Video Poker Team Play

[New2vp]

[oej719]

Pianoman is damn near brain dead.

[royal flush]

the one thing that is fact that rolandude "joe" doesnt get is that casinos have reduced 100%+ games in the old days mikey will verify this there were dollar and 2 dollar fpdw with comp points at many casinos and many promotions that put games at 103%+ these are gone. maybe joe works for the casinos to throw out misinformation

[rolanddude]

Mickey...

You want to know why I have such a short fuse with the guys here...

Let me just give you an example of some of the private messages I get from only a couple of illiterates here...The following is from oej this morning...

(***DELETED BY WEBMAN***).............


He is so obsessed with  "********" (my apologies Webman but it is no secret)  that he just can't move on...

Oej,

Switch hands the next time you have a little fantasy about me and it will feel like you got yourself some "strange".  Enjoy!!

Joe

PS...Nice banner at the top of the page selling ANOTHER  Bob Dancer book...Who's selling here again?

[rolanddude]

New,Very impressive charts...Thank you!The last one is mathematically accurate (as you most always are) but it fails to duplicate the real "magic" of the progressive bet.  It only bets the average bet constantly.   To make it work superior over constant betting you have to have steps.  Now I don't know what would be 3 steps below 20.4 but if it were incorporated ARTT would then show more wins like in your first chart.New,  putting session goals aside,  ER & EV, and all that other stuff...Let me ask you straight up...If every time I sat down to a machine to play I used this betting strategy,  regardless of length of time, goals, # of hands, or otherwise,  would I outperform constant betting?  ....   Thanks,Joe

[Webman]

Removing name. Just because it is obvious to you doesn't mean it is obvious to any other user.Further, posting ridicule of others on the forum is different than corresponding in other ways including private messages. If someone is abusing private messages then report it to me, not to the forum.Also, it appears you are taking the ridicule of one or two members and transposing it onto others. Most have been very polite to you as far as I can tell. I am receiving complaints about your conduct, and not from the members you might think. Please tone it down.

[faygo]

The nomenclature "private" is just that. Please spare us the contents of them. Thank You.

[rolanddude]

Just got another PM from oej... I will not share this one per Webman's request...
 
Let me just say that for oej to talk about my mother that way....What a loser he really must be in real life...  I'll talk to my mother tonight in my prayers and ask her to forgive him... 

[New2vp]

New,Very impressive charts...Thank you!The last one is mathematically accurate (as you most always are) but it fails to duplicate the real "magic" of the progressive bet.  It only bets the average bet constantly.   To make it work superior over constant betting you have to have steps.  Now I don't know what would be 3 steps below 20.4 but if it were incorporated ARTT would then show more wins like in your first chart.New,  putting session goals aside,  ER & EV, and all that other stuff...Let me ask you straight up...If every time I sat down to a machine to play I used this betting strategy,  regardless of length of time, goals, # of hands, or otherwise,  would I outperform constant betting?  ....   Thanks,Joe
The short answer is "no."You would have varied results.  If you ran many simulations  and your average bet-size with ARTT was less than your average bet-size with a level betting strategy:on a negative machine you would tend to lose less money with ARTT;on a positive machine you would tend to make less money with ARTT;and on a breakeven machine you would tend to break even with both.But if the bet size with level betting was less than the average bet size on ARTT:on a negative machine you would tend to lose less money with level betting;
on a positive machine you would tend to make less money with level betting;
and on a breakeven machine you would tend to break even with both.Your standard deviation in number of bets will always be greater with ARTT, making it riskier and less predictable based on the amount of your average bet.Of course your insistence on having ARTT with lower average bet sizes renders the comparisons useless.  You might think that you can prove that 6th grade boys were on average heavier than 12th grade boys if you restricted your sample of 6th grade boys to those over 190 pounds.  But the only way to prove a point like that is to use a sampling technique that selects a representative sample without handicapping either one.There is nothing wrong with that chart, but as you saw on a breakeven machine, ARTT has no advantage regardless of bet size.And there is no magic to ARTT, the magic in your comparisons with negative machines is in the "lower average bet size" not the "varying of bet size."  You might as well just pick the penny machines.  That way your losses on negative machines will be the lowest...possibly even lower if you just play one penny at a time.Based on your question, there were plenty of other thoughts in the post that you may not have taken enough time to consider.  Sorry to tell you, but your buddy hoodwinked you.This is not news and there is nothing here that hard to understand once the argument is broken down so that grade-schoolers can understand.I've answered your questions many times.  Now go back to my last post and possibly a few of the other posts and think of what the right answers are to the questions that I asked.  It may take some time, but it will be worth it.You probably won't learn as much simply by replying as you might by reading and thinking.

[rolanddude]

The nomenclature "private" is just that. Please spare us the contents of them. Thank You.
 
There was nothing private about his first message.  He was trying to talk matter of factly about me.  He thinks I'm someone else and is obsessed with it.  Anything sent to me "privately" that is degrading and demoralizing I feel needs to be shared with the room so that you too can see and always consider the source and what he says or claims anywhere and anytime he posts on this site.
 
When something is said about me in the forums openly I don't mind.  I even asked Webman some time ago to let it fly, I can take it. 
 
Now it seems that when someone goes "private" to degrade me (only because he don't want to show the room what a real moron he is).  I am not allowed to share it...
 
Seems again that the deck is stacked against me here...