualities as mentioned in
the first category of reasons to move machines. But it doesn't take
much imagination to show significant negative consequences of the same
errors in logic in other situations. Maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis
would have turned out catastrophically worse for billions of people if
a few people had been a little less logical. Maybe World War 1,
which, in a way, to some extent, is still being fought, would have
been avoided had a few people been a little more logical. And I'm
very skeptical of anyone's ability to be selective in being logical.
To use one of my favorite phrases, I believe the correlation of the
degree to which someone is logical in one area with the degree to
which the same person is logical in another area "borders on 100%."

Bob in San Antonio wrote:

I disagree with your categorization. There ARE no "legitimate" or "illegitimate" reasons for changing machines - or staying with a single machine for that matter. It truly doesn't matter which machine you use - so change or stay for any reason whatsoever - max nix. I understand the math full well - and if I change after losing a bunch, I"m not expecting that to "change my luck" - I'm just tired of throwing my money into THIS machine and choose to throw it into another. No difference.

Now you're saying that you change machines for no reason. But that's
not possible. The fact that you moved means that you believed it was
better.