vpFREE2 Forums

Value.... we all have our part to play.

#1

From: gj bart <bronco@eskimo.com>
     Strange words coming from someone who, in one of his very first
posts, opined of a long-time listmember, "You sir, in the event your
friends are too polite to tell you, are a fool" and then proceeded to
make several ill-educated comments about the "myth" of fullpay.

gj

I have to agree with the previous poster. The "myth" of fullpay, is just that, a myth. If you learn expert play, and play only 100%+ machines, this does not mean you are going to break even or win. There are no guarantees in gambling. While one person might hit 4 royals or more in a month, I have personally seen someone go over two years without one, and they played 3-4 times a week with perfect play. Yes, the math does say in the long term you will come out ahead, but no-one has yet been able to determine what or how long, long term is. Lots of people say they know but no one can actually prove it. Just because someone is a long time list member does not necessarly make them right either. There are those who believe that long term refers to the person playing, and some who believe long term refers to the life of that particular machine. Everyone who have been playing VP for a long time will argue one way or the other. Wishing it one way, or saying it is one way or the other, does not make it true. That, in part, is why discussions of this nature can get very hot, and you will not change anyone mind because, for the most part, their mind is already made up, for whatever reason, and they will not even listen to any other theory.

Bob Craig
Playing VP in Nevada for over 23 years.

···

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

#2

<snip> The "myth" of fullpay, is just

that, a myth. If you learn expert play, and play only 100%+

machines, this

does not mean you are going to break even or win. There are no

guarantees

in gambling. <snip>

Very well put. As you stated, those who are hell-bent on the long-
term math will not be persuaded to think differently, nor will
the "take a shot" people. To each his own; for most of us this
should still be fun. If an occasional deviation from perfect games
or perfect strategy keeps it fun, that's OK as long as we take those
chances with our eyes wide open.

That said, I think it is VERY important to stress the volatility and
risks to newbie members of this group. Some posters have referred to
VP as a "skill game". This can lead to misunderstandings if we aren't
careful. Hearing that a certain game is 100+% makes it sound SO
easy. But some perfect players will never see those results. The
people just learning VP must recognize that there IS skill involved,
but we are still subject to the element of LUCK that affects all
casino games. Some will have, some won't.

Marsha

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Craig" <vp_expert@h...> wrote:

#3

I want to mention how pleased I am to read the last few posts that stress
the "volatility" of the game as always being a threat to ER. But I also
want to caution newbies that there are a great many experienced and
intelligent players who believe in both the importance of striving for
perfect play AND that perfect play is not a guarantee of positive results.
So it's not simply a matter of choosing sides, as there is a lot of
empirical evidence to support both. The E in ER and EV stands for "expected"
not "guaranteed."

lb

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <mcuddington@hotmail.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:43 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Value.... we all have our part to play.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Craig" <vp_expert@h...> wrote:
<snip> The "myth" of fullpay, is just
> that, a myth. If you learn expert play, and play only 100%+
machines, this
> does not mean you are going to break even or win. There are no
guarantees
> in gambling. <snip>

Very well put. As you stated, those who are hell-bent on the long-
term math will not be persuaded to think differently, nor will
the "take a shot" people. To each his own; for most of us this
should still be fun. If an occasional deviation from perfect games
or perfect strategy keeps it fun, that's OK as long as we take those
chances with our eyes wide open.

That said, I think it is VERY important to stress the volatility and
risks to newbie members of this group. Some posters have referred to
VP as a "skill game". This can lead to misunderstandings if we aren't
careful. Hearing that a certain game is 100+% makes it sound SO
easy. But some perfect players will never see those results. The
people just learning VP must recognize that there IS skill involved,
but we are still subject to the element of LUCK that affects all
casino games. Some will have, some won't.

Marsha

vpFREE Home Page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

vpFREE Links:
http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#4

Full pay is not a myth. Believing that a theoretical probability will always turn into reality is a mistake.

A game that is full pay %100, and played perfectly, will LIKELY have you break even in the long term.
Since that 100% return includes getting a lot of Royal Flushes that are 40,000 to 1 shots, is the reason that results even in the long term may not be what one would expect.
There is no catch up clause in video poker.

If you started your career in video poker playing the above 100% game perfectly, it would be easy to believe that you could be down significantly at the end of the first year of play.

Scenario..... Down 5k at the end of your first year of play ...
What will happen for the remainder of your career ?
You are likely from this point on to break even for all your play from this point on.
You are not likely to recoup your losses.
The probabilities only occur in the future.
If you had won 10k in your first year of play you are still likely to break even for the rest of your playing career.
What has happened in the past will not affect what will happen in the future.

End of lecture.

Regards
A.P.

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

#5

will always turn into reality is a mistake.

AP, as you know I don't always play 100%+ games. But, as long as I
know going in that those 9/6 DDB Sequentials at Fiesta Henderson are
not "the best", I can still enjoy the zing of holding four to the
sequential royal.

Playing 100%+ games affords me the opportunity to eat lots of free
food without losing the house. I might lose a bit and win a bit but
at the end of the year, I'm close. I just recieved my year end
statement from GVR. I had coin in of 680,000+ and lost just over
$1,000 for the year. I also ate a bit over $5,000 in "free" food so I
count 2002 as an okay year.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Pearson" <a-p@s...> wrote:

Full pay is not a myth. Believing that a theoretical probability

#6

Albert,

With all respect, please allow me to clear up a fallacy in your argument. Assume a machine that theoretically returns exactly 100% with perfect play. Because Royals are so important to the total return and occur so infrequently you are correct that you can play many hands without your result reaching convergence with the theoretical. In the long term you will come to exactly 100%, but that is a nearly infinite number of hands. After several million hands you will approximate the theoretical. After several million more you will be extremely close to the theoretical. These are very large numbers, but running simulations with WinPoker shows that these are the numbers for DB and DW to be nearly certain of coming to convergence.

It is not true that after some relatively small number of hands if you are down $5000 you will never come back to the theoretical. You cannot start a series of events, stop at some random point and say "OK, that is all past so I can never expect to make up (or lose) the accumulated results so far and I'm going to start again." There will be times when you are "up" $5000 in that future series. Does this not offset the loss? Or do you then start a new series of identical events? Preposterous!

It is true that some people will lose their entire bankroll during an early series of losses. If they never restore their bankroll and begin play again they will never recoup their losses. If they do, they will. Probabilistic series are not smooth but they do work out.

···

At 09:24 AM 02/06/2003 -0500, you wrote:

A game that is full pay %100, and played perfectly, will LIKELY have you break even in the long term.
Since that 100% return includes getting a lot of Royal Flushes that are 40,000 to 1 shots, is the reason that results even in the long term may not be what one would expect.
There is no catch up clause in video poker.

#7

I think maybe I can help clear up the confusion, or at least add to it.

There is no "catching up" in the short term, or in cumulative short term
sessions, because no hands are ever "used up." iow, the probability for any
given hand remains the same. Over the theoretical long term the normal
expected curve will emmerge. It's obvious that there is no time limit on
"long term," which is why it's generally thought of as infinite, since it's
subject to deviations that skew it one way or another as it progresses.

Simple, right? ; )

lb

#8

With all respect, please allow me to clear up a fallacy in your argument.
Assume a machine that theoretically returns exactly 100% with perfect

play.

Because Royals are so important to the total return and occur so
infrequently you are correct that you can play many hands without your
result reaching convergence with the theoretical. In the long term you

will

come to exactly 100%, but that is a nearly infinite number of hands. After
several million hands you will approximate the theoretical. After several
million more you will be extremely close to the theoretical. These are

very

large numbers, but running simulations with WinPoker shows that these are
the numbers for DB and DW to be nearly certain of coming to convergence.

I would just like to add a comment here that may clarify what convergence to
the theoretical really means.

When you play a large number of hands, indeed your result will converge to
the true payback of the machine in terms of percentage. But at that same
point in your play, your actual monetary win/loss may be thousands of
dollars different from the theoretical.

For example if you play 5 million hands (about 3+ years of heavy play) of $
VP, you total action is $25M. If your results are $25,000 above or below
theoretical, then you are within .1% of the true payback. That is "close"
in percentage terms, but some players wouldn't be comfortable describing the
monetary result as "close".

G'luck

Gamb00lers

#9

>From: gj bart <bronco@eskimo.com>
> Strange words coming from someone who, in one of his very first
>posts, opined of a long-time listmember, "You sir, in the event your
>friends are too polite to tell you, are a fool" and then proceeded to
>make several ill-educated comments about the "myth" of fullpay.
>
>gj

I have to agree with the previous poster. The "myth" of fullpay, is just
that, a myth. If you learn expert play, and play only 100%+ machines, this
does not mean you are going to break even or win. There are no guarantees
in gambling. While one person might hit 4 royals or more in a month, I have
personally seen someone go over two years without one, and they played 3-4
times a week with perfect play. Yes, the math does say in the long term you
will come out ahead, but no-one has yet been able to determine what or how
long, long term is. Lots of people say they know but no one can actually
prove it. Just because someone is a long time list member does not
necessarly make them right either. There are those who believe that long
term refers to the person playing, and some who believe long term refers to
the life of that particular machine. Everyone who have been playing VP for
a long time will argue one way or the other. Wishing it one way, or saying
it is one way or the other, does not make it true. That, in part, is why
discussions of this nature can get very hot, and you will not change anyone
mind because, for the most part, their mind is already made up, for whatever
reason, and they will not even listen to any other theory.

Bob Craig
Playing VP in Nevada for over 23 years.

     I'm afraid the above is full of classic straw man arguments and
misconceptions. I have never heard any reputable author or knowledgeable
player state that playing "full pay" machines "guarantees" that someone
will win in X days, weeks, months, or years.

     First, the term "full pay" need not refer to over 100% payback, and
indeed the most common full pay game (9/6 JOB) is well under 100. The
phrase is merely a convention that establishes a baseline for certain
high-return, popular games.

     Second, some have an unfortunate fascination with the supposedly
mystical notion of "the long term." In reality, there is no long term.
There is only a statistical curve from which, based on the number of hands
you play, you can determine how likely you are to be ahead given a certain
paytable and accuracy. The more favorable the game and/or the longer you
play, the more likely you are to have shown a profit. It's all pretty
simple. When used in proper context, "long-term" simply means playing
sufficiently long as to have substantial confidence of being ahead...but
by no means is this guaranteed. That there is so much confusion on this
point only demonstrates how poorly so many people grasp probability.

     The only people I know of who claim differently are those who either
do not understand these basic points, or have dastardly agendas of their
own and like to attack knowledgeable players and authors for the publicity
it generates.

     Emphasizing that the games are highly volatile is of course a good
thing, and something that Jean et al never hesitate to do. But they
certainly shouldn't be slammed for other people's delusions about what
these simple concepts actually mean.

Bob Craig
Playing VP in Nevada for over 23 years.

     I'll agree with one comment you made...longevity in VP is no
guarantee of competence, or a good grasp of the above issues.

gj

···

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Bob Craig wrote:

#10

Congratulations gj! Your very well-written post merits a bookmark
for a succinct easy-to-understand explanation of "long-term."

And your point about "agendas" is also right on.

2-W

     I'm afraid the above is full of classic straw man arguments and
misconceptions. I have never heard any reputable author or

knowledgeable

player state that playing "full pay" machines "guarantees" that

someone

will win in X days, weeks, months, or years.

     First, the term "full pay" need not refer to over 100%

payback, and

indeed the most common full pay game (9/6 JOB) is well under 100.

The

phrase is merely a convention that establishes a baseline for

certain

high-return, popular games.

     Second, some have an unfortunate fascination with the

supposedly

mystical notion of "the long term." In reality, there is no long

term.

There is only a statistical curve from which, based on the number

of hands

you play, you can determine how likely you are to be ahead given a

certain

paytable and accuracy. The more favorable the game and/or the

longer you

play, the more likely you are to have shown a profit. It's all

pretty

simple. When used in proper context, "long-term" simply means

playing

sufficiently long as to have substantial confidence of being

ahead...but

by no means is this guaranteed. That there is so much confusion on

this

point only demonstrates how poorly so many people grasp probability.

     The only people I know of who claim differently are those who

either

do not understand these basic points, or have dastardly agendas of

their

own and like to attack knowledgeable players and authors for the

publicity

it generates.

     Emphasizing that the games are highly volatile is of course a

good

thing, and something that Jean et al never hesitate to do. But they
certainly shouldn't be slammed for other people's delusions about

what

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, gj bart <bronco@e...> wrote:

these simple concepts actually mean.

> Bob Craig
> Playing VP in Nevada for over 23 years.

     I'll agree with one comment you made...longevity in VP is no
guarantee of competence, or a good grasp of the above issues.

gj

#11

gj bart wrote ...

···

------
The closing line in the above post is a personal slight that borders
on an outright attack.

As my grade school teacher would admonish us: "Play nicely people!"

- H.

#12

Statistically, the "long term" means infinity: every machine, every player, for all time. But as a sample (person, machine, group) adds more and more events (hands) the results are supposed to get closer to that "long term" as seen in the statistical odds (assuming the play is perfect and the machines are honest).
   Here's hoping more royals show up and let the people 300 years from now have all the downswings. :slight_smile:

Elaine
Bob Craig <vp_expert@hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> Yes, the math does say in the long term you
will come out ahead, but no-one has yet been able to determine what or how
long, long term is. Lots of people say they know but no one can actually
prove it. Just because someone is a long time list member does not
necessarly make them right either. There are those who believe that long
term refers to the person playing, and some who believe long term refers to
the life of that particular machine. Everyone who have been playing VP for
a long time will argue one way or the other.

···

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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

#13

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "staninnv <arnot@l...>" <arnot@l...>
wrote:

Playing 100%+ games affords me the opportunity to eat lots of free
food without losing the house. I might lose a bit and win a bit

but

at the end of the year, I'm close. I just recieved my year end
statement from GVR. I had coin in of 680,000+ and lost just over
$1,000 for the year. I also ate a bit over $5,000 in "free" food

so I

count 2002 as an okay year.

That is a lot of not dogs!

DWK

#14

It's 8:28 PM, Pacific time, and I've got nothing to say, just want to
prove that I've got better things to do than watch the Michael Jackson
documentary.

I was supposed to interview him two weeks ago but it was cancelled because
he couldn't find his nose.

Did you see the new line of Winona Ryder Valentine's cards? The motto is
"steal a heart."

She'll be modeling spring outfits in next months's Elle, Harpers, and a
bunch of other magazines. Usually they bring the outfits right to the
shoot, but for her they hang them on racks, tell her where they are, and let
her go take them. Just like old times.

Anyone heard any good short term/long term jokes?

Michael Jackson documentary still on?

lb

#15

My sense of humor is warped, but:

In the long term no one gets out alive.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Lawrence Boxer" <ljboxer@e...> wrote:

Anyone heard any good short term/long term jokes?

#16

Geez. I used the free time to balance my checkbook, something I'd neglected for a couple of months. :slight_smile:

Elaine
Lawrence Boxer <ljboxer@earthlink.net> wrote:It's 8:28 PM, Pacific time, and I've got nothing to say, just want to
prove that I've got better things to do than watch the Michael Jackson
documentary.

···

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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

#17

This is a joke.... I think

Reaching the long run is like traveling to a star.
It takes so long you die along the way.

George

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: gbazuin <g_bazuin@hotmail.com>
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:15 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: XVP--other things

  My sense of humor is warped, but:

  In the long term no one gets out alive.

  --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Lawrence Boxer" <ljboxer@e...> wrote:
  > Anyone heard any good short term/long term jokes?
  >

  vpFREE Home Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

  vpFREE Links:
  http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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