Does this math work?

[rolanddude]

Hey Phil,  are you playing at the Hard Rock in Tampa?  I had a great year there in 2011!!!

[shadowman]

 See, this is exactly where I have the "math" problem. You are talking about a "Cost difference $3.42 / hour". But that difference is based on the millions of hours of play used to set that Expected Return in that pay table, not just the one hour. What happens in any one particular hour using this approach is more luck than math.  


 
Partially true (it doesn't take millions of hours), but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
Unless Phil is going to quit playing, all of his future play can be viewed along these lines. There's no good reason for him not to take this into consideration. Yes, he will have some good sessions (lucky) and some bad sessions (unlucky), but as time progresses his overall results will trend towards the expected return.
 
If people ignore this reality they can make some bad choices. Phil is trying to understand the cost of a long term method of play that he enjoys. Now, he can make the trade-off with a clearer vision.
 
 

[shadowman]

BTW, the same argument used to argue that playing a poorer paytable is not important can be used to argue that employing a superior strategy is not important. What a optimal strategy does is simply increase the expected return of the game. This is also what occurs when a player chooses a game with a better return.
If we take that view even further one can argue it makes no sense to hold any cards whatsoever and you might as well just hit deal and then draw and take whatever you get.

[FloridaPhil]

Fascinating...   I think I'm getting it.

1. No way to predict random events - Check.
2. No one can define exactly what a "hot streak" is until it's over - Check.
3. If you play negative expectation games your results will eventually be negative - Check
 
I play mostly at the Tampa and Hollywood Hard Rocks.  We make a trip to the Beau Rivage in Biloxi about 3-4 times a year.  They comp everything and it's a great hotel. 
 
Unless you have access to positive expectation games and are willing to make a lot of sacrifices, I don't think it matters what strategy you use as long as you're having fun.  Some days you think you're a genius and other days you wish you hadn't played at all.  That's probably why I like it so much.
 
 

[Frank Kneeland]

The following 1-coin strategy was generated using OpVP and evaluates at  95.5527% which is 0.00124% off perfect. It is for 8/5/4 DDB BoPo. It's offered in Dan Paymar's format, but OpVP also allows you to generate these in other formats.














Four Aces w/2-4


Royal Flush


Four Aces


Four 2's - 4's w/A-4


Four 2's-K's


Straight Flush


Three Aces


Full House


RF 4 K-Q-J-10


Three 2's - 4's


RF 4


Three 5's-K's


Flush


Straight


SF 4 h0


SF 4 i


Pair of Aces


Two Pairs


Pair of J's - K's


Flush 4


RF 3 QJT -KQJ


Pair of 2's - 4's


Straight 4 h3


RF 3 A-h-h


RF 3 K-h-10


Straight 4 h2


RF 3


Straight 4 h1


Pair of 5's - 10's


Straight 4 h0


SF 3 i h2


SF 3 h1


Four pay cards (A-K-Q-J)


SF 3 di h2


SF 3 i h1


SF 3 h0


Straight 4 i h3


RF 2 Q-J


RF 2 K-Q, K-J


RF 2 A-h


Three pay cards (K-Q-J)


Straight 4 i h2


SF 3 di h1


Two pay cards (Q-J)


SF 3 i h0


One A


Two pay cards (K-Q, K-J)


One J,Q,K


RF 2 J-10


SF 3 di h0


Straight 4 i h0


Redraw



If you were playing 5 coin vs 1 coin at 1000 hand per hour, the loss difference would be as follows:Five Coin = $5 * 1000 * 3.214% = $160.7 (an Hour)One Coin = $1 * 1000 * 4.4473% = $44.47 (an Hour)Of course the logic and math break-down when calculating negative expectancy games because if your goal is to lose the least, not playing at all always wins.Anyway you asked for it, you got it...

[Frank Kneeland]

See, this is exactly where I have the "math" problem. You are talking about a "Cost difference $3.42 / hour". But that difference is based on the millions of hours of play used to set that Expected Return in that pay table, not just the one hour. What happens in any one particular hour using this approach is more luck than math. Sorry, I do not have a radio show, or the opportunity to jump in to a progressive jackpot game whenever the time is right. Congrats to Frank,by the way, on hitting , though I am not sure why it took three weeks of startegy planning. Show up, hit max bet, win, collect hand pay would have been my strategy .    The expected cost difference shadow listed is most
absurdly not based on millions of hours of play. It is an expected
average. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding
expectation and keeping it separate from the concepts of regression to mean, standard deviation and the law of large numbers.The entire purpose of using expected averages is to avoid having to do millions of trials. I used a coin flip example the other day to explain something to Backsider, I'll use it again. If I offered you $1 every time a coin comes up heads, but charged you $1.02 every time it came up tails, you are expected to lose 2 cents half the time, which comes out to 1 cent every toss. Now here's the part you need to understand.Even though your expected average loss is 1 cent per hand, that will NEVER happen. On no toss will you ever lose exactly 1 cent. Somtimes you'll win a dollar. Other times you'll lose 1 dollar and 2 cents. The average of this is 1 cent per toss, but that's all it is, "an average".The purpose of using expected averages in gambling is to make decisions about things in advance of playing. Therefore, the number of hands required for this average to be useful is not millions, it is 0. And expectation should be used as a best guess about the future, which unless you have a crystal ball you're not sharing, to us humans remains forever the undiscovered country.Expected averages do not require actualization or trials of any quantity to be accurate and excelent tools for planing our future. They are best guesses.If you aren't basing your future play on expected averages, then you are still guessing, but you are doing so in a--shall we say--non-best fashion.~FK

[spxChrome]

Everyone knows the golden rule is to always play max credits and if you can't afford it go to a cheaper game.  Everyone also says it doesn't matter if you play 1 or 5 credits.  Although the consesus is that the cpu gives out better hands to 1 credit players cause it dosn't have to payout.  Why would it do this? To show a balanced audit report with x Royals, x this and x that.  Doesn't report the credits played.  So more high paying hands are played with only 1 credit. Now I don't know or am not going to argue, most people know I just report what actually happens in real life, not free games or training games or statistic runs.  In short, not what is suppose to happen or how its programmed to play, but my expierence as a VP player. There are only 2 casinos were I play 1 $5 credit instead of 5 x $1 credit.  The reason I do this is because the $1 machine is a 8/5 machine and the $5 machine is a 9/6.  And over a period of time those extra credits add up. Last year I hit 5 Royals playing 1 x $5 credit and that was a very low % of my play since I only visited the 1 casino Harrahs New Orleans 2x and hit a Royal both times.  Although I probally played less than 10% of my time on the $5 machine.  The other 3 was at a local casino I probally visit 2/3 times a month and spend maybe 25% of my time at the HL machine.  While the other 75% of my time I spend playing max credits  on the lower denom machine and only hit 2 royals. As a side note I have also hit AWAK on the $5 machine probally 3x as often than on the lower denom. Not trying to start an arguement or get the RNG is not random bus rolling, just documenting what actually happens when I play 1 credit vs max credit. 

[brmcc74]

LOL, I'LL warm up the bus

[New2vp]

Everyone also says it doesn't matter if you play 1 or 5 credits.  Although the consesus is that the cpu gives out better hands to 1 credit players cause it dosn't have to payout.I guess the "everyone" in the first sentence is not the same "everyone" who formed the "consensus" in the second. 

[onemoretry]

Although the consesus is that the cpu gives out better hands to 1 credit players cause it dosn't have to payout. 

Oh, really? 
 
I've been playing video poker for about 20 years, read countless articles by numerous authors, and never, to this date, been advised of this "consesus".
 
In my personal experience, I have observed many, many more full coin royals than short coin ones.