Expected Loss for DDB

[sam434343]

[sam434343]

I  like the copper joke.lol.lol. Where i play all we have is 8/5 ddb 9/5 tdb manchines no higher paying machine so i am stuck with those well over 600 miles away there are some casinos with 9/6 but would spend more in gas to go there. What FRANK&NEW and other say about better paying machine is true will have win more money / lose money at a slower rate in general. But can fall the other to but not the normal your money going to last longer on higher pay shuechle machine. I agree with them and still play lower pay machine its all have close to me. And yes i am up for the year 2012 so far, but would probaly be up even more if played higher pay sheuchle.Some times we get stuff stuck in are heads and thats all we can see, like deers in head light of a car. I AM LUCKY to be alive myself many health problems and yes disable.What i,ve read about frank all seems to spot on,and just trying to help VP get more/ money/ fun/ entertainment out of the machines you play and last longer .lol ok

[Frank Kneeland]

I  like the copper joke.lol.lol. Where i play all we have is 8/5 ddb 9/5 tdb manchines no higher paying machine so i am stuck with those well over 600 miles away there are some casinos with 9/6 but would spend more in gas to go there. What FRANK&NEW and other say about better paying machine is true will have win more money / lose money at a slower rate in general. But can fall the other to but not the normal your money going to last longer on higher pay shuechle machine. I agree with them and still play lower pay machine its all have close to me. And yes i am up for the year 2012 so far, but would probaly be up even more if played higher pay sheuchle.Some times we get stuff stuck in are heads and thats all we can see, like deers in head light of a car. I AM LUCKY to be alive myself many health problems and yes disable.What i,ve read about frank all seems to spot on,and just trying to help VP get more/ money/ fun/ entertainment out of the machines you play and last longer .lol okYou made an amazingly good point, and it's one we haven't covered at all in this thread. The difference between a 99% return machine and a 98% return machine is really just a matter of time. Since one is expected to lose on both, the only real thing that changes is how long it takes one to lose.Since most people go to a casino with a set loss limit (good idea BTW for recreational players) the difference between machines is only how long it takes them to lose their money. If you have $200 to lose, it really doesn't matter what you are playing so long as what you are playing is negative expectancy. Eventually, you lose your $200, even if it takes multiple trips to do it.If you can find machines over 100%, then it's another story entirely and time stops being the only difference.One pro I know stated it this way: "People who play negative expectancy machines are just wasting their time. Therefore, if they play lower return machines they end up wasting less of their time and perhaps spending more of their lives doing something productive. This makes worse machines 'better' if time is important to you."(No it wasn't me that said that. Really, I'm just quoting someone. Initials-SD)In my book I told the real life story of a person that was furious with me for showing them better machines in a casino where they worked, because now it took them 4 times as long every night to lose their 40 bucks and go home. True story!(Please note the information in this post was a deliberate oversimplification of the relevant issues.)

[New2vp]

One pro I know stated it this way: "People who play negative expectancy machines are just wasting their time. Therefore, if they play lower return machines they end up wasting less of their time and perhaps spending more of their lives doing something productive. This makes worse machines 'better' if time is important to you."(Please note the information in this post was a deliberate oversimplification of the relevant issues.)Very interesting quote.  <You don't have to put the bold disclaimer at the end of all of your posts to keep me from critiquing your points.  I've picked on you enough today.  You deserve a break...from me at least.>

[Frank Kneeland]

  <You don't have to put the bold disclaimer at the end of all of your posts to keep me from critiquing your points.  I've picked on you enough today.  You deserve a break...from me at least.>
Well I really did leave out a lot on this one, as well you know. It's just if you say too much at once, often people don't hear anything at all.You should expound on just the one point of why VP variance isn't a bell curve and put it in its own thread. I fear it was lost in your long post...and it really is good info.

[New2vp]

You should expound on just the one point of why VP variance isn't a bell curve and put it in its own thread. I fear it was lost in your long post...and it really is good info.That is why I put a picture in the post, so people could SEE the difference.  But at your request, I have gone back and put that information in bold blue font in the long post, copied it here in italics, and put the picture and this post as the original post in a New Thread:Video poker distributions are generally
severely skewed to the right, meaning that the left tail is shorter than
the normal distribution and the right tail is considerably longer. 
This is evidenced by the limited though frequent losses when you play
(you cannot lose more than you bet) vs. the large but infrequent
jackpots that are available.There are several consequences of
this.  One is that the expected value is generally to the right of the
peak of the distribution.  Since this game is almost breakeven, you
can't really tell the difference between the normal distribution's peak
and a gain/(loss) of zero; but the peak of the video poker distribution
is clearly to the left of expected return, in loss territory.A
video poker distribution is NOT symmetric, unlike what you see with a
normal, bell-shaped distribution.  And the normal distribution
probabilities (68.27% within one standard deviation, 15.866% in both
right and left tails; 95.45% within two standard deviations, 2.275% in
both tails; 99.73% within three standard deviations, 0.135% in both
tails; etc.) DO NOT APPLY.  Generally, there is considerably less chance
of being in the left tail, meaning fewer large losses than are
predicted by the normal distribution; and, there is considerably more
chance of being in the right tail, meaning more large gains than are
predicted by the normal distribution.Any suggestions on how I can make this information more understandable are welcome.

[Frank Kneeland]

Any suggestions on how I can make this information more understandable are welcome.



Your graph was based on 700 hands. I think an illustration of merely ONE hand would give people a really good idea of what's causing the skew.On a 5 coin DollarMaximum loss = $5 (probability approx 50%)Maximum Gain = $4,000 (probability approx 1 in X)etc...Then add each possible hand in between.What's really going to show up is the holes. There absolutely no way to increase your bet by certain amounts, it's all or nothing with huge gaps.

[backsider]

I'll keep this short and simple.[QUOTE=backsider]When you claim I would have made a few thousand more had I played 9/6 instead of 9/5, thats theory.It's a theory that becomes fact the first Full House you hit.If you can't understand that, then there's nothing more I can say.As always you have my best wishes and lunch is on me if you ever visit. I can even introduce you to some of my team mates. You'd like them. Cheers...[/QUOTE] I think New2vp believes youre being too cute and its bothering him.    GOOD JOB! Im trying to understand. I and a friend go into a casino with $200 each. I hit 7 fhs on 10/6(a better than 100% game right?) and receive back 350 credits;  he hits 7 fhs on 8/5 and receives back 280. We, like many I know, both play until we hit a royal or lose the $200. As usual and as is very typical, we both leave losing our stake for the night. Its a rare night for sure if a royal gets hit because of those extra credits. So no, I would NOT have won more money playing that better pay table. Now back to my royal(s!) last week. I guess you could claim for every fh I hit I "lost" money, but then Id tell you I wish I could "lose" that kind of money every time I played! You see Frank, youre always explaining things in terms no one really experiences because we dont pull out books and see if we can apply some of that verbage to what were doing or not. I saw that you dont believe in luck today. That made me remember to plug in some of your statements to see what it spit out.  First let me say that luck is real. Believe me. Youre digging way too deep for explanations at times when you rush right by whats going on right in front of you. Claiming that a good hand like I had is nothing but normal distribution? and not luck is so far from reality that I wonder at times if youre speaking from the moon.  Ill explain what the program opined hopefully at lunch sometime, but heres a small hint at what it summized: not easy to hang with, especially with dummies like me. It also suspects youre a big smoker. I quit back when, so I dont know what that means.  

[shadowman]

Does anyone else wonder why a person who can gamble $25 per hand and appears to gamble on a regular basis does not bring his family out to LV? Would anyone else choose to live away from their family for an extended time?
 
Does anyone else wonder why said person just happened to have a big winner so he could argue his favorite point ... "luck".
 
Does anyone else wonder why this very same person loves to assert how other people think and feel (" New2vp believes youre being too cute and its bothering him"). 
 
Does anyone else wonder why this person claims his job is exactly the same one claimed as a previous job by our favorite deflector? Does anyone else wonder why this person also has exactly the same views on VP? And, uses the same trite phrases and grammar?
 
Yes, a perfect reflection of someone else.

[faygo]

[QUOTE=Frank Kneeland]
I'll keep this short and simple.[QUOTE=backsider] [/QUOTE]  Im trying to understand. I and a friend go into a casino with $200 each. I hit 7 fhs on 10/6(a better than 100% game right?) and receive back 350 credits;  he hits 7 fhs on 8/5 and receives back 280.       
[/QUOTE]
 So, your Buddy is sitting in the Coffee Shop and you are still playing.