vpFREE2 Forums

Slightly negative vs. REALLY bad paytables (was There's a reason...)

#1

a few hundred? how do you come up with that figure?

"Slightly negative" plays would be JOB with .25-.33% cash back, NSUD ,
Pick'em, 2pr JW or similar. If I play $5-$10K/day, playing during weekend or
long weekend vacations 3 or 4 times a year, I'd expect losses in the realm
of a few hundred after a few years. Of course it'd sometimes be higher or
lower, but over a lifetime, that's what I'd expect it to average out to.

For instance, my current casino of choice is the Las Vegas Hilton, where
I'll next be heading over Christmas holiday. I know there are positive plays
there. But my friend is new to video poker, only understands Jacks or
Better, & doesn't want to learn anything more complicated. So for the sake
of playing along with him & coaching him in the process, maybe I'll play
quarter JOB with him, at -- horrors -- 99.8+% return after cashback plus
free room etc. The risk to my financial well-being from playing this
slightly negative game isn't enough to concern me.

so you're saying you have so much money you don't even bother to keep
track of it all?

No, I keep track of it perfectly well, thank you. That's why I know that
these "slightly negative" plays, at my level of gambling, will over time
lead to insignificant losses, relative to my overall budget.

Stuart (RandomStu)

#2

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

> a few hundred? how do you come up with that figure?
"Slightly negative" plays would be JOB with .25-.33% cash back,

NSUD ,

Pick'em, 2pr JW or similar. If I play $5-$10K/day, playing during

weekend or

long weekend vacations 3 or 4 times a year, I'd expect losses in the

realm

of a few hundred after a few years. Of course it'd sometimes be

higher or

lower, but over a lifetime, that's what I'd expect it to average

out to.

ok, i'm following you, 9/6job+.33%cb, so that's about -0.1%, if we go
with the high end of $20K/trip and 4 trips/year, that's $80k/year, and
the average yearly loss would be $80, and the hands/year would be
$80k/$1.25 (assuming 5 coin quarters) =64k.

are you prepared for the bad news?

you could hit a royal drought ...

on average royals and their $1000 payoff are due every 40,391 hands
what are the chances of not getting a royal in 40,391 hands?
well, it will probably surprise you but the chances of a one cycle
royal drought are 37%

miss that royal that on average you are due, and you are down $1000

in fact, you could experience a three royal drought (no royals in
121,173 hands), the chances of that are 5%, and now you are down
$3,000

you could go 5 cycles and get 2 royals or less, chances of that are
about 13% (result net down at least $3,000)

you could go 10 cycles and get 7 royals or less, chances of that are
about 22% (result net down at least $3,000)

you could go 25 cycles and get 22 royals or less, chances of that are
about 32% (result net down at least $3,000)

see the problem?

with an even or near even game you are exposing yourself to rather
costly losing streaks (considering it's just a quarter game) and
probably at some point you will quit and swear off the game at least
for a while, what's technically called hitting your bankroll limit
("bankroll" is the amount of losing streak that will cause you to quit
for a substantial time period, it's not the roll in your pants right
now, it's not the roll you take for a trip, and hopefully it's not all
of your savings or even worse all the money you can possibly get your
hands on)

how bad can these losing streaks get?
consider 9/6job+.5%cb, use:
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
with 50% risk of ruin the bankroll is 15,254 bets ($19,068 on
quarters)
in english that means you have 50/50 chances of experiencing an
ongoing royal drought (you'll get royals but not as many as you should
on average) that will end up costing you a running net loss of a
staggering $19,068! (a little over 19 royals)
of course you would probably quit well before then
let's say, you decide you will quit if your running net loss hits
$4,000 which is 3200 bets, so put in 3200 bets as your bankroll, and
your chances of losing that much (ror=risk of ruin) are 86%
now, this disaster won't happen in one trip or even one year, you're
only playing about 1.5 royal cycles per year so you're unlikely to do
much worse than drop 1.5 royals ($1,500) (in this particular game
where only the royal has a long cycle) per year, but over the years
your losses could build up to this level

#3

one more point:

let's say, for example, that you are willing to play perfect 9/6 job
but you insist that cashback be such that at most you are taking a 10%
risk of losing 3 royals (2400 bets) on a sustained multiyear losing
streak

how much cashback would you need to meet that requirement?

using:
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
i get 1.25% cashback

it's a very powerful little tool, one that could save you lots of
money over the coming years, feel free to play with it as you like

now you don't have to feel guilty for playing positive games, if that
should bother you, because what you are really doing is reducing the
chances that the casino will wipe you out (they have unfair advantages
over you because they own all the machines and thus get results closer
to average and they can sustain much greater losses (they have a much
bigger bankroll))

#4

<< ...

you could go 25 cycles and get 22 royals or less,
chances of that are about 32% (result net down at
least $3,000)see the problem? ...

I know this will not resonate with you, but there are lots of people
that wouldn't lose much sleep if they lost a few thou over a couple
of years. It's still less than the cost of many vacations.

While I think your intent is good, I'm not sure you hearing all the
replys. Your fervent tone is a little off-putting, since it implies
we recreational playes are too dumb to see what we're doing.
Sometimes it's hard see someone else's perspective, I'm stuggling to
see your's. I'm unclear if are gifted with numbers but hate VP or
are trying to save me from myself. Either way maybe it's time for
this tread to move to the non-monitored group as I'm not sure
there's anything else to say.

#5

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

are you prepared for the bad news?
you could hit a royal drought ...

Fair point iggy, and by far of much greater consequence than the theo
drain from any particular near breakeven play.

As far as the excerpted text below, it might be best to step away from
the theo discussion and just stick with the simple reality that in
playing a near breakeven game you accept a considerable downside risk
due to cumulative royal deficits (without the cushion that positive
play builds).

Your 50% risk of a loss of at least $19K on quarter jacks w/ .5% cb is
a little spurious. Keep in mind that ROR isn't a lifetime concept,
it's beyond the grave (i.e. infinity).

On a decently positive game, it's an important concept because if your
losses are going to overwhelm the positive cushion of that play it's
likely that it will occur early on, before you've had a chance to
build an appreciable cushion. (As you build that cushion, your ROR
falls off considerably - but keep in mind that the original ROR calc
assumes that you don't siphon off those gains in smug confidence.)

But on a thinly positive play any measured ROR is going to reflect
something much farther out on the curve, likely beyond the career of
many casual players.

You speak of a 19 royal drought in your calculation. Well, if a 3
royal drought over 25 cycles has only a 32% probability (your #'s) I
would imagine that the number of cycles over which a cumulative 19
royal drought has a 50% probability might well be over 200 cycles.
For the 1.5 cycle a year player that you cite that's about 133 years
of play. I'm sure you'll bless us with the actual numbers, but if
you're going to get real, factor in the .05%+ error cost that I expect
99% of such players incur due to distraction, fatigue, etc. The game
turns thinly negative now and under any assumed ROR the game
calculates as a bottomless pit (if played to infinity).

The point to be stated is the simple one you start with. On a near
breakeven play there's little comfort to be drawn from the return.
You should expect that a sustained royal drought may ultimately
inflict quite a bit of pain (and the more active your play the more
probable this is).

But, in truth, I might save my breath (or fingers). Worldbefree has
summed up the situation quite nicely in his reply.

- H.

···

how bad can these losing streaks get?
consider 9/6job+.5%cb, use:
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
with 50% risk of ruin the bankroll is 15,254 bets ($19,068 on
quarters)
in english that means you have 50/50 chances of experiencing an
ongoing royal drought (you'll get royals but not as many as you
should on average) that will end up costing you a running net loss
of a staggering $19,068! (a little over 19 royals)
of course you would probably quit well before then
let's say, you decide you will quit if your running net loss hits
$4,000 which is 3200 bets, so put in 3200 bets as your bankroll, and
your chances of losing that much (ror=risk of ruin) are 86%
now, this disaster won't happen in one trip or even one year, you're
only playing about 1.5 royal cycles per year so you're unlikely to
do much worse than drop 1.5 royals ($1,500) (in this particular game
where only the royal has a long cycle) per year, but over the years
your losses could build up to this level.

#6

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

you could hit a royal drought ...

Or, you could hit a royal glut...

Probabilities work both ways. How many times have we read of (or even
experienced ourselves) several royals in a day, or a week, or a month?

My wife and I were in LV last week and were lucky enought to have 3 Royals
and 4 sets of deuces. Against the probabilities? You bet your sweet bippie!
But, it does happen!

.....bl

#7

Iggy,

I'm wondering what your point is. Are you encouraging people to gamble within their
means? Not gamble at all? Gamble more to attempt to reach EV? Only gamble at positive
plays?

If it's the last one (and I thought that was what this thread was about), can you run the
royal drought numbers with FPDW or some other game? Am I really that better off if I hit
the same royal drought on a positive game?

Thanks,

Brian

···

you could hit a royal drought ...

on average royals and their $1000 payoff are due every 40,391 hands
what are the chances of not getting a royal in 40,391 hands?
well, it will probably surprise you but the chances of a one cycle
royal drought are 37%

miss that royal that on average you are due, and you are down $1000

in fact, you could experience a three royal drought (no royals in
121,173 hands), the chances of that are 5%, and now you are down
$3,000

you could go 5 cycles and get 2 royals or less, chances of that are
about 13% (result net down at least $3,000)

you could go 10 cycles and get 7 royals or less, chances of that are
about 22% (result net down at least $3,000)

you could go 25 cycles and get 22 royals or less, chances of that are
about 32% (result net down at least $3,000)

#8

If it's the last one (and I thought that was what this thread was

about), can you run the

royal drought numbers with FPDW or some other game? Am I really

that better off if I hit

the same royal drought on a positive game?

ok, example #2:
let's say, for example, that you are willing to play perfect full pay
deuces wild but you insist that cashback be such that at most you are
taking a 10% risk of losing 3 royals (2400 bets) on a sustained
multiyear losing streak

how much cashback would you need to meet that requirement?

using:
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
i get 0.29% cashback

example #3:
let's say, for example, that you are willing to play perfect nsu
deuces wild (16/10/4/4/3/2/1) but you insist that cashback be such
that at most you are taking a 10% risk of losing 3 royals (2400 bets)
on a sustained multiyear losing streak

how much cashback would you need to meet that requirement?

using:
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
i get 1.33% cashback

example #4:
let's say, for example, that you are willing to play perfect short pay
deuces wild (15/9/4/4/3/2/1) but you insist that cashback be such that
at most you are taking a 10% risk of losing 3 royals (2400 bets) on a
sustained multiyear losing streak

how much cashback would you need to meet that requirement?

using:
http://www.gamblingtools.net/vp/vpanalyzer.html
i get 2.15% cashback

note: 10% risk of losing 3 royals is not set in stone, feel free to
vary those numbers to your liking: 1% risk of losing 5 royals, 25%
risk of losing 2 royals, whatever ...

···

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

#9

just in case, i probably should answer this question directly:

let's look at a 5 royal drought:

5 royal cycles at deuces = 45282x5= 226,410 hands

full pay deuces wild return without royal=
1.007619624-0.017667091=0.989952533
nsu deuces (16/10/4) return without royal=
0.997283-0.0184=0.978883

5 royal cycles without royal on full pay deuces at quarters=
(0.989952533-1)x 226410x $1.25= -$2,844

5 royal cycles without royal on nsu deuces at quarters=
(0.978883-1)x 226410x $1.25= -$5,976

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bjorelli" <bjorelli@y...> wrote:
> If it's the last one (and I thought that was what this thread was
about), can you run the
> royal drought numbers with FPDW or some other game? Am I really
that better off if I hit
> the same royal drought on a positive game?

#10

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

ok, i'm following you, 9/6job+.33%cb, so that's about -0.1%, if we

go

with the high end of $20K/trip and 4 trips/year, that's $80k/year,

and

the average yearly loss would be $80, and the hands/year would be
$80k/$1.25 (assuming 5 coin quarters) =64k.

are you prepared for the bad news?

you could hit a royal drought ...

on average royals and their $1000 payoff are due every 40,391 hands
what are the chances of not getting a royal in 40,391 hands?
well, it will probably surprise you but the chances of a one cycle
royal drought are 37%

miss that royal that on average you are due, and you are down $1000

in fact, you could experience a three royal drought (no royals in
121,173 hands), the chances of that are 5%, and now you are down
$3,000

OK, let's assume we are that unlucky 5%. It has to be someone. We
have played 121,173 hands with about $151,466.00 coin in and in 12 to
18 months have lost $3K --An expense of $750 per vacation. We have
gotten free or discounted (depending where you like to stay) for 4
separate vacations. Assign a value to that if you wish. We have
received food (how much will depend on where you gamble)and drinks.
Again, assign a value to it if you wish. We have had days of fun at
a hobby we enjoy. I'm not sure if you can quantify fun, but if
anyone can it might be you. Assign a value if you wish;-)Bottom
line, your worst case ain't that bad for the typical tourist, most of
whom have no shot of achieving positive expectation after travel
expenses are deducted. They start out in the hole because they are
willing to pay for the privilege of a vacation in Las Vegas and comps
that mitigate those expenses can be valuable to many tourists.

Not that the above should dissuade anyone from trying to achieve
better that a 99.9% ER, but for many 99.9 is just fine.

#11

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

You bet your sweet bippie!

I bet my sweet bippie last time I was in LV, but I only drew 3 to the
Royal.