Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: The problem with multiplay VP - high reliance on the "deal"

  1. #1
    I realize that variance is supposed to be higher -- actually MUCH higher -- on single-play VP games than multiplay at the same relative denomination. By "same relative", I mean that you would be playing a $1 5-play machine instead of a $5 1-play.

    According to this article on WizardOfOdds, the variance for 5-play $1 9/6 Jacks or Better is about four times LESS than 1-play $5. (Divide the number by 5 for the 5-play variance in the article to compare them.)

    However, I have played a lot of 5-play 9-6 JoB lately and have gotten absolutely killed. Some of it has been due to poor luck with royals -- basically I haven't hit one.

    But I'm also running far below expectation even taking royals out of the equation. That is, I'm still doing a lot worse than expected compared to the "didn't hit a royal" return on the machine.

    I've found that the big problem with multiplay VP is that it is very deal-heavy regarding how you are going to do.

    That is, if you are dealt poor hands, then you are going to lose, and lose badly, barring hitting the one big draw payout (the royal).

    Why? Because aside from royals, the only big hits in multiplay JoB come from made hands dealt. For example, a dealt full house at 5-play is worth 225 credits, while a drawn straight flush is only worth 250! So even drawing to the second-best hand (straight flush) is barely worth more than being dealt a full house.

    Furthermore, the value of backing into semi-unlikely full house and quad draws (such as when you just hold a pair) again becomes fairly trivial, given that you will only be hitting it on one hand.

    On its face, multiplay VP seems like a great variance reducer, as it's basically letting you draw at every hand several times, thus smoothing out the luck factor of drawing. However, if you look at it a different way (as explained above), you basically become destined to lose big if you aren't dealt enough of a share of high-value made hands right off the bat.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  2. #2
    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I've found that the big problem with multiplay VP is that it is very deal-heavy regarding how you are going to do.
    Thanks for raising the issue. It sounds like you've been having some really crap-heavy luck.

    I choose multiplay games whenever possible because of the lower volatility. I think the importance of dealt winners is less than it may seem. Now I'll attempt math.

    DEALT ROYAL pays 800 / occurs 649,740 = 0.1% of total return
    DEALT STRAIGHT FLUSH pays 50 / occurs 72,193 = 0.1%
    DEALT QUAD pays 25 / occurs 4165 = 0.6%
    DEALT FULL HOUSE pays 9 / occurs 694 = 1.3%

    If you never achieve any of those results, you only lose about 2% off your return.

    So to have a truly disastrous run at multiplay, you need bad luck from nearly every possible angle of the game.

    I think it would be interesting to run a series of simulations, but I've never tried it, and I don't know the capabilities of available vp software packages.
    Last edited by bocce ball; 01-23-2017 at 08:50 AM. Reason: (forgot to include straight flushes)

  3. #3
    Dan unless multiplay games are not truly random than the chance of being dealt a winning hand are the same as a single line game... right?

  4. #4
    His first problem is not understanding that job is a losing proposition no matter what form it's played in. Those like him who somehow believe they're playing under the AP badge because it's theoretically "slightly positive" (which it never is in the short amount of time anyone plays it--but that's irrelevant for the purposes of this lesson) completely lose sight of the fact that when the player gets behind by even a marginal amount, only a very unusual hot run of quads & SF's or a royal, will get you out.

    The other point about getting dealt good pat hands. Not gonna happen a lot. What one really needs in five play are hands that offer the opportunity for multiple quads etc. on the draw, but a game like job really has very little chance of that being meaningful either.

    Bottom line: weak players suffer losing far more than strong players. JoB is a weak player's game. These unknowledgeable players also tend to play for the points and card status more than they do to win money. You reap what you sow.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Dan unless multiplay games are not truly random than the chance of being dealt a winning hand are the same as a single line game... right?
    Yes. But the problem is that a multiplay game basically multiplies the importance of the deal.

    In single-line, if you get a lucky draw, it's just as good as if you had gotten it on the deal.

    In multi-line, that's not true. Even if you hit a draw, you are getting 1/5 the payout as you would in single-line if you're playing 5 hands (and presumably 1/5 the stakes).

    So my point was that you're going to get clobbered pretty hard if you lack your proper share of full house or better dealt hands on multi-line, whereas you can make up for bad deals in single-line by getting a better share of lucky draws.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by bocce ball View Post
    Thanks for raising the issue. It sounds like you've been having some really crap-heavy luck.

    I choose multiplay games whenever possible because of the lower volatility. I think the importance of dealt winners is less than it may seem. Now I'll attempt math.

    DEALT ROYAL pays 800 / occurs 649,740 = 0.1% of total return
    DEALT STRAIGHT FLUSH pays 50 / occurs 72,193 = 0.1%
    DEALT QUAD pays 25 / occurs 4165 = 0.6%
    DEALT FULL HOUSE pays 9 / occurs 694 = 1.3%

    If you never achieve any of those results, you only lose about 2% off your return.

    So to have a truly disastrous run at multiplay, you need bad luck from nearly every possible angle of the game.

    I think it would be interesting to run a series of simulations, but I've never tried it, and I don't know the capabilities of available vp software packages.
    Interesting, and yes, I'd love to see such a simulation. Maybe I'll even write one myself sometime.

    I didn't realize that dealt hands (full house or better) only account for 2% of return.

    Still, that 2% coupled with an inability to hit any royals (another 2%) suddenly makes the 99.54% JoB game into a 95.54% game. Now, of course, it's HIGHLY unlikely to go through a lot of play without at least getting a few dealt full houses.

    So far I have played about 12,000 multi-line hands (that is, about 12,000 dealt hands).

    Of those, I've had:

    0 dealt royals
    0 dealt straight flushes
    1 dealt quads
    Several dealt full houses (didn't count, can't even estimate)

    So let's assume that I got the proper share of full houses (I don't know if I did or not, but I should have had about 17 so far, which seems more or less accurate).

    I'm running behind on quads by two (should have had 3, only got 1).

    Straight flush and royal are not expected to have been dealt to me unless I got lucky.

    So yes, I'm still down a lot more than the 0.6% or so I should be from my lack of quad/SF/royal dealt hands, even if you count an extra 2% down for no royals.

    My return in these hands has been between 94-95%. That's pretty ugly for a 12,000 hand sample. Been playing perfect strategy aside from a few misclicks which only cost me a tiny percentage in expectation.

    I guess you're right -- I've probably struggled at BOTH the deal and the draw.

    Funny enough, I've also played some single-line 9-6 JoB at 5x the stakes (that is, the same risk as what I was playing on 5x multiplay), and I'm actually up, despite not hitting a single straight flush or royal.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    His first problem is not understanding that job is a losing proposition no matter what form it's played in. Those like him who somehow believe they're playing under the AP badge because it's theoretically "slightly positive" (which it never is in the short amount of time anyone plays it--but that's irrelevant for the purposes of this lesson) completely lose sight of the fact that when the player gets behind by even a marginal amount, only a very unusual hot run of quads & SF's or a royal, will get you out.

    The other point about getting dealt good pat hands. Not gonna happen a lot. What one really needs in five play are hands that offer the opportunity for multiple quads etc. on the draw, but a game like job really has very little chance of that being meaningful either.

    Bottom line: weak players suffer losing far more than strong players. JoB is a weak player's game. These unknowledgeable players also tend to play for the points and card status more than they do to win money. You reap what you sow.
    LOL

    I knew I would get a response from you.

    Texted another member of this forum about my bad luck, told him I would post about it, and I was told that Rob Singer will respond and mock me.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  8. #8
    Dan isn't the chance of a lucky draw on a five play machine just the same as a lucky draw on a single play machine, only you are playing five games at a time?

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Dan isn't the chance of a lucky draw on a five play machine just the same as a lucky draw on a single play machine, only you are playing five games at a time?
    Yes and no. Although the expectations for both are the same ($1 5 play vs $5 single play), the variance (luck) is different.

    Holding an A only and connecting to AAAA3 on $1 5 play pays $2k, but the same hand on $5 single play pays $10k. To get that $10k payout on the $1 5-play game, the player would need to be dealt AWAK (or draw 5 kickers while holding AAAA).


    It works the other way, too. If you're getting good dealt hands but poor draws, you'll be doing better in multi play than single play. If you're getting bad deals but lucky draws, you'll be doing better in single play than multi play.

  10. #10
    The problem with multiplay is not in "not being dealt BIG hands", but not being dealt DECENT hands frequently -- 2pairs, 3 of a kinds, and straights. Dealt FHs don't add much to the return, due to their infrequency. 2 pairs aren't so great in a game like DDB or DB, because they pay 1-for-1 on something like 11/12's of the draws (with a 1/12 chance of going to a FH).

    On 10-play, it's not uncommon to be down one or two RF amounts in a 1500-2500 round session (1 round = 10 hands = 1 spin). It's also not uncommon to be up 1/2 of a RF payout in a session of that length, without hitting a RF.

    You don't see the value of reduced variance when playing in the short run (few or several hours of play). But with time, 20-30 hours of play, you realize all those royals you've been hitting, you likely may not have hit if playing single play.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Yes and no. Although the expectations for both are the same ($1 5 play vs $5 single play), the variance (luck) is different.

    Holding an A only and connecting to AAAA3 on $1 5 play pays $2k, but the same hand on $5 single play pays $10k.
    I look at it differently.

    I look at a $1 five play game as five separate $1 games being played simultaneously but with the same starting deal for all five hands.

    I do not look at a $1 five play game as being anything like, similar or related to a single line $5 game.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I look at it differently.

    I look at a $1 five play game as five separate $1 games being played simultaneously but with the same starting deal for all five hands.

    I do not look at a $1 five play game as being anything like, similar or related to a single line $5 game.
    All it does is lower variance by playing multiple handed games. As I said earlier, you haven't a clue.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    All it does is lower variance by playing multiple handed games. As I said earlier, you haven't a clue.
    I agree with you. I don't have a clue. Not a friggin clue.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I knew I would get a response from you.

    Texted another member of this forum about my bad luck, told him I would post about it, and I was told that Rob Singer will respond and mock me.
    Is that when you knew?...after another member told you it would happen?

  15. #15
    I've never played multi-line video poker.

    One of the issues with multi-line is that it increases the number of "hits" per time played, which is a clear characteristic of an addiction track. The game designers knew this when they introduced it. It's conditioning 101.

    Rob, I'm surprised you haven't come down on multi-line for this very reason.

  16. #16
    Here are some frequencies for other dealt hands in Jacks or Better games:

    Dealt Flush............................524.8
    Dealt Straight........................256.6
    Dealt 3 of a Kind.....................47.3
    Dealt 2 Pair............................21.0
    Dealt High Pair.......................7.96

  17. #17
    Funny, I was thinking about this on my last trip. My usual game is $5 single-line, but on this trip I had access to .50 100-line (which has roughly the same variance, if I'm reading the charts correctly), and my swings seemed MUCH bigger. At one point I was down $5-6K, then was lucky enough to hit a dealt SF to finish with a nice win. I don't remember ever being down that much on the $5 game in that short of a time span.

  18. #18
    Dan I'm not mocking you. I explained how the game you're playing is not a game you can either win on or come from behind on w/o overwhelming good luck. All of your personal posturing and playing the blame game with theoretical percentages does nothing to help yourself. It is what it is, but only after you're done playing. You're so hung up on percentages going in that it confuses you immensely.

    One of my strategies from my website and which was explained in detail in one of my GT column is five-play. It's played at four levels (25c/$1/$5/$25 @ 2000 credits per denomination), only on an advanced BP game (SDBP or TBP+ only) with a $100 mini-win goal and a $2500 session win goal. I think I've only played it 6 times and won each session. Finding either of these two games on a five-play machine was difficult. Mandalay Bay, Lucie, and Mirage had them.

    Only once did I have to go to the highest denom. Never got a royal. The point for Dan is, those "expectation" percentages are meaningless. What he needs is a different game and multiple denominations to go along with a sensible strategy. Until then and unless he hits a royal a few times, his bellyaching will continue.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I've never played multi-line video poker.

    One of the issues with multi-line is that it increases the number of "hits" per time played, which is a clear characteristic of an addiction track. The game designers knew this when they introduced it. It's conditioning 101.

    Rob, I'm surprised you haven't come down on multi-line for this very reason.
    You spend a lot of time here talking about addiction, yet you are a frequent gambler yourself. I find that odd.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    You spend a lot of time here talking about addiction, yet you are a frequent gambler yourself. I find that odd.
    LOL. I find it more odd that you don't (talk about addiction).

    I was referencing behavioral conditioning in general, by the way, not machine gambling specifically or gambling specifically.

    And besides:

    "Hard to avoid jaguars when one does not know what they are."

    Old Wise Jungle saying

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-23-2016, 05:45 PM
  2. How do you interpret the "dice problem"?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 06-01-2015, 12:36 AM
  3. "No problem" instead of "you're welcome"
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Whatever's On Your Mind
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-07-2015, 05:43 AM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-16-2013, 08:07 PM
  5. The "luck factor" in dice "control."
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-02-2012, 01:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •