Originally Posted by
Alan Mendelson
Good. I sometimes use a margin of error of 3.5-percent. For argument's sake use that same margin of error when discussing 99% vs 101% video poker. Suddenly the difference is no difference at all.
So, why couldn't Rob have a profit? THE MATH says he could.
You're going to use a different margin of error for different scenarios. Just because you use 3.5% for whatever you're doing, doesn't mean you can use it for video poker. IF you used 3.5% for VP, then it'd make the games between 95.5%-99% and 97.5%-101%. Note that the return calculated on video poker is an exact maximum figure (if played optimally, of course). There is no way to get the return on the game higher than the theoretical optimal amount, because doing anything to make it higher would be optimal, but since the strategy is already optimal.....logical contradiction.
An example would be: Usain Bolt is the fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world. If we say some other person X is faster than Usain Bolt, then that is a logical contradiction, because both cannot be true.
The math doesn't say anything about how he could have had a profit, since we don't even know how the hell he plays. All we know is he starts at $1, then $2, $5, $10, $25, then maybe $100. When does he go up in denom or go down? Sometimes he makes special plays and sometimes he doesn't -- but he's yet to describe how he chooses to make a special play (or not to make a special play). Don't you think someone who goes to the casinos and uses this strategy would be able to say concretely when he does or doesn't make special plays? It's not like he's going in there with a big ass binder of papers and has to look up each time a special play may be used. If he can do it in his head while playing, surely he can write it out, right?