It's Vegas Baby!!

[notes1]

get a grip man, you are embarrassing yourself. I was having a conversation with someone else.

here is the problem, I do believe that math is a certainty, I just do not believe that one can equate long term, large sample sizes to every single VP play. I believe that for the casinos, the math likely works out closely in reality to what is expected theoretically. but, I do not believe that for every single player, over whatever time period they play, the math has similar results.

i have a difficult time accepting that if i walk into a casino, play on a VP machine for 10 minutes, that the probabilities are the same, compared to the probabilities of that machine operating 24/7, for decades. i understand the experts disagree, but i question the idea that all play is continuous.

these are my feelings, but i do not attempt to convince anyone else.

[markinca]

get a grip man, you are embarrassing yourself. I was having a conversation with someone else.



will attempt again to get an answer to a simple question, that the school teacher refuses to answer, are you guaranteeing/stating that all players who play perfect math, and only play on positive machine, over a long duration, will have net positive results?

Oh, right, I didn't realize you were referring to the other teacher here.   

[markinca]

but, I do not believe that for every single player, over whatever time period they play, the math has similar results.



This is right - single players likely DON'T have similar results. The casinos have tens (maybe hundreds, I don't know) of millions of hands, single players do not.

[notes1]

now, we are getting someplace. if you wish to continue the discussion, in a pleasant manner, I have a question or two.

here is my example; if in any VP play decision, one had two options, option A results in a higher payout 51% of the time and option B, results in a higher payout 49% of the time, over a long time period. in this example, option A is the proper math choice, correct?

if you accept my example as legit, does that not mean that if one chooses option A every time, and their results were to mimic the entire sample size, they would have worse results, 49% of the time.

further, is it not possible that any single player, could choose the proper math play and have a worse result a high percentage of the time. in other words, is it not possible that for 51% of the sample size, option A would give a better result, but for 49% of the sample size, option B , might work out better.

I would welcome your response.

[markinca]

now, we are getting someplace. if you wish to continue the discussion, in a pleasant manner, I have a question or two.

here is my example; if in any VP play decision, one had two options, option A results in a higher payout 51% of the time and option B, results in a higher payout 49% of the time, over a long time period. in this example, option A is the proper math choice, correct?

if you accept my example as legit, does that not mean that if one chooses option A every time, and their results were to mimic the entire sample size, they would have worse results, 49% of the time.

further, is it not possible that any single player, could choose the proper math play and have a worse result a high percentage of the time. in other words, is it not possible that for 51% of the sample size, option A would give a better result, but for 49% of the sample size, option B , might work out better.

I would welcome your response.

Video poker decisions are generally based on expected value, not percentage chance of winning. If move A has an expected value of 3 units and move B has an expected value of 2 units, that means every time you choose move B over move A you are losing 1 theoretical unit.

Expected value does not have anything to do with the actual amount of the win. For example, if move A has a win of 30 but will happen 50% of the time, that's an expected value of 15. If move B has a win of 1000 but will happen 1% of the time, its expected value is 10. Sure, you might hit a few 1000's, but over the _long run_ it's virtually impossible to make enough of those to make up for it.

[notes1]

let me ask a different way, in the posted RF on this thread that started the entire conversation, I believe you stated the cost of making the posted play was 4 cents per occurrence.

using that example, and using a very large sample size, is it possible even likely, that a portion of that sample group, over the long term, would have better results, not making the correct math play?

[Lionqueen]

I love playing video poker. I do not know or care to learn 'the math' . I do know and greatly care about 'correct play'. I've used the software and tutorials, read the articles published by the professionals and pay attention to the discussions on this forum. There are just some 'correct plays' I don't want to do - my personal choice, my losses and my game. The ones I choose to ignore are not the red light mistakes, they are the orange light warnings and I don't think it's had a huge impact on my net losses. What impacts my losses are the sessions where I can't get a single 4 of a kind and that's not caused by not holding to an inside straight but could be caused by keeping 2 pair but I keep them anyway. (And most importantly not leaving when I realize it's that kind of night). 😡 Every player needs to learn the tutorials and use the software before playing seriously. My type of play is just modified a little because that's how I choose to play.

I've mentioned before that years ago Bob Dancer or another pro talked about these little modifications and said if we do then be consistent. I like and agree with that statement. It's like I got permission to change things up a bit.

Oh, and I've a habit of consoling myself on a missed inside straight by noting the pairs, flushes, three of kinds I've got on other throw away hands and it really does seem to almost come out close to even. My personal belief is to play perfect on the really important hands and have a little fun with the crummy ones. Who knows - you might draw a Royal. It happened to me.

[markinca]

let me ask a different way, in the posted RF on this thread that started the entire conversation, I believe you stated the cost of making the posted play was 4 cents per occurrence.

using that example, and using a very large sample size, is it possible even likely, that a portion of that sample group, over the long term, would have better results, not making the correct math play?

I didn't come up with that 4c/hand figure - I think that's something FP or someone said.

And no, that's the whole point of long-term. If one decision is better than another, even if it's just 1 cent, over the long term, it will be better.

And if we're talking 4c/hand and we're talking about, say, 10 million of those specific hands occurring at casinos all over the country, that's $400,000 EXTRA (on top of the already -EV) that's being lost by players to casinos and that's probably pretty damn close to the actual number, given all those hands.

[notes1]

i'll leave it at this, feel free to respond or not.

you often bring up the results for the casino, I have already stated I believe the casino results are likely in line with expectations. but, I do not care about the casino results and do not believe their results directly correspond to mine.

and, yes long term results represent what the group as a whole can expesct, but as you have previously stated, the results of an entire group may not be the actual results that a single player might experience.   

my position is simply this, it is misleading for anyone to imply/assert that making a mathematically correct play, will guarantee any single player a certain results. the math is simply a measurement of probability, not an assurance of it actually happening.

[billryan]

i'll leave it at this, feel free to respond or not.

you often bring up the results for the casino, I have already stated I believe the casino results are likely in line with expectations. but, I do not care about the casino results and do not believe their results directly correspond to mine.

and, yes long term results represent what the group as a whole can expesct, but as you have previously stated, the results of an entire group may not be the actual results that a single player might experience.   

my position is simply this, it is misleading for anyone to imply/assert that making a mathematically correct play, will guarantee any single player a certain results. the math is simply a measurement of probability, not an assurance of it actually happening.

Driving sober will not guarantee you will get home alive, but making your daily commute sober each day will almost definitely result in better long term results than downing a quart of vodka before you start out.
Nothing in life is assured, but ignoring the path with the highest proven chances for success for another because the first path isn't guaranteed is foolish.