Questionable 100 Play Machine Strategy

[Howard_Stern]

Absolutely NOT!!
The fact that you are playing 100 hands instead of one makes it far more
likely that the draw will average closer to the EV of the hand.
Yes a four flush will usually be a net win in this situation (note: in
addition to flushes you will occasionally pair the high card you broke up.)
but a high pair will on average win about a coin per hand more! The three
royal is much closer (especially KQJ) but still the same situation applies.

The three royal will be a net loser on 100 play much more often because
much of it's payback is tied up in the RF. You will connect for at least
one RF about one out of eleven times you have this situation.

···

[Original Message]
From: futrend <futrend@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 7/24/2004 5:18:15 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Questionable 100 Play Machine Strategy

The following quotation is from a magazine article in which the
author is describing strategy on a One Hundred Play video poker
machine'.

"However, on the Hundred Play game, because I have 99 more hands to
draw on, I go for the flush and have found that it usually pays off"

The above comment refers to discarding a jacks or better" when the
player also has 3 to a straight flush or 3 to a royal flush. The
author has published a book on how to play Video Poker. Is there
any validity to this JoB strategy on a hundred play machine?

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Bill_Velek1]

Howard Stern wrote:

Absolutely NOT!!
The fact that you are playing 100 hands instead of one makes it far more
likely that the draw will average closer to the EV of the hand.

snipped the description of what sounds like an _RS 'special play'_ in which a high pair is discard in JoB in an attempt to draw to a 3-Royal or a 3-STFL -- advice that was given in a magazine article.

I agree a hundred percent with Howard Stern that discarding the high pair is a definite mistake. As far as I know, except for different levels in Multi-Strike, all max-ER VP strategies are actually independent of the number of games played at one time, or the amount bet; i.e., the strategies remain the same whether playing a single line, 3-play, 5-play, 50-play, etc., and whether playing nickels, quarters, dollars, etc. The apparent volatility of the game can be affected, but not the ER. Logically, however, if you were playing an alternate strategy like min-RoR or something like that, I suppose anything that might affect the volatility of the game might also affect the hold that is best, but I'd need to deter to Steve Jacobs on something like that because I never really bother with anything except max-ER.

Which magazine published something like that? Unless otherwise stated, I would presume that the author was referring to max-ER strategy, which I think most of us have always considered as the 'default' strategy.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

[Steve_Jacobs]

I agree a hundred percent with Howard Stern that discarding the high
pair is a definite mistake. As far as I know, except for different
levels in Multi-Strike, all max-ER VP strategies are actually
independent of the number of games played at one time, or the amount
bet; i.e., the strategies remain the same whether playing a single line,
3-play, 5-play, 50-play, etc., and whether playing nickels, quarters,
dollars, etc.

That is correct.

The apparent volatility of the game can be affected, but
not the ER. Logically, however, if you were playing an alternate
strategy like min-RoR or something like that, I suppose anything that
might affect the volatility of the game might also affect the hold that
is best, but I'd need to deter to Steve Jacobs on something like that
because I never really bother with anything except max-ER.

Interesting question, and I'm not sure. I'm guessing that it would be
possible for multi-play strategy to be different for min-RoR, but I've
never seen a concrete example that proves it. If that does happen,
then the min-RoR strategy might be "only play single-play machines".

···

On Saturday 24 July 2004 08:46 am, Bill Velek wrote:

[nightoftheiguana2000]

the risk of ruin is less for multiplay therefore the strategy would
be more conservative:
single play deuces: R(1)=0.999347, mod rf=623, mod 4d=188
100 play deuces: R(1)=0.99503, mod rf=197, mod 4d=127

> The apparent volatility of the game can be affected, but
> not the ER. Logically, however, if you were playing an alternate
> strategy like min-RoR or something like that, I suppose anything

that

> might affect the volatility of the game might also affect the

hold that

> is best, but I'd need to deter to Steve Jacobs on something like

that

> because I never really bother with anything except max-ER.

Interesting question, and I'm not sure. I'm guessing that it would

be

possible for multi-play strategy to be different for min-RoR, but

I've

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:

On Saturday 24 July 2004 08:46 am, Bill Velek wrote:
never seen a concrete example that proves it. If that does happen,
then the min-RoR strategy might be "only play single-play machines".

[nightoftheiguana2000]

in case anyone cares about the formulas involved:
deuces variance=3.140053+(22.694565/N) (N=number of plays)
R(1)=EXP(-2.215315835*(ER-1)/variance)
ROR(risk of ruin)=R(1)^(bankroll in number of bets)
to get min bankroll strategy, adjust each win by:
mod win=(1-R(1)^win)/(1-R(1))
only works for ER>1

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

the risk of ruin is less for multiplay therefore the strategy would
be more conservative:
single play deuces: R(1)=0.999347, mod rf=623, mod 4d=188
100 play deuces: R(1)=0.99503, mod rf=197, mod 4d=127

> > The apparent volatility of the game can be affected, but
> > not the ER. Logically, however, if you were playing an

alternate

> > strategy like min-RoR or something like that, I suppose

anything

that
> > might affect the volatility of the game might also affect the
hold that
> > is best, but I'd need to deter to Steve Jacobs on something

like

that
> > because I never really bother with anything except max-ER.
>
> Interesting question, and I'm not sure. I'm guessing that it

would

be
> possible for multi-play strategy to be different for min-RoR, but
I've
> never seen a concrete example that proves it. If that does

happen,

> then the min-RoR strategy might be "only play single-play

machines".

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:
> On Saturday 24 July 2004 08:46 am, Bill Velek wrote: