vpFREE2 Forums

Max ER VS "other" strategies - Min Risk??

Seems to me that the only reason one would want to use a strategy to
maximize the probability of a royal on a certain limited bankroll is
for short term play. E.g., "I'm able to go to Las Vegas only one
weekend a year, and I can take a $1000 bankroll. What is the best
strategy on [my favorite game] to give me the best chance of hitting
at least one royal?"

In this case, isn't such a modified strategy maximizing the ER of
that weekend play?

If you agree with that, then a max-ER strategy is always best. It's
just that this weekend visitor's max-ER strategy isn't quite the same
as a local player's long-term max-ER strategy.

Dan

···

Steve Jacobs <jacobs@xmission.com> wrote:

If you ask "The Computer God" (TCG): "What strategy gives the best chance
of having a bankroll survive until I hit a royal" and TCG answers "use
the max-ER strategy" then TCG is a false god. Period.

--
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]

>If you ask "The Computer God" (TCG): "What strategy gives the best chance
>of having a bankroll survive until I hit a royal" and TCG answers "use
>the max-ER strategy" then TCG is a false god. Period.

Seems to me that the only reason one would want to use a strategy to
maximize the probability of a royal on a certain limited bankroll is
for short term play.

That is one reason, but I don't believe it is the only reason. If one has
limited access to good opportunities, but plays only when conditions
are favorable, then this same goal extracts the most dollars from those
limited opportunities. If, in contrast, there are always good jackpots
that are just ripe for the picking, then it is probably better to extract
maximum ER from the opportunities rather than maximum dollars.

E.g., "I'm able to go to Las Vegas only one

weekend a year, and I can take a $1000 bankroll. What is the best
strategy on [my favorite game] to give me the best chance of hitting
at least one royal?"

In this case, isn't such a modified strategy maximizing the ER of
that weekend play?

It is maximizing the number of dollars per jackpot. The normal
definition of ER is dollars returned divided by number of games
played, so dollars per jackpot is not really the same thing at all.

If you agree with that, then a max-ER strategy is always best. It's
just that this weekend visitor's max-ER strategy isn't quite the same
as a local player's long-term max-ER strategy.

If one wishes to permit the definition of ER to be twisted into fitting
any possible form of goal or objective, then I suppose one could look
at it this way, but I feel that this obfuscates the situation rather than
adding clarity. Different forms of optimization come about by measuring
performance in ways that are fundamentally different, and these
difference can/should be described in meaningful ways. I think it is
more clear to point out that $$$/jackpot has different "units" than
$$$/game, and that these are clearly distinct ways of measuring
the outcome. They are different forms of averaging.

It may in fact be true that different optimizations can all be framed in
terms of maximizing the expected value of different random variables.
Still, I see no advantage in trying to use the same name to describe
these things which are inherently different and result in unique
optimal strategies.

···

On Sunday 29 February 2004 09:03 pm, Dan Paymar wrote:

Steve Jacobs <jacobs@xmission.com> wrote:

Please take this comment in a constructive fashion ...

The "strategy" discussion, as well as the "double down" one, have been
intellectually stimulating.

But I'm beginning to long for a good ol' "Where can I find FP deuces?"
thread ...

- H.

I've just been forwarding the "Max ER" messages into a
folder of their own. The folder has over a 100
messages in it so far. I haven't read many of them
yet, I hope it's been a worthwhile discussion....

carlos

···

--- Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

---------------------------------
Please take this comment in a constructive fashion ...

The "strategy" discussion, as well as the "double
down" one, have been
intellectually stimulating.

But I'm beginning to long for a good ol' "Where can I
find FP deuces?"
thread ...

- H.

vpFREE Links:

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

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Click Here

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/

   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x...> wrote:
>If you ask "The Computer God" (TCG): "What strategy gives the best

chance

>of having a bankroll survive until I hit a royal" and TCG

answers "use

>the max-ER strategy" then TCG is a false god. Period.

Seems to me that the only reason one would want to use a strategy

to

maximize the probability of a royal on a certain limited bankroll

is

for short term play. E.g., "I'm able to go to Las Vegas only one
weekend a year, and I can take a $1000 bankroll. What is the best
strategy on [my favorite game] to give me the best chance of

hitting

at least one royal?"

In this case, isn't such a modified strategy maximizing the ER of
that weekend play?

If you agree with that, then a max-ER strategy is always best. It's
just that this weekend visitor's max-ER strategy isn't quite the

same

···

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

as a local player's long-term max-ER strategy.

Dan

======================================================================
   Dan,

   Although I was being a little flippant here and having a bit of
fun while playing the Devil's advocate, I still don't believe
changing strategy for any short-term goal is wise. To me it smacks
of "steaming."

    I guess I just don't believe in playing with scared money which
is basically what you end up doing when you try to reach a goal (in
this case, making your bankroll last longer) by altering the strategy
for any game just because you have a limited bankroll.
   When you alter a computer perfect strategy for a vp game to give
you a better chance to hit quads or full houses or whatever to make
your bankroll last longer, it comes with a price and that price is
that it also alters your chances of getting a royal sooner than
expected and that's what I personally play for.
   Or, if you do it the other way around and alter the strategy to go
for the royals at the expense of getting the lesser hands and thus
run through your bankroll at a faster pace. (not a good strategy in
my opinion unless it's a progressive that's really high)
   Sure I don't want to lose and get that dreaded defeated feeling as
I slink home with my tail between my legs, but I still can't believe
that minor strategy changes that give you a few extra hands have
much of an impact on whether you win or lose on any given session. No
matter how well you play, luck is still the biggest factor.
   I guess what I really mean is this: If you don't have a bankroll
large enough to support you for an extended period of time playing vp
or any other game, don't play! And if you do, don't expect to win.
Period!

                    A FEW RELATED QUOTES

   "Video poker is a game where it takes a lot of money to make a
little money."
                   --Michael Shackleford

   "Because there are so many fluctuations in gambling, it's never
safe to say what a rational bankroll would be."
                   --Andrew Brisman

   "Very few casual video poker players have the time, bankroll, or
temperment to play the awesome number of hands needed to have a shot
at breaking even or getting a slight edge in the long run."
                   --Frank Scoblete

   "I n a state where churches gladly accept chips in the collection
plate, your bankroll determines everything."
                   --Barry Meadow

   "There is no video poker system that makes you a winner without
hitting a royal."
                    --Stanford Wong

   "In order to beat a computer, you must become one yourself."
                    --VP Pappy

   --TM & VP

   Dan,

   Although I was being a little flippant here and having a bit of
fun while playing the Devil's advocate, I still don't believe
changing strategy for any short-term goal is wise. To me it smacks
of "steaming."

    I guess I just don't believe in playing with scared money

which

is basically what you end up doing when you try to reach a goal

(in

this case, making your bankroll last longer) by altering the

strategy

for any game just because you have a limited bankroll.
   When you alter a computer perfect strategy for a vp game to

give

you a better chance to hit quads or full houses or whatever to

make

your bankroll last longer, it comes with a price and that price is
that it also alters your chances of getting a royal sooner than
expected and that's what I personally play for.
   Or, if you do it the other way around and alter the strategy to

go

for the royals at the expense of getting the lesser hands and thus
run through your bankroll at a faster pace. (not a good strategy

in

my opinion unless it's a progressive that's really high)
   Sure I don't want to lose and get that dreaded defeated feeling

as

I slink home with my tail between my legs, but I still can't

believe

that minor strategy changes that give you a few extra hands have
much of an impact on whether you win or lose on any given session.

No

matter how well you play, luck is still the biggest factor.
   I guess what I really mean is this: If you don't have a

bankroll

large enough to support you for an extended period of time playing

vp

or any other game, don't play! And if you do, don't expect to win.
Period!

                    A FEW RELATED QUOTES

   "Video poker is a game where it takes a lot of money to make a
little money."
                   --Michael Shackleford

   "Because there are so many fluctuations in gambling, it's never
safe to say what a rational bankroll would be."
                   --Andrew Brisman

   "Very few casual video poker players have the time, bankroll,

or

temperment to play the awesome number of hands needed to have a

shot

at breaking even or getting a slight edge in the long run."
                   --Frank Scoblete

   "I n a state where churches gladly accept chips in the

collection

plate, your bankroll determines everything."
                   --Barry Meadow

   "There is no video poker system that makes you a winner without
hitting a royal."
                    --Stanford Wong

   "In order to beat a computer, you must become one yourself."
                    --VP Pappy

   --TM & VP

HaRay for you Pappy:

I am not sure how many readers are from/not from vegas, but most
areas that have gambling dont have any 100+% choices at the 0.25 and
under level of play. Even at the $1 and up the choices are slim.
But people should play at a conservative value (0.25, 0.05) or
whatever thier bankroll determines, a slightly modified (and reduced
return) strategy is not going to make up for a short bankroll. 90%
of the outcome of a single session is just luck (randomness) and the
other 10% is skill... the skill is very important in the long run,
but the luck determines the day (outcome of that day), if you dont
like rollercoasters dont get on the ride.

Jim

Actually, what Brad and I do (although very rarely since we live in Vegas and have lots of over 100% VP plays) when we are in a casino and there is no good VP, we sometimes play nickel video slots. We play them because they are fun - although it doesn't take many 20 dollar bills for the fun to wear off. But I would rather spend $100 of our "entertainment" money on nickel video slots than on bad VP. The first coin I put in a low-EV VP is pure misery and the "fun" goes downhill from there.

We can play a slightly negative BJ game and have more fun than on a slightly-negative VP play - I guess because a plus for BJ is the social interaction!!

These are just our personal druthers - not "ten commandments in stone." But we often are in a casino with bad VP because of speaking gigs, and usually just watch TV, swim, exercise, read, or do other pleasurable things rather than play anything negative.

···

________________________________________
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]

But we often are in a casino with bad VP because of speaking gigs,
and usually just watch TV, swim, exercise, read, or do other
pleasurable things rather than play anything negative.

···

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, how refreshing, a Min Risk strategy worth its virtual ink!

Pete

And that's why you should be thinking in terms of bankroll growth
instead of just max ER.

You can rate games for bankroll growth using this formula:

(%ER-100)x1000/Variance

some examples: (these are maxER strategy unless noted)
10/7 doublebonus +0.75%cashback = 33
pick'em +0.5%cashback (%ER=100.45%)= 30
9/6job +1%cashback (modified strategy: rf=628) = 30
fpdw (%ER=100.76%)= 29
9/6job +1%cashback = 28
all american (%ER=100.72%)= 27
10/7 doublebonus with 1100 progressive (%ER=100.92%)= 19
9/6job with 1300 progressive (%ER=100.95%)= 17

This rating is linear so the top example, 33, produces 1.9 times
more bankroll growth than the bottom, 17. And the modified strategy
for 9/6job produces 7% more bankroll growth than standard maxER
strategy, not bad for a supposedly inferior or heretical strategy.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vppappy" <tismurph@h...> wrote:

   "Video poker is a game where it takes a lot of money to make a
little money."
                   --Michael Shackleford

stanfordwang wrote:

> "Video poker is a game where it takes a lot of money to make a
> little money."
> --Michael Shackleford

And that's why you should be thinking in terms of bankroll growth
instead of just max ER.

You can rate games for bankroll growth using this formula:

(%ER-100)x1000/Variance

Just curious how you derived this formula; was the 1000 just an arbitrary value?

some examples: (these are maxER strategy unless noted)
10/7 doublebonus +0.75%cashback = 33
pick'em +0.5%cashback (%ER=100.45%)= 30
9/6job +1%cashback (modified strategy: rf=628) = 30
fpdw (%ER=100.76%)= 29
9/6job +1%cashback = 28
all american (%ER=100.72%)= 27
10/7 doublebonus with 1100 progressive (%ER=100.92%)= 19
9/6job with 1300 progressive (%ER=100.95%)= 17

How do you manage to get an ER of 100.95% for 9/6JoB with a 1300 progressive. I just checked it with WinPoker, setting the Royal at 5200 coins (e.g., $1,300.00 in quarters) and it calculates an ER of only 100.1803%, which should be the highest ER that is possible no matter how you alter your strategy.

This rating is linear so the top example, 33, produces 1.9 times
more bankroll growth than the bottom, 17. And the modified strategy
for 9/6job produces 7% more bankroll growth than standard maxER
strategy, not bad for a supposedly inferior or heretical strategy.

Please check your figures per my last paragraph; if you had an error, how do the strategies compare after correcting it?

Cheers.

Bill Velek

P.S. Found this quote on a post by an academic (college professor) in a beer brewing forum:
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
- Albert Einstein

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vppappy" <tismurph@h...> wrote:

It means 1300 units, not $1300.

···

On Tuesday 02 March 2004 07:42 am, Bill Velek wrote:

stanfordwang wrote:

> 9/6job with 1300 progressive (%ER=100.95%)= 17

How do you manage to get an ER of 100.95% for 9/6JoB with a 1300
progressive. I just checked it with WinPoker, setting the Royal at 5200
coins (e.g., $1,300.00 in quarters) and it calculates an ER of only
100.1803%, which should be the highest ER that is possible no matter how
you alter your strategy.

Steve Jacobs wrote:

···

On Tuesday 02 March 2004 07:42 am, Bill Velek wrote:
> stanfordwang wrote:

> > 9/6job with 1300 progressive (%ER=100.95%)= 17
>
> How do you manage to get an ER of 100.95% for 9/6JoB with a 1300
> progressive. I just checked it with WinPoker, setting the Royal at 5200
> coins (e.g., $1,300.00 in quarters) and it calculates an ER of only
> 100.1803%, which should be the highest ER that is possible no matter how
> you alter your strategy.

It means 1300 units, not $1300.

Mea Culpa. Sometimes the obvious escapes me. Duhhh :wink:

I guess all these alternate strategies are starting to BLOW MY MIND! Heh, heh. Need to have another beer now. Bye.

Bill Velek

yahoo killed my first address for some reason
a more accurate bankroll growth rating formula would be:

(%ER-100)^2 x1000/Variance

some examples: (these are maxER strategy unless noted)
fpdw +0.25%cashback = 40
pick'em +0.75%cashback (%ER=100.7%)= 33
10/7 doublebonus +0.75%cashback = 30
fpdw (%ER=100.76%)= 22
all american (%ER=100.72%)= 19
10/7 doublebonus with 1100 progressive (%ER=100.92%)= 18
9/6job with 1300 progressive (%ER=100.95%)= 17
joker kob (%ER=100.65%) = 16
10/7 doublebonus +0.5%cashback = 16
9/6job +1%cashback (modified strategy: rf=628) = 16
9/6job +1%cashback = 15
pick'em +0.5%cashback (%ER=100.45%)= 14
25/15/10 loose deuces (%ER=100.97%) = 13
10/7/80 doublebonus (%ER=100.52%) = 9
10/7 doublebonus +0.25%cashback = 6
10/7 doublebonus = 1

now, it's linear, so fpdw+.25%cb has 40 times (approx) the bankroll
growth of 10/7 doublebonus with no cashback

note: bankroll growth is independent of denomination, the higher
denom machines have higher ER/hour but also require a larger bankroll
(money at risk), hence it takes money to make money