Video Poker Truth That The Gurus & Math Geeks Can't Handle

[Rob.Singer]

I posted something about this a day or two ago on vpFree, but the administrator didn't want to ruffled any sensitive feathers it seems. So I'll put it up here, where there is no fear of advantage player whining in front of guru shameless self-promotion that apparently makes the producers uncomfortable.

Several posters over there were complaining about going hundreds of thousands of hands without a royal--or of being WAAY behind where the math theorizes they should be. And you know how much those people depend on what the math crazies tell them they should expect to see!

Well, I tried to come on and solve all their problems for them with what else? Yup--simple common sense. I recommended everyone play a few hundred thousand hands on their home computers and hope they don't see a royal. If not, then go out to the casinos and play catch-up! Those cluster of royals that people like Jean Scott, arcimedes, fedomalley, and other AP's always put our troubled minds at ease with whenever they tell us about their "now in the past" slumps and losing streaks, are far more than likely to show up now, RIGHT?

I mean, what's the difference WHERE you're playing your video poker if an RNG is an RNG, correct? And, to further your "edge" over the game even more, when you're playing all those hands on your home computers, IF you happen to experience one or more royals there, just stay out of the casinos until you start not seeing them for hundreds of thousands of hands!

Hey, if the math guys always claim that they all experience these kinds of "royalless" streaks and they somehow ALL LIVE TO TELL ABOUT THEIR AMAZING TURNAROUNDS, why not utilize this important information to your maximum advantage? After all, it's all about the math, right? If Frank were here right now, he'd absolutely agree that this is a smart thing to do and is worth around maybe a 3.4726% "edge". I'm sure of it. You see, since they ALL have always climbed out of their holes with amazing long-term accuracy as far as overall-hands-played-between-royals on average calculates out to, then why not play all those loser hands at home for free? And if you just can't seem to stop hitting royals at home, then just take what you've learned, stay away from the casinos, and save your hard earned money!

Wish you heard about this secret years ago? Well, if you read Gaming Today or vptruth.com you would have. But if you've been or you're buying all your video poker paraphernalia from the LVA crowd or any of the math people who need your cash in order to keep sitting at the machines hour upon hour every week, then this will have been blocked from you--just as it has been from the vpFree readers, because every vp guru and math nut posts there.

Think about it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob I have not had a royal flush in more than 160,000 hands and I reject all the ideas that "I'm due" and oddly enough it's the "math guys" who say that not only am I "due" but I am likely to hit several royals in short order to make up for the drought I've been going through. This seems to me to be mathematical folly.

The math guys like to use coin flips to illustrate their points.

Given a "fair coin" (that's what the math guys call a non-two headed, evenly weighted coin LOL) your chance of flipping a heads up is 50-50** (see the asterisk note below). It is 50-50 on each and every subsequent flip. After 100 tails in a row, the chance of a heads coming up is still just 50-50.

Now, let's talk about VP where the chance of a royal is supposed to be, on average depending on the game, about 1 in 40,400 (up to about 45,000 in deuces wild). No matter how many hands I play my chance of a royal on the next hand is still about 1 in 40,400. So no one is ever "due" and it is nonsense to say someone is "due." Hitting a royal flush is nothing less then being lucky. And some people are lucky and get back to back royals; some get lucky and hit three in a weekend; I once got two single line royals in less than 8 hours after a total play of maybe one-half hour on two different machines -- hitting the first royal after about 20 minutes and hitting the second royal eight hours later on the third or fourth hand I played.

If you were to say, Rob, that your "Special Play #13" (see it here http://alanbestbuys.com/id194.html) would hit X number of times you tried it they would attack you. Yet, when they tell me that my drought of royals will even out with several royals in short order they try to make it sound like they know what they're talking about.

Like in craps, each roll of the dice is independent of the one before.
In each hand of live poker at a table of Texas Hold Em each deal is independent of the one before.
In each hand blackjack with a single deck in a continuous shuffle machine with the deck reshuffled after each hand, each deal is independent of the one before.
In each hand of video poker, each deal is independent of the one before. But they're trying to say a royal flush drought will end? Heck, with a chance of one royal in 40-thousand hands it's more likely that royal flush drought will never end.

Rob, I appreciate your sarcasm in your post. If it was as easy as playing on my computer and having a drought of royals and then going to the casino to end my drought, my video poker life would be wonderful. But as we both know, it's not that easy. And, even though I do play video poker for "fun" on my computer, I haven't hit a royal on my computer in about three years. Wow, when you can't hit a royal on your computer at home with NO money at stake, things must really be bad (LOL).

**Now about the asterisks. U.S. Coins are actually "head heavy," and this is because of the design of the coins. This has been confirmed by multiple sources, though I think it was MIT that determined this first by flipping oodles of Lincoln pennies. it is the portrait on the obverse (heads of coins) which makes the head side heavier. I don't know if the Superbowl coin toss coin was ever tested but some sports bettor might want to do a study of previous Superbowl coins to help guide this particular prop bet. By the way, is there a way to check on the past results of the coin flip when a "Superbowl" coin was used, and how close are the results to 50-50? I think in some of the early games a U.S. Silver Dollar was used.

[Rob.Singer]

Yes....you seem to understand, and you would since you haven't seen a royal for so long a time.

How many times have we seen arcimedes so openly contradict himself by announcing that he's had some terrible losing streak complete with several hundred thousand royal-less hands, but "just as the math predicts, he amazingly snapped out of it with a cluster of royals", thereby putting him right back on track for his "positive expectation of winning by that fraction of a per cent"? And that's been a favorite forum tactic of his for years. On the one hand he claims nothing is ever guranteed, then on the other, he claims how "it'll all work out in the end just as the math says it will do". And he is not alone in saying this baloney. None of those AP's EVER post about the losing unless they can put all our minds at ease with tales of "I finally snapped out of it--just as the math says I will!"

Of course, they only do this to pretend how the game as played by humans will "equal out over time" so that no one thinks these bser's ever really lose. But those of us who accept reality know that there's not only no guarantee anything will ever catch up at all like these clowns claim---most people DO NOT miraculously "catch up".

That's why I brought up the analogy of playing at home for free, as you know. If these misled people really believed in the "catch up" theory, they'd do exactly as I say. What's so hilarious is in how AP's believe they're impressing everyone with this textbook long-term phooey. As I said, they almost all lose, and more than likely they all do because they play too much. What they can't stand is how "the math" doesn't really cooperate, so they have to make up things to write about.

[Alan Mendelson]

Good post, Rob, but let me clarify something you wrote above. You said "What they can't stand is how "the math" doesn't really cooperate" but really, I think what you meant to say is that the RNG does not cooperate with the math and what the math expects.

This is the problem when you play by the "math." You overlook the great variable which is the RNG (random number generator). As I've said so many times, when you play video poker it is not a test of whether or not you memorized the strategy cards or software that told you which cards to hold. When you play video poker you are guessing and hoping that the RNG will give you the cards you need based on the cards you hold from the initial deal.

Sure, the "math" can help you choose your better options but there is no guarantee that the RNG will cooperate.

This is why I like to ask this question: If you are playing at a $100 machine and you are dealt a flush with four to the royal, what do you do? The "math" says to go for the royal and the $400,000 win or some lesser wins such as a straight or high pair or flush-- or you get nothing. Or, do you hold the dealt flush which on a $100 9/6 Jacks or Better game would put $3,000 into your pocket?

Some people just might want to hold the flush.

Now in all fairness to the math guys: I'm faced with that exact problem several times a month, it seems and I go for the royal. But I'm not playing a $100 video poker game! And I guess you could argue that no one should play a $100 video poker game unless they could afford to take the gamble on a dealt flush with four to the royal.

[Rob.Singer]

Yes, you correctly clarified what I wrote. It's also the reason we have the neurotic branch of the AP crowd going out of their ways on the forums to make believe they.re all far enough into infinity for any of their nonsense to actually matter. But as I've said many times before, they need to create a justification for playing far more than they know they should, and this happens to do it for them.

Anyone who plays the $100 machine and gets dealt that four-to-the-royal with a flush, should always go for the royal.....except if I or anyone else is playing the SPS and a flush will allow them to attain a goal. That's where both discipline as well as truly intelligent play take over.

[Rew10]

As I've read through the historical post concerning this debate I have been amazed that all this time has passed and it still rages on. Bottom line as I see it is this:

Abstract vs. Practical

Math geeks tend to be abstract kind of people. For good reason. Math is kind of abstract (in the Verb sense) to say the least. Then there is the Practical kind of people. The ones who believe in results and are willing to admit / agree that an abstract idea may not always prove out in every situation. Probability is not an exact science when compared to results. It's simply a tool to help predict outcome but not without it's own flaws.

An example:

While in my early years of education, I had a "Professor" who held an Electrical Engineering Degree from Michigan State University. In a low level EE class, in the "Lab," he would struggle with troubleshooting a bread-boarded circuit which would not function properly. He'd prove the circuit mathematically over and over but couldn't make it function properly. He had spent his entire career in Academia and had nearly zero practical experience. If it didn't function as the "math" said it should then he was lost. I personally always got a kick out of one of us low life "students" solving the problem. Sometimes as simply as adding a capacitor or two to solve a "noise" problem.

Personally, I agree with the math behind gambling but am practical enough to realize there is more to the Universe than Math! I've played very similar to Singers way long before I even knew it existed.

I came to the various forums looking for knowledge and different perspectives. While I haven't really found much knowledge to expand my way of approaching VP I have concluded that my way of play is correct for me and that has great value for which I can justify my time spent in the various forums.
Possibly my method of play could be improved but not necessarily by strictly applying the "math" or the "Singer Special Plays." Singers system works for him. The APers (at least I learned a new term) works for them. Whatever works for an individual is the "Proper Play" if you ask me. Bottom line. Luck plays a big part in all this and to my knowledge no one has ever discovered exactly what that is! Or how to control it. After all, they call all of this "Gambling" for a reason. You's pay ur money and u's takes ur chances.

I see this debate as being in this light. Hard core Math Geeks vs. The Practical Guy. An age old war which doesn't have any Endgame in sight.

[Alan Mendelson]

Wow Rew10 thank you! You hit so many nails on the head I consider you to be an expert carpenter at constructing a reasonable approach to playing and understanding video poker. (I know, it's a strange analogy, but it's a 100% compliment!) And thank you for posting.

[Rob.Singer]

I agree. I'm an EE and I've experienced that exact situation in a work setting multiple times--and that's where it really counts. That is why we always locked up the pure math geeks (actuaries, software engineers, etc.) into their own special workrooms where they couldn't bother the systems engineers and didn't have the chance to corrupt the visiting customers and foul up successful programs.