Re: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JUL 2012

 

That smoldering turd of a law was crapped out by legislative panic in 1985 over hidden BJ computers. It is widely regarded in legal circles as a joke (unconstitutionally vague). As Stanford Wong Pointed out that year in Winning Gamer, all baccarat players using tracking cards beware, because "pens and pencils are 'devices' and you could get ten years in prison." I almost wish the state would attempt a prosecution, just to watch this sorry legal stink pie go down in flames.

Sent from TC iPad

On Jul 11, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Speaking of the 26c JoB Ten Plays at Palms, there was an Asian family of three playing them yesterday with an iPhone app of WinPoker, and they were punching in almost every hand to determine the best play.
>
> As far as I can tell (not a lawyer), they are lucky they weren't arrested:
>
> http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-465.html#NRS465Sec075 I suppose I interpret the law the same way that you do --- EXCEPT --- I've never heard of anybody being busted for using an iPhone app to help them play video poker. Have you? Until that law is used to arrest somebody and it goes through the courts, it's impossible to know what that law really means. For a law to be meaningful it needs to be enforced. Bob
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JUL 2012

 


I use that app occasionally in AC and have never had the slightest problem. Subsections C and D however, do seem to fit the criteria. It appears this law is designed to prevent real cheaters like cameras on the roulette wheel and what not. The way it reads you can use a paper strategy card at blackjack but not a picture of a strategy card stored on your phone. You can use "video poker strategy cards" sold by the "pro's" at loutrageous prices, but you can't use a strategy analyzer on an iphone app. Sounds silly. Because as long as your playing a negative game like 9/6, the casino still has the advantage. FPDW you have an actual advantage but a very leal one. I personally don't see it being a problem. But I wouldn't wanna find out the hard way.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Speaking of the 26c JoB Ten Plays at Palms, there was an Asian family of three playing them yesterday with an iPhone app of WinPoker, and they were punching in almost every hand to determine the best play.
>
> As far as I can tell (not a lawyer), they are lucky they weren't arrested:
>
> http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-465.html#NRS465Sec075 I suppose I interpret the law the same way that you do --- EXCEPT --- I've never heard of anybody being busted for using an iPhone app to help them play video poker. Have you? Until that law is used to arrest somebody and it goes through the courts, it's impossible to know what that law really means. For a law to be meaningful it needs to be enforced. Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: another progressive question

 

I used to play the quarter 9/6 Jacks progressives at the Cal-Neva. The bartops in the Virginian and the Keno Lounge had 1.5% meters. The bartops in the Skywalk had a 2% meter. I used the strategy based on a 9200 coin royal because thats when all the pros hit the bank. I didn't concern myself with breakpoints past 9200 coins. The key breakpoints are the three-card royals over high pairs. Breakpoints past that don't do a whole lot to lower the royal odds. And I'm a big fan of the KISS principle. The math I used looked like this:

9200 coin royal = 102.598%
The royal represented 4.89% of the payback.
So I'm taking a 3.052% drop.
Cost: $1243 (1.25 X 32589 X 3.052%)
Average royal = $2911 (1.25 X 32589 X 1.5% + $2300)
Average Profit = $1668 ($2911 minus $1243)

My cruising speed is 1000 GPH. If I try to push it up to 1100 GPH I start making mistakes.

Hourly rate = $51 ($1668/32.589)

But what would the math look like if I were using min-cost? If you pull up 9/6 Jacks on the software, then punch in a 4880 coin royal and analyze it will come up exactly 100%

4880 coin royal = 100%
The royal represents 2.72% of payback.
So I'm taking a 2.72% drop
Cost = $1222 (1.25 X 35939 X 2.72%)
Average royal = $2974 (1.25 X 35939 X 1.5% + $2300)
Average Profit = $1752 ($2974 minus $1222)
Hourly rate = $48.75 ($1752/35.939)

And what if I took the meter into account and played a 98.5% strategy?

1570 coin royal = 98.5%
The royal represents .63% of the payback
So I'm taking a 2.13% drop
Cost = $1333 (1.25 X 50,085 X 2.13%)
Average royal = $3239 (1.25 X 50085 X 2.13% = $2300)
Average profit = $1906 ($3239 minus $1333)
Hourly rate = $38 ($1906/50.085)

The 1570 coin strategy has the lowest hourly rate but makes the most money.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Re: Gambling with an Edge --- July 12

 


Ed Miller wrote: Chance of being on GWAE this week has dropped a bit as I had a solid day 1
and am up to 84k chips from the starting 30k. Ed busted out at the end of Day 2 so he will be on the show tomorrow night. Bob





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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JUL 2012

 


> Speaking of the 26c JoB Ten Plays at Palms, there was an Asian family of three playing them yesterday with an iPhone app of WinPoker, and they were punching in almost every hand to determine the best play.

As far as I can tell (not a lawyer), they are lucky they weren't arrested:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-465.html#NRS465Sec075 I suppose I interpret the law the same way that you do --- EXCEPT --- I've never heard of anybody being busted for using an iPhone app to help them play video poker. Have you? Until that law is used to arrest somebody and it goes through the courts, it's impossible to know what that law really means. For a law to be meaningful it needs to be enforced. Bob



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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: another progressive question

 

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
>I'm not sure, from a practical perspective, how much more "playable" a progressive is via adopting min-cost vs max-ER.

There are some important hands: like breaking a pat straight flush to go for the royal, or the more common tossing a pair to draw two to the royal, especially in games with bonus or progressive quads. These are also situations where the Kelly system comes into play.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: another progressive question

 

Harry wrote:

>I hope I won't be excessive in adding on to Tom's sensible reply ...
>
>Generally speaking, the more aggressively you play for a RF hit, the greater your expected loss per hand between royals (at the extreme, you're tossing paying pairs, e.g.) But the fact that you shorten the royal cycle at the same time serves to soften that cost.

There were machines in Lake Tahoe that had more than a 10% hold. The
player who introduced me to the concept of drawing less aggressively
to the royal for the sake of extending the play wanted to, for the
sake of being conservative, not draw to the royal on a type of hand
that normally adds great fluctuation to a play, but in this case
reduced the cycle by more than it increased the cost per hand, thus,
overall, reducing the cost to hit the jackpot. I had to point out to
him that the conservative approach, overall, besides the more
profitable one, was to be more aggressive on that type of hand.

>The $64 question is at what point do you optimize the tradeoff between these two effects? I take it on faith that (ignoring meter advance) a strategy based on a meter that yields a 100% ER minimizes loss between royals.
>
>I imagine it takes a bit of calculus to demonstrate this (I also expect an inductive proof ... one in which you assume an opposite assumption and then demonstrate that it yields a contradiction with known fact, would also crack the problem). The point is, unlike much in vp, a little applied algebra isn't going to do the job.

I never necessarily formally proved it. I just made a list of how
much it cost to hit the jackpot with various strategies and saw that
it converged to its lowest point at the point at which it broke even.

>In these discussions, I try hard to not miss the "forest for the trees". It's easy to get lost in the myriad minor considerations. For that reason, I personally would prefer to steer clear of Tom's refinement (setting strategy at 100% - prog adv rate ... which is spot on in maximizing expected profit). Please bear in mind that in most cases, we're typically talking of a distinction that tallies to less than a penny or two an hour.)

It can be negligible and overestimated, although when Harrah's Marina
in Atlantic City had 3% meters on several banks of $1 6/5 Jacks or
Better machines and a team often locked them up and then played as if
they had infinite competition, I estimated the cost to them from doing
that per year to be 5 figures.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: another progressive question

 

I hope I won't be excessive in adding on to Tom's sensible reply ...

Generally speaking, the more aggressively you play for a RF hit, the greater your expected loss per hand between royals (at the extreme, you're tossing paying pairs, e.g.) But the fact that you shorten the royal cycle at the same time serves to soften that cost.

The $64 question is at what point do you optimize the tradeoff between these two effects? I take it on faith that (ignoring meter advance) a strategy based on a meter that yields a 100% ER minimizes loss between royals.

I imagine it takes a bit of calculus to demonstrate this (I also expect an inductive proof ... one in which you assume an opposite assumption and then demonstrate that it yields a contradiction with known fact, would also crack the problem). The point is, unlike much in vp, a little applied algebra isn't going to do the job.

In these discussions, I try hard to not miss the "forest for the trees". It's easy to get lost in the myriad minor considerations. For that reason, I personally would prefer to steer clear of Tom's refinement (setting strategy at 100% - prog adv rate ... which is spot on in maximizing expected profit). Please bear in mind that in most cases, we're typically talking of a distinction that tallies to less than a penny or two an hour.)

- H.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
>
> Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
> the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
> per hand.
>
> vpplayer88 wrote:
>
> >I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
> >
> >I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: another progressive question

 



--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
>
> Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
> the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
> per hand.
>
> vpplayer88 wrote:
>
> >I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
> >
> >I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JUL 2012

 



> Speaking of the 26c JoB Ten Plays at Palms, there was an Asian family of three playing them yesterday with an iPhone app of WinPoker, and they were punching in almost every hand to determine the best play.

As far as I can tell (not a lawyer), they are lucky they weren't arrested:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-465.html#NRS465Sec075

NEVADA CHAPTER 465 - CRIMES AND LIABILITIES CONCERNING GAMING

INRS 465.075 Use or possession of device to obtain advantage at playing game in licensed gaming establishment.

1. It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment, including, without limitation, a device that:

(a) Projects the outcome of the game;

(b) Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play;

(c) Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to a game; or

(d) Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,

Ê except as may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the Commission.

2. As used in this section, "advantage" means a benefit obtained by one or more participants in a game through information or knowledge that is not made available as part of the game as approved by the Board or Commission.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 970; A 2011, 216)

ST

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] New Format

 

Ditto here for layout.  Went to the traditional layout which is not good but is readable.  May be glitch with software on their end.

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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JUL 2012

 



Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 10, 2012, at 4:38 PM, vpFREE Administrator <vpfree3355@gmail.com> wrote:

Speaking of the 26c JoB Ten Plays at Palms, there was an Asian family of three playing them yesterday with an iPhone app of WinPoker, and they were punching in almost every hand to determine the best play.

> Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 10 JUL 2012
>
> "How the Mighty Have Fallen"
>
> http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/0710.cfm
>
> <a href="http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/0710.cfm">
> http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2012/0710.cfm</a>
>
>
>

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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: another progressive question

 

It's exactly right. The strategy which maximizes the value of the
play, assuming there's no competition, assumes that the royal is at
break even, including meter rise. For a 2% meter, play assuming the
machine is fixed at a 98% payout.

vpplayer88 wrote:

>I think I see the logic of it now, thanks.
>
>One thing that is still bugging me is that meter rise isn't considered. It seems intuitive that of you have two separate machines with the same current jackpot but different meter rise, then you should play to hit royals less often on the one with the higher meter rise.
>
>Drawing to a royal is like an option to end the game. For the machine with the higher meter rise, the value of continuing the game is greater, so the option to end the game should be taken less often. Why is that wrong?
>
>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
>>
>> Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
>> the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
>> per hand.
>>
>> vpplayer88 wrote:
>>
>> >I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
>> >
>> >I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
>>
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: another progressive question

 

I think I see the logic of it now, thanks.

One thing that is still bugging me is that meter rise isn't considered. It seems intuitive that of you have two separate machines with the same current jackpot but different meter rise, then you should play to hit royals less often on the one with the higher meter rise.

Drawing to a royal is like an option to end the game. For the machine with the higher meter rise, the value of continuing the game is greater, so the option to end the game should be taken less often. Why is that wrong?

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
>
> Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
> the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
> per hand.
>
> vpplayer88 wrote:
>
> >I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
> >
> >I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: another progressive question

 

Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
per hand.

vpplayer88 wrote:

>I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
>
>I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

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