vpFREE2 Forums

Shcokwave ER debate

#1

800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=.952373, variance=19.84
average value of bonus:
.00228x(1-(1-.00262)^10)x(800-25)=.045753
total er=.952373+.045753=.99813
variance of bonus:
.00228x(1-(1-.00262)^10)x(800-25-.99813)^2=35.37
total variance=19.84+35.37=55.21

but i forgot to fully compensate for the strategy change
better estimate:
800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=.952373, quad cycle=438
800-100-800-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=2.899961, quad cycle=382

(438x38.2)x.952373 + 382x2.899961 /((438x38.2)+382) =0.99585

avg quad value:
(438x38.2)x25 + 382x800 /((438x38.2)+382) = 42.3
you can then derive an average strategy, but it doesn't seem to yield
as much as two strategies

the variance is still on the order of 55

#2

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

you can then derive an average strategy, but it doesn't seem to yield
as much as two strategies

I would have thought that optimizing on the weighted average quad
payoff would have bumped up ER modestly -- it would shorten the quad
cycle and increase the frequency of the 4K cr. bonus quads (with
another decent nudge to variance, of course).

That didn't bear out in my back-of-the-envelope math, however. I'm a
little mystified about the whole thing.

- Harry

#3

I take it that the formula, below, is a direct way of calculating the
exact answer without having to do iterations as I had done in my post
(don't know if you saw it, but I came up with essentially the same ER,
although I never bothered to work the variance).

Cheers.

Bill Velek

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

> 800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=.952373, variance=19.84
> average value of bonus:
> .00228x(1-(1-.00262)^10)x(800-25)=.045753
> total er=.952373+.045753=.99813
> variance of bonus:
> .00228x(1-(1-.00262)^10)x(800-25-.99813)^2=35.37
> total variance=19.84+35.37=55.21

but i forgot to fully compensate for the strategy change
better estimate:
800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=.952373, quad cycle=438
800-100-800-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=2.899961, quad cycle=382

(438x38.2)x.952373 + 382x2.899961 /((438x38.2)+382) =0.99585

avg quad value:
(438x38.2)x25 + 382x800 /((438x38.2)+382) = 42.3
you can then derive an average strategy, but it doesn't seem to yield
as much as two strategies

the variance is still on the order of 55

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

#4

All of this discussion has been interesting and I assume that it is a
fun machine to play, but it is NOT a positive play and I cannot
imagine all the work that has gone into the explanation.

···

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:36:29 -0500, you wrote:

I take it that the formula, below, is a direct way of calculating the
exact answer without having to do iterations as I had done in my post
(don't know if you saw it, but I came up with essentially the same ER,
although I never bothered to work the variance).

Cheers.

Bill Velek

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

> 800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=.952373, variance=19.84
> average value of bonus:
> .00228x(1-(1-.00262)^10)x(800-25)=.045753
> total er=.952373+.045753=.99813
> variance of bonus:
> .00228x(1-(1-.00262)^10)x(800-25-.99813)^2=35.37
> total variance=19.84+35.37=55.21

but i forgot to fully compensate for the strategy change
better estimate:
800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=.952373, quad cycle=438
800-100-800-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=2.899961, quad cycle=382

(438x38.2)x.952373 + 382x2.899961 /((438x38.2)+382) =0.99585

avg quad value:
(438x38.2)x25 + 382x800 /((438x38.2)+382) = 42.3
you can then derive an average strategy, but it doesn't seem to yield
as much as two strategies

the variance is still on the order of 55

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

#5

Elliott L. Shapiro wrote:

All of this discussion has been interesting and I assume that it is a
fun machine to play, but it is NOT a positive play and I cannot
imagine all the work that has gone into the explanation.

First, it appears that it has an overall ER of about 99.6%, which is slightly better than full-coin JoB-9/6, and I don't hear many people knocking discussions about that.

Second, with an ER of 99.6%, it ... _IS_ ... a 'positive' play when you add the value of cash-back and bounce-back, not to mention comps.

Third, for some of us, math is interesting and fun, and we like to work things like that out in much the same way that some people like to do crossword puzzles, so analyzing it and discussing it is not 'work'. Besides that, Elliott, I thought that you were one of the math gurus here, or am I confusing you with someone else. Anyway, at least this thread is better than the recent controversial discussions, or even the many less controversial but still very boring (to me) discussions of what shows to see, taxis from the LV airport, tipping, smoking, etc. There is room for all sorts of discussions here that are on-topic, and out of all the subjects that I have just listed, the mathematical aspects and strategy of "Shockwave" (and any other vp game) is _more_ 'on-topic' than any of the other stuff.

Fourth, until someone analyzes a game, no one can _really_ be certain whether the game is negative or perhaps slightly positive. As odd as it might seem that casinos would install positive machines ... especially in this day and age ... I guess it still happens.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

#6

Where this started was a post on skip hughes site that made what
seemed a reasonable argument for saying this game had an ER of
100.04%. Since it was a new game at the only casino in Tunica where
you can get 1% CB (without special coupons, anyway, but only for one
day a week), that made a possible return of 101.04%, which would have
been the most attractive static game in Tunica. Volatility wasn't a
big deal since the next best static was also high volatility, Triple
Deuces at 100.92% with 1% CB.

But subsequent math knocked it down to 100.59% (thank you to both
boards, that probably saved me some money), and at that level I agree
it's probably not a wise money decision to play, with JOB avail at
100.54%. But by that time, I had discovered the high middle hands
values, which is reminescent of a game I used to love to play and
made money on, but finally gave up when I started being rigorous
about only playing positive games (Full House Bonus at the Fitz:
99.36% game yield with poor CB). So I'll probably play Shockwave
some, even on non-double days, until I lose a few hundred or hit the
bonus, just for fun and since it is actually barely postivie at
100.09% with normal days CB. But no it's probably not a smart money
play.

I played 600 hands last week and broke even with only one 4K thanks
to many flushes and a few FH's. Never got more than $10 down or $40
up - amazingly stable ride for a 62 variance game, when the middle
hands come timed just right. The strategy changes are fun and
sometimes sort of bizarre (suited AQJ - hold the matching 4?), so I
like it for a change. Guess I'll risk couple 20s on it tonight.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott L. Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

All of this discussion has been interesting and I assume that it is

a

fun machine to play, but it is NOT a positive play and I cannot
imagine all the work that has gone into the explanation.

>
>I take it that the formula, below, is a direct way of calculating

the

>exact answer without having to do iterations as I had done in my

post

>(don't know if you saw it, but I came up with essentially the same

ER,

>although I never bothered to work the variance).
>
>Cheers.
>
>Bill Velek
>
>nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
>
>> > 800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=.952373, variance=19.84
>> > average value of bonus:
>> > .00228x(1-(1-.00262)^10)x(800-25)=.045753
>> > total er=.952373+.045753=.99813
>> > variance of bonus:
>> > .00228x(1-(1-.00262)^10)x(800-25-.99813)^2=35.37
>> > total variance=19.84+35.37=55.21
>>
>> but i forgot to fully compensate for the strategy change
>> better estimate:
>> 800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=.952373, quad cycle=438
>> 800-100-800-12-8-5-3-1-1: er=2.899961, quad cycle=382
>>
>> (438x38.2)x.952373 + 382x2.899961 /((438x38.2)+382) =0.99585
>>
>> avg quad value:
>> (438x38.2)x25 + 382x800 /((438x38.2)+382) = 42.3
>> you can then derive an average strategy, but it doesn't seem to

yield

···

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:36:29 -0500, you wrote:
>> as much as two strategies
>>
>> the variance is still on the order of 55
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

#7

better approach: figure out average number of bonus hands played
using:
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
800-100-25-12-8-5-3-1-1:
er=.952373,var=19.84,quad prob=.002283
800-100-800-12-8-5-3-1-1:
er=2.899961,var=1683.1,quad prob=.002617

types of bonus rounds and probs:
type_______prob________avg
no quad____0.974136050 9.741360501
quad on 10_0.002556003 0.025560031
quad on 9__0.002562710 0.023064387
quad on 8__0.002569434 0.020555471
quad on 7__0.002576176 0.01803323
quad on 6__0.002582935 0.015497612
quad on 5__0.002589713 0.012948563
quad on 4__0.002596508 0.010386031
quad on 3__0.002603321 0.007809962
quad on 2__0.002610151 0.005220303
quad on 1__0.002617000 0.002617
sum________1___________9.883053091

average bonus hands played=9.883053091

average er:
(.952373/.002283 + 2.899961x9.883053091)/(9.883053091+1/.002283)=
0.995346829
average var:
(19.84/.002283 + 1683.1x9.883053091)/(9.883053091+1/.002283)=
56.5400879

#8

Elliott L. Shapiro <videopoker@m...> wrote:

All of this discussion has been interesting and I assume that it
is a fun machine to play, but it is NOT a positive play

In these discussions, I sometimes get the idea that people make a
huge distinction between, say, an opportunity that returns 99.9% and
one that returns 100.1%. I can see that for someone who truly looks
at VP as profession, the distinction is important: once the
expectation goes above 100%, then & only then is there the
possibility of making a living from the game if sufficient cash is
put through.

But for those of us who play recreationally, the difference between
99.9% EV and 100.1% may be no more significant than, say, the
difference between 99.5% and 99.7%. It's possible to attach
importance to the 100% figure in cases where it defies logic. For
many of us, 100% EV is no more magic than Dow 10,000.

For myself: several times a year, I like to take little vacations, a
weekend or a long weekend, to various gambling spots. I usually go
with at least one friend. Say I find a casino that'll provide a nice
free room & food for $10K coin-in (between the two of us), and the
best return available is 99.9%. For my $5000/day, I can expect an
average loss of <$5.

Considering the value I place on the weekend vacation, & considering
the long-term loss in relation to my total budget... it's simply a
trivial matter whether my expectation swings $10 or $20 a day. Yeah,
sure, it's more fun to tell people "I won $10" than "I lost $10" when
I get back from Vegas, but I know it really doesn't matter.

So if I get a free deal from Barbary Coast, and it'll require putting
a few thousand dollars through a NSUD machine with .25% cashback, and
I know someone who will enjoy making the trip with me... I'm not for
a second going to consider turning it down over because the play is
negative EV.

Yes, I'm reading Bob Dancer's book. I appreciate how professionals
need to squeeze out every bit of EV, & I appreciate how some others
enjoy seeking 100%+ opportunities for "the thrill of the hunt." But I
also think some people miss opportunities for enjoyment because
they're fixated on the "positive expectation" boogieman.

Stuart (RandomStu)
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm

#9

<<In these discussions, I sometimes get the idea that people make a
huge distinction between, say, an opportunity that returns 99.9% and
one that returns 100.1%.>>

This was a VERY good post - and one I agree with
100%+!!!!! You are knowledgeable and are making wise decisions based on your own situation and goals. And I have always said that most people would want to count comps in their total play EV - you just have to be careful that you can "afford" that level of comps.

My main job these days is helping people become more knowledgeable so they are making informed choices. It is not my place to tell people what their choices should be.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards and for the
  Frugal series of books.

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

#10

Where this started was a post on skip hughes site that made what
seemed a reasonable argument for saying this game had an ER of
100.04%. Since it was a new game at the only casino in Tunica

where

you can get 1% CB (without special coupons, anyway, but only for

one

day a week),

What casino?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "blaw57" <blaw57@y...> wrote:

#11

For myself: several times a year, I like to take little vacations,

a

weekend or a long weekend, to various gambling spots. I usually go
with at least one friend. Say I find a casino that'll provide a

nice

free room & food for $10K coin-in (between the two of us), and the
best return available is 99.9%. For my $5000/day, I can expect an
average loss of <$5.

I know that this is what the math says. How many actully only spend
that.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@c...> wrote:

#12

The point of this part of the thread is not the $5. It is the fact
that there is not really a twit of difference for the "fun player"
playing the 99.9% machine or the 100.1% machine.

IMHO.

.....bl

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

> For my $5000/day, I can expect an
> average loss of <$5.

I know that this is what the math says. How many actully only

spend

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@c...> wrote:
that.

#13

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:

The point of this part of the thread is not the $5. It is the

fact

that there is not really a twit of difference for the "fun player"
playing the 99.9% machine or the 100.1% machine.

IMHO.

Bl,

Yes to a certain extent. But, those numbers always seem to get
kicked around and I feel they are unrealistic, especially for the
newbies benefit.

DWK

#14

For the "fun player", you are right
For the serious player, 100.1% is unthinkable.
The very WORST that I would consider is FPDW which is 100.762% and
then, only if there were more to it, such as bounce back, points,
promotional advantages, etc.
Normally I look for 101.5%. That is POSITIVE

···

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:55:13 -0000, you wrote:

The point of this part of the thread is not the $5. It is the fact
that there is not really a twit of difference for the "fun player"
playing the 99.9% machine or the 100.1% machine.

IMHO.

.....bl

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@c...> wrote:

> For my $5000/day, I can expect an
> average loss of <$5.

I know that this is what the math says. How many actully only

spend

that.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

#15

Elliott L. Shapiro wrote:

For the "fun player", you are right
For the serious player, 100.1% is unthinkable.
The very WORST that I would consider is FPDW which is 100.762% and
then, only if there were more to it, such as bounce back, points,
promotional advantages, etc.
Normally I look for 101.5%. That is POSITIVE

Your reply brought a chuckle, but not because there's anything funny
about it.

It's just that it's in stark contrast to Bob Dancer who, if read
literally, never met a "positive" game he didn't like. There's every
suggestion that if he finds a 100.1% game it merits betting the house on.

I exaggerate a bit, but as much as I admire his writings he pays
nominal lip service to bankroll protection at best. Nor would it
appear that he heeds return and variance considerations, as evidenced
by his general "3-5 royal" bankroll guidance.

(He may have explicitly stated return and variance specifications when
that benchmark was put forth, but if so he failed to get that part of
the message across. I've seen the "3-5" statement quoted more times
than I can count, all without qualification.)

- Harry

#16

>The point of this part of the thread is not the $5. It is the fact
>that there is not really a twit of difference for the "fun player"
>playing the 99.9% machine or the 100.1% machine.

Elliott L. Shapiro <videopoker@m...> wrote:

For the "fun player", you are right
For the serious player, 100.1% is unthinkable.
The very WORST that I would consider is FPDW which is 100.762% and
then, only if there were more to it, such as bounce back, points,
promotional advantages, etc.
Normally I look for 101.5%. That is POSITIVE

You're essentially joining in the view that there's not a twit of
difference between 99.9% and 100.1%. If your strategy is never to
consider a return below 100.762%, then both 99.9% and 100.1% are
equally unthinkable. This also supports the original point of my
post, that there's nothing "magic" about 100% return, though many
people speak as if there is.

Another small note: I have fun playing video poker, but I don't
accept the label of "non-serious." I'm dead serious about my
recreation, as well as my money. It's because I'm serious about it
that I take the time to conclude that a difference of $10 or $20 of
expectation during a day of vacation is trivial to me.

It's pretty straight forward. How significant is a .1% difference in
EV? If I play $10K coin in during a weekend trip, then it's $10; I
compare that $10 to my entertainment budget & my overall life budget,
& conclude it's trivial. Other people would have a different amount
of coin in & a different overall budget; after adjusting those
variables, the process for determining the significance of .1% is the
same.

Stuart (RandomStu)

#17

snip

Fourth, until someone analyzes a game, no one can _really_ be certain
whether the game is negative or perhaps slightly positive. As odd

as it

might seem that casinos would install positive machines ... especially
in this day and age ... I guess it still happens.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

Thank you Bill, and the other gurus, I follow most of the math and am
always looking for new interesting games, and this one is like you
said 'better than JOB 9-6' as long as you dont mind the variance. I
havent seen any in STL but will keep my eyes open. People should also
realize that in some markets a 99.6% game would be much better than
anything else available, unfortunate but true. So for those that can
easily find truely positive games not considering any extras, count
your blessings.

take care
Jim

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote: