Hi,
i am new to the board but not new to VP. i am interested in opinions
on which game makes more sense to play from a purely financial
standpoint (if this has been covered before, please point me to the
message # as my searches were not successful).
as for enjoyment, i really like the triple play quarters a lot. and i
have also played lots of single play dollars as well.
any opinions would be welcome.
Paul
Well, triple-play quarters gives you 25% less coin-in, so if coin-in
is your primary goal that's an obvious disadvantage.
On the other hand the standard deviation of 3-play quarters is only
half that of single-play dollars (assuming 9/6 JoB), and while
standard deviation alone is only a primitive measurement of short-term
play in VP, it still tells me that there's a good chance that I'll
need a bigger bankroll to play single dollars than triple quarters.
Triple-play will give you the satisfaction of hitting royals nearly 3
times as often.
In triple-play quarters you will be signing fewer W2Gs (a single royal
won't trigger a W2G).
Finally, in some places playing dollars will let you play in a
high-limit area while quarters won't.
My personal opinion is that if you can afford to play single-play
dollars you shouldn't have any problems playing 5-play quarters or
even 10-play quarters (in 10-play, you can reasonably expect to hit a
royal a day - in fact during the last week-end 3 of my 5 royals came
on 10-play machines).
JBQ
On 1/11/06, Paul <panther1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
i am new to the board but not new to VP. i am interested in opinions
on which game makes more sense to play from a purely financial
standpoint (if this has been covered before, please point me to the
message # as my searches were not successful).as for enjoyment, i really like the triple play quarters a lot. and i
have also played lots of single play dollars as well.any opinions would be welcome.
Paul
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Thanks for your reply JBQ!
coin-in is not too important for me because i play mainly at the
Suncoast where the club is totally based on wins rather than coin-in.
let me also state that i am NOT a professional player. my game of
choice for the past 5 years or so has been Double Double Bonus
because it is the game i took the most interest in when i first got
my copy of Bob Dancer Winpoker.
now i realize that the pay scales at the Suncoast are not the best
(yes i know the it only truly makes sense to play it at Station
casinos where it is 10/6) in town for DDB. the non-progressive
triple/five play machines have 9/6 pay scales while the quarter
triple play progressives sit at 9/5 which is not normally too
advantages to say the least!
but often times, the dealt royals on the quarter progressives go up
quite high. i have seen them over $30,000 on occasion and often
times they hover in the $10,000 - $20,000 range which is pretty
attractive!
obviously, getting the dealt royal is not an easy proposition as you
all know (1 in 650,000). but it sure would be nice to get one and
obviously people are getting them quite often so that is why i play
them.
on the other hand, i do miss getting the larger payouts from dollar
poker. a $2000 Aces/kicker vs a $500 Aces/kicker can be tough to
swallow at times. especially when you can basically play either type
of machine with $100 dollar bills.
of course i could also play some 50 cent single line once in a while
to get a bit more bang for the proverbial buck.
oh well, i guess this is an issue we all struggle with at times.
there probably is no "right" answer.
Paul
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@g...>
wrote:
Well, triple-play quarters gives you 25% less coin-in, so if coin-
in
is your primary goal that's an obvious disadvantage.
On the other hand the standard deviation of 3-play quarters is only
half that of single-play dollars (assuming 9/6 JoB), and while
standard deviation alone is only a primitive measurement of short-
term
play in VP, it still tells me that there's a good chance that I'll
need a bigger bankroll to play single dollars than triple quarters.Triple-play will give you the satisfaction of hitting royals
nearly 3
times as often.
In triple-play quarters you will be signing fewer W2Gs (a single
royal
won't trigger a W2G).
Finally, in some places playing dollars will let you play in a
high-limit area while quarters won't.My personal opinion is that if you can afford to play single-play
dollars you shouldn't have any problems playing 5-play quarters or
even 10-play quarters (in 10-play, you can reasonably expect to
hit a
royal a day - in fact during the last week-end 3 of my 5 royals
came
on 10-play machines).
JBQ
Well, from the sound of it you'd rather have fewer large jackpots and
don't mind the W2Gs that come with them. From that point of view
playing dollars probably makes more sense.
Personally I'm after a large coin-in with low variance and I prefer to
avoid tax paperwork if I can, which will explain why we'll be looking
for different plays.
The good news about progressive jackpots on dealt royals is that they
come with no strategy changes.
JBQ
On 1/11/06, Paul <panther1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
on the other hand, i do miss getting the larger payouts from dollar
poker. a $2000 Aces/kicker vs a $500 Aces/kicker can be tough to
swallow at times. especially when you can basically play either type
of machine with $100 dollar bills.
Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote: <<in 10-play, you can reasonably expect to hit a royal a day>>
Your "days" must be longer than my 24-hour ones. Or, you haven't played 10-play very much.
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
Tax time is coming up - groan! "Tax Help
for the Frugal Gambler" can answer many
of your questions!
My personal recent experience with 10-play gave me more than a royal a
day, but that was lucky, not typical.
I typically define a day as 8 hours net (though most of my work days
are longer than this), and I consider that 600 deals per hour is
reasonable, i.e. I expect 4800 deals per "day" (or more).
In 10-play JoB, you can expect to hit royals on average once for every
4300 deals, approximately.
That means that there's roughly a 2/3 chance of seeing at least a
royal in any such day.
JBQ
On 1/11/06, Jean Scott <QueenofComps@frugalgambler.biz> wrote:
Your "days" must be longer than my 24-hour ones. Or, you haven't played
10-play very much.
Fed a lot of family over the holidays; a few notes on Vegas casino restaurants we visited.
WYNN
Buffet
Been there about a dozen times; always great, usually crowded, often surprisingly bad service. Great crab legs, peeled shrimp, Indian, sushi. Don't like their desserts - too sweet (just as well).
Terrace Pointe Cafe
Overpriced as far as coffee shops go, but great food, service, pool-view ambiance.
Bartolotta
Surprisingly mediocre. Small portions, high prices, rather ordinary cuisine. Makes a big deal of featuring seafood flown in daily from Europe; the point of which escapes simple ol' me. Great setting, smarmy service. Thumbs down.
Country Club Grille
Surprisingly wonderful. Classic steakhouse overlooking the golf course (in particular, a gorgeous waterfall-lined green). Highly recommend the fondue and the rib-steak. Great service. Thumbs up.
WESTIN CAUSARINA
Silverpeak Grill
Been there twice now, and their only restaurant is the only restaurant you'll need. Outstanding food and service at reasonable prices. Strongly recommend the "Crispy Lobster" sandwich, which consists of big chunks of "lobster fritters" on sweetbread. YUM.
WYNN
Buffet
Been there about a dozen times; always great, usually crowded, often
surprisingly bad service. Great crab legs, peeled shrimp, Indian,
sushi.
Don't like their desserts - too sweet (just as well).
Terrace Pointe Cafe
Overpriced as far as coffee shops go, but great food, service, pool-
view
ambiance.
I've been to both of the above several times, and agree. Has anyone
reviewed Wynn's Red8 yet? We went there twice, for lunch and dinner.
I thought it was pretty good, but my wife did not find it as "special"
as she hoped it would be. Still, the prices are fairly reasonable for
the Wynn, they do offer some unusual Asian fare, and it's very
conveniently located. Wynn just opened a new restaurant on the
opposite side of the casino floor (Cucina I think), but haven't been
there yet.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:
My wife and I took our 1 year old to Red 8 for lunch a couple of
months ago and had a wonderful time. Excellent food at reasonable
prices (the duck was especially good). They were particularly good
with our young one (wasn't too sure how excited they would be about
her). I would recommend it to any Chinese food fan.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <jwkelly@f...> wrote:
> WYNN
> Buffet
> Been there about a dozen times; always great, usually crowded, often
> surprisingly bad service. Great crab legs, peeled shrimp, Indian,
sushi.
> Don't like their desserts - too sweet (just as well).
>
> Terrace Pointe Cafe
> Overpriced as far as coffee shops go, but great food, service, pool-
view
> ambiance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I've been to both of the above several times, and agree. Has anyone
reviewed Wynn's Red8 yet? We went there twice, for lunch and dinner.
I thought it was pretty good, but my wife did not find it as "special"
as she hoped it would be. Still, the prices are fairly reasonable for
the Wynn, they do offer some unusual Asian fare, and it's very
conveniently located. Wynn just opened a new restaurant on the
opposite side of the casino floor (Cucina I think), but haven't been
there yet.
Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote: <<in 10-play, you can reasonably expect
to hit a
royal a day>>
Your "days" must be longer than my 24-hour ones. Or, you haven't
played
10-play very much.
Jean, Queru's statement seems reasonable to me. If someone plays 10-
play for 10 hours at 500 plays/hr, that's 50,000 hands of video
poker. That's enough to "reasonably expect to hit a royal" in most
games. Of course, we've all been disappointed more than we'd like!
--Dunbar
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:
JBQ, your "once for every 4300 deals" for JOB figure seems to be an
adjustment for the clumping of results in 10-play. How did you come
up with that figure?
--Dunbar
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@g...>
wrote:
My personal recent experience with 10-play gave me more than a
royal a
day, but that was lucky, not typical.
I typically define a day as 8 hours net (though most of my work
days
are longer than this), and I consider that 600 deals per hour is
reasonable, i.e. I expect 4800 deals per "day" (or more).In 10-play JoB, you can expect to hit royals on average once for
every
4300 deals, approximately.
That means that there's roughly a 2/3 chance of seeing at least a
royal in any such day.JBQ
Not when you consider that those 50,000 hands derive from 5000 base
hands.
Jean, Queru's statement seems reasonable to me. If someone plays 10-
play for 10 hours at 500 plays/hr, that's 50,000 hands of video
poker. That's enough to "reasonably expect to hit a royal" in most
games. Of course, we've all been disappointed more than we'd like!--Dunbar
I assumed that the only relevant case where you hit multiple royals in
a single deal is for a dealt royal. As I wrote my original e-mail I
hadn't verified that it was indeed the only relevant case.
1-in-650000 royal on average is a dealt one, i.e. in 10-play
9-in-6500000 are "extra" royals hit when being dealt a royal.
The probability of a hand being a drawn royal or of being the bottom
one in the case of a dealt royal is 1/40400-9/6500000. Therefore the
probability of a deal resulting in at least one royal is approximately
1/(10*(1/40400-9/6500000)), i.e. 4279, which I rounded up to 4300
because of the original assumption.
Let me try to quantify the impact of drawing multiple royals for a dealt RF4:
A held RF4 results in 10/47 royals on average i.e. 0.2127, and hits at
least a royal 1-(46/47)^10 of the time, i.e. 0.1935. The difference,
0.0192, i.e. approximately 1/52, is the average number of "extra"
royals that gets hit for each dealt RF4.
Since one holds RF4 every 2778 deals (936/2600000), i.e. every 27780
hands, the additional correction brought by the "risk" of drawing
multiple royals on RF4 is 1/(52*27780).
The number adjusted for RF4 is thus:
1/(10*(1/40400-9/6500000-1/(52*27780))), i.e. 4410. As it turns out,
the difference isn't as negligible as I thought it would be.
Let me look at RF3 to be sure I'm not missing anything. I'm making
some heavy approximations here.
A held RF3 hits 10/1081 royals on average, i.e. 0.00925, and hits at
least a royal 1-(1080/1081)^10 of the time, i.e. 0.009212. The
difference is approximately 1/26300
Since one holds RF4 approximately every 85 deals, i.e. every 850
hands, the additional correction is 1/(26300*850), which will bring
the final number around 4420.
JBQ
On 1/13/06, dunbar_dra <h_dunbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
JBQ, your "once for every 4300 deals" for JOB figure seems to be an
adjustment for the clumping of results in 10-play. How did you come
up with that figure?
From an upcoming book I have written, this quote from the multi-line chapter:
"... problem to deal with is the fact that your overall results are directly correlated to how good or bad the dealt hands are - so in the short term, multi-line games are very volatile. The highs are higher - that's no problem - but the lows are much lower. Therefore, you will need a much larger session bankroll. Another way to look at this is that you must be prepared to go deeper into your total bankroll during any one session. And the more lines you are playing the more severe the volatility will get. The glorious peaks and horrendous valleys of a multi-line roller coaster ride are not for the faint of heart!"
Brad and I have had many years of experience in playing multi-line, ever since it came out. But the problem for us is that we don't play as much as we used to and also the opportunities to play multi-line with a good EV have decreased. Therefore, we usually will play Triple Play - or sometimes Five Play - rather than Ten Play. I know the math will all come out right in the long term. But I often joke now and say that considering my age, I don't think I have enough time left to get to the long term in 10-play!!!! 
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
Tax time is coming up - groan! "Tax Help
for the Frugal Gambler" can answer many
of your questions!
Please read Quero's posts. 4300 plays is a good approximation of the
cycle time for a royal on a 10-play JOB. Therefore, the 50,000 hands
created by 5000 plays (or "base hands") is enough for a reasonable
expectation of a royal.
--Dunbar
Not when you consider that those 50,000 hands derive from 5000 base
hands.> Jean, Queru's statement seems reasonable to me. If someone plays
10-
> play for 10 hours at 500 plays/hr, that's 50,000 hands of video
> poker. That's enough to "reasonably expect to hit a royal" in
most
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kelso1600" <kelso1600@h...> wrote:
> games. Of course, we've all been disappointed more than we'd like!
>
> --Dunbar
>
Nice work! I want to go over the numbers more carefully, but I
think you've approached it correctly. Thanks for explaining your
calcs.
It appears that the cycle time for a JOB royal with 10-play is 44000
hands (4400 plays). That's about 9 hours for a 500/hr player.
--Dunbar
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Baptiste Queru <jbqueru@g...>
wrote:
I assumed that the only relevant case where you hit multiple
royals in
a single deal is for a dealt royal. As I wrote my original e-mail I
hadn't verified that it was indeed the only relevant case.1-in-650000 royal on average is a dealt one, i.e. in 10-play
9-in-6500000 are "extra" royals hit when being dealt a royal.The probability of a hand being a drawn royal or of being the
bottom
one in the case of a dealt royal is 1/40400-9/6500000. Therefore
the
probability of a deal resulting in at least one royal is
approximately
1/(10*(1/40400-9/6500000)), i.e. 4279, which I rounded up to 4300
because of the original assumption.Let me try to quantify the impact of drawing multiple royals for a
dealt RF4:
A held RF4 results in 10/47 royals on average i.e. 0.2127, and
hits at
least a royal 1-(46/47)^10 of the time, i.e. 0.1935. The
difference,
0.0192, i.e. approximately 1/52, is the average number of "extra"
royals that gets hit for each dealt RF4.Since one holds RF4 every 2778 deals (936/2600000), i.e. every
27780
hands, the additional correction brought by the "risk" of drawing
multiple royals on RF4 is 1/(52*27780).The number adjusted for RF4 is thus:
1/(10*(1/40400-9/6500000-1/(52*27780))), i.e. 4410. As it turns
out,
the difference isn't as negligible as I thought it would be.
Let me look at RF3 to be sure I'm not missing anything. I'm making
some heavy approximations here.A held RF3 hits 10/1081 royals on average, i.e. 0.00925, and hits
at
least a royal 1-(1080/1081)^10 of the time, i.e. 0.009212. The
difference is approximately 1/26300Since one holds RF4 approximately every 85 deals, i.e. every 850
hands, the additional correction is 1/(26300*850), which will bring
the final number around 4420.JBQ
> JBQ, your "once for every 4300 deals" for JOB figure seems to
be an
> adjustment for the clumping of results in 10-play. How did you
come
On 1/13/06, dunbar_dra <h_dunbar@h...> wrote:
> up with that figure?
My advice to anyone considering multi-line play: consider the coin-in
per deal, not the coin-in per draw, and life will feel good to you,
not bad.
Whenever I play 100-play jacks in pennies, I feel that I'm playing
dollars, not pennies, and that's why I feed those machine bennies, not
georges. 100-play is how you can easily be up or down a hundred
dollars in less than an hour while playing pennies (no matter how hard
you try, you won't be able to lose a hundred dollars playing
single-line pennies for an hour). But it's also how you can hit half a
dozen royals in a day and consider it a bad day.
FWIW, and considering the variance only (which we know is a horrible
way to look at short-term games), the standard deviation of 10-play
JoB, per deal, counted in base units, is approximately 4.3 times that
of single-line.
JBQ
On 1/14/06, Jean Scott <QueenofComps@frugalgambler.biz> wrote:
From an upcoming book I have written, this quote from the multi-line
chapter:
<<4300 plays is a good approximation of the
cycle time for a royal on a 10-play JOB. Therefore, the 50,000 hands
created by 5000 plays (or "base hands") is enough for a reasonable
expectation of a royal.>>
I'm not trying to be difficult here - and everyone knows I'm big on depending on the math. However, our long experience with this (and the experiences of a lot of experienced pros with whom we have discussed this) does NOT bear this out. I feel that the small number of base hands increases the volatility big time IN THE SHORT TERM . I have NO reasonable expectation of a royal every 5000 base hands. I would consider that an unreasonable expectation. Shoot, it is quite possible to go several royal cycles without a royal if I play 50,000 base hands.
One is all right in the long term on multi-line, because some sessions you will be blessed with a streak of good starting hands and once in a blue moon you will get a dealt royal. But with only 5000 base hands, you are going to have many bitter long streaks of bad starting hands and a huge session loss. I still say that although you don't need as big of a long-term bankroll (in 10-play you don't need 10 times the amount as for the same denomination in single line,) you need a much much bigger session bankroll.
Are there any other experienced pros here who are doubting this "reasonable expectation of a royal" after 5000 base plays?
________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
Tax time is coming up - groan! "Tax Help
for the Frugal Gambler" can answer many
of your questions!
<<Are there any other experienced pros here who are doubting this
"reasonable expectation of a royal" after 5000 base plays?>>
Well, I don't doubt the math, and the expectation of hitting at least one
royal in a cycle's worth of trials is about 37% in each case.
Cogno
Are you sure about that number?
My memory, very foggy in the early morning, tells me that for a 1-in-n
event in n trials, for n large enough, the probabilities are
approximately 36% of 0 occurences, 36% of 1 occurence, 18% of 2
occurences, 6% of 3 occurences, 1.5% of 4 occurences, 0.3% of 5
occurences, etc..., i.e. approximately 63% of at least on occurence.
The exact numbers are 1/e, 1/e, 1/2e, 1/6e, 1/24e, 1/120e, etc...
[1/k!e] and 1-1/e.
JBQ
On 1/15/06, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I don't doubt the math, and the expectation of hitting at least one
royal in a cycle's worth of trials is about 37% in each case.