It's Vegas Baby!!

[markinca]

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.

Oh god, not this again. THE MATH IS NOT A GUAR--- ah I give up.

[Vman96]

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.

I'm pretty sure none of the guys that talk about the math here have insinuated this is the case. I surely haven't. Playing optimally should lead to less money lost on average, but a player's actual results definitely vary depending on how he/she plays and how much is played. But the more you play, the more likely the results will approach mathematical expectations.

[markinca]

I'm pretty sure none of the guys that talk about the math here have insinuated this is the case. I surely haven't. Playing optimally should lead to less money lost on average, but a player's actual results definitely vary depending on how he/she plays and how much is played. But the more you play, the more likely the results will approach mathematical expectations.

I just honestly don't get it. Literally none of the math guys that I've seen here have ever said anything about a guarantee. In fact, they've all more or less said explicitly that it's NOT a guarantee. And yet notes1 just keeps coming back over and over and over and over about how the math guys are guaranteeing results.

It's just so tiring to see the same thing again and again and again.

[OTABILL]

Several Points:

1: We are all on this thread recreational players, as far as I can tell none are pros.

2. Some are consumed by mathematical probabilities in attempting to come as close as possible to the correct holds based on the math.

3. Others know the math but are not as concerned with always making the correct holds and like to gamble somewhat such as not holding an inside straight draw or drawing to a suited Ace-Ten.

4: Some view monetary success as the ultimate goal of playing VP, others factor in entertainment, fun, socializing and the total casino experience to a greater or lesser extent in determining a successful casino trip. The former look at money lost/won at a session/long term, the latter may look, as I do, at discretionary funds spent (rather than lost) on a recreational activity.

5. This is not a case of right or wrong, merely what floats your boat so to speak. Nobody should be criticized for their perspective/objective.

6. I for one appreciate everyone's input on this thread and elsewhere. No I am not a blind devotee to the math, I appreciate the effort and input of the math folks in helping me know what are the correct plays and the odds regarding VP variations.

[onemoretry]

Well stated!

[notes1]

[QUOTE=notes1]
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.

I'm pretty sure none of the guys that talk about the math here have insinuated this is the case. I surely haven't. Playing optimally should lead to less money lost on average, but a player's actual results definitely vary depending on how he/she plays and how much is played. But the more you play, the more likely the results will approach mathematical expectations.[/QUOTE]

I have respect for Vman and look forward to his posts. I just wish I could drink like he does, not anymore. I have asked him math questions in the past and he has responded. a few of the math posters could learn a thing or two, from the manner in which he posts.

you say none of the folks who talk math, insinuate any guarantee of results.

a poster on this thread, who I believe considers himself a math person, made the following statement,'i believe if you play positive machines (including comps)and play perfect or as close as possible you should win over time'.

I do not know how you interpret this statement, but this and others are at the very least, suggestive that winning should be expected, under the conditions stated. I never said anyone guaranteed winning, but it takes a lot of prodding to get some folks to admit that it is gambling.

I prefer your language, less money lost on average.

I answered you post, how about answering my question. if the play that started this discussion truly has an error rate of 4 cents, would you consider this error/deviation large or small and would you say that over time, the cumulative effect of this play, would have meaningful impact on one's results. or, was it a whole lot about nothing.

[case]

a poster on this thread, who I believe considers himself a math person, made the following statement,'i believe if you play positive machines (including comps)and play perfect or as close as possible you should win over time'.



Should...should....should win over time. Not will....not guaranteed.

Do you not think that statement is true???

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=markina]I didn't come up with that 4c/hand figure - I think that's something FP or someone said.[/quote]The 4 cent issue came up because my wife likes to play DW and enjoys going for royals and wild royals on ace high two card non deuce royal flush draws.  She always checks VPW before making any strategy changes.  The software told her this modification to the mathematically correct strategy cost her 4 cents each time she does it.  She feels like this is worth it to her, so she pays the price.  We have hit three one thousand dollar royal flushes so far making this strategy modification, putting us years and possibly lifetimes ahead on this change alone.   As you can see, one of them is posted above.  This is proof positive that math is not always reflected in your actual results.  However, math is always right in it's predictions.  The math said there was a possibility that she would come out ahead and she has.   There was also a decent chance she could have lost every hand and would never see a royal or at least not three of them.  If she plays until the year 2500, she may regret making this change.  I think she may have bigger problems by that time....My point is an informed player plays the best games, knows what the math says and makes decisions based on their own goals, which may not be the same as the mathematically correct choice.  An advantage player plays exactly according to the math.  We never made that claim.  If making this change enhances her enjoyment of the game, does that make her a bad player?  If it does, should she give the 3K back?

[case]

Phil

How was the storm in your area. Hope everything is ok.

[FloridaPhil]

Thanks for asking.   We're pretty far inland, so we had no real damage.  We live on a lake and were worried about rising water, but all was OK.    Everything was just fine until 6 AM when a neighbor's tree fell over and took out the power this morning.  We just got it back.  The air conditioning feels sooo good.