vpFREE2 Forums

Playing Speed (was "I need help" and "inflated claims")

I am still curious what other people have actually achieved as a sustainable play rate on a single-line machine playing one machine at a time. Those with claims of 3,000 hands per hour have not, to my observation (sorry if I missed it) responded to my question of whether that play was (1) sustainable over time (say an hour) and (2) on ONE single-line machine, as opposed to two (or more) machines or multi-line play. I am certainly willing to discount the delays that occur when a hand pay occurs, of course, since that's unavoidable. Those with claims of 1,000 - 1,200 hands per hour need not respond again, as I find that fully credible.

Incidentally, I will certainly concede to slow play rates being reasonable for those who find it physically uncomfortable (for any reason) to play fast, or who feel their accuracy is optimal at lower speeds, or who simply enjoy playing slowly (which I can sort of understand, even though that does not "fit" me at all).

Some have responded to my observation of a 1-2 hand per second machine limit by saying that some machines can respond at five hands per second with rapid tapping of the "deal" button; I have yet to see such a machine. I almost always play $1 single-line machines, so I don't know about machines at lower denominations being set for lower response rates. I don't think I want to tip off even my less-than-perfect non-professional skill level to a slot tech by requesting a machine to be reset for the fastest rate of play (and while this may be a simple setting for some slot techs, the ones I deal with seem to struggle to get the machine open to re-load or un-jam a roll of paper). While the machine response rate is certainly a factor in speed, the 1-2 hands per second response rate is good enough to keep up with my decision and hold rate; a faster machine would not likely add more than 10% to my own speed.

I have admitted to making about one error per hour that I catch (and I admit that I might be making some that I don't catch, an admission which I would think every honest person would need to make in casino play, because how can you honestly say that you never make a mistake that you are not aware of, except on computer practice where you can measure errors, but are not distracted by casino activities, sticky buttons, etc.?), and my usual sustainable play rate is 1000 hands an hour, a rate determined by calculation based on tier points earned, and sustained and replicated repeatedly in sessions of one to five hours. I suspect my burst rate is much higher for short periods of time, since I sometimes doze off at the machine (I seem to play VP mostly when I'm tired from live poker, admittedly a poor choice in terms of perfect play) for unknown periods of time, probably just a second or two, but who knows. Since I am often playing tired, I'm not sure
slowing down would avoid more than half my errors, and for me personally, that avoidance would be offset by losing my reasons for playing fast, below.

And while errors are most certainly costly in the long run, in the short run (i.e. on an actual individual hand) not every error results in a decreased pay on that hand; sometimes you defy the odds, get lucky, and hit something you might not have hit with the correct play. Again, I definitely understand that actual results do not reflect the theoretical cost of errors, that you can't reasonably expect luck to offset your errors in the long run, and I definitely understand that the theoretical cost is what matters, although some will argue that in short-run actual practice, what matters is how you do, not how you play, and certainly it is hard to discount the value of taking home more money, even if the player taking it home had little right to expect to do so.

As for the other topics re: why to play fast, most of those that have been cited as valid reasons apply to me: (1) increased speed is a good idea to increase hourly expected win amount when you have an edge, such as playing for a progressive royal, (2) increased speed helps you get in a desired amount of tier points in less time (and without moving up in denomination, which is accompanied by unacceptable variance and risk to a bankroll insufficient for higher-denom. play), and (3) personal preference -- I get bored playing slowly, and part of the reason I'm playing is for entertainment (which is reduced for me by slow play) and distraction from the rest of life (which comes back to mind if I'm playing too slowly).

I agree with those who point out that for quarter denominations, the dollar value per hour of increased speed is not that much; I also agree with those who point out that for quarters, getting a certain number of tier points in per day can be very burdensome if not near impossible at slower play rates; when I'm trying to get in 2500 tier points for the 5000 point bonus, my $1 1000-1200 hands per hour rate requires about 4-5 hours of play; at quarters, that would become a very long 16-20 hours, and at slower rates, 2500 points in a day would be impossible at the quarter level anyway. But even at quarters, lower tier goals for bonuses (such as 1000 tier points) would also be very time consuming, significantly so when comparing 1000 hands per hour to 300-500 hands per hour.

I'm the same way with driving -- if traffic is moving very slowly, I am not as alert as when moving along at a higher speed -- like VP, with an understanding of increased risk with high speed, that I'm willing to accept. And yes, I understand that with driving, it's not just me that gets the increased risk, so with that admission, let's not get off-topic criticizing that any further.

When I'm playing with my most frequent VP-playing "buddy" my goal becomes more social, and things change -- we often share our bankroll, move up to a multi-line machine, and take turns at the same machine, and this clearly leads to slower play -- but again, in that setting, my priorities in playing change, with "social" moving to the top. We pause to have conversation or to order and drink beverages, etc. When I'm not fully enjoying the "social" play mode, I try to convince my friend to share bankroll and play two single-line machines side-by-side, which moderates the social aspect a little but allows me to pick up speed again; when we play that way, I tend to get in about 50% more hands per hour than my friend. Quite honestly, I don't find playing video poker to be a very social activity, but I'll concede to those who enjoy playing with a friend as their preferred mode.

-BG

···

================

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

3,000 HPH is an inflated claim, period. I don't have Kneeland's book anymore, but the best I remember his claim was 2,400 HPH playing two machines. It seems like a stretch to me but I'll take Frank's word for it. My "cruising speed" is 1000 HPH. When I burst it up to 1200 HPH the mistakes start happening so I back off quickly.

Montana machines are all auto-hold and you have to touch the screen to change the hold. But I play the same HPH on these machines as I did on the Nevada machines. I only have to change about 1 of every eight hands.

I've clocked myself all kinds of ways, by the minute, five minutes, 10 minutes, hourly, four hours, etc. My results by the minute or five minutes never match up with the hourly. So the 1000 HPH is what I call "seat time." I'm out of my seat quite a bit. Besides bathroom breaks, I often get drowsy and have to walk it off.

And one other thing. I haven't smoked a cigarette in a casino since Oct 1st, 2009 when Montana bars/restaurants/casinos went non-smoking. I have to go outside. However, it's very convenient here. I'm not in a casino with 2000 machines where you have to walk a great distance to get outside. I'm in a room with 20 machines in it. All the machines have reserved signs. The casino owners have been very creative in keeping their smokers happy. They have smoking shelters with adequate seating, heat lamps, etc. But I still lose about 5 minutes an hour to smoking. (Please, let's don't turn the thread into a smoking diatribe.) I'm quite used to not smoking in casinos anymore.

Yesterday, after following this thread, I set the machine on super turbo speed and backed off to betting just one nickel. The machine is auto-hold but I made no hold changes. I just tapped the deal/draw button and counted. On super turbo the cards appear all at once. It's lightning fast. The cards appear and disappear faster than you can tap the button. 40 hands per minute. That equates to 2400 HPH. I just don't see how anyone can do 2400 HPH on a machine without super turbo speed and auto-hold. And not changing the hold on 1 out of eight hands destroys the ER.

I'm quite happy just playing at cruising speed. I can think about other things while I'm playing without making mistakes. At my age (I'm the old bull) I don't get in a hurry to do anything anymore. I just mosey around and pick off the money.

If you search back in the database for articles by Frank Kneeland, you may find one where he discusses his playing speed and the speed tournaments he used to win in Vegas. I just remember that he doesn't like to talk about it.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Barry Glazer <b.glazer@...> wrote:

I am still curious what other people have actually achieved as a sustainable play rate on a single-line machine playing one machine at a time.� Those with claims of 3,000 hands per hour have not, to my observation (sorry if I missed it) responded to my question of whether that play was (1) sustainable over time (say an hour)�and (2) on ONE single-line machine, as opposed to two (or more) machines or multi-line play.� I am certainly willing to discount the delays that occur when�a hand pay occurs, of course, since that's unavoidable.� Those with claims of 1,000 - 1,200 hands per hour need not respond again, as I find that fully credible.
�
Incidentally, I will certainly concede to slow play rates being reasonable for those who find it physically uncomfortable (for any reason) to play fast, or who feel their accuracy is optimal at lower speeds, or who simply enjoy playing slowly (which I can sort of understand, even though that does not "fit" me at all).
�
Some have responded to my observation of a 1-2 hand per second machine limit by saying that some machines can respond at five hands per second with rapid tapping of the "deal" button; I have yet to see such a machine.� I almost always play $1 single-line machines, so I don't know about machines at lower denominations being set for lower response rates.� I don't think I want to tip off even my less-than-perfect non-professional skill level to a slot tech by requesting a machine to be reset for the fastest rate of play (and while this may be a simple setting for some slot techs, the ones I deal with seem to struggle to get the machine open to re-load or un-jam a roll of paper).� While the machine response rate is certainly a factor in speed, the 1-2 hands per second response rate is good enough to keep up with my decision and hold rate; a faster machine would not likely add more than 10% to my own speed.
�
I have admitted to making about one error per hour that I catch (and I admit that I might be making some that I don't catch, an admission which I would think every honest person�would need to make in casino play, because how can you honestly say that you never make a mistake that you are not aware of, except on computer practice where you can measure errors, but are not distracted by casino activities, sticky buttons, etc.?), and my usual sustainable play rate is 1000 hands an hour, a rate determined by calculation based on tier points earned, and sustained and replicated repeatedly in sessions of one to five hours.� I suspect my burst rate is much higher for short periods of time, since I sometimes doze off at the machine (I seem to play VP mostly when I'm tired from live poker, admittedly a poor choice in terms of perfect play) for unknown periods of time, probably just a second or two, but who knows.� Since I am often playing tired, I'm not sure
slowing down would avoid more than half my errors, and for me personally, that avoidance would be offset by losing my reasons for playing fast, below.
�
And while errors are most certainly costly in the long run, in the short run (i.e. on an actual individual hand) not every error results in a decreased pay on that hand; sometimes you defy the odds, get lucky, and hit something you might not have hit with the correct play.� Again, I definitely understand that actual results do not reflect the theoretical cost of errors, that you can't reasonably expect luck to offset your errors in the long run, and I definitely understand that the theoretical cost is what matters, although some will argue that in short-run actual practice, what matters is how you do, not how you play, and certainly it is hard to discount the value of taking home more money, even if the player taking it home had little right to expect to do so.
�
As for the other topics re: why to play fast, most of those that have been cited as valid reasons apply to me: (1) increased speed is a good idea to increase hourly expected win amount�when you have an edge, such as playing for a progressive royal, (2) increased speed helps you get in a desired amount of tier points in less time (and without moving up in denomination, which is accompanied by unacceptable variance and risk to a bankroll insufficient for higher-denom. play), and (3) personal preference -- I get bored playing slowly, and part of the reason I'm playing is for entertainment (which is reduced for me by slow play) and distraction from the rest of life (which comes back to mind if I'm playing too slowly).�
�
I agree with those who point out that for quarter denominations, the dollar value per hour of increased speed is not that much; I also agree with those who point out that for quarters, getting a certain number of tier points in per day can be very burdensome if not near impossible at slower play rates; when I'm trying to get in 2500 tier points for the 5000 point bonus, my $1 1000-1200 hands per hour rate requires about 4-5 hours of play; at quarters, that would become a very long 16-20 hours, and at slower rates, 2500 points in a day would be impossible at the quarter level anyway.� But even at quarters, lower tier goals for bonuses (such as 1000 tier points) would also be very time consuming, significantly�so when comparing 1000 hands per hour to 300-500 hands per hour.
�
I'm the same way with driving -- if traffic is moving very slowly, I am not as alert as when moving along at a higher speed -- like VP, with an understanding of increased risk with high speed, that I'm willing to accept.� And yes, I understand that with driving, it's not just me that gets the increased risk, so with that admission, let's not get off-topic criticizing that any further.
�
When I'm playing with�my most frequent VP-playing "buddy" my goal becomes more social, and things change -- we often share our bankroll,�move up to a multi-line machine, and take turns at the same machine, and this clearly leads to slower play -- but again, in that setting, my priorities in playing change, with "social" moving to the top.� We pause to have conversation or to order and drink beverages, etc.� When I'm not fully�enjoying the "social" play mode, I try to convince my friend to share bankroll and play two single-line machines side-by-side, which moderates the social aspect a little�but allows me to pick up speed again; when we play that way, I tend to get in about 50% more hands per hour than my friend.� Quite honestly, I don't find playing video poker to be a very social activity, but I'll concede to those who enjoy playing with a friend as their preferred mode.
�
-BG

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

Here's one I found real quick:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/111800

I play as many tournaments as I can. Speed is usually more important than accuracy in these events. I top out at around 1500 hph.

Casino Rama (Orillia, Ont), had semiannual tournaments for a few years. Entry fee $250, first place paid $25,000. These events attracted serious players (90%) and a few rubes (entry fees comped by players club).

The players all started with a set number of credits, and played for 15 minutes. The starting credits were so high that no one ever ran them to zero.

They allowed you to cruise the bank after a session, observe the scores AND the remaining credits.

I diligently logged these and recorded them to a database for posterity.

Here are some real-life results for you based on two 15-minute sessions
fastest ten in hph:
1606
1566
1542
1525
1502
1496
1472
1461
1449
1443 (yours truly)

These machines were set to tournament mode - all payouts were 3x normal, so it took slightly longer than usual for the wins to be rung off.

I've won events at Avi in Laughlin at 1,400+ hph.

At Silverton in the good old days I watched a local pro playing two 10-7 DB machines at the same time.
He would play for 2 hours at a time before taking a break. I clocked him at a combined 1,100 hph.
.
3,000 hph - Frankly, I'd have to see it to believe it.

Hope this helps

···

From: Barry Glazer <b.glazer@att.net>
To: "vpFREE@yahoogroups.com" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:39:47 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Playing Speed (was "I need help" and "inflated claims")

I am still curious what other people have actually achieved as a sustainable play rate on a single-line machine playing one machine at a time. Those with claims of 3,000 hands per hour have not, to my observation (sorry if I missed it) responded to my question of whether that play was (1) sustainable over time (say an hour) and (2) on ONE single-line machine, as opposed to two (or more) machines or multi-line play. I am certainly willing to discount the delays that occur when a hand pay occurs, of course, since that's unavoidable. Those with claims of 1,000 - 1,200 hands per hour need not respond again, as I find that fully credible.

Incidentally, I will certainly concede to slow play rates being reasonable for those who find it physically uncomfortable (for any reason) to play fast, or who feel their accuracy is optimal at lower speeds, or who simply enjoy playing slowly (which I can sort of understand, even though that does not "fit" me at all).

Some have responded to my observation of a 1-2 hand per second machine limit by saying that some machines can respond at five hands per second with rapid tapping of the "deal" button; I have yet to see such a machine. I almost always play $1 single-line machines, so I don't know about machines at lower denominations being set for lower response rates. I don't think I want to tip off even my less-than-perfect non-professional skill level to a slot tech by requesting a machine to be reset for the fastest rate of play (and while this may be a simple setting for some slot techs, the ones I deal with seem to struggle to get the machine open to re-load or un-jam a roll of paper). While the machine response rate is certainly a factor in speed, the 1-2 hands per second response rate is good enough to keep up with my decision and hold rate; a faster machine would not likely add more than 10% to my own speed.

I have admitted to making about one error per hour that I catch (and I admit that I might be making some that I don't catch, an admission which I would think every honest person would need to make in casino play, because how can you honestly say that you never make a mistake that you are not aware of, except on computer practice where you can measure errors, but are not distracted by casino activities, sticky buttons, etc.?), and my usual sustainable play rate is 1000 hands an hour, a rate determined by calculation based on tier points earned, and sustained and replicated repeatedly in sessions of one to five hours. I suspect my burst rate is much higher for short periods of time, since I sometimes doze off at the machine (I seem to play VP mostly when I'm tired from live poker, admittedly a poor choice in terms of perfect play) for unknown periods of time, probably just a second or two, but who knows. Since I am often playing tired, I'm not sure
slowing down would avoid more than half my errors, and for me personally, that avoidance would be offset by losing my reasons for playing fast, below.

And while errors are most certainly costly in the long run, in the short run (i.e. on an actual individual hand) not every error results in a decreased pay on that hand; sometimes you defy the odds, get lucky, and hit something you might not have hit with the correct play. Again, I definitely understand that actual results do not reflect the theoretical cost of errors, that you can't reasonably expect luck to offset your errors in the long run, and I definitely understand that the theoretical cost is what matters, although some will argue that in short-run actual practice, what matters is how you do, not how you play, and certainly it is hard to discount the value of taking home more money, even if the player taking it home had little right to expect to do so.

As for the other topics re: why to play fast, most of those that have been cited as valid reasons apply to me: (1) increased speed is a good idea to increase hourly expected win amount when you have an edge, such as playing for a progressive royal, (2) increased speed helps you get in a desired amount of tier points in less time (and without moving up in denomination, which is accompanied by unacceptable variance and risk to a bankroll insufficient for higher-denom. play), and (3) personal preference -- I get bored playing slowly, and part of the reason I'm playing is for entertainment (which is reduced for me by slow play) and distraction from the rest of life (which comes back to mind if I'm playing too slowly).

I agree with those who point out that for quarter denominations, the dollar value per hour of increased speed is not that much; I also agree with those who point out that for quarters, getting a certain number of tier points in per day can be very burdensome if not near impossible at slower play rates; when I'm trying to get in 2500 tier points for the 5000 point bonus, my $1 1000-1200 hands per hour rate requires about 4-5 hours of play; at quarters, that would become a very long 16-20 hours, and at slower rates, 2500 points in a day would be impossible at the quarter level anyway. But even at quarters, lower tier goals for bonuses (such as 1000 tier points) would also be very time consuming, significantly so when comparing 1000 hands per hour to 300-500 hands per hour.

I'm the same way with driving -- if traffic is moving very slowly, I am not as alert as when moving along at a higher speed -- like VP, with an understanding of increased risk with high speed, that I'm willing to accept. And yes, I understand that with driving, it's not just me that gets the increased risk, so with that admission, let's not get off-topic criticizing that any further.

When I'm playing with my most frequent VP-playing "buddy" my goal becomes more social, and things change -- we often share our bankroll, move up to a multi-line machine, and take turns at the same machine, and this clearly leads to slower play -- but again, in that setting, my priorities in playing change, with "social" moving to the top. We pause to have conversation or to order and drink beverages, etc. When I'm not fully enjoying the "social" play mode, I try to convince my friend to share bankroll and play two single-line machines side-by-side, which moderates the social aspect a little but allows me to pick up speed again; when we play that way, I tend to get in about 50% more hands per hour than my friend. Quite honestly, I don't find playing video poker to be a very social activity, but I'll concede to those who enjoy playing with a friend as their preferred mode.

-BG

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

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

The other relevant observation is the game in question. The average number of cards held varies quite a bit from game to game.
10-7 DB - you rarely draw 5
Games where strategy dictates you keep inside straights mean more holds, and button pushing.
DW games you don;t keep nearly as many.

···

________________________________
From: Barry Glazer <b.glazer@att.net>
To: "vpFREE@yahoogroups.com" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:39:47 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Playing Speed (was "I need help" and "inflated claims")

I am still curious what other people have actually achieved as a sustainable play rate on a single-line machine playing one machine at a time. Those with claims of 3,000 hands per hour have not, to my observation (sorry if I missed it) responded to my question of whether that play was (1) sustainable over time (say an hour) and (2) on ONE single-line machine, as opposed to two (or more) machines or multi-line play. I am certainly willing to discount the delays that occur when a hand pay occurs, of course, since that's unavoidable. Those with claims of 1,000 - 1,200 hands per hour need not respond again, as I find that fully credible.

Incidentally, I will certainly concede to slow play rates being reasonable for those who find it physically uncomfortable (for any reason) to play fast, or who feel their accuracy is optimal at lower speeds, or who simply enjoy playing slowly (which I can sort of understand, even though that does not "fit" me at all).

Some have responded to my observation of a 1-2 hand per second machine limit by saying that some machines can respond at five hands per second with rapid tapping of the "deal" button; I have yet to see such a machine. I almost always play $1 single-line machines, so I don't know about machines at lower denominations being set for lower response rates. I don't think I want to tip off even my less-than-perfect non-professional skill level to a slot tech by requesting a machine to be reset for the fastest rate of play (and while this may be a simple setting for some slot techs, the ones I deal with seem to struggle to get the machine open to re-load or un-jam a roll of paper). While the machine response rate is certainly a factor in speed, the 1-2 hands per second response rate is good enough to keep up with my decision and hold rate; a faster machine would not likely add more than 10% to my own speed.

I have admitted to making about one error per hour that I catch (and I admit that I might be making some that I don't catch, an admission which I would think every honest person would need to make in casino play, because how can you honestly say that you never make a mistake that you are not aware of, except on computer practice where you can measure errors, but are not distracted by casino activities, sticky buttons, etc.?), and my usual sustainable play rate is 1000 hands an hour, a rate determined by calculation based on tier points earned, and sustained and replicated repeatedly in sessions of one to five hours. I suspect my burst rate is much higher for short periods of time, since I sometimes doze off at the machine (I seem to play VP mostly when I'm tired from live poker, admittedly a poor choice in terms of perfect play) for unknown periods of time, probably just a second or two, but who knows. Since I am often playing tired, I'm not sure
slowing down would avoid more than half my errors, and for me personally, that avoidance would be offset by losing my reasons for playing fast, below.

And while errors are most certainly costly in the long run, in the short run (i.e. on an actual individual hand) not every error results in a decreased pay on that hand; sometimes you defy the odds, get lucky, and hit something you might not have hit with the correct play. Again, I definitely understand that actual results do not reflect the theoretical cost of errors, that you can't reasonably expect luck to offset your errors in the long run, and I definitely understand that the theoretical cost is what matters, although some will argue that in short-run actual practice, what matters is how you do, not how you play, and certainly it is hard to discount the value of taking home more money, even if the player taking it home had little right to expect to do so.

As for the other topics re: why to play fast, most of those that have been cited as valid reasons apply to me: (1) increased speed is a good idea to increase hourly expected win amount when you have an edge, such as playing for a progressive royal, (2) increased speed helps you get in a desired amount of tier points in less time (and without moving up in denomination, which is accompanied by unacceptable variance and risk to a bankroll insufficient for higher-denom. play), and (3) personal preference -- I get bored playing slowly, and part of the reason I'm playing is for entertainment (which is reduced for me by slow play) and distraction from the rest of life (which comes back to mind if I'm playing too slowly).

I agree with those who point out that for quarter denominations, the dollar value per hour of increased speed is not that much; I also agree with those who point out that for quarters, getting a certain number of tier points in per day can be very burdensome if not near impossible at slower play rates; when I'm trying to get in 2500 tier points for the 5000 point bonus, my $1 1000-1200 hands per hour rate requires about 4-5 hours of play; at quarters, that would become a very long 16-20 hours, and at slower rates, 2500 points in a day would be impossible at the quarter level anyway. But even at quarters, lower tier goals for bonuses (such as 1000 tier points) would also be very time consuming, significantly so when comparing 1000 hands per hour to 300-500 hands per hour.

I'm the same way with driving -- if traffic is moving very slowly, I am not as alert as when moving along at a higher speed -- like VP, with an understanding of increased risk with high speed, that I'm willing to accept. And yes, I understand that with driving, it's not just me that gets the increased risk, so with that admission, let's not get off-topic criticizing that any further.

When I'm playing with my most frequent VP-playing "buddy" my goal becomes more social, and things change -- we often share our bankroll, move up to a multi-line machine, and take turns at the same machine, and this clearly leads to slower play -- but again, in that setting, my priorities in playing change, with "social" moving to the top. We pause to have conversation or to order and drink beverages, etc. When I'm not fully enjoying the "social" play mode, I try to convince my friend to share bankroll and play two single-line machines side-by-side, which moderates the social aspect a little but allows me to pick up speed again; when we play that way, I tend to get in about 50% more hands per hour than my friend. Quite honestly, I don't find playing video poker to be a very social activity, but I'll concede to those who enjoy playing with a friend as their preferred mode.

-BG

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

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

Barry, by the above rationale, if I play an 8/5 DDB machine that is sitting next to a 9/6 JOB machine and hit aces with a kicker on the DDB machine, that's okay because I made money? We can control the games we play and the holds we make but not the results. Even in the short term, this is dangerous thinking. You see it at the poker tables all the time. People chase 23 to 1 shots when they have to call $20 into a $150 pot. Sure you will hit sometimes but it is still the wrong play.

All of your 'short run' results add up to your 'long run' results. This is why people play more and for bigger stakes when they are 'hot'. People will be $200 at the dice table when they are usually a $10 player because there have 8 passes in a row made.

Short term results should not influence your play decisions.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Barry Glazer <b.glazer@...> wrote:

And while errors are most certainly costly in the long run, in the short run (i.e. on an actual individual hand) not every error results in a decreased pay on that hand; sometimes you defy the odds, get lucky, and hit something you might not have hit with the correct play. Again, I definitely understand that actual results do not reflect the theoretical cost of errors, that you can't reasonably expect luck to offset your errors in the long run, and I definitely understand that the theoretical cost is what matters, although some will argue that in short-run actual practice, what matters is how you do, not how you play, and certainly it is hard to discount the value of taking home more money, even if the player taking it home had little right to expect to do so.