Gold Exclusive
My Favorites
Major mistake?
-
markinca
- Senior Member
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:27 pm
Re: Major mistake?
I think there is a big difference between not holding the kicker and the BJ example you gave. and, who said anything about having a 'feeling'.
most of the comments I read from those who do not save the kicker have noted they knew the 'correct' play, they simply choose to play differently.
Exactly my point. If they know the correct play and still choose to play differently, isn't it because they have a feeling that they'll have a better chance of getting a decent hit by making the incorrect play? Why else would you make an incorrect play?
On the other hand, if they're doing it because they actually think holding AAA is the correct play, well hopefully their minds have been changed by now.
-
Tedlark
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 8575
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:29 am
The math says that holding the kicker may be the correct play. The math ALSO says that a player should see a royal about every 40,000 hands, give or take a few. How many players here have had extended, E X T E N D E D runs without catching a royal? One of the "math guys", Vman, is one of them.
My bottom line is simple: I play the way I want to play with my money. If someone wants to bankroll me then, and only then, would I take into consideration their opinions on video poker.
My bottom line is simple: I play the way I want to play with my money. If someone wants to bankroll me then, and only then, would I take into consideration their opinions on video poker.
-
markinca
- Senior Member
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:27 pm
The math says that holding the kicker may be the correct play. The math ALSO says that a player should see a royal about every 40,000 hands, give or take a few. How many players here have had extended, E X T E N D E D runs without catching a royal? One of the "math guys", Vman, is one of them.
My bottom line is simple: I play the way I want to play with my money. If someone wants to bankroll me then, and only then, would I take into consideration their opinions on video poker.
No arguments here. I just wasn't aware if you were aware of how much is given up when making the incorrect play. But as you say, you play however you want to play. My mom plays DW and she's always holding any two to a royal, even though she knows it's a bad play. I don't argue with her about it; it's her money. Like I said before, I just want to make sure the information is out there.
I'm not sure why you mentioned that bit about the royal frequency though. That because Vman hasn't caught one in a bunch of hands that the math must be wrong? No, the math is still correct. If someone goes 5 cycles with no royals, then somewhere out there has been one cycle with 6 royals in it.
My bottom line is simple: I play the way I want to play with my money. If someone wants to bankroll me then, and only then, would I take into consideration their opinions on video poker.
No arguments here. I just wasn't aware if you were aware of how much is given up when making the incorrect play. But as you say, you play however you want to play. My mom plays DW and she's always holding any two to a royal, even though she knows it's a bad play. I don't argue with her about it; it's her money. Like I said before, I just want to make sure the information is out there.
I'm not sure why you mentioned that bit about the royal frequency though. That because Vman hasn't caught one in a bunch of hands that the math must be wrong? No, the math is still correct. If someone goes 5 cycles with no royals, then somewhere out there has been one cycle with 6 royals in it.
-
Tedlark
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 8575
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:29 am
It's simple. I brought up the royal frequency to example that sometimes the math isn't exactly right. You also amplified this point when you mentioned one cycle with multiple royals. Those sessions by the way: I've had plenty of. I've enjoyed many sessions with 3, 4, and 5 royals in them. And not only when playing DreamCard.
-
markinca
- Senior Member
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:27 pm
It's simple. I brought up the royal frequency to example that sometimes the math isn't exactly right. You also amplified this point when you mentioned one cycle with multiple royals. Those sessions by the way: I've had plenty of. I've enjoyed many sessions with 3, 4, and 5 royals in them. And not only when playing DreamCard.
I also see this a lot on the forums and this needs to be said. The math IS exactly right. But the math is NOT a guarantee. It's a probability. The probability of a coin landing on heads is 1/2. Does that mean that if you flip a coin twice, you're guaranteed 1 heads? Of course not. Is it possible to flip a coin twice and get no heads? Sure. Four times? Sure. Ten times? Sure. One hundred times? Not very likely, but sure, still possible. Do any of these outcomes mean that our original 1/2 probability was incorrect? No. It's still 1/2. It's always 1/2. The math is exactly right.
Which is more likely? That you'll hit a royal the hand after you just hit a royal, or the hand after you've just gone 6 cycles without a royal? Neither - they're both exactly the same - roughly 1 in 40,000. It's always 1 in 40000.
In a royal situation, you actually have about a 36% chance of getting no royals in a given royal cycle. That is far from a guarantee. In fact, roughly 1 out of every 400 6-cycle samples will have no royals. That's not really too rare of a drought at all.
And I'm sorry if I sound a little militant when it comes to the math. I'm a math teacher by trade.
I also see this a lot on the forums and this needs to be said. The math IS exactly right. But the math is NOT a guarantee. It's a probability. The probability of a coin landing on heads is 1/2. Does that mean that if you flip a coin twice, you're guaranteed 1 heads? Of course not. Is it possible to flip a coin twice and get no heads? Sure. Four times? Sure. Ten times? Sure. One hundred times? Not very likely, but sure, still possible. Do any of these outcomes mean that our original 1/2 probability was incorrect? No. It's still 1/2. It's always 1/2. The math is exactly right.
Which is more likely? That you'll hit a royal the hand after you just hit a royal, or the hand after you've just gone 6 cycles without a royal? Neither - they're both exactly the same - roughly 1 in 40,000. It's always 1 in 40000.
In a royal situation, you actually have about a 36% chance of getting no royals in a given royal cycle. That is far from a guarantee. In fact, roughly 1 out of every 400 6-cycle samples will have no royals. That's not really too rare of a drought at all.
And I'm sorry if I sound a little militant when it comes to the math. I'm a math teacher by trade.
-
notes1
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:18 am
[QUOTE=notes1]
I think there is a big difference between not holding the kicker and the BJ example you gave. and, who said anything about having a 'feeling'.
most of the comments I read from those who do not save the kicker have noted they knew the 'correct' play, they simply choose to play differently.
Exactly my point. If they know the correct play and still choose to play differently, isn't it because they have a feeling that they'll have a better chance of getting a decent hit by making the incorrect play? Why else would you make an incorrect play?
On the other hand, if they're doing it because they actually think holding AAA is the correct play, well hopefully their minds have been changed by now.[/QUOTE]
it is not a feeling they will have a better chance of decent hit, they actually will have increased their odds of a decent hit, if one considers 800 coins a decent hit. we know we have reduced our mathematical odds of the ultimate 4000 coin payout, but we have not eliminated the possibility altogether.
I stated before, I have made many premium hands when drawing the two cards, instead of holding the kicker. would I be overall better off holding the kicker, I do not know, never kept the records. what I can say with certainty is that in my history of playing, I have gotten many times more premium hands when drawing two cards than just one.
I think there is a big difference between not holding the kicker and the BJ example you gave. and, who said anything about having a 'feeling'.
most of the comments I read from those who do not save the kicker have noted they knew the 'correct' play, they simply choose to play differently.
Exactly my point. If they know the correct play and still choose to play differently, isn't it because they have a feeling that they'll have a better chance of getting a decent hit by making the incorrect play? Why else would you make an incorrect play?
On the other hand, if they're doing it because they actually think holding AAA is the correct play, well hopefully their minds have been changed by now.[/QUOTE]
it is not a feeling they will have a better chance of decent hit, they actually will have increased their odds of a decent hit, if one considers 800 coins a decent hit. we know we have reduced our mathematical odds of the ultimate 4000 coin payout, but we have not eliminated the possibility altogether.
I stated before, I have made many premium hands when drawing the two cards, instead of holding the kicker. would I be overall better off holding the kicker, I do not know, never kept the records. what I can say with certainty is that in my history of playing, I have gotten many times more premium hands when drawing two cards than just one.
-
notes1
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:18 am
I respect all teachers, good for you.
if you had a sample size of 100 people flipping a coin, is it possible than 1/2 the group might see more heads and the other half more tails. the end result would be closer to the anticipated 50/50.
I have long stated my belief that the math always works for the casinos, because they run 24/7, with a large sample size. any single person, who plays a limited amount as I do, can have results that vary wildly from expected results.
on TDB, I have had many dozens of low FH, and always break it up for the quad, as I am supposed to do. have never drawn the 4th matching card, ever. but, I keep doing it.
if you had a sample size of 100 people flipping a coin, is it possible than 1/2 the group might see more heads and the other half more tails. the end result would be closer to the anticipated 50/50.
I have long stated my belief that the math always works for the casinos, because they run 24/7, with a large sample size. any single person, who plays a limited amount as I do, can have results that vary wildly from expected results.
on TDB, I have had many dozens of low FH, and always break it up for the quad, as I am supposed to do. have never drawn the 4th matching card, ever. but, I keep doing it.
-
markinca
- Senior Member
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:27 pm
I respect all teachers, good for you.
if you had a sample size of 100 people flipping a coin, is it possible than 1/2 the group might see more heads and the other half more tails. the end result would be closer to the anticipated 50/50.
I have long stated my belief that the math always works for the casinos, because they run 24/7, with a large sample size. any single person, who plays a limited amount as I do, can have results that vary wildly from expected results.
on TDB, I have had many dozens of low FH, and always break it up for the quad, as I am supposed to do. have never drawn the 4th matching card, ever. but, I keep doing it.
Yes, this is exactly right - the theoretical probability of something happening (like 1 in 40000 for a royal) takes a LOT of hands to eventually get to. Someone's 5 or 6 royal-less cycle is not nearly close enough to the long run. Those a lot more likely than people think.
As you said, the casino can offer games with house edges as small as 0.5% in some cases because they know they have the bankroll to withstand hundreds and thousands and millions of hands and get to the long run very quickly and see that 0.5% edge come to fruition. One single person going into a casino? Anything can happen on any given hand. But play enough hands and you're virtually guaranteed to be down (and the casino will be up). The casino doesn't care if you hit a royal - they know they'll be getting their money in the end.
I play DW a lot, and I break up 5 of a kind with 3 deuces, and it always pains me to do it, but I've hit my 4th deuce a couple times and it always makes me remember why I do it. Your 4th ace will come eventually - maybe multiple times in a row.
if you had a sample size of 100 people flipping a coin, is it possible than 1/2 the group might see more heads and the other half more tails. the end result would be closer to the anticipated 50/50.
I have long stated my belief that the math always works for the casinos, because they run 24/7, with a large sample size. any single person, who plays a limited amount as I do, can have results that vary wildly from expected results.
on TDB, I have had many dozens of low FH, and always break it up for the quad, as I am supposed to do. have never drawn the 4th matching card, ever. but, I keep doing it.
Yes, this is exactly right - the theoretical probability of something happening (like 1 in 40000 for a royal) takes a LOT of hands to eventually get to. Someone's 5 or 6 royal-less cycle is not nearly close enough to the long run. Those a lot more likely than people think.
As you said, the casino can offer games with house edges as small as 0.5% in some cases because they know they have the bankroll to withstand hundreds and thousands and millions of hands and get to the long run very quickly and see that 0.5% edge come to fruition. One single person going into a casino? Anything can happen on any given hand. But play enough hands and you're virtually guaranteed to be down (and the casino will be up). The casino doesn't care if you hit a royal - they know they'll be getting their money in the end.
I play DW a lot, and I break up 5 of a kind with 3 deuces, and it always pains me to do it, but I've hit my 4th deuce a couple times and it always makes me remember why I do it. Your 4th ace will come eventually - maybe multiple times in a row.
-
jetermacaw
- VP Veteran
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:04 am
I've had 3 Royals this year holding ace- ten, will continue to do so despite what the math says. Like I said previously, since being a regular on this site and having learned much from certain posters I will now and forever always hold the kicker.
-
Tedlark
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 8575
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:29 am
jeter I also caught a royal this year holding A-10 and after posting the picture, there were a couple comments made about my choice of holding the 10. All I know is this: I held A-10 and was rewarded with a royal, how would I have felt if I held just the A, drew 4 to the royal and needed the 10 I just discarded to fill in the royal?
