vpFREE2 Forums

The Curse is OVER! -- first RF since July 22, 2007

#1

400,000 Hands!!! And you still have money to play? I play dollars, strictly 9/6 Jacks and know the game upside down. I'm at 45,000 hands and down $4800 at the moment. That's a return of 78.67%. If I go 100,000 hands without a Royal, I'll quit and take up a less expensive hobby.

I was beginning to wonder if it would ever happen! Since July >2007 I had played close to 500 hours and about 400,000 hands >of video poker without a royal. Not much play in 2 years >compared to some, but enough that you'd expect to see about >8 royals.

Now that I've proven the left tail of the curve exists I'm looking >forward to a little experimentation in the right tail -- maybe 16 >royals in the next 400000 hands? :slight_smile:

Mac
www.CasinoCamper.com

IfI IU go

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

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mac McClellan" <mac_mcclellan@hotmail.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:49:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [vpFREE] The Curse is OVER! -- first RF since July 22, 2007

#2

2008 was the worst. I was down $5165 playing a combination of Quarter, Half and Dollars. $1040 of that loss was on one machine; chasing a big progressive on a half dollar (10 coin quarter) 9/6 JOB. Aces and RF were progressive and RF had run up to nearly double. I actually hit the aces once and still managed to lose $1040.

This year I'm playing mostly FPDW at the quarter level along with occasional (unsuccessful) runs for progressives and some play for positive promotions on sub 100% machines.

Mac

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, a-1insp@... wrote:

400,000 Hands!!! And you still have money to play? I play dollars, strictly 9/6 Jacks and know the game upside down. I'm at 45,000 hands and down $4800 at the moment. That's a return of 78.67%. If I go 100,000 hands without a Royal, I'll quit and take up a less expensive hobby.

#3

By "play dollars", I assume you mean 5 coin dollars, which is really $5 per bet. 45,000 hands would be $225,000 in coin-in. A loss of $4800 would be a -2.13% loss. I'll assume you have not hit a royal yet. Perfect 9/6 Jacks without the royal is ER= -2.4% and Variance = 3.7 . At 45,000 hands, the Standard Deviation without the royal is sqrt(variance x 45,000) = 408. 408 is 0.91% of 45,000 . Your results, -2.13%, are slightly above average for 45,000 hands without a royal. If you keep around this level, the implication is that your base game is correct, that you "know the game upside down". If you go 5 cycles without a royal (201,953 hands, 0.67% likely), I would think it's time to consider the possibility that the machines you are playing are not completely on the square. 100,000 hands without a royal is also a reasonable limit, imho, the odds of that happening with a fair deal are about 8.4% . There is no magic number of hands, you have to set the limit you are confortable with. Getting royals is almost completely a matter of luck.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, a-1insp@... wrote:

I play dollars, strictly 9/6 Jacks and know the game upside down.  I'm at 45,000 hands and down $4800 at the moment.  That's a return of 78.67%.  If I go 100,000 hands without a Royal, I'll quit and take up a less expensive hobby.Â

#4

Thanks for the explanation (what I understand of it.) My math leaves a lot to be desired. My return was off by one decimal point to the right. ( I got a "D" in high school Algebra and flunked Geometry. The teacher was a math genius but just couldn't teach it.)
So my return has been -2.13% or 97.87% which leaves me with a loss of $2.13 per hundred $ 's played. I believe your saying that perfect jacks, without the royal returns 97.14%. That puts me above average by .73%. Could you explain where and how the rest of the math is figured (The variance, the standard deviation and what .91% of 45.000 denotes?)
Also, thank you for the compliment on my play. I work very hard at it and thanks for all the help..

--- In vpFREE @ yahoogroups .com , a-1insp@... wrote:

I play dollars, strictly 9/6 Jacks and know the game upside down.  I'm at 45,000 hands and down $4800 at the moment.  That's a return of 78.67%.  If I go 100,000 hands without a Royal, I'll quit and take up a less expensive hobby.Â

By "play dollars", I assume you mean 5 coin dollars, which is really $5 per bet. 45,000 hands would be $225,000 in coin-in. A loss of $4800 would be a -2.13% loss. I'll assume you have not hit a royal yet. Perfect 9/6 Jacks without the royal is ER= -2.4% and Variance = 3.7 . At 45,000 hands, the Standard Deviation without the royal is sqrt (variance x 45,000) = 408. 408 is 0.91% of 45,000 . Your results, -2.13%, are slightly above average for 45,000 hands without a royal. If you keep around this level, the implication is that your base game is correct, that you "know the game upside down". If you go 5 cycles without a royal (201,953 hands, 0.67% likely), I would think it's time to consider the possibility that the machines you are playing are not completely on the square. 100,000 hands without a royal is also a reasonable limit, imho , the odds of that happening with a fair deal are about 8.4% . There is no magic number of hands, you have to set the limit you are confortable with. Getting royals is almost completely a matter of luck.

__ ._,_. __ _
Messages in this topic ( 6 ) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages
vpFREE Links: http ://members.cox.net/ vpfree /Links. htm

Yahoo! Groups
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

    •
12
New Members
    •
3
New Photos

Visit Your Group

Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.
.

__ ,_._, __ _

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

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE @ yahoogroups .com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 2:09:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ vpFREE ] Re: The Curse is OVER! -- first RF since July 22, 2007

#5

Well, I'll take a shot at it, but Harry's much better at such things.

Hopefully you know to calculate ER. For each winning hand, divide the win by the cycle time. For example, for the royal flush, the win is 800 and the cycle time is about 40391. The return is 800/40391 = 0.0198 = 1.98%. The return of each winning hand is added together to get the total return (ER). Or, in this case, calculating the return of the game without the royal flush, simply substract out the 1.98% contribution of the royal.

Variance is the same approach, except the formula is slightly different. Now the formula is (win - total ER)^2 divided by the cycle time. So, for the royal, you're looking at (800 - .9954)^2 /40391 = 15.8 . If you wanted to know the variance of the game without the royal, that would be 19.51 - 15.8 = 3.71. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

Or just use a calculator:
http://wizardofodds.com/videopoker/analyzer/

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, a-1insp@... wrote:

Could you explain where and how the rest of the math is figured (The variance, the standard deviation and what .91% of 45.000 denotes?)