your next hand?

[FAA]

Actually I do need comps, just at ten or fifteen times CET's levels. I only play the best pay table machines, which all have stickers with downgrade warnings.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=Gronbog]As an example, take 9/6 jacks or better with a 99.54% return, meaning
that the house edge is 0.46%, and variance of 19.51. N0 for this game is
therefore 19.51 / 0.0046^2 ~= 922,023[/quote]Are you saying the game odds and your results will absolutely be in sync after 922,023 hands playing 9/6 jacks or Better?

[billryan]

[quote=Gronbog]As an example, take 9/6 jacks or better with a 99.54% return, meaning
that the house edge is 0.46%, and variance of 19.51. N0 for this game is
therefore 19.51 / 0.0046^2 ~= 922,023Are you saying the game odds and your results will absolutely be in sync after 922,023 hands playing 9/6 jacks or Better?
[/QUOTE]

He answered the question. You are evidently ignoring the answer as it doesn't fit your preconceived agenda.

[Gronbog]

[quote=Gronbog]As an example, take 9/6 jacks or better with a 99.54% return, meaning
that the house edge is 0.46%, and variance of 19.51. N0 for this game is
therefore 19.51 / 0.0046^2 ~= 922,023Are you saying the game odds and your results will absolutely be in sync after 922,023 hands playing 9/6 jacks or Better?
[/QUOTE]No. I  said that there is an 84% chance that you will be losing money after that many hands. At 4 x 922,023 hands, it's over 98% that you will be losing money. After more hands than that is pretty much guaranteed. I guess my point is that even at 1 x N0 you are not likely to be ahead and this is true even at less than 1 x N0.I thought a bit before posting because I didn't want to get into a situation where the math was being misinterpreted. I really just wanted to address the assertion the no one knows how many hands it takes to reach the long run. N0 is only one example of a way to measure this."In sync with the game odds" can can be evaluated using Standard Deviation (which is the square root of Variance). [edited for clarity] The ratio between your standard deviation and your expected result after n hands played is (SD x sqrt(n)) / (EV x n)This reduces to SD / (EV x sqrt(n))As you can see, this ratio gets smaller as n gets larger. SD / (EV x sqrt(922,023)) = (SD/EV) x 0.001 so, even at only 1 x N0, 1  the ratio of your standard deviation to your expected result is only 0.1% of what it started as.

[pokerpokerpoker]

So for 9/7 TDB with a variance of 98.3 and a house edge of .0042, NO would be 5,572,562 hands?

And say after 100,000 hands:

sqrt of 98.3 = 9.914635 is the SD
sqrt of 100000 = 316.227766
Ev = .0042

9.914635/(.0042 X 316.227766) = 7.464959

So then, what does this 7.464959 tell me if I play 100,000 hands of this game per year?

[case]

Gronbog
You just showed how true the odds become the longer you play. 9/6 Jacks is a losing game and that is why you have to add in the comps and whatever offers you have to try and make it a winning game.

You proved you "should" not beat negative odds the longer you play.

Of course the opposite is true if you are playing a positive game.

Thanks for proving a point we have been saying....forever

[billryan]

I'd rephrase that to this.
Ignoring comps, promos and the like will pretty much guarantee a player loses long term.

[FAA]

I was also a bit foggy on the answer. Thanks for further clarification. Basically, we're doomed. Twenty years later, still net losers. I'm not killing the messenger. It's a bitter pill.

[Gronbog]

So for 9/7 TDB with a variance of 98.3 and a house edge of .0042, NO would be 5,572,562 hands?

And say after 100,000 hands:

sqrt of 98.3 = 9.914635 is the SD
sqrt of 100000 = 316.227766
Ev = .0042

9.914635/(.0042 X 316.227766) = 7.464959

So then, what does this 7.464959 tell me if I play 100,000 hands of this game per year?Your calculations are correct. The 7.464959 number is the ratio of your standard deviation to your expected result after 100,000 hands. That really doesn't tell you much. What's more interesting is (1 / sqrt(100,000) = (1 / 316.227766) = 0.0316 which says that after 100,000 hands this ratio is only about 3% of what it started out as. That is, the probable amount that your results will differ from expected is already much smaller even though you are not even close to having played N0 hands.

[stevel96a1]

i ran a sim and played 930k hands on aces and faces (99.25) and at the end it was down 4800 credits, im sure that particular sequence is a 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 shot playing 100% perfect strategy on wolf video poker. now if we can harness the power of our wins and losses on 1.25 machines and upwards of that we can beat the casinos