Talk to me about DDB...

[shadowman]

Here's a couple of good references for anyone confused about long term.
 
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_LT.htm
 
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank_NO.htm

[SleazyRider]

Bob Dancer's web site contains an archive of a series of articles.  I believe that some other series of articles are archived elsewhere.  A quote about 9/6 DDB is contained in an article archived on the web site.  I don't know if his original discussion of 9/6 DDB is in this archive or elsewhere.
 
Bob Dancer's web site address is:  www.bobdancer.com

January 5,2010 - An Interesting Logical Inference in Double Double Bonus
[Quote]It'll be a cold day in hell before you'll see me playing 9/6 Double Double Bonus, which only returns 98.98% when played perfectly. At least that was the case before M casino periodically started having 4x point days.
[/QUOTE]

For an interesting discussion of "advantage play", see the following article.
 
Dec. 29, 2009 - You Can't Make Any Money That Way
[Quote]A player, "Santiago," asked me if it was really true that you had to play games that returned more than 100% if you wanted to win. "Absolutely," I replied. "Otherwise you can't make any money. One of the most important general rules of gambling is that in order to win you must have the advantage."
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, it seems that he normally wouldn't play 10/6 DDB because the advantage is too small for him to make money fast enough.

[New2vp]

Here's a couple of good references for anyone confused about long term.
 
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_LT.htm
 
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank_NO.htmExcellent references, shadowman.  They are among the most precise that I have seen.I especially like the 1st reference.  It gets to both the nuts and bolts and an explanation of the ramifications of what insight a precise definition of long term can and cannot give us.  My favorite 2 lines are:"There is really no such thing as 'long term.' There is only 'term.'""What does this mean for most players? Not too much."The explanations that follow up these thoughts are quite perceptive.The 2nd reference starts out a little too mathy for most people.  Unfortunately, that means some will never get by its first line and get the benefit of the article's significance.  I would give this alternate introduction before the math.This article defines “long term” for any game as the number of hands necessary before you can be 84% certain that your results will be positive if you play with an edge; or 84% certain that your results will be negative if you play a negative game (after consideration of cash back, free play, or comps).The choice of the number 84% is arbitrary.  But if you want a precise number of hands, one must choose a precise probability.  Playing a larger number of hands will increase that probability; playing a smaller number will decrease it.Personal observation:  These articles and posts may be helpful in understanding the definition of "long term."  It is probably more important to understand that playing fewer hands (or "short term") is not enough to validate poor decision-making.

[spxChrome]

@New2VP
I thought you favorite line would be:
"There are many areas of life where people can differ in their beliefs and
still have a great chance of success. Mathematics is not one of them ..."
 
But the only thing I got out of the article is the longer you play the more likely you are to loose or the higher your loss becomes.  Yet still there are people that claim they make money year after year playing VP. 
 
 

[New2vp]

spx, I agree with you on quite a few counts.There were so many good lines, I was hard put to pick just a couple; but, you're right, that one about mathematics was a good one in my opinion.  And I really liked the caveats about still being able to lose and that advantage play didn't guarantee wins even over a particularly long string of hands.  However, advantage play certainly doesn't guarantee losses either.  And some will win for a short time playing negative games...but that is where your statement about longer play making it more likely to lose comes in.On the other hand I think it is ok that some people can say that they make money year after year; some will be luckier than others and some will play only when they have relatively large positive edges.  I don't think there are that many here that say they do that.  shadowman and Frank Kneeland are the only two that come to mind (though their may be others) and I think that their other posts support that they at least in theory know how to do that so I have no trouble believing them.  My guess is that most people who are winning year after year wouldn't think of posting about it here.  Instead they are spending more time scouting for good plays and going through the work to take advantage of them.  And they are less likely to want to share their methods or plays so others can dilute their profit-making.On the third hand, those that say they win year after year on negative machines by adhering to some so-called "short term" strategies...well, there I am in total agreement with you.  They may be incredibly lucky (a few large jackpots can do that for you)...or they may have just played too little for the random number generator to catch up to them..or they may have selective memory, delusions of grandeur, some other need for attention, or a combination of the above.  Certainly there will be some winners, if not year-after-year winners, but I see their advice being not quite as worthy of serious consideration.  Even if they had been lucky, following such a path is not exactly a blueprint for success for others.

[spxChrome]

It is hard to argue with a mathematician especially one with 3 hands   So you would agree that it is going to be a rare event for anyone to claim they have positive returns for 10 years runnning?  Or even yet be in the green after 10 years of play giving 1+ million hands per year.

[New2vp]

I imagine that the plays are getting fewer and the number of people who win 10 years straight are likely dwindling to become a rarer breed.  Others closer to the scene would probably be better at assessing that from a practical perspective than me from a theoretical one.I'm sure there are many more losers than winners.  What amazes me more is how many people can afford to play 1 million plus hands when they are not playing with an edge.  I agree that would get expensive after a while, but maybe not inordinately so if they stick primarily with nickel, dime and quarter machines.I guess if video poker does not provide consistent profits, it provides consistent entertainment for many.  Why else would so many of us be moved to talk so much about it? 

[shadowman]

As I've said before, the size of the edge is key to winning year after year. It took me a few years to really understand just how important it is.

[brmcc74]

I imagine that the plays are getting fewer and the number of people who win 10 years straight are likely dwindling to become a rarer breed.  Others closer to the scene would probably be better at assessing that from a practical perspective than me from a theoretical one.

I'm sure there are many more losers than winners.  What amazes me more is how many people can afford to play 1 million plus hands when they are not playing with an edge.  I agree that would get expensive after a while, but maybe not inordinately so if they stick primarily with nickel, dime and quarter machines.

I guess if video poker does not provide consistent profits, it provides consistent entertainment for many.  Why else would so many of us be moved to talk so much about it? 
  How can people afford?  Because alot of people who think that they are playing with an edge are just in denial and fooling themselves. If the special hands arent hit within any game after a certain amount of time, then the BKRL would fall far enough to a negative amount that catching up would be near impossible. EX=  A guy plays Quarters, gets down 8000 credits with no royal, now what? Keep playing past      -8000 credits, towards -9000, then say he does hit 2rfs for 8000, still down 1000+  or however long it takes. Im speaking reality here. Its  gambling. I understand the math and I know where a player would reason with these numbers as to there proof. The problem is RNG. This means that the return is variable and therefore Random. Some people will win, Most will lose. I dont care how disciplined a player is. This is my opinion, in no way personally directed at any individual..........Ive been riding this roller coaster for years. Best pay tables,comps, and strategy are obviously the only way to play this game to increase your chances. Disc...........Im not a professional.

[EDC1977]

I play DDB because of the added quad bonuses and it was what I worked at learning besides DW. I DO play for entertainment value and any sort of comp value I may get in return. I play with the best paytable available but won't drive across town if their paytable is X amount of percentage higher than casino A is simply because of the cost of gas/time invested to possibly earn a couple of percentage points. No one person wins consistently or the casinos would have removed the machines long ago. One only need to ask the pros and they'll set you straight. Learn your game well and have fun with it unless you are a pro or hi roller. Just my opinion.