They are at the LVH! I know from experience. I've complained several times
now, but was told that is just the way it is! LOL
bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
wrote:
BTW: unless you are playing $2
deuces 4 of them is not a hand pay
Michael;
I suggest you try to come to one of the monthly VPFree luncheons and
meet Steve Jacobs.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
wrote:
New is not necessarily better. This board has many people posting
who
refuse to learn from history; people unbelievably "proud" to waste
time seeing if 1+1 may equal 3 "for themselves"( RS info for
example)
instead of being aware nothing is new under the sun. This
discussion
is about an unwillingness to work at details with any excuse not
to
do so sounding great. The constant carping against calling
something "perfect play" because one does not feel like learning
it
is pointless & unfortunate. You can learn from beyond mere
personal
experience or you can never grow. BTW: unless you are playing $2
deuces 4 of them is not a hand pay & there ain't no $2 FPDW. Do
the
math!!!!!It does work.
I'd say Steve is right on here. I'd also like to go a bit farther. IMHO, the great majority of
posts here suggest that most VP players do not follow a absolutely true "max-EV strategy".
Instead, players seem to adopt a stratgey that takes into acount a range of "factors",
including, but certainly not limited to, variance, tolerance for risk, opportunity cost,
implied odds (a term I borrow from old fashioned poker, especially NL Hold'em, by which I
mean the expectation of receiving additional "return" from the casino, even though this
"return" is truthfully uncertain, as any one who has had his/her comp account frozen can
atest to...), and so on. Wheather we know it or not, each of us solves our OWN equation
and chooses a strategy that aimes to optimize/balence a range of factors.
Interestingly I don't know a high-limit player that follows a strict max-EV stratgey. I
don't follow such a stratgey myself. I couldn't be bothered to learn every possible penalty
card situation so I am not playing a strictly max-EV stratgey. Moreover, I don't always
chose to play the game with highest possible EV in a casino (VP or otherwise), and instead
tend to stick to JoB and even pick'em. A lot of factors go into THIS decision, and EV itself
is only one of them.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x...> wrote:
You seem openly hostile toward any idea that strays in
any way from the "EV is everything" philosophy. Perhaps you
misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not opposed to players using
max-EV strategy, if that is what they they decide is best for them.
However, the idea that maximizing EV is the _only_ meaningful
objective is a flawed concept. It is certainly _one_ reasonable and
mathematically sound measure of performance, but it isn't the only
one.
cdfsrule wrote:
I'd say Steve is right on here. I'd also like to go a bit farther.
IMHO, the great majority of posts here suggest that most VP players
do not follow a absolutely true "max-EV strategy". Instead, players
seem to adopt a stratgey that takes into acount a range of
"factors", including, but certainly not limited to, variance,
tolerance for risk, opportunity cost, implied odds, and so on.
Wheather we know it or not, each of us solves our OWN equation
and chooses a strategy that aimes to optimize/balence a range of
factors.
You make a reasonable point here. However, some of the play
modification suggested here involves placing constraints on the type
of play accepted, subject to risk tolerance (variance, denomination,
etc.), and not changes to hold strategy in itself. Other
considerations, such as opportunity cost, implicitly expand the EV
goal outside a narrow box but are still EV-based strategy.
Max-ER strategy lies at the heart of play for most -- rightfully so.
(I'm substituting Max-ER for Max-EV because Max-EV is, necessarily,
affected by factors such as play denomination which cloud the
discussion unnecessarily. As Steve focuses on the issue, alternatives
to Max-ER strategy are the crux of his arguments.)
Alternative strategies have their place, but their usefulness comes
into place in situations where your bankroll is stressed ... say, an
unusually attractive situation that prompts you to play at double the
denomination than usual and a game that has a much higher variance ...
where your ROR is stretch from a comfortable 2%-5% to 10% or greater.
It's when you're playing on the edge that there can be cause to reach
out for an added measure of survivability. Particularly in the case
where the play is so unusual that if you take a bath you can't look
with confidence for the natural volatility of your other play to bring
you back.
But when it comes to the bread and butter play that represents as much
as 99%+ of the time most players spend at the machine and for which
they are strongly and comfortably bankrolled, alternative strategies
of the type noted in the FAQ authored by Steve have little benefit.
Witness that the 10% ROR bankrolls for the examples provided are
generally all within 2% of each other (differing by no more than 130
bet units, 650 credits).
I think there is considerable value for the intermediate to advanced
player in taking in and digesting Steve's strategy discussions.
There's a lot of insight into the volatility of the game to be derived.
And, for those tempted by a seldom encountered very attractive play
opportunity that sits at the extreme of their bankroll risk tolerance,
there's a chance that alternate strategy will make the play more
approachable.
However, I see a risk here that beginning to intermediate players, who
are experiencing the challenges that we all did on the vp learning
curve, may look to these discussions as another avenue by which to
hone their vp prowess. They're being blind-sided because, other than
a passing glance, this has no place in the big picture for them yet.
- Harry
Yes. Either way sounds like an accurate characterization of how cash
back that's based on coin in works. Having all hands pay out the
extra amount is probably a more accurate way of expressing it than a
reduction of coin in.
So instead of 5 units coin-in, it would be something like 4.9725? Either that or make all paying and non-paying hands return an extra .0275?
Tom Robertson <thomasrrobertson@earthlink.net> wrote: It's simpler and more straightforward to treat cash back that's based on coin in as a reduction of coin in rather than allocating it to each payout. The net return is identical, but the variance will be lower, which theoretically can alter optimal strategy. How many times each hand occurs per royal is irrelevant to the effect that cash back that's based on coin in has. The loss when a hand results in no pay is less when cash back is based on coin in than when it is based on coin out. To do it your way consistently, you'd have to also allocate
cash back to non-paying hands, which ends up treating cash back as a reduction in coin in.
Tom Robertson wrote:
Yes. Either way sounds like an accurate characterization of how
cash back that's based on coin in works. Having all hands pay out
the extra amount is probably a more accurate way of expressing it
than a reduction of coin in
Just to clarify what you've written here and in prior posts, it makes
no difference whether you factor cashback as a reduction in wager, an
increase in all hand payouts (including otherwise non-paying hands),
or simply reduce the standard ER calculation by the cashback % -- they
all arrive at the same result. Of course, it's not really practical to
effect either of these first two methods using standard vp software
tools. Simply reducing the non-adjusted ER by the cb rate is what I'd
advocate.
Concerning variance, a concern you touched on, cashback has no impact
on the calculations under any of these methods. It's a constant
return with every wager and therefore doesn't contribute to variance.
- Harry
- Harry
Tom Robertson wrote:
Yes. Either way sounds like an accurate characterization of how
cash back that's based on coin in works. Having all hands pay out
the extra amount is probably a more accurate way of expressing it
than a reduction of coin inJust to clarify what you've written here and in prior posts, it makes
no difference whether you factor cashback as a reduction in wager, an
increase in all hand payouts (including otherwise non-paying hands),
or simply reduce the standard ER calculation by the cashback % -- they
all arrive at the same result. Of course, it's not really practical to
effect either of these first two methods using standard vp software
tools. Simply reducing the non-adjusted ER by the cb rate is what I'd
advocate.Concerning variance, a concern you touched on, cashback has no impact
on the calculations under any of these methods. It's a constant
return with every wager and therefore doesn't contribute to variance.- Harry
I was comparing the variance of treating cash back as a reduction in
coin in with that of allocating cash back only to paying hands. I
assume there is a difference between these.
Tom Robertson wrote:
I was comparing the variance of treating cash back as a reduction in
coin in with that of allocating cash back only to paying hands. I
assume there is a difference between these.
There's a difference, but allocating cash back only to paying hands
isn't representative of any meaningful account of cashback.
- H.