Albert,
I don't see why not having enough play opportunities to 'complete the cycle' should keep you from a good play. Completing the cycle doesn't guarantee you will make money on the play. It's just that you have more opportunities at a positive play.
At a local casino, there was a promo where you would get $5 in free play ( usually $5 but rarely a larger value) for $150 coin in. The best game is NSUD. You could do this once a day for 3 weeks. So, I would play 120 hands of $0.25 single line NSUD each day. 120 hands is no where near a royal or deuces cycle. Even for the 15 days, it is only 1800 hands. But this is still a 3% play ( admittedly for very low coin in). If I were at this particular casino and this play were available, I would play it every chance I could. Even though I am unlikely to hit a royal or deuces in 120 hands, it's still a good play.
Here's another example. You decide to flip a coin with me and will pay 11:10 if I guess correctly but will only flip the coin once. Would I take the bet? Sure I would. And I would be willing to wager a pretty good chunk on my gambling bankroll on this wager.
There is a tradeoff between EV and variance. If you had a $1 vp machine that paid $1,000,000 for a royal flush and 0 for every other hand, would you play it if you were only allowed to play 100 hands? You have a 216% game with a royal cycle of 23,000 hands but a variance of 108,000. You might not play that one. But I would certainly do the coin flip or the NSUD example above. Just because you aren't expected to win that particular session or play doesn't mean you shouldn't play it. If you play enough 102% situations ( of all different games) you should approach that 102% return, whether it takes a week, a month or even a year ( or several years).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: greeklandjohnny@aol.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (19) |
