Multiplying a 5-coin return by 5/6 to get a 6-coin return properly accounts for the 0 pays. I suspect the difference between the two methods would be even greater if another way of treating the 0 pays is used. Can you show the calculation to get from 116.7175% to 97.1756%?
----- mikeymic <mikeymic@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nudge51" <nudge51@...> wrote:
> >
>
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Hopefully this is my final will and testament response to this post. The
> > E.R. (long term Expected Return) is not an estimate of any kind. It is a
> > mathematics calculation.
> >
> > Since this is a five coin paytable that the program is analyzing, you must
> > now multiply the total return shown by .83333333333 to reflect the return
> > for a game requiring a six coin bet, and you should determine the return to
> > be 97.2645%. My disclaimer: I don't believe that I am a genius, but maybe
> > the VP Genius is not as genius as they thought they were. Nudge
>
> Actually the mistake in my earlier message was mine and no fault of vpgenius. I went back to the original post and discovered the payoff for a straight was specified as 4 and not 5. The default value on the vpgenius site for a straight on this game is 5. As for the original question a return of 4 for a straight on a Double Bonus game is a red flag in itself.
>
> The Super Triple Play return is actually less than you suggest. vpgenius calculates it at 97.1756% with a variance of 64.4697. The reason you cannot simply multiply the five coin return by .833333 is that it does not compensate for the "NOTHING" return of zero with the additional coin bet. Since 0 x.83333 (for six coins bet) isn't proportionately smaller than 0 (for five coins bet) an adjustment has to be calculated and then integrated into the return separately. And in this case it makes an already weak game even worse.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
