Hi, just wondering the diference in payout percentages between $1 and
$5 machines. If I wanted to play a with a max bet of $5, is it best
to play a $1 machine with five coins or a $5 machine with one coin
with both machines being identical 9/6 jobs. I know they say in
slots that it's better to play a 25 cent machine with one coin then a
5 cent machine with 5 coins. Any suggestions, comments are welcome!
I'm heading out to vegas in a few days, looking for 9/6 job or FP
DB. It looks like they're a lot of 'em according to the database.
Thanks! Tom21
newbie question...
blacktom21 wrote:
Hi, just wondering the diference in payout percentages between $1
and $5 machines. If I wanted to play a with a max bet of $5, is it
best to play a $1 machine with five coins or a $5 machine with one
coin with both machines being identical 9/6 jobs. I know they say
in slots that it's better to play a 25 cent machine with one coin
then a 5 cent machine with 5 coins. Any suggestions, comments are
welcome!
The posted paytables of video poker make this question easy to
determine. Assuming that both machines are 9/6 JB, the only
difference in paytables will be in the one coin payoff on the $5
machine vs. the 5 coin payoff on the $1 machine. That $5 machine will
likely only pay 250:1 for a one coin wager ($1250 on a $5 bet) whereas
the $1 machine will pay 800:1 for a 5 coin wager ($4000 on a $5 bet).
Obviously you'll come out way ahead on the $1 machine if you hit a
RF; if you don't, then your play results on either machine will be
equivalent since the balance of the paytable is the same.
The reason it's recommended that you play short coin on a $.25 slot
rather than full coin on a $.05 slot is that quarter slots are
generally set to a higher average payout than nickles -- sometimes up
to 4% higher. That's enough to more than offset any loss in return
that you'll suffer on the top jackpot by playing short coin.
One of the benefits of playing vp vs. slots is that you can resolve
questions like this with absolute assurance since everything you need
to know about machine payout is disclosed.
- Harry
Harry Porter wrote:
snip
Assuming that both machines are 9/6 JB, the only
difference in paytables will be in the one coin payoff on the $5
machine vs. the 5 coin payoff on the $1 machine. That $5 machine will
likely only pay 250:1 for a one coin wager ($1250 on a $5 bet) whereas
the $1 machine will pay 800:1 for a 5 coin wager ($4000 on a $5 bet).
Obviously you'll come out way ahead on the $1 machine if you hit a
RF; if you don't, then your play results on either machine will be
equivalent since the balance of the paytable is the same.
The play results on either machine will be equivalent _ONLY_IF_ a player uses the same strategy. However, it is incorrect to use the same strategy for both short-coin and full-coin play for the same pay-table. Obviously, full-coin play is the way to go because of the enhanced value of the Royal; however, if a player decides to play short-coin for whatever reason, then strategy should be modified to reflect the lower value of the Royal.
In the case of JoB 9/6 without considering the Royal, and assuming an average distribution of hands, the ER's are as follows:
Full-Coin = 99.5439 - 1.98 = 97.5639%
Short-Coin = 98.3735 - .49 = 97.8835%
So, until a Royal is hit, perfect strategy actually makes the ER for short-coin play almost a third of a percent higher than full-coin. That has been an important consideration for me whenever my session-stake takes such a nose-dive that I find myself having to switch to short-coin in order to extend my 'recreation' time.
Bill Velek
Thanks for all the advice! What I'm wondering is what type of machine is the best if
you don't get a royal. I don't have much of a bankroll so I can only play for a short
time and my luck in the past has been pretty bad even with my book with me. I'm
going to vegas soon, so I thought it be best if I looked for FPDB or FPDDB. Wouldn't
that be the best bet with the nice midrange jackpot? Also was wondering if slot
managers are going to mind me with my VP book at my side. Any thoughts or
comments would be great. Thanks! tom
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
Harry Porter wrote:
snip
> Assuming that both machines are 9/6 JB, the only
> difference in paytables will be in the one coin payoff on the $5
> machine vs. the 5 coin payoff on the $1 machine. That $5 machine will
> likely only pay 250:1 for a one coin wager ($1250 on a $5 bet) whereas
> the $1 machine will pay 800:1 for a 5 coin wager ($4000 on a $5 bet).
> Obviously you'll come out way ahead on the $1 machine if you hit a
> RF; if you don't, then your play results on either machine will be
> equivalent since the balance of the paytable is the same.The play results on either machine will be equivalent _ONLY_IF_ a player
uses the same strategy. However, it is incorrect to use the same
strategy for both short-coin and full-coin play for the same pay-table.
Obviously, full-coin play is the way to go because of the enhanced value
of the Royal; however, if a player decides to play short-coin for
whatever reason, then strategy should be modified to reflect the lower
value of the Royal.In the case of JoB 9/6 without considering the Royal, and assuming an
average distribution of hands, the ER's are as follows:
Full-Coin = 99.5439 - 1.98 = 97.5639%
Short-Coin = 98.3735 - .49 = 97.8835%So, until a Royal is hit, perfect strategy actually makes the ER for
short-coin play almost a third of a percent higher than full-coin. That
has been an important consideration for me whenever my session-stake
takes such a nose-dive that I find myself having to switch to short-coin
in order to extend my 'recreation' time.Bill Velek
SNIP-SNIP
Thanks for all the advice! What I'm wondering is what type of
machine is the best if
you don't get a royal. I don't have much of a bankroll so I can
only play for a short
time and my luck in the past has been pretty bad even with my book
with me. I'm
going to vegas soon, so I thought it be best if I looked for FPDB
or FPDDB. Wouldn't
that be the best bet with the nice midrange jackpot? Also was
wondering if slot
managers are going to mind me with my VP book at my side. Any
thoughts or
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "blacktom21" <blacktom21@y...> wrote:
comments would be great. Thanks! tom
*********
Ahh, "the nice midrange jackpot" has it's price in DB, DDB and all
the new exotics. The key is the two pair payoff. Two pair happens
about one out of eight hands.
So in JB about 25% of the ER comes from two pair. Play DB and the
others and you slash this in half.
If you wan't to optimize time at the machines play games like plain
old Jacks or Bonus poker.
If you play short-coin you just might face reality right in the face
when you get a royal. My first royal (those .25 JB/prog still at the
HO?) happened about my 1000th lifetime hand. My last trip I had one
on my 61st hand. They do happen.
BS
Here's a suggestion -- instead of playing to maximize EV, consider playing
to minimize the average cost of playing long enough to hit the royal flush.
The min-cost(royal) strategy is independent of the payoff for royal flushes,
so the strategy would be the same for short-coin play and full-coin play.
In addition, I've recently convinced myself that the min-cost(royal) strategy
is very close to the playing strategy which minimizes overall risk, and that
the min-risk strategy has some very nice properties (like minimizing bankroll
requirements). I've been planning to write up an article on this, but haven't
found the time. My current thinking is that min-risk strategies are probably
better for general use than max-EV, because the min-risk strategy requires
only a small sacrifice in EV to gain a significant decrease in bankroll
requirements.
···
On Friday 02 January 2004 05:47 pm, blacktom21 wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
> Harry Porter wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Assuming that both machines are 9/6 JB, the only
> > difference in paytables will be in the one coin payoff on the $5
> > machine vs. the 5 coin payoff on the $1 machine. That $5 machine will
> > likely only pay 250:1 for a one coin wager ($1250 on a $5 bet) whereas
> > the $1 machine will pay 800:1 for a 5 coin wager ($4000 on a $5 bet).
> > Obviously you'll come out way ahead on the $1 machine if you hit a
> > RF; if you don't, then your play results on either machine will be
> > equivalent since the balance of the paytable is the same.
>
> The play results on either machine will be equivalent _ONLY_IF_ a player
> uses the same strategy. However, it is incorrect to use the same
> strategy for both short-coin and full-coin play for the same pay-table.
> Obviously, full-coin play is the way to go because of the enhanced value
> of the Royal; however, if a player decides to play short-coin for
> whatever reason, then strategy should be modified to reflect the lower
> value of the Royal.
>
> In the case of JoB 9/6 without considering the Royal, and assuming an
> average distribution of hands, the ER's are as follows:
> Full-Coin = 99.5439 - 1.98 = 97.5639%
> Short-Coin = 98.3735 - .49 = 97.8835%
>
> So, until a Royal is hit, perfect strategy actually makes the ER for
> short-coin play almost a third of a percent higher than full-coin. That
> has been an important consideration for me whenever my session-stake
> takes such a nose-dive that I find myself having to switch to short-coin
> in order to extend my 'recreation' time.
>
> Bill VelekThanks for all the advice! What I'm wondering is what type of machine is
the best if you don't get a royal. I don't have much of a bankroll so I
can only play for a short time and my luck in the past has been pretty bad
even with my book with me. I'm going to vegas soon, so I thought it be
best if I looked for FPDB or FPDDB. Wouldn't that be the best bet with
the nice midrange jackpot? Also was wondering if slot managers are going
to mind me with my VP book at my side. Any thoughts or comments would be
great. Thanks! tom
Steve Jacobs wrote:
snipped some discussion of which game is best to enjoy the most play for a small bankroll
Here's a suggestion -- instead of playing to maximize EV, consider playing
to minimize the average cost of playing long enough to hit the royal flush.
I _think_ I know what you are driving at here, but the way you've just stated it leaves me wondering just a bit; I don't mean to be quibbling, so if it's just a matter of semantics, please forgive me.
It seems to me that if you minimize the cost of playing between each Royal, as you've suggested, then that _IS_ perfect strategy, and the flip side is that when we do use mathematically perfect strategy, we are _already_ minimizing the cost between Royals. The Royal is precisely what normally brings us back up to or near the break-even point, or slightly beyond it in advantage games; that is to say, statistically in the long-term, without the Royal, all of the gains we can make from all other hands combined ... REGARDLESS of the strategy we use and no matter how much we shift around their relative statistical frequencies ... will _never_ make the game profitable without the Royals. So, what you've said above sounds logical in the sense that it is always best to minimize our costs between Royals by maximizing our non-Royals winnings ... but _THAT_ is exactly what mathematically perfect strategy is already doing.
Whenever we make minor adjustments to reduce volatility a little by increasing the frequency of other hands rather than take some of the long-shots for a Royal, we will statistically extend our play for a given session stake, and will therefore, on average, certainly get to play a longer time (more games). I've experimented with that myself quite a bit, back when I was already preferring short-coin, and I noticed some significant shifts in frequency which undoubtedly would extend play. A perfect and easy example would be to just use short-coin strategy even while playing full-coin; as I had previously indicated, that alone will cause you to gain almost a third of a percent in non-Royal ER -- slowing how quickly you will typically exhaust a session stake. Your non-Royal ER can be improved even more with further adjustments. HOWEVER, any adjustment is at the price of making the Royals less and less frequent, so that it takes more and more play between Royals, and since all play without Royals is inherently negative, you end up actually losing more. The required 'extra' play more than offsets the savings that you 'seemed' to be enjoying, and the result is that you get a lower ER. Sure, you are getting more bang for the buck in terms of how long you can play for a limited stake, but it is incorrect to refer to ANY deviation from mathematically perfect strategy as being able to "minimize the average cost of playing long enough to hit the royal flush". It just isn't possible, but that was probably only a poor choice of words, and this is also not to say that your suggestion should not be used by some players in some situations. That just depends upon the circumstances. It took me a long-time to decide to play full-coin as often as possible, and that is based solely upon long-term ER along with other value which pushes it over 100%. When I made that decision, I stopped tinkering with these sorts of adjustments because I felt that these altered strategies were inconsistent with full-coin play. This is particularly true you alter strategy enough to change a game which is only marginally positive with CB and comps, into a negative expectation game. At a point it becomes less costly to play short-coin, even with its significantly lower ER, than to continue playing full-coin.
The min-cost(royal) strategy is independent of the payoff for royal flushes,
so the strategy would be the same for short-coin play and full-coin play.In addition, I've recently convinced myself that the min-cost(royal) strategy
is very close to the playing strategy which minimizes overall risk, and that
the min-risk strategy has some very nice properties (like minimizing bankroll
requirements). I've been planning to write up an article on this, but haven't
found the time. My current thinking is that min-risk strategies are probably
better for general use than max-EV, because the min-risk strategy requires
only a small sacrifice in EV to gain a significant decrease in bankroll
requirements.
Although I had never gone as far as to compute RoR for the various altered strategies, I suspect that this is probably very true from what I can recall from my prior experiments, and for that reason is probably a reasonable alternative to normal strategy.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
9/6job optimum full pay (rf=800) strategy:
ev=.9954,var=19.51 (rf cycle =40391)
9/6job optimum short pay (rf=250) strategy:
ev=.9837,var=4.93 (rf cycle =51481)
what if you use short pay strategy on full pay?
add back in the value of the full royal:
+ev=win/cycle=(800-250)/51481=.0107
+var=(win - ev)^2/cycle=((800-ev)^2-(250-ev)^2)/cycle=11.20
ev=.9944
var=16.13
9/6job short pay strategy:
4rf>fl>st>4sf>2pair>highpair>4fl>3rf>KQJT>lowpair>4STo>3SF0>AKQJ>2RF2H
4ST3H>3SF1>KQJ>2highcards>1highcard>3SF2
extra credit: try setting rf=0, what happens?
Steve Jacobs wrote:
snipped some discussion of which game is best to enjoy the most play for
a small bankroll> Here's a suggestion -- instead of playing to maximize EV, consider
> playing to minimize the average cost of playing long enough to hit the
> royal flush.I _think_ I know what you are driving at here, but the way you've just
stated it leaves me wondering just a bit; I don't mean to be quibbling,
so if it's just a matter of semantics, please forgive me.It seems to me that if you minimize the cost of playing between each
Royal, as you've suggested, then that _IS_ perfect strategy, and the
flip side is that when we do use mathematically perfect strategy, we are
_already_ minimizing the cost between Royals.
Well now, there's the rub. The strategy which maximizes the probability
of hitting a royal is distinctly different than the strategy which maximizes
the EV of a single play. I would claim that each is a different form of
"perfect play". I player who wishes (for whatever reason) to maximize
EV of each individual hand played should use max-EV strategy. The
player who wishes to extract maximimum value from a royal jackpot,
by playing to minimize the average cost of playing until a royal is
hit, will use a min-cost(royal) strategy. They are not the same strategy.
For a concrete example, consider an 8/5 Jacks+ game that pays 1000
units for a royal flush. The max-EV strategy return 97.8086%, and using
the max-EV strategy you get an average cost of 1798.6 units per royal.
The min-cost(royal) strategy has an EV of 97.7492% but the average
cost of playing until you hit a royal is reduced to 1733.14 units. If you
have a program for computing strategies, you can find this strategy
by pretending that the royal has a payoff of (can you guess?) 1733.14
units. This strategy differs from max-EV by pretending that the royal
is worth more than it really is. By using a "virtual payoff schedule"
with the royal payoff adjusted just enough to make the virtual game
have a return of 100%, the strategy becomes optimized for minimizing
the cost of the royal flush.
The resulting strategy will be correct for short-coin play as well,
because the strategy is independent of the "real" payoff for the
royal flush (as long as all other real payoffs remain unchanged).
I hope you'll ponder on this for a while. If you place the min-cost(royal)
strategy on a pedastal and say "this is perfect play" then all the
arguments used to glorify max-EV play will still apply. Any deviation
from mc_royal will increase the cost of royal flushes, and will thus
be "inferior". So, from the perspective of mc_royal play, the max-EV
strategy is inferior. The two are simply geared towards different
objectives. You can also minimize the cost of playing for a 4/kind
or full house or any other payoff, and get strategies that are optimal
for minimizing cost(whatever-payoff).
The Royal is precisely
what normally brings us back up to or near the break-even point, or
slightly beyond it in advantage games; that is to say, statistically in
the long-term, without the Royal, all of the gains we can make from all
other hands combined ... REGARDLESS of the strategy we use and no matter
how much we shift around their relative statistical frequencies ... will
_never_ make the game profitable without the Royals.
But that is true of all payoffs. Take a positive EV game like Double Bonus
for example -- if you eliminate _any_ payoff, the return will be reduced
below 100%. You can independently generate strategies that minimize
the cost of each payoff, and have a handfull of different strategies that
are all "perfect" in their own way. Or you can mush them all together
and minimize the cost of playing until you get _some_ payoff. This
minimizes the overall cost of playing (in terms of dollars "spent" through
losses compared to dollars "won" from payoff), for a strategy that I
call "min-cost". This too is different than the max-EV strategy.
One more strategy for you to chew on -- the minimum risk strategy. This
is one of my favorites, and I personally feel it is better than max-EV for
general purpose play. There are a great many different ways to view
the min-risk strategy. A few ways are:
1) Min-risk minimizes the "Risk of Ruin". For a favorable game, the
risk of ruin is defined as the probability of losing if you start with a
single unit and play indefinitely. For favorable games, RoR is slightly
less than 1.000, and taking (1.000 - RoR) gives the probability that
you will start with a single unit and play _forever_ without going broke.
2) If you want to start with a specific starting bankroll B and play until
you either reach a goal bankroll G (where G > B) or go bust trying, then
the min-risk strategy maximizes the probability of reaching the goal before
going bust. The remarkable thing about this is that the strategy is the
same no matter what values of B and G are used. So, if you are stranded
somewhere with B dollars and need G dollars for a plane ticket, the
min-risk strategy gives you the best shot of boarding the plane.
3) Suppose you have a target bankroll G that you are hoping to reach
on your next trip to Vegas by playing a favorable VP game. You want
to give yourself a 90% probability of reaching your goal, and so you
plan to withdraw an adequate bankroll to allow a 90% change of coming
home with G dollars. For any specific playing strategy (as long as the
strategy still yields an advantage) it is possible to compute the bankroll
needed. The min-risk strategy gives to lowest possible "adequate bankroll"
of all playing strategies.
4) The "adequate bankroll" from case 3) above can be generalized for
negative EV games. For example, if you want to take $1000 to Vegas
and maximize the probability of hitting $2500 before going broke, the
min-risk strategy is what you want. Of course, the closer your starting
point is to $2500, the higher the probability of reaching the goal, and
on average it is still a losing proposition when the game is negative EV,
but min-risk still gives the best shot for a specified set of playing
conditions. In fact, for a game such as 8/5 Jacks+, using min-risk
instead of max-EV reduces the size of the "adequate bankroll" by
about 5.8%, while only reducing the EV from 97.81% to 97.75%
The min-risk strategy is significantly different than the max-EV strategy,
and considering these factors I believe it to be a superior strategy, that
is more in line with what players really want to accomplish.
So, what you've
said above sounds logical in the sense that it is always best to
minimize our costs between Royals by maximizing our non-Royals winnings
... but _THAT_ is exactly what mathematically perfect strategy is
already doing.
Nope. Sorry, but that is one of many things that max-EV strategy does
_not_ accomplish. There is no single strategy that is "best in every way"
and that is precisely why I object to the phrase "perfect strategy". You
see, "perfect" is relative to your precise objective. Max-EV is "perfect"
in some sense, but other strategies are better than max-EV when measured
from the perspective of whatever the other strategy maximizes or minimizes.
Whenever we make minor adjustments to reduce volatility a little by
increasing the frequency of other hands rather than take some of the
long-shots for a Royal, we will statistically extend our play for a
given session stake, and will therefore, on average, certainly get to
play a longer time (more games).
If you want to play the most _games_ then max-EV may give you what
you want. If you want to maximize the probability of playing "however
long it takes" to reach some pre-determined objective (such as hitting
a goal bankroll or hitting a royal flush) then max-EV will not necessarily
be optimal. If you want to minimize the average expense of playing
however long it takes to reach some objective (such as hitting a royal)
then max-EV will also not be optimal.
I've experimented with that myself
quite a bit, back when I was already preferring short-coin, and I
noticed some significant shifts in frequency which undoubtedly would
extend play. A perfect and easy example would be to just use short-coin
strategy even while playing full-coin; as I had previously indicated,
that alone will cause you to gain almost a third of a percent in
non-Royal ER -- slowing how quickly you will typically exhaust a session
stake. Your non-Royal ER can be improved even more with further
adjustments. HOWEVER, any adjustment is at the price of making the
Royals less and less frequent, so that it takes more and more play
between Royals, and since all play without Royals is inherently
negative, you end up actually losing more.
I've already described above how to compute a mc_royal strategy.
If you change only the virtual payoff for royals and leave the other
payoffs alone, and experiment some more, you'll find that adjusting the
royal payoff until you get a breakeven game will give a strategy that
minimizes overall cost of a royal. If you then take that strategy and
alter _any_ payoff, you'll find that any deviation from the mc_royal
payoff schedule will result in an increase cost of royals. Another
way of saying this is that deviating from the mc_royal strategy will
always increase the cost between royals.
The required 'extra' play
more than offsets the savings that you 'seemed' to be enjoying, and the
result is that you get a lower ER.
Perhaps you made the wrong adjustments. If the game was negative EV,
such as 8/5 Jacks+, then reducing variance is the wrong thing to do.
To reduce the cost of royals in unfavorable games, you alter the
strategy to try for _more_ royals. Using an increased virtual payoff for
the royal achieves this. You increase the virtual payoff for royals until
the strategy generator says that the virtual game is breakeven.
For positive EV games, reducing the frequency of royals will reduce the
cost, so you reduce the virtual payoff for the royal until the strategy
generator says that the virtual game is breakeven.
Sure, you are getting more bang for
the buck in terms of how long you can play for a limited stake, but it
is incorrect to refer to ANY deviation from mathematically perfect
strategy as being able to "minimize the average cost of playing long
enough to hit the royal flush".
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. If you make some new experiments
along the lines that I've suggested above, you should be able to
prove it to yourself.
It just isn't possible, but that was
probably only a poor choice of words, and this is also not to say that
your suggestion should not be used by some players in some situations.
I hope you'll look further into this, because you are on the threshold of
understanding something that some VP experts still don't understand --
that max-EV isn't a cure-all do-everything strategy.
That just depends upon the circumstances. It took me a long-time to
decide to play full-coin as often as possible, and that is based solely
upon long-term ER along with other value which pushes it over 100%.
When I made that decision, I stopped tinkering with these sorts of
adjustments because I felt that these altered strategies were
inconsistent with full-coin play.
Ah, but inconsistent in what way? If you want to minimize costs between
royals, then full-coin max-EV play is the wrong strategy. If you want to
maximize the probability of turning B dollars into G dollars, then full-coin
max-EV play is the wrong strategy. There are a great many other
objectives for which full-coin max-EV play becomes sub-optimal.
This is particularly true you alter
strategy enough to change a game which is only marginally positive with
CB and comps, into a negative expectation game. At a point it becomes
less costly to play short-coin, even with its significantly lower ER,
than to continue playing full-coin.
None of the optimal strategies that I talk about ever turn a favorable game
into an unfavorable game. Generally, they sacrifice a small amount of EV
in order to better meet the particular objective that is optimized.
···
On Saturday 03 January 2004 11:41 am, Bill Velek wrote:
9/6job optimum full pay (rf=800) strategy:
ev=.9954,var=19.51 (rf cycle =40391)
9/6job optimum short pay (rf=250) strategy:
ev=.9837,var=4.93 (rf cycle =51481)what if you use short pay strategy on full pay?
add back in the value of the full royal:
+ev=win/cycle=(800-250)/51481=.0107
+var=(win - ev)^2/cycle=((800-ev)^2-(250-ev)^2)/cycle=11.20ev=.9944
var=16.139/6job short pay strategy:
4rf>fl>st>4sf>2pair>highpair>4fl>3rf>KQJT>lowpair>4STo>3SF0>AKQJ>2RF2
H
>4ST3H>3SF1>KQJ>2highcards>1highcard>3SF2
extra credit: try setting rf=0, what happens?
You forget that a royal flush is a special case of a straight flush -
- that should be your answer.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aaquad250" <aaquad250@y...> wrote:
Steve Jacobs wrote: <<I've been planning to write up an article on this, but haven't
found the time. My current thinking is that min-risk strategies are probably
better for general use than max-EV, because the min-risk strategy requires
only a small sacrifice in EV to gain a significant decrease in bankroll
requirements.>>
I would really be interested in this. I am getting more and more convinced that the great majority of players do not have adequate bankrolls - psychological or financial - and/or do not expect to play long enough as one could reasonably expect to reach the "long term." I'm not talking about serious players or local players who will be spending a lot of time in a casino (like many on these VP lists).
I would like to be able to recommend a low-risk strategy that would give some guidance to those who just can't last on the "best EV" strategies, making clear the drawbacks of such a plan. It would still be better than seat-of-the-pants strategy - or throw-rules-to-the-wind non-strategies. Clearly give the EV and the math of both strategies - and then let people make their own decision as to which fits their personality and goals.
I want to give something to those players who would love to have the bankroll to always play the best VP games with the optimum strategies - but they never will. Should I tell them to go play "Little Green Men." Or, is there something in-between.
Bet some of you thought I'd never write this post!!!! 
···
____________________
Jean $¢ott - The Frugal Gambler
Pre-pub sale on for January release of
"Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler"
at http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"what if you use short pay strategy on full pay?
add back in the value of the full royal:
+ev=win/cycle=(800-250)/51481=.0107
+var=(win - ev)^2/cycle=((800-ev)^2-(250-ev)^2)/cycle=11.20
ev=.9944; var=16.13
extra credit: try setting rf=0, what happens?"
To which I replied: You forget that a royal flush is a special case
of a straight flush - that should be your answer.
I think I need to add some meat to my answer. There is a rule that
game designers / inventors have to follow and this is important
because of the way regulations work: the concept of only the highest
possible award is paid. If you think about a full house, it is a
full house, a trip, two pairs, possible two sets of high pair, etc
(there was a game that did just this, and this game was the
exception). Instead of paying you for all these wonderful hands,
you are only paid for a full house. Now, aaquad250 introduces a
concept of RF = 0; my answer would be since a royal flush is also a
straight flush, or a flush or a straight (to be technical), the
concept kicks in in that it must be paid the highest possible award,
which is a straight flush. Now, if aaquad250 tells me a RF pays 0
and a STFL also pays 0, then it must be awarded a flush value
(assuming the award for a flush is higher than the award for a
straight).
Moral of the story, video poker can be tricky so be careful when you
assign different values to set hands because the video poker
analyzer may not be programmed to recognize this (or you can
manually set the RF to either the STFL or Flush/Straight award if
that is the appropriate level).
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aaquad250" <aaquad250@y...> wrote:
Steve Jacobs wrote:
... snip ...
Well now, there's the rub. The strategy which maximizes the probability
of hitting a royal is distinctly different than the strategy which maximizes
the EV of a single play.
snip
For a concrete example, consider an 8/5 Jacks+ game that pays 1000
units for a royal flush. The max-EV strategy return 97.8086%, and using
the max-EV strategy you get an average cost of 1798.6 units per royal.The min-cost(royal) strategy has an EV of 97.7492% but the average
cost of playing until you hit a royal is reduced to 1733.14 units.
snip
Thanks, Steve, for showing me a new way of looking at VP strategies. You are absolutely correct. I didn't think it was possible to alter strategy from max-EV and actually save money between Royals. However, unless my math is somehow flawed, I think the percentage of savings is even greater than you have indicated in your above example. My figures are a thousand units lower than yours, above. Would you mind checking your figures to see if you somehow added an extra digit while copying, etc.
Here is how our figures compare:
Your cost between Royals using max-EV strategy = 1798.6 betting units.
My calc cost " " " " = 798.622859 = 36443.5 Royal-Freq. x (1- .978086 [ER])
Your cost between Royals using min-cost (royal) strategy = 1733.14 betting units.
My calc cost " " " " = 733.1421927 = 32573.23 Royal-Freq. x (1- 0.9774 [ER])
I used a spread-sheet, and I can't figure out how I could have gotten an extra 1,000 betting units (exactly) in both instances.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
···
On Saturday 03 January 2004 11:41 am, Bill Velek wrote:
Bill Velek wrote:
Steve Jacobs wrote:
... snip ...
> For a concrete example, consider an 8/5 Jacks+ game that pays 1000
> units for a royal flush. The max-EV strategy return 97.8086%, and using
> the max-EV strategy you get an average cost of 1798.6 units per royal.
>
> The min-cost(royal) strategy has an EV of 97.7492% but the average
> cost of playing until you hit a royal is reduced to 1733.14 units.snip
... My figures are a thousand units lower than yours, above. ... snip ...
Here is how our figures compare:
Your cost between Royals using max-EV strategy = 1798.6 betting units.
My calc cost " " " " = 798.622859 = 36443.5 Royal-Freq. x (1-
.978086 [ER])Your cost between Royals using min-cost (royal) strategy = 1733.14
betting units.
My calc cost " " " " = 733.1421927 = 32573.23 Royal-Freq. x (1-
0.9774 [ER])I used a spread-sheet, and I can't figure out how I could have gotten an
extra 1,000 betting units (exactly) in both instances.
Found my error. It was because I had multiplied the frequency of Royals times the cost of play per hand, but I had forgotten to eliminate the contribution from the Royal from the cost of playing. When I did that, I arrived at your figures.
Sorry for not catching that before posting my last message.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
With the leaving of Nancy D. from Sunset station, we had to find a new host
contact. When we check in on Friday afternoon, we get a letter from a host
saying she'd like to meet us and to charge things to our room so they can
evaluate our play.
(I'll have to look up the host's name - I forget it.)
So, we meet her on Saturday afternoon and ask how much coin in is required
for a room. We know they are on a theo basis but there's got to be some
correlation. She gives a song and dance about time, denomination etc. and
when we tell her we're quarter players she gives us a look like, "oh,
quarter players...".
She starts telling us that our play would barely cover a room. In the past
we've done about 6K per day which got a weekend room and a VERY SMALL amount
of food comped.
We tell her that for 5K per day we get LRFB at Main Street. She says, NO WAY
, not for quarter players. YEP, we go back and forth.
Then she tries this crap about HOW FAST you can earn points at Stations and
how much better than the strip it is.
I tell her, yeah, until January when it takes twice as long and you only
earn at about .08%. She had no idea what I was talking about. She actually
called someone else over and had me explain it to them and she agreed with
ME, stating the typical corporate mantra. The damn host didn't even know
about the reduction coming up in 6 days.
So, I try another host on our way of checking out. This one tells me they
want SIX HOURS OF $1 play per day for a weekend room. I said that's crazy. I
told her compared to Main Street and Las Vegas Hilton it's insane for a
locals casino.
Then she looks at our history of comps and says that we're a little over
comped but not too much, especially since we dropped $1000 last month in one
visit. So, how do you required 6 hours of $1 (about 15K playing slowly) but
for our $6K per day we were only slightly overcomped.
Generally, this place has LOST IT'S MIND. They really do seem to have
tightened up especially for .25 and the remaining hosts that we spoke to
don't understand what's going on. They are comparing themselves to the strip
rather than to other locals places and downtown.
PS: We also spoke to a Gold Coast hosts who said that they have increased
the comp requirements a little but $3500 per day action would still get a
room.
I'm just curious as to whether you've( written such an article in the
5 weeks or so since you posted this? If so, I'd be very interested
in reading it.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:
In addition, I've recently convinced myself that the min-cost
(royal) strategy is very close to the playing strategy which
minimizes overall risk, and that the min-risk strategy has some
very nice properties (like minimizing bankroll requirements). I've
been planning to write up an article on this, but haven't
found the time.
I still haven't written such an article, but I have strengthened my
belief that min_cost_royal and min-risk strategies are "close" to
each other.
This is my "main forum" for discussing VP issues, so if I do get
around to writing the article, this will be the most likely place for
it to appear.
···
On Tuesday 10 February 2004 09:26 am, Jeff wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:
> In addition, I've recently convinced myself that the min-cost
> (royal) strategy is very close to the playing strategy which
> minimizes overall risk, and that the min-risk strategy has some
> very nice properties (like minimizing bankroll requirements). I've
> been planning to write up an article on this, but haven't
> found the time.I'm just curious as to whether you've( written such an article in the
5 weeks or so since you posted this? If so, I'd be very interested
in reading it.