Expected Loss for DDB

[New2vp]

Does anyone else wonder...?  Yes, a perfect reflection of someone else.No, I haven't wondered for some time now.  To me, it's as clear as the glass covering the outside of a medicine cabinet.  And do you notice how concerned he is whenever Bob Dancer makes a post?  Another telltale sign.  I wouldn't use the word "perfect" though; that word has too many favorable connotations to be an apt description.  How about "warped"?Now, predictably, your post will move the rant to one of his other favorite subjects, an opinion frequently held by those afflicted with malignant narcissism, "you guys are so worried about me."  It's always about him...in his mind, at least.

[Frank Kneeland]

[QUOTE=Frank Kneeland]
I'll keep this short and simple.[QUOTE=backsider]When you claim I would have made a few thousand more had I played 9/6 instead of 9/5, thats theory.It's a theory that becomes fact the first Full House you hit.If you can't understand that, then there's nothing more I can say.As always you have my best wishes and lunch is on me if you ever visit. I can even introduce you to some of my team mates. You'd like them. Cheers...[/QUOTE] I think New2vp believes youre being too cute and its bothering him.    GOOD JOB! Im trying to understand. I and a friend go into a casino with $200 each. I hit 7 fhs on 10/6(a better than 100% game right?) and receive back 350 credits;  he hits 7 fhs on 8/5 and receives back 280. We, like many I know, both play until we hit a royal or lose the $200. As usual and as is very typical, we both leave losing our stake for the night. Its a rare night for sure if a royal gets hit because of those extra credits. So no, I would NOT have won more money playing that better pay table. Now back to my royal(s!) last week. I guess you could claim for every fh I hit I "lost" money, but then Id tell you I wish I could "lose" that kind of money every time I played! You see Frank, youre always explaining things in terms no one really experiences because we dont pull out books and see if we can apply some of that verbage to what were doing or not. I saw that you dont believe in luck today. That made me remember to plug in some of your statements to see what it spit out.  First let me say that luck is real. Believe me. Youre digging way too deep for explanations at times when you rush right by whats going on right in front of you. Claiming that a good hand like I had is nothing but normal distribution? and not luck is so far from reality that I wonder at times if youre speaking from the moon.  Ill explain what the program opined hopefully at lunch sometime, but heres a small hint at what it summized: not easy to hang with, especially with dummies like me. It also suspects youre a big smoker. I quit back when, so I dont know what that means. 
[/QUOTE]There's a couple things in this post of yours that have brought up some really important concepts that should be discussed and elaborated on. I may not have time today to address them. Please check in tomorrow for a full reply. Basically, what you have said changes everything. I'll explain later.

[New2vp]

Im trying to understand.No, you may be trying something, but it is not trying to understand another's point.  Nothing that follows this statement indicates any attempt at comprehension.I and a friend go into a
casino with $200 each. I hit 7 fhs on 10/6(a better than 100% game
right?) and receive back 350 credits;  he hits 7 fhs on 8/5 and receives
back 280.Interesting, throughout this thread it has been you that believes in playing the machine with the lower payoff for a full house.  Now, it is your friend that thinks it is better to get 5 fewer credits, not you?  Where do you get friends like that?  Did you train him?  Oh, no, he's not using your card gaining you extra comps, is he?  <sigh> We should have known better; the signs were all there!We, like many I know, both play until we hit a royal or lose
the $200. As usual and as is very typical, we both leave losing our
stake for the night. Its a rare night for sure if a royal gets hit
because of those extra credits. So no, I would NOT have won more money
playing that better pay table.

Quite interesting, so in your example, you choose to recount ONLY the nights in which NO one hits a royal.  Hmmm...let's see, you guys play until you lose money or until you hit a royal.  It must be awful tough on those days when you hit quad aces with a kicker or hit more quads than usual.  You may never get to go home.  It may be days before you are able to lose enough.I guess this theory doesn't work well in the real world of other possibilities.What happens to this theory on the nights that you do have enough extra credits to win that royal?  And why are not such nights considered with appropriate weight in your example.  We know it is not going to happen every night, but it is going to happen often enough to get you 1.1% more coins out of the machine over time...if you can realize and accept that 50 coins is in fact better than 45.You see Frank, youre always explaining things in terms no one really experiences..Well, you have him there...no, but wait... Has anyone in the real world ever hit a royal on their last 70 credits?  I'm guessing...possibly...yes, that happens.  From reading the experience of others, it happens quite a bit actually.Let's get back to the first point.  You should really try harder to understand Frank.  Because in the cold reality of the factual world, few are going to agree that getting 50 coins is WORSE than getting 45.

[shadowman]

 
So, your Buddy is sitting in the Coffee Shop and you are still playing.


 
Speaking of playing. If one takes $200 to a casino and plays $25 a hand they will seldom play more than 40 hands a trip. Sometimes only 8. Given a RF cycle is around 40K hands that means the average bloke will need over 1000 trips to the casino to hit a RF. But our reflection does it just when he wants to discuss "luck". Quite the coincidence. 

[BillyJoe]

Remember Frank, Shadow and New2VP.....









  SmartQuote 




 






Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence."
--Robert Frost,
American poet

[Frank Kneeland]

Remember Frank, Shadow and New2VP.....









  SmartQuote 




 






Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence."
--Robert Frost,American poet It's comments like that, that piss me off and leave me insecure.

[New2vp]

billyjoe, While my sarcasm-generator has enough fuel recently almost to run on its own, I have been nowhere near to losing my temper; of that I'm confident...that is, unless you think you found it somewhere; in which case I would like it back.Edit:  Did someone actually pay him for writing that?  Or was this penned when he was a teacher trying to get an unruly class to listen better?

[BillyJoe]

billyjoe, While my sarcasm-generator has enough fuel recently almost to run on its own, I have been nowhere near to losing my temper; of that I'm confident...that is, unless you think you found it somewhere; in which case I would like it back.

Edit:  Did someone actually pay him for writing that?  Or was this penned when he was a teacher trying to get an unruly class to listen better?

Probably the latter, New..