[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

Cute theory, that is, until reality comes into play (and Frank, I'm sure we'll be discussing this in the weeks ahead). Reality? The math is there allright--but it's always on the side of the casinos. Without a doubt. Just take a look up at all the buildings in & around LV, then try and keep up with all the promotions and giveaways going on non-stop around town.

Yes, when you go up against the math, you are not going to win without a whole lot of luck.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Pollard" <vpollard@...> wrote:
>
> Frank wrote,
> " You and the math are on the same side, comrades in arms, don't shoot it and create a friendly fire incident. Math is your friend, think of its kids at home waiting for it to return"
>
>
> I love this thought, metaphoric as it may be.
>
> Valerie
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6298 (20110715) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

Frank wrote,
" You and the math are on the same side, comrades in arms, don't shoot it and create a friendly fire incident. Math is your friend, think of its kids at home waiting for it to return"

I love this thought, metaphoric as it may be.

Valerie

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6298 (20110715) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Peter M." <midnight1626@...> wrote:
>
>
> Incidentally the chances of missing 227 times in a row is about 1 in 132.
>

Exactly! It's practically even-money.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Tomorrow: JUL 2011 vpFREE Lunch @ Gold Coast

 

I'll be in the area but I'll be attending the Las Vegas Film Festival at
the Hilton. Very unlikely (though possible) that I can pop into lunch.

Karen

" I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great
pleasure."
Mark Twain

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Bob Bartop <bobbartop@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Sai Sai" <gofastnismo@...> wrote:
> > A buddy of mine went 228 times with drawing one to the royal before hitting it.

Incidentally the chances of missing 227 times in a row is about 1 in 132.

> What did he do? Write it down? Sit there with a counter and click it every
> time he missed a one-card draw? lol Talk about an exercise in fertility.

Well, it's pretty clear you mean "futility" although the guy probably
thought he was getting screwed, so "fertility" may apply after all :-)

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Sai Sai <gofastnismo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> People dont go bust because they ignore the other math, they go bust
> because sometimes that unlucky streak stays unlucky for too damn long.
> You know what Im saying Frank. Just because the the math says a specific
> bankroll is needed to have confidence you wont go broke doesn't mean
> that will happen.

OK, "ignore" may have been a poor choice of words, but the math never says
people can't get unlucky. Bankroll calcs don't even guarantee you won't
get broke. They merely say, if you play this game with this much bankroll
you have a 90%, or 95%, or 99%, or whatever, chance of not going broke.

> I was implying that some people consider the math to be concrete

The math *is* concrete. The issue we have is that the math only says
what's expected over the long term. You still have to play the hands, and
yes the results will deviate from the expectation.

> and those machines advertising over 100% payback are always going to do
> just that. Not the case.

I don't think anyone has said "anyone can sit down with any size bankroll
and be guaranteed a short-term profit on the M progressives."

Anyway I don't think we actually disagree all that much, I think we're
quibbling over a minor point.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Sai Sai" <gofastnismo@...> wrote:
>
A buddy of mine went 228 times with drawing one to the royal before hitting it.

What did he do? Write it down? Sit there with a counter and click it every time he missed a one-card draw? lol Talk about an exercise in fertility.

Let's see. A 46-to-1 shot, and he missed it 227 times. Holy crap, the world is about to end.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

I know exactly what you are saying and I agree with you. I was just pointing out that "The Math" actually accounts for what you are saying. You and the math are on the same side, comrades in arms, don't shoot it and create a friendly fire incident. Math is your friend, think of its kids at home waiting for it to return. ooops getting too metaphoric...ending now.

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Sai Sai" <gofastnismo@...> wrote:
>
> People dont go bust because they ignore the other math, they go bust because sometimes that unlucky streak stays unlucky for too damn long. You know what Im saying Frank. Just because the the math says a specific bankroll is needed to have confidence you wont go broke doesn't mean that will happen. I know people that have busted having double the bankroll consideration needed. Sometimes those royals and other big hands go to long without being hit. I know plenty of people that went 10+ cycles without a royal. A buddy of mine went 228 times with drawing one to the royal before hitting it. Strange things can and do happen that will kill that bankroll. I was implying that some people consider the math to be concrete and those machines advertising over 100% payback are always going to do just that. Not the case.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Peter M." <midnight1626@> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sai Sai <gofastnismo@> wrote:
> > > Id say 99% of the people dont gamble for a living on this board and dont
> > > have never ending bankrolls. This makes short term play a big deal. Most
> > > people want to play not ride a progressive for days on end trying to get
> > > the mathematical payback.
> >
> > This repeats an oft-held fallacy that math doesn't matter for short term
> > results. The answer is that of course it does.
> >
> > Suppose player A and player B go to the casino once a week and play 1,000
> > hands each. Player A always plays FPDW and player B always plays 6/5
> > Bonus Poker. 1,000 hands is obviously short term, so on any given week,
> > neither player will achieve their mathematically expected result. Some
> > weeks player A will do better than player B and vice versa.
> >
> > But if they keep doing this every week, which one do you think will have
> > more money at the end of one year? At the end of two years?
> >
> > The fallacy of "it's only 1,000 hands, so the math doesn't matter" is that
> > you could say that every time, and then you find yourself as player B.
> >
> > (The mathematical way of expressing this is: the overall expected value of
> > a series of events is simply the sum of the individual expected values of
> > each individual event. It doesn't matter when the events occur, or how
> > close together, or how many of them happen on any particular day.)
> >
> > > If you cant understand this than your not as smart as you think you are
> > > Bob. The math doesn't always work and there have been pros that have
> > > busted.
> >
> > The math *does* work. Pros go busted when they ignore *other* math, which
> > says how big of a bankroll you should have to have a certain level of
> > confidence of surviving a horribly unlucky streak.
> >
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Sai Sai" <gofastnismo@...> wrote:
>
> If you cant understand this than your not as smart as you think you are Bob.

I'm smart enough to know that I still have a lot to learn.

-------------

The math doesn't always work and there have been pros that have busted. If you want to talk balls go play $5-10k a hand on Pai Gow or baccarat. Maybe a $20k buy in on an Omaha game. Taking a shot at 25 cent or a dollar progressive has nothing to do with balls.
>
>

Or, if you're concerned about losing your bankroll, then play for dimes. If it's a "gambling fix" you're interested in then that should satisfy your "jones". Plus, if one lives in a place like Vegas, like I assume you do, one can actually find quite favorable situations for dimes. That may not be so in other parts of the country, but I know there are good games for dimes in Vegas.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

For not laying out all the math you were very close.

If you mean the dollar then the number is closer to $22,500...no need to sugar coat it.

For the quarter it would be $5,625

That's 72 hours of constant play at 1000 HPH without a Royal, the chance of which is 11%. The other 89% have less grim stories to tell. And about 70% of those will be ahead at least a little. The remaining 30% (of the 89%) will be buying new cars. But hay, that's gambling. I thought you all liked gambling?

Here's the exact numbers.
Using Poisson Distribution we get:
72,000 hands
0 RF = 10.291%
1 RF = 23.4%
2 RF = 26.65%
3 RF = 20.166%
4 RF = 11.464%
5 RF = 5.214%
6 RF = 1.976%

Now imagine the cost remains the same, 22,500 in loses.

Then a $14,000 for each Royal you got and see how it breaks down. Anything more than 1 RF in 72,000 hands and you are a happy camper.

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <melbedewy1226@...> wrote:
I'm not going to lay out all the math but suffice to say if you play the dollar progressive at 1000 hands an hour for 72 hours without a royal you are likely to be down a little north of 20 grand.
> Not really a great vacation at least for me. I'll stick to quarter FPDW, play leisurely and yes I will have a cocktail thank you very much.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

People dont go bust because they ignore the other math, they go bust because sometimes that unlucky streak stays unlucky for too damn long. You know what Im saying Frank. Just because the the math says a specific bankroll is needed to have confidence you wont go broke doesn't mean that will happen. I know people that have busted having double the bankroll consideration needed. Sometimes those royals and other big hands go to long without being hit. I know plenty of people that went 10+ cycles without a royal. A buddy of mine went 228 times with drawing one to the royal before hitting it. Strange things can and do happen that will kill that bankroll. I was implying that some people consider the math to be concrete and those machines advertising over 100% payback are always going to do just that. Not the case.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Peter M." <midnight1626@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sai Sai <gofastnismo@...> wrote:
> > Id say 99% of the people dont gamble for a living on this board and dont
> > have never ending bankrolls. This makes short term play a big deal. Most
> > people want to play not ride a progressive for days on end trying to get
> > the mathematical payback.
>
> This repeats an oft-held fallacy that math doesn't matter for short term
> results. The answer is that of course it does.
>
> Suppose player A and player B go to the casino once a week and play 1,000
> hands each. Player A always plays FPDW and player B always plays 6/5
> Bonus Poker. 1,000 hands is obviously short term, so on any given week,
> neither player will achieve their mathematically expected result. Some
> weeks player A will do better than player B and vice versa.
>
> But if they keep doing this every week, which one do you think will have
> more money at the end of one year? At the end of two years?
>
> The fallacy of "it's only 1,000 hands, so the math doesn't matter" is that
> you could say that every time, and then you find yourself as player B.
>
> (The mathematical way of expressing this is: the overall expected value of
> a series of events is simply the sum of the individual expected values of
> each individual event. It doesn't matter when the events occur, or how
> close together, or how many of them happen on any particular day.)
>
> > If you cant understand this than your not as smart as you think you are
> > Bob. The math doesn't always work and there have been pros that have
> > busted.
>
> The math *does* work. Pros go busted when they ignore *other* math, which
> says how big of a bankroll you should have to have a certain level of
> confidence of surviving a horribly unlucky streak.
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sai Sai <gofastnismo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Id say 99% of the people dont gamble for a living on this board and dont
> have never ending bankrolls. This makes short term play a big deal. Most
> people want to play not ride a progressive for days on end trying to get
> the mathematical payback.

This repeats an oft-held fallacy that math doesn't matter for short term
results. The answer is that of course it does.

Suppose player A and player B go to the casino once a week and play 1,000
hands each. Player A always plays FPDW and player B always plays 6/5
Bonus Poker. 1,000 hands is obviously short term, so on any given week,
neither player will achieve their mathematically expected result. Some
weeks player A will do better than player B and vice versa.

But if they keep doing this every week, which one do you think will have
more money at the end of one year? At the end of two years?

The fallacy of "it's only 1,000 hands, so the math doesn't matter" is that
you could say that every time, and then you find yourself as player B.

(The mathematical way of expressing this is: the overall expected value of
a series of events is simply the sum of the individual expected values of
each individual event. It doesn't matter when the events occur, or how
close together, or how many of them happen on any particular day.)

> If you cant understand this than your not as smart as you think you are
> Bob. The math doesn't always work and there have been pros that have
> busted.

The math *does* work. Pros go busted when they ignore *other* math, which
says how big of a bankroll you should have to have a certain level of
confidence of surviving a horribly unlucky streak.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

You all seem to be doing fine offering both sides of the argument, so I have little to add, but one thing jumped out at me.

I was hoping you could clarify this statement. You said,

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Sai Sai" <gofastnismo@...> wrote:
The math doesn't always work and there have been pros that have busted.

Are you offering the fact that pros have busted as proof the math doesn't work? Or did you mean something else?

The reason I ask is the math says that most pros will make money and some will bust out. If some pros have busted out, that would be an argument for the math working, not one against it. Your statement seems to contradict itself, but I may have misunderstood you.

If all pros won all the time, then I'd question the math. If no pros one at all, I'd question the math. If most win and some lose, I see all things transpiring correctly.

If probability tell us there is a 99% chance of success, it's no big surprise when one in a hundred takes the worst of it.

~FK

P.S. I calculated the chance of succeeding as a progressive pro back in the day closer to 96%. In contrast, small business ownership has around a 15% success rate. Both require startup capital.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

I'm not going to lay out all the math but suffice to say if you play the dollar progressive at 1000 hands an hour for 72 hours without a royal you are likely to be down a little north of 20 grand.
Not really a great vacation at least for me. I'll stick to quarter FPDW, play leisurely and yes I will have a cocktail thank you very much.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cheryl10jqka" <cheryl.mohme@...> wrote:
>
> What would a realistic bankroll be for 72 hrs play on those progs? And what is the real expected result after that amount of time? To hit one of the royals? For that amount of investment what are you going for? I am still learning about how the math works on these.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@> wrote:
> >
> > Not too shabby, of course. But she lost--as most people will who play these progressives, especially those who just drop in for a quick shot at them. If you don't have all day and night today, tomorrow and the next day with a $20,000 bankroll for quarters only, you're just going to be a major part of building the progressive jackpots for those who do.
> >
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, patricia swenson <jackessiebabe@>
> > > >  
> > > > We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a $2995 RF meter. 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The game itself worth 1.5%, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback.
> > >
> > > At least $20 an hour. Not too shabby.
> > >
> >
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

 

Id say 99% of the people dont gamble for a living on this board and dont have never ending bankrolls. This makes short term play a big deal. Most people want to play not ride a progressive for days on end trying to get the mathematical payback. If you cant understand this than your not as smart as you think you are Bob. The math doesn't always work and there have been pros that have busted. If you want to talk balls go play $5-10k a hand on Pai Gow or baccarat. Maybe a $20k buy in on an Omaha game. Taking a shot at 25 cent or a dollar progressive has nothing to do with balls.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <melbedewy1226@> wrote:
> >
> > Given that mentality one would be "happy" if they lost all their worldy possessions playing $100 10/7 DB mathematically correctly.
> > Not me. I'll stick to slow playing FPDW -with one eye ALWAYS on alert for the cocktail girl.
> >
>
>
> And thanks, Mike, for deliberately twisting my point.
>
> But really, if all someone is concerned with is having a good time or surviving a short-term "shot", then why not gamb00l up?! There's no right and wrong to this matter. To each his own. But all this talk about having a smoother ride is tantamount to being a nit. There used to be a saying at the poker table when I was a young man. "No balls, no blue chips!"
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)