How much do we still not know?

[BillyJoe]

[QUOTE=rascal]Ko King, the minimum payout setting and the actual payout are two different animals. If a machine is capable of 98% return with perfect play and some doofus sits down and misplays every hand, the casino is not responsible for making sure doofus is still covered to the tune of 98%. I have seen many vp machines with a paytable return of the upper 90's where the actual return over time is in the low 80's or even lower, due to poor play.
 
Now, as to randomness... over many years of VP, dating back to the very early 1990's, I have had incredible hits and incredible misses. Long winning streaks and long losing streaks. Had three Royals dealt in a two month period, at three different casinos, then went almost four years before I got another one. Had 4OAK on three consecutive hands at the former Grand Casino Gulfport (which disappeared in Katrina). Have won fantastically on STP only to then enter long periods of STP losses. It is the most random game on earth. If you feel like sitting there plinking away at Jacks or Better you can reduce the streakiness somewhat, but for me J or B is just like Sominex.
 
I think VP machines in REGULATED jurisdications that I TRUST are fair and are random. That said, anyone would be a fool to offer 100% trust to anything, so......eyes wide open.
You're right, I've seen some folks playing that had no idea what they were doing but I'm not interested in them. I've played for many years and understand the nature of the game, it can be tough but as long as I make the correct plays in the long run MY play should come close to that 98% figure.[/QUOTE]
I am curious, Ko. Why do you say that? Random is just that - random. I agree that, in the lifetime of play on a given random machine, playing a particular game, with a fixed pay table, the payback percentage will probably approximate the stated number, such as 98%.
 
But you are NOT doing that. You are playing games, machines and casinos all over the place. Just because they may have similar payback percentages does not guarantee that 98% payback. There are always those 'fringe' events that may skew the results on any given machine. 
 
I know that I have taken some heat for this on Forum in the past, but I believe that a recreational VP player does not play enough hands to match a given, statistical return. They may exceed it, or fall short of it, but there is not enough play one could offer a particular machine in a casino to actually match it.   

[shadowman]

You may not have caught the post where I brought up the fact that "4 to the flush off the draw" came up far more than the 1 every 36 average. I think everyone who plays a lot of vp would agree that straight flushes don't come along very often but I hit them there all the time. To add even more evidence to my theory I offer up this, in about 600K hands I hit 3 dealt royal flushes.


 
I had 3 dealt RFs in two months back in 2009 within less than 100K hands. I've had one since. Random does not mean events occur a specific frequencies. There are streaks that come and go. In fact, if you do not see streaks over a reasonable number of hands that would be a good reason to believe a machine is not random.

[shadowman]

  
I know that I have taken some heat for this on Forum in the past, but I believe that a recreational VP player does not play enough hands to match a given, statistical return. They may exceed it, or fall short of it, but there is not enough play one could offer a particular machine in a casino to actually match it.   

Actually, no one plays enough hands to "match" the statistical return. What happens is we all approach that value over time. The more hands we play the quicker we approach that number.
 
You seem to take the position that since you can't be right on the number then it can be ignored. No, a pay table is kind of like gravity, it's always there pulling us towards the expected return of our play.

[BillyJoe]

[QUOTE=billy joe]  
I know that I have taken some heat for this on Forum in the past, but I believe that a recreational VP player does not play enough hands to match a given, statistical return. They may exceed it, or fall short of it, but there is not enough play one could offer a particular machine in a casino to actually match it.   

Actually, no one plays enough hands to "match" the statistical return. What happens is we all approach that value over time. The more hands we play the quicker we approach that number.
 
You seem to take the position that since you can't be right on the number then it can be ignored. No, a pay table is kind of like gravity, it's always there pulling us towards the expected return of our play.[/QUOTE]
No, Shadow, I do not 'ignore' the expected return. And I am the first to admit that 45 credits for a FH is better than 40 credits. I just think that too many people believe that if they do not see a certain paytable's ER in their own play, then there must be something wrong with the machine that is preventing them from achieving that return.   

[SaraTG]

  I'm curious just how poker machines and casinos "think" in terms of what they are considering a return. Say for example you put $5 in a "jacks or better" machine and are betting the whole $5 on a hand. You hit 4 straight hands of 2 face cards and finally lose on the 5th hand and have no money in the machine. Does the machine and therefore the casino consider that you "won" $20?

[shadowman]

  I'm curious just how poker machines and casinos "think" in terms of what they are considering a return. Say for example you put $5 in a "jacks or better" machine and are betting the whole $5 on a hand. You hit 4 straight hands of 2 face cards and finally lose on the 5th hand and have no money in the machine. Does the machine and therefore the casino consider that you "won" $20?


 
Casinos track coin-in and coin-out. In your example you would $25 of coin-in (5 bets times $5) and $20 of coin-out (the 4 hands you won). Hence, the casino considers you have lost $5.

[SaraTG]

Casinos track coin-in and coin-out. In your example you would $25 of coin-in (5 bets times $5) and $20 of coin-out (the 4 hands you won). Hence, the casino considers you have lost $5.

 
  I see. So is this how they can come up with the " You just won 98%" payout rate on a machine when you just lost $100?

[shadowman]

[QUOTE=shadowman]Casinos track coin-in and coin-out. In your example you would $25 of coin-in (5 bets times $5) and $20 of coin-out (the 4 hands you won). Hence, the casino considers you have lost $5.

 
  I see. So is this how they can come up with the " You just won 98%" payout rate on a machine when you just lost $100? [/QUOTE]


 
Sure is. Bet $5000 and win $4900. Lose $100 with a return of 98%.
 
That's why the return of a machine is so important. If you get a 95% return you lose $250 and if you achieve 100% return you don't lose anything.

[ko king]

I completely agree and understand what you mean when you refer to recreational players and the payback percentages, I however play a little more than most. For instance this year I'll have close to $200K in W-2G's so it's pretty obvious I put my share of hands in. I can't help but start to wonder when I start playing at a new casino that has ClassIII vp and after a couple of years of play I'm behind a considerable amount on every single quality quad hand there is yet my royal flushes were in line for the amount of hands played both years. Both years of play at that casino were almost identical when it came to the amount of quality quads I hit, I guarentee that I could go back to that casino and log 250K hands of play and end up falling far short of every quality quad hand there is while playing DDB vp. I even have a pretty good idea as to how that can happen which I pointed out in another post, I will see far more "4 to the flush off the deal" than the average 1 every 36 hands. I'll get my royals there and hit several straight flushes but the other hands will suffer because of this.

[shadowman]

In DDB a dealt 4 to a flush return 1.26 coins for every coin bet. This is better than most deals. Now, if you aren't filling them in at a rate of 9/47 then that would be a problem. However, in and of itself, being dealt more flush chances is a good thing.