According to Nordo123's post it would take 150 years to do a full cycle on the game. The E.V. takes into account a full cycle. If you don't complete a full cycle then the E.V. should be adjusted to account for that.
I am questioning whether the game is a good bet. I suggest that the E.V. he is using is not accurate because it takes into account hands that are extremely rare. It's not like a regular royal which you know you will hit numerous times. Here we are looking for Royals with big multipliers, and dealt royals that were preceded by dealt flushes, full houses and straights. to get the mega payoffs, and I would guess that hitting any one of the mega payouts would cause the game to disappear, and you'd probably never get a chance to hit another one.
When I am playing games that have big bonuses for dealt royals or sequential royals, I give no value to those bonuses, because it is so unlikely to hit for me, that I believe it would be an unwise move to
add that into the E.V. to determine if the game is a good play.
So for the math whizzes out there. Here is the problem. What would the E.V. be on the game if you totally discounted dealt royals that were preceded by a dealt straight, flush or full house ?
A.P.
________________________________
From: "bornloser1537@yahoo.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
<smile> I like Dunbar's adage (or is it Shackleford's?). It seems a good explanation to Dancer's play.
It is not whether you win or lose, it is whether it is a good bet.
..... bl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: Albert Pearson <ehpee@rogers.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (10) |
