Yes, but JOB carries the risk of death by boredom. Not much more interesting than a bill changer IMHO.
George in SF
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Which VP game is best for a short session?
LOL, try playing it for a higher denom. It will become much more
interesting. If you are translating variance into $variance (or you
could call it "trip variance" since short session is the topic here), I
wonder (I don't know this answer but it sounds right) that $1 9/6 JOB
has the same $variance as say 50-cent 9/6 DDB.
Yes, but JOB carries the risk of death by boredom. Not much more
interesting than a bill changer IMHO.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "wxmen" <wxmen@...> wrote:
George in SF
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I agree!
Nita
wxmen <wxmen@sonic.net> wrote: Yes, but JOB carries the risk of death by boredom. Not much more interesting than a bill changer IMHO.
George in SF
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with any intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways -- Chardonnay in one hand -- chocolate in the other -- body thoroughly used up , totally worn out and screaming " WOO HOO, WHAT A RIDE"
···
---------------------------------
See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nothing would then beat Deuces Wild on MultiStrike for excitement. It
will keep you on your toes, and your heart beat at the max.
Your characterization of JoB is neat. One should from now on calculate
RoD (a la RoR) for each of these games.
Yes, but JOB carries the risk of death by boredom. Not much more
interesting than a bill changer IMHO.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "wxmen" <wxmen@...> wrote:
George in SF
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wonder (I don't know this answer but it sounds right) that $1 9/6
JOB
has the same $variance as say 50-cent 9/6 DDB.
Why wouldn't it? If we are calculating for long term, I don't see how
the coin denomination matters. As long as the pay table is the same for
both games, there is nothing different in the calculations. The
variance calculation doesn't (shouldn't) care whether the coin in
question is a penny or a dollar.
Having said that, I'd certainly like an authority to confirm, or refute
that opinion.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike" <ddddmike@...> wrote:
You're right that the denomination doesn't matter for the same paytable. However, JOB and DDB have totally different paytables. DDB has a much higher variance (almost 42) than JoB (19.5).
Not sure about the dollar variances of $1 Job versus $.50 DDB - can you just multiply each game's denomination by its variance? If so, $1x19.5=$19.5 for JoB, and $.50x42=$21 for DDB, making the dollar variance pretty close for the two. Since variances are in single coin bets (according to WinPoker), then the above should be valid.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike"
wrote:
I wonder (I don't know this answer but it sounds right) that $1 9/6
JOB
has the same $variance as say 50-cent 9/6 DDB.
Why wouldn't it? If we are calculating for long term, I don't see how
the coin denomination matters. As long as the pay table is the same for
both games, there is nothing different in the calculations. The
variance calculation doesn't (shouldn't) care whether the coin in
question is a penny or a dollar.
Having said that, I'd certainly like an authority to confirm, or refute
that opinion.
···
Adams Myth <Adams_Myth@HotMail.Com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The original post asked the question that appears on the subject line. I replied that JoB was probably the best since it had low variance. On further reflection, I have to echo what has been said on this subject before here on vpFREE:
Even though you are playing a short session at a given time, such as 500 hands, you can think of all video poker that you play in your lifetime as being a single session, with possibly very long breaks in between sub-sessions. In that case, you should always play games with the highest EV and lowest possible variance that you can find.
There are exceptions to this of course, such as tournaments, where it doesn't really fit into the "lifetime session" idea, and you have to treat it as a single session. But for the most part, sessions or trips are all part of your "lifetime session".
I think the original poster was going to be in downtown LV, so I would suggest games like FPDW at the quarter level or 10/7 DB at the $1 level. Search the vpFREE LV index to find a game and casino to your liking.
John
You're right that the denomination doesn't matter for the same paytable. However, JOB and DDB have totally different paytables. DDB has a much higher variance (almost 42) than JoB (19.5).
Not sure about the dollar variances of $1 Job versus $.50 DDB - can you just multiply each game's denomination by its variance? If so, $1x19.5=$19.5 for JoB, and $.50x42=$21 for DDB, making the dollar variance pretty close for the two. Since variances are in single coin bets (according to WinPoker), then the above should be valid.
Adams Myth wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike"
wrote:
I wonder (I don't know this answer but it sounds right) that $1 9/6
JOB
has the same $variance as say 50-cent 9/6 DDB.
Why wouldn't it? If we are calculating for long term, I don't see how
the coin denomination matters. As long as the pay table is the same for
both games, there is nothing different in the calculations. The
variance calculation doesn't (shouldn't) care whether the coin in
question is a penny or a dollar.
Having said that, I'd certainly like an authority to confirm, or refute
that opinion.
···
John Douglass <john.douglass@yahoo.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
John Douglass wrote:
You're right that the denomination doesn't matter for the same
paytable. However, JOB and DDB have totally different paytables. DDB
has a much higher variance (almost 42) than JoB (19.5).
Not sure about the dollar variances of $1 Job versus $.50 DDB - can
you just multiply each game's denomination by its variance? If so,
$1x19.5=$19.5 for JoB, and $.50x42=$21 for DDB, making the dollar
variance pretty close for the two. Since variances are in single coin
bets (according to WinPoker), then the above should be valid.
It's another restless night, so I'll while a little time away and
explore aspects of this thread at a little length. (If no other
purpose, it'll serve to lull someone else back to sleep ...)
···
------
Before touching the variance comments, I'll remark that I find the
"Jacks is a snoozer" observations that arise from time to time a good
indication of the range of attitudes toward vp. I respect that
particular sentiment, but don't share it.
There are two vp personalites ... those (in the majority) who get a
charge out of the prospect of coming out of a session ahead by serious
bucks, and those who abhor the stronger loss potential of some games.
These reflect two sides of the same coin -- variance ... in fact, I'll
refer to the first as variance-friendly (VF) and the second as
variance-averse (VA).
------
The VF are the optimists of vp ... they see potential high paying quad
hits as the opportunity to break into positive territory, offering the
potential of coming away from the machine as the victor. They truly
have their "eyes on the prize".
VA's, such as myself, are at least partially fixated by the downside
of play. Many of us may be particularly inspired by "fire and
brimstone" sermons 
Speaking for myself, I've never been attracted
to anything more volatile than DB -- where quad Aces don't give me a
huge thrill, since the subsequent prospect of watching much or all of
the hit drain away in an hour's time has been too frequent a
frustrating experience.
But, the compromise VA's make is that largely give up on hopes for
lofty wins outside of a RF hit -- or a string of quad hits that might
yield a moderate win but would leave a DDB player ahead by as much as
a RF. In lieu of that thrill, I'll kick my heels up in the casino
anytime I finish out a weekend of 12+ hours of play behind by no more
than a 1000 credits. Kinda like a soldier coming away from a lost
battle yelling "Yay! I still have all my limbs!" (What's a finger or
two? ...)
------
VA's are definitely in the minority ... it's a wonder we even step
into a casino. But there's a logic behind our dourness -- consider us
the tortoises of play.
I figure on losing in my play ... but look to cb, cash bonuses, and
tangible comps/benefits that I'd gladly pay cash for (gift cards,
etc.) to ideally put me ahead (the rooms/food are gimmies that I
enjoy, but wouldn't play for in and of themselves).
The strongest benefits are derived through sustained play each trip.
If a given trip stake will see you through with confidence playing a
game such as Jacks, but would put you at risk of a short trip playing
DDB, then you may be cutting yourself short in what you might get out
of your play.
Quite frankly, while I play $1 Jacks with reasonable comfort, I'd have
to cut to $.50 if I went with DDB. There would be certain benefits
I'd no longer enjoy -- although DDB does have it's advantage on the
comp front on a "per $ of play" basis since casino's hold
significantly more on DDB from players as a whole and comp accordingly.
Those observations are merely offered up as some food for thought ...
I really don't look to sell the VF on the idea that "Jacks is the best
thing since sliced bread".
------------------
So, let me explore the variance topic. I'll say right off that we're
entering the "angels dancing on the head of a pin" arena. Variance
gives us an entree into understanding the nature of vp swings, and the
relative degree of those of one game vs. another. However, as I've
recently stressed, it's a relatively poor descriptor of what happens
over the course of several trips, much less trip to trip.
It's a statistic that is best at refecting how data varies from mean
expectations when the data is "normally" distributed (i.e. reasonably
adheres to a "bell shaped" curve). That doesn't describe the
wins/losses of vp, where high paying hands like quads yield short-term
upside swings that run far stronger than losses do on the downside.
For this reason, if you look to variance for expectations of actual
play, you might just as well look to your favorite recreational drug
for insight. (Of course, after a sour day, I've been known to do just
that in the bottom of an emptied beer glass, or two.)
I exaggerate a bit. There are ways that you can augment the variance
concept to gain some perspective on vp play and, perhaps, relative
game bankroll requirements in the short run. But it's an exercise
best left to those who are desperate for some mental gymnastics
(forgive me if I suggest mental masturbation might be more fitting --
keeping in mind, should you draw offense, I'm clearly vying for a gold
medal in that sport).
------
The idea of $-variance, as was brought up in an earlier post, is a
good start. To clarify, this represents variance scaled by the
denomination of a game, in order to compare two plays at different
denominations.
Understand that, as discussed a few weeks ago in another thread,
there's some long-term correlation behind variance and ROR bankroll
requirement. It's a rough one at best. However, you might say that
if a game has twice the variance of another, the bankroll required to
survive play with a given risk level of the first can be expected to
be roughly twice the second -- once you scale both plays by respective
denomination to make them comparable.
If vp distributions were normal, this correlation might be reasonably
strong. It's weakened because of the skewness of the actual
distribution curve (sometimes referred to as the probability
distribution function - PDF, which is an equation form of the curve).
FWIW, the point at which vp results begin to apprximate a normal
distribution is roughly somewhere after 20 or 30 royal cycles. The
probability that you might hit twice as many royals as expected at
that point (the type of thing that's partly responsible for the
"skewness" of the vp distribution curve in the short run) is
diminished to the point where it becomes a nominal factor. This, in
fact, serves as a definition of vp "long term". The actual length of
time is dependent upon the nature of other high paying infrequent
hands. The long term for DDB is considerably longer than for Jacks.
Bottom line, there's something that might be explored in the concept
of variance as it relates to play swings -- again for the sake of
simply getting a handle around variances's implications on play.
------
The tricky part is that most of us have a practical consideration with
the short term -- something well under a million+ hands of play. As
noted, play results don't adhere to a normal distribution here so the
standard variance value is of little use.
What should be noted, however, is that the portion of vp distribution
that is most "non-normal" is the side that lies to the right of the
mean. It's the irregular occurance and high payout of hands at the
top of the paytable that cause the most trouble.
To see this graphically, you can refer to Jazbo Burns webpage on video
poker probability distributions:
http://jazbo.com/videopoker/curves.html
Things run much smoother on the left side of the curve peak than the
right.
If you limit your short term focus to how deep losses might run,
you're talking about a subset of sessions where high paying hands are
a limited factor at best (by definition, you aren't getting many, if
any). Within that focus, you might very well disregard high paying
hands altogether and limit yourself to results on the left side of the
mean.
What this suggests is looking at and comparing variance of vp results
derived only from the frequently occuring hands -- say only the FH and
under. You might go as far as including non-bonus quads to some
extent. If we stick to the 20-30 cycles noted above, capping our
consideration to a FH, this analysis might be valid for a session as
short as something like 2000-3000 hands. But, I'll warn you, I'm on
the verge of pulling some of this out of my derriere (taking care not
to offend excessively).
To get this adjusted variance, you simply use winpoker or Frugal, "0"
out the hands you wish to exclude from consideration, and reanalyze
the adjusted game for the variance. This, in fact, represents the
portion of the variance statistic contributed by those hands -- you'll
see that it's a fairly small value by comparison with total game variance.
Compare this value between two games, say JB and DDB, and it'll
suggest just how much worse one game's session may be than the other
and the degree to which you may need to bankroll yourself more a
session of the higher variance game.
Of course, basic quads aren't terribly infrequent over this length of
play and you might expect to hit one or more and still end up with a
very strong loss (someone on the AC vp group, acvpp, recently reported
hitting 9 JB quads in 2500 hands and still ended down my 6%). I'd
suggest perhaps adding in non-bonus quads in your adjusted paytable at
half value -- 62 for Jacks, 125 for DB/DDB -- understanding that the
long-term for that exercise now becomes something greater than 3000 hands.
------
I'll leave this suggested exercise to those interested in pursuing it.
My purpose was simply to round out the ideas that were extensively
touched on recently by others and suggest a tangible application.
But, as indicated by my "angels" remark at the start of this section,
I consider it an academic exericse. I think time might best be spent,
if you're going to obsess on vp, by honing your play of your favorite
game through practice with an aim to get the cost of your errors to
within .05% (or .01% if you've met that .05% mark
- Harry
I remember the "coin changers" at DFW, many years ago (when it first opened). They
actually returned $0.95 for a $1 bill. LOL. Even worse that LV.
And waiting for a connecting flight WAS pure boredom.
.....bl
Yes, but JOB carries the risk of death by boredom. Not much more interesting than a
bill changer IMHO.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "wxmen" <wxmen@...> wrote:
George in SF
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Did YOU ever get back to sleep?
.....bl (another VA VP player)
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
It's another restless night, so I'll while a little time away and
explore aspects of this thread at a little length. (If no other
purpose, it'll serve to lull someone else back to sleep ...)- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@...>
wrote:
I remember the "coin changers" at DFW, many years ago (when it first
opened). They
actually returned $0.95 for a $1 bill. LOL. Even worse that LV.
And waiting for a connecting flight WAS pure boredom.
So to relieve yourself from boredom, you played the coin changers!
For the 95% return (no expert play needed!), DFW ought to have provided
some comps!
Thanks for a very detailed and lucid exposition. I have reformatted and
printed it. Now I will go through it again.
It's another restless night, so I'll while a little time away and
explore aspects of this thread at a little length. (If no other
purpose, it'll serve to lull someone else back to sleep ...)
....
···
- Harry
I think Harry had some wonderful information in his post, but I don't
think he ever really addressed the issue of dollar variance.
The variance reported for each machine is a scaled variance, so the
denomination has been removed from consideration.
If you want to scale things, it is best to start with standard
deviation (SD, which is just the square root of the variance). SD
scales directly with denomination, so the SD of a $1 machine is just
four times the SD of a quarter machine. Squaring this to get back to
variance, the variance increases by a factor of 16! And to confuse
things even more, the variance is given as so many dollars squared.
For 9/6 JoB, the scaled variance is 19.5, and the scaled SD is 4.42.
For a dollar machine, with 5 coins in, this means the SD is 4.42x5x$1
= $22.09. The variance is about 488 square dollars, or 488 dollars
squared. Not very intuitive.
From this, it makes sense that SD is a much better measure of what to
expect when you change denomination. If your bankroll for quarters is
$1000, then your bankroll for dollars should be $4000, not $16,000.
So, if you are estimating your bankroll based on variance (which, as
Harry points out is overly simplistic), then base it on the scaled
variance given in the various sources, to get a bankroll in coins, and
then scale it by the coin of your choice.
For the examples given below, the variance for the $.50 DDB would be
42x5^2x$.50^2= 262.5 square dollars.
These numbers are what they are. How you interpret the results in
terms of choosing a game or bankroll are an entirely different matter.
- John
You're right that the denomination doesn't matter for the same
paytable. However, JOB and DDB have totally different paytables. DDB
has a much higher variance (almost 42) than JoB (19.5).
Not sure about the dollar variances of $1 Job versus $.50 DDB -
can you just multiply each game's denomination by its variance? If so,
$1x19.5=$19.5 for JoB, and $.50x42=$21 for DDB, making the dollar
variance pretty close for the two. Since variances are in single coin
bets (according to WinPoker), then the above should be valid.
Adams Myth <Adams_Myth@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike"
wrote:
> I wonder (I don't know this answer but it sounds right) that $1 9/6
JOB
> has the same $variance as say 50-cent 9/6 DDB.Why wouldn't it? If we are calculating for long term, I don't see how
the coin denomination matters. As long as the pay table is the same for
both games, there is nothing different in the calculations. The
variance calculation doesn't (shouldn't) care whether the coin in
question is a penny or a dollar.Having said that, I'd certainly like an authority to confirm, or refute
that opinion.---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.
Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Douglass <john.douglass@...> wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]