vpFREE2 Forums

Short Term vs Long Term

#1

I play $1.00, 100 way video poker at Wynn to which my wife and I
travel about four times per year for about 4 night stretches.
Without going into detail lets just say I am RFB so while I'm there
in total I bet a lot in a rather short period of time. Because of
the game I play, even with accruals, I probably avarage no more than
300 max hands of 100 way per hour. I not only never reach the long
run for dealt different dealt hands in a day or a year or likely a
lifetime. Even so I have read most everything printed by Bob Dancer
or any other writer on Video Poker. Two things make me write this
note. 1. Yesterday I read the continuing diatribe between Ron
Singer and the rest of the Video Poker Fraternity. I have found all
the discussions detrimental to our vdeo poker
hobby/profession/addiction or however you choose to describe what we
do. 2. Today I read an article in the London Financial Times by
Pablo Triana entitled "The 'Black Swan' Effect - Product Salesmen
Beware". For those unfamiliar with Naseem Nick Taleb,s book "The
Black Swan Theory" it is about events which have assigned
probabilities near zero, but when they do occur cause extreme
happiness or pain. This was the best selling book in the non
fiction category last year. It was likely more popular because of
problems with today's sub prime mortgage and other financial
derivatives which have resulted in 10s of $B in losses for the
Merrill Lynches and Citigroups this past year and may/has trigger a
recession in the US now.

The Financial times article suggests that Black Swans more often than
generally assumed where events that are assigned probabilities of 1
in a million years make a semi regular appearance every half decade
or so. The article goes on to say that Mr. Taleb's comments are not
well received in financial circles. He strikes at the foundation of
financial economics and the essential building blocks. By acting
as "Probablistic Cop" Mr. Taleb could force professionals to be more
honest with others and themselves.

Now you say what does this have to do with Singer and Video Poker. I
do know optimal play and most of the time I play it but I don't play
enough unique hands to be get to the long run. Sort run thinking
helps me decide how much risk/reward chance I want to take (J or B
vs. DDB) etc. as you don't get a perfect bell shaped curves in the
short runs. In fact you could get more positive or negative tails in
the short run than the long run suggests. Its happened to me. I have
had six figure $ trips in both directions in my very short
(mathematically) poker playing career.

I suggest we all think of some of the Singer philosophy as short term
only. Strange things do happen in the short run even though in the
long run all the pros and optimal theorists are mathematically
correct. Perhaps the amount of bitterness between the groups can die
down a bit and we can interest more new players so more pressure can
be exerted on the Casinos to have fair paytables for both the
Business and the Players. Denny Florence

#2

I don't think anyone has a problem with Singer's attitude about playing
for the "short" term. Who cares. It is when he says ALL players will
lose in the "long" term playing expert strategy that gives most of us
problems. Well, that and few personality traits.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:

I suggest we all think of some of the Singer philosophy as short term
only. Strange things do happen in the short run even though in the
long run all the pros and optimal theorists are mathematically
correct. Perhaps the amount of bitterness between the groups can die
down a bit and we can interest more new players so more pressure can
be exerted on the Casinos to have fair paytables for both the
Business and the Players. Denny Florence

#3

Maybe. If we count all hands, not just the
bottom hand and assume 4 hrs play/day:

300/hr * 100/hand * 4 hrs/day * 4 days/trip = 480,000
hands/trip * 4/trips a year = 1.9 MM hands/year.

Lot's O hands and depending on your game, nearly
50 royal cycles. You may just sit on a black
swan at Wynn on your next trip.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:

I play $1.00, 100 way video poker at Wynn to which my wife and I
travel about four times per year for about 4 night stretches.
Without going into detail lets just say I am RFB so while I'm there
in total I bet a lot in a rather short period of time. Because of
the game I play, even with accruals, I probably avarage no more than
300 max hands of 100 way per hour. I not only never reach the long
run for dealt different dealt hands in a day or a year or likely a
lifetime.

#4

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@...>
wrote:

>
> I play $1.00, 100 way video poker at Wynn to which my wife and I
> travel about four times per year for about 4 night stretches.
> Without going into detail lets just say I am RFB so while I'm

there

> in total I bet a lot in a rather short period of time. Because

of

> the game I play, even with accruals, I probably avarage no more

than

> 300 max hands of 100 way per hour. I not only never reach the

long

> run for dealt different dealt hands in a day or a year or likely

a

> lifetime.

Maybe. If we count all hands, not just the
bottom hand and assume 4 hrs play/day:

300/hr * 100/hand * 4 hrs/day * 4 days/trip = 480,000
hands/trip * 4/trips a year = 1.9 MM hands/year.

To be fair, that's a big maybe. Anyone who has played 100 play
realizes that results are tied very closely to how good the deals
are. With only 4800 dealt hands per trip it would not be too
difficult to see no RF4s or dealt 4oaks. If you happen to be a little
low on dealt 3oaks, FHs and/or FLs then it could be quite bad. It
might take several years for this to even out at only 4 trips/year.

Of course, no one is forced to play 100-play. The higher variance of
multi-play is well documented. There are no surprises here.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@> wrote:

#5

Just a friendly reminder that if you find a game and paytable you like
on a 100 play machine you are not obligated to play all 100 hands.
Simply DO NOT press the MAX PLAY button and instead follow the sequence
of pushing buttons that allow you to play fewer hands at 5 coins per
hand. Until recently Caesars had full-pay games on one of its 50 Plays.

···

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

Of course, no one is forced to play 100-play. The higher variance of
multi-play is well documented. There are no surprises here.

Dick

#6

npf152512 wrote:

Just a friendly reminder that if you find a game and paytable you like
on a 100 play machine you are not obligated to play all 100 hands.
Simply DO NOT press the MAX PLAY button and instead follow the
sequence of pushing buttons that allow you to play fewer hands at 5
coins per hand. Until recently Caesars had full-pay games on one of
its 50 Plays.

Additional friendly advisory: Playing just one or two hands on a
50-play or 100-play for an extended period of time may be hazardous to
your health. (Or, perhaps, to your car's tires.)

- H.

#7

I guess the big attraction in the short term on those big multiplays
is the chance of getting a dealt royal? The odds are 649,739 to 1
against and the payoff is 800 for 1. That's between an 8 and a 9 spot
in Keno, but usually in Keno the payoff is much more. On an average
IGT Keno game (7000-422-22-2-1, 95% return) it's 7000 for 1 on a 7
spot. The hold on 9/6 Jacks, assuming perfect play (which is a big if,
most mortal, non-Bob Dancer people have some non-trivial error rate
due to lighting, fatigue, boredom, cocktail waitress distraction,
wife's dope slap, etc.), is a half a percent, so on average you're
looking to be down 649,740 x $500 x 0.5% = $1,624,350, that's
including the $400,000 dealt royal, so, on average you expect to lose
a little over 2 million before you hit the big one for $400,000. Plan
on leaving a big fat tip for that "lucky win"? Might want to check
with the wife first.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@...> wrote:

I play $1.00, 100 way video poker at Wynn to which my wife and I
travel about four times per year for about 4 night stretches.

#8

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@...>
wrote:

>
> I play $1.00, 100 way video poker at Wynn to which my wife and I
> travel about four times per year for about 4 night stretches.
> Without going into detail lets just say I am RFB so while I'm

there

> in total I bet a lot in a rather short period of time. Because

of

> the game I play, even with accruals, I probably avarage no more

than

> 300 max hands of 100 way per hour. I not only never reach the

long

> run for dealt different dealt hands in a day or a year or likely

a

> lifetime.

Maybe. If we count all hands, not just the
bottom hand and assume 4 hrs play/day:

300/hr * 100/hand * 4 hrs/day * 4 days/trip = 480,000
hands/trip * 4/trips a year = 1.9 MM hands/year.

Lot's O hands and depending on your game, nearly
50 royal cycles. You may just sit on a black
swan at Wynn on your next trip.

Worldbefree: In the 100 way game with the deal so important, you
really can't count all the hands. Its a matter of being dealt 4 to a
royal, three of a kind, or straights, flushes or full houses that
counts. The rest is relatively trivial. Love to be dealt a Royal
like Jean's husband but the odds are 485,000 or so to one. Denny

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@> wrote:

#9

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@>
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@>

wrote:

> >
> > I play $1.00, 100 way video poker at Wynn to which my wife and

I

> > travel about four times per year for about 4 night stretches.
> > Without going into detail lets just say I am RFB so while I'm
there
> > in total I bet a lot in a rather short period of time.

Because

of
> > the game I play, even with accruals, I probably avarage no more
than
> > 300 max hands of 100 way per hour. I not only never reach the
long
> > run for dealt different dealt hands in a day or a year or

likely

a
> > lifetime.
>
> Maybe. If we count all hands, not just the
> bottom hand and assume 4 hrs play/day:
>
> 300/hr * 100/hand * 4 hrs/day * 4 days/trip = 480,000
> hands/trip * 4/trips a year = 1.9 MM hands/year.

To be fair, that's a big maybe. Anyone who has played 100 play
realizes that results are tied very closely to how good the deals
are. With only 4800 dealt hands per trip it would not be too
difficult to see no RF4s or dealt 4oaks. If you happen to be a

little

low on dealt 3oaks, FHs and/or FLs then it could be quite bad. It
might take several years for this to even out at only 4 trips/year.

Of course, no one is forced to play 100-play. The higher variance

of

multi-play is well documented. There are no surprises here.

Dick

Dick: I agree with you . Denny

···

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

#10

>
>
> Of course, no one is forced to play 100-play. The higher variance

of

> multi-play is well documented. There are no surprises here.
>
> Dick

Just a friendly reminder that if you find a game and paytable you

like

on a 100 play machine you are not obligated to play all 100 hands.
Simply DO NOT press the MAX PLAY button and instead follow the

sequence

of pushing buttons that allow you to play fewer hands at 5 coins

per

hand. Until recently Caesars had full-pay games on one of its 50

Plays.

Again correct. I love to win, but I admit I do most things to an
extreme which tends to make me become more aggressive than I sometime
should at Video Poker. My investments are handled similarly. If I
told you I was an arbitrageur of Spanish Civil War collectable
stamps, which I have been more many more years than I care to count,
you can see that my VP play style falls in the same category as my
investments. Denny

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "npf152512" <npf152512@...> wrote:

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

#11

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

> I play $1.00, 100 way video poker at Wynn to which my wife and I
> travel about four times per year for about 4 night stretches.

I guess the big attraction in the short term on those big multiplays
is the chance of getting a dealt royal? The odds are 649,739 to 1
against and the payoff is 800 for 1. That's between an 8 and a 9

spot

in Keno, but usually in Keno the payoff is much more. On an average
IGT Keno game (7000-422-22-2-1, 95% return) it's 7000 for 1 on a 7
spot. The hold on 9/6 Jacks, assuming perfect play (which is a big

if,

most mortal, non-Bob Dancer people have some non-trivial error rate
due to lighting, fatigue, boredom, cocktail waitress distraction,
wife's dope slap, etc.), is a half a percent, so on average you're
looking to be down 649,740 x $500 x 0.5% = $1,624,350, that's
including the $400,000 dealt royal, so, on average you expect to

lose

a little over 2 million before you hit the big one for $400,000.

Plan

on leaving a big fat tip for that "lucky win"? Might want to check
with the wife first.

night of the iguana: Once again even the extreme case of a dealt
Royal in the short run can happen somewhere between right now and
never. Thats the Black Swan. I don't expect it to happen in the
rest of my lifetime, but it could. Denny

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@> wrote:

#12

Additional friendly advisory: Playing just one or two hands on a
50-play or 100-play for an extended period of time may be hazardous

to

your health. (Or, perhaps, to your car's tires.)

- H.

====I second that, Harry!!!! It's so frustrating waiting to play one
of only 2 or 3 hundred play mchines for $25 to $125 a hand when some
homeless guys are sitting there playing one hand at one penny a hand,
and collecting free drinks all night just so they won't have to sleep
on the sidewalk. Grrrrr....

···

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

#13

I believe that it is well-documented that multi-play has a lower variance. It certainly has to
be recognized though, that you have to run your statistics for the same "cost per pull".

..... bl

···

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

The higher variance of
multi-play is well documented.

Dick

#14

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

>
> The higher variance of
> multi-play is well documented.
>
> Dick

I believe that it is well-documented that multi-play has a lower

variance. It certainly has to

be recognized though, that you have to run your statistics for the

same "cost per pull".

..... bl

Yes, it does depend on what you are comparing. This has also been
covered many time before. Multi-line has a greater variance than
single liine where each line is the same DEMONINATION.

Dick

···

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

#15

I agree completely. I just wanted to make sure that the circumstances are always well
defined.

Multi-line at the same cost per pull has a lower variance.
Multi-line at the same denomination has a higher variance.

Thanks!

..... bl

···

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

Yes, it does depend on what you are comparing. This has also been
covered many time before. Multi-line has a greater variance than
single liine where each line is the same DEMONINATION.

Dick

#16

Why does the variance changes in multi-line, depending on the
denomination per line?

Or, to put it another way....

Why is the variance different if I play 5 cent 100-line vs.
$1 5-line vs. $5 1-line? Either way, it's $25 per pull.

Or, maybe, I misunderstood?

···

On 1/15/08, bornloser1537 <bornloser1537@yahoo.com> wrote:

I agree completely. I just wanted to make sure that the circumstances are
always well
defined.

Multi-line at the same cost per pull has a lower variance.
Multi-line at the same denomination has a higher variance.

Thanks!

..... bl

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

#17

You need to understand the concept of covariance. Because so many
hands share the same deal and only the draw is separate, it
increases total variance vs a game where every deal and draw is a
separate event. A single play FPJB game has a variance of a bit
over 19, as I recall. The same game in hundred play has a variance
of something like 214. See the Jazbo or Wizard of Odds links to N
Play discussions.

Chandler

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:

Why does the variance changes in multi-line, depending on the
denomination per line?

Or, to put it another way....

Why is the variance different if I play 5 cent 100-line vs.
$1 5-line vs. $5 1-line? Either way, it's $25 per pull.

Or, maybe, I misunderstood?

#18

It's a bit simpler than that. For the moment just ignore the covariance-- it just
complicates the main issue.

Indeed if the covariance was zero (that is we are ignoring it), the variance would decrease
like 1/N [and the standard deviation 1/sqrt(N) ] where N is the number of hands played
in total. Total means total and means we can understand the fundamentals of the concept
not worrying about the difference between deals and draw..

So, if V is the variance for 1 hand, we would have the variance for N hands = V/N . Take
V = 49. and N = 100. Variance for 100 hands would be 0.49 = 49/100, and standard
deviation would be 0.7 = 7/10 = sqrt(49/100) . This so called "1 over square root of N"
behavior for the standard deviation is the hallmark of all uncorrelated random events. It's
so famous many people confuse it for the central limit theorem.

Now, we know Video Poker Deals are uncorrelated random events. But what about the
draws?

Well, The draws are correlated-- which means the covariance is not 0. Now, there's this
funny law out there that says if the random event is correlated its variance goes down
slower than 1/N. The more the events (the draws) are correlated-- the slower the
variance goes down. The less correlated they are, the faster the variance decrease-- but
never faster than 1/N. Nice and simple (well we ignored a couple of fine points)

So, due the fact the draws are correlated, we know that the variance of multi play goes
down slower than 1/N -- but it goes down. How much slower (on average)? For that you
need the covariance. But you don't need the covariance to understand that the variance
goes down with increased number of hands.

Play a game: Grab some dice (you can do this with 1 die, but its a pain). Roll I die over
and over again recording the results. Compute the mean and variance of those results.

Now, take a few dice and roll them as a group the same number of time you did for the
single die. Record the average results for each "roll" (the sum of all the dice divided by the
number of dice). Now compute the mean and variance of this set of number. Viola-- you
should have proven the 1/N behavior (or close to it) , where N is the number of dice.

Notice that I said average the results. That's because I wanted the answer to come out
correctly-- in the same units as the 1-die question so I could compare things. If I added
the results from the individual die-- perhaps I would find something different for the
overall variance (but I wouldn't be comparing the same thing). This situation is akin to the
issue raised by others about normalizing the vp results for a constant bet amount -- or
not. I leave working out this case to the interested reader (if there are any)

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cmayhem2001" <chandler_re@...> wrote:

You need to understand the concept of covariance. Because so many
hands share the same deal and only the draw is separate, it
increases total variance vs a game where every deal and draw is a
separate event. A single play FPJB game has a variance of a bit
over 19, as I recall. The same game in hundred play has a variance
of something like 214. See the Jazbo or Wizard of Odds links to N
Play discussions.

Chandler

#19

The topic of variance as it applies to multiline play has been rather
comprehensively covered in this thread at this point. Still, I'd like
to offer a "common sense" perspective from which to grasp the concept,
just to make it a little more concrete.

···

------

Think of variance as a measure of play streakiness, i.e. the extremes
to which the peaks and valleys of play might run. Consider play of
$.25 Jacks in two guises, single line play and 4-play. Look at the
expected streakiness of play, one vs. the other.

For any given total $ in total wagers, you have 4x more single line
plays than multiline plays. Each individual single line play is
independent of the next. That independence distributes results fairly
widely and swings tend to be moderate. On the other hand, in 4 play,
each set of 4 individual hands that are completed are all related by a
common deal. If that deal should be particularly strong, then the
resulting completed hands tend to be high paying. Conversely, if the
deal is quite weak, the completed hands will likely be weak as well.

The consequence of 4-play is that return is concentrated in a
considerably fewer number of deals and, due to the relationship
between completed hands from those deal and the initial deals, there's
a much stronger potential for overall play to run negatively or
positively. Simply put, there's a smaller opportunity for results to
even out over the course of play vs. single line play with 4 times the
deals.

This naturally translates to a higher variance for 4-play vs. single
play at the same denomination. Statistically, covariance is the
measure of the variance that is directly related to the added
dimension of multiple hands being derived from a common deal in
multiplay and is additive to single line variance in determining
overall multiplay variance.

-------

There's another dimension when it comes to considering multiplay
variance -- the relative variance when comparing single line play and
multiline play where the wager per play is a constant. An example is
$1 single line play and $.25 4-play (total wager $5 in each case).

In this instance, the $5 wager in single play yields a single outcome
that determines the payout from the play. In $5 4-play wager has an
outcome that is spread over 4 separate drawn hands. The consequence
is that the 4-play wager has a smaller variance than single play; the
risk is dispersed.

------

Depending upon the context in which multiplay variance is considered,
it may be higher or lower than single line play (as was summarized
elsewhere in this thread).

- Harry

#20

For non-math people who are still reading this thread, here is my
explanation. You will get to the long term faster by playing multi-line so
you won't need quite as large a lifetime bankroll as for the same coin-in on
a single line, but you will definitely go deeper into your SESSIONS
bankroll.

···

________________
Jean $�ott
The much-expanded new edition of my tax book,
including a new chapter on poker, is now available
to order at my Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.