Things I Do...Things I've observed

[faygo]

Bankroll? Mine is more like bankflat. I think what makes VP so fastenating is the very fact that the next hand will be different. Anywhere from RAGZU to a dealt Royal.
 My little brain always goes " That was a bummer, now deal again." 

[EDC1977]

 My little brain always goes " That was a bummer, now deal again."    Wouldn't you just be better off snaking money from books and mattresses?

[faygo]

[QUOTE=faygo]
 My little brain always goes " That was a bummer, now deal again."    Wouldn't you just be better off snaking money from books and mattresses?[/QUOTE]
 
Pickins have been slim since we let Da Cat out of the bag.

[shadowman]

  
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.
 
Absoxactly.

[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.
 
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.
 [/QUOTE]For the most part, your reply is quite impressive with the knowledge it imparts.In a nutshell, my initial interpretation of the usage of "cycle" in this thread conveyed the suggestion that it meant there were a number of hands in which the player could expect to hit a certain result, as Shadowman wrote: "
2). A cycle is the average number of hands that it takes for you should see a particular result." If I misread it, I apologize. I do completely understand and acknowledge the application of "cycle" in the VP vernacular, but want to make sure that VP playing newbies who join this forum discussion do not misinterpret it, much as you highlighted the usage of "occurs every" in your example. Now,  I think that in a convoluted manner,  "cycle" has been clarified. Additionally, I, myself, was not clear in a statement concerning "millions and millions of computer hands". I should have also said "equivalent of". Obviously, application of math and probabilities is the accepted method and I thank you for pointing that out.

[New2vp]

Vic, your words are very gracious.  I've read some of your posts on Linda Boyd's Web site, assuming you are the same person.  I look forward to your additional insights as my in-casino experiences have thus far been quite limited.

[VegasVic14]

Vic, your words are very gracious.  I've read some of your posts on Linda Boyd's Web site, assuming you are the same person.  I look forward to your additional insights as my in-casino experiences have thus far been quite limited.
 
Yes, I'm that guy. I don't claim to be an expert with all the deep knowledge (like Linda or Bob Dancer) but rather a good player with about 3 years VP experience (visited over 100 casinos in 4 countries) and someone who is always learning and practicing to get better. Hopefully, my participation in forums is appreciated.

[VegasVic14]

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.
 
Practically speaking, if you were to consider and dwell on  the odds (however daunting they might be), you'd never sit down in front of a VP machine.
 
With the inherent challenges VP games offer, keeping the mindset that every hand is truly random is the only way to remain focused and allow you to play your best.
 

[jm002546]

[QUOTE=VegasVic14] Practically speaking, if you were to consider and dwell on  the odds (however daunting they might be), you'd never sit down in front of a VP machine.
    The VP machines I play pay back 100+.  I dwelled and dwelled on those odds and daunted at all the other gambling options that returned way less than that. So I sat down. And, happily, at that. Seemed practical to me. 

[Linda Boyd]

 
New2vp Wrote:
 
>> I've read some of your posts on Linda Boyd's Web site, assuming you are the same person.  I look forward to your additional insights as my in-casino experiences have thus far been quite limited. <<
 
First, thanks for going to my web site--so glad you found some useful information. Please don't feel you can't contribute just because you're a new video poker player.
 
I must agree with you, Vegas Vic has been a help to players that visit my web site, a partnership with Midwest Gaming and Travel, with both his posts and links to informative articles. Linda