For Those Interested In Learning
-
royal flush
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:50 pm
Re: For Those Interested In Learning
he could cut his bankroll down to go broke before missing the royal
-
faygo
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:55 am
I just finished playing ten 100-coin sessions (simulated). I start a new session when I lose the 100 coins or start a new session when I win 100 coins. I did lose on 7 of those sessions. The three times I at least doubled my 100 coin buyin for the session, I won 150 coins....all three times. But then, I play down to the nearest 50 coin boundary. Overall, I am "down" on these 10 sessions 300 coins out of 1000 coins placed at risk.
It's interesting to note that during this group of sessions, the lowest number of hands played was 39 and the most played in one session was 273. The average was 97 or therebouts.
I was playing a high variance game in 9/6 DDB (not full pay).
During those sessions, only the last one included quads (9's). The other two winning sessions were mostly won with Full Houses.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but it is not unlike many of my casino sessions. It all depends on the quads. If they are falling more frequently than in this 1000 hands, then I win, and if they don't, I lose. But at my level of play, I can afford a 300 coin lose knowing that I'll be hitting a run of 300 coin wins for the same amount of play. At least that seems to be my trend.
I would say that managing money for your sessions is critical. It does not take Einstein to figure out that you should not be gambling with money not specifically set aside for that endevor. Professionals would still fall within that criteria though they would obviously have a lot more assets dedicated to their career goals!
Mike
This is what I have experienced also. Numbers hold true. I like you, don't have a clue what to do with this info.
MikeT
It's interesting to note that during this group of sessions, the lowest number of hands played was 39 and the most played in one session was 273. The average was 97 or therebouts.
I was playing a high variance game in 9/6 DDB (not full pay).
During those sessions, only the last one included quads (9's). The other two winning sessions were mostly won with Full Houses.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but it is not unlike many of my casino sessions. It all depends on the quads. If they are falling more frequently than in this 1000 hands, then I win, and if they don't, I lose. But at my level of play, I can afford a 300 coin lose knowing that I'll be hitting a run of 300 coin wins for the same amount of play. At least that seems to be my trend.
I would say that managing money for your sessions is critical. It does not take Einstein to figure out that you should not be gambling with money not specifically set aside for that endevor. Professionals would still fall within that criteria though they would obviously have a lot more assets dedicated to their career goals!
Mike
This is what I have experienced also. Numbers hold true. I like you, don't have a clue what to do with this info.
MikeT
-
faygo
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:55 am
[QUOTE=faygo]
I read it and...
2) and 6) are reasonable advice, the rest of them you can toss in the garbage. They are typical Fa La La La La.... La la la la assertions with absolutely no basis in mathematics.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, there isn't a emoticon describing "Tongue planted firmly in cheek".
I read it and...
2) and 6) are reasonable advice, the rest of them you can toss in the garbage. They are typical Fa La La La La.... La la la la assertions with absolutely no basis in mathematics.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, there isn't a emoticon describing "Tongue planted firmly in cheek".
-
MikeA
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:50 pm
Mike
This is what I have experienced also. Numbers hold true. I like you, don't have a clue what to do with this info.
MikeT
I'm not completely baffled by the results. I think that what it is emphasizing is the fact that DDB is a highly volital game. With a variance of 42%, it is not unusual to encounter "streaks."
Possibly, for extended play, I might have to consider moving to DB or (heaven forbid) JOB.
-
faygo
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:55 am
[QUOTE=faygo]
Mike
This is what I have experienced also. Numbers hold true. I like you, don't have a clue what to do with this info.
MikeT
I'm not completely baffled by the results. I think that what it is emphasizing is the fact that DDB is a highly volital game. With a variance of 42%, it is not unusual to encounter "streaks."
Possibly, for extended play, I might have to consider moving to DB or (heaven forbid) JOB.[/QUOTE]
DDB volatile? You shoud try AC Two Pair. 70%+ variance. JOB may be the only game to play. Ahaaa!
Mike
This is what I have experienced also. Numbers hold true. I like you, don't have a clue what to do with this info.
MikeT
I'm not completely baffled by the results. I think that what it is emphasizing is the fact that DDB is a highly volital game. With a variance of 42%, it is not unusual to encounter "streaks."
Possibly, for extended play, I might have to consider moving to DB or (heaven forbid) JOB.[/QUOTE]
DDB volatile? You shoud try AC Two Pair. 70%+ variance. JOB may be the only game to play. Ahaaa!
-
bigboy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:03 pm
[QUOTE=MikeA][QUOTE=faygo]
Mike
This is what I have experienced also. Numbers hold true. I like you, don't have a clue what to do with this info.
MikeT
I'm not completely baffled by the results. I think that what it is emphasizing is the fact that DDB is a highly volital game. With a variance of 42%, it is not unusual to encounter "streaks."
Possibly, for extended play, I might have to consider moving to DB or (heaven forbid) JOB.[/QUOTE]
DDB volatile? You shoud try AC Two Pair. 70%+ variance. JOB may be the only game to play. Ahaaa![/QUOTE]
I'm still looking for some variance #'s for MS-STP. It has to be off the charts.
Mike
This is what I have experienced also. Numbers hold true. I like you, don't have a clue what to do with this info.
MikeT
I'm not completely baffled by the results. I think that what it is emphasizing is the fact that DDB is a highly volital game. With a variance of 42%, it is not unusual to encounter "streaks."
Possibly, for extended play, I might have to consider moving to DB or (heaven forbid) JOB.[/QUOTE]
DDB volatile? You shoud try AC Two Pair. 70%+ variance. JOB may be the only game to play. Ahaaa![/QUOTE]
I'm still looking for some variance #'s for MS-STP. It has to be off the charts.
-
babybubba
- Senior Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:18 pm
[QUOTE=faygo]
I read it and...
2) and 6) are reasonable advice, the rest of them you can toss in the garbage. They are typical Fa La La La La.... La la la la assertions with absolutely no basis in mathematics.[/QUOTE]
Interesting assessment. Most of the pathological gamblers who've written me directly or through GT said not exactly the same thing--but something similar.
I read it and...
2) and 6) are reasonable advice, the rest of them you can toss in the garbage. They are typical Fa La La La La.... La la la la assertions with absolutely no basis in mathematics.[/QUOTE]
Interesting assessment. Most of the pathological gamblers who've written me directly or through GT said not exactly the same thing--but something similar.
Continue with Google