How high can my bet get?

[olds442jetaway]

This is a question for the math folks. I am very interested in the answer and I think I think Florida Phil and a few others may be as well. I have only tried this short term and it has worked well, but am thinking in an awfully cold cycle, my bets may get higher than the machine allows.
     Playing regular airport deuces wild with the usual 98.91 return, for 5 sessions at 4,000 hands a session and never hitting quad deuces how high would my bet be at the beginning of the 6th session to be even when I finally hit quad deuces. I am assuming here that everything else comes in right on schedule. Of course no Royal would have hit yet as well in my above example. The reason I chose 5 sessions is because I have never gone more than 5 sessions without hitting quad deuces. We will also assume that I will start by betting 5 quarters and never bet more than I need to be even when the quad deuces hit. I am not even sure that this calculation is possible, but if it is, I would greatly appreciate the answer. What I am concerned about is that my bets may get too high and either bust the budget or just be to crazy to keep going. Thanks. Also if it is not too much extra work and in the example we are not hitting the Royal, I would like to know how high my bets might get following the same pattern, but starting with just 1 quarter bet. Thanks again.

[FloridaPhil]

98.91%  means the more you bet the more you lose.  The size of your bet and your eventual loss is only limited to how much money you can run through the machines.  I don't think that's the answer you are looking for, but that's all I've got.  Seriously, this strategy you have of betting bigger and bigger hoping for a jackpot big enough to recover your losses is insane.   I'm afraid it can only end badly for you and I would encourage you to rethink it.  Perhaps I don't understand what you are attempting to accomplish?

[billryan]

Short term results are meaningless in the long run.

[olds442jetaway]

Yes, I know short term results are meaningless. However, since I have never gone more than 5 sessions without quad deuces, I am curious how much it would cost to bet per hand at the end of the 5th session. It is not like I am trying to hit a Royal that from personal experience I can see that you can go hundreds of thousands of hands without one. Quad deuces however, in the long run come 10 times for every Royal roughly. Anyway, we'll wait and see what one of the math gurus have to say. It may have too many variables or scenarios to compute. I just don't know. However, it my bets somehow were able to stay under 5 bucks a hand by the end of the 5th session, I would definitely give it a try and of course quit if the deuces don't hit after 25k hands or so. Actually, 25k hands without quad deuces isn't that much I just don't remember having to wait longer than that. Anyway, see what happens. In the interim, for the weekend I will be just flat betting 5 quarters and on the rare occasion of hitting 5 of a kind or a wild royal, try 10 quarters for a couple of hands. That would be a pot shot, but only a handful in the course of an entire session. Good luck all whoever is heading out this weekend. I'm on my way now. Lots of free play to take advantage of.

[OTABILL]

Short term results are meaningless in the long run.


I beg to disagree. What constitutes the long run in your mind is not the same for me. Because of age and health issues we have substantially reduced our VP play. For the time we have played, our cumulative results do not correspond with the expected results (as I have posted elsewhere). So in my vie, short term results at this stage of our lives are the most relevant and theoretical long term results are meaningless. It all depends on one's individual circumstances.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=olds442jetaway]It is not like I am trying to hit a Royal that from personal experience I
can see that you can go hundreds of thousands of hands without one.
Quad deuces however, in the long run come 10 times for every Royal
roughly.[/quote]This was the theory behind the old (dare we say it?) CS strategy.  In this strategy you ignored the rare royal flush bonus to benefit from the more common max coin quad deuce.  At the quarter level it actually worked pretty well as a way to play a lot of video poker on the cheap.  It never did work that well as a profit generator.  My problem with your strategy is the lack of a limit on the size of your bet.  What do you do when your wager is so big they have to call the casino's board to approve your bet?   Just kidding, but I think you get my point... 

[onemoretry]

I'll take a try at this, even though I'm away from home without access to all my "stuff".

I think that the loss rate for deuces wild (98.91% version) , when there are no royals nor deuces, is around six to seven percent. If you had not bet more than five credits per hand, you would have wagered a total of 100,000 credits on the 20000 hands, and the loss would be in the neighbourhood of 7000 credits. At quarters, that would be $1750.

To get that amount back with one set of deuces, you would need to play $2 denomination (40 quarters), which pays $2000 for the four deuces.

Does that make sense?

[asteroid]

Post unable to migrate

[onemoretry]

The result above is unquestionably more accurate than what I came up with using the SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) method. But, neither attempt addresses the situation if you were to follow your normal practice of gradually increasing the bet as you fall deeper and deeper into the hole.

My estimate, again using the SWAG method, is that you would be down in the neighbourhood of two an a half times as much as the amount resulting from flat betting five credits per deal.

If that guess is even close, you would be down close to $3500 after the 20000 hands, and would need to be betting about 70 quarters per hand to generate that size of a win on a quad deuce hit.

[asteroid]

Unfortunately, as terrific as Wolf Video Poker software is, it does not allow for denominational variation (attention video poker software makers, there is a market for simulations where denominational switching is allowed) - only flat betting throughout a simulation. In the case above, the average loss ($329.11) per 4000 hand session was a result of flat betting (5x25c or $1.25 per hand) throughout each of the one hundred 4000-hand sessions. If we multiply this loss figure by 5, to get 20000 hands, we arrive at a loss of about $1650 for flat betting $1.25 total per hand and if no NRFs or quad ducks are hit. Now 2.5 times $1650 is about $4113.88 (5x329.11x2.5) which is somewhat higher than your estimate OMT. So it would be better to flat bet (relatively speaking) until the 5th session and then bet the $6.50 (26 coins) per hand.The obvious problem, of course is that it would be rare to get through 4 sessions of 4000 hands and not observe the ducks - definitely an outlier situation if we assume normality.The result above is unquestionably more accurate than what I came up with using the SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) method. But, neither attempt addresses the situation if you were to follow your normal practice of gradually increasing the bet as you fall deeper and deeper into the hole.

My estimate, again using the SWAG method, is that you would be down in the neighbourhood of two an a half times as much as the amount resulting from flat betting five credits per deal.

If that guess is even close, you would be down close to $3500 after the 20000 hands, and would need to be betting about 70 quarters per hand to generate that size of a win on a quad deuce hit.