Your Mileage May Differ

[Chicagoan]

It is estimated that 2.5 billion hands of VP are played at American casinos every year.
The game return percentage is an average, just like the gas mileage estimate for a vehicle is an average.
But during millions and millions of passenger miles, some drivers get better gas mileage than the expected average, while some get worse.
Same thing with VP. It is inconceivable that all 2.5 billion hands of VP are going to exactly hit the specified return percentage, even with perfect play. Obviously, the more you play over time, the more likely that you will come closer to that expected percentage, but with 2.5 billion hands played annually in American casinos, a variation of only 10% from the expected return would mean that there are literally millions of VP hands that are better or worse than the expected return percentage.
That's why when someone tells me that you can't win or you can't lose at VP, I always laugh. Anything is possible, both short term and long term.

[Gronbog]

Think about what you just said. If your expected loss is L, and you get lucky and you are within 10% of that, then you have still lost 90%  x L. i.e. you've still lost. You need to improve on your expected loss by more than 100% in order to be in the black.Reality is that slightly less than 50% of players will be above expected value and slightly more than 50% of players will be below expected value. But after a relatively small number of hands they will all be within less than 1% of expected value. A far cry from the 100% needed to be a long term winner. After 2.5 billion hands it will be a minuscule fraction of 1%

[Vman96]

Do you have a link where that 2.5 billion hands comes from? I'm guessing that number is a LOT higher than 2.5 billion.

I play about 40k hands a year. To reach that level only 62,500 people nationwide would have to play that quantity. And I'm sure there are some members here that get 1 million hands or more in, especially if you count a round of 100-play, 100 hands, etc.

[Chicagoan]

I got the 2.5 billion figure from a casino slot supervisor. Granted, slot supervisors are frequently wrong. But if Vman96 is correct and the total is much higher, it simply validates what I am saying. The more hands played annually, the more players proportionately who will be above or below the expected return.

Gronbog missed my point. My point is that although the vast majority of players will eventually fall within the expected average return, the deviation on such a huge number of hands means that it is possible for a small percentage of players to consistently remain above or below the average expected return. Thus, when a player brags that he rarely loses, or complains that he never wins, it is mathmatically possible.

[markinca]

Do you have a link where that 2.5 billion hands comes from? I'm guessing that number is a LOT higher than 2.5 billion.

I play about 40k hands a year. To reach that level only 62,500 people nationwide would have to play that quantity. And I'm sure there are some members here that get 1 million hands or more in, especially if you count a round of 100-play, 100 hands, etc.

Yea, I think that slot supervisor might have just been talking about his one casino. There is no way only 2.5 billion hands of vp were played across every casino in the country.

[Gronbog]

Gronbog missed my point.No, I got your point. I just disagree with it.However. I may have misinterpreted what you meant by "within 10%" of the expected value. You may have meant that a player playing a -0.46% game like 9/6 JoB could end up being 10% ahead of that meaning 9.54% in the black. This is certainly very possible in the short term, but not in the long term.My point is that although the vast majority of players will eventually fall within the expected average return, the deviation on such a huge number of hands means that it is possible for a small percentage of players to consistently remain above or below the average expected return. Thus, when a player brags that he rarely loses, or complains that he never wins, it is mathmatically possible.There are two problems with this statement.Being above average expected return is not the same as being in the black. It can also mean that you have lost less than expected. As I said, almost 50% of all players of a negative expectation game will be above the average return in the long run, but none of them will be in the black.The question is how probable is it for someone to be far enough above the average return to be in the black. This is very possible in the short term because the probable variation of your return starts out being much larger than the average expected return. However, as you play more hands, the probable variation from the average expected return quickly grows smaller. In particular, for 9/6 JoB, the probability of being 10% ahead of expectation, as you propose, vanishes very quickly (after a few thousand hands). The probability of being ahead by more than the expected loss (0.46%) vanishes soon thereafter.I've been accused of responding with mathematical gibberish in the past, so I won't post the math here unless someone wants to see it. I will say that this is because the total standard deviation of your play quickly becomes much smaller than your EV and the the chance of being 4 standard deviations ahead of the average expected result are practically zero. We're talking about lottery odds at that point. So once the standard deviation becomes less than 1/4 of the average expected return, your chance of being in the black are also practically zero.If you want to point to practically zero (lottery odds) as mathematically possible, then sure, it's possible. It could happen. You could also get struck by lightning twice today. I just object to the implication that there is a reasonable chance of it happening. There isn't.

[billryan]

Math vs. Personal Observation.

It's pretty obvious which side most here side with.

[DaBurglar]

Math vs. Personal Observation.

It's pretty obvious which side most here side with.????      huh???  What are you talking about precisely, and what's the application of the point you are making?Without knowing your response, I'm going to simply say I am a staunch adherent to mathematical principles and properties, and a staunch adherent and believer in the powers of keen personal observation, as well as "going with one's gut" in certain situations based on personal observation and/or intuition.   In other words, you need to evaluate each situation and scenario by itself (and within itself).....one at a time.    I believe The vast majority of Casinos in the USA are fair and properly operated and receive proper oversight......I also allow for, and personally have observed, that in AC there may be a few exceptions to this otherwise solid premise.

[FAA]

Less play, less variance drag. You stay, you pay. A $600 coin in cap works well for me. I get killed on marathons.

[onemoretry]

I'm going to simply say I am a staunch adherent to mathematical principles ......... as well as "going with one's gut" in certain situations based on personal observation and/or intuition. Isn't this the same as saying: I follow the math - except when I don't?