"Random Cyclicality" is an oxymoron. Something can not be both random and cyclical.
Dan
--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com
"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur
"Random Cyclicality" is an oxymoron. Something can not be both random
and cyclical.Dan
Exactly. Isn't it supposed to be "cyclicity," though?
"Random Cyclicality" is an oxymoron. Something can not be both random
and cyclical.Dan
Well Dan you wrote a book years ago of which I have read both
editions. Maybe my terms are not precisely correct but take a look at
DDB. I see huge randomness and cyclicality when you play your hands.
My definition here is big swings around a long term mean in the
positive and negatve directions which happen on random (irregular
swings of undeterminate magnitude which occur over irregular time
increments from 0 to infinity) of which I only utilize lets say only
consider the first few thousand max hands of play, because I stop and
start all over again. Call it what you will, but with a big enough
banroll if you don't go bankrupt you will see the swings. I not
trying to predict when you're going to go through an inflection point
but rather react to going through an inflection point. Call it what
you will. Denny
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan Paymar <Dan@...> wrote:
--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur
Maybe my terms are not precisely correct but take a look at
DDB. I see huge randomness and cyclicality when you play your
hands.
I suspect there is some problems with your usage of "cyclicity"
compared to how others (me) would use that term. The word "cycle" has
some inherent meaning about repeatablility. Clearly, one will see
positive and negative "swings" during any VP session. These swings
are part of the randomness. Therefore "randomness and cyclicality" is
ether redundant or an oxymoron which is not what I suspect you were
trying to say.
My definition here is big swings around a long term mean in the
positive and negatve directions
Swings do not HAVE to be "big". You can have a fairly even
distribution of results. Obviously, the variance of DDB makes even
results less likely.
which happen on random (irregular
swings of undeterminate magnitude which occur over irregular time
increments from 0 to infinity) of which I only utilize lets say
only
consider the first few thousand max hands of play, because I stop
and
start all over again. Call it what you will, but with a big enough
banroll if you don't go bankrupt you will see the swings. I not
trying to predict when you're going to go through an inflection
point
but rather react to going through an inflection point.
Trying to "predict" randomness is considered impossible by
definition. What you are saying is either 1) you are psychic or 2)
you have spotted non-randomness. There is no other way to "react to
going through an inflection point". If there were, there would no
such thing as secure transactions.
Call it what
you will. Denny
I call it misinformed.
Have you read anything by Ion Saliu?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:
denflo60 wrote:
I see huge randomness and cyclicality when you play your hands.
My definition here is big swings around a long term mean in the
positive and negatve directions which happen on random (irregular
swings of undeterminate magnitude which occur over irregular time
increments from 0 to infinity) of which I only utilize lets say only
consider the first few thousand max hands of play, because I stop and
start all over again.
One could say that between ANY two hands of VP that he stops and
starts all over again. Mathematically, there is no effect achieved by
separating unrelated random events into "sessions".
Do you attach some mathematical significance to the amount of time
that elapses between VP hands? Have you detected relationships
between chronologically adjacent hands that change over time? If so,
please explain.
I have often heard that between hands the VP machines are repeatedly
executing that portion of the computer program that selects the next
pseudo random number. When the player presses the BET button, the
most recent result of this process is used to select the 10 cards that will
make up the initial five cards plus up to five draw cards.
I don't think a human can detect and then exploit any vulnerability in the
mechanism used by VP machines to produce (pseudo) random results.
DF
Call it what you will, but with a big enough
banroll if you don't go bankrupt you will see the swings. I not
trying to predict when you're going to go through an inflection point
but rather react to going through an inflection point. Call it what
you will. Denny
> Maybe my terms are not precisely correct but take a look at
> DDB. I see huge randomness and cyclicality when you play your
hands.I suspect there is some problems with your usage of "cyclicity"
compared to how others (me) would use that term. The word "cycle"
has
some inherent meaning about repeatablility. Clearly, one will see
positive and negative "swings" during any VP session. These swings
are part of the randomness. Therefore "randomness and cyclicality"
is
ether redundant or an oxymoron which is not what I suspect you were
trying to say.> My definition here is big swings around a long term mean in the
> positive and negatve directionsSwings do not HAVE to be "big". You can have a fairly even
distribution of results. Obviously, the variance of DDB makes even
results less likely.> which happen on random (irregular
> swings of undeterminate magnitude which occur over irregular
time
> increments from 0 to infinity) of which I only utilize lets say
only
> consider the first few thousand max hands of play, because I stop
and
> start all over again. Call it what you will, but with a big
enough
> banroll if you don't go bankrupt you will see the swings. I not
> trying to predict when you're going to go through an inflection
point
> but rather react to going through an inflection point.Trying to "predict" randomness is considered impossible by
definition. What you are saying is either 1) you are psychic or 2)
you have spotted non-randomness. There is no other way to "react to
going through an inflection point". If there were, there would no
such thing as secure transactions.> Call it what
> you will. DennyI call it misinformed.
Have you read anything by Ion Saliu?
Two points: I have read what Saliue has posted on the web. I have
never paid him though for anything..
I am not trying to predict randomness, but I want to roll with the
swings and there definitely are swings. Remember I'm playing
somewhere between $125 and $1,250 betting 5 coins in 50 or 100 way
games or $25 in single hands games. I am not trying to make a
killing % wise on a session. One or two strong positive hands is all
it takes. If there's a downward trend that is too long for my
liking, I truncate the game. If I see what I consider a positive
trend I set a floor under how much I'm willing to give back and I may
increase the bet or go to a higher variance game as long as I remain
above the floor I set. None of this contradicts perfect play. Denny
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@> wrote:
Have you read anything by Ion Saliu?
Two points: I have read what Saliue has posted on the web. I have
never paid him though for anything..
I am not trying to predict randomness, but I want to roll with the
swings and there definitely are swings. Remember I'm playing
somewhere between $125 and $1,250 betting 5 coins in 50 or 100 way
games or $25 in single hands games. I am not trying to make a
killing % wise on a session. One or two strong positive hands is all
it takes. If there's a downward trend that is too long for my
liking, I truncate the game. If I see what I consider a positive
trend I set a floor under how much I'm willing to give back and I may
increase the bet or go to a higher variance game as long as I remain
above the floor I set. None of this contradicts perfect play. Denny
Sure it does. "Perfect play" is based on the assumption of
randomness. Why don't you also change your strategy in response to
similar swings? Maybe if you hit 4 straights in a row, you should
stop drawing to them after then missing a few too many.
It's impossible to empirically prove randomness. But I believe it's
possible to show what the likelihood is that a certain result is
indicative of a pattern or of randomness. Maybe if you posted an
example of what you believe to be evidence of a pattern from your
observations, those who know how to do this will show you what chance
there is that you're right.
If these machines are random, what difference does it make when you quit, or when you move to another machine? The other machines would just be random also.
People on this board seem to get overly excited when the topic of randomness comes up. It's almost like it's a religion, and if you don't believe in it, you are some sort of sinner.
>> Have you read anything by Ion Saliu?
Two points: I have read what Saliue has posted on the web. I have
never paid him though for anything..
I am not trying to predict randomness, but I want to roll with the
swings and there definitely are swings. Remember I'm playing
somewhere between $125 and $1,250 betting 5 coins in 50 or 100 way
games or $25 in single hands games. I am not trying to make a
killing % wise on a session. One or two strong positive hands is all
it takes. If there's a downward trend that is too long for my
liking, I truncate the game. If I see what I consider a positive
trend I set a floor under how much I'm willing to give back and I may
increase the bet or go to a higher variance game as long as I remain
above the floor I set. None of this contradicts perfect play. Denny
Sure it does. "Perfect play" is based on the assumption of
randomness. Why don't you also change your strategy in response to
similar swings? Maybe if you hit 4 straights in a row, you should
stop drawing to them after then missing a few too many.
It's impossible to empirically prove randomness. But I believe it's
possible to show what the likelihood is that a certain result is
indicative of a pattern or of randomness. Maybe if you posted an
example of what you believe to be evidence of a pattern from your
observations, those who know how to do this will show you what chance
there is that you're right.
Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote:
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
People on this board seem to get overly excited when the topic of randomness comes up. It's almost like it's a religion, and if you don't believe in it, you are some sort of sinner.
I agree. It's an unprovable assumption. It's impossible to prove
that there are no patterns to the results of a video poker machine.
I am not trying to predict randomness, but I want to roll with the
swings and there definitely are swings.
Sorry, but it can't be done. In order to "roll with the swings" you
have to be able to PREDICT random events. If you missed my point
before let me restate it. You have to be either 1) psychic or 2) able
to detect a non-random event. Otherwise you have no idea whether a
swing is in process.
Just to put this in perspective ... What happens if you count to 5
before the next bet? Won't that impact the swing? If not, aren't you
claiming future hands are pre-destined (ie. not random). If so, then
why is waiting 5 seconds different than not waiting?
Remember I'm playing
somewhere between $125 and $1,250 betting 5 coins in 50 or 100 way
games or $25 in single hands games.
You could be betting five cents and the situation is unchanged.
I am not trying to make a
killing % wise on a session. One or two strong positive hands is
all
it takes. If there's a downward trend that is too long for my
liking, I truncate the game.
This IS the reason your approach will fail. You may quit while you're
ahead some times but you will also "truncate" many times and all your
SMALL gains will be lost. Your overall results will approach the ER
over time.
If I see what I consider a positive
trend I set a floor under how much I'm willing to give back and I
may
increase the bet or go to a higher variance game as long as I
remain
above the floor I set. None of this contradicts perfect play.
Denny
And none of it produces an advantage. You need to accept a very
simple mathematical FACT about "random VP" or delude yourself just as
many gamblers have in the past. The total sum of your results will
always be the sum of your individual hands. This sum will converge on
the ER of the game over time. This has been PROVEN beyond any doubt.
Others have tried progressions, variable betting techniques, etc.
None of them have ever worked beyond normal chance.
Of course, as long as you use perfect play you won't be costing
yourself anything. Keep in mind, if 100 people tried your "system",
many of them would initially have success. This has often led to
undesireable long term results.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, robert tryjefaczka <bobtry2000@...>
wrote:
People on this board seem to get overly excited when the topic of
randomness comes up. It's almost like it's a religion, and if you don't
believe in it, you are some sort of sinner.
The whole concept of advantage VP is based on random and fair games. If
someone doesn't believe that VP is random and fair, that is their
right. However, all discussion will be worthless since there is no
common ground to base any opinions.
On the other hand, if someone does accept VP is random and fair, then
these types of discussions are informative. As far as I can tell, no
one in this thread is claiming the games aren't random and fair.
Dick
<<It's impossible to prove
that there are no patterns to the results of a video poker machine.>>
I hate to enter such a math-heavy discussion - but I always believed you could see all sorts of patterns when you look BACK at a session - i.e., we seemed to get a lot of "7's" tonight. However, although this is interesting, it is no help in the future.
Same for the word "streak." I can look back and see streaks, good ones and bad ones. But AT THE TIME I had no clue when a streak would start or end. And studying those streaks wouldn't help me "play better" in the future .
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
frugal products are now available at my
new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.
We need to get Rob Singer's take on Random Cyclicality. Does anyone
one know where he is at these days?
denflo60 wrote:
If there's a downward trend that is too long for my liking, I
truncate the game. If I see what I consider a positive trend I set a
floor under how much I'm willing to give back and I may increase the
bet or go to a higher variance game as long as I remain above the
floor I set. None of this contradicts perfect play.
Denny, in this fragment you say all that needs to be said about what's
driving your play style. It lets me set this entire threat as
tangential, at best, to what you're looking for.
While I wouldn't adopt your approach for myself, there's nothing
inherently wrong with the consequences. I'm not particularly
concerned with your rationale for favoring this approach -- just that
it works for you; and that's good enough for me.
The key consequence is merely that the volatility of your play is
increased. You must accept that in varying your bet or game variance,
you subject yourself to greater bankroll swings and, consequently,
need a larger bankroll to survive the potential downswings in your
play. This isn't some statement about the "long term"; it's true of
each hour of your play.
However, you also enhance the upside, which clearly has great value
for you. Accept the risk involved and your play style is entirely
rational. Blindside yourself to the risk you take on and it's not.
- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, robert tryjefaczka <bobtry2000@>
wrote:
> People on this board seem to get overly excited when the topic
of
randomness comes up. It's almost like it's a religion, and if you
don't
believe in it, you are some sort of sinner.
The whole concept of advantage VP is based on random and fair
games. If
someone doesn't believe that VP is random and fair, that is their
right. However, all discussion will be worthless since there is no
common ground to base any opinions.On the other hand, if someone does accept VP is random and fair,
then
these types of discussions are informative. As far as I can tell,
no
one in this thread is claiming the games aren't random and fair.
Dick
If all the machine are random, then it shouln't make any difference
on when or why you would want to change machines. If you feel more
comfortable changing machines after a big hit or if you feel the
machine is cold, or even if you think you see a pattern, why not
change.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
True. There is nothing wrong with changing machines if you feel more
comfortable using that approach. There's actually one reason why
changing machines may improve your results. By getting up and moving
around most people will stay fresher and be less prone to mistakes.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobtry2000" <bobtry2000@...> wrote:
If all the machine are random, then it shouln't make any difference
on when or why you would want to change machines. If you feel more
comfortable changing machines after a big hit or if you feel the
machine is cold, or even if you think you see a pattern, why not
change.
bobtry2000 wrote:
If all the machine are random, then it shouln't make any difference
on when or why you would want to change machines. If you feel more
comfortable changing machines after a big hit or if you feel the
machine is cold, or even if you think you see a pattern, why not
change.
If that's the only reason you're changing, you've revealed that you
don't believe the machines are random. Once that assumption is
discarded, on what would you base decisions about which machine to
play and how to play them? If you feel that flushes are less likely
than they were 10 minutes ago, why not stop drawing to them? If you
feel that that 7/5 Double Double machine next to you is about to hit,
why not move from your full pay Deuces Wild machine and play it?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
denflo60 wrote:
> If there's a downward trend that is too long for my liking, I
> truncate the game. If I see what I consider a positive trend I
set a
> floor under how much I'm willing to give back and I may increase
the
> bet or go to a higher variance game as long as I remain above the
> floor I set. None of this contradicts perfect play.Denny, in this fragment you say all that needs to be said about
what's
driving your play style. It lets me set this entire threat as
tangential, at best, to what you're looking for.
Harry:
Your vouce of wisdom strikes again. I just was going to write a note
that it is time to truncate this discussion. I thank you all for
your comments. From my perspective, this thread has just ended.
Denny
While I wouldn't adopt your approach for myself, there's nothing
inherently wrong with the consequences. I'm not particularly
concerned with your rationale for favoring this approach -- just
that
it works for you; and that's good enough for me.
The key consequence is merely that the volatility of your play is
increased. You must accept that in varying your bet or game
variance,
you subject yourself to greater bankroll swings and, consequently,
need a larger bankroll to survive the potential downswings in your
play. This isn't some statement about the "long term"; it's true of
each hour of your play.However, you also enhance the upside, which clearly has great value
for you. Accept the risk involved and your play style is entirely
rational. Blindside yourself to the risk you take on and it's not.- Harry
I saw a Singer column in the Gaming Today publication recently. It was
filled with so much misleading information I'm surprised they accept
his columns. He implies it's possible to "trick" VP machines. For
example, he says it's just OK to know a games strategy/return but to be
a real winner you must ...then he gets vague, but leaves the impression
it's easy to do. He's very skillful at that. I think his appeal is to
people who don't want to work at VP ... the same people that will pay
for a "fool proof system" to win the lottery.
On the other hand, there are all sorts of "systems" columnists
recommend, including astrology. So I guess there's room for everyone
when it comes to gambling. It's best not to get too worked up over it.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
We need to get Rob Singer's take on Random Cyclicality. Does anyone
one know where he is at these days?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@...>
wrote:
bobtry2000 wrote:
>If all the machine are random, then it shouln't make any
difference
>on when or why you would want to change machines. If you feel
more
>comfortable changing machines after a big hit or if you feel the
>machine is cold, or even if you think you see a pattern, why not
>change.If that's the only reason you're changing, you've revealed that you
don't believe the machines are random. Once that assumption is
discarded, on what would you base decisions about which machine to
play and how to play them? If you feel that flushes are less likely
than they were 10 minutes ago, why not stop drawing to them? If you
feel that that 7/5 Double Double machine next to you is about to
hit,
why not move from your full pay Deuces Wild machine and play it?
I'm really not sure if the machines are really random. Some times I
have to wonder. If they are all random, it doesn't make any
difference if I change to another machine, for whatever reason.
I have played video poker since the mid 70's. I don't play hunches.
I use all the mathematicaly correct plays. I seem to do quite well.
But I'm not sure if I believe everything IGT tells us.