Several questions

[Dan2]

Bill & Jenn wrote (snip):

I could use some advice on several fronts.
1. Where can I get a copy of basic hold strategy?

The "Perfect Play" rules in "Video Poker - Optimum Play" is the best
way to start.

2. What are and where are the best doubling machines downtown?
($1.00 or at least .25)

Most IGT machines are capable of this "feature" but most casinos
don't enable it. Some might enable it if you ask.

3. Does the double feature work on an rng or is the outcome
predetermined?

It's random, and the double-up is fair odds, but doubling DOES NOT
change the expected return of the game as a whole. All it does is
increase the variance.

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

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

[Mr_Hogua]

=> >3. Does the double feature work on an rng or is the outcome

>predetermined?

It's random, and the double-up is fair odds, but doubling DOES NOT
change the expected return of the game as a whole. All it does is
increase the variance.

This is incorrect. The double feature does change the expected
return of the game. Without getting into the math, you can think of
it like this. At 9/6 JoB, the house has a .5% advantage on every bet
not including doubles. On doubles, the house has no advantage.

Since doubling has a lower house advantage than "basic" play, the
overall average of the house advantage on your play must go down the
more you double.

Of course, doubling will also increase you variance.

Unfortunately, I haven't heard of a machine in a long time that
counts doubling as "coin in" and awards comp points for the double
wagers. Too bad, because that would be a great play.

[mklpryy24]

=> >3. Does the double feature work on an rng or is the outcome
> >predetermined?
>
> It's random, and the double-up is fair odds, but doubling DOES

NOT

···

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

> change the expected return of the game as a whole.
>****************************

This is incorrect. The double feature does change the expected
return of the game.

*************************************************************
Not quite,
Lets get into the math, 100% (the amount bet) X 99.5% ( the return
of JOB) X 100% ( the even odds of the double up) = 99.5%

100% X 99.5 X 100% = 99.5%
or
99.5% X 100% = 99.5

You are right, the house does not have an advantage on the double up,
HOWEVER, neither does the player.

So the return of the game is the same before or after the double up.

AND the double up does not count for your coin-in for points.

Thanks to Mr Payamer ( ? spelling) & Mr Dancer who on this board a
few years back finally got this thru my thick head.

M J

[mroejacks]

Not quite,
Lets get into the math, 100% (the amount bet) X 99.5% ( the return
of JOB) X 100% ( the even odds of the double up) = 99.5%

100% X 99.5 X 100% = 99.5%
or
99.5% X 100% = 99.5

You are right, the house does not have an advantage on the double

up,

HOWEVER, neither does the player.

So the return of the game is the same before or after the double

up.

This is one of those problems where the answer is based on "how" you
ask the question.

If you gamble $1000 at JOB you will get a return of 99.5%. If you
gamble $1000 on doubling you will get a return of 100%. The return of
the two is (100+.995)/2 or 99.75% of the $2000 gambled.

Note of course that you can't double down without betting the first
$1000 and, as you said, you get no points for the extra $1000 gambled
so does it really matter(???).

Yes it does, the answer is not quite as simple as you stated. It
takes some time to play the double and if you are concerned about the
$ loss/hr. It will turn out to be less than if you didn't double
down. In fact, given the same time per double as per hand played, you
would expect to lose half as much money in a given amount of time
which is, naturally, the equivalent of playing a 99.75% game.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@...> wrote:

[mklpryy24]

> Not quite,
> Lets get into the math, 100% (the amount bet) X 99.5% ( the

return

> of JOB) X 100% ( the even odds of the double up) = 99.5%
>
> 100% X 99.5 X 100% = 99.5%
> or
> 99.5% X 100% = 99.5
>
> You are right, the house does not have an advantage on the

double

up,
> HOWEVER, neither does the player.
>
> So the return of the game is the same before or after the

double

up.

This is one of those problems where the answer is based on "how"

you

ask the question.
****************************************************************

math is math. ? dont matter.

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@> wrote:

If you gamble $1000 at JOB you will get a return of 99.5%. If you
gamble $1000 on doubling you will get a return of 100%.

*************************************************
100% of 99.5% , you are NOT playin the double up with $1,000, only
$995 using your anology.
1 x 99.5 x 1 = 99.5.

Trust me, some day it will click .

M J

[mroejacks]

math is math. ? dont matter.

If you really believe this then you are beyond help. The easy example
of this is the difference between any two numbers ... say 8 and 10. Is
the diffence 20% or 25%? By now you should realize it depends on how
you ask the question ... Oh, isn't that what I said.

> If you gamble $1000 at JOB you will get a return of 99.5%. If you
> gamble $1000 on doubling you will get a return of 100%.
*************************************************
100% of 99.5% , you are NOT playin the double up with $1,000, only
$995 using your anology.
1 x 99.5 x 1 = 99.5.

Trust me, some day it will click .

You're kidding ... right? The problem is very simple as I stated. It
depends on how the question is asked. So, I specifically stated the
question to point out how it can be viewed two different ways (just
like above). Obviously you either cannot read simple English or have
chosen to ignore it. Either way you shame on you. If you read (slowly
this time) what I stated I stated a "gamble of $1000" I did not say
$995. If you want to dicuss something different that is fine, but
changing my words and then claiming I'm wrong is silly at best. I doubt
it will ever "click" with you given this extremely uneducated response.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mklpryy24" <mklpryy24@...> wrote:

[Harry_Porter]

Dan Paymar wrote:

"3. Does the double feature work on an rng or is the outcome
predetermined?"

It's random, and the double-up is fair odds, but doubling DOES NOT
change the expected return of the game as a whole. All it does is
increase the variance.

ckonwin wrote:

This is incorrect. The double feature does change the expected
return of the game.

M J (mklprry24) wrote:

Not quite,Lets get into the math ...

Dick (mroejacks) wrote:

This is one of those problems where the answer is based on "how" you
ask the question.

I lean toward M J's position (and, of course, Paymar's logic). My
take re Dick's comment: Most problems are best addressed with
questions have only one strong, unambiguous form. When it seems that
a solution to a problem depends on how a question is posed, then the
question is generally weakly structured and should be recomposed.

I favor EV rather than ER in examining this -- same thing, but just a
little cleaner in my book.

In absent of a double on a win, a $1 9/6 Jacks wager has an EV outcome
of .9954. When you assume you double on a win, the EV outcome remains
.9954 when the play is complete.

- H.

[mroejacks]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

Dan Paymar wrote:
> "3. Does the double feature work on an rng or is the outcome
> predetermined?"
>
> It's random, and the double-up is fair odds, but doubling DOES

NOT

> change the expected return of the game as a whole. All it does is
> increase the variance.

ckonwin wrote:
> This is incorrect. The double feature does change the expected
> return of the game.

M J (mklprry24) wrote:
> Not quite,Lets get into the math ...

Dick (mroejacks) wrote:
> This is one of those problems where the answer is based on "how"

you

> ask the question.

I lean toward M J's position (and, of course, Paymar's logic). My
take re Dick's comment: Most problems are best addressed with
questions have only one strong, unambiguous form.

That IS right Harry. If the question is ambiguous then there is no
single right answer. BTW, the was MY position. Not that one answer
was right and another was wrong.

When it seems that
a solution to a problem depends on how a question is posed, then the
question is generally weakly structured and should be recomposed.

Once again, that was my point. I think you just stated you are
agreeing with my position even though you seemed to say the exact
opposite above.

I favor EV rather than ER in examining this -- same thing, but just

a

little cleaner in my book.

That was why I used $/hr to demonstrate the true value. The fact that
this value is different in the two cases demonstrates that the answer
is not a simple one. That is what really matters. The ambiguity
arises based on whether you consider the double to be a
separate "bet" or not. One gets you 99.5% as the result and the other
gets you something between 99.5% and 99.75%. Both answers are right
and both answers are wrong based on how the question is asked.

In absent of a double on a win, a $1 9/6 Jacks wager has an EV

outcome

of .9954. When you assume you double on a win, the EV outcome

remains

.9954 when the play is complete.

However, the $/hr is different in the two cases. It is clear that if
you play 1/2 or 1/3 as many hands you will effect the dollar value.
Isn't that the only thing that matters? And doesn't stating the EVs
are the same obfuscate that fact?

Let me take this one additional step. The assumption used here was a
single double (again this is part of the question). But what if the
person doubles until he loses or the machines locks up for hand pay?
Clearly the game EV is still the same if you consider all the doubles
as part of the first bet. However, I think you'll agree that the game
will play far differently. I think it is wrong to try and equate the
two situations with a single number. I think it is better to look
fully at the question and provide a response that goes beyond a
single number. IMO, considering the doubles to be "additional" bets
addresses the important issues much better.

Dick

[Harry_Porter]

mroejacks wrote:

That was why I used $/hr to demonstrate the true value. The fact that
this value is different in the two cases demonstrates that the answer
is not a simple one. That is what really matters. The ambiguity
arises based on whether you consider the double to be a
separate "bet" or not. One gets you 99.5% as the result and the other
gets you something between 99.5% and 99.75%. Both answers are right
and both answers are wrong based on how the question is asked.

I don't see an ambiguity.

The 99.75% ER treats the double as a separate and distinct wager.
Because the double is continent upon the first bet and is an extension
of it, and can't be conducted independently, the bet and the double
must be considered a single wager simply conducted in two parts. As
such, the ER of both bets, whether transacted with or without
doubling, is 99.5%.

If you disagree, of course there isn't anything further to be said.

However, the $/hr is different in the two cases. It is clear that if
you play 1/2 or 1/3 as many hands you will effect the dollar value.
Isn't that the only thing that matters? And doesn't stating the EVs
are the same obfuscate that fact?

When the impact of doubling is extended beyond a single wager to the
cumulative effect over a period of time (as in $ EV/hr) your assertion
is right on the money. It's a consequence not of altering the EV of
the wager itself, but in altering the number of wagers per hour.

I'm inclined to shy away from this as an advantage, for I see it
offset by the higher variance and play risk implicit in doubling.
Moving into a more esoteric arena, I see doubling as a distraction
from play concentration, which I consider to a key success factor for
any player (not just "AP"s).

Of course, I realize that your intent hasn't been to tout doubling as
an advantage at all, Dick. Don't get me wrong. It's just that once
someone starts down this path someone else seems inclined to pick up
on it as suggesting a player advantage.

If one is looking for an advantage on a negative game that achieves a
similar goal, I simply suggest taking more breaks: sitting back over a
cup of coffee and enjoying the scenery, or stretching your legs for a
saunter around your bank of machines after every 10 hands ... no-risk
propositions that also reduce hands played per hour.

- Harry

[mroejacks]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

mroejacks wrote:
> That was why I used $/hr to demonstrate the true value. The fact

that

> this value is different in the two cases demonstrates that the

answer

> is not a simple one. That is what really matters. The ambiguity
> arises based on whether you consider the double to be a
> separate "bet" or not. One gets you 99.5% as the result and the

other

> gets you something between 99.5% and 99.75%. Both answers are

right

> and both answers are wrong based on how the question is asked.

I don't see an ambiguity.

The 99.75% ER treats the double as a separate and distinct wager.

That's because they can be considered as separate wagers. No one is
forced to double so the wager is a CHOICE. That means you can
consider it separately if you want to. You can also consider them as
a single a wager. That's the wonder of things like these. There is no
rule to enforce either method and approaching it either way is legit.

Because the double is continent upon the first bet and is an

extension

of it, and can't be conducted independently, the bet and the double
must be considered a single wager simply conducted in two parts. As
such, the ER of both bets, whether transacted with or without
doubling, is 99.5%.

If you change "must" with "can" then you are correct. If you really
believe they "must" be considered as one bet then please provide the
mathematical law that supports this assertion. There is none???
Gee, kind of makes your statement a little weak.

If you disagree, of course there isn't anything further to be said.

Sigh ... there's lot's more to be said. Making an assertion and then
claiming any disagreement is without merit is a sign you are not
confident in your statment and you have no evidence to support it
(which you don't). I thought you were better than that.

Harry, you're not getting off that easy. Let's take it another step
to demonstrate the just how ridiculous your assertion really is.
Doubling can be done many times or not at all and you can't even
provide a algorithmic method that ties the act of doubling to the
first bet. It's obviously an individual choice which is no different
than hitting deal again (or not)... Or, do you tie a second hand to
the first hand ... and to the first hand ever gambled ... and to (I
hope you're getting the picture by now). Not only that, what if
casinos gave points for each time you doubled. Would you take the
same position? CB points earned for every double would change the
return for persons who doubled over a person who didn't and people
who doubled differently. What does that tell you about your position?

Harry, your position is undefendable. Both ways of approaching the
problem are valid and provide diffferent insights.

Dick

[Harry_Porter]

Harry Porter wrote

> If you disagree, of course there isn't anything further to be said.

mroejacks wrote:

Sigh ... there's lot's more to be said. Making an assertion and then
claiming any disagreement is without merit is a sign you are not
confident in your statment and you have no evidence to support it
(which you don't). I thought you were better than that.

What I mean is that we've both "shot our wads". We know what each
other has said; we're evidently not moving beyond that.

- H.

[mroejacks]

Harry Porter wrote
> > If you disagree, of course there isn't anything further to be

said.

mroejacks wrote:
> Sigh ... there's lot's more to be said. Making an assertion and

then

> claiming any disagreement is without merit is a sign you are not
> confident in your statment and you have no evidence to support it
> (which you don't). I thought you were better than that.

What I mean is that we've both "shot our wads". We know what each
other has said; we're evidently not moving beyond that.

When someone refuses to discuss the issues one can only assume they
realize that discussion will not go well for them.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

[King_Fish]

Beating dead horses is fun!

···

On 11/5/07, mroejacks <rgmustain@aol.com> wrote:

When someone refuses to discuss the issues one can only assume they
realize that discussion will not go well for them.

[Steve_Jacobs]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>

wrote:
> mroejacks wrote:
> > That was why I used $/hr to demonstrate the true value. The fact

that

> > this value is different in the two cases demonstrates that the

answer

> > is not a simple one. That is what really matters. The ambiguity
> > arises based on whether you consider the double to be a
> > separate "bet" or not. One gets you 99.5% as the result and the

other

> > gets you something between 99.5% and 99.75%. Both answers are

right

> > and both answers are wrong based on how the question is asked.
>
> I don't see an ambiguity.
>
> The 99.75% ER treats the double as a separate and distinct wager.

That's because they can be considered as separate wagers. No one is
forced to double so the wager is a CHOICE. That means you can
consider it separately if you want to. You can also consider them as
a single a wager. That's the wonder of things like these. There is no
rule to enforce either method and approaching it either way is legit.

> Because the double is continent upon the first bet and is an

extension

> of it, and can't be conducted independently, the bet and the double
> must be considered a single wager simply conducted in two parts. As
> such, the ER of both bets, whether transacted with or without
> doubling, is 99.5%.

If you change "must" with "can" then you are correct. If you really
believe they "must" be considered as one bet then please provide the
mathematical law that supports this assertion. There is none???
Gee, kind of makes your statement a little weak.

I agree with Harry. They are not statistically independent events, but
you're trying to treat them as if they are, and I believe that is not
mathematically valid.

> If you disagree, of course there isn't anything further to be said.

Sigh ... there's lot's more to be said. Making an assertion and then
claiming any disagreement is without merit is a sign you are not
confident in your statment and you have no evidence to support it
(which you don't). I thought you were better than that.

Harry, you're not getting off that easy. Let's take it another step
to demonstrate the just how ridiculous your assertion really is.
Doubling can be done many times or not at all and you can't even
provide a algorithmic method that ties the act of doubling to the
first bet.

Choosing the double (or not, or to double repeatedly) is the same
as choosing a different playing strategy, leading to a different
probability distribution for the overall outcome. For example, you
could choose a strategy that only doubles (once) after hitting quads.
Compared to a "never double" strategy, you'd get a double payoff
only half as often, so the overall EV is the same. If the payoff is 25
units for un-doubled quads, then doubling all quads

The fact that you're only offered a double under certain conditions
does tie it to the first bet. You aren't allowed to skip all the other
bets and only play a continous string of doubles, and you never
get offered a double without first seeing the outcome of a previous
wager. So, they simply are not independent events.

Independent events can be cleanly separated from each other by
some event that marks the separation, such as "dealing of the
initial hand". The key is that the identical event must occur for
EVERY play of the game. There is no way to do this with doubling,
especially if the player chooses a strategy which only doubles
after certain payoffs.

It's obviously an individual choice which is no different
than hitting deal again (or not)... Or, do you tie a second hand to
the first hand ... and to the first hand ever gambled ... and to (I
hope you're getting the picture by now). Not only that, what if
casinos gave points for each time you doubled. Would you take the
same position? CB points earned for every double would change the
return for persons who doubled over a person who didn't and people
who doubled differently. What does that tell you about your position?

CB points can/should be tied to the initial wager in the same way that
the actual payoff is handled.

Harry, your position is undefendable. Both ways of approaching the
problem are valid and provide diffferent insights.

I disagree. When you get different results from the "same" game, that
tends to suggest that one of the methods may be flawed. When different
methods are both valid, and the results are different, it means that the
two methods are actually measuring slightly different things and the
comparision is apples to oranges.

Regards,
Steve Jacobs

···

On Monday 05 November 2007 8:17 am, mroejacks wrote:

[mroejacks]

> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
>
> wrote:
> > mroejacks wrote:
> > > That was why I used $/hr to demonstrate the true value. The

fact

>
> that
>
> > > this value is different in the two cases demonstrates that the
>
> answer
>
> > > is not a simple one. That is what really matters. The

ambiguity

> > > arises based on whether you consider the double to be a
> > > separate "bet" or not. One gets you 99.5% as the result and

the

>
> other
>
> > > gets you something between 99.5% and 99.75%. Both answers are
>
> right
>
> > > and both answers are wrong based on how the question is asked.
> >
> > I don't see an ambiguity.
> >
> > The 99.75% ER treats the double as a separate and distinct

wager.

>
> That's because they can be considered as separate wagers. No one

is

> forced to double so the wager is a CHOICE. That means you can
> consider it separately if you want to. You can also consider them

as

> a single a wager. That's the wonder of things like these. There

is no

> rule to enforce either method and approaching it either way is

legit.

>
> > Because the double is continent upon the first bet and is an
>
> extension
>
> > of it, and can't be conducted independently, the bet and the

double

> > must be considered a single wager simply conducted in two

parts. As

> > such, the ER of both bets, whether transacted with or without
> > doubling, is 99.5%.
>
> If you change "must" with "can" then you are correct. If you

really

> believe they "must" be considered as one bet then please provide

the

> mathematical law that supports this assertion. There is none???
> Gee, kind of makes your statement a little weak.

I agree with Harry. They are not statistically independent events,

but

you're trying to treat them as if they are, and I believe that is

not

mathematically valid.

Wrong! Mathematics does not require them to be treated as one. In
fact, since I have given an example of how they can be treated
separately I have PROVEN they don't have to be treated as one. This
use of PROVEN is not to be taken lightly. It is a TRUE proof in every
sense of the term (proof by contradiction). Now, you may say one
choice is better than another but to say they "must" be treated as
one is just plain wrong.

> > If you disagree, of course there isn't anything further to be

said.

>
> Sigh ... there's lot's more to be said. Making an assertion and

then

> claiming any disagreement is without merit is a sign you are not
> confident in your statment and you have no evidence to support it
> (which you don't). I thought you were better than that.
>
> Harry, you're not getting off that easy. Let's take it another

step

> to demonstrate the just how ridiculous your assertion really is.
> Doubling can be done many times or not at all and you can't even
> provide a algorithmic method that ties the act of doubling to the
> first bet.

Choosing the double (or not, or to double repeatedly) is the same
as choosing a different playing strategy, leading to a different
probability distribution for the overall outcome. For example, you
could choose a strategy that only doubles (once) after hitting

quads.

Compared to a "never double" strategy, you'd get a double payoff
only half as often, so the overall EV is the same. If the payoff

is 25

units for un-doubled quads, then doubling all quads

The fact that you're only offered a double under certain conditions
does tie it to the first bet. You aren't allowed to skip all the

other

bets and only play a continous string of doubles, and you never
get offered a double without first seeing the outcome of a previous
wager. So, they simply are not independent events.

Your confusing two aspects here. There are many causal relationships
in the world and they do not all need to be considered in a
mathematical analysis. For example, if you decide to go to dinner
before gambling then your results will no doubt be different than if
you didn't go to dinner. Would you say the act of going to
dinner "must" be considered in this mathematical analysis? Of course
not. However, by stating the inital bet and doubling down "must" be
considered as one in this analysis you are saying EXACTLY the same
thing. Really you are! The fact that there is a causal reqlationship
ALLOWs you to consider them together ... it does not REQUIRE them to
be considered together.

This is simple logic, guys. You are stating the equivalent of "if a-

b and b->c then a->c". I know you realize this is not true.

Independent events can be cleanly separated from each other by
some event that marks the separation, such as "dealing of the
initial hand".

Hmmmmmm. How about "pressing the double down button"?

The key is that the identical event must occur for
EVERY play of the game. There is no way to do this with doubling,
especially if the player chooses a strategy which only doubles
after certain payoffs.

Once again, a causal relationship "allows" the events to be
considered as one but doesn't "require" them to be considered as one.
Essentially, you are saying a->c in my example above.

Here's another one for you ... You get the money for gambling from a
source of income (say a paycheck). You clearly cannot gamble without
money. Therefore, by your logic above, you "must" consider the
receipt of a paycheck in the analysis. Absurd isn't it?

> It's obviously an individual choice which is no different
> than hitting deal again (or not)... Or, do you tie a second hand

to

> the first hand ... and to the first hand ever gambled ... and to

(I

> hope you're getting the picture by now). Not only that, what if
> casinos gave points for each time you doubled. Would you take the
> same position? CB points earned for every double would change the
> return for persons who doubled over a person who didn't and people
> who doubled differently. What does that tell you about your

position?

CB points can/should be tied to the initial wager in the same way

that

the actual payoff is handled.

Wonders of wonders. You just agreed with me, Steve. The key word here
is "can". CB points "can" also be tied to the double-down. There is
no use of the word "must" here as Harry has stated and you appeared
to be agreeing with him.

> Harry, your position is undefendable. Both ways of approaching the
> problem are valid and provide diffferent insights.

I disagree. When you get different results from the "same" game,

that

tends to suggest that one of the methods may be flawed.

But you DO get different results. The $/hr is different in the two
cases. If you want to understand the $/hr then one can argue that an
analysis that treats doubling as a separate bet is better. But, of
course, this already shows that the situation "can" be analyzed in
two different ways ... which is the exact point I have been trying to
make.

When different
methods are both valid, and the results are different, it means

that the

two methods are actually measuring slightly different things and the
comparision is apples to oranges.

No, it does not mean the comparison is "apples and oranges". It
simply means you may want to emphasize a different aspect of the
issue. As long as that difference can be explained then both methods
of analysis are VALID. For example, I can do an analysis of a
mathematical problem in either octal or decimal. The fact that the
result "looks" different does not make the two approaches "apples and
oranges".

Steve, I'm really astonished that you'd take this position. One of
your prominent positions on this board is there are many ways to
evaluate VP based on your goals. Max-EV is but one as you've pointed
out so eloquently many times. As I stated above, looking at problems
differently helps us understand different aspects of an issue. If you
are saying this problem can only be analyzed one way, this is
equivalent to saying VP games "must" be analyzed only using Max-EV
strategies. I wonder what position Steve would have taken here if
Harry had said the all VP "must" be analyzed using a Max-EV approach?

Dick

PS. Let me add some additional thoughts here. This issue is really
about "problem solving". Mathematics is a tool used in problem
solving. As mklpryy24 stated "math is math", but unfortunately,
added "don't matter" when referring to how a problem is stated. When
many people claim they hate math, it usually means they have problems
doing problem decomposition (the first step in solving a problem).
Once a problem is decomposed the actual math is usually pretty easy.
Since problems often have multiple ways of decomposition (that's why
it DOES MATTER, mklpryy24) there are often many different ways of
analyzing them. No one approach it right or wrong in and of itself.
However, one if often superior in terms of the information provided.
It appears to me that both Harry and Steve think that because there
is a causal relationship between the initial bet and a double down,
including this relationship in the analysis is "superior". We can
have that discussion but first we "must" agree that there are, in
fact, multiple way of decomposing the problem and analyzing the
information provided.

···

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

On Monday 05 November 2007 8:17 am, mroejacks wrote:

[Steve_Jacobs]

> I agree with Harry. They are not statistically independent events,
> but you're trying to treat them as if they are, and I believe that is
> not mathematically valid.

Wrong! Mathematics does not require them to be treated as one. In
fact, since I have given an example of how they can be treated
separately I have PROVEN they don't have to be treated as one.

Anyone can just say "wrong". Doesn't make it so.

Examples do not constitute proof.

This
use of PROVEN is not to be taken lightly. It is a TRUE proof in every
sense of the term (proof by contradiction). Now, you may say one
choice is better than another but to say they "must" be treated as
one is just plain wrong.

> > > If you disagree, of course there isn't anything further to be

said.

> > Sigh ... there's lot's more to be said. Making an assertion and

then

> > claiming any disagreement is without merit is a sign you are not
> > confident in your statment and you have no evidence to support it
> > (which you don't). I thought you were better than that.
> >
> > Harry, you're not getting off that easy. Let's take it another

step

> > to demonstrate the just how ridiculous your assertion really is.
> > Doubling can be done many times or not at all and you can't even
> > provide a algorithmic method that ties the act of doubling to the
> > first bet.
>
> Choosing the double (or not, or to double repeatedly) is the same
> as choosing a different playing strategy, leading to a different
> probability distribution for the overall outcome. For example, you
> could choose a strategy that only doubles (once) after hitting

quads.

> Compared to a "never double" strategy, you'd get a double payoff
> only half as often, so the overall EV is the same. If the payoff

is 25

> units for un-doubled quads, then doubling all quads
>
> The fact that you're only offered a double under certain conditions
> does tie it to the first bet. You aren't allowed to skip all the

other

> bets and only play a continous string of doubles, and you never
> get offered a double without first seeing the outcome of a previous
> wager. So, they simply are not independent events.

Your confusing two aspects here. There are many causal relationships
in the world and they do not all need to be considered in a
mathematical analysis. For example, if you decide to go to dinner
before gambling then your results will no doubt be different than if
you didn't go to dinner. Would you say the act of going to
dinner "must" be considered in this mathematical analysis? Of course
not. However, by stating the inital bet and doubling down "must" be
considered as one in this analysis you are saying EXACTLY the same
thing. Really you are!

That's silly. I'm not bringing in outside/irrelevent factors as suggested
by your dinner example, so it is absurd. If that is how you want to
discuss this, then I've really got better things to do.

The fact that there is a causal reqlationship
ALLOWs you to consider them together ... it does not REQUIRE them to
be considered together.

This is simple logic, guys. You are stating the equivalent of "if a-

>b and b->c then a->c". I know you realize this is not true.
>
>
> Independent events can be cleanly separated from each other by
> some event that marks the separation, such as "dealing of the
> initial hand".

Hmmmmmm. How about "pressing the double down button"?

That would lump together strings of bets between those hands
when you chose to double down. You can do that, but you'll
never convince me that it is mathematically equivalent to "EV".
It is measuring "average payoff for strings of wagers between
doubling". That ain't EV.

Part of my distaste for what you're doing comes from not being
able to say in advance how many wagers you'll make during
the "next play". For all games of chance that I've studied,
including blackjack where doubling and splitting are allowed,
EV is computed per play, and doubling/splitting is not counted
as a separate wager.

> The key is that the identical event must occur for
> EVERY play of the game. There is no way to do this with doubling,
> especially if the player chooses a strategy which only doubles
> after certain payoffs.

Once again, a causal relationship "allows" the events to be
considered as one but doesn't "require" them to be considered as one.
Essentially, you are saying a->c in my example above.

Here's another one for you ... You get the money for gambling from a
source of income (say a paycheck). You clearly cannot gamble without
money. Therefore, by your logic above, you "must" consider the
receipt of a paycheck in the analysis. Absurd isn't it?

Yes, you raising these strawman argument does seem absurd

> > It's obviously an individual choice which is no different
> > than hitting deal again (or not)... Or, do you tie a second hand

to

> > the first hand ... and to the first hand ever gambled ... and to

(I

> > hope you're getting the picture by now). Not only that, what if
> > casinos gave points for each time you doubled. Would you take the
> > same position? CB points earned for every double would change the
> > return for persons who doubled over a person who didn't and people
> > who doubled differently. What does that tell you about your

position?

> CB points can/should be tied to the initial wager in the same way

that

> the actual payoff is handled.

Wonders of wonders. You just agreed with me, Steve. The key word here
is "can". CB points "can" also be tied to the double-down. There is
no use of the word "must" here as Harry has stated and you appeared
to be agreeing with him.

> > Harry, your position is undefendable. Both ways of approaching the
> > problem are valid and provide diffferent insights.
>
> I disagree. When you get different results from the "same" game,

that

> tends to suggest that one of the methods may be flawed.

But you DO get different results. The $/hr is different in the two
cases. If you want to understand the $/hr then one can argue that an
analysis that treats doubling as a separate bet is better. But, of
course, this already shows that the situation "can" be analyzed in
two different ways ... which is the exact point I have been trying to
make.

> When different
> methods are both valid, and the results are different, it means

that the

> two methods are actually measuring slightly different things and the
> comparision is apples to oranges.

No, it does not mean the comparison is "apples and oranges". It
simply means you may want to emphasize a different aspect of the
issue.

If you get two different answers, then isn't it obvious that you're computing
two DIFFERENT things? You say so yourself when you talk about
different "aspects" of the issue.

EV is a single concept. One issue, one result. If you compute it two
different ways and get different numbers, then they simply cannot
be the SAME concept. Apples to oranges. It really is that simple.

As long as that difference can be explained then both methods
of analysis are VALID. For example, I can do an analysis of a
mathematical problem in either octal or decimal. The fact that the
result "looks" different does not make the two approaches "apples and
oranges".

Come now, surely you aren't claiming that the numbers only "look
different" but they really are the same.

Steve, I'm really astonished that you'd take this position. One of
your prominent positions on this board is there are many ways to
evaluate VP based on your goals. Max-EV is but one as you've pointed
out so eloquently many times. As I stated above, looking at problems
differently helps us understand different aspects of an issue. If you
are saying this problem can only be analyzed one way, this is
equivalent to saying VP games "must" be analyzed only using Max-EV
strategies. I wonder what position Steve would have taken here if
Harry had said the all VP "must" be analyzed using a Max-EV approach?

Of course I'm not saying there is only one way to analyze games or to
produce strategies that are optimal in different ways. What I'm saying
is that only ONE of those methods of analysis is truly from an EV
perspective. Other methods look at RoR or "cost" or some other
aspect. You can group bets together in different ways as well, but
doing things in different ways and trying to attach the same name
to it only adds confusion.

If you're looking at the same game, played with the same strategy,
and you compute two different "aspects" and end up with different
numbers (when expressed in the same base, to dispense with
the octal/decimal nonsense), then you are comparing apples to
oranges. The very fact that you talk about "aspect" means that
you recognize that there is a qualitative difference between the
numbers. This is no different that talking about EV compared
to RoR, or max-EV vs. min-Cost. The numbers cannot be
compared in any meaningful way, any more than claiming that
someone who weighs 100 lbs. is "bigger" than someone who
is 90 inches tall.

···

On Monday 05 November 2007 2:38 pm, mroejacks wrote:

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

[Jeff_Cole]

I believe that the double-up option does NOT change the EV of a game.

Since the EV is the sum of the products of probabilities times
payouts, each probability is halved and each payout is doubled, which
gives us the same value.

Let's take a simple game. You pay $10 to flip a coin. You get paid
$4 if it's heads and nothing otherwise. For this game,
EV = (1/2)($4) = $2, so it's a 20% return game.

Now add a doubling option. You still pay $10, but you only get paid
if you flip a head AND win the double-up. This will happen (1/2)(1/2)
= 1/4 of the time. So with the double-up option,
EV = (1/4)($8) = $2, which is the same as before.

In the video poker case, there are more payouts, but the concept is
the same.

[mroejacks]

> Hmmmmmm. How about "pressing the double down button"?

That would lump together strings of bets between those hands
when you chose to double down. You can do that, but you'll
never convince me that it is mathematically equivalent to "EV".
It is measuring "average payoff for strings of wagers between
doubling". That ain't EV.

Thank you Steve for agreeing with my position. All I've ever claimed
was "you can do that". I originally stated "This is one of those
problems where the answer is based on how you ask the question". In
other words, ER "can" have different meanings. As I stated
previously, you may not like one approach but that does not mean it
can't exist (Harry's position).

Part of my distaste for what you're doing comes from not being
able to say in advance how many wagers you'll make during
the "next play". For all games of chance that I've studied,
including blackjack where doubling and splitting are allowed,
EV is computed per play, and doubling/splitting is not counted
as a separate wager.

OTOH, it is possible for a person to have an algorithm where you can
compute the number of wagers. This algorithm can be part of the input.

> But you DO get different results. The $/hr is different in the two
> cases. If you want to understand the $/hr then one can argue that

an

> analysis that treats doubling as a separate bet is better. But, of
> course, this already shows that the situation "can" be analyzed in
> two different ways ... which is the exact point I have been

trying to

> make.
>
> > When different
> > methods are both valid, and the results are different, it means
>
> that the
>
> > two methods are actually measuring slightly different things

and the

> > comparision is apples to oranges.
>
> No, it does not mean the comparison is "apples and oranges". It
> simply means you may want to emphasize a different aspect of the
> issue.

If you get two different answers, then isn't it obvious that you're

computing

two DIFFERENT things? You say so yourself when you talk about
different "aspects" of the issue.

No, the two results may simply be two different ways of stating the
results just like my example for octal vs decimal. They are different
because you choose to ask the question differently (back to my
original position) and, most importantly, they may lead to insights
not available by another approach. BTW, I've never stated that one
could use a different result outside the context where it originated.

EV is a single concept. One issue, one result. If you compute it

two

different ways and get different numbers, then they simply cannot
be the SAME concept. Apples to oranges. It really is that simple.

Nope. You just made an assumption when you used the term EV. This
assumption is related to your problem definition. If I change the way
the problem is stated then I may get different answers. If you're now
thinking "well of course, that's obvious", then you can now
understand how I felt when you agreed with Harry's position that
you "must" state the problem one way.

> Steve, I'm really astonished that you'd take this position. One of
> your prominent positions on this board is there are many ways to
> evaluate VP based on your goals. Max-EV is but one as you've

pointed

> out so eloquently many times. As I stated above, looking at

problems

> differently helps us understand different aspects of an issue. If

you

> are saying this problem can only be analyzed one way, this is
> equivalent to saying VP games "must" be analyzed only using Max-EV
> strategies. I wonder what position Steve would have taken here if
> Harry had said the all VP "must" be analyzed using a Max-EV

approach?

Of course I'm not saying there is only one way to analyze games or

to

produce strategies that are optimal in different ways. What I'm

saying

is that only ONE of those methods of analysis is truly from an EV
perspective. Other methods look at RoR or "cost" or some other
aspect. You can group bets together in different ways as well, but
doing things in different ways and trying to attach the same name
to it only adds confusion.

I've never stated that the term EV should be attached to anything.
All I've ever claimed is that by stating the problem differently you
can get different answers and with those answers different insights.
Now I think you're beginning to understand why I was amazed that you
would take the position this was impossible.

If you're looking at the same game, played with the same strategy,
and you compute two different "aspects" and end up with different
numbers (when expressed in the same base, to dispense with
the octal/decimal nonsense), then you are comparing apples to
oranges.

I beleive you are saying that if you ask the same question then you
should get the same answer ... Of course. This has nothing to do with
my claims, which I now hope you better understand. Let me go over the
complete history:

This whole issue got started when ckonwin stated "The double feature
does change the expected return of the game". mklpryy24
responded "Not quite, Lets get into the math, 100% (the amount bet) X
99.5% ( the return of JOB) X 100% ( the even odds of the double up) =
99.5%". Next, I stated "This is one of those problems where the
answer is based on how you ask the question". I next provided an
example where one might want to examine the effect of doubling on
their win/loss rate. Finally, mklpryy24 responded "don't matter".

Understanding this win/loss rate in my example was somewhat simpler
if you use another way of defining the expected return. IMO, using
this alternative approach provides more insight into how the game
will play than simply trying to apply commonly used ER.

Dick

···

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

[Philip_Dembinski]

Some years ago I was in a casino in North Las Vegas and asked about a VP machine with the double up feature. The lady attendant said every machine in the place has the double up capability. She opened up a machine and showed me the switch in the front left corner of the VP machine. She told me that any time I wanted to change machines, if it did not double up, she would open the machine and change it to operate. I really like the double up feature, and have had a lot of good luck with repeated doubling up. If you win 4 to 6 doubling and redoubling, it is a kick to finally realize how much you won. I think it ads a lot to the game.
  
philip j.

I believe that the double-up option does NOT change the EV of a game. Since the EV is the sum of the products of probabilities timespayouts, each probability is halved and each payout is doubled, whichgives us the same value.Let's take a simple game. You pay $10 to flip a coin. You get paid$4 if it's heads and nothing otherwise. For this game,EV = (1/2)($4) = $2, so it's a 20% return game.Now add a doubling option. You still pay $10, but you only get paidif you flip a head AND win the double-up. This will happen (1/2)(1/2)= 1/4 of the time. So with the double-up option,EV = (1/4)($8) = $2, which is the same as before.In the video poker case, there are more payouts, but the concept isthe same.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.comFrom: jeff-cole@comcast.netDate: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 06:43:36 +0000Subject: [vpFREE] Re:Effect of double-up option on EV (was Several questions)

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033

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

[Bill_and_Jenn]

We do also. It is just an added "kick" to the experience. It also seems to even out the ups and downs of the sessions.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline

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