John Grochowski writes about money management.

[arcimede$]

Because he will make the argument that I might win 125% or 150% had I kept playing... ignoring that I might have lost it all.

There's hope for you yet, Alan. The fact is you have no idea how you would have done nor do you know if you'd do better the next time you play. Keep in mind that I would quit after playing my freeplay through one time no matter what my results. It isn't the fact you quit, it is the fact you keep trying to assert that quitting when you did was prophetic.

[arcimede$]

Really--he's the one that harps on the ER the ER the ER. So on the one hand he says if you keep playing you will approach the ER. So if you're ahead of it, and if you keep playing you will approach the ER, that means you will lose. What am I missing? Oh yea---2+2=4. That's too advanced for me I guess.

No, it doesn't mean you will lose ... today. It means you have no idea how you will do after any given hand. And, that over time you will approach the ER.

[arcimede$]

I'll straighten this out before I hit the sack. The argument that you could or could not end up with a higher session profit is meaningless because it is a supposition based on theory. Yet when put to the test in "advantage play"--as I did for 6-1/2 years--even though I lost around 75% of the sessions I played, I was AHEAD at some point in those sessions at least 80% of the time. Yes, just as all AP's find themselves experiencing.

Being ahead a few credits is not unusual. That is a fact of variance. However, if you are ahead 5 credits for 15 sessions and lose 100 credits in one session you are still behind and only have a 75% return, yet you would have won over 90% of the sessions. That is the problem with your claims and why they are meaningless.

So what if I had chosen to quit every time I found myself ahead, instead of throwing the wins away in the hope that even bigger profits await? Well, I DID find out what awaited for my lengthy efforts, and it wasn't pretty. Dollar royals hit in the first hour turned into thousand dollar losers. Steadily rising profits after 12 hours of play ended up drained. Yes, there were a few times continued play after getting ahead meant more profits, but not many, and the greed-driven (aka, the MATH-driven) desire to keep on chasing more profits actually meant much higher losses overall.

Nope, your losses were likely due to playing while you were tired. As John indicated 3-4 hours if probably the maximum time before errors start increasing. 12 hours sessions after driving from Phoenix to Vegas is stupid. And, it didn't help that you were drinking and hustling the cocktail waitresses. Those were the real reasons you lost.

Finally, this twisted notion that there's nothing that can change the expected return--meaning, the actual return on a -EV machine cannot consistently exceed its pay table theory--has no mathematical basis whatsoever.

Wrong, it is a proven fact. Spewing lies only makes it obvious you have ulterior motives.

[Alan Mendelson]

The fact is you have no idea how you would have done

Try this on for size: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Alan Mendelson]

And, that over time you will approach the ER.

Actually, I think it's time to blow the whistle and throw down a penalty flag on you Arc. "15 yards for incorrect information."

You see Arc, the "ER" of a game is not really what you will get over time. The ER of a game is what the return is on each individual hand. When you play 9/6 Jacks the ER on each individual hand you play is 99.54% but (and you know this, so don't deny it) there is no ER for playing two hands or five hands or ten hands or a thousand hands.

Somehow, someone carried through the ER of one hand and made it apply to all hands and to sessions and to lifetimes of play. This is actually incorrect.

If you want to correctly state ER it is "the expected return of each hand played." The ER of one hand cannot be the ER of all hands because the game is random, and a royal flush, for example, is not limited to showing up once in 40,000 hands -- and can come up many times in 40,000 hands or never come up in 400,000 hands.

You know this.

So all this time that you have been preaching "ER of the game" you have been making a boo-boo.

[regnis]

Alan--his response should be that the ER is 99.54 whether it is 1 hand 100 hands 1000 hands or 1 million hands. While anything can happen on any hand, the ER is 99.54. But he should also say that the more hands that are played, the more likely to approach that ER.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan--his response should be that the ER is 99.54 whether it is 1 hand 100 hands 1000 hands or 1 million hands. While anything can happen on any hand, the ER is 99.54. But he should also say that the more hands that are played, the more likely to approach that ER.

It is wrong to take the ER which only refers to ONE HAND and apply it to the results of more than one hand. Period.

Actually there is NO ER for multiple hands of play. ER refers to a singular event. It always has, and always will.

To say that the ER of 99.54 refers to a lifetime of play or even to two hands is a misapplication of what ER is.

[bigfoot66]

It is wrong to take the ER which only refers to ONE HAND and apply it to the results of more than one hand. Period.

Actually there is NO ER for multiple hands of play. ER refers to a singular event. It always has, and always will.

To say that the ER of 99.54 refers to a lifetime of play or even to two hands is a misapplication of what ER is.

I don't think that this is accurate and I believe you have it exactly backwards. The paytable on the machine will tell you the expected payouts for the next hand. If 3 of a kind then 2:1, if a flush then 5:1, etc. As we have noted many times before, it is in fact impossible to get a paybackof 99.54% on the next hand. The expected return is an attempt to quantify the table relative to the likelyhood of each event occuring and it is meant to give us an idea of where we will end up LONG TERM. In fact, the ER of a machine is close to useless if you look at one hand or even 100 hands. As the volitility/variance decreases, though, the ER more accurately describes the behavior in the short run. A machine with no variance would literally return 99.54% of every wager each hand.

What your statement hints at is the fact that using the ER to evaluate the past makes less sense than using the ER to forecast. If I have put in hours and hours at a FPDW machine and am still way behind for the year, it does not mean that there is a group of big hands waiting for me to "catch me up", and the fact that Alan is way ahead for the year (let's just say he is) playing -ER games doesn't mean he is due for big losses. Whatever happened happened, but going forward we expect a long term trend that will approxiomate the ER from where we are today regardless of previous results.

[arcimede$]

I don't think that this is accurate and I believe you have it exactly backwards. The paytable on the machine will tell you the expected payouts for the next hand. If 3 of a kind then 2:1, if a flush then 5:1, etc. As we have noted many times before, it is in fact impossible to get a paybackof 99.54% on the next hand. The expected return is an attempt to quantify the table relative to the likelyhood of each event occuring and it is meant to give us an idea of where we will end up LONG TERM. In fact, the ER of a machine is close to useless if you look at one hand or even 100 hands. As the volitility/variance decreases, though, the ER more accurately describes the behavior in the short run. A machine with no variance would literally return 99.54% of every wager each hand.

What your statement hints at is the fact that using the ER to evaluate the past makes less sense than using the ER to forecast. If I have put in hours and hours at a FPDW machine and am still way behind for the year, it does not mean that there is a group of big hands waiting for me to "catch me up", and the fact that Alan is way ahead for the year (let's just say he is) playing -ER games doesn't mean he is due for big losses. Whatever happened happened, but going forward we expect a long term trend that will approxiomate the ER from where we are today regardless of previous results.

Repeated for emphasis.

One can only wonder how Alan and regnis could have it so wrong.

[Alan Mendelson]

First of all, the pay table is not the expected return. What the heck are you guys talking about?? The expected return in video poker is simply: "the mathematically calculated profit you project you will make if you draw/hold certain cards in a hand."

It has nothing to do with long term. Get over it.

[Rob.Singer]

I don't think that this is accurate and I believe you have it exactly backwards. The paytable on the machine will tell you the expected payouts for the next hand. If 3 of a kind then 2:1, if a flush then 5:1, etc. As we have noted many times before, it is in fact impossible to get a paybackof 99.54% on the next hand. The expected return is an attempt to quantify the table relative to the likelyhood of each event occuring and it is meant to give us an idea of where we will end up LONG TERM. In fact, the ER of a machine is close to useless if you look at one hand or even 100 hands. As the volitility/variance decreases, though, the ER more accurately describes the behavior in the short run. A machine with no variance would literally return 99.54% of every wager each hand.

What your statement hints at is the fact that using the ER to evaluate the past makes less sense than using the ER to forecast. If I have put in hours and hours at a FPDW machine and am still way behind for the year, it does not mean that there is a group of big hands waiting for me to "catch me up", and the fact that Alan is way ahead for the year (let's just say he is) playing -ER games doesn't mean he is due for big losses. Whatever happened happened, but going forward we expect a long term trend that will approxiomate the ER from where we are today regardless of previous results.

I also agree with this, but I am not too certain that what Alan or regnis were eluding to was exactly different, esp. if you consider their past statements. Regardless, I'm putting my emphasis on "whatever happened, happened". And that is precisely why going forward, you always begin anew....no machine knows what you've done, what pay tables you've played, IF YOU'VE JUST FINISHED PLAYING TEN MILLION HANDS ON YOUR HOME COMPUTER OR NOT, or if your wife has told you not to bother coming home ever again if you lose any more of their money inside a casino. All it is privy to is the theoretical ER it could actually experience throughout its life if every player played it optimally--assuming 100% randomness (which more & more knowledgeable players are posing serious questions about--if not publicly, then unto themselves).

For the player, ER means absolutely nothing during any individual session, and it means even less after 20 years of exhausting play. Actuals are the only stastistic that has any meaning along that journey, and those actuals can vary greatly for each of a number of different type of players. There is no math that can account for the luck we all see, good or bad. What we DO know is that if we play a good strategy that is highly capable of producing a session win today because we chose to leave the machine, whether with a 94% pay table or a 105% one, then since nothing about you is recorded into any machine you choose to play tomorrow, that strategy is highly likely to produce another win tomorrow, the next day, and so on. Mixing up what long term probability theory represents with anyone's single session performance on any given day, is a serious, serious mistake if you fancy yourself as a true vp analyst. Again, no hand ever has any relationship to any that have come before or have yet to come; the same for each session you play, as well as for each PERSON who plays. It is really simple stuff if you don't choose to wear blinders to the mathematical AND the practical facts.

[Alan Mendelson]

So there is no misunderstanding:

The ER only pertains to the possible return on each individual hand. It says nothing about the future, it also says nothing about the past. The ER is only a theoretical about what might happen on a given hand with the pay table of that particular game.

This is why people can and do win at games with a negative ER. It is also why people can and do lose at games with a positive ER.

But with that said you should always play at a game with the best available ER. If you have a choice between an 8/5 pay table at Jacks and a 9/6 pay table at Jacks of course you want to play the 9/6 game. But the differing paytables does not mean you can't win with the 8/5 paytable.

[arcimede$]

Alan, the ER is established by the odds on EVERY hand you play. If you play multiple hands then the ER is the sum of the individual ERs divided by the number of hands. Simple math. If you are playing the same machine then, ER*n/n = ER. So, it turns out the ER also pertains to every hand you play. Darn that math.

This has nothing to do with winning and losing. It's simply a statement of statistical averages. However, ER and variance are the tools that allow you to compute probabilities for your chances of winning/losing. And, if you paid attention they is nothing in any of the computations that cares when the hands are played.

[regnis]

Repeated for emphasis.

One can only wonder how Alan and regnis could have it so wrong.

As my good buddy Redietz would say, you are putting words in my mouth. My response is correct and 100% contrary to what Alan said. In fact, I was repeating what you have said 1000 times.

[slingshot]

This was looked over- a post by Frank Scobete. Can the card(s) selected affect the randomness farther down the session? I know your thinking on 3-5 card draws and was wondering if selecting these instead of say 4 cards to a flush with no high cards could favor a winning session. I know they help with selecting hot/cold cycles.

[regnis]

That being said, I will say that there should be a warning from the surgeon general on every machine: "The ER is just a probability over millions off hands. Your results may vary."

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, the ER is established by the odds on EVERY hand you play. If you play multiple hands then the ER is the sum of the individual ERs divided by the number of hands. Simple math. If you are playing the same machine then, ER*n/n = ER. So, it turns out the ER also pertains to every hand you play. Darn that math.

This has nothing to do with winning and losing. It's simply a statement of statistical averages. However, ER and variance are the tools that allow you to compute probabilities for your chances of winning/losing. And, if you paid attention they is nothing in any of the computations that cares when the hands are played.

I'm scratching my head here... aren't we saying the same thing? The only other thing that I said is that the ER does not impact whether or not you will win or lose. And now you wrote "this has nothing to do with winning and losing." Well, that's right. So why so much criticism for those who play on negative expectation games? They can and do win, ya know.

[arcimede$]

I'm scratching my head here... aren't we saying the same thing? The only other thing that I said is that the ER does not impact whether or not you will win or lose. And now you wrote "this has nothing to do with winning and losing." Well, that's right. So why so much criticism for those who play on negative expectation games? They can and do win, ya know.

Why did you stop without getting into the probabilities? What you appear to be saying is similar to the old joke that your chances of winning the lottery are 50-50. Either you win or you don't. Of course, that is just a silly joke. No one has a 50% chance of winning the lottery.

The same logic applies here. You can win or lose and both are possible. However, that says nothing about your REAL chances of winning. This is where the ER and variance come into play. They can be used to compute your chances of winning any session and/or your chances of being ahead at any point in time in the future.

The results turn out of be more interesting because we can use that calculation to understand what approach will give us the best chance of winning in the future. Understand?

[Alan Mendelson]

Probabilities have nothing to do with what I said initially in this discussion about EV nor do they have anything to do with this debate.

Let me say it again a different way:

When you talk about the EV of a game it is determined by the pay table and the EV is determined by each hand played and on each hand. The EV is not determined over time or by multiple hands. I think you agree?

So the EV is not a "long term" result that changes with the more hands you play and is the same on each and every hand you play. I think you agree?

Now, here's where we will reach a fork in the road:

Because the EV is the same on each and every hand and does not change on each and every hand there is no regression to the mean and if you happen to have winning hands that are greater than the EV you can win even at a negative expectation game.

Now, if you want to throw in your "probabilities" then yes, you are more probable to do better at a positive EV game than a negative EV game which is why we should all play the games with the best pay table available.

And just to refresh your memory, this is what I said initially:

You see Arc, the "ER" of a game is not really what you will get over time. The ER of a game is what the return is on each individual hand. When you play 9/6 Jacks the ER on each individual hand you play is 99.54% but (and you know this, so don't deny it) there is no ER for playing two hands or five hands or ten hands or a thousand hands.

Somehow, someone carried through the ER of one hand and made it apply to all hands and to sessions and to lifetimes of play. This is actually incorrect.

If you want to correctly state ER it is "the expected return of each hand played." The ER of one hand cannot be the ER of all hands because the game is random, and a royal flush, for example, is not limited to showing up once in 40,000 hands -- and can come up many times in 40,000 hands or never come up in 400,000 hands.

You know this.

So all this time that you have been preaching "ER of the game" you have been making a boo-boo.

[arcimede$]

Probabilities have nothing to do with what I said initially in this discussion about EV nor do they have anything to do with this debate.

Let me say it again a different way:

When you talk about the EV of a game it is determined by the pay table and the EV is determined by each hand played and on each hand. The EV is not determined over time or by multiple hands. I think you agree?

Nope, not even close. The fact is the way you play each hand and the game played impact the overall EV of your play. The EV of a particular game on a particular machine is not that interesting. What's interesting is exactly what we do as we play. For example, if you play 1000 hands on BAF and then another 1000 hands on DDB your EV will be different. Also, each time you don't follow perfect strategy you lower your EV. Your own personal EV is the sum of the EV of every hand you play (machine EV plus strategy) divided by the number of hands.

You are confusing the EV of a game with the EV of a player. Two different things. The optimal play game EV is useful in computing your own personal EV but only one factor in understanding your own results. Maybe we need to start using different names for these concepts. I think just using EV can be confusing. Some people like to use ER for what I'm calling personal EV and use EV for a the game EV. I still think that can be confusing because both those terms tend to get intermixed by different people. Any suggestions?

So the EV is not a "long term" result that changes with the more hands you play and is the same on each and every hand you play. I think you agree?

It could agree if you were playing the same game using optimal strategy and never made a mistake. But that is not possible so it of little use to worry about it.

Now, here's where we will reach a fork in the road:

Because the EV is the same on each and every hand and does not change on each and every hand there is no regression to the mean and if you happen to have winning hands that are greater than the EV you can win even at a negative expectation game.

Once again you are essentially claiming you have a 50% of winning the lottery or whatever. The fact you "can win" says nothing about your chances of winning which is the important factor. You "can win" by just hitting deal/draw on every hand and never holding a card. Do you think that you will end up a long term winner with that strategy? Do you think win goals would make you a winner. If not, then you are admitting that your personal EV is important. Once you accept that it just becomes a matter of how much.

Now, if you want to throw in your "probabilities" then yes, you are more probable to do better at a positive EV game than a negative EV game which is why we should all play the games with the best pay table available.

And just to refresh your memory, this is what I said initially:

But that is not what you tend to emphasize. And, it turns out to be far more important than the fact you could get lucky on any given day and win. But instead of accepting this reality you jump on the "can win" bandwagon and then jump to the conclusion that win goals will make a difference.

Your logic is ... since I "can win" and since "win goals help win more sessions", it will increase my winnings over time. Your problem is that while both statements are true the conclusion is false. You ignore the key factor that when you do lose you will give back all those wins and return to the ER of your overall play.