Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 100 of 100

Thread: one million hand simulation

  1. #81
    Frankly, if the program can't be checked by outsiders there is no way to verify the strategy. This becomes another Singer-like claim unfortunately.

    I would like to note, however, that even Bob Dancer suggests a "go for the royal" strategy when playing video poker tournaments.

  2. #82
    Hey Arci. I thought you were dead... Oh wait... that's what Rob said. Never mind.
    Take off that stupid mask you big baby.

  3. #83
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I would like to note, however, that even Bob Dancer suggests a "go for the royal" strategy when playing video poker tournaments.
    Because you can't sit and grind all day. Not only that, but your trying to beat the other players, not the machine.

  4. #84
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    RS__ don't you think you should be questioning the author of the report instead of attacking me? But then you will use any opportunity possible to attack me.
    I questioned the OP and you responded. If you say something foolish or ridiculous, of course I'm going to respond to that.


    I'd love to be able to go over the code, depending on its complexity. I've tried writing programs before to sim VP (generate a strategy or return for a game), but it's a bit more complicated than one would likely think.

    You can swear up and down the code has no bugs, other people can look at it and come to the same conclusion. Doesnt mean it's bug-free. I've worked with some really bright programmers on different projects (they were much better at it than I). Sometimes an unexpected outcome would occur, spending hours upon hours searching for bugs, all swearing the code is perfect.....just to later figure out it was not perfect because there was an error in the logic. Oftentimes not easy to find, especially if it's something abstract and/or something you don't have real life experience with (ie: simulating a game you've never played).

  5. #85
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    I questioned the OP and you responded. If you say something foolish or ridiculous, of course I'm going to respond to that.
    I didn't say anything foolish or ridiculous. You, on the other hand, didn't read or understand the original parameters of the strategy, and I simply pointed them out. I made no claims that they were correct. I suggest you shut your asshole fucking mouth.

  6. #86
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I didn't say anything foolish or ridiculous. You, on the other hand, didn't read or understand the original parameters of the strategy, and I simply pointed them out. I made no claims that they were correct. I suggest you shut your asshole fucking mouth.
    LOL. Reread my first post on page 4. Unless I misinterpreted something about the strategy (hold dealt straights or higher, Aces, royal cards, else redraw), I think I understand the parameters.

    No need to be so salty, Alan. I don't appreciate you following me around on here and attacking me all the time.
    Last edited by RS__; 11-10-2016 at 12:50 AM.

  7. #87
    There are all kinds of ways they could get a bad result. One way to check it is to run the program many times. If you run it 1000 times you should get real close to the expected return. If you don't, then there is a bug. That's a simple fact. The result claimed is outside of 2 SD and is therefore unusable for any real purpose.

    I have written several simulation programs and almost all of them had some bugs that needed to be fixed. I knew there were bugs because I knew what a reasonable output would look like. Someone without this type of background is very likely to miss things.

  8. #88
    Hmmmm......I think I might give this a try and see if I can run this sim. If I do, I'll post results, logic behind the code, and the code itself. I have an idea/theory how to do it (easily), although I'm not sure if that'll work or not.

    Unfortunately, I suspect even IF I write the code and show logic behind it, the naysayers will write it off and say something like "that's not how it works" or try to disprove the logic.

  9. #89
    I find this whole thing amusing (or is annoying the better term). Nothing any person or entity presents here will be accepted. It could be presented by NASA or MIT or whoever the smartest people are. If the results deviate too much from the expected return it is because there are bugs--not variance.

    I still think a million is just too small of a sample, which Arci is also saying when he says he would run it a lot more times.

    I'm sorry I brought the subject up again the other day. RS---good luck. Even if you are able to pull it off, nobody will accept it.

  10. #90
    Finished the first step (the part I wasn't so sure could be done properly/easily).

    Essentially, to figure out the probabilities of ending with each hand (high pair through RF) given a strategy. Using WoO, I adjusted the paytable in DDB enough to make the strategy for that (game with F'd up paytable) to be the same strategy presented in OP. Using the frequencies listed there (ie: RF is 1 in 25,629.02, SF is 1 in 28,376.89, etc.), can write a program with an RNG to sim this strategy. Of course, in the sim, the paytable would reflect regular 8/5 DDB paytable and NOT the one in the link below. For instance, RNG would fine a number between 1 and 19,933,230,517,200 (inclusive). If the RNG is between 1 and 777,760,276 (inclusive), the bankroll in the sim would be increased by 800, symbolizing a royal flush. If the RNG is between 777,760,277 and 1480206172 (inclusive), then the bankroll would be increased by 50, symbolizing a straight-flush. Note: 1480206172 is the sum of 777,760,276+702,445,896, which are the # of combinations for RF + SF. And yes, this method works, I've done it many times when analyzing a game or play.

    The strategy and number of possible combinations used would be here: http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-...0-d-1-d-80000/ Unless you (generic) want to switch those numbers around to exactly match the pre-determined strategy in the OP. (But the strategy in OP implied you'd hold AA over AKQJ suited, or that you'd hold AKQJT off-suit over AKQJ suited.) For the simulation, the regular paytable would be used (800 for RF, 50 for SF, etc. 8 for FH, 5 for flush, etc.).

    No time to do it tonight, too tired and been up all day and out and about quite a bit. Perhaps tomorrow if I have time. Or someone else here can do it, it's not that difficult. Hell, you can do it in Excel rather easily, actually (although a tad time consuming).

  11. #91
    Sorry Regnis, your "genius" friend almost certainly made an error, or else is luckier than Alan seeing "18 yo's in a row".

    I ran the sim I made for 1 million rounds a few times, getting around a 51-53% return. Now running it for 1 billion rounds (gonna take a few minutes).

    To make sure this sim is accurate, gonna do the same thing but with a known paytable and known strategy (9/6 DDB optimal play should return about 99%).

    9/6 DDB, 100 sims of 1M rounds each:
    Code:
    0.986546
    0.999699
    0.985479
    0.994084
    0.980259
    0.984915
    0.996856
    0.989063
    0.989045
    0.990004
    0.995394
    0.993151
    0.984349
    0.985008
    0.983869
    0.99915
    0.989145
    0.989969
    0.995947
    0.991635
    0.988979
    0.975156
    0.993935
    0.994408
    0.98706
    0.990406
    0.99338
    0.989985
    0.989666
    0.985149
    0.984192
    0.99145
    0.995064
    0.990142
    0.993639
    0.994221
    0.986499
    0.994714
    0.975585
    0.99316
    0.991987
    0.990351
    0.992006
    0.991999
    0.989401
    0.982349
    0.989911
    0.988141
    0.993472
    0.987473
    0.994305
    0.996442
    0.988104
    0.99053
    0.987674
    0.98075
    0.994403
    0.991249
    0.989106
    0.991665
    0.990904
    0.994642
    0.97965
    0.988472
    0.984815
    0.999933
    0.985496
    0.992885
    0.996579
    0.987376
    0.991691
    0.983716
    0.984097
    0.996714
    0.986807
    0.993995
    0.987329
    0.993668
    0.994163
    0.985133
    0.9824
    0.985276
    0.998027
    0.991889
    0.98592
    0.997825
    0.991754
    0.989277
    0.977059
    0.986496
    0.998504
    0.988923
    0.989759
    0.993073
    0.991142
    0.990524
    0.98537
    0.987173
    0.984937
    0.998842
    Average is 98.98391%.


    Code:
    8/5 DDB with awful strategy, 100 sims, 1M rounds each:
    0.519932
    0.533894
    0.519526
    0.524651
    0.526639
    0.519449
    0.526355
    0.51205
    0.528322
    0.524948
    0.527123
    0.519816
    0.534143
    0.528614
    0.528198
    0.52261
    0.513318
    0.525304
    0.530502
    0.524237
    0.525145
    0.524465
    0.52154
    0.524227
    0.518717
    0.523132
    0.520847
    0.531172
    0.521433
    0.536406
    0.525033
    0.522556
    0.525449
    0.514208
    0.532488
    0.521181
    0.529384
    0.526142
    0.517619
    0.527184
    0.518273
    0.520484
    0.525474
    0.524125
    0.526596
    0.523259
    0.531382
    0.534908
    0.520354
    0.519594
    0.515571
    0.535699
    0.518702
    0.527331
    0.526917
    0.517531
    0.529145
    0.513943
    0.52368
    0.528314
    0.522243
    0.525856
    0.525066
    0.530062
    0.532708
    0.527925
    0.511822
    0.520276
    0.533967
    0.523203
    0.518261
    0.528963
    0.519895
    0.527396
    0.512244
    0.522966
    0.530511
    0.524856
    0.519743
    0.531286
    0.531321
    0.530086
    0.522759
    0.515066
    0.520779
    0.534561
    0.521057
    0.521903
    0.530051
    0.51642
    0.529434
    0.512044
    0.526055
    0.521711
    0.5315
    0.521426
    0.535069
    0.527258
    0.525139
    0.522068
    Average return is 52.4442%. Looking at the numbers, greatest is 53.64% and lowest is 51.18%, it's clear getting to 105.2% is, for all intense and purpose, impossible.

    Perhaps your "genius" friend forgot to move the decimal!




    1 million rounds is a lot sometimes, and not a lot other times. It depends what you're trying to figure out. If you're trying to get the exact return, then no, a million rounds isn't gonna do it. If it has huge variance (VP is not), it's not gonna work. If it's something like megabucks, 10-spot keno (weighted on 10 spots, not lower end), dealt RF games or sequential RF games, the 1 million rounds isn't going to be much. If you want to get a general idea of an advantage/disadvantage, a million rounds will be sufficient, albeit you should run it at least a few times.


    The code I wrote in VBScript:

    Code:
    ]'//	1-million-hand-sim
    '//	holding RF draws, Aces, else dealt straights or better
    '//		http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-...0-d-1-d-80000/
    '//	RS
    '//	11/11/2016
    
    
    
    
    	'//	Regnis' strategy
    	RF = 777760276
    	SF = 702445896
    	AWAK = 1391835864
    	BWAK = 369044460
    	AAAA = 4008194436
    	lows = 1229905380
    	mids = 4852280820
    	FH = 57899631936
    	FL = 87482277260
    	ST = 130720060596
    	TK = 505151474088
    	TP = 1005001054872
    	JB = 4107615549168
    	NO = 14026029002148
    	TOT = 19933230517200
    	
    	'//	Optimal strategy
    '	RF = 488567700
    '	SF = 2184917880
    '	AWAK = 1227691500
    '	BWAK = 2854370052
    '	AAAA = 3460011120
    '	lows = 7662444216
    '	mids = 32494582452
    '	FH = 216474969996
    '	FL = 226412247120
    '	ST = 254472741540
    '	TK = 1500277164324
    '	TP = 2453055008724
    '	JB = 4212339758244
    '	NO = 11019826042332
    '	TOT = 19933230517200
    
    	'// verify number above are accurate (they are)
    	thisSum = RF + SF + AWAK + BWAK + AAAA + lows + mids + FH + FL + ST + TK + TP + JB + NO
    	wscript.echo thisSum
    	wscript.echo TOT
    	wscript.echo "difference: " & thisSum - TOT
    	
    	RF = RF
    	SF = SF + RF
    	AWAK = AWAK + SF
    	BWAK = BWAK + AWAK
    	AAAA = AAAA + BWAK
    	lows = lows + AAAA
    	mids = mids + lows
    	FH = FH + mids
    	FL = FL + FH
    	ST = ST + FL
    	TK = TK + ST
    	TP = TP + TK
    	JB = JB + TP
    	NO = NO + JB
    	
    	'// following should be 0:
    	wscript.echo "total - no: " & TOT - NO
    
    	Randomize
    	maxNum = 19933230517200
    	avg = maxNum / 2
    	sum = 0
    	RF_Count = 0
    	
    	Set FSO = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
    	Set File = FSO.OpenTextFile("85DDB_Awful.txt", 2, True)
    	
    	rounds = 1000000
    
    for y = 1 to 100		'// 100 sims
    BR = rounds				'// reset to 1million
    for i = 1 to rounds		'// 1 million rounds/sim
    	num = Int((maxNum)*Rnd+1)
    	
    	If num <= RF Then
    		BR = BR + 800
    		RF_Count = RF_Count + 1
    	Elseif num <= SF Then
    		BR = BR + 50
    	Elseif num <= AWAK Then
    		BR = BR + 400
    	Elseif num <= BWAK Then
    		BR = BR + 160
    	Elseif num <= AAAA Then
    		BR = BR + 160
    	Elseif num <= lows Then
    		BR = BR + 80
    	Elseif num <= mids Then
    		BR = BR + 50
    	Elseif num <= FH Then
    		BR = BR + 9			'// full house
    	Elseif num <= FL Then
    		BR = BR + 6			'// flush
    	Elseif num <= ST Then
    		BR = BR + 4
    	Elseif num <= TK Then
    		BR = BR + 3
    	Elseif num <= TP Then
    		BR = BR + 1
    	Elseif num <= JB Then
    		BR = BR + 1
    	Elseif num <= NO Then
    		BR = BR + 0			'// not necessary, obviously
    	End If
    	
    	BR = BR - 1				'// lose original stake
    next
    	file.writeline BR/rounds
    	wscript.echo y
    next
    	file.close
    	set file = nothing
    	set fso = nothing
    
    	wscript.echo "Bankroll: " & BR
    	wscript.echo "Return: " & 100 * BR/rounds
    	wscript.echo "Advantage: " & (100 * BR/rounds) - 100
    	wscript.echo "RF's: " & RF_Count
    	
    '	trueAvg = sum/1000000
    '	wscript.echo "Projected avg: " & avg
    '	wscript.echo "Actual avg: " & trueAvg
    '	wscript.echo "Difference: " & trueAvg-avg
    '	wscript.echo "% Difference: " & (trueAvg - avg) / maxNum
    If you want to run the code, save it as a .vbs file (ie: simulation.vbs). Shift+RightClick in folder and click, "Open Command window here". Then type in "cscript.exe simulation.vbs", then enter, without quotation marks. A file will be created in the same location as simulation.vbs called "85_Awful.txt", which would have outputs I showed above, the return for each 1-million round sim. This file gets overwritten each time the code is run. Should only work on Windows OS computer (sorry Rob & Alan).

    Would appreciate it if anyone finds a bug/error in my code. I'm aware lines 124-127 (output on screen before script closes) only applies to last 1million rounds.
    Last edited by RS__; 11-11-2016 at 12:05 PM.

  12. #92
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    RS is exactly right. The chances of getting the claimed return is very, very low. Much lower than a Trump win. It is almost certainly a bug. I volunteered to check it out but the code was never provided. When I run simulations I would run them 1000 times. Running one time is meaningless.
    Bumping this thread just because I found this quote from Arci to be funny. Cuz was here this weekend and asked me about this and I showed him the thread. Just made me laugh.

  13. #93
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    RS is exactly right. The chances of getting the claimed return is very, very low. Much lower than a Trump win. It is almost certainly a bug. I volunteered to check it out but the code was never provided. When I run simulations I would run them 1000 times. Running one time is meaningless.
    Bumping this thread just because I found this quote from Arci to be funny. Cuz was here this weekend and asked me about this and I showed him the thread. Just made me laugh.
    Any follow up with your "genius" friend about the 1M round sim?

  14. #94
    Just found the Trump line funny. I ain't starting this fight again.

  15. #95

  16. #96
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    Just found the Trump line funny. I ain't starting this fight again.
    The sad thing is, I was kind of rooting for Trump (just for entertainment purposes) until it dawned on me at a very specific point during the primary that he could win the whole shebang. That point was the Jeb Bush thing. When it was apparent the next day via polls that people actually liked Trump being a bully-without-policy and making fun of "low-energy" Jeb, a friend of mine in the film department went back and we played the Bush/Trump clips about a dozen times.

    We looked at each other. He said, "Well, I'm gonna like living under a dictatorship," and we laughed.

  17. #97
    Well, one of the best days of my life was watching the election results this past Nov. once it was starting to get real that Trump had a chance to win, on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc. (I generally watch FNC). The sole purpose we watched those libtards was to witness the shock, pain, disappointment, and horror of those clowns having to come to grips with the fact that their crooked, incompetent candidate with the pervert, impeached husband was going down the tubes. And watching wench Martha Radditz--who had no right being a "debate moderator" and showed her true bias for poor poor Hillary" whimper on-air was worth the price of my new TV.

    All this nonsense we're seeing from these wounded people on the networks and cable etc. now about "Russian Collusion", etc. is nothing other than what everyone expected. What else can they talk about but made-up stories when they had to endure the most humiliating loss ever in politics? These people try so hard to talk about things that make them feel good, and the only things that make them feel good as Trump chops away at all the Obama destructive crap one-by-glorious-one, is to talk about "impeachment" and "Russian collusion"--neither of which they know has or never will happen. It is truly a joy to behold.

    Compare Obama's first overseas "weak, apology tour" to what Trump just accomplished. We now look as strong or stronger than we used to be. Even the ignorant Trump-hating media was humbled by this. And didn't you just LOVE how he stood up to all those idiot European "global warming....no wait!--CLIMATE CHANGE" alarmists who don't understand what it takes to create JOBS? While they keep believing open borders and slob third-world refugees are the answers to every European's dreams--even in the face of more terror attack deaths--Trump shows strength and that he actually knows what he's doing.

    And if all this isn't enuf for you poor dems, just wait until the Supreme Court gets ahold of the decisions these activist queer judges have been handing out on several of Trump's executive orders! Soooo much to look forward to! And anyone who bet against Trump succeeding ought to have their heads examined.

  18. #98
    If strip clubs ever get to redo Mt. Rushmore, I see Clinton on the left, Trump on the right, with guest star Gingrich in the middle.

  19. #99
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Well, one of the best days of my life was watching the election results this past Nov. once it was starting to get real that Trump had a chance to win, on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc. (I generally watch FNC). The sole purpose we watched those libtards was to witness the shock, pain, disappointment, and horror of those clowns having to come to grips with the fact that their crooked, incompetent candidate with the pervert, impeached husband was going down the tubes. And watching wench Martha Radditz--who had no right being a "debate moderator" and showed her true bias for poor poor Hillary" whimper on-air was worth the price of my new TV.

    All this nonsense we're seeing from these wounded people on the networks and cable etc. now about "Russian Collusion", etc. is nothing other than what everyone expected. What else can they talk about but made-up stories when they had to endure the most humiliating loss ever in politics? These people try so hard to talk about things that make them feel good, and the only things that make them feel good as Trump chops away at all the Obama destructive crap one-by-glorious-one, is to talk about "impeachment" and "Russian collusion"--neither of which they know has or never will happen. It is truly a joy to behold.

    Compare Obama's first overseas "weak, apology tour" to what Trump just accomplished. We now look as strong or stronger than we used to be. Even the ignorant Trump-hating media was humbled by this. And didn't you just LOVE how he stood up to all those idiot European "global warming....no wait!--CLIMATE CHANGE" alarmists who don't understand what it takes to create JOBS? While they keep believing open borders and slob third-world refugees are the answers to every European's dreams--even in the face of more terror attack deaths--Trump shows strength and that he actually knows what he's doing.

    And if all this isn't enuf for you poor dems, just wait until the Supreme Court gets ahold of the decisions these activist queer judges have been handing out on several of Trump's executive orders! Soooo much to look forward to! And anyone who bet against Trump succeeding ought to have their heads examined.
    Hope you didn`t finance it...for the vendors sake, I mean

  20. #100
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    If strip clubs ever get to redo Mt. Rushmore, I see Clinton on the left, Trump on the right, with guest star Gingrich in the middle.
    We're heading up to South Dakota for the summer after we leave Tahoe in a few weeks, and we always make a quick stop at Mt. Rushmore just to make sure Obama didn't replace any of the REAL presidents with his ugly mug.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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