Short term strategies, part deuce

[New2vp]

Here is a detailed list of my 3rd set of simulations, with column titles at the top and analysis at the bottom.





Sample No.
# of Hands
ARTT W/L
"AP" W/L
ARTT $ Wagered




1
2218
166.25
-1.5
10971.25




2
117
102
-0.5
259




3
733
-909.75
-84
3475.25




4
590
443.5
19.5
2696.5




5
480
201.5
6.5
2366




6
867
-997.75
-109
4301.5




7
93
125.25
44
330




8
272
326.5
99.5
1336




9
285
868
74
1384.5




10
48
117.75
50
215.75




11
656
366
5.5
2998




12
95
184
109.5
429




13
25
3972.25
396
91.75




14
456
173.5
22
2100




15
699
-969.25
-113.5
3309




16
746
620.75
66.5
3716.75




17
142
115.25
-7
277




18
1161
-997.75
-110.5
5775.25




19
1582
-973
-109.5
7767




20
487
142.25
13.5
2294.75




21
801
-954
-117.5
3929




22
804
564.25
53
3927.5




23
2237
-927.25
-59
10959.5




24
375
126
8.5
1667.5




25
1746
-941.5
-108
8485.25




26
68
332
108
314




27
191
100.75
1.5
524




28
1155
-946
-106.5
5595.75




29
273
867.75
79
1261.5




30
144
100.5
1.5
483.25




31
679
-984.5
-112.5
3312




32
288
113
27.5
1365.75




33
2732
-993.5
-111.5
13622




34
1870
295.75
-22
9147




35
240
101.5
3.5
1181




36
1065
-993.5
-112.5
5240.25




37
458
106.75
-7
2029.5




38
1009
-914.75
-98
4816.75




39
1242
-909
-97
6046.5




40
788
-998.5
-109.5
3911




41
1078
-991.25
-123.5
5325




42
523
290.75
83.5
2604.25




43
134
168.75
33
538.75




44
1505
-995.5
-107.5
7486.25




45
588
817.5
45.5
2685.75




46
998
-973.25
-110.5
4801




47
391
100.5
11
1834.75




48
1060
214
19
4971.25




49
162
397.5
104
593.5




50
11
105.75
22
44.25




51
102
258.25
72
410.75




52
1567
-940.25
-120.5
7757




53
203
417.5
29.5
881.25




54
154
104.25
-10
400




55
654
325.75
27
3124.75




56
1177
-901
-78
5591.75




57
888
-955.75
-120
4109.75




58
1206
3163.5
279
5869.5




59
868
-999.25
-110
4329.25




60
1101
198.5
19.5
5141.75




61
805
-954.5
-118
3800.5




62
1238
-934.75
-108
5988




63
639
386.75
8.5
3132.25




64
619
122
22
2935.75




65
1701
429
32
8481.5




66
108
121
46
331.25




67
942
-991.5
-114
4674




68
202
328
100.5
965.75




69
206
506.5
45.5
1000.25




70
2666
-934.75
-127
12982.75




71
195
104.25
58
863.5




72
734
760.75
44
3499




73
930
-963.5
-102
4511.5




74
282
138.5
-4
1221




75
665
107.75
-3
3120.75




76
919
-998.5
-109
4564.5




77
371
100
9.5
1725




78
832
144.25
55.5
3956.5




79
397
836.5
82
1740.75




80
1180
157.5
-1.5
5731.5




81
399
218
2.5
1858.75




82
1071
744.75
64
5315.75




83
1742
308
-3.5
8606.75




84
716
202.75
-15.5
3314.75




85
1470
262.75
1
7308.75




86
115
140.75
29.5
564.25




87
190
101.25
54.5
615.25




88
1933
-987.75
-126
9629




89
54
171.5
38.5
242.75




90
638
102.25
-18
3085.25




91
394
100.5
10
1570.75




92
1238
-948
-109.5
5986.25




93
705
199
2
3461.5




94
695
837.25
72
3440.25




95
89
103.5
33.5
247




96
144
102.5
16.5
595.25




97
323
144
12.5
1397.5




98
252
103
4.5
1212.5




99
1627
-970
-129
7950.5




100
703
3033
289.5
3460.75




101
774
120.75
-4
3859.25




102
242
104
-9.5
817.75




103
1272
-970.5
-124
6155




104
949
159.25
-4
4677.25




105
99
301.75
105.5
416.25




106
188
100
37
614.25




107
219
231
33.5
915.25




108
233
113.5
22
980




109
158
149.25
13
649.25




110
751
-990.5
-117
3678.5




111
1031
-993.25
-120.5
5088.75




112
26
104.75
23.5
60.5




113
186
150.5
10
645.75




114
83
177
110
316.25




115
165
240.5
15.5
754




116
862
-993
-108.5
4236




117
1347
-988
-112.5
6645




118
738
114
43
3552.25




119
1024
-921.75
-116.5
4813.75




120
933
-974
-124
4494.75




121
996
-989.75
-121.5
4919.25




122
901
-993
-124
4421.5




123
508
400
27
2364.25




124
1024
3054.25
290
4957.25




125
177
407.5
119.5
751.25




126
588
985.75
88.5
2925.5




127
507
713.25
61
2311.5




128
181
164.25
41.5
792.5




129
319
177.25
37.5
1549




130
31
126.5
20
83.5




131
798
-978.5
-109.5
3968.5




132
983
-956
-116.5
4671.5




133
411
337.75
128.5
1951




134
827
434
42
3937.25




135
1212
-944.25
-78
5722




136
414
104.25
-0.5
1876.5




137
789
-991
-120.5
3907




138
199
100
43.5
663.5




139
347
155.25
23
1633.75




140
1183
-965
-116
5738.5




141
197
183.5
42.5
947




142
795
-959.75
-106.5
3794.75




143
218
105.75
-9
760.25




144
228
134.25
23.5
923.5




145
404
200
-0.5
1894




146
2083
-925
-105
10128.75




147
1163
-999.25
-114.5
5801.75




148
952
187.75
2
4560




149
1703
-972.5
-121.5
8407.5




150
706
606.5
57
3497.75




151
603
158
7.5
2856.75




152
99
234.25
57
328.75




153
1790
-979.25
-107
8882.25




154
772
528.5
48
3514.25




155
910
-999.25
-102
4539.25




156
1843
-996.5
-108.5
9180.75




157
47
111.25
115.5
142.25




158
135
333.5
34.5
532.75




159
516
727.25
67.5
2555.75




160
134
129.75
21.5
524.5




161
76
101.5
17
268.25




162
133
312.75
100
612.75




163
1022
143
-26
4961




164
112
100.5
7.5
242.5




165
501
777.75
72
2304




166
206
117.25
20.5
993.25




167
1188
-983
-128.5
5832




168
139
206.25
46.5
381.75




169
1271
-962.75
-102.5
6219




170
110
107
21.5
342.25




171
233
292.5
18
1012.25




172
346
229
21
1699.5




173
1646
-994.25
-120
8167.25




174
2111
109.75
-4
10496.75




175
403
344
30.5
1805




176
1468
-990.75
-123
7234




177
775
436.25
12.5
3755.5




178
1678
-958.5
-147.5
8245.5




179
45
111
117.5
159.75




180
720
-931.75
-78.5
3549.75




181
926
-932.75
-96.5
4361.25




182
196
100.75
-5
617.75




183
257
311.75
90.5
1037.25




184
86
350.75
108.5
414.75




185
1141
-999.25
-116
5689.75




186
366
100.75
-2
1571.25




187
382
351
102.5
1769.5




188
1835
-940.25
-121.5
9115.75




189
322
103
-1.5
1334.75




190
1653
-909.5
-101.5
8074.75




191
189
156.25
6
872.25




192
421
623.5
52.5
2040.25




193
303
173
51
1265.5




194
1041
-935.75
-128.5
4896




195
76
110.5
18
262




196
1324
-921.75
-106.5
6395.25




197
247
115.5
37.5
1075.25




198
3
120.75
48.5
4.25




199
825
-997.25
-108.5
4109.75




200
199
106.5
-3.5
699.25




201
449
100.5
-9
2089.25




202
43
366
111.5
163




203
843
137.5
-10.5
3703.25




204
889
-961.5
-113.5
4269.25




205
871
-961.25
-106
4162.75




206
387
101.5
3
1909




207
500
238.5
17.5
2422




208
114
139.5
19.5
327.5









Avg. Bet


min

3
-999.25
-147.5
4.25
1.416667


max

2732
3972.25
396
13622
4.986091


average

689.7115
-78.53004808
-7.67067
3301.563
4.786874











net $
won/lost

-16334.25
-1595.5
686725






-2.38%
-2.22%




total of
wins

48375.5
6030.5




total of
losses

-64709.75
-7626




# of wins


141
115




# of losses

67
93




% of wins


68%
55%
"AP" $ wagered



total plays
143460


71730












Number and
% of simulations
34





worse than
a $970 loss
16%

[New2vp]

Rd, thought you were gone, never to return from your previous post.  Since you asked, I thought I'd take a crack at a couple replies.

Thanks New2VP...So since my comparisons were
keeping the AP bet constant at $1 instead of .10 then I now know that
in your first sim  ARTT lost $2,756.75 and Advantage play would have
lost $3,300.  In your second, ($26,528.25) ARTT......  ($25,560.00) AP.......We
now have 3 "208" session sims with ARTT fairing better than AP 2 out of
3 times so far...(it is a nice touch to use real data Shadowman).You continue not to pay attention to what has already been said when constructing your points.  These are negative expectation games.  If you bet more on a negative game, you can expect to lose more.  If the "AP" in your comparison bets more on average than the ARTT player, then we can expect him to lose more $.  Since the average bet of the ARTT player is LESS than a $1 x 5, you cannot expect a reasonable comparison if the average bet by the AP player is EQUAL to $1 x 5.  Not many advantage players would be playing either of 7/5 Bonus Poker or 8/5 Triple Bonus Plus.  And if they did, they would likely play for low stakes.The appropriate comparison here if you must use a sample is to compare the sample % won/lost.  But when we already know the theoretical % won /lost on each of these games, the game EV, anyone wishing to use the sample % won/lost instead suggests a lack of knowledge of how to use statistics.  You only need to use samples to infer what the population numbers are if you don't have the population numbers.


What if the sims were run on better paying games?

If you had better paying games, you could use what I wrote earlier:  "The math will still tell you that as you increase the number of
simulations, your expected average winnings per play will tend to close
in on what you would get if you took a weighted average of amounts bet
multiplied by the EV of the game."  Here, if the games were positive if you bet more on AP, one would expect AP to do better on average.  But if they were still negative games and you bet more on AP, you would expect to lose more with AP.My worst losing session was accurate...one
in a million I guess..???  You need to blame the rng in Dancer's  VPFW
that I purchased for producing that result.  Not "beyond a reasonable
doubt" say I fudged anything.  Just one example that actually playing
the hands will produce random results far skewed from EV sims
sometimes. (most of the time not this wide of a gap though)FYI...great article...www.ggbmagazine.com/articles/Evolving_Slot_ScamsLet's see, do I believe that VPFW's random number generator is biased enough to produce the results that you quoted?  If so, your simulations are not going to be worth much in proving anything about what is likely to occur in a casino.Next, let me correct your inference, though I admit that only 1 chance in a million is pretty bad.  Due to the harshness of the next point, I wanted to make certain that my numbers were correct before leveling this assertion with the proper level of clarity AND attempting to give you every possible benefit of doubt.  When I attempted a couple more replications of your 208-session simulation, I ran into a problem in that one of the sessions lasted beyond the maximum number of hands that I had allowed.  I also wanted to check to see how often the various random numbers came up in Excel, so I did Chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests on the deciles and all seemed to be in order.  I did find that there was a place in my logic that sometimes switched from BP to TBP prematurely.  The correction of that code of course produced some different numbers but the conclusions from these numbers are essentially unchanged.  (You'll like the later simulations, though.  In one of the two, the total from all 208 sessions was a positive 1.52% for ARTT, with a total win of $9152.  The 10-cent TBP "AP" won only $1517.50, but the percentage win was 2.39%.  If you still insist on using $1 TBP, the net win would have been $15,175.)Using proportions from the later simulations did make the probability of your posted maximum loss more likely.  Under the assumption that you ran the 208 sessions as you identified, before I made the change, the chance that you would get a worst session that good were about 1 in 2 sextillion (2 followed by 24 zeros).  In the later two simulations, I only found 34 (out of 208) and 33 results (out of 208) worse than a loss of $970.  The odds suggested by the later simulations of your posted results are better: the chances of getting this result in "unfudged" data is about 1 in 7.3 quadrillion (only 16 digits in this number).  Since I find that most people have trouble really comprehending the magnitude of these numbers, I'll put it another way.If all the 6.7 billion people in the world were to run this 208-session test, we would not expect to see one as extreme as the result that you posted and confirmed.  Actually, I'm grandstanding here a bit.  Even if all the people in the world were to run the test 1 million times each, we still would not expect to see one sample this extreme.I'm trying to believe you though it's really hard to believe your level of luck; no, it's more than a few billion times easier to believe this is made up, your bookkeeping in as many as 1/6 of the sessions is sloppy, or you are not following your stated rules.  There are similar problems with some of the stats of your mentor, in his case the odds are even worse.  Maybe when I have more time, I'll try my own copy of VPFW to see how long it takes to get a poorer result than -$970.Can
you email me your sim spreadsheet w/instructions?  I'd be glad to run
many sims as I sit here.  Since 624 total sessions is a far too few
samples to go by....Again
New...I don't know how to program excel to do what you've done...If you
could help by sending your spreadsheet program to me you would be a
saint.
  Good, I'm glad you now understand that 624 sessions is far too few samples to go on.  Are you in there?  Use the population numbers.I'm certainly not even close to a saint; don't you have to be Catholic for that?  I really don't want to take the time to write out additional instructions or correspond with you.  It also is a bit hard for me to think that you would be able to interpret the results accurately and without bias.However, I will still help you by posting a segment which should show you the way to do this.  I will contact Webman to find out how to get you a sample session where a quad is not hit in 750 hands before the bankroll is exhausted and you will see that it is fairly easy to get losses greater than the worst loss that you posted.  Though I could post the range showing the 208 sessions, I received time-out errors when trying to post a range showing each hand in a sample session.  But have patience, maybe Webman will come up with something. By the way, it's not hard to post here a small portion of an Excel spreadsheet as you can see I posted more than a couple hundred lines below.  Just bring up the reply box on this forum, highlight the area on the spreadsheet you wish to copy, right click copy, then right click paste in the reply box.  I'm sure you will want to validate the existence of your data by putting a copy out here with your analysis to date.PS...Am I finally getting some help
trying to accomplish what I came here for?   I only want to trial this
system ...  not sell, endorse, or preach here to get converts for it. 
Simply which is better...
I'm not going to reply to this here, but I'm going to guess that somewhere in your 100+ posts, you may have contradicted this.

[New2vp]

To the rest of the forum members.  Sorry about the long posts.  Just trying to add clarity to this subject, get it off the radar screen, and prevent charges that my statements cannot be backed up.

[oej719]

new2vp I don't think he will ever go away on his own.
I will just have to boot him off.
He will be the 8th notch on boot stick.

[EDC1977]

new2vp I don't think he will ever go away on his own.
I will just have to boot him off.
He will be the 8th notch on boot stick. Methinks OEJ should be the unofficial forum moderator. And to think this guy thought you were heartless. Kudos OEJ. You da man.

[Tedlark]

boot stick notch count:


oej - 8
ted - 0
 
  Sorry shadowman and New2vp I don't need you guys to run the numbers.

[cddenver]

boot stick notch count:


oej - 8
ted - 0
 
  Sorry shadowman and New2vp I don't need you guys to run the numbers.
 
Yes Ted, we can tell SM and New2vp that we don't need their help with the math on that one, we'll manage.   Nice batting average, oej, but soon I think you'll need a bigger stick. 
 
New2vp and SM got to have most of the "fun" with this one.   Hopefully the next one will backtrack as far as the math stuff goes so that the rest of us can help out more.   The importance of only playing on days with low sunspot activity, how to pick the luckiest parking spot, stuff like that.

[oej719]

I have just been notified that bozo the wizard has just put out his latest web column.
I is all about so called arrt play. Anybody here surprised after all the chatter from the piano man last week.
I saw thru that crap from the start.
Bozo the wizard is like a pick pocket, everybody has been warned. PM me for details or visit my blog about more Bozo antics.

[cddenver]

Oej, thanks for the "heads up" on the new column.  Did he include a disclaimer saying that no strategy (his or AP) is effective right now because of machine rigging?
 
Everyone knows that I have no particular opinion on that subject, but I'm leaning towards the idea that he's in a wee dry spell and has come up with this theory as a cover in case he's spotted in a casino playing 1-coin nickels.  (BTW, I hope none of the nickel players here are offended by anything I've said on the subject.  Plenty of people here play higher denoms than my own quarter play - they don't give me a hard time, and I'm not about to turn around and do it myself.  Just making an exception in this case.  )
 
A couple of things he may not have considered.  He's assuming that the rigging is the same for any type of play.  But there could be multiple layers to the rigging.  There could be a higher fleecing % at lower denoms as an inducement to move up to higher denoms which might have a lower fleecing %.  Same thinking for another layer of rigging affecting 1-coin play instead of max coin.   So his 1-coin nickel results could actually reflect triple-dipping by casinos, if you assume some sort of basic rigging that affects everyone regardless of denom or coins bet.
 
There might not even be any generic rigging in place.  He might have just stumbled on something targeting lower-denom, less-than-max-coin play that's simply intended to get those players to move up to unrigged higher-denom max-coin play. 
  

[shadowman]

Hopefully the next one will backtrack as far as the math stuff goes so that the rest of us can help out more.   The importance of only playing on days with low sunspot activity, how to pick the luckiest parking spot, stuff like that.


 
With current lack of sunspot activity you would be staying home pretty much all the time now. The sun is really, really quiet.
 
Maybe that's another key to VP machine operation, the "flip-over" rate is inversely proportional to sunspot activity.