Things I Do...Things I've observed

[oej719]

He could use a backbone. He is spineless you know. He has no scrupples and lurks around in the wee hours alone and desparate to pread his drunken pioson.

[jm002546]

[QUOTE=The Bolt!]There aren't many of these machines available because there aren't many dumb enough players available to play them. Stick with FPDW and save the sucker games for suckers. 
 
Yes, oej719, this post does resemble ones from your favorite con man. It is simply ridiculous (as was his post on full pay).
 
In many casinos the OEJs is the ONLY positive game available and returns 2-3% better than the next best game. Anyone who thinks players are "dumb" to play a game that has a much higher return has already given us great insight into his knowledge of VP.[/QUOTE]  Stick his rear at Bellagio, Caesar's, Venetian........and I will quadruple everydollar he wins at FPDW.

[VegasVic14]

[QUOTE=clwn2]
Two questions Shadowman.  1.  You mentioned that in DDB the quads and above account for 20% of payback.  How did you arrive at that calculation?
2. You also mention the term "cycles".  What is a cycle?
 
 
1). This information is provided by the various software tutors. When you analyze a game it breaks down the percentages of each paytable item. They also provide the frequency (cycle time).
 
2). A cycle is the average number of hands that it takes for you should see a particular result. As with most things in VP an average only has meaning over many cycles. When we talk about a RF cycle that is usually close to 40K hands. A quad cycle in most  non-wild games is around 425 hands. The cycle for a QQ/quad is around 160 hands.
 
Keep in mind that the cycle times and percentages are based on playing the optimal strategy perfectly.[/QUOTE]
 
Repectfully disagree:
 
   Frequency and the percentages provided by the software tutors are based on millions and millions of computer hands. To suggest that this information will therefore translate to a cycle time ( a concept, BTW, I have never heard mentioned by VP experts) in which "you should see a particular result" is misleading and disingenuous to others. The most diehard of VP players down to the occasional player will never duplicate these figures with any certainty (but we will approach them with regularity) as we all are short term players by comparison, and anything can and will happen in the short term. To believe, therefore, that you are due (because of "cycle time") and having already played X number of hands is foolish.
 
  I have gone months without hitting a Royal and, yet, I hit 2 in 4 days on a cruise ship no less (where machines NEVER pay according to everyone).
I have gone hours and hours without hitting a quad as well and have hit a number of them in short order. Nothing is predictable.
 
The bottom line without dispute is to play with optimum strategy for each game you select and make sure the pay tables are the best.
 
 
 

[shadowman]

 
Repectfully disagree:
 
   Frequency and the percentages provided by the software tutors are based on millions and millions of computer hands. To suggest that this information will therefore translate to a cycle time ( a concept, BTW, I have never heard mentioned by VP experts) in which "you should see a particular result" is misleading and disingenuous to others.
 
You'd be correct if that is what I'd said. What I said is a cycle time is an average. And I also stated it was "across many cycles". I'm sorry if this confused you. 
 
Also, the frequencies are not necessarily based on "millions and millions of hands", the number of hands to achieve various frequencies within small %s varies depending on just how often a particular result occurs.
 

The most diehard of VP players down to the occasional player will never duplicate these figures with any certainty (but we will approach them with regularity) as we all are short term players by comparison, and anything can and will happen in the short term. To believe, therefore, that you are due (because of "cycle time") and having already played X number of hands is foolish.
 
Yes, it is. And, since I never stated anyone is ever "due" it appears we are in agreement.  
 
BTW, the term "cycle time" is used fairly often to describe averages in VP. Given your obvious knowledge of the game I'm surprised you have seen it used. It's useful when thinking about probabilities. You can ask questions like what are the odds of going 3 "cycles" without a quad, etc. the word "average" doesn't fit well in this context.
 
   I have gone months without hitting a Royal and, yet, I hit 2 in 4 days on a cruise ship no less (where machines NEVER pay according to everyone).
I have gone hours and hours without hitting a quad as well and have hit a number of them in short order. Nothing is predictable.
 
The bottom line without dispute is to play with optimum strategy for each game you select and make sure the pay tables are the best.  
 
Well, it appears we are in agreement on VP dynamics as well.  
 

[VegasVic14]

[QUOTE=VegasVic14]
 
Repectfully disagree:
 
   Frequency and the percentages provided by the software tutors are based on millions and millions of computer hands. To suggest that this information will therefore translate to a cycle time ( a concept, BTW, I have never heard mentioned by VP experts) in which "you should see a particular result" is misleading and disingenuous to others.
 
You'd be correct if that is what I'd said. What I said is a cycle time is an average. And I also stated it was "across many cycles". I'm sorry if this confused you. 
 
Also, the frequencies are not necessarily based on "millions and millions of hands", the number of hands to achieve various frequencies within small %s varies depending on just how often a particular result occurs.
 

The most diehard of VP players down to the occasional player will never duplicate these figures with any certainty (but we will approach them with regularity) as we all are short term players by comparison, and anything can and will happen in the short term. To believe, therefore, that you are due (because of "cycle time") and having already played X number of hands is foolish.
 
Yes, it is. And, since I never stated anyone is ever "due" it appears we are in agreement.  
 
BTW, the term "cycle time" is used fairly often to describe averages in VP. Given your obvious knowledge of the game I'm surprised you have seen it used. It's useful when thinking about probabilities. You can ask questions like what are the odds of going 3 "cycles" without a quad, etc. the word "average" doesn't fit well in this context.
 
   I have gone months without hitting a Royal and, yet, I hit 2 in 4 days on a cruise ship no less (where machines NEVER pay according to everyone).
I have gone hours and hours without hitting a quad as well and have hit a number of them in short order. Nothing is predictable.
 
The bottom line without dispute is to play with optimum strategy for each game you select and make sure the pay tables are the best.  
 
Well, it appears we are in agreement on VP dynamics as well.  
 [/QUOTE]I find the usage of "cycle" more predominant in discussions involving regular slot machines, but have seen  a few references to it on VP sites by people who I don't consider to be experts in playing the game (hence the dismissal of its usage as an appropriate one). My short list of authors and experts who I follow regularly focus on more basic factors such as pay table and ER. One has to be careful in using the concept of the mathematical frequency of something hitting (a quad, or a FH, etc.) lest it be construed as something that has been "programmed to happen".  I see this all the time where players think the VP machine is hot or cold and nothing could be further from the truth.The frequencies for video poker are indeed based on millions of hands played. If the sample were smaller, the end results would not be accurate enough. I know from my stats gained through thousands of hands on my WinPoker software I am close to the statistical frequency for each game, but I have not yet hit all the possible hands in each game, so it will take thousands more to get a true representation.If I should be asked "what are the odds of going 3 cycles without hitting a quad" , I would reply that the odds are the same as 3 cycles in which I hit 1 or 100 quads. To me, it's a meaningless application in VP. As you know, each spin is independent of every other spin and past history has no bearing on the future.

[New2vp]

Repectfully disagree:
 Frequency and the percentages provided by the software tutors are based on millions and millions of computer hands. To suggest that this information will therefore translate to a cycle time ( a concept, BTW, I have never heard mentioned by VP experts) in which "you should see a particular result" is misleading and disingenuous to others.
 
One does not have to play even a single "computer hand" in order to produce the frequencies and percentages provided by software tutors.  The assumption that "a random number generator provides that there is an equally likely chance of getting any card on the first draw and any unseen card on subsequent draws" allows one to simply use combinatorial math and probability to determine these numbers.
 
These figures are often calculated from the probabilities of occurrence of each of the 134,459 distinct starting hands that are possible (counting AªQ©J¨8¨6 ¨ and A§Q¨Jª8ª6ª as having identical values and using multiplication prevents one from having to make many duplicate calculations) and then determining which of 32 possible holds maximizes the expected value for each starting hand.  (Different numbers of distinct starting hands are used when suits are important, when the deck does not contain 52 cards or if a hand does not contain 5 cards, and sometimes when there are wild cards.)
 
Certainly, if one looked at a sample of millions and millions of computer hands, it would be increasingly likely that the empirical sample frequencies would align closely with the figures derived from probability theory, but  averages of very large samples can take longer to calculate and would be less precise for use in predictions about likely events to occur in the future.
 
In a vacuum, the objection to the term "cycle" is reasonable in that it generally defines something that is recurrent or repeating rather than random.  And, it is always best, when using English words to describe abstract phenomena,  to define your terms carefully so that those reading can better understand the message you are trying to convey.  But, sometimes when the lingo or jargon of a particular branch of study has taken on a life of its own and supplied a new definition to a term, it no longer becomes necessary to define it with each usage. 
 
Both Frugal Video Poker and Wolf Video Poker (in their Machine Statistics) use the word "Cycle" to describe the number 40,390.5 (or 40,390.55 depending on rounding) when referring to 9/6 Jacks or Better in a row describing how likely it is for one to end with a royal flush while using computer perfect strategy.  Granted, the programmer for both was the same and, depending on how picky one is, Wolf may not be considered an expert, though he seems fairly knowledgeable.
 
Both WinPoker and VPFW (endorsed but not programmed by Dancer) use the term "Occurs Every" for the column heading that includes 40.390.55 in the results of Game Analysis.  Probably "Occurs Every" is a worse title than cycle since we all agree that a royal will not occur every 40,390+ hands.  I'm guessing most would consider Dancer an expert and the term cycle is not used here.  Maybe the term "cycle" had not caught on by 1997 when Zamzow's program first was distributed and I'm guessing that the programmers for VPFW likely just replicated what they saw in WinPoker.  It does not seem unreasonable to use the term here.  Bob later uses the term "cycle" in write up about Double Pay Poker at http://www.igtproducts.com/IGTproducts/ ... ypoker.htm describing the chances of getting a royal on dealt hands as such, "There is no skill on it whatsoever, although there is a very long cycle because dealt royals only happen every 650,000 hands or so. (Here, that is only every 130,000 original hands, because dealt royals can happen on any of the five lines.)"
 
Dan Paymar, who I'm guessing many would consider an expert, starts a column titled "Glossary of Video Poker Terms," published on Thursday, November 8, 2001, with:
 
"Cycle:  The statistically predicted average number of hands per royal flush (or other top jackpot).  In other words, a 'cycle' is simply the reciprocal of the probability of a royal on the next hand."
 
This seems to me to be a convenient term to apply to the concept that we are trying to describe.
 
Some use the term "frequency" to describe 40390.55, while others, including WinPoker and VPFW say that the frequency is 64.34575, the expected number of royals out of 2,598,960 hands.  So using "cycle" for one of these concepts and "frequency" for the other seems reasonable for differentiation.
 
The 6th Frequently Asked Question in vpFREE's FAQ's is:
 
"What is a Royal cycle? - The theoretical, mathematically computed number of hands between Royal Flushes when playing perfect (max-EV) strategy."
 
And vpFREE's glossary contains the word cycle about 50 times using it to describe the likelihood of royals on various games.
 
So, I'm guessing that this use of the term "cycle" may not be universal, but seems to have gained considerable traction.
 
Thanks for posting.  It is always great to get differing thoughtful views.  Vic, please note that I wrote this in response to your first post and had not seen the second one when I posted.
 

[shadowman]

I find the usage of "cycle" more predominant in discussions involving regular slot machines, but have seen  a few references to it on VP sites by people who I don't consider to be experts in playing the game (hence the dismissal of its usage as an appropriate one). My short list of authors and experts who I follow regularly focus on more basic factors such as pay table and ER.  
 
I think your use of the term "expert" needs a little clarification. VP is a finite game and the mathematics behind it are well known to thousands of mathematicans (or economists like Bob Dancer). If you're limiting your respect to few VP authors then you may miss out on a lot of good information.

  One has to be careful in using the concept of the mathematical frequency of something hitting (a quad, or a FH, etc.) lest it be construed as something that has been "programmed to happen".  I see this all the time where players think the VP machine is hot or cold and nothing could be further from the truth.

The frequencies for video poker are indeed based on millions of hands played. If the sample were smaller, the end results would not be accurate enough. I know from my stats gained through thousands of hands on my WinPoker software I am close to the statistical frequency for each game, but I have not yet hit all the possible hands in each game, so it will take thousands more to get a true representation.
 
You need to understand that specific resultant hand frequencies approach their means at different rates. While it may indeed take millions of hands for royals, it does not take millions of hands for 3oaks, etc. Each type of hand needs to be viewed differently.


If I should asked "what are the odds of going 3 cycles without hitting a quad" , I would reply that the odds are the same as 3 cycles in which I hit 1 or 100 quads. To me, it's a meaningless application in VP. As you know, each spin is independent of every other spin and past history has no bearing on the future.

 
It was not meaningless to me when I was trying to analyze a promotion that was limited in time. It was extremely important to know the probabilities in order to make a risk assessment.
 

[New2vp]

S-man, maybe Vic means that real experts don't use terms like "hot" cycles, "cold" cycles, or "motor" cycles!

[jm002546]

[QUOTE=VegasVic14]


If I should asked "what are the odds of going 3 cycles without hitting a quad" , I would reply that the odds are the same as 3 cycles in which I hit 1 or 100 quads. To me, it's a meaningless application in VP.  It's OK to disregard this remark.  Advisable, even.

[Eduardo]

You can't expect to hit a quad within a cycle that's true. Every hand is truly random and you are never in the middle of a cycle but on a fresh hand with the same odds as the previous one. But I think the concept is worth knowing.
 
In your example, the odds of going 3 cycles without a quad are not the same as hitting 100 quads within a cycle. It is because we play in short sessions that this is important.  What are my odds of going bankrupt quickly vs winning big? If the odds were the same to hit no quads or 100 of them in the same time period, we would all play that game.
 
That said, it should not influence your decision on any given hand so it is essentially meaningless to your strategy but perhaps not your bankroll management.