VP Royal Flushes

[JamieV]

Hey Guys,

Started to play VP. I bought Wiz's VP app and been visiting some other VP sites to practice my game. I think I am going to settle on DDB...a lot more action for me, if that makes sense? Anyways, do you guys notice a trend when a royal is about to hit? For example, do you start receiving more quads or more near dealt royals? Mind you, I have only played about 1,000 hands thus far so I am still new to VP culture; every casino game has its own culture and it's tough for newbies like myself to join a convo without feeling dumb. Take care guys.

[Rob.Singer]

Here's some clear advice for a starter in video poker. Study and play as perfectly as possible at least 500,000 hands on your home computer. That'll get one of your feet into the long-term door. Then, if your results running close to or are significantly better than what the game ER that you're playing is, do not go to a real casino. If however you are running significantly BEHIND that ER, run out to as many casinos as you can find and play as high a limit as you possibly can, for surely, the math will begin to catch up for you. Because the AP's all claim the more hands you play the closer to expercted return you will get because that's what math theory states, then use this info to your advantage and DO NOT play in a casino unless and until you begin to run sour at home. What's the difference if you play all those long-term-worthy hands in a casino, on your computer, or out in space? Become a REAL advantage player.

[arcimede$]

The machines are random. There are no patterns that occur before a royal. That doesn't mean you won't see patterns. The mind is a pattern matching machine. We see faces in clouds and Jesus in pieces of toast. You will see patterns, they will come and they will go and they will change over time. Ignore them, they are meaningless.

There is also no regression to the mean as robki was claiming. That is just more nonsense from people who don't understand the math. If you're on a bad streak it just might continue, same with win streaks. Your expectation never changes in the future. It is always to approach the expected return over time. There is no memory in the machines so it doesn't know what hands you gotten. It's just a dumb program.

I would also suggest you check out the games at the casino you will be playing at. It may turn out there are better games than DDB. You can check vpfree2 to get a good idea. A small difference in ER can make a big difference over time.

[Rob.Singer]

That doesn't make sense for you to say arci, because it goes against what you've been perpetuating in the past.

You spend hours claiming how, as an AP, you can absolutely count on the math working out its kinks, and that's the reason you just don't stop playing when you get behind by five or so royal cycles. In other words--and whether or not this has really happened is anyone's guess--those multiple times you've said on all the forums thru the years that you WERE in a bad losing streak, but thanks to the magic of the math, you are now back from doomsday. Of course, just as Jean Scott has always done, you've always identified your losing ways only AFTER you either really caught up or decided to make the story up in order not to shock other AP's. Now you throw out something different.

You can't have it both ways. Time to come clean.

[Alan Mendelson]

JamieV: yes you should get practice software and you should practice so you get the strategy down pat.

DDB is a tough game to play. I hit my big progressive royals on DDB but I also am a net loser playing the game. In fact, over my entire life playing all video poker I am a net loser. But I play for the fun and thrill of it and entertainment. And if fun and thrills and entertainment is your goal then it doesn't matter what game you play -- but play it well to give yourself a fighting chance.

Please ignore Rob's comments about playing at home so that you have a run of losses that will set you up to be a winner in the casinos. Please.

All machines are random. But I have interesting stories about my royals: I got one progressive for $35K shortly after hitting quad aces with a kicker for $10k. And I got one progressive for $36K after putting 6-thou into the machine over the previous four hours. Now there's a range for you on DDB. And then there was the weekend when I hit one progressive for $24K and then went to play craps, and after eight hours of playing craps with just $200 in a machine I hit another progressive for $21K. And then I went 180-thousand hands between royals -- and that was over a year of playing without a royal.

[arcimede$]

Once again robki demonstrates his amazing lack of any mathematical knowledge whatsoever. It's actually laughable to anyone with a mathematical background.

Streaks happen. Get used to it. That doesn't mean the future expectation changes. There is no regression to the mean in VP. That is a simple, easily explained fact.

[Alan Mendelson]

There is no regression to the mean in VP. That is a simple, easily explained fact.

This is what needs some explanation. If there is no "regression to the mean" how do you justify the concept of "99.54% return over the long term with expert play" and similar statements?

[Rob.Singer]

Jamie, you MUST pay attention to what I said. Imagine going on a losing streak at casinos that puts you four or five royals behind expectation, and thousands of dollars in the hole. Would you rather that happen at home or in those casinos? Then, just as all the AP's promise and seem to tell us AFTER the fact--you WILL experience the math working for you as you head into the casinos for your next 500,000 hands. Why? Because the more you play, the closer to expectation you will come. It's all right there in the math books!

[arcimede$]

This is what needs some explanation. If there is no "regression to the mean" how do you justify the concept of "99.54% return over the long term with expert play" and similar statements?

The E in ER stands for "expected". It is referring to future play. Anything that you've done in the past is over, kaput, past. Those hands don't participate in the future events.

Think about throwing dice or flipping a coin. How can any past event have any impact on your result? This is true for all random events.

Now, the reality of play is you will vary both over and below the ER as you play. They will tend to average out but that is not something that the math promises when any of those events are in the past. Over time your play will converge on the ER just like flipping heads will approach 50% of total flips.

It is obvious that past independent events can't affect what you're doing in the present or what you do in the future. However, most people do have trouble understanding this concept.

[Alan Mendelson]

The E in ER stands for "expected". It is referring to future play.

This is all very confusing. Isn't expected return a combination of past and present and future? I mean without a combination of past and present and future, wouldn't paytables just be "fortune telling"?

In fact, I recall a very wild discussion about "expected return" vs "actual return" and you seem to be devoted to the "rightness" of expected return. Now you seem to be backing off of it?

[Rob.Singer]

You're of course correct about what ER actually means. ER was identified yesterday, it is there today, and it is about the future as well. The problem here is arci knows that but now you're cornering him, and the only thing he can do is try to make it appear he knows more than you about this. So what else is new

[arcimede$]

This is all very confusing. Isn't expected return a combination of past and present and future? I mean without a combination of past and present and future, wouldn't paytables just be "fortune telling"?

In fact, I recall a very wild discussion about "expected return" vs "actual return" and you seem to be devoted to the "rightness" of expected return. Now you seem to be backing off of it?

Not in the least. Remember, the actual return is determined by a bell curve centered close to the ER. You can be either above or below the ER.

Look, I'm not saying your past events combined with your future events won't also be very close to the ER. It's just that there is nothing that forces that to happen. All we can say about future events is they will converge in the ER over time.

As I said before there's nothing that gives "heads" a higher chance of occurring if you just flipped 4 "tails" in a row. The odds are still 50-50 on the next flip. That is all I am saying about VP. No matter what you've done in the past the future odds are not changed.

[Alan Mendelson]

Remember, the actual return is determined by a bell curve centered close to the ER. You can be either above or below the ER.

Stop!! I am not going to let you get away with this one, Arc. :-)

Bell curves do not determine anything. Actual results determine bell curves. These actual results can come from surveys, tests, experience but it is not one of God's Commandments that video poker will follow bell curves. I've often asked you to show me the research that shows video poker results follow a bell curve and while random distributions of numbers might follow a bell curve, you continue to overlook that video poker is not a random game as players choose which cards to hold and play. That is the difference. Is there a bell curve for the distribution of the rolls of dice in craps? Of course there is.

Now let's get back to the issue at hand. What is the "expected return" in video poker? The expected return is not determined by the play of any one hand of video poker though the "actual return" is what happens on any one hand of video poker.

The "expected return" is what happens over an infinite number of hands, or the "long term" based on "expert play" is how the experts put it. In fact, if you played video poker holding only aces your expected return would be way off from the expected returns published for any and all video poker games. I don't have to tell you this, arc. You know this.

So, drop this particular line of discussion and go on to something else. I can find a million other things to criticize the Singer system about.

[regnis]

Singer's suggestion while mathematically wrong does make a lot of sense. If I have flipped a coin 100 times, and got 80 heads and 20 tails, the odds of the next flip being heads is still 50-50. But Arci will tell you that eventually, the results will approach 50-50 over the long run. Therefore, tho the odds are 50-50, I'm betting tails for the next 100 flips to ride back up that hill towards expected return.

[arcimede$]

Singer's suggestion while mathematically wrong does make a lot of sense. If I have flipped a coin 100 times, and got 80 heads and 20 tails, the odds of the next flip being heads is still 50-50. But Arci will tell you that eventually, the results will approach 50-50 over the long run. Therefore, tho the odds are 50-50, I'm betting tails for the next 100 flips to ride back up that hill towards expected return.

If you just got "80 heads and 20 tails" you would be wiser to get a new coin. The odds on that distribution are astronomically low. Betting on tails is likely to be a disaster as the most logical situation is a biased coin.

[arcimede$]

Stop!! I am not going to let you get away with this one, Arc. :-)

Bell curves do not determine anything. Actual results determine bell curves. These actual results can come from surveys, tests, experience but it is not one of God's Commandments that video poker will follow bell curves.

Yes, my wording was probably a little wrong. It is the mathematics of random events that predicts actual results will follow a bell curve. The bell curve is a graphical representation of the mathematics. I should have used predicts instead of determines to be more precise.

I've often asked you to show me the research that shows video poker results follow a bell curve and while random distributions of numbers might follow a bell curve, you continue to overlook that video poker is not a random game as players choose which cards to hold and play. That is the difference. Is there a bell curve for the distribution of the rolls of dice in craps? Of course there is.

As I've often stated everyone has a personal ER. That ER includes the player's choices you mentioned. Given this problem it is hard to lump people together and get a true picture. That doesn't mean the math is wrong, it just means the real world is a little messy. I tend to ignore this problem as it really isn't apropos to making good future decisions (and isn't that all that matters?). The variations aren't that large and the arguments based on the mathematics are still 100% valid.

Now let's get back to the issue at hand. What is the "expected return" in video poker? The expected return is not determined by the play of any one hand of video poker though the "actual return" is what happens on any one hand of video poker.

The "expected return" is what happens over an infinite number of hands, or the "long term" based on "expert play" is how the experts put it. In fact, if you played video poker holding only aces your expected return would be way off from the expected returns published for any and all video poker games. I don't have to tell you this, arc. You know this.

So, drop this particular line of discussion and go on to something else. I can find a million other things to criticize the Singer system about.

There's nothing to drop. Everything I said is accurate at the important level ... what can we expect in the future by our gambling choices.

[Alan Mendelson]

Very good arc. I accept that you used the wrong words to describe the principles you were commenting on.

Regarding Rob Singer's suggestion about having miserable video poker results on your home computer and then going to a casino to catch the royals-- wouldn't it be wonderful if that was true: We could sit at home and have 100 losing "practice sessions" at home and then be assured of a winning session with real money in a casino?

I certainly would like to see that demonstrated!! It would set the world on fire!!

[slingshot]

This is beginning to sound like voodoo. Play a bunch of hands on a home computer and then expect it to influence the outcome on a very real casino computer?

[arcimede$]

As I've often noted the human mind tends to see patterns in all kinds of areas. There was a time when I was in Vegas that my morning practice on the computer tended to be a good predictor of my results that day. However, it was just the opposite. If I did well on the computer I did well gambling. Naturally, this only lasted for awhile (about 3 weeks I believe) before it went away (like all patterns based on randomness).

[arcimede$]

This is beginning to sound like voodoo. Play a bunch of hands on a home computer and then expect it to influence the outcome on a very real casino computer?

About the same as thinking a progression can change one's results ... or a rabbit's foot, or rubbing the screen, or covering the screen, or special plays, ...