RE: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 17 FEB 2015

 

Nordo wrote: Nice article Bob. I can think of 3 reasons "George" should play 9/6 JOB
over 9/7 DB: 1) you pointed out the obvious reason - he loses less
money. 2) you suspect he is a poor player that makes mistakes - surely
the cost of his errors is much more in DB than in the super simple JOB.
3) depending on his age every W2G is a killer (Medicare and Social
Security). You are dealt 4 Aces every 54,145 original hands. In DB he
would get a $2,000 W2G. In JOB no W2G.

Thank you.

Insofar as George's skill level, he's actually a synthesis of three different players so it's hard to come up with one "on a scale of 1 to 10, how good is he" kind of score. I think what I said is that when he gets tired or is losing, his skill level probably suffers. I think that is true for many players, and it isn't often addressed. All of us play better when we are fresh and alert. Being successful often depends on how good we are when we're not so fresh and alert. And keeping our skill level up no matter if we're ahead or behind.

Perhaps surprisingly, you actually get less in W2Gs in DB than you do in JoB because of the differences in the royal cycle. In JoB the royal cycle is 40K hands. In DB, it's 48K hands. Let's take 48K dealt hands --- which means 480K individual hands because we're talking Ten Play. During that interval you average 12 JoB royals ($48K) and only 10 DB royals ($40K). The $8K difference in W2Gs for royals swamps the less than $2K in W2Gs for dealt aces.

Bob


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

__._,_.___
Posted by: Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: S.C.O.R.E for video poker

 

Shagatola wrote: "The thing is -- you don't just have one play for the year. You probably have a whole bunch of stuff you play. It all
works together."

OK, if everything you're playing in a tax year has similar Nzero numbers and betsizes, and the total together puts you over Nzero for the tax year, you're good. 5000 hands of FPDW at one casino would be no good, however 5000 hands of FPDW at every casino in Vegas at the same betsize would be good. However, if your play includes a game with an unusually high Nzero or betsize compared to the rest, then you have a problem, you can't just count up all your play. The high Nzero or betsize play is an outlier and if you're not playing enough hands of it you're likely taking a loss on that play, which is fine if you have offsetting wins from your other plays, but if it forces you to take a net loss for the tax year, your EV is no longer what you thought it was since you don't get a corresponding tax credit for a gambling loss. Lower EV means more bankroll risk and even longer Nzero numbers and if it goes negative, well ...

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

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (10)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 17 FEB 2015

 

Nice article Bob. I can think of 3 reasons "George" should play 9/6 JOB over 9/7 DB: 1) you pointed out the obvious reason - he loses less money. 2) you suspect he is a poor player that makes mistakes - surely the cost of his errors is much more in DB than in the super simple JOB. 3) depending on his age every W2G is a killer (Medicare and Social Security). You are dealt 4 Aces every 54,145 original hands. In DB he would get a $2,000 W2G. In JOB no W2G.

Sent from my iPhone

__._,_.___
Posted by: nordo123@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___

RE: revision?...[vpFREE] Re: Retirement & its impact

 

Well said

My only comment is you guys that say I do not know if I will live to 70 then you are like a lot of people that only are looking for what they can get now. You must believe that you have no future. You also need to take into account your surviving spouse and what will benefit her when you pass.

There are many consideration in taking SS early one is your health. I have just applied for SS and will be leaving that BIG BLUE GLOP (IBM) in July to fend for myself.

If you want I can send everyone the great pictures of me and the wife in Las Vegas at the expense of the of Casinos. I look at what I would have at 65 and now and YES I made money every year by not taking it at 65. May I live long to see more money then I put in.

PBK

security (early) and you still continue working, your social security is 85% taxable

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 5:47 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: revision?...[vpFREE] Re: Retirement & its impact

Sent just to JT (not to all).

If you use your logic for taking social security (early) and you still continue working, your social security is 85% taxable, so you will lose some 30% (depending upon your tax bracket) of it to Uncle Sam when you file your tax return each year…making your analysis conclusion, that in every situation, you should wait until you are required to begin taking your social security benefit, which is age 70, and then seriously consider stopping your earnings flow from working.

Do you agree? Is my argument accurate?

DTH

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

__._,_.___
Posted by: "Paul K" <paulbkramer@cox.net>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3)

.

__,_._,___

RE: XVP Re: [vpFREE] Retirement & its impact

 

mcuddington wrote: Dennis Koslowski got out of prison last month, and had a net worth of
$600 Million. If I can ever retire, I'll have the time to hunt for his
kneecaps!

I can at least in theory understand your frustration and anger. However, publishing such blatant threats is not a smart idea. Should someone shoot at his knees (surely you're not the only one with such anger), you're going to be a suspect even if you can prove you were playing FPDW when it happened. You think you have problems now?

Better to keep such thoughts to yourself.

Bob

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

__._,_.___
Posted by: Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 17 FEB 2015

 

Bob Dancer's LVA - 17 FEB 2015

Comparing Quarter Ten Play --- 9-6 Jacks or Better versus 9-7 Double Bonus

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2015/0217.cfm

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Posted by: vpFREE3355 <vpfree3355@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Re: XVP Re: [vpFREE] Retirement & its impact

 

I can sympathize....the Tyco scandal wiped out almost half a million that I had spent over 20 years saving.

Dennis Koslowski got out of prison last month, and had a net worth of $600 Million. If I can ever retire, I'll have the time to hunt for his kneecaps!

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

__._,_.___
Posted by: mcuddington@hotmail.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (6)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Would you play FPDW if you could only play 5,000 hands?

 

Shagatola asked: "Would you play FPDW if you could only play 5,000
hands?"

5000 hands of FPDW in isolation doesn't really interest me, you lose about 55% of the time. I really don't like losing, it makes me feel like a loser. Now, on the other hand, if I could play Nzero (variance/edge^2) hands, I still have about a 16% chance of losing, which sucks, but the 84% chance of winning makes me feel like a winner, at least I know the math is in my favor. Jazbo generated curves at 5000 hands that might be worth a look:

Video Poker Probability Distributions http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/curves.html

http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/curves.html

Video Poker Probability Distributions http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/curves.html Video Poker Probability Distributions Copyright © 1999, Jazbo Enterprises Last changed 1/9/99



View on www.jazb... http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/curves.html
Preview by Yahoo




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

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (8)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: S.C.O.R.E for video poker

 

I'm not disagreeing with the math. I'm disagreeing with your
logic.

The thing is -- you don't just have one play for the year.
You probably have a whole bunch of stuff you play. It all
works together.

What would you do if you had 10 different casinos and they
each had a point multiplier day to push a game positive and
each had a different game? Each will have a different EV,
variance, N0, # hands, etc. Play or don't play (because of
N0)? Do you look at each of them individually? Or do you
look at everything as a whole? If you look at each
individually, you might realize that you don't cover N0 for
each.....but if you look at them as a whole, then you do.

Now, replace 9 of those casinos with +EV days with 9
different plays.

If you have enough play for the year (or plan on it), then
go ahead and play, even if you can only flip the coin 10
times. If you have no (or very little) play for the year,
then don't play.

_____________________________________________

>Shagatola wrote: "Would you bet on a coin flip with a 10% edge (pays -1
>or +1.2 for heads or tails) if you could only make the bet a
>few times?"

"nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

>If I could do it at least 121 times per tax year, I'd
consider it ...

__._,_.___
Posted by: Shagatola <shagatola@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (9)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: S.C.O.R.E for video poker

 

Shagatola wrote: "Would you bet on a coin flip with a 10% edge (pays -1
or +1.2 for heads or tails) if you could only make the bet a
few times?"

The variance is .5(-1-0.1)^2 + .5(1.2-0.1)^2 = 1.21

The N0 is 1.21/.1/.1= 121

If I could do it at least 121 times per tax year, I'd consider it. A few times would be out of the question, unless I knew I had other gambling winnings that I could offset it with. I wouldn't want to pay taxes on the variance. Even at N0 you still have a 16% chance of losing, meaning about 1 year in 6. With one coin flip you have a 50% chance of losing. With one coin flip per tax year you pay taxes on 1.2 in the good years when your true win is only 0.1 per tax year. Between one and N0 you can extrapolate.

Shagatola wrote: "Would you play FPDW if you could only play 5,000
hands?"

Per tax year and no offsetting gambling winnings? No. You'd be paying taxes on the deuces and royals you hit in the good years with no carry forward of the losses incurred in bad years. If you don't see how that impacts your true EV, well then go for it!







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

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: S.C.O.R.E for video poker

 

Shagatola wrote: "I don't think #3 applies"

The primary issue is taxes. Gambling losses can not legally be carried forward or backward, so any losing year due to variance means an additional penalty in the corresponding winning years, which will be inflated by variance. You don't want to pay tax on variance, if you do it's an additional hit to EV and can easily wipe out the EV you thought you had.

But, you should keep in mind that EV is the long term average result, and is expressed in the long term. Nzero is an indication that you are entering the long term. At Nzero you have about an 84% chance of being a winner and about a 16% chance of still being a loser, that's even with an edge. If you don't have an edge the situation reverses: 84% chance of losing and only 16% chance of winning. It's a simple yet powerful concept, one that merits more than a casual glance in my opinion but as always you are free to define your own rules and ignore what the math says:

vpFREE Bank_NO http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Bank_NO.htm



vpFREE Bank_NO http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Bank_NO.htm Very early on, upon joining this board, iggy introduced a concept which he references in shorthand as "N0".



View on www.west-point.org http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Bank_NO.htm
Preview by Yahoo




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

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (6)

.

__,_._,___

Re: XVP Re: [vpFREE] Retirement & its impact

 

Having gotten caught in the USA Capital swindle, I needed to take Social
Security at 62. Never a moment's regret. Since I have continued to work I
have gotten extra tiny increases in the amount, which concatenates since
every increase is by percentage on top of previous ones. It's worked fine
for me - I'm now 73 with no idea if I'll outlive the age 78 breakeven point.
Life is good.

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

__._,_.___
Posted by: krallison416@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (5)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Scot Krause's Real Deals - 17 FEB 2015

 

Scot Krause's Real Deals - 17 FEB 2015

Las Vegas Casino bargains and promotions

http://gamingtoday.com/articles/article/52114-South_Point_hosting_1M_penny_perks_promo#.VONRi_nF-f8

or

http://goo.gl/R6g86E

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Posted by: vpFREE3355 <vpfree3355@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: Retirement & its impact

 

Nice analysis, straub.

The life expectancy of 66 year old males is 84.5 years. (according to: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi ) For 66 year old females it's 86.8 years. So, given the breakeven threshold of 83 years for someone who postpones starting SS until 70, waiting is a reasonable choice for single people in average or better health. A single females would, on average, collect an extra $125,000 by waiting until 70, under the assumptions in your example.


As you noted, being married adds a lot of complication to the analysis and decision.


--Dunbar


---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <straub@...> wrote :

You don't make an 8% return if you wait a year or a 32% return if you wait four years. You do make 8% more the year you do start taking it beyond standard retirement age and every year after that until age 70, but that is not an additional 8% return. Here's why: you are forgoing one to four years of payments entirely when you postpone one to four years


If you retire on time say at 66, and you're entitled to $25,000 per year, when you are 80 you would get $25,000 x 14 years = $350,000. If you wait one year you will get 8% more or $27,000 per year. When you are 80, however, you will only get 13 years (because you gave up the first year entirely) at $27,000 = $351,000. So it takes 14 years just to get back to essentially even by postponing one year or to age 80 before there is any benefit or added return.


Again, if you retire on time say at 66, and you're entitled to $25,000 per year, when you are 80 again you would get $25,000 x 14 years = $350,000. If you wait four years until you are 70 you will get 8% more per year or $33,000 per year. When you are 80, however, you will only get 10 years of payments (because you gave up the first four years entirely) at $33,000 = $330,000. So it will take more than 14 years just to get even. In the 4 year postponement scenario it works out to almost 17 years just to break even or to age 83 before there is any added benefit or added return beyond just break even.


I'm not saying don't postpone, but by no means are you getting an 8% return per year by waiting. Giving up $100,000 in the first four years to get $8,000 per year more after year fours may not be a good deal. In fact, it would be no benefit for those that die around age 83, a negative total return for those that die before age 83, and a positive return only for those that die after age 83.


These simple break even analyses do not consider that present dollars are more valuable than future dollars and conversely that future dollars are worth less than present dollars, which would make postponing even less attractive. Also this does not consider any inflation adjustments you will get on your payments in any scenarios. Also this does not consider spousal benefits, which complicate things even further.


So your life expectancy and your spouses eligibility and life expectancy (assuming you have a spouse) must be factored in and that could make it more complicated than the two simple scenarios above.


ST



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



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

__._,_.___
Posted by: h_dunbar@hotmail.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (13)

.

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