BV:
Quad Zilla wrote (or so it would appear from his post):
BV:
Don't be so testy. This is supposed to be a friendly group. I can't
help it that I'm not as intelligent as you, so why don't you try
having a little bit of patience instead of acting like some damned
prima dona.
BV
Actually, the above sentence was written by me in reply to his post
which I thought was unjustifiably hostile, ... but quadzilla couldn't be
bothered with indicating such trivial stuff like _who_ wrote _what_;
yep, that's what makes all of his writing so damned clear. Despite
numerous pointers to him about this in the past, and from people besides
me as I recall, he's still just as dense, lazy, or inconsiderate in that
regard as ever.
QZ:
OK, I don't know what is up with my quoted text, but my reply is in this font.
Everything quoted is in this text.
Perhaps the website version loses the HTML. Is that the deal?
I thought the varuios comments were indented in a manner to make it clear.
However, I will admit that I did not review the outgoing text for this to make
sure that was the case. I am fully aware that some don't like my style of
replying after quoted text. However, it normally manages to work out well
enough.
QZ
Uh.... no. It is supposed to be a group to discuss video poker and
some other associated topics. Friendliness is at the discretion of
the author.
BV:
Now, _THAT_ was from _his_ reply. What a wonderful world he must live in.
Just because I said that this is supposed to be a _friendly_ group
doesn't imply, by _ANY_ stretch of the imagination, that I thought that
any sort of off-topic discussion is appropriate.
QZ:
VPFree has never been very strict about off topic posts. VPMail was, and
presumably still is a lot more strict. Even so, a discussion, even a
theoretical one, about gambling promotions is VERY on topic. The fact that you
don't know where this promotion can be used in conjunction with video poker does
not mean that it does not exist.
BV:
So for you to seem to
think that it was somehow necessary to qualify that with a stupid remark
like: "Uh.... no. It is supposed to be a group to discuss video poker
and some other associated topics" ... shows that you have more of a
problem understanding simple straightforward English than I might have
with your math comments.
QZ:
It simply gave a rough description of the general boundries. The point was to
emphasize the fact that friendliness is not in any way required.
I guess that's why you couldn't seem to
understand my previous statement that I would look at the math in your
post later, when I would have the time.
QZ:
I understood it fully. What I don't understand is why you posted BEFORE doing
so.
BV:
And its a bit ironic that you
would even mention 'on-topic' considering how, from a real practical
standpoint, your original post is about as relevant to the real world of
VP as the man in the moon --
QZ:
Now you are really losing credibility. First, VPFree encourages gaming
discussion in general. Second, the theory you find so irrelevant is what all
gambling is based on.
Third. I do know a specific example of a promotion where one can play video
poker with a 10% return on all losses, so the discussion is actually tied to the
real world.
BV:
and devoid of the least bit of real help.
For example, most of it is about coin-tossing and a fantasy roulette
wheel without zeros; if that helps you make your point, then so be it,
QZ:
Ok, now you are just being obtuse. These not real games are chosen for the
mathematical simplicity. Real world roulette has a house advantage that make
the math MUCH more difficult and yet in no way is necessary to convey the
general effects of multiple wagers.
Such analysis makes it easier to see what is going on without losing the
reader in a quagmire of decimal places and so forth.
BV:
but what exactly _IS_ your point? That after we've traveled all the way
to the casino to enjoy some VP, that we can maximize the ER of this
special promotion by always quitting as soon as we're ahead 25 betting
units?
QZ:
At that point in my analysis, I made it clear that I was making some
conjecture, but yes, that WAS the kind of point I was making. I was attempting
to provide a guideline for maximzing the EV when this promotion is applied to
video poker. Surely that is a point well worth making so that we can get a
feeling for the best way to handle this and to get a rough idea of our EV.
BV:
(And you even seem to be "guessing" at that, with no precise
numbers or explanations given to support your conclusions ... as if the
masses are supposed to just bow down to the great QUADZILLA, god of
VP).
QZ:
If I had passed these numbers off as fact, then your point would be valid.
However, I think I made it clear that I was making some educated guesses. I
also invited anyone to point our flaws in my analysis or expound upon it. In a
sense, that is what you did, but you did so without actually even knowing or
understanding what you were commenting on.
Then we have your ridiculous statement that "If you simply lose 22
hands in a row, you will have had an EV of roughly $3 on dollar JOB."
Not ridiculous. Your expected value for the promotion is going to be a
function of the number of hands played and the ER for each play. The example
was not intended to reflect a real life event. Losing 22 straight hands is way
far unlikely. However, it does provide a lowerr bound.
JoB-9/6 has a losing-hand rate of 54.543% per WinPoker; the likelihood
of losing 22 hands in a row is ... drum roll please ... 0.000161531
percent ... and WHOOPTIE-DOOOO ... a whole THREE DOLLARS. But you
continue: "I'd guess you should average at least 60 hands with an
average return somewhere around 3%. That is still only about a $9
overall EV." What, exactly, is that supposed to mean?
OK, I will spell it out. If you sit down to play 9/6 JOB and plan to play
until you are either ahead or behind a given number of units, let's say 20, you
will have some short sessions and some long ones. Although the math is a real
bitch, one could even determine the expected number of hands that it would take
to reach either goal. The general form of the equation is....
sum k = 20 to n for
p(20) * 20 + p(21)* 21 + p(22) * 22 + .... + p(n) * n
NOTE: n is infinty,
though clearly after a few thousand hands p(n)* n will be infintesimally close
to zero.
If you solve that equation you will get an average number of hands. I took a
guess that the vast majority of sessions would be at least 60 hands.
Giving us the
bottom-limit of 60 hands doesn't tell us 'diddly' because the average
number of hands in a session could be 100 or a 1000 or whatever, and
this against your basic premise that too many hands dilutes the value of
the promotion.
Right. However, the probability of going 1000 hands without being ahead or
behind 20 units is damn near zero. If we were to pursue the details, we could
come up with statements such as "95% of all seeions will be 60 hands or more"
and "95% of all sesions will be 200 hands or less" and so forth. In fact, we
can get a precise expected number of hands. If we were really bored, we could
probably even manage to determine the average expected value for the first hand,
the 2nd hand, the 3rd hand, etc and get a precise EV for the entire process. Of
course, I don't expect many people to actuall perform this analysis, since it is
a major pain in the ass.
Also, why don't you quite assuming that we're all
mind-readers and explain yourself; not all who might be interested can
easily follow such crystal clear writing (CLUE: if you are deliberately
writing this to just 3 or 4 geniuses in this group, why don't you try
direct email instead?).
The post was already getting longer than I had initially intended. So yes, I
did skip over some of the details. Had your post been something like "Hey QZ,
where did you come up with the numbers in such and such a statement", I would
have ansered in that friendly manner that you seem to value so highly.
And then you conclude your post, once you
_finally_ figured it all out as you wrote (not very reassuring),
If I was not sounding confident, then I put across exactly the intended
meaning. By this point I had done a lot of guessing.
with
what? ... some exact 'pearls of wisdom' about VP? No; it's about craps
and single-zero roulette, which isn't on-topic with VP!! Now let me add
some insight of my own about your approach: if the average player
(playing dollar or less machines) starts _playing_ an average of only 60
hands a session, or 160, or even 560 hands a session and then stopping
just so they can take advantage of this offer, what do you think will
happen to their bounce-back and other comps?
Another issue altogether. Obviously one would need to factor those issues in.
Some casions focus more or less entirely on overall coin in. It should also be
noted that part of my whole point was to show that this promotion does not offer
much in the way of a good opportunity for a VP player. That is hardly useless
info, since it implies that you may be better off looking for juicier targets.
Of course, if you re-read the whole discussion, it should also be apparent that
this promotion could be VERY good when used in conjunction with other casino
games, such as roulette.
As for your next sentence in your most recent post: "Friendliness is at
the discretion of the author", I guess that about sums up the sort of
person you are. I'm not expecting folks to send me a birthday card, but
when I am civil in my posts, I expect people to reciprocate with some
civility as well. It's what some folks call "CLASS" ... and you
obviously have very little.
I think our words speak for themselves on this one.
There are plenty of folks here in this
group who are both helpful AND pleasant, so I sure don't need to waste
my time with a jackass like you.
You are so kind to continue to make my point for me.
And by the way, you're not as clear in
your writing as you think (see above example), ... and I'm not all that
stupid, either (and I have the credentials to prove it).
I don't need credentials. My words and analysis do just fine.
PLONK!
Velek
QZ
ยทยทยท
From: "Quad Zilla" <quadzilla666@earthlink.net>
To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:08 am
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Digest Number 1394