Not one AWAK in 125,000 hands and counting

[spxChrome]

So I just have to know speaking odds. I have played over 115,000 hands without getting a single AWAK and only a handful of 800's. Luckily I have had 4 royals which were all high progressive hits and some other handpays like dealt quads on 3/5 play etc. But what are the odds of playing 125,000 hands without getting a single AWAK? I have hit quad 8's 32x in this same span but not a single AWAK. I would have to look but I don't think I have had 1 trip were I did not get quad 8's or 10's at least once usually 3 or 4 times but I only get A,2,3,4 maybe once every 3 trips. And its not just me the people I know that play at the same casino are saying the same thing. Only 1 out of the 3 have hit AWAK once this year despite us all going 1 or 2 times a week for 6-8 hour sessions.

Anyway can I can an odds calculator on the awak thing? We are thinking of putting something together for the gaming commission.

[alpax]

The paytables were not stated so

Use the euler's constant -> e ^ -y/x

Where y = the number of hands played, this case is 125000
Where x = the average number of hands you expect the AWAK to happen so it varies by game and pay schedule.

Multiply the result by 100 to get it in percentage form

Perfect Play 9/7 TDB - 1 in 14214 - e^(-125000/14214) = .015 percent! 1 in 6595 odds

Perfect Play 9/6 TDB - 1 in 14205 - e^(-125000/14205) = .015 percent! 1 in 6595 odds

Perfect Play 9/6 DDB - 1 in 16236 - e^(-125000/16236) = .045 percent! 1 in 2206 odds

Perfect Play 9/5 DDB - 1 in 16236 - e^(-125000/16236) = .045 percent! 1 in 2206 odds

Perfect Play 9/5 DDB - 1 in 16228 - e^(-125000/16236) = .045 percent! 1 in 2206 odds

[Eduardo]

125,000 is a long way to go with no kicker it seems like. Alpax are you sure those are right? On 9/5 then if 10,000 people play, about 5 of them would see this bad of a streak?

Also is this all single line?

[alpax]

Eduardo, I am well aware you are very knowledgeable about VP but to your surprise I am very certain about my calculations with regards to the 5 out of 10000 people experiencing such a streak. I learned about the euler constant formula from M Shackleford on The Wizard of Odds website when people asked about royal flush cycles and droughts on the video poker FAQs.

I did extensive study on DDB personally to a point where the result does not surprise me. DDB is definitely the most popular game, but overlooking the aspects is very dangerous if people play this beyond seldom recreational occasions.

Those who play DDB seriously should play it with a very big bankroll as a safety blanket, there are probably many wealthy folks on this forum that can afford to play it without being financially devastated. I dropped all thoughts of playing DDB personally, but it is one of the purest gambling games that can work out really well for the player.

I took a snapshot of a player playing ONE royal flush cycle, technically on 9/6 DDB it is 1 in 40799, but I missed it by a little. The person plays perfect strategy throughout, plays for $1 denomination, and has a $25,000 bankroll to play with. Unfortunately this player did not bother to sign up for a player club card (make believe).



3 out of 10000 of these type of players can lose over $20,000. The unluckiest of players can lose big.

For multiline, I do not know how to properly calculate it, but it would probably be a little easier to hit AWAK than single line.


Update: I was able to run a 125k hand simulation on 9/6 DDB

$500 bankroll penny denomination



0.05% (0.03% $80-$100, 0.02% $60-$80) of the time the player lost more than $400 out of their $500 bankroll.

Thus translating to quarters, $10000 loss
Thus translating to dollars, $40000 loss

Playing just little over 3 royal flush cycles played out, there is that 0.05% chance you can lose 10 royal flush payouts without comps considered. Thus I conclude the streak spxChrome went through is realistic.

[olds442jetaway]

     Remember my 2 streaks of over a half million hands each without Royals. It seems the new chips since 2011 are designed to pay big in very short time frames, they screw the players for hours on end the rest of the time. While in the end, they might conform to the paytables and odds, most if not all patrons cannot afford to wait them out as to length of play or bankroll. At least that has been my experience for the last 6 years. This year, I am surviving by playing a very mild Martingale. So far so good. Not up, but not down much.

[onemoretry]

It seems the new chips since 2011 are designed to pay big in very short time frames, they screw the players for hours on end the rest of the time
I know I should just ignore this - but I can't.

You are saying that the game manufacturers themselves are creating non random, and, therefore in almost all jurisdictions, illegal, machines?

[olds442jetaway]

Notice in my post that I said it " seems " like something is different. Obviously the person on the street playing will never know for sure and it could all just be a part of chaos in which there is order. It just seems like so many players who play millions of hands since 2011 are experiencing the same thing. Probably there others who are on wild winning streaks some of the time so it seems to them like their machines are designed to pay big much of the time. These are just my personal observations and experiences. Everything could be well and good with the machines from inception right to programing to installation and oversight. I just have to adjust my play accordingly based on what is happening with my play and that is all.

[FAA]

Love low variance even more after this thread.

[olds442jetaway]

How true. Anytime my 400- budget has been busted and there have been plenty of those days, it happens because I diverted my play from 9/6 job or airport deuces. Usually, if I am behind especially, give up on those 2 games, try and play catch up on one of the one hit wonders games and well, you know the rest of the story. I have been maintaining control for 2016 and not doing that for the most part. Still is it s struggle to keep things in check when one has been acting badly in that area over a lifetime.

[DaBurglar]

[QUOTE=olds442jetaway] It seems the new chips since 2011 are designed to pay big in very short time frames, they screw the players for hours on end the rest of the time
I know I should just ignore this - but I can't.

You are saying that the game manufacturers themselves are creating non random, and, therefore in almost all jurisdictions, illegal, machines?[/QUOTE]While I'm sure everyone , including ME,  here would agree with you onemoretry  in saying that such game/machines as Olds describes would indeed be "unfair", I am not 100% convinced that it is in fact "non-random" or  "ILLEGAL" in ALL JURISDICTIONS as you stipulate......furthermore, even if what olds describes is indeed, "illegal",  I feel that actually, identifying, investigating & documenting, and ultimately PROSECUTING such a thing is a vast problem which most states with established gambling markets (i.e. "TAX revenue base sources") would be reluctant to enforce.   Indeed, assuming YOU are correct, I'd be interested in you describing just how all this whole scenario would play out or take place, in your reality?    How would the offending game/machine first be actually identified within its "host" casino?    How is the actual gaming agent conducting the inspection supposed to identify that it is in fact "illegal"?   What tips him/her/it off to this fact?   What does he/she/it, as the gaming agent, actually SEE to tell him/her/it that this machine is in fact  a violation of established rules and statutes?      And, assuming you get this far, WHAT happens (or is likely to happen) in all realistic probability, once a casino is shown that a game/machine is operating illegally on its floor?    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try to provide some answers to these questiions asked in the preceding paragraph....!