Recreational Money Management

[onemoretry]

  The RNG.   It doesn't know math.  
It doesn't have to "know" math. It deals cards randomly. Mathematical probabilities govern the results.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=onemoretry]It doesn't have to "know" math. It deals cards randomly. Mathematical probabilities govern the results.[/quote]This is true in theory.  Do those mathematical probabilities guarantee a certain result when you play?  How many hands does it take for math to affect or even influence your results? How many hands can you play in your lifetime?Video poker is a game of chance played on an electronic computer.    Any and all results are mathematically possible.    You can use math to predict the probability of a profit, but you are still gambling.  Here is the Wikipedia definition of Gambling.Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value on an
event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money
or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present:
consideration, chance and prize.The key words here are "uncertain outcome" and "chance".  The consideration of playing positive VP games perfectly gives you the best chance of a positive outcome, it in no way guarantees it.Chance is just one influencing factor in video poker.  There are many reasons most players lose long term even with math on their side.  The biggest cause is human limitations and frailty.   Playing 100% computer perfect forever is nearly impossible.  Surviving huge financial downturns takes more guts and bankroll than most people can muster.   Discipline to not go on tilt and run off the tracks is a big issue for many.  Still, with everything perfect there are NO GUARANTEES.  Print that on the front of those strategy books and there would be no need to point it out. 

[New2vp]

When Bob Dancer compares himself to popular sports figures, it makes me sad.  Bob has no clue why some people are against him.Actually, I think it makes you happy that it gives you another reason to post, not that you need much in the way of subject matter or motivation.  Bob has written many times about rubbing a good portion of people the wrong way.

[New2vp]

This is true in theory.  Do those mathematical probabilities guarantee a certain result when you play?  How many hands does it take for math to affect or even influence your results? How many hands can you play in your lifetime?Can we ever get beyond this?  No one ever promised you a rose garden ... er ... that is ... a guarantee.  Clearly you were disillusioned why following Dancer's strategy didn't produce winnings.You continue to share your confusion about mathematics, including laws of large numbers and convergence in probability.  You state that no one has ever been able to answer these questions.  So do I have your attention?Let's take Full Pay Deuces Wild for example.  A game with a little more than 3/4% player edge and a variance of 25.84.  The numbers work out that with a million hands a year, playing max EV strategy, you will make money 14 years out of 15 on average.  The probability that I get is 93.3%. It you play fewer hands, your chances are lower; with more hands, the chances are higher at a profit.  The more mistakes you make, your chances at profit go down.  If you find additional edge from other games, progressives, drawings or comps, your chances go up.  If you have a lower edge, your chances go down.  If the variance is higher, your chances go down; if the variance is lower, your chances go up.Back to my example.  What about that 15th year, you ask?  Well, you lose.  But I should also point out that one of the 14 good years will produce a profit of more than double the player edge.  Luck works both ways.No, these are averages, not guarantees.  There is some probability that you might win all 15 years and some chance that you will lose more than one year.Do you have to play computer perfect?  The worse you play the worse your chances, but I would think that many can practice with games like
WinPoker, VPFW, Wolf, etc. to get to 99.5 to 99.9% of the max EV.  You
can make many more errors than 1/2% to 1/10% and still get to 99.8 or 99.9% of Max EV play.  Obviously small errors don't hurt as much as larger errors.No, I do not know exactly how the numbers change for someone who insists on making non-max-EV plays like holding AT suited to get a one in 16,215 chance at a royal at the expense of a better chance at making more money on the other outcomes.  With time, I could calculate it, but I don't have much interest in spending time that way.  But you can probably play AT, at least occasionally, and still make money most years.By the way, when you switch denominations, the variance goes up.  And variance going up reduces your chances at profit when you have a player edge.  Of course, it also reduces your chance at a loss when there is a house edge.Before you start to think that this is a good strategy for negative games, remember the example, that for every probability of beating the odds and making a profit over lots of hands, you will also experience times with double (or more) expected losses.  Lots of people like to ascribe those bad expected losses to bad "behavior" like staying on a cold machine too long or not quitting when you are ahead early in a session or going beyond what you expect to lose on an average losing session.  That is luck.But the probabilities about luck with a uniformly distributed RNG  are well understood ... by some.  You see the math continues to work whether the RNG is producing a player edge or a house edge.  The math is always working, even when you say you don't care about it.  Its feelings don't get hurt.  

[New2vp]

Oh, and over the entire 15-year period, the chances at a profit are 99.9999997%.  Ok, that's close enough to a guarantee for me ... even if 1 person in 312 million ends up with a tiny loss.  Whoever is that unlucky may not survive to sue.

[Tedlark]

Phil you calling Bob Dancer a con man doesn't help your position. Why do you continually bring him up in the recreational play forum? As for posts about making or losing money in the stock market? Those posts would fit more into the anything and everything forum.

[billryan]

NO GUARANTEES.

I'm pretty sure the only guarantee on this forum is that phil will continue to make ill informed, uneducated posts he mostly pulls out of his fat ass.

[New2vp]

As for posts about making or losing money in the stock market? Those posts would fit more into the anything and everything forum.Maybe he believes that his success at stocks or business somehow bolsters his credibility that he has a deep understanding of video poker math.  But, of course, at the same time he says he doesn't care about math.  Sort of like he attacks Dancer in the first paragraph and praises him in the last.  To paraphrase the quote in the Princess Bride, "Truly, [he has] a dizzying intellect," is one way of putting it.It allows him to say, "I always say ..." or "I never say ..." in future posts, using whichever position is convenient to avoid the most recent logical inconsistency.  I think Eduardo pointed that out not too long ago.I'm calculating that we won't have to wait to long for one of those patented responses ... 3, 2, 1 ...

[FloridaPhil]

I never said Bob Dancer was a con man.  I said, to people outside of Vegas he comes over like one.   I think he is an opportunist profiting from people's dreams and gullibility.   I can only imagine how he feels when he finds out someone went bankrupt trying to duplicate his results.  On second thought, I doubt it bothers him at all.   If you want to believe math can beat video poker, go for it.   I'm not buying it.   I'm not going to roll over and stop posting my thoughts either.   As long as I am allowed to, I'll voice my opinions.  If you want this forum to be one long continuous commercial for Bob Dancer, have me kicked off permanently.   

[Tedlark]

I'm not talking about you being removed from the forum. But it is clear that talk about Bob Dancer and his expertise about math and its relevance to video poker does not belong in the Recreational Play forum yet you bring Bob into discussions in this very forum on a regular basis.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you, yourself, politic to get the Recreational Play forum established as a platform where you DIDN'T have to discuss Bob Dancer?