Poker Poker Poker!: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I guess I'm not expressing my thoughts well enough.

I think the play that Bob is doing on the ultimate x platform has to be viewed a little like your all or nothing example.

On paper it looks like a good E.V. and a game that one might want to play. When you delve deeper into the game you find that a portion of that E.V. is comprised of hands that occur once every 100 years or so.

As a player, I would want to take that fact into consideration when deciding to play.

It could be that I am completely wrong and the E.V. shouldn't be discounted. Maybe the only concern here should be an astronomical variance rating.

Can somebody come up with a good reason to play this game aside from the excitement of maybe hitting a monster hand.

Heck, I even play it a little, but not for long and not for much.

My main play on these games is harvesting left over multipliers, and I don't go out of my way to do that.

I think this is a subject that deserves some discourse. At what time if ever does volatility override E.V.?

Would Bob Dancer play a $25 single line 9/5 jacks or better game that offered a jackpot for a sequential Royal (left to right only) in spades that brought the game to an E.V. of 101% ? I know I would not play such a game at any denomination.

I'd love to hear the justification from anybody that would want to play this game.

Regards

A.P.

________________________________
From: "greeklandjohnny@aol.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

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]