Gold Exclusive
My Favorites
[QUOTE=ko king)In hindsight I wish I had only played 125K hands in a year, no I was just using that figure in reference to what I would just about guarantee my payback percentage to be after that many hands. Let me see if I can put this in a different way so it's easier to understand and this just explains my results during the last few years. I only play $2 DDB with a paytable of 9/6/4 which represents a payback percentage of 98.98%, what this payback percentage basically says is that over the long run with perfect play I should expect it to cost me about .102 cents per hand to play the game. What the game has delivered over the last few years is a cost of .47 cents per hand.
So, Ko, did anyone during your play plop down on the machine next to you, and immediately hit a premium hand?
My understanding of EV is that, with perfect play, it represents the return WITHIN THE UNIVERSE OF THAT GAME/PAYTABLE, not just an individual's experience. So it is my contention that some lucky folks that do not post here grabbed a fair (or we may feel, an unfair) share of the premium hands that make up the difference in that expected return.
Didn't see that happen very often, but you brought up a good point a while back about folks who play 1 or 2 credits maybe eating the premium hands up. The way my lucks been running it could be that someone just popped the machines pretty good right before I got there, day late and dollar short type of thing. I really don't know what's going with my vp play, all I know is I always thought my results were supposed to based on paytables, odds and statistics, not someone else's results.
What is the liklihood of Casino cheating at VP?
-
ko king
- VP Veteran
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:13 pm
-
olds442jetaway
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 10751
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:08 pm
Just a little side note to some of the stuff being discussed here. I have seen people just sit down and hit big sometimes. I am just basing my personal results over several million hands played over the last 5 years. That is a pretty big sample. One time about 3 years ago I walked by an empty 25 cent DD stud machine. Late at night. Nobody around. Someone had been dealt 4 to a Royal in Spades and walked away without finishing the hand. I waited about 10 minutes in case someone had just stepped away to the restroom etc. Nobody showed up. I hit double (there were 2 credits left in the machine) and the Royal popped up. Had there been 5 coins in, that would have been 5k, but for that day I was a happy camper.
-
onemoretry
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:00 pm
Nice, detailed results, One. But I have to ask. By spreading your play out over many properties, do you sacrifice comps that you may have otherwise received if you played that same amount within one property group?
That is possibly true. But there is also some rationale for not "putting all your eggs in one basket".
Actually, for the Vegas trip, there is no option but to move around, since the casinos don't permit extended continuous stays. Neither the M nor South Point are part of a property group with other casinos in Vegas, but we do like them, particularly M. M, which is owned by Penn National Gaming is affiliated with Casino Rama, which Penn operates. Our first stay at the M was courtesy of a very generous offer resulting from our play at Rama. There has been a suggestion that, at some future time, our play at Rama would count towards status at M. We would certainly welcome that!
We could, I suppose, drop South Point and stay at another Boyd property instead.
When we go to Laughlin, we are guests of Harrahs, and do give them a reasonable amount of play while there. We really like the new tier score system, since we do not have too much trouble getting those 5000 point bonuses.
But, we like some of the vp offerings at the Golden Nugget and Aquarius as well. Perhaps, if we devoted ourselves entirely to Harrahs on these junkets we could move further up the entitlement ladder to a more significant level. I don't really know for sure. But, simply said, we enjoy getting out to the other places, too.
I suspect that it may be the play at Seneca Niagara vs. Casino Rama that caused you to raise this issue, since our play at these properties is significantly more than that in Vegas or Laughlin. We have discussed dropping one of them, but each has its advantages and disadvantages, with no clear winner.
Rama, which offers 9/6 JOB, plus cashback, bounceback and comps has a better overall potential return. Plus, it is smokefree and only a 55 minute drive from home.
Seneca Niagara, offering 8/5 bonus poker at stakes we can tolerate (they do have $5 single line 9/6 JOB), plus comps, which are convertible to slot play, plus a monthly mailer, is 2 hours, plus a border crossing, away.
The machines at Seneca are much more comfortable to play at (slant tops versus uprights at Rama). Alcohol can be comped there, but not at Rama.
As well, Seneca is fairly close to the Buffalo airport, giving us a convenient layover spot when we fly to and from Buffalo.
If we were to drop one of the two, the pendulum as to which one has swung back and forth. So, for the moment, we split our play between the two. We did cut back at Seneca somewhat in 2013.
We tend to follow the philosophy of Jean Scott, author of The Frugal Gambler, which is to never marry casinos-just have affairs. So far, it seems to have worked for us.
That is possibly true. But there is also some rationale for not "putting all your eggs in one basket".
Actually, for the Vegas trip, there is no option but to move around, since the casinos don't permit extended continuous stays. Neither the M nor South Point are part of a property group with other casinos in Vegas, but we do like them, particularly M. M, which is owned by Penn National Gaming is affiliated with Casino Rama, which Penn operates. Our first stay at the M was courtesy of a very generous offer resulting from our play at Rama. There has been a suggestion that, at some future time, our play at Rama would count towards status at M. We would certainly welcome that!
We could, I suppose, drop South Point and stay at another Boyd property instead.
When we go to Laughlin, we are guests of Harrahs, and do give them a reasonable amount of play while there. We really like the new tier score system, since we do not have too much trouble getting those 5000 point bonuses.
But, we like some of the vp offerings at the Golden Nugget and Aquarius as well. Perhaps, if we devoted ourselves entirely to Harrahs on these junkets we could move further up the entitlement ladder to a more significant level. I don't really know for sure. But, simply said, we enjoy getting out to the other places, too.
I suspect that it may be the play at Seneca Niagara vs. Casino Rama that caused you to raise this issue, since our play at these properties is significantly more than that in Vegas or Laughlin. We have discussed dropping one of them, but each has its advantages and disadvantages, with no clear winner.
Rama, which offers 9/6 JOB, plus cashback, bounceback and comps has a better overall potential return. Plus, it is smokefree and only a 55 minute drive from home.
Seneca Niagara, offering 8/5 bonus poker at stakes we can tolerate (they do have $5 single line 9/6 JOB), plus comps, which are convertible to slot play, plus a monthly mailer, is 2 hours, plus a border crossing, away.
The machines at Seneca are much more comfortable to play at (slant tops versus uprights at Rama). Alcohol can be comped there, but not at Rama.
As well, Seneca is fairly close to the Buffalo airport, giving us a convenient layover spot when we fly to and from Buffalo.
If we were to drop one of the two, the pendulum as to which one has swung back and forth. So, for the moment, we split our play between the two. We did cut back at Seneca somewhat in 2013.
We tend to follow the philosophy of Jean Scott, author of The Frugal Gambler, which is to never marry casinos-just have affairs. So far, it seems to have worked for us.
-
Minn. Fatz
- VP Veteran
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:22 am
[QUOTE=spxChrome] [QUOTE=billyjoe] if it exists (and I say "IF"), it would be at the IGT level. if a customer like CET orders VP machines a certain way, that is what they will deliver.
This is true and good luck getting them to tell you how the RNG works. We can read how it is suppose to work but nobody but IGT knows how it works before draw or after the draw. But I bet they can tell a casino how much profit they plan to make if they get this chip over the next chip. It is pretty obvious what is going on since we are all having the same results during the same time frame.
It is noteworthy that the "Godfather of Video Poker", Bob Dancer in his January 14th article laments the degradation of video poker from what it used to be.[/QUOTE]
What Mr. Dancer was lamenting was that 8/5 BP is now reportedly the best deal in many a property. Living in a state that mandates a negative return for VP I'd bust a nut if I saw 8/5 BP anywhere tho.
This is true and good luck getting them to tell you how the RNG works. We can read how it is suppose to work but nobody but IGT knows how it works before draw or after the draw. But I bet they can tell a casino how much profit they plan to make if they get this chip over the next chip. It is pretty obvious what is going on since we are all having the same results during the same time frame.
It is noteworthy that the "Godfather of Video Poker", Bob Dancer in his January 14th article laments the degradation of video poker from what it used to be.[/QUOTE]
What Mr. Dancer was lamenting was that 8/5 BP is now reportedly the best deal in many a property. Living in a state that mandates a negative return for VP I'd bust a nut if I saw 8/5 BP anywhere tho.
-
Vman96
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3298
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:49 am
I really don't know what's going with my vp play, all I know is I always thought my results were supposed to based on paytables, odds and statistics, not someone else's results.
Hate to say it since you haven't done well, but they probably still are based on the paytable. Your results are definitely "statistically acceptable".
The worst 1% of optimal players will have results worse than you've mentioned. You also would expect about 50 "Tax Forms" for this many hands. But also about 1% of the time, you will get 35 or less. And when this happens your chances of having a less than 95% return balloons to almost 36%.
Here is a bunch of data from the sims. NA's the number of Sims that didn't meet the qualification in the title.
Results
Sims 5000.000000
Return % 98.980935
SD 6.479584
Sim. % <95% return 1.040000
Sim. % <95% return w/o Royal 6.122449
Sim. % <95% return w/no Royal or AWAK no sample
Sim. % <95% return w/35 or less Tax Forms 35.8209
% of Royalless Sims 4.9000
% Sims with no Royals or AWAK 0.0000
% Sims w/35 or less Tax forms 1.3400
Win/Loss Summary in dollars
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
-88000 -28160 -13120 -12490 2220 69830
Summary of Return %age
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
92.96 97.75 98.95 99.00 100.20 105.60
Summary of Royals
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
0.000 2.000 3.000 3.105 4.000 12.000
Summary of AWAK
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
0.000 6.000 8.000 7.754 10.000 20.000
$`Summary of Tax Forms`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
27.0 45.0 50.0 50.3 55.0 86.0
$`Return w/o RF`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
92.96 96.09 97.24 97.14 98.10 100.60 4755.00
Return %age with 35 or less Tax Forms
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
92.96 94.76 95.49 95.52 96.32 98.54 4933.00
And of course, pictures speak louder than words.
Hate to say it since you haven't done well, but they probably still are based on the paytable. Your results are definitely "statistically acceptable".
The worst 1% of optimal players will have results worse than you've mentioned. You also would expect about 50 "Tax Forms" for this many hands. But also about 1% of the time, you will get 35 or less. And when this happens your chances of having a less than 95% return balloons to almost 36%.
Here is a bunch of data from the sims. NA's the number of Sims that didn't meet the qualification in the title.
Results
Sims 5000.000000
Return % 98.980935
SD 6.479584
Sim. % <95% return 1.040000
Sim. % <95% return w/o Royal 6.122449
Sim. % <95% return w/no Royal or AWAK no sample
Sim. % <95% return w/35 or less Tax Forms 35.8209
% of Royalless Sims 4.9000
% Sims with no Royals or AWAK 0.0000
% Sims w/35 or less Tax forms 1.3400
Win/Loss Summary in dollars
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
-88000 -28160 -13120 -12490 2220 69830
Summary of Return %age
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
92.96 97.75 98.95 99.00 100.20 105.60
Summary of Royals
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
0.000 2.000 3.000 3.105 4.000 12.000
Summary of AWAK
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
0.000 6.000 8.000 7.754 10.000 20.000
$`Summary of Tax Forms`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
27.0 45.0 50.0 50.3 55.0 86.0
$`Return w/o RF`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
92.96 96.09 97.24 97.14 98.10 100.60 4755.00
Return %age with 35 or less Tax Forms
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
92.96 94.76 95.49 95.52 96.32 98.54 4933.00
And of course, pictures speak louder than words.
-
ko king
- VP Veteran
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:13 pm
Just a little side note to some of the stuff being discussed here. I have seen people just sit down and hit big sometimes. I am just basing my personal results over several million hands played over the last 5 years. That is a pretty big sample. One time about 3 years ago I walked by an empty 25 cent DD stud machine. Late at night. Nobody around. Someone had been dealt 4 to a Royal in Spades and walked away without finishing the hand. I waited about 10 minutes in case someone had just stepped away to the restroom etc. Nobody showed up. I hit double (there were 2 credits left in the machine) and the Royal popped up. Had there been 5 coins in, that would have been 5k, but for that day I was a happy camper.
Wow, what's the odds at that happening again.
Wow, what's the odds at that happening again.
-
ko king
- VP Veteran
- Posts: 670
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:13 pm
[QUOTE=ko king] I really don't know what's going with my vp play, all I know is I always thought my results were supposed to based on paytables, odds and statistics, not someone else's results.
Hate to say it since you haven't done well, but they probably still are based on the paytable. Your results are definitely "statistically acceptable".
The worst 1% of optimal players will have results worse than you've mentioned. You also would expect about 50 "Tax Forms" for this many hands. But also about 1% of the time, you will get 35 or less. And when this happens your chances of having a less than 95% return balloons to almost 36%.
Here is a bunch of data from the sims. NA's the number of Sims that didn't meet the qualification in the title.
Results
Sims 5000.000000
Return % 98.980935
SD 6.479584
Sim. % <95% return 1.040000
Sim. % <95% return w/o Royal 6.122449
Sim. % <95% return w/no Royal or AWAK no sample
Sim. % <95% return w/35 or less Tax Forms 35.8209
% of Royalless Sims 4.9000
% Sims with no Royals or AWAK 0.0000
% Sims w/35 or less Tax forms 1.3400
Win/Loss Summary in dollars
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
-88000 -28160 -13120 -12490 2220 69830
Summary of Return %age
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
92.96 97.75 98.95 99.00 100.20 105.60
Summary of Royals
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
0.000 2.000 3.000 3.105 4.000 12.000
Summary of AWAK
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
0.000 6.000 8.000 7.754 10.000 20.000
$`Summary of Tax Forms`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
27.0 45.0 50.0 50.3 55.0 86.0
$`Return w/o RF`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
92.96 96.09 97.24 97.14 98.10 100.60 4755.00
Return %age with 35 or less Tax Forms
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
92.96 94.76 95.49 95.52 96.32 98.54 4933.00
And of course, pictures speak louder than words.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info, I guess we can chalk it up to a plain old fashioned run of bad luck, stings a bit and it's hard to accept (still a little bit skeptical) but I guess somebody has to be bringing up the rear and I maybe it was my turn. On the bright side I'd guess I'm running near the top end for dealt royals, I had 4 in three years and also got one when I tossed the whole hand.
Hate to say it since you haven't done well, but they probably still are based on the paytable. Your results are definitely "statistically acceptable".
The worst 1% of optimal players will have results worse than you've mentioned. You also would expect about 50 "Tax Forms" for this many hands. But also about 1% of the time, you will get 35 or less. And when this happens your chances of having a less than 95% return balloons to almost 36%.
Here is a bunch of data from the sims. NA's the number of Sims that didn't meet the qualification in the title.
Results
Sims 5000.000000
Return % 98.980935
SD 6.479584
Sim. % <95% return 1.040000
Sim. % <95% return w/o Royal 6.122449
Sim. % <95% return w/no Royal or AWAK no sample
Sim. % <95% return w/35 or less Tax Forms 35.8209
% of Royalless Sims 4.9000
% Sims with no Royals or AWAK 0.0000
% Sims w/35 or less Tax forms 1.3400
Win/Loss Summary in dollars
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
-88000 -28160 -13120 -12490 2220 69830
Summary of Return %age
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
92.96 97.75 98.95 99.00 100.20 105.60
Summary of Royals
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
0.000 2.000 3.000 3.105 4.000 12.000
Summary of AWAK
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
0.000 6.000 8.000 7.754 10.000 20.000
$`Summary of Tax Forms`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
27.0 45.0 50.0 50.3 55.0 86.0
$`Return w/o RF`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
92.96 96.09 97.24 97.14 98.10 100.60 4755.00
Return %age with 35 or less Tax Forms
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
92.96 94.76 95.49 95.52 96.32 98.54 4933.00
And of course, pictures speak louder than words.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info, I guess we can chalk it up to a plain old fashioned run of bad luck, stings a bit and it's hard to accept (still a little bit skeptical) but I guess somebody has to be bringing up the rear and I maybe it was my turn. On the bright side I'd guess I'm running near the top end for dealt royals, I had 4 in three years and also got one when I tossed the whole hand.
-
Vman96
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3298
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:49 am
Yeah, to be honest, I would question it was rigged too if I had the results you wrote here. It's obviously unlikely.
Video poker has a lot more variance than most people realize. Especially games like DDB. In 125k hands, an average player gets only 50 hands that trigger a tax form at the $2 level. But in DDB, those hands are also worth 9.49% of the game's return. So run bad on those tax forms, it's gonna be rough. Hopefully it turns around for you in the future.
As for myself, I'm on a 16-month royalless streak. Thank god I don't pump a lot of volume at the casino; I may have played only ~1 "Royal Cycle" in 16 months. I keep bad records for how much I like math though...lol
Video poker has a lot more variance than most people realize. Especially games like DDB. In 125k hands, an average player gets only 50 hands that trigger a tax form at the $2 level. But in DDB, those hands are also worth 9.49% of the game's return. So run bad on those tax forms, it's gonna be rough. Hopefully it turns around for you in the future.
As for myself, I'm on a 16-month royalless streak. Thank god I don't pump a lot of volume at the casino; I may have played only ~1 "Royal Cycle" in 16 months. I keep bad records for how much I like math though...lol
-
onemoretry
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:00 pm
As for myself, I'm on a 16-month royalless streak. Thank god I don't pump a lot of volume at the casino; I may have played only ~1 "Royal Cycle" in 16 months.
That's why statements relating results (or, lack thereof) to a time period are meaningless.
I have recently endured a royal drought that was "only" three months. But, I played about 141000 hands in those three months, which makes my three month drought a lot worse than your sixteen month one.
Thankfully, the drought ended two days ago - holding only the ace of clubs, the king, queen, jack and ten rolled in on the draw.
-
olds442jetaway
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 10751
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:08 pm
I was hoping mine ended at 140k hands. Now at 260k and counting. A lifetime record in the wrong direction. Luckily, a few other premium hands have come in to lighten the load a little.
