New Strategy in 2012

[BillyJoe]

  But billyjoe your logic is flawed too. Nowhere in your post did you mention where your wife chases you out of the house and takes a swing (or 5) with a sand wedge at your $75,000.00 suv as your drunkedly pulling out of the driveway?
No, Ted. Thankfully, I was never THAT successful at golf to afford an SUV, much less the opportunity to put myself in such a wasteful position as you-know-who.

[backsider]

Frank, I understand those situations and what the results mean or dont mean. But my decision to play a less than 100% game was the right decision before I did it, it was the right thing to do while I was doing it, and it was definitely the right decision after I did it. Has nothing to do with addiction or anything else other than what felt right for me. The fact that you or the wizard wouldnt have done it only means you would have probably played a greater than 100% game and lost while I did not. Plus you know what? Ill play that machine again.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, I understand those situations and what the results mean or don't mean. But my decision to play a less than 100% game was the right decision before I did it, it was the right thing to do while I was doing it, and it was definitely the right decision after I did it. Has nothing to do with addiction or anything else other than what felt right for me. The fact that you or the wizard wouldn't have done it only means you would have probably played a greater than 100% game and lost while I did not. Plus you know what? Ill play that machine again. The analogy about crossing the road was to illustrate a very obvious situation where failing to look both ways is a bad decision, and remains a bad decision, even if one makes it across the street safely. By extension it was supposed to convey that a decision to play a low return machine is a bad decision, and remains a bad decision, even if you win. That's apparently not what you are taking away from the discussion.You seem to be saying that playing a poor return machine is for you a good decision, and that in some way, I can't understand, it is a better choice for you than playing a higher return machine. You apparently feel that you are more likely to do better on a lower return machine. You also seem to be suggesting that people who play over 100% machines typically lose.If I correctly understand the reasoning behind these statements, I feel further public discussion on the subject would be counter productive. If you'd like to talk more about it, you have my email, and you know the doors always open and I'm happy to help if I can.~FK

[backsider]

[QUOTE=backsider]

Frank, I understand those situations and what the results mean or don't mean. But my decision to play a less than 100% game was the right decision before I did it, it was the right thing to do while I was doing it, and it was definitely the right decision after I did it. Has nothing to do with addiction or anything else other than what felt right for me. The fact that you or the wizard wouldn't have done it only means you would have probably played a greater than 100% game and lost while I did not. Plus you know what? Ill play that machine again. The analogy about crossing the road was to illustrate a very obvious situation where failing to look both ways is a bad decision, and remains a bad decision, even if one makes it across the street safely. By extension it was supposed to convey that a decision to play a low return machine is a bad decision, and remains a bad decision, even if you win. That's apparently not what you are taking away from the discussion.You seem to be saying that playing a poor return machine is for you a good decision, and that in some way, I can't understand, it is a better choice for you than playing a higher return machine. You apparently feel that you are more likely to do better on a lower return machine. You also seem to be suggesting that people who play over 100% machines typically lose.If I correctly understand the reasoning behind these statements, I feel further public discussion on the subject would be counter productive. If you'd like to talk more about it, you have my email, and you know the doors always open and I'm happy to help if I can.~FK[/QUOTE]
 I get more of it now, if we choose to play a negative game instead of a positive game then we made a bad decision. Thats not the real world though and Ive learned, party because of my handicap, that you take what you can get when you would like to do something specific.  How many people here actually have the option of playing a better pay-table game than they play? Why, most of the jackpot pictures put up are on bad pay tables. There just isnt many good tables left so does that really mean were all making bad decisions by playing them? I think you then have to revert back to what your results were to see if what was available was really a bad decision to play or not. Everything isnt book-clear.

[BillyJoe]

OK - now that we have gotten WAY far afield with this string, I am still looking for an answer/opinion from Frank, Shadow, New2VP, BD et al on my question regarding machine selection, which is now back on Page 3 of this post. My new strategy will get kicked off in Biloxi in a few days, and I need guidance. 

[Frank Kneeland]

I get more of it now, if we choose to play a negative game instead of a positive game then we made a bad decision. Thats not the real world though and Ive learned, party because of my handicap, that you take what you can get when you would like to do something specific. Depending on where you live your options of what to play may indeed be limited. No one is denying that.How many people here actually have the option of playing a better pay-table game than they play? Why, most of the jackpot pictures put up are on bad pay tables. There just isn't many good tables left so does that really mean were all making bad decisions by playing them? I think you then have to revert back to what your results were to see if what was available was really a bad decision to play or not. Everything isn't book-clear.If you remember back to when we became friends, you chastised me for posting about jackpots I had hit, because you felt it wasn't fair for a professional to compare their play to a recreational gambler. I totally agreed with you and have since refrained from mentioning jackpots or posting pictures of them. I can tell you with 100% accuracy that none of the pros I know in my field post their jackpots on forums now or ever have.You cited as proof that game choice is poor the disproportionate number of jackpots posted on bad pay tables, but you aren't taking into consideration, attentional & informational bias. You aren't getting anything close to a random sampling. The people that play exclusively high return games or high progressives don't post their pictures and never will.Where I am concerned you are directly responsible for this policy...If you remember.

[Frank Kneeland]

OK - now that we have gotten WAY far afield with this string, I am still looking for an answer/opinion from Frank, Shadow, New2VP, BD et al on my question regarding machine selection, which is now back on Page 3 of this post. My new strategy will get kicked off in Biloxi in a few days, and I need guidance. Sorry squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. I'll go back and look at it after another cup of ginseng coffee.

[New2vp]

OK, back on point. I'm not done with you guys yet . Since this strategy will be new to me, I have a question right off the bat. If I am lucky enough to find, and have narrowed my playing choices down to two machines: a 9/7 Double Bonus (99.11%) or a 9/7 TDB (99.58%). I figure the comps and tier credits on my play are worth 1% to me, so both these machines are theoretically positive. Does the volatility of the TDB make it less desirable, even with a slightly higher ER? Remember, I am a casual player, four hour sessions per day, on a five day trip.  
billyjoe, I didn't answer this earlier because it is a subjective call, based on risk tolerance.  And depending on your exact question, the answer could be different.  If your question was "Which game will give me a better chance of losing
only x%?", the answer might well be different.  The question I chose to answer
below was "Which machine will give me the better result, win or lose?"It is easy from an expected value perspective and that is the recommendation that I would give:  (almost) Always take the higher EV play.  Will your results be better?  The probability is in favor of 9/7 TDB, but by how much?  You rarely see the experts providing  numbers to back up their answers here, because the calculations are difficult and standard VP software does not answer the question, at least not easily.  Rather you see answers that suggest "over the long run" that the higher EV play will win out.  [I put "almost" in parentheses above because as the difference in EVs gets smaller and smaller, so that the plays are nearly equivalent, other non-monetary factors might enter into the decision.]On any 12,000 hands of single play (20 hours x 600 hands per hour), the imperfect* normal distribution suggests that 9/7 TDB will win more coins than 9/7 DB 51.8% of the time.  If you make 10 such trips and play 120,000 hands, the probability of being better increases, but only to 55.8%.  Here, the normal distribution is a bit better estimate of the video poker distribution of the difference between the results of play on the two games.*Average results from any probability distribution get closer and closer to the normal distribution, but some distributions that are too far from being symmetric take longer for the normal distribution probabilities to be close estimates.  Video poker distributions are far from symmetric with many small losses balanced against infrequent large wins.  But without appealing to what is called the Central Limit Theorem and using the normal distribution as an approximation, it would take specialized programming to get a better probability answer.  For a fee, you could hire my consulting services; however, I'm afraid that would cut fairly severely into (and likely totally obliterate) the narrow profits you would gain from having a more precise estimate.So, you have a slightly better than 50/50 chance going with TDB.  Keep your fingers crossed.  I know that this is a bit like the long range 3-month weather forecasts.  Have you ever looked closely at these.  They often say something like there is a 55% chance that we will have less snow over the winter than normal.  Really?  I could have flipped a coin and had just about as much predictive power.And I'm afraid that my answer here likely doesn't provide much more comfort.  But if I have to choose heads or tails and I know one side has a 55% chance of coming up, that's the one I would pick.Edit:  And Frank, a broken wheel won't roll no matter how much grease you apply to it.

[Frank Kneeland]

OK, back on point. I'm not done with you guys yet . Since this strategy will be new to me, I have a question right off the bat. If I am lucky enough to find, and have narrowed my playing choices down to two machines: a 9/7 Double Bonus (99.11%) or a 9/7 TDB (99.58%). I figure the comps and tier credits on my play are worth 1% to me, so both these machines are theoretically positive. Does the volatility of the TDB make it less desirable, even with a slightly higher ER? Remember, I am a casual player, four hour sessions per day, on a five day trip.
Arrgh! You would have to go and ask a question like that wouldn't you. I don't like you anymore. My group faced a similar quandary last year when we had to decide on whether or not to play NSUD with 2.5% cash-back or a 99.9% return game with incredibly high variance, also with 2.5% CB.We chose NSUD. Of course to us we were only giving up .2% out of a 2.4% edge to play the safer game. Your decision isn't so clear cut. You'd be giving up 80% of the theoretical edge by playing 9/7 DBL. We only had to give up 8% of the edge. If given only these choices you almost have to play the TDB, and may god have mercy on your soul (or at least your bankroll).You do realize the variance is so high on a game like that the rated return is more of a guideline than a rule right?I'd pass on either choice. On a game like TDB a .58% theoretical edge is REALLY THEORETICAL. (Really Theoretical AKA low equivalence assurance)

[backsider]

OK Frank. but Ive seen some of the forum sharpies who say they are anyway, post their jackpot pictures too. But overall its the ones like me who post them, and they are probably losers in general too. Sweet C might be a sweetie, but Ill bet all those casino trips wipes them out much of the time as well.