Poker Poker Poker!: [vpFREE] Re: The VP MENSA MYTH LIVES ON

Craig wrote:
> My 30k reference was an error - the book said 12k. I know that this
> is a projected amount - "your mileage may vary." I also know that my
> short run numbers are irrelevant. Being able to calculate a positive
> return at this point has no bearing on my future return. I just hope
> my luck runs better than the average.

The "short term" / "long term" distinction that some make re expected
vp gaming results is quite possibly one of the greatest examples of
misdirection in discussion of gambling to be found. Among other
things it leads some to believe that gaming statistics have little
bearing on their month to month play and might reasonably be
downplayed and that particular paytables are fairly insignificant (a
logic that leads some to find elements of what R Singer writes appealing).

However, this is a harsh fallacy. Once you set aside the return
attributable to the royal (and other very infrequent hands, such as
A's with a kicker in DDB), the expected return of the remaining hands
can be expected to bear out in actual play in relatively short order.

The reason playing a strongly positive return game (101%+) is
beneficial in the short to medium term is that when you exclude the
return from the royal the balance of the game return approaches break
even. This means that during those periods you suffer a royal
drought, the drain on your bankroll is a fraction of what it is if
you're playing a break even or poorer game.

Play of a strong game is what keeps short term loss prospects
tempered. If you're relying upon luck to make your play profitable
(or just hope to keep losses mild), you put a tremendous strain on
what you hope luck will do for you when you opt for a game with a
return that is 1% or 2% smaller than the best game available to you.

- Harry