Thoughts For Beginners

[OTABILL]

We all want to think we could stop any time we want.  It's like sex.  We'll stop when we can't anymore.  The only thing that keeps me out of trouble is I hate losing.   If I didn't, I'm pretty sure I would be broke by now.


We stopped playing regularly for over a year. Never was an addiction just a recreational activity we enjoyed.

[billryan]

Now we are getting g close to the roots of things.
Admitting a problem is the first step.
Might look up local G.A. meetings.

[olds442jetaway]

Most of the vp math folks don't take into account that the math comes around for some never in a lifetime cause it is over infinity. Using myself as an example, I could almost guarantee I am the only vp player in the country who has had 3 stretches of not getting Royals in over 500k hands and the most recent one was over 700k hands. Quad deuces are the only thing that partially saved me. Now I am back up to over 100k hands again. The play is a mix between single line tripple and 5 play, but over half is single line. It is not just Mohegan either. I have started playing at Foxwoods too 3 days a week since October at Foxwoods and haven't had a Royal there yet. That would make it over 400k hands just at Foxwoods since October on top of the misses on Royals at Mohegan. Sometimes I get quad deuces twice in a day and that helps a little, but still way behind the 8 ball.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=olds442jetaway] Using myself as an example, I could almost guarantee I am the only vp
player in the country who has had 3 stretches of not getting Royals in
over 500k hands and the most recent one was over 700k hands.[/quote]VP is 80% math and 20% luck.  If that 20% isn't on your side, not even Bob Dancer wins.   I may have the percentages wrong, but luck is still part of the equation.  I'm sure Bob knows this better than anyone.  Shouting it from the rooftops doesn't help his business, but he knows it believe me. 

[ukaserex]

I wanted to add another element to better VP results.

Rest and Nutrition.

In some ways, I tend to look at VP as an athletic event. I know that studies show, and my own anecdotal experience backs this up - if I'm tired, I tend to make inferior decisions.
If I'm hungry - I'm thinking about food. Conversely, if I'm having digestive issues from too much protein, well that can also impact my play.
Given the sedentary nature of VP, one would think you don't need to be fit - and that is true - but I think coffee, creatine or other supplements like Ashwagandha can be very helpful in maintaining focus. (Don't use creatine with coffee - the caffeine supposedly interferes with the creatine, or vice-versa)

Just thought I'd add that bit.

[olds442jetaway]

My favorite drink while playing vp is a chocolate milk shake with a double shot of espresso. For those who haven't tried it, it is awesome. Of course I have to adjust my calories taken in for the day but I do that too. If I go over 2,000 for the day, my weight goes up. That shake is good for 600 by itself but it is really good. I always have a bottle of water at the machine too.

[billryan]

VP is 80% math and 20% luck.  If that 20% isn't on your side, not even Bob Dancer wins.   I may have the percentages wrong, but luck is still part of the equation.  I'm sure Bob knows this better than anyone.  Shouting it from the rooftops doesn't help his business, but he knows it believe me. 


If you play perfect strategy on JOB, and never ever hit a Royal Flush, you are still going to get a return over 97 percent.
If you throw away any strategy whatsoever and try to get a Royal Flush on every hand, I have no idea what percent you can expect but it wouldn't be anything close to 97%.
Claiming the game is 20% luck is a disservice to those who take the time to work out strategy, besides being absolutely false.

[paco13]

Where can I get 1 of those shakes Olds?

[New2vp]

VP is 80% math and 20% luck.  If that 20% isn't on
your side, not even Bob Dancer wins.   I may have the percentages wrong,
but luck is still part of the equation.  I'm sure Bob knows this better
than anyone.  Shouting it from the rooftops doesn't help his business,
but he knows it believe me.If you play perfect strategy on JOB, and never ever hit a Royal Flush, you are still going to get a return over 97 percent.
If you throw away any strategy whatsoever and try to get a Royal Flush on every hand, I have no idea what percent you can expect but it wouldn't be anything close to 97%.
Claiming the game is 20% luck is a disservice to those who take the time to work out strategy, besides being absolutely false.
Hey, Bill.  I feel your pain.  I'm not sure if you want to know the exact percentage of a strategy such as you described; however, the answer is that always going for the royal in a way that I will explain in the next paragraph will produce an expectation of 48.05%.  Another way of saying that is that the casino will expect to keep 51.95% of the money wagered.When going for a Royal at all costs, with a hand like J of hearts, T983 of spades, a strategy calculator may act as if it doesn't matter whether you hold the Jack or the Ten because either hold gives you an equal chance at the Royal Flush.  To calculate 48.05%, I added in a constraint that would give preference to the Jack rather than being indifferent between the Jack and the Ten, because doing so would produce a higher non-royal EV.  Settling these ties optimally in all the possible hands adds a little to the standard EV that one might calculate for an all-royals strategy.But your point that strategy matters ... and can matter a lot ... is right on target.  There is quite a difference between 99.54% and 48.05%.Bill, I imagine Phil is really a nice guy.  He clearly likes to add to the spice of the forum and express his opinion.  It appears to me that one of his tenets is that he understands the underpinnings of others' arguments as well as they do themselves.  Unfortunately, I think he sometimes isn't as precise as he could be and doesn't realize that what he is writing is in conflict with what he means.  He often says he understands the math ... and I'm guessing that in his education and work experience he is well above average in that regard.  But clearly statements such as what he made above do not help his argument or the light that some like you hold him in.Examining the post that I quoted, his 3rd statement is clearly correct. Or, at least it would be if he removed the word "may."I may have the percentages wrong,
but luck is still part of the equation.Unfortunately that statement being true renders the rest of the argument a bit less than persuasive.  E.g., if Phil has the percentages wrong, his leading statement "VP is 80% math and 20% luck," is clearly not supported.  When your 3rd statement essentially contradicts the 1st, you lose debating "points" and more people will ignore your main point.  Later he states, "I'm sure Bob know this better than anyone."  Then he goes on to suggest that Bob would not stress that point hinting that it would be bad for Bob's business.Actually, Bob has articulated the impact of luck many times over the years.  When Bob has done that, he virtually always explains that the impact varies and lessens as the length of play increases.  There are other factors as well, but I won't get into those in this post.Now, when Phil reads this, he will believe that I'm missing his entire point, stating that the exact numbers don't matter.  After all, he stated, that he didn't know the exact percentages.  However, when he asserts, "If that 20% isn't on
your side, not even Bob Dancer wins,"  the number actually matters a lot.  If we are talking about a few hands or a daily session or two, then I'd agree with the sentiment if not the number.  However, over time the exact nature of the percentage that luck plays diminishes.If we can find a duration of play for which the impact of luck is 20%,
we can play longer and the impact of luck will be less than 20%.  Or we
could play shorter and the impact of luck would be greater than 20%.I'm certain that Bob has had years when he has had better than average luck and years when he has had poorer than average luck.  However, I'd be willing to bet that Bob still made an overall profit in some of the years with poorer than average luck, even if he didn't win as much as he would have if he had had average luck that year.If we are to ignore the numbers in Phil's post and just go with the assertion that Bob Dancer cannot win with poorer than average luck, then unfortunately I think we have to dismiss his conclusion, if not his entire argument ... at least this time.  But maybe we shouldn't dismiss the person ... or the passion that he puts into his beliefs.

[New2vp]

With a max-EV strategy, 1.98% of the 99.54% return for 9-6 Jacks or Better is for the royal, so 1.99% of the return is due to they royal.With the max-royal strategy adjusted to break ties with max-EV, 3.47% of the 48.05% is wrapped up in the royal, so 7.21% of the return is for the royal.The max-royal strategy produces a variance of 28.65 vs. the "normal" variance of 19.51.  The max-royal strategy will produce 75% more royals but will also vary considerably more than a normal strategy.