vpFREE2 Forums

Random Cyclicality in Video Poker

#21

bornloser1537 wrote:

If one looks to the mathematics, the "cycles" apparently seen in VP
really do not exist and I again repeat my thoughts that one must
accrue millions or 10's of millons of experiments before one gets out
of the realm of "small number statistics".

This suggests a "long term" of millions and millions of hands. I'd
suggest that since in many cases 2 million hands are sufficient for
results to converge closely upon a game's ER, that the long-term is
appreciably shorter.

The suggestion of "millions and millions" in regard to vp is what
causes a few to come to the assumption that they'll never see the long
term in their play and therefore should play some type of short-term
"strategy".

- Harry

#22

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

I think the need to check this tendency to see patterns where they
don't exist can be extrapolated into other areas of life, too. I

used

to play a lot of tennis. "Playing my best" was very pleasing, but
then not playing up to that level was very frustrating. It never
occurred to me that there was a lot of probability in whether my

shots

went where I wanted them to go or not and that both "playing well"

and

"playing poorly" were illusions. My real skill level, which was
somewhere between the two, was the "expected value" of my play. A
golfer was telling me that he played well in a certain round and

got a

good score. I told him it sounded like he was lucky in that round,
but he insisted that he had played well. I should have asked him

why

he doesn't play that well every time if he likes it that much.

I attended a seminar with W. Edwards Deming as the speaker back in
the early 90's. He was a very famous quality guru who is credited
with moving Japan from its cheap product image to its quality image.

I was skeptical of the "old fool" going in, and the fact that he
didn't react well to criticsm of his beliefs didn't bode well. But I
suppose when I'm 90+ and in failing health as he was I probably
won't react positively to suggestions either.

He discussed randomness and variation in life, and did some amazing
skits to prove his point. The one with red balls and white balls
described in some of his books was particulary enlightening.

But to your point he discussed a golfer going out and shooting a
good score and claiming he played well. His contention was that the
good score was more of a random variation then "playing well or
badly".

I know this won't sit well with any golfers because we all feel we
have days when we are hot and playing well. I know I do. But in the
end, I think he is correct and that this feeling is a humans inherit
desire to see patterns where there are none.

(Note: he indicated that he wasn't saying you couldn't improve. That
if you took some lessons, practiced hard, you could move your
average down. But once accomplished, then random variation moved
your scores around the new middle again.)

#23

I attended a seminar with W. Edwards Deming as the speaker back in
the early 90's.

You should feel lucky. This guy was amazing.
Several times a month I think about some of
the simple management precepts this dude taught.
They're still true, just seldom practiced.

#24

Partially true. One day you could hit 7 traps and 4 trees and another
day you could barely miss them all. However, I also know there are
certain days you are simply hitting the ball better.

Same goes for tennis. I used to play someone who had a completely
different stye than I had (he was a defensive player). Some days I
would win easily and other days he would. Every once in a while we'd
have close matches. I suspect those were determined by luck while the
others were determined by whomever played better.

Dick

···

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

But to your point he discussed a golfer going out and shooting a
good score and claiming he played well. His contention was that the
good score was more of a random variation then "playing well or
badly".