Of Math and Men

[arcimede$]

Wonderful, you finally said it, Arc, even if you didn't mean to and even if you don't believe it. You wrote:

"the math does not care about human decisions. It is simply telling us that random events average out over time."

You see Arc, people do not make random choices when they play video poker, or even when they play in a casino. They choose everything -- when to play, when to stop, what game, what cards, what denomination. Hence the choices of the human being can be used to beat the math.

I know, you'll just say it's either random or fits a bell curve or you'll come up with some coin flip analogy. We've heard it all before.

Alan, if the math I was describing was for some average return then it might be possible to "beat the math". However, that's not what the ER of a game refers to. It refers to the optimal return. You do understand what optimal means, don't you? That means it's the upper limit. You can't do better than the best by making decisions. It is already part of the assumption that all the best decisions have been made.

Here's a task for you. Take 5 one hundred dollar bills, 5 fifty dollar bills, 5 twenty dollar bills, 5 ten dollar bills, 5 five dollar bills and 5 one dollar bills. Now, try counting those bills in any way you can and see if you can get over $930. You can leave out as many bills as you want. You can even quit one day and start up the next if you want. Let me know when you get above $930.

Now, why is it you can't get above $930? Does it have something to do with math? Is it because $930 is the maximum value?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, are you some kind of a troll? You are the most ridiculous person I've ever come across.

[arcimede$]

Arc, are you some kind of a troll? You are the most ridiculous person I've ever come across.

If a honest belief in simple mathematical principles is your definition of a troll, then I am guilty. Maybe you should start reading what I have been telling you. You might learn something.

[Alan Mendelson]

If a honest belief in simple mathematical principles is your definition of a troll, then I am guilty. Maybe you should start reading what I have been telling you. You might learn something.

Arc I don't challenge your math. I challenge your reasoning and ability to understand things that have nothing to do with math.

[Vegas_lover]

Arc, are you some kind of a troll? You are the most ridiculous person I've ever come across.

Alan, you might not like what Arci is saying and you might not agree with him. But, if you want the bickering to end as well as the personal insults, you're giving a bad example here as the webmaster and moderator of this website. Think about it....

[arcimede$]

Arc I don't challenge your math. I challenge your reasoning and ability to understand things that have nothing to do with math.

Yes, the person who clearly knows very little math is now telling a math major what topics mathematics relates to and which ones don't. Do you ever consider how silly that is?

Alan, I think you truly believe you are avoiding the math with your "human decisions". All I can do is keep telling you that you are wrong. Every hand you play in VP comes under the auspices of applied mathematics.

When all is said and done your results will be average of those very same hands. The math tells us what we can expect from those results. The reason we can trust the math is because every one of those hands is random and independent. Now, what part does independent play? It means that it makes no difference WHEN any one of those hands is played. Think about your "human decisions" and what 'when" means.

[Count Room]

OK...I'm going to chime in on this whole math bit just for a second...

Many positive EV video poker plays (if not almost all of them) are rapidly disappearing and I think sometimes people want to have a sort of hope they can still win over the long term against negative machines that have now almost completely infested the casinos. If we paid attention to nothing but the math and followed the strict logic to stay away from casinos as a result, it would be a big disappointment for those who still want action and harbor some hope of still being able to win! I'm not necessarily pointing fingers at anyone on this because I fall prey to such a trap myself!

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay, last time: people can win at negative expectation games. And everyone agrees.

If you can win once, why can't you win twice? If you win twice, why can't you win a third time?

A "win" can represent any profit, even one credit.

Is there some rule of mathematics that says this cannot happen?

[jatki]

OK...I'm going to chime in on this whole math bit just for a second...

Many positive EV video poker plays (if not almost all of them) are rapidly disappearing and I think sometimes people want to have a sort of hope they can still win over the long term against negative machines that have now almost completely infested the casinos. If we paid attention to nothing but the math and followed the strict logic to stay away from casinos as a result, it would be a big disappointment for those who still want action and harbor some hope of still being able to win! I'm not necessarily pointing fingers at anyone on this because I fall prey to such a trap myself!

THAT was one of the topics discussed on and on at LV A sports some years ago. Singer in his glory wrote a column identifying just that, how Bob Dancer was constantly reinventing his method of calculating the value of a videopoker game as casinos put the squeeze on us players. But he wasn't as kind in his depiction of what Dancer was doing. He called it a guru's hypocrisy or something like that, and he gave examples of where Dancer swore he'd quit playing way back when, if the games plus the cash back ever made it to under 100%. I among others argued with him on it but over these years I see he was right.

[arcimede$]

Okay, last time: people can win at negative expectation games. And everyone agrees.

If you can win once, why can't you win twice? If you win twice, why can't you win a third time?

A "win" can represent any profit, even one credit.

Is there some rule of mathematics that says this cannot happen?

Nope, it's all perfectly valid ... but, it doesn't consider true odds. I could win power ball next week and be $200 million dollars richer. Absolutely nothing "says this cannot happen". However, it isn't very likely to happen. Neither are those continual wins you think you can "decide" into existence. Like I told you before. It's the difference between "possibilities" and "probabilities". Just because there's a remote chance something might happen does not equate with it actually happening with any regularity.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc. I would suggest to you that when you play video poker on a negative expectation game such as 8/5 bonus or 9/6 jacks there will be a time when you are ahead.

I will also remind everyone that gaming author Victor Royer has a survey that shows that 86% of casinogoers are ahead at some point but 95% leave with a loss.

Somewhere between the 86% and the 95% is the "human factor" which says to stop playing and pocket the profit.

[arcimede$]

THAT was one of the topics discussed on and on at LV A sports some years ago. Singer in his glory wrote a column identifying just that, how Bob Dancer was constantly reinventing his method of calculating the value of a videopoker game as casinos put the squeeze on us players. But he wasn't as kind in his depiction of what Dancer was doing. He called it a guru's hypocrisy or something like that, and he gave examples of where Dancer swore he'd quit playing way back when, if the games plus the cash back ever made it to under 100%. I among others argued with him on it but over these years I see he was right.

Don't believe anything Singer says ... ever. He claimed he knew Dancer and yet Dancer just indicated on vp.com that he'd never seen Singer before. Now, Dancer might be lying but given Signer's track record I think he's the much more likely suspect.

Given that information the chances that Dancer really swore he wouldn't play a machine under 100% is likely another lie. In fact, it's not unusual for machines under 100% return to provide a better overall return that certain positive games like 10/7 DB or 10/6 DDB. I played a 99.8% (DB+) game at Tuscany that provided about 1.7% added cash (FP/CB) not counting comps/gift/promotions. Far better than FPDW and available in dollar denomination.

[arcimede$]

Arc. I would suggest to you that when you play video poker on a negative expectation game such as 8/5 bonus or 9/6 jacks there will be a time when you are ahead.

I will also remind everyone that gaming author Victor Royer has a survey that shows that 86% of casinogoers are ahead at some point but 95% leave with a loss.

Somewhere between the 86% and the 95% is the "human factor" which says to stop playing and pocket the profit.

Alan, I wrote a simulation a few months ago and gave you the results. Yes, you can win that often but it will not change your actual return over time. Your win % is dependent on two things.

1) How high your loss limit is and
2) How low your win goals are.

You may very well be 5 credits ahead at some early point in your play. If you stop then you will win that session. However, how long does it take to lose ten of your 5 credit wins? Well, one loss of only 50 credits and they vanish. You've just won over 90% of your sessions and you haven't won a cent. Now, you may say you'll set your win goal higher ... ok, your win percentage will now drop. Alan, there's no way around the math. I'm not saying this to be mean. It simply is reality.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, did you simulation include a decision about when to quit? Or was it a run of a defined number of hands?

And how do your 45% of wins overcome your 55% of losses?

[arcimede$]

Arc, did you simulation include a decision about when to quit? Or was it a run of a defined number of hands?

I built both simulators. I can test either approach.

And how do your 45% of wins overcome your 55% of losses?

By averaging larger wins. Do the math. If I lose $1000/session 55% of the time and win $2000/session 45% of the time, what is my overall result after 100 session? Clue ... what does 90K - 55K come out to?

[Alan Mendelson]

Excellent, you have a simulator that can test the "human factor." So when does your simulator "cash out" using the human factor? How did you decide to cash out or did you program in a particular win goal?

I know you have an answer for everything Arc, but the reality is you do not have an answer for everything because some things are not governed by the math. The math governs what the math governs and it can't govern what it can't govern. Deal with it.

[Alan Mendelson]

By averaging larger wins. Do the math. If I lose $1000/session 55% of the time and win $2000/session 45% of the time, what is my overall result after 100 session? Clue ... what does 90K - 55K come out to?

Haven't you caught on yet? Your numbers mean nothing because any number you invent I can invent another number to prove my point.

Why can't you just say -- gee, I guess someone could win playing a negative expectation game because actual results can differ from expected results.

You can't do that, can you? If you did, would the Earth swallow you up?

[arcimede$]

Excellent, you have a simulator that can test the "human factor." So when does your simulator "cash out" using the human factor? How did you decide to cash out or did you program in a particular win goal?

The win goal is input to the program.

I know you have an answer for everything Arc, but the reality is you do not have an answer for everything because some things are not governed by the math. The math governs what the math governs and it can't govern what it can't govern. Deal with it.

I do deal with it. It's you who won't deal with the fact that the math governs the frequency of the cards you are dealt. With that math determined frequency, the hands you see will be the statistically the same no matter when you choose to play. Hence, you will see the same number of winning hands and losing hands as anyone else. This is all what the math tells you.

So, what do you do with that information? You claim that by deciding when to stop playing on a given day that those frequencies will be altered and you will get more winning hands than another person. The only thing that you can do by deciding to quit is lower the total number of hands played. Good idea on negative machines but it can not and will not change the mathematical frequencies of the hands that are dealt to you. Deal with it.

[jatki]

Don't believe anything Singer says ... ever. He claimed he knew Dancer and yet Dancer just indicated on vp.com that he'd never seen Singer before. Now, Dancer might be lying but given Signer's track record I think he's the much more likely suspect.

Given that information the chances that Dancer really swore he wouldn't play a machine under 100% is likely another lie. In fact, it's not unusual for machines under 100% return to provide a better overall return that certain positive games like 10/7 DB or 10/6 DDB. I played a 99.8% (DB+) game at Tuscany that provided about 1.7% added cash (FP/CB) not counting comps/gift/promotions. Far better than FPDW and available in dollar denomination.

I've never seen where Singer said he knew Dancer, where is that at? I know he was interviewed by Dancer's boothmate, Shack, some time ago that's probably still up on a site. I did read about some bet Dancer offered him and when he accepted Dancer backed off. Don't know the validity of that either. But I wouldn't go calling Singer a liar, you're sounding a lot like Harry Reid. Singer provided Dancer's column info that we looked at and he was right on about what he said. It only had to do with game ev and cb. Nothing else. If it came in under 100% then Dancer said he'd quit playing. His words, not Singers. Now, from what I've seen, Dancer adds in whatever he can in order to get to more than a hundred percent. To him he calls that "playable" I think.

[arcimede$]

Singer provided Dancer's column info that we looked at and he was right on about what he said. It only had to do with game ev and cb. Nothing else. If it came in under 100% then Dancer said he'd quit playing. His words, not Singers. Now, from what I've seen, Dancer adds in whatever he can in order to get to more than a hundred percent. To him he calls that "playable" I think.

Could be true. Dancer will add in things that I wouldn't. The biggest one is promotional wins. However, there's nothing inherently wrong with what Dancer is doing. It is still based on math. However, it does increase the variance which will lead to a higher number of losing (or very small winning) years while also creating some more profitable years.

Also, a lot of the promotional stuff has been built up over time to try and attract more players. I see nothing wrong with adapting to that change.