Elliot Frome wrote:
I think over the past 10 days (or so), we have distorted the message
that was trying to be conveyed. (*I include myself in this*)
Little doubt of that Elliot. But if I read you correctly, bottom line
you not only view doubling a decent proposition for the negative
player (say 9/6 Jacks) but would go as far as to recommend it them.
I think that's very unfortunate. "Doubly" so given my observations in
the casino of how gamblers tend to employ it in their play.
- Harry
Tom Sims: please take note of the last four paragraphs. Thanks.
Steve Jacobs wrote:
> No, Steve, because we are saying the same thing.
We are saying things that are quite different.
I was, and still am, saying that _long-term_ER_ can NOT be influenced by double-up, whereas _everything_ else can be. Aren't you saying the same thing?
> No offense, Steve, but I already conceded to
> you a long time ago that there are other legitimate strategies besides
> max-ER; however, it has become equally clear to me that the vast
> majority of folks on this group are not particularly interested in what
> most of them view as insignificant differences that your alternatives
> actually make.Here is the real crux of the difference in what I'm saying and what
you are saying. Your position amounts to "ER is all that really
matters, because the alternate strategies don't make a significant
difference".
snip
First, you are forgetting that I am one of the folks who thinks that it's worthwhile worrying about penalty card situations that most other folks don't bother with, and therefore a 2% difference (as you demonstrated by an example I've snipped) is _not_ insignificant to _me_; in other words, I get pretty anal about things, and I enjoy striving for perfection for its own sake and consider it to be a 'fun' challenge to see how long I can play without making even the slightest mistake (and I do make mistakes, darn it, because of inattention). So you are wrong in your interpretation of what I said; what I _actually_ said is: "the vast _majority_ of folks on this group are not particularly interested in what most of _them_ view as insignificant differences." "Most" of the "vast majority" does _not_ include _me_ adhering to the same view; I personally have two completely different reasons for not readily adopting your alternative strategies: ... 1) I generally prefer to suffer the increased RoR in order to maximize my long-term ER (which I don't think you can say is right or wrong), and ... 2) I just haven't had the time to experiment around to try to find the right compromise that would personally satisfy me that it is would be worth both the small sacrifice in long-term ER as well as the time needed to develop and master an altered strategy in exchange for a small decrease in RoR or some other volatility-related facet of vp.
Now, perhaps my assessment of what primarily interests the majority of folks here is wrong -- whether it be max-ER, min-cost, min-RoR, max-Royal, or whatever -- so I just perused the 'polls' page of vpFree but did not notice a poll pertaining to this; I'm now suggesting to Tom that perhaps a poll (or two) is appropriate on this question. I would suggest that it _could_ look something like this, which I've taken the liberty to word in a way that would probably make some sense to folks who have not followed the various threads regarding alternate strategies, and if Tom is interested then perhaps you also would like to have some input into the wording in order to make this as unbiased as possible:
When playing NON-progressive video poker, which factor interests you the MOST:
1. minimizing the risk that I will run out of money (min-RoR)
2. minimizing the amount it costs me to play a certain number of games (min-Cost)
3. maximizing my chances of hitting a Jackpot (normally a Royal Flush) (max-Royal)
4. maximizing my winnings in the long term (max-ER)
5. I prefer to play hunches and rely on luck rather than any particular strategy
6. I don't really understand the differences in the choices listed above
When playing a PROGRESSIVE machine, which factor interests you the MOST:
1. minimizing the risk that I will run out of money (min-RoR)
2. minimizing the amount it costs me to play a certain number of games (min-Cost)
3. maximizing my chances of hitting a Jackpot (normally a Royal Flush) (max-Royal)
4. maximizing my winnings in the long term (max-ER)
5. I prefer to play hunches and rely on luck rather than any particular strategy
6. I don't really understand the differences in the choices listed above
If we do this poll, there may be other alternatives that do not readily come to my mind that you or others might suggest. Tom, I'm not sure how many folks are still following this thread, so you might want to throw out the idea as a new thread first. What do you think? I think it would be very handy to know what the relative percentages would be; who knows? ... maybe more folks are interested in min-RoR more than max-ER.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
On Monday 05 April 2004 02:12 pm, Bill Velek wrote:
Little doubt of that Elliot. But if I read you correctly, bottom
line
you not only view doubling a decent proposition for the negative
player (say 9/6 Jacks) but would go as far as to recommend it them.I think that's very unfortunate. "Doubly" so given my
observations in
the casino of how gamblers tend to employ it in their play.
- Harry
How can a 100% proposition be ALL bad when the alternative is a
99.6% (many times far worse) proposition?
I agree that the way gamblers 'tend' to employ it in their play is
EXACTLY WHY the casinos allow a 100% play to sit there. It's the
same reason why, although, it's getting tougher, the casino's allow
ANY 100+% games. The way gamlbers 'TEND' to employ it in their
play.... most don't play ANY for of proper strategy and thus it
never pays 100%. Double-Up can't HELP but pay 100%, but if you keep
doubling until you max out the machine or lose, you're still going
to be in trouble more times than not.
Elliot
> The 'show below' would appear to be this part:
>
> '(b) The players will also sense that they are playing longer for
> the same bankrolls, on average. That 1,000 game session will
stretch
> into a 1,900 game session. Since the house edge for casino games
is
> based on the number of games played, the edge is reduced
> appreciably. To illustrate, in a 98.5 percent payback Joker Wild
> session, the players would average 15 bets lost in 1,000 games.
> These same 15 bets will now be lost 1n 1,900 games. This, in
effect
> raises the payback to 99.2 percent. But, for a 97 percent Video
> Poker machine, the double-up feature increases the payback to
98.4
> percent which suggests we can do much better on other types of
> machines.'I'm sorry, but this is smoke and mirrors. These effects are an
illusion
that is no more significant than transfering coins from pocket to
coin
tray and viewing it as losing less during those "plays".
> I think over the past 10 days (or so), we have distorted the
message
> that was trying to be conveyed. (*I include myself in this*)
I realize your father isn't here to defend his position on this,
but I
have to say that he fooled himself into thinking this was real when
it was not. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to deceive himself or
his
readers, but the conclusions he reached were not mathematically
correct in this particular case.
Steve, I think this is essentially my point. He never said that it
was mathematically correct (from a textbook point of view), but
rather the average player would feel like he played more games, or
his money would 'last longer'. He was attempting to put this into
some 'concrete terms' the reader could relate to. I don't believe
he was trying to express that the actual EV of the game had changed,
but rather the loss rate would slow (over a period of time or a
period of games, where 2 games were played 45% of the time instead
of 1).
For what it's worth......
Elliot
Harry wrote:
> Little doubt of that Elliot. But if I read you correctly, bottom
> line you not only view doubling a decent proposition for the
> negative player (say 9/6 Jacks) but would go as far as to
> recommend it them.
>
> I think that's very unfortunate. "Doubly" so given my
> observations in the casino of how gamblers tend to employ it
> in their play.
Elliot responded:
How can a 100% proposition be ALL bad when the alternative is a
99.6% (many times far worse) proposition?
Excellent question!
I disagree with Harry on this point. In fact, I think it might be possible
to prove mathematically that a moderate amount of doubling _cannot_
harm the player in a negative game.
However, there can be too much of a good thing. If the proposition
was 100% return based on a one in a billion chance of multiplying
the payoff by a factor of one billion, then it would constitute virtually
certain death to the player's bankroll. Such a way of getting 100%
return could only be considered a trap.
Here's a specific example where doubling would be wrong. Say
a player started with $100 or $200 and had a specific goal to
reach $1000 or go bust trying. The game is $1 9/6 JoB with no
cashback and a double option. Suppose the player got lucky
and made it all the way to $995, then plays a 5 coin bet. If the
hand ends up a high pair, the player should double while
planning to quit after winning the double (since the $1000 goal
has been reached). If the goal is reached (exceeded) with a
higher payoff, then _not_ doubling means you've succeeded
while doubling would be an unnecessary risk of losing the
whole bankroll.
I think a poll(s) is worthwhile doing, but first I'd like to get
some accurate, concise entries in the FAQ about the
various options, with links to a DataBase page(s) with
more detailed information. Playing strategies could also
be included for a few games.
I've had this on my "to do" list for some time and will
get it done eventually. Help with writing the FAQ entries
etc. is welcomed.
vpFREE Administrator
On 6 Apr 2004 at 9:23, Bill Velek wrote:
Now, perhaps my assessment of what primarily interests the majority of
folks here is wrong -- whether it be max-ER, min-cost, min-RoR,
max-Royal, or whatever -- so I just perused the 'polls' page of vpFree
but did not notice a poll pertaining to this; I'm now suggesting to Tom
that perhaps a poll (or two) is appropriate on this question.
Harry wrote:
> > Little doubt of that Elliot. But if I read you correctly,
bottom
> > line you not only view doubling a decent proposition for the
> > negative player (say 9/6 Jacks) but would go as far as to
> > recommend it them.
> >
> > I think that's very unfortunate. "Doubly" so given my
> > observations in the casino of how gamblers tend to employ it
> > in their play.Elliot responded:
> How can a 100% proposition be ALL bad when the alternative is a
> 99.6% (many times far worse) proposition?Excellent question!
I disagree with Harry on this point. In fact, I think it might be
possible
to prove mathematically that a moderate amount of doubling _cannot_
harm the player in a negative game.However, there can be too much of a good thing. If the proposition
was 100% return based on a one in a billion chance of multiplying
the payoff by a factor of one billion, then it would constitute
virtually
certain death to the player's bankroll. Such a way of getting 100%
return could only be considered a trap.
NO argument there. I was referring to a 100% game of the general
nature of Double-Up (a coin toss, give or take).
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:
In reply to my statement that doubling isn't a recommended wager, to
which Elliot noted that in being a 100% prop it's could hardly be
considered "bad", Steve reliled:
Steve Jacobs wrote:
I disagree with Harry on this point. In fact, I think it might be
possible to prove mathematically that a moderate amount of doubling
_cannot_ harm the player in a negative game.
However, there can be too much of a good thing ...
Steve,
To clarify my statement: From what you've written, you're not too
troubled with concerns I might have about extensive doubling
increasing ROR (although we may disagree about the breakpoint).
However, I don't think even modest doubling is prudent. Bottom line,
it's a distraction to play.
It may be that I'm the only one in this group who, with very modest
distractions, makes "bang-my-head-on-the-machine serious" errors. In
any case, I think play accuracy is likely to suffer when doubling is
introduced.
I'm a purist at heart and I think a vp player should sit down at a
machine to play vp. That's my take, for what it's worth.
- Harry
In reply to my statement that doubling isn't a recommended wager, to
which Elliot noted that in being a 100% prop it's could hardly be
considered "bad", Steve reliled:Steve Jacobs wrote:
> I disagree with Harry on this point. In fact, I think it might be
> possible to prove mathematically that a moderate amount of doubling
> _cannot_ harm the player in a negative game.
> However, there can be too much of a good thing ...Steve,
To clarify my statement: From what you've written, you're not too
troubled with concerns I might have about extensive doubling
increasing ROR (although we may disagree about the breakpoint).
Keep in mind we're talking about a negative game. If you're willing
to accept my "extended" definition of RoR to mean "risk of failing
to reach a finite goal" then doubling only _decreases_ RoR in
negative games. If your goal is further away than 2X the payoff
of a royal, then doubling decreases generalized_ROR for all size
payoffs including the royal.
However, I don't think even modest doubling is prudent. Bottom line,
it's a distraction to play.
So is having a drink, or chatting with a spouse or friend, or taking
a bathroom break, or any number of other things. Casinos are
_designed_ for distraction.
I think using "distraction" as justification for not recommending
double up is really a stretch. Do you also recommend significant
changes to playing strategy because doing it "right" is too much
of a distraction? The question was about "harm" and I think the
context was clearly mathematical, not physical or psychological.
If doubling cannot cause harm from a mathematical perspective,
then I don't think a VP expert can be faulted for recommending
it. There is still an "if" here, but I'm leaning toward recommending
being more quite likely to be the correct course for negative
games.
It may be that I'm the only one in this group who, with very modest
distractions, makes "bang-my-head-on-the-machine serious" errors. In
any case, I think play accuracy is likely to suffer when doubling is
introduced.
Accuracy in mathematics is also severly impaired by consumption
of alcohol. For your own mathematical safety, do not drink and derive.
On Wednesday 07 April 2004 07:04 am, Harry Porter wrote:
If no one else volunteers to help you with this within the next day or two, then I'll see what I can do; my reluctance is simply that Steve Jacobs and several others are, without a doubt, much more qualified than I am to handle the full spectrum of strategies, if they have the time and inclination to do so. About as far as I could probably go would be an explanation of the different goals that each strategy is targeting, which would at least help people understand their options and which choice on the poll would be accurate for them, but I couldn't come up with sample strategies without a whole lot of review of Steve's posts, etc. Obviously, he's your man for that part.
Bill Velek
vpFREE wrote:
On 6 Apr 2004 at 9:23, Bill Velek wrote:
> Now, perhaps my assessment of what primarily interests the majority of
> folks here is wrong -- whether it be max-ER, min-cost, min-RoR,
> max-Royal, or whatever -- so I just perused the 'polls' page of vpFree
> but did not notice a poll pertaining to this; I'm now suggesting to Tom
> that perhaps a poll (or two) is appropriate on this question.I think a poll(s) is worthwhile doing, but first I'd like to get
some accurate, concise entries in the FAQ about the
various options, with links to a DataBase page(s) with
more detailed information. Playing strategies could also
be included for a few games.I've had this on my "to do" list for some time and will
get it done eventually. Help with writing the FAQ entries
etc. is welcomed.vpFREE Administrator
Elliot Frome wrote:
> > The 'show below' would appear to be this part:
> >
> > '(b) The players will also sense that they are playing longer for
> > the same bankrolls, on average. That 1,000 game session will
stretch
> > into a 1,900 game session. Since the house edge for casino games
is
> > based on the number of games played, the edge is reduced
> > appreciably. To illustrate, in a 98.5 percent payback Joker Wild
> > session, the players would average 15 bets lost in 1,000 games.
> > These same 15 bets will now be lost 1n 1,900 games. This, in
effect
> > raises the payback to 99.2 percent. But, for a 97 percent Video
> > Poker machine, the double-up feature increases the payback to
98.4
> > percent which suggests we can do much better on other types of
> > machines.'
>
> I'm sorry, but this is smoke and mirrors. These effects are an
illusion
> that is no more significant than transfering coins from pocket to
coin
> tray and viewing it as losing less during those "plays".
>
> > I think over the past 10 days (or so), we have distorted the
message
> > that was trying to be conveyed. (*I include myself in this*)
>
> I realize your father isn't here to defend his position on this,
but I
> have to say that he fooled himself into thinking this was real when
> it was not. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to deceive himself or
his
> readers, but the conclusions he reached were not mathematically
> correct in this particular case.Steve, I think this is essentially my point. He never said that it
was mathematically correct (from a textbook point of view), but
rather the average player would feel like he played more games, or
his money would 'last longer'. He was attempting to put this into
some 'concrete terms' the reader could relate to. I don't believe
he was trying to express that the actual EV of the game had changed,
but rather the loss rate would slow (over a period of time or a
period of games, where 2 games were played 45% of the time instead
of 1).For what it's worth......
Elliot
That's the way I took it, which is why, from the very outset of this thread, I suggested that it was really just a matter of semantics. Hell, if a player wants to _feel_ like he is playing more "games" by including double-up, then let the poor bastard feel that way, and folks ought to quit insisting on statistical technicalities so long as they are not actually misleading folks to the point that they are somehow damaged by it. The most important consideration re this issue, in my opinion, is that double-up earns no comps in the sense of 'points' that are considered for cash-back, bounce-back, gifts, rooms, and usually buffets, too. Once they understand that, and that volatility increases (which they will soon learn first hand if they double-up on all hands, or redouble, etc.), and that they are wasting time if the machine is a good opportunity (a positive machine), then I don't think there is much more for them to understand.
Bill Velek
Speaking for myself, I think it would be great to have what you are proposing
here. There has been a lot of talk, back and forth. Having a summary,
explaining clearly what the alternatives to MaxEV/MaxER are, would help us
all understand the mathematics that are associated with VP a lot better.
I know that it is a monumental undertaking and I thank you, in advance, for
taking the job.
I just want you to know that the work will be worth it and we will all benefit.
.....bl
snip
I think a poll(s) is worthwhile doing, but first I'd like to get
some accurate, concise entries in the FAQ about the
various options, with links to a DataBase page(s) with
more detailed information. Playing strategies could also
be included for a few games.
snip
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
On 6 Apr 2004 at 9:23, Bill Velek wrote:
vpFREE Administrator
The actual effect of the double-up feature, if it is an honest 50/50
shot to double your bet is to Increase the volatility of your
return "play" with no effect on expected return this is a bad
characteristic...the gambler should strive for higher expected return
and lower volatility just like investment returns. The one execption
would be if you get comp credit for the double-up bet and you are
palying a machine with less than 100% expected return than this is a
good way to increase your comps earned without affecting expected
return (expected loss). If you are palying a positve expected return
machine this is obviously always an inferior bet.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Elliot Frome" <compuflyers@p...>
wrote:
> > The 'show below' would appear to be this part:
> >
> > '(b) The players will also sense that they are playing longer
for
> > the same bankrolls, on average. That 1,000 game session will
stretch
> > into a 1,900 game session. Since the house edge for casino
games
is
> > based on the number of games played, the edge is reduced
> > appreciably. To illustrate, in a 98.5 percent payback Joker Wild
> > session, the players would average 15 bets lost in 1,000 games.
> > These same 15 bets will now be lost 1n 1,900 games. This, in
effect
> > raises the payback to 99.2 percent. But, for a 97 percent Video
> > Poker machine, the double-up feature increases the payback to
98.4
> > percent which suggests we can do much better on other types of
> > machines.'
>
> I'm sorry, but this is smoke and mirrors. These effects are an
illusion
> that is no more significant than transfering coins from pocket to
coin
> tray and viewing it as losing less during those "plays".
>
> > I think over the past 10 days (or so), we have distorted the
message
> > that was trying to be conveyed. (*I include myself in this*)
>
> I realize your father isn't here to defend his position on this,
but I
> have to say that he fooled himself into thinking this was real
when
> it was not. I'm sure it wasn't his intent to deceive himself or
his
> readers, but the conclusions he reached were not mathematically
> correct in this particular case.Steve, I think this is essentially my point. He never said that it
was mathematically correct (from a textbook point of view), but
rather the average player would feel like he played more games, or
his money would 'last longer'. He was attempting to put this into
some 'concrete terms' the reader could relate to. I don't believe
he was trying to express that the actual EV of the game had
changed,
but rather the loss rate would slow (over a period of time or a
period of games, where 2 games were played 45% of the time instead
of 1).For what it's worth......
Elliot