vpFREE2 Forums

Short Term TDB Question.

#1

In Triple Double Bonus, if you get a trio of Aces, or 2s, 3s, 4s with
a kicker, the correct strategy is to hold the trio with the kicker.
This will benefit you long term. Now, no one, I believe, plays this
game long term, peple just occasionally wonder by a TDB machine to
see if they get the four aces with a kicker to be paid as much as for
a royal. The volatility of TDB is so high, only big whales can play
this game seriously day in day out. You know, the volatility curve
looks like l\l\l\ with a little sland downwards where those peaks can
be thousands of dollars above the valleys, even in quarters. My
question is, then, for those experts that deviate from strict
strategy when trying to milk a machine short term is this game, would
you dump the kicker when dealt it with a low trio? Probability wise
it makes sense to do this, you will have a greater chance to complete
the quad, and thus get paid a hefty amount, you might even get a
kicker also on the second draw.

By the way, this problem does not arise in DDB because there you only
hold the kicker on a made five card hand, never a trio and a kicker,
not even with aces.

Any comments? Thanks.

E

#2

The correct short-term strategy is NEVER to hold a kicker under ANY circumstances. For further info on this game you can go to my site www.vptruth.com, click on articles on the top left, and read my June 17th GT column on the subject.

  In Triple Double Bonus, if you get a trio of Aces, or 2s, 3s, 4s with
  a kicker, the correct strategy is to hold the trio with the kicker.
  This will benefit you long term. Now, no one, I believe, plays this
  game long term, peple just occasionally wonder by a TDB machine to
  see if they get the four aces with a kicker to be paid as much as for
  a royal. The volatility of TDB is so high, only big whales can play
  this game seriously day in day out. You know, the volatility curve
  looks like l\l\l\ with a little sland downwards where those peaks can
  be thousands of dollars above the valleys, even in quarters. My
  question is, then, for those experts that deviate from strict
  strategy when trying to milk a machine short term is this game, would
  you dump the kicker when dealt it with a low trio? Probability wise
  it makes sense to do this, you will have a greater chance to complete
  the quad, and thus get paid a hefty amount, you might even get a
  kicker also on the second draw.

  By the way, this problem does not arise in DDB because there you only
  hold the kicker on a made five card hand, never a trio and a kicker,
  not even with aces.

  Any comments? Thanks.

···

From: mubowor

#3

What's all this nonsense about "short-term strategy"
and "long-term stratey?" There is only one correct
strategy on any hand, unless getting one hand of 4
aces without a kicker will allow you to retire and
live out your life on the profit.

···

--- mubowor <erchalb@cantv.net> wrote:

In Triple Double Bonus, if you get a trio of Aces,
or 2s, 3s, 4s with
a kicker, the correct strategy is to hold the trio
with the kicker.
This will benefit you long term. Now, no one, I
believe, plays this
game long term, peple just occasionally wonder by a
TDB machine to
see if they get the four aces with a kicker to be
paid as much as for
a royal. The volatility of TDB is so high, only big
whales can play
this game seriously day in day out. You know, the
volatility curve
looks like l\l\l\ with a little sland downwards
where those peaks can
be thousands of dollars above the valleys, even in
quarters. My
question is, then, for those experts that deviate
from strict
strategy when trying to milk a machine short term is
this game, would
you dump the kicker when dealt it with a low trio?
Probability wise
it makes sense to do this, you will have a greater
chance to complete
the quad, and thus get paid a hefty amount, you
might even get a
kicker also on the second draw.

By the way, this problem does not arise in DDB
because there you only
hold the kicker on a made five card hand, never a
trio and a kicker,
not even with aces.

Any comments? Thanks.

E

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

#4

mubowor wrote:

In Triple Double Bonus, if you get a trio of Aces, or 2s, 3s, 4s
with a kicker, the correct strategy is to hold the trio with the
kicker. This will benefit you long term ... My question is, then,
for those experts that deviate from strict strategy when trying to
milk a machine short term is this game, would you dump the kicker
when dealt it with a low trio? Probability wise it makes sense to do
this, you will have a greater chance to complete the quad, and thus
get paid a hefty amount, you might even get a kicker also on the
second draw.

Ed, I think Rebecca Richfield has hit it right on the nose in writing:
"I don't know why anyone would play this game and NOT hold the kicker,
after all, getting those monster hands (2,000 & 4,000 credits) is WHY
you are playing the game at all."

If you abandon hope of hitting those bonus quads with the kicker in
the "short run", there's not much else to "milk" from the balance of
the short pay table.

Generally, an inclination to shift game strategy in favor of smaller,
more frequent pays is a strong indication that you're simply
uncomfortable with the volatility of the game and that it isn't a good
pick for you. (Not such a bad inclination in the case of TDB :).

The strategy trade-off you advocate is a very poor bargain. Analyzing
that strategy with FVP, the adjusted ER is 98.84%. Opting for the
less volatile, modest return 9/7 DB would be a far better game choice.

- Harry

#5

Well, there are many different correct strategies of a hand in any
given game, depending on what level you are in a Multi Strike
machine, LOL.

The recommended strategy for serious VP playing is long term. Some
important VP players tell you not to bother worrying about losing on
a day, a few days, a week, a month, that is not important, you should
take a three month balance, or a yearly balance to see the positive
returns. You can carry this, of course, to absurd extremes. Suppose,
for example, they make a modification of the game Megabucks and they
decide to make it a Video Poker game. A dealt sequential royal in
spades will win you the progressive millions. Assume the machine is
5/4 Jacks or Better, and the progressive is high enough to make it
100.1% return. If millions of people play this machine seriously long
term the way they play any positive VP machine, millions will go
bankrupt. One person a year, or so, will have a big smile, even
though all of them played the correct strategy.

The definition of "short-term strategy" is very elusive, but it
essentialy is a style of play that tries to put money in your pocket
on the short term. If you want to go out gambling on an evening and
make money, you are playing short term. Here comes that "nutso" game
TDB. The volatility in this game is not as high as that of the VP
Megabucks machine, but it is very high. Isn't a one in twenty chance
of getting a "make your evening" hand better than a one in 40 chance
of getting something more than twice as nice? When you dump the
kicker here you are saying you prefer a more probable bird in the
hand than a less probable bird in the bush that might fly away. Surs,
as Becky says, the point of this game is the hefty hands, but even if
you dump the kicker, you might get another kicker yet, so that bird
in the hand with higher probability might be as fat as that in the
bush, and there's the difference with DB.

By the way, I'm not sure about all of this, but I certainly will not
play TDB long term unless I have a huge bankroll and find in a casino
the TDB paytable in Frugal that returns 99.58%. TDB to me is
certainly a short term game. I have made too many simulations in
Frugal to see the dangers of it. It is almost a Megabucks VP game. It
can be very exciting if you get the hand mentioned in that June 17
article I was referred to, quad aces with a kicker on a five play $5
machine at Casino Royale. TDB is also on Multi Strike machines. Get
those aces and kicker on the last line should be fun too. But I would
not put all my daily bankroll on any TDB machine, that might
be "short term madness", even though on a 99.58% machine with 0.55%
cashback and considerable comps might make the machine profitable
long term for those with a bankroll large enough not to go to ruin
first.

E

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jere Neese <jereneese@y...> wrote:

What's all this nonsense about "short-term strategy"
and "long-term stratey?" There is only one correct
strategy on any hand, unless getting one hand of 4
aces without a kicker will allow you to retire and
live out your life on the profit.

#6

I agree with what you say. Unless I win Mega Millions, I will only
play TDB in the same spirit as buying a lotto ticket, even though the
TDB ticket might be $20 or $100. For me it is a hit for a while
machine and run. Otherwise, a low volatility Jacks or Better will do
wonders for preventing a heart attack.

E

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

Ed, I think Rebecca Richfield has hit it right on the nose in

writing:

"I don't know why anyone would play this game and NOT hold the

kicker,

after all, getting those monster hands (2,000 & 4,000 credits) is

WHY

you are playing the game at all."

If you abandon hope of hitting those bonus quads with the kicker in
the "short run", there's not much else to "milk" from the balance of
the short pay table.

Generally, an inclination to shift game strategy in favor of

smaller,

more frequent pays is a strong indication that you're simply
uncomfortable with the volatility of the game and that it isn't a

good

pick for you. (Not such a bad inclination in the case of TDB :).

The strategy trade-off you advocate is a very poor bargain.

Analyzing

that strategy with FVP, the adjusted ER is 98.84%. Opting for the
less volatile, modest return 9/7 DB would be a far better game

choice.

···

- Harry

#7

My favorite absurdity, is "professional" versus "recreational" play.
There's no method in that madness!

                                        Rasti$Rulz
                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp-heaven

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jere Neese" <jereneese@yahoo.com>

What's all this nonsense about "short-term strategy"
and "long-term stratey?" There is only one correct
strategy on any hand, unless getting one hand of 4
aces without a kicker will allow you to retire and
live out your life on the profit.

#8

I went to your link and put "recreational" on the search engine, but
did not land anything. I did read a lot about "professional" play
and "reformed addict" play, LOL.

I know some people just loathe the short term, but it is really a
simple concept. Let me illustrate it with something I believe I have
not brought up. If you want to go out one evening and make a quick
hundred bucks playing VP, that is short term. You can accomplish that
on any positive machine if you are lucky. Take two machines, quarter
FPDW and quarter 9/6 DDB. Which would you choose to increase your
odds of making a quick hundred bucks in one evening? The DDB, of
course. Why? Because the cycle of any hand that pays $100 or more is
much shorter than the cycle for quad deuces and royals in FPDW.

Now, going back to "recreational", I don't know what it means, but it
could mean something other than short term or long term play. Both
short term play and long term play assume some knowledge of the
paytables, the strategy, the statistics. Recreational play, as I
imagine it not having read about it, might mean treating VP as a slot
machine and testing machines to see if they are hot, maybe with a few
plays with one coin, stuff like that. These "recreational players"
are the ones I love. They hold a deuce and an ace in FPDW, and make
those machines profitable for the casinos, thus available.
Recreational players might enjoy themselves more, they don't tax
their brains, and can drink freely.

E

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Video Poker Vegas" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:

···

My favorite absurdity, is "professional" versus "recreational" play.
There's no method in that madness!

                                        Rasti$Rulz
                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp-heaven

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jere Neese" <jereneese@y...>

> What's all this nonsense about "short-term strategy"
> and "long-term stratey?" There is only one correct
> strategy on any hand, unless getting one hand of 4
> aces without a kicker will allow you to retire and
> live out your life on the profit.

#9

I've had two dealt spade royals in my life, one on
50-play.

···

--- mubowor <erchalb@cantv.net> wrote:

Well, there are many different correct strategies of
a hand in any
given game, depending on what level you are in a
Multi Strike
machine, LOL.

The recommended strategy for serious VP playing is
long term. Some
important VP players tell you not to bother worrying
about losing on
a day, a few days, a week, a month, that is not
important, you should
take a three month balance, or a yearly balance to
see the positive
returns. You can carry this, of course, to absurd
extremes. Suppose,
for example, they make a modification of the game
Megabucks and they
decide to make it a Video Poker game. A dealt
sequential royal in
spades will win you the progressive millions. Assume
the machine is
5/4 Jacks or Better, and the progressive is high
enough to make it
100.1% return. If millions of people play this
machine seriously long
term the way they play any positive VP machine,
millions will go
bankrupt. One person a year, or so, will have a big
smile, even
though all of them played the correct strategy.

The definition of "short-term strategy" is very
elusive, but it
essentialy is a style of play that tries to put
money in your pocket
on the short term. If you want to go out gambling on
an evening and
make money, you are playing short term. Here comes
that "nutso" game
TDB. The volatility in this game is not as high as
that of the VP
Megabucks machine, but it is very high. Isn't a one
in twenty chance
of getting a "make your evening" hand better than a
one in 40 chance
of getting something more than twice as nice? When
you dump the
kicker here you are saying you prefer a more
probable bird in the
hand than a less probable bird in the bush that
might fly away. Surs,
as Becky says, the point of this game is the hefty
hands, but even if
you dump the kicker, you might get another kicker
yet, so that bird
in the hand with higher probability might be as fat
as that in the
bush, and there's the difference with DB.

By the way, I'm not sure about all of this, but I
certainly will not
play TDB long term unless I have a huge bankroll and
find in a casino
the TDB paytable in Frugal that returns 99.58%. TDB
to me is
certainly a short term game. I have made too many
simulations in
Frugal to see the dangers of it. It is almost a
Megabucks VP game. It
can be very exciting if you get the hand mentioned
in that June 17
article I was referred to, quad aces with a kicker
on a five play $5
machine at Casino Royale. TDB is also on Multi
Strike machines. Get
those aces and kicker on the last line should be fun
too. But I would
not put all my daily bankroll on any TDB machine,
that might
be "short term madness", even though on a 99.58%
machine with 0.55%
cashback and considerable comps might make the
machine profitable
long term for those with a bankroll large enough not
to go to ruin
first.

E

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jere Neese
<jereneese@y...> wrote:
> What's all this nonsense about "short-term
strategy"
> and "long-term stratey?" There is only one
correct
> strategy on any hand, unless getting one hand of 4
> aces without a kicker will allow you to retire and
> live out your life on the profit.
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

#10

Congratulations, congratulations!

There are also people out there that won thirty millions or so in
Megabucks. Some people are just lucky, even those who do not believe
in luck must admit.

Were those Royals sequential? I don't know what denomination your 50
play machine was, but whatever it was, it must have been a real
thrill to get that dealt royal. I assume you were playing all 50
games.

Oh! I hope these royals were on casinos and not on your home PC! LOL.
I have had dealt royals at home, none at casinos, just dealt straight
flushes.

Hope your good luck continues.

E

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jere Neese <jereneese@y...> wrote:

I've had two dealt spade royals in my life, one on
50-play.

--- mubowor <erchalb@c...> wrote:
> Well, there are many different correct strategies of
> a hand in any
> given game, depending on what level you are in a
> Multi Strike
> machine, LOL.
>
> The recommended strategy for serious VP playing is
> long term. Some
> important VP players tell you not to bother worrying
> about losing on
> a day, a few days, a week, a month, that is not
> important, you should
> take a three month balance, or a yearly balance to
> see the positive
> returns. You can carry this, of course, to absurd
> extremes. Suppose,
> for example, they make a modification of the game
> Megabucks and they
> decide to make it a Video Poker game. A dealt
> sequential royal in
> spades will win you the progressive millions. Assume
> the machine is
> 5/4 Jacks or Better, and the progressive is high
> enough to make it
> 100.1% return. If millions of people play this
> machine seriously long
> term the way they play any positive VP machine,
> millions will go
> bankrupt. One person a year, or so, will have a big
> smile, even
> though all of them played the correct strategy.
>
> The definition of "short-term strategy" is very
> elusive, but it
> essentialy is a style of play that tries to put
> money in your pocket
> on the short term. If you want to go out gambling on
> an evening and
> make money, you are playing short term. Here comes
> that "nutso" game
> TDB. The volatility in this game is not as high as
> that of the VP
> Megabucks machine, but it is very high. Isn't a one
> in twenty chance
> of getting a "make your evening" hand better than a
> one in 40 chance
> of getting something more than twice as nice? When
> you dump the
> kicker here you are saying you prefer a more
> probable bird in the
> hand than a less probable bird in the bush that
> might fly away. Surs,
> as Becky says, the point of this game is the hefty
> hands, but even if
> you dump the kicker, you might get another kicker
> yet, so that bird
> in the hand with higher probability might be as fat
> as that in the
> bush, and there's the difference with DB.
>
> By the way, I'm not sure about all of this, but I
> certainly will not
> play TDB long term unless I have a huge bankroll and
> find in a casino
> the TDB paytable in Frugal that returns 99.58%. TDB
> to me is
> certainly a short term game. I have made too many
> simulations in
> Frugal to see the dangers of it. It is almost a
> Megabucks VP game. It
> can be very exciting if you get the hand mentioned
> in that June 17
> article I was referred to, quad aces with a kicker
> on a five play $5
> machine at Casino Royale. TDB is also on Multi
> Strike machines. Get
> those aces and kicker on the last line should be fun
> too. But I would
> not put all my daily bankroll on any TDB machine,
> that might
> be "short term madness", even though on a 99.58%
> machine with 0.55%
> cashback and considerable comps might make the
> machine profitable
> long term for those with a bankroll large enough not
> to go to ruin
> first.
>
> E
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jere Neese
> <jereneese@y...> wrote:
> > What's all this nonsense about "short-term
> strategy"
> > and "long-term stratey?" There is only one
> correct
> > strategy on any hand, unless getting one hand of 4
> > aces without a kicker will allow you to retire and
> > live out your life on the profit.
> >
> >
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

#11

Perhaps you are confusing "simple" with simplistic or, maybe,
simple-minded. For every video poker hand dealt on every video poker
machine, regardless of whether the game's ev is positive or not, one
and only one mathematically correct hold exists. All other holds are
inferior. No amount of convoluted un-think can change that fact. It
doesn't matter whether you are playing for minutes or hours, for weeks
or months, for years or decades. Every hand of vp is but one hand in
the history of your play, which (I hope) continues for many more
years. The "simple" (there's that word again) and undeniable :slight_smile: truth
is that all your vp play at whatever the point where it occurs is but
one instance in your long term play. Barring the one-time LV visitors
or the once every five or so years types, the rest of us long ago
embarked on a lifetime of vp play. For us, there is no short term.
If a player chooses to deviate from mathematically correct strategy
for whatever personal reasons, so be it. Just stop trying to
rationalize that such a choice is somehow correct and reasonable now
and again. It isn't. And no amount of repetitive blather can make it
so.

Pete

···

I know some people just loathe the short term, but it is really a
simple concept.

#12

An excellentt truthful statement -- very well written - and right on the mark

David K - an old math teacher

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: paisonvp
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:37 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Short Term TDB Question.

  Perhaps you are confusing "simple" with simplistic or, maybe,
  simple-minded. For every video poker hand dealt on every video poker
  machine, regardless of whether the game's ev is positive or not, one
  and only one mathematically correct hold exists. All other holds are
  inferior. No amount of convoluted un-think can change that fact. It
  doesn't matter whether you are playing for minutes or hours, for weeks
  or months, for years or decades. Every hand of vp is but one hand in
  the history of your play, which (I hope) continues for many more
  years. The "simple" (there's that word again) and undeniable :slight_smile: truth
  is that all your vp play at whatever the point where it occurs is but
  one instance in your long term play. Barring the one-time LV visitors
  or the once every five or so years types, the rest of us long ago
  embarked on a lifetime of vp play. For us, there is no short term.
  If a player chooses to deviate from mathematically correct strategy
  for whatever personal reasons, so be it. Just stop trying to
  rationalize that such a choice is somehow correct and reasonable now
  and again. It isn't. And no amount of repetitive blather can make it
  so.

  Pete

  > I know some people just loathe the short term, but it is really a
  > simple concept.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#13

Well, I see a contradiction below in your last two paragraphs.

Mathematics was invented by man to use for his purposes. If man
chooses to play perfect strategy because he wants to optimize his
return in the very long term, then he is using mathematics correctly.

Let us take another human, one who plays Jacks or Better. Let us
assume he knows the perfect strategy, and that he plays dollar
machines, and that he plays 100,000 hands per year. Let us also
assume he gets real pleasure out of hitting a Royal. Let us further
assume that his pleasure at Royals is such that he does not mind if
at the end of the year he has made $350 dollars less than he could
have made; that is, his answer to the question, "would you prefer to
hit one more royal during the year and at the end of the year be $350
less rich than if you had not hit that Royal?", I say, his answer to
the previous question is that he would rather get that extra royal
because he enjoys his drinks more on the occasion of hitting a royal.
He tells me, and there are humans like him, "I don't care if I'm $350
poorer at the end of the year if my chances to hit a royal are higher
during the year." Well, to such human I would tell to hold three to a
royal above a high pair because that way his royal cycle is
significantly shorter. I will also tell him that by deviating from
perfect strategy that way, the return of his play on JB will not be
99.54% but 99.47% in the long term, representing a price of $350 per
year for his kind of play. For this individual the deviation from
perfect strategy is mathematically correct and reasonable. This is
not blather on my part, it is proper use of mathematics.

E

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "paisonvp" <paison@i...> wrote:

If a player chooses to deviate from mathematically correct strategy
for whatever personal reasons, so be it. Just stop trying to
rationalize that such a choice is somehow correct and reasonable

now

and again. It isn't. And no amount of repetitive blather can make

it

···

so.

Pete

> I know some people just loathe the short term, but it is really a
> simple concept.

#14

mubowor wrote:

I will also tell him that by deviating from perfect strategy that
way, the return of his play on JB will not be 99.54% but 99.47% in
the long term, representing a price of $350 per year for his kind of
play. For this individual the deviation from perfect strategy is
mathematically correct and reasonable. This is not blather on my
part, it is proper use of mathematics.

Ed,

To extend your reasoning, any play in a casino that deviates from
perfect strategy the can be rationalized in some manner is "correct
and reasonable". I have two problems with this.

The first is that invariably the person engaging in deviant play has
little idea of the theoretical cost. The second is that if you want
to have a reasonable shot at play without turning your bankroll over
to the casino, a disciplined approach is essential.

When a player is impelled to deviate from strategy to satisfy some
intermediate goal (e.g., shortening the RF cycle) it suggests that the
player has some difficulties with acceptance of the most basic
concepts of video poker and that it may simply not be the game for them.

Now, there are always going to be players who are inclined to play
using strategies other than those that maximize ER. Frankly, there
will be no rational argument to dissuade them from that behavior and I
don't attempt to try. It's very much akin to a religious debate.

It bears mentioning that I have considerable respect for Rob Singer
inasmuch as I believe that he is disciplined in following a specific
play strategy and doesn't play on hunches or whims. But as my remarks
indicate, I don't think that his play is advisable. (Of course, there
are damned few here to whom Rob would advocate his strategy given the
large bankroll requirements.)

Bottom line, I find myself a bit aggravated when players choose to
obsess over aspects of play such as whether games are fair, whether
they have hot and cold cycles, or seek out alternate strategies that
are of dubious value, at best. Hopefully I'll get a clue and get over
it. I recognize that for some these are areas of significant concern.

However, a strong, sound grasp of the very basics of video poker is
essential to successful play and it takes considerable concerted
effort to attain that. Any concern aside from this is a distraction
that I think is very much to the player's detriment.

Again, I acknowledge that there will be those who demur at the points
I've raised here and there's no need to argue them. This is not a
debate of your post, Ed. Rather, I've used it as an offshoot from
which to express my thoughts on the subject.

- Harry

#15

This is "common sense" but it is flat wrong. While it is true that there
is generally only one strategy for maximizing EV, the choice to
maxmize EV cannot be shown mathematically to be "superior"
to other objectives which are based on optimizing something other
than EV.

If your goal is to maximize the probability of building your bankroll to
some fixed amount, then the max-EV strategy become sub-optimal.
The optimal strategy for this case also becomes a function of the
target. If you have a bankroll of 100 (indivisible) units, then the
optimal strategy for growing the bankroll to 200 units is different than
the optimal strategy for growing the bankroll to 300 units.

If your goal is to minimize the average dollars lost while playing to
hit a royal, then the max-EV strategy is sub-optimal.

If your goal is to maximize the geometric growth rate of your bankroll,
then the max-EV strategy is sub-optimal.

This is a concept that many gambling "experts" simply do no grasp.
The "optimal" strategy is relative to the objective you are trying
to achieve, and max-EV is only one possible objective.

···

On Tuesday 30 September 2003 05:37 pm, paisonvp wrote:

Perhaps you are confusing "simple" with simplistic or, maybe,
simple-minded. For every video poker hand dealt on every video poker
machine, regardless of whether the game's ev is positive or not, one
and only one mathematically correct hold exists. All other holds are
inferior. No amount of convoluted un-think can change that fact.

#16

Steve Jacobs wrote:

If your goal is to maximize the probability of building your
bankroll to some fixed amount, then the max-EV strategy become
sub-optimal.

Steve, I don't think the merit of some alternate strategies (such as
min-loss) is lost on Pete. His reference to max-EV play was largely a
matter of expediency in the context of the discussion to date.

Your general comments on that discussion might prove enlightening. Or
do you feel that the strategies that have been put forth are equally
valid approaches to the game?

- Harry

#17

Along the same lines, I was sitting at a bank of 10/6 Double Double
machines at GVR night before last. The woman next to me used a
strategy "from hell". I was horrified to see her get a pair of
kings, and toss one in favor of KT suited. (she said she never gets
four kings). She got a royal of course. Later that same evening, she
pitched a pair of 4's in favor of a single Ace and got three
additional aces with the kicker. This was all on dollar play by the
way. So, short term, anything goes. I just don't get it? Another
note of interest is that she had to be brain dead. She tipped $500
on the 4k royal and $150 on the $2000 aces/kicker. I had sort of
bonded with her cuz of her style of play and was joking around with
her. I told her she was nuts, but I guess it's players like this in
the long run that the casino just loves.

#18

I too, have witnessed unbelievable strategy holds from players who
have sat next to me, and to my astonishment, they are doing BETTER
then me credit wise !!!! I guess we should be THANKING them for that
kinda play, and all that does, is encourage them to play the way they
do. My thoughts at first, (I know it's not true, but can't help
myself), is that the VP software manufacturers, have come up with
some kinda of "idiot monitoring software" and the WORSE you play, the
better cards you initially DRAW and also you get GREAT cards back on
the RE-DRAW !!!! lol It does seem this way for sure. I sat next to
a lady the other day, (was basically clueless), and I don't usually
help people play unless they ask, but her "method" of play was
unbelievable, and well, I walked away a loser, as she continued to
rack up UNBELIEVABLE hands on the re-draw. In the long run, I should
be thanking her, BUT it sure is frustrating at times, when you play
for so long and NEVER hit 4 of a kind !!!! I jokingly told her, she
should be giving VP lessons.

Along the same lines, I was sitting at a bank of 10/6 Double Double
machines at GVR night before last. The woman next to me used a
strategy "from hell". I was horrified to see her get a pair of
kings, and toss one in favor of KT suited. (she said she never gets
four kings). She got a royal of course. Later that same evening,

she

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "staninnv" <arnot@l...> wrote:

pitched a pair of 4's in favor of a single Ace and got three
additional aces with the kicker. This was all on dollar play by the
way. So, short term, anything goes. I just don't get it? Another
note of interest is that she had to be brain dead. She tipped $500
on the 4k royal and $150 on the $2000 aces/kicker. I had sort of
bonded with her cuz of her style of play and was joking around with
her. I told her she was nuts, but I guess it's players like this in
the long run that the casino just loves.

#19

The last couple of posts demand explanations. Of course, the orthodox
explanation would be that in the world of video poker where every
hand is random, anything can happen in the long term. Occurrences
like those described in the below post and in the one previous do not
go against randomnes.

The conspiracy theory of VP would say that casinos and VP
manufacturers know the perfect strategies and so have "doctored" the
machines so as to reward those not playing it, LOL. This, of course,
would be illegal.

The hot cycles theory would say that those pseudo random number
programs go into long stretches where they award winning hands. We
have all probably sat at machines that have spit hits after hits for
hours: back to back quads, full houses, flushes, etc. We might have
experienced this while the machine next was dry. So maybe in these
cases noted in the messages below, it just so happened that a player
ignorant of the correct strategy was at a hot machine. That machine
was just one of those hot ones that could have been milked by both a
seasoned player or one ignorant of strategy.

I remember once at a casino a guy on a wheel chair who was very
talkative would play briefly on dollar and five dollar VP machines.
He would outrageously deviate from strategy and remarked he was doing
it. I was puzzled, but I did not tell him how to play because he knew
the right plays, he was just purposely doing otherwise. I did not see
the point, as the guy was not winning. I left without understanding
if there was method to his play.

Anyone else has explanations for the behavior of these people other
than they are nuts? Maybe they are just nuts.

E

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

I too, have witnessed unbelievable strategy holds from players who
have sat next to me, and to my astonishment, they are doing BETTER
then me credit wise !!!! I guess we should be THANKING them for

that

kinda play, and all that does, is encourage them to play the way

they

do. My thoughts at first, (I know it's not true, but can't help
myself), is that the VP software manufacturers, have come up with
some kinda of "idiot monitoring software" and the WORSE you play,

the

better cards you initially DRAW and also you get GREAT cards back

on

the RE-DRAW !!!! lol It does seem this way for sure. I sat next

to

a lady the other day, (was basically clueless), and I don't usually
help people play unless they ask, but her "method" of play was
unbelievable, and well, I walked away a loser, as she continued to
rack up UNBELIEVABLE hands on the re-draw. In the long run, I

should

be thanking her, BUT it sure is frustrating at times, when you play
for so long and NEVER hit 4 of a kind !!!! I jokingly told her,

she

should be giving VP lessons.

> Along the same lines, I was sitting at a bank of 10/6 Double

Double

> machines at GVR night before last. The woman next to me used a
> strategy "from hell". I was horrified to see her get a pair of
> kings, and toss one in favor of KT suited. (she said she never

gets

> four kings). She got a royal of course. Later that same evening,
she
> pitched a pair of 4's in favor of a single Ace and got three
> additional aces with the kicker. This was all on dollar play by

the

> way. So, short term, anything goes. I just don't get it? Another
> note of interest is that she had to be brain dead. She tipped

$500

> on the 4k royal and $150 on the $2000 aces/kicker. I had sort of
> bonded with her cuz of her style of play and was joking around

with

> her. I told her she was nuts, but I guess it's players like this

in

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "staninnv" <arnot@l...> wrote:
> the long run that the casino just loves.

#20

Steve Jacobs wrote:
> If your goal is to maximize the probability of building your
> bankroll to some fixed amount, then the max-EV strategy become
> sub-optimal.

Steve, I don't think the merit of some alternate strategies (such as
min-loss) is lost on Pete. His reference to max-EV play was largely a
matter of expediency in the context of the discussion to date.

Here is the phrase that triggered my response:

...one and only one mathematically correct hold exists.

That statement sounded very much as if the intent was to be absolutely
mathematically precise. Unfortunately, the statement is false, and I feel
that it remains false without regard to context. Different holds are
"mathematically correct" for reaching different goals.

Your general comments on that discussion might prove enlightening. Or
do you feel that the strategies that have been put forth are equally
valid approaches to the game?

Maybe, maybe not. But every strategy that is optimal for an objective
that is mathematically distinct from max-EV will require the player to
make plays which reduce EV. The "best" play is relative to your goal,
and from each perspective the other player is the one making the
wrong play.

When you see players doing the "wrong" thing, there are two very
different possibilities: 1) the other player doesn't really know what
they are doing, or 2) the other player has a different objective which
requires different plays. Those who have been taught to maximize
EV tend to pounce on 1) as the only possible explanation.

Part of the discussion has been about long run vs. short run and
whether "short run" is even meaningful. If you confine your
thinking to max-EV, then long run is all there is. However, if
your goals are oriented toward minimizing risk rather than maximizing
EV, then there may be a valid mathematical distrinction between
"short run" and "long run". This is something I've been thinking about
quite a bit lately, but I still haven't got things worked out well enough
to describe very well.

Quick example: in Craps, the bet on "don't-pass" with no odds has
an EV of -1.4%. A standard double-zero roulette wheel has an EV
of -5.26%. Which game is better? Based on EV, the craps bet
would seem to be "obviously" better. But, if your goal is build a
one unit bankroll into 36 units, then betting your bankroll on a single
number at the roulette wheel will give a higher probability of reaching
the goal. Now, if you goal is "closer in" meaning that you want to
increase your bankroll by a smaller factor X, then the craps game will
become better if X is small enough. Craps will always be better for
doubling the bankroll, but roulette will always be better for growing by
large factors.

···

On Wednesday 01 October 2003 05:16 am, Harry Porter wrote: