vpFREE2 Forums

Re When Positive games ...

#1

Greeklandjohnny wrote .......

The huge seeming paradox is that every hand is independent
but if you?play long enough, you'll approach the EV of the
game. They are both?true statements.

NOTI2000 replied ..........

That's incorrect. If you "play long enough" your results will be
somewhere on a normal distribution with a mean equal to the
EV and a variance equal to the variance of one hand. What this
means is that if you "play long enough" somebody is gonna cry
uncle, either you will quit from losing too much or the casino will
kick you out for winning too much.

I guess I don't quite see the difference in what NOTI and I said.
I guess I should have put in a qualifier on the range of results or I
should have defined 'approach' better. I wanted to leave it in non
stats terms as much as possible. As a minor point, wouldn't the
variance have to include the number of hands played? The variance
of a 10 hand session has to be lower than the variance of a 1000
hand session.

It's much harder to have a -5% 100,000 hand session that a -5%
10,000 hand session.?

I can lose more dollars playing 1,000,000 hands of 10/7 double bonus
than playing 20,000 hands of 10/7 double bonus but range of returns
will be more closely grouped to the mean in the 1,000,000 hand session
than in the 20,000 hand example.

P.S. One of these days I will figure out yahoo formatting. I sent my original
post to myself in aol and it looked just fine.

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

#2

Greeklandjohnny wrote .......

>> The huge seeming paradox is that every hand is independent
>> but if you?play long enough, you'll approach the EV of the
>> game. They are both?true statements.

NOTI2000 replied ..........

>>That's incorrect. If you "play long enough" your results will be
>>somewhere on a normal distribution with a mean equal to the
>>EV and a variance equal to the variance of one hand. What this
>>means is that if you "play long enough" somebody is gonna cry
>>uncle, either you will quit from losing too much or the casino
>>will kick you out for winning too much.

greeklandjohnny followed with:

I guess I don't quite see the difference in what NOTI and I said.
I guess I should have put in a qualifier on the range of results or
I should have defined 'approach' better. I wanted to leave it in non
stats terms as much as possible.

I'll start by saying that my further input may likely not be
desirable. Nonetheless, I'll interecede by offering that the problem
may indeed be one of somantics.

In my prior post I basically paraphrased NOTI's post to soften the
hard math and strengthen the point that's pertinent to his
objection. Key was a definition of EV and ER. I defined the most
constructive sense in which each term might be used.

If I read you correctly in your reply, you used "EV" in your
statement above as a general reference to the concept of ER. As I
noted before, had you stated ER, you'd be exactly on target.

But botton line, while it's true that the longer you play the more
your actual play return will converse with ER, it's a fact that your
actual results (cash $) will diverge more and more from EV.

- H.

#3

When I see "approach the EV" I think of reversion to the mean. As you
point out, with independent events, there is no reversion to the mean.
Reversion to the mean only happens when there is some form of feedback
(dependency on prior events) such as found in weather or economics. My
apologies if I misunderstood what you meant by "approach the EV".

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, greeklandjohnny@... wrote:

>> The huge seeming paradox is that every hand is independent
>> but if you?play long enough, you'll approach the EV of the
>> game. They are both?true statements.

#4

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

> >> The huge seeming paradox is that every hand is independent
> >> but if you play long enough, you'll approach the EV of the
> >> game. They are both?true statements.

When I see "approach the EV" I think of reversion to the mean. As you
point out, with independent events, there is no reversion to the mean.
Reversion to the mean only happens when there is some form of feedback
(dependency on prior events) such as found in weather or economics. My
apologies if I misunderstood what you meant by "approach the EV".

NOTI, I absolutely do not believe in reversion to the mean or
regression to the mean or whatever the actual term is. I stated that
when I said you don't 'make up' for a bad session in the next 2 or 4 or
20 sessions. This is the biggest problem in explaining some fairly
complex stats ideas. If you mix in some non exact terms, you can
confuse your point ( like I did).

I owe an article on volatility and long term to a certain writer. I
need to get working on that.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, greeklandjohnny@ wrote:

#5

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...>
wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
>
> > >> The huge seeming paradox is that every hand is independent
> > >> but if you play long enough, you'll approach the EV of the
> > >> game. They are both?true statements.
>
> When I see "approach the EV" I think of reversion to the mean. As

you

> point out, with independent events, there is no reversion to the

mean.

> Reversion to the mean only happens when there is some form of

feedback

> (dependency on prior events) such as found in weather or

economics. My

> apologies if I misunderstood what you meant by "approach the EV".
>

NOTI, I absolutely do not believe in reversion to the mean or
regression to the mean or whatever the actual term is. I stated

that

when I said you don't 'make up' for a bad session in the next 2 or

4 or

20 sessions. This is the biggest problem in explaining some fairly
complex stats ideas. If you mix in some non exact terms, you can
confuse your point ( like I did).

How does approach the mena and regression to the mean differ? Seems
like if playing a large amount of hands, one would have an expected
out come of the true value of the game less the players proficiency
that would be approaching the mean ans still be independent events.

NOTI no offense intended, in English please. All others are welcome
also.

···

> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, greeklandjohnny@ wrote:

#6

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:

Seems
like if playing a large amount of hands, one would have an expected
out come of the true value of the game less the players proficiency
that would be approaching the mean ans still be independent events.

Seems like?

#7

.

It is nice to finally see a post from someone who knows the difference between standard deviation and absolute deviation. You are correct in what you have written (next paragraph of yours).

I can lose more dollars playing 1,000,000 hands of 10/7 double bonus
than playing 20,000 hands of 10/7 double bonus but range of returns
will be more closely grouped to the mean in the 1,000,000 hand session
than in the 20,000 hand example.

.

···

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

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

#8

When Positive games go bad ...

It never hurts to look at some hard numbers. To make things easier,
assuming a normal distribution is not a bad assumption for numbers of
hands more than a royal cycle. And two standard deviations gives you a
couple percent risk of ruin. SD is sqrt(variance x hands), assuming a
variance of 20 and a bet of $1.25 (5 coin quarters), these are the 2sd
numbers:

50,000 hands: $2,500 (2.5 royals)
100,000 hands: $3,500 (3.5 royals)
500,000 hands: $7,900 (8 royals)
1,000,000 hands: $11,200 (11 royals)
2,000,000 hands: $15,800 (16 royals)
5,000,000 hands: $25,000 (25 royals)

#9

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@>
wrote:
> Seems
> like if playing a large amount of hands, one would have an expected
> out come of the true value of the game less the players proficiency
> that would be approaching the mean ans still be independent

events.

Seems like?

What are you saying?

#10

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

When Positive games go bad ...

It never hurts to look at some hard numbers. To make things easier,
assuming a normal distribution is not a bad assumption for numbers of
hands more than a royal cycle. And two standard deviations gives you a
couple percent risk of ruin. SD is sqrt(variance x hands), assuming a
variance of 20 and a bet of $1.25 (5 coin quarters), these are the 2sd
numbers:

50,000 hands: $2,500 (2.5 royals)
100,000 hands: $3,500 (3.5 royals)
500,000 hands: $7,900 (8 royals)
1,000,000 hands: $11,200 (11 royals)
2,000,000 hands: $15,800 (16 royals)
5,000,000 hands: $25,000 (25 royals)

These numbers are in answer to what post?

#11

Deuceswild asked ....

How does approach the mena and regression to the mean differ? Seems
like if playing a large amount of hands, one would have an expected
out come of the true value of the game less the players proficiency
that would be approaching the mean ans still be independent events.

Two examples might help clear up the issue:

1) 100,000 baseballs are placed in a large drum. 50,000 are blue and
50,000 are red. I pick 1000 baseballs out of the drum and that is my
session. Once I pick a ball out of the drum, I don't put it back in (
sampling without replacement). Depending on the outcome of the previous
event, my expectation for the next event changes. That is the feedback
mechanism NOTI was talking about. If session 1 is 600 blue and 400 red,
it is more likely that session 2 will have more reds than blues. To me,
that is regression to the mean.

2) Example 2 is just example 1 but you throw the baseball back in the
drum after you record the result. Once again session 1 happens to be
600 blue and 400 red. Now, I don't expect session 2 to have more reds
than blues. I expect session 2 to have an equal chance of having more
reds than blues.

Finally, even though session 1 was 60% blue, if I record 100 sessions,
I would say the expected result is to have 99 sessions at 50% blue and
1 session at 60% blue and my overall blue count to be 50.1% ( mean).

In example one, part of the set up of the event forces the expected
value to be different for session 2 than for session 1 ( unless session
1 is exactly 50/50). In example 2, every session has the same expected
session value. In example 1, they don't.

I think this is part of the 'hot machine/cold machine' thinking. If
machine A has hit 4 royals in a day it must have used up its royals for
the day.

#12

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...>
wrote

I think this is part of the 'hot machine/cold machine' thinking. If
machine A has hit 4 royals in a day it must have used up its royals

for

the day.

I've seen opposite thinking in play too. This goes back to the late
nineties but the backbar at the Western had 7/5 Bonus Poker with 5
meters: RF .75%, SF .25%, 4A .5%, Small Quads .25%, Generic
Quads .25%. The game may still be there. I got plays off of the
royal meter and the 4 aces meter. Short coin action was a big
contributor.

Anyways, the very end machine next to the wall got into a little
royal run one time. The employees seen this as "that machine is
hot." There was always an off duty employee on that machine
virtually 24 hours a day while the other machines got lots of down
time. And, of course, that machine far outpaced the other machines
for royals.

But the reason was not because "that machine is hot." It was simply
because far more hands were played on that machine than the others.
They fulfilled their own prophecy. I never said anything to them
about it because they were contributing heavily to the meters.

#13

johnnyzee48127 wrote:

I think this is part of the 'hot machine/cold machine' thinking. If a
machine A has hit 4 royals in a day it must have used up its royals
for the day.

Absolutely on target, John. But, as a quick digression from the
original subject, there's another factor that gives "credence" to the
hot/cold idea.

An anecdote: Yesterday, I completed a breakeven session of 2 hours
that was smooth as silk -- never down more than 100 cr. I checked my
status and decided I wanted about 20 more minutes in before talking to
a host. A player was at the machine I had been at, so I moved to the
other side of the bank. Glare was a problem, but since it would be a
short session, I went forward with the play.

To my disappointment, I lost 300 credits in that time. Not a terrible
performance, all things considered, but disappointing to have killed
what had been beautiful momentum in short order. I took care of
business and returned for another 2 hour session.

I headed back to the other side of the bank to avoid glare. Only my
original machine offered a seat isolated from other players. As you'd
expect from the lead in, this time I finished up 200 cr -- this time
never having dipped more than 50 cr from my buy in (thanks to a quad in
the first five minutes, and back to back ones shortly thereafter).

No matter my mental indoctrination and familiarity that the stats will
lead to such an afternoon's experience from time to time merely as a
consequence of volatility, a gut sense of a hot/cold phenomenon being
innate to the machines themselves was compelling. It's just human
nature. Were it not a solid grounding in the math, I might be swayed
over to the "dark side" :wink:

- Harry

#14

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...>
wrote:

Deuceswild asked ....
> How does approach the mena and regression to the mean differ?

Seems

> like if playing a large amount of hands, one would have an

expected

> out come of the true value of the game less the players

proficiency

> that would be approaching the mean ans still be independent

events.

Two examples might help clear up the issue:

1) 100,000 baseballs are placed in a large drum. 50,000 are blue

and

50,000 are red. I pick 1000 baseballs out of the drum and that is

my

session. Once I pick a ball out of the drum, I don't put it back in

(

sampling without replacement). Depending on the outcome of the

previous

event, my expectation for the next event changes. That is the

feedback

mechanism NOTI was talking about. If session 1 is 600 blue and 400

red,

it is more likely that session 2 will have more reds than blues. To

me,

that is regression to the mean.

2) Example 2 is just example 1 but you throw the baseball back in

the

drum after you record the result. Once again session 1 happens to

be

600 blue and 400 red. Now, I don't expect session 2 to have more

reds

than blues. I expect session 2 to have an equal chance of having

more

reds than blues.

Finally, even though session 1 was 60% blue, if I record 100

sessions,

I would say the expected result is to have 99 sessions at 50% blue

and

1 session at 60% blue and my overall blue count to be 50.1% ( mean).

In example one, part of the set up of the event forces the expected
value to be different for session 2 than for session 1 ( unless

session

1 is exactly 50/50). In example 2, every session has the same

expected

session value. In example 1, they don't.

I think this is part of the 'hot machine/cold machine' thinking. If
machine A has hit 4 royals in a day it must have used up its royals

for

the day.

If session #1 is regression to the mean, what is session two called?

#15

I think my point of the original post got a little lost.
Basically, I would never advocate playing negative games BUT whether you are
playing a 99% game or a 101% game, if you continue to get a return of around
90% you will lose money before you can get that fantastic swing on the
distribution curve. Regardless of what people say it can happen.

Someone blindly commented about being under bankrolled. Well, I figured that
a 12K bankroll was sufficient for 25 cent VP but I guess not. In about a
year I've seen that dwindle down to 4K. The people that comment about having
enough $$ based on royal cycles are also assuming that you are getting the
expected return from every other hand in order to survive. Like I
demonstrated before, if you go through 5000 hands with only ONE quad, you
are going to lose. From 9/6 JOB if you take away royals, sf and quads you
are at 91.56% - darn that sounds familiar. If this happens too many times in
close proximity you will lose that bankroll before you can get out of the
hole. I can't tell you how many times 5K of circulation has cost me $500...
it's a LOT.

Hey, maybe the problem is that 10+ years from now I will get on a streak of
15 royals within a short period to break out of this funk but the funk is
still here today. This is possible people.

Another chuckler is the idea of many losing sessions but the winning
sessions outweighing the losing in $$. Well, my typical losing session
ranges from $100 to $600. I've NEVER had a winning session better than $600
because whenever I've hit a royal I'm already down at least $400. It will
take hitting about 15 royals within a short period to make up for this but
if I keep losing 3K between royals I will never catch up.
Just to truly show what I'm talking about: there was a two week trip where I
hit 3 royals and a quad deuces on FPLD and still only went home up $400.
That's one heck of swing within a 2 week period. That's not exactly going to
build up the bankroll for future downswings when my average losing session
is $300. (That was when MSS had FPDW that I played heavily).

I guess in the end "luck" is where you sit on the bell curve :slight_smile: I've got
my seat - do you?

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

#16

I think my point of the original post got a little lost.
Basically, I would never advocate playing negative games BUT

whether you are playing a 99% game or a 101% game, if you continue to
get a return of around 90% you will lose money before you can get
that fantastic swing on the distribution curve. Regardless of what
people say it can happen.

Richard, if you were playing a 99% game I'd expect your results to be
about 2% less than if you were playing a 101% game. Now the results
might be 90% and 92% or 98% and 100%. When you are having one of
those runs, where your losses are several times more than expected,
it is easy to lose sight of that couple percent difference in the
game. But it is there.

When the games are different, the results can be very deceiving. If I
play 9/5 JOB for 40,000 hands and 9/6 JOB for 40,000 the game with
the best results will most likely be the more with more royals. If I
get the same number of royals on each session, 9/6 JOB will almost
certainly have better results.

Now, when you compare 9/6 DDB and 9/6 JOB, it gets a little more
complicated because you are adding a high variance component to the
game. In 9/6 JOB the Royal Flush accounts for about 75% of the games
variance. That is a huge number. Your results are absolutely
dominated by the number of royals ( except in very short sessions).
Royals are why the illusive long term is so ^$^#^*^&%* long. The rest
of the game settles out pretty quickly.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Boston" <rboston@...> wrote:

#17

Going without a quad is freakin' brutal. I've lost about $6800 playing $1's
since I've seen one. I'm about ready to call it quits forever...SO
FRUSTRATING!! I've beaten the odds...just the wrong ones.

···

From: Richard Boston <rboston@objectd.com>
Reply-To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:07:09 -0700
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re:Fwd:Re When Positive games ...

I think my point of the original post got a little lost.
Basically, I would never advocate playing negative games BUT whether you are
playing a 99% game or a 101% game, if you continue to get a return of around
90% you will lose money before you can get that fantastic swing on the
distribution curve. Regardless of what people say it can happen.

Someone blindly commented about being under bankrolled. Well, I figured that
a 12K bankroll was sufficient for 25 cent VP but I guess not. In about a
year I've seen that dwindle down to 4K. The people that comment about having
enough $$ based on royal cycles are also assuming that you are getting the
expected return from every other hand in order to survive. Like I
demonstrated before, if you go through 5000 hands with only ONE quad, you
are going to lose. From 9/6 JOB if you take away royals, sf and quads you
are at 91.56% - darn that sounds familiar. If this happens too many times in
close proximity you will lose that bankroll before you can get out of the
hole. I can't tell you how many times 5K of circulation has cost me $500...
it's a LOT.

Hey, maybe the problem is that 10+ years from now I will get on a streak of
15 royals within a short period to break out of this funk but the funk is
still here today. This is possible people.

Another chuckler is the idea of many losing sessions but the winning
sessions outweighing the losing in $$. Well, my typical losing session
ranges from $100 to $600. I've NEVER had a winning session better than $600
because whenever I've hit a royal I'm already down at least $400. It will
take hitting about 15 royals within a short period to make up for this but
if I keep losing 3K between royals I will never catch up.
Just to truly show what I'm talking about: there was a two week trip where I
hit 3 royals and a quad deuces on FPLD and still only went home up $400.
That's one heck of swing within a 2 week period. That's not exactly going to
build up the bankroll for future downswings when my average losing session
is $300. (That was when MSS had FPDW that I played heavily).

I guess in the end "luck" is where you sit on the bell curve :slight_smile: I've got
my seat - do you?

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

#18

I think my point of the original post got a little lost.
Basically, I would never advocate playing negative games BUT

whether you are

playing a 99% game or a 101% game, if you continue to get a return

of around

90% you will lose money before you can get that fantastic swing on

the

distribution curve. Regardless of what people say it can happen.

Someone blindly commented about being under bankrolled. Well, I

figured that

a 12K bankroll was sufficient for 25 cent VP but I guess not. In

about a

year I've seen that dwindle down to 4K. The people that comment

about having

enough $$ based on royal cycles are also assuming that you are

getting the

expected return from every other hand in order to survive. Like I
demonstrated before, if you go through 5000 hands with only ONE

quad, you

are going to lose. From 9/6 JOB if you take away royals, sf and

quads you

are at 91.56% - darn that sounds familiar. If this happens too many

times in

close proximity you will lose that bankroll before you can get out

of the

hole. I can't tell you how many times 5K of circulation has cost me

$500...

it's a LOT.

Hey, maybe the problem is that 10+ years from now I will get on a

streak of

15 royals within a short period to break out of this funk but the

funk is

still here today. This is possible people.

Another chuckler is the idea of many losing sessions but the winning
sessions outweighing the losing in $$. Well, my typical losing

session

ranges from $100 to $600. I've NEVER had a winning session better

than $600

because whenever I've hit a royal I'm already down at least $400.

It will

take hitting about 15 royals within a short period to make up for

this but

if I keep losing 3K between royals I will never catch up.
Just to truly show what I'm talking about: there was a two week

trip where I

hit 3 royals and a quad deuces on FPLD and still only went home up

$400.

That's one heck of swing within a 2 week period. That's not exactly

going to

build up the bankroll for future downswings when my average losing

session

is $300. (That was when MSS had FPDW that I played heavily).

I guess in the end "luck" is where you sit on the bell curve :slight_smile:

I've got

my seat - do you?

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

Richard,
Your post sounds eerily familiar to a post you made on the LVA trip
reports board in early 2005, just before you took a long hiatus from
posting there.

I'm sorry to hear that you are in another long horrible slump. Did
you quit playing in the interim and this is a resumption of that
slump or did your results improve in 2005 and 2006 time.

-JFR

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Boston" <rboston@...> wrote:

#19

Sadly this is a continuation of that previous slump. I backed off a little
bit in order to rebuild the bankroll.
This slump is a little different though in that over the past couple of
years I've hit several royals.

This has been a strange one where my return has just been in the dumpster
for so many sessions and for so long that it's going to be hard to rebuild.
I can't remember the last time I've had a positive session that didn't come
from a royal.
It gets a little frustrating being surrounded by so many people chanting the
full pay song (rightfully so) when even playing that my bankroll has
disappeared. In fact just the other day I again circulated about $4300 on a
100.2% game (w/ promo) and walked away down $260 - another stellar 94%
afternoon.

I guess overall I'm the poster child for proving that even playing full pay
games:
1. you aren't "guaranteed" the expected return
2. regardless of bankroll size if you are given a serious run of bad luck
and well below expected results for a long period of time your bankroll can
disappear

···

-----Original Message-----
  From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
Jerry Reller
  Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 2:20 PM
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re:Fwd:Re When Positive games …

  --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Boston" <rboston@...> wrote:
  >
  > I think my point of the original post got a little lost.
  > Basically, I would never advocate playing negative games BUT
  whether you are
  > playing a 99% game or a 101% game, if you continue to get a return
  of around
  > 90% you will lose money before you can get that fantastic swing on
  the
  > distribution curve. Regardless of what people say it can happen.
  >
  > Someone blindly commented about being under bankrolled. Well, I
  figured that
  > a 12K bankroll was sufficient for 25 cent VP but I guess not. In
  about a
  > year I've seen that dwindle down to 4K. The people that comment
  about having
  > enough $$ based on royal cycles are also assuming that you are
  getting the
  > expected return from every other hand in order to survive. Like I
  > demonstrated before, if you go through 5000 hands with only ONE
  quad, you
  > are going to lose. From 9/6 JOB if you take away royals, sf and
  quads you
  > are at 91.56% - darn that sounds familiar. If this happens too many
  times in
  > close proximity you will lose that bankroll before you can get out
  of the
  > hole. I can't tell you how many times 5K of circulation has cost me
  $500...
  > it's a LOT.
  >
  > Hey, maybe the problem is that 10+ years from now I will get on a
  streak of
  > 15 royals within a short period to break out of this funk but the
  funk is
  > still here today. This is possible people.
  >
  > Another chuckler is the idea of many losing sessions but the winning
  > sessions outweighing the losing in $$. Well, my typical losing
  session
  > ranges from $100 to $600. I've NEVER had a winning session better
  than $600
  > because whenever I've hit a royal I'm already down at least $400.
  It will
  > take hitting about 15 royals within a short period to make up for
  this but
  > if I keep losing 3K between royals I will never catch up.
  > Just to truly show what I'm talking about: there was a two week
  trip where I
  > hit 3 royals and a quad deuces on FPLD and still only went home up
  $400.
  > That's one heck of swing within a 2 week period. That's not exactly
  going to
  > build up the bankroll for future downswings when my average losing
  session
  > is $300. (That was when MSS had FPDW that I played heavily).
  >
  > I guess in the end "luck" is where you sit on the bell curve :slight_smile:
  I've got
  > my seat - do you?
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >

  Richard,
  Your post sounds eerily familiar to a post you made on the LVA trip
  reports board in early 2005, just before you took a long hiatus from
  posting there.

  I'm sorry to hear that you are in another long horrible slump. Did
  you quit playing in the interim and this is a resumption of that
  slump or did your results improve in 2005 and 2006 time.

  -JFR

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

#20

Sadly this is a continuation of that previous slump. I backed off a

little

bit in order to rebuild the bankroll.
This slump is a little different though in that over the past

couple of

years I've hit several royals.

This has been a strange one where my return has just been in the

dumpster

for so many sessions and for so long that it's going to be hard to

rebuild.

I can't remember the last time I've had a positive session that

didn't come

from a royal.
It gets a little frustrating being surrounded by so many people

chanting the

full pay song (rightfully so) when even playing that my bankroll has
disappeared. In fact just the other day I again circulated about

$4300 on a

100.2% game (w/ promo) and walked away down $260 - another stellar

94%

afternoon.

I guess overall I'm the poster child for proving that even playing

full pay

games:
1. you aren't "guaranteed" the expected return
2. regardless of bankroll size if you are given a serious run of

bad luck

and well below expected results for a long period of time your

bankroll can

disappear

Richard,
Yours is certainly a cautionary tale for those of us who have been
more fortunate. I'd like to be able to boost your spirits with an
enthusiastic pep talk, or give you a magic incantation, but the cruel
reality of the math would still be there.

My best wishes on your future sessions ending up on the right side of
the bell curve.

-JFR

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Boston" <rboston@...> wrote: