Which Game is Better?

[FAA]

I play dollars against my own thread vows so that I actually can walk out after. Or at least go to quarters for either a small loss or gain. Bonus really is a welcome change of scenery. I'd be overjoyed if I actually hit anything above 5-K. Maybe even jump off the chair.

[Gronbog]

The best quarter Deuces Wild game is 97.579% with max coins ($1.25).   If I move up to dollar play, the game is 98.9%.  Both games are obviously negative.   If I play single coin dollars, the 98.9% game drops to 97.686% because I lose the royal flush bonus.














I think the math shows playing single coin dollars is the better
choice.  On every wild royal, the single coin dollar player is going to
get 5 extra dollars.  On every five-of-a-kind, the single coin dollar
player is going to get and extra 3 dollars.  These are common hands that
add up.  The max coin quarter player has to wait 45,000 hands to make
up the difference.   In addition, the single coin dollar player is
running less money through the machines.  Because both games are
negative, this reduces the loss over time.  However, the jackpots are
smaller.













No need to use fuzzy logic to decide this. The math is pretty simple. The expected loss is coin-in x (1 - return). The expected losses per hand are:Max quarters: $1.25 x (1 - 0.9759) = $0.030125Max dollars: $5 x (1 - 0.989) = $0.055Single dollars: $1 x (1 - 0.97686) = $0.02314So the single dollar option loses the least over time and also represents the least amount of coin-in over time. Sounds to me like it checks both of your boxes.You asked about this from a math perspective, but you also mention that the jackpots are smaller. That's an entertainment-value perspective which only you can answer for yourself.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=gronbog]You asked about this from a math perspective, but you also mention that
the jackpots are smaller. That's an entertainment-value perspective
which only you can answer for yourself.[/quote]Thanks for the input.  When we talk about Recreational VP, there are always two things angles.  Everyone wants to win money.   Recreational players also want more entertainment for their dollar.  I can't speak for everyone, but making my money last is a lot more important to me than making a profit.No one enjoys hitting short coin royals.  I dislike being paid 100 coins for a wild royal instead of 125 more.   When you play single coin dollar deuces, a quad deuce still pays $200.  $50 bucks less than max coin quarters, but you get the better paybacks for the wild royal and five-of-a-kind along the way.  This helps to keep you in the game and more hands means more chances at a jackpot.Obviously, the best option of the two would be to play max coin dollars.   I have done this and it can be a nail biter.  If you don't get a quad deuce in a day's play, you can lose significant money.    I'm not playing VP as a job.  I play for entertainment and losing big money is not at all entertaining. 

[Gronbog]

When you play single coin dollar deuces, a quad deuce still pays $200.  $50 bucks less than max coin quarters, but you get the better paybacks for the wild royal and five-of-a-kind along the way.  This helps to keep you in the game and more hands means more chances at a jackpot.Obviously, the best option of the two would be to play max coin dollars.   I have done this and it can be a nail biter.  If you don't get a quad deuce in a day's play, you can lose significant money.    I'm not playing VP as a job.  I play for entertainment and losing big money is not at all entertaining. 



Actually my  recommendation for you, as a recreational player, from a math point of view was single dollars. Your assessment of the jackpots from a recreational point of view would seem to solidify that as the best choice for you.

[Eduardo]

The calculations above assume an equal number of hands played.Personally I would play fewer hands at max bet.Take a walk every few minutes and go for that max coin royal.Either way the most you have to lose is what you bring with you. But you have much less to gain playing short coin.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=Eduardo]Personally I would play fewer hands at max bet.[/quote]Good idea.  This is the best option of all.    To keep from annoying anyone, you could play $100 a day at max coin dollars and the rest at max coin nickels.  At least you wouldn't have to put up with short coin royals and the bell would ring more.   Seriously, I get what you are saying.  I have been searching for a long time for an alternative way to kill time in a casino on these trips.  I tired Penny slots, but the minimum bet is usually at least 40 cents and the odds are terrible.  I may give nickle VP a try.  Normally, the single coin dollar odds beat both max coin quarter and nickel odds.

[New2vp]

Here's something else to think about.  To prepare for an upcoming road trip, I have been comparing VP games for the last few weeks on my VPW software.   The variance of Deuces Wild is supposed to be half way between Jacks or Better and Double Double Bonus.   An inexperienced player may conclude you can play Jacks or Better longer with the same money than you would playing Deuces Wild.  In reality, I do not find this to be the case.  Quads are very rare hands.  They have a bad habit of not appearing for long periods of time.  It is common to go through $100 or more an hour playing Jacks if quad hands are on hiatus.   In Deuces Wild, the small pay outs are less, but they are more common.  Play $20 on both games at the same denomination and you will see what I am talking about.  This tells me "variance" is different than "average cost to play per hour".   Many Recreational players judge a game by how long they can play it with the money they have.   You can really take a bath on quad based games if you don't get quads.  I guess this makes sense?

I'm going to try to help you out.  I've changed a couple words in your post to help me answer the question.

Here's something else that I'm pondering.  I wonder if I'm thinking about this in the right way?To
prepare for an upcoming road trip, I have been comparing VP games for
the last few weeks on my VPW software.   The variance of Deuces Wild ACTUALLY IS part way between Jacks or Better and Double Double Bonus.   Someone thinking about only the variance may conclude you can play Jacks or Better longer with the same money than you would playing Deuces Wild.  In how I interpret my experience,
I do not find this to be the case.  Quads are very rare hands.  They
have a bad habit of not appearing for long periods of time.  It is
common to go through $100 or more an hour playing Jacks if quad hands
are on hiatus. But how often does this happen really compared to all the other payout possibilities?  In Deuces Wild, the small pay outs are less, but they are more common.  However, use the bankroll analysis tool from VPW software  and you will see that my supposition is incorrect.  This VP software tells me that "variance" is different than "average cost to play per hour".  I can get the average cost per hour by multiplying hands played by the house edge, which is 1 - what VPW calls the return.   I
judge a game by how long I can play it with the money they have.  
You can really take a bath on quad based games if you don't get quads.  I
guess my gut feel doesn't makes sense?

Compare 98.91% Deuces with 97.30% 8/5 Jacks or Better, playing 5 quarters at a time.  Clearly we're setting up Deuces to win the challenge since Jacks or Better costs twice as much to play over equal periods of time.Deuces WildReturn:  98.91%Variance:  25.6219Risk of losing $100 in 600 or fewer rounds (about an hour): 25.27%Risk of losing $20 in 100 or fewer rounds (about 10 minutes):  50.43%Risk of losing $20 in 50 or fewer rounds (about 5 minutes):  23.64%Jacks or BetterReturn:  97.30%Variance:  19.3233Risk of losing $100 in 600 or fewer rounds (about an hour): 18.02%Risk of losing $20 in 100 or fewer rounds (about 10 minutes):  44.63%Risk of losing $20 in 50 or fewer rounds (about 5 minutes):  18.15%By all these short-term measures, $20 or $100 lasts longer with the poorer Jacks or Better game.  You cited the increased frequency of small payouts in Deuces Wild, but Jacks or Better actually pays out much more often in the important 10-15 coin range, the really small wins.Phil, what you call "reality" is your interpretation of your own empirical results filtered by your own wants and desires.  I'm not saying that you should play Jacks or Better over Deuces Wild, just that your rationale for choosing either has very little to do with analysis or mathematical justification.You are the one that continually tries to mix your own brand of mathematical analysis to justify your play with columns like this, false conclusions, and faulty generalizations.You can always be right in doing whatever you want if you are maximizing your own happiness or utility.  If you want mathematical justification, based on expected value, that is probably always going to be a different story.  And if that is the case, it will always be difficult for you if you are trying to group yourself with others who share your "plight" or "journey," depending upon whether you are currently happy with recent results.  You see, while we all share the same laws of math in this universe, everyone has different utility functions to work on.  So, while there can be agreement on mathematical analysis, maximizing utility will always be subjective (like Gronberg says).

[Eduardo]

Speaking of taking shots... I'm up to 9 since I started reading this thread. It all started when I read the words "you math guys."

[FloridaPhil]

Thank you for attempting to help me.  It's refreshing to be able to discuss negative VP games without being told not to play them leaving me with no answers.On these trips I have different options depending upon the odds in each casino.   I find Deuces Wild more entertaining to play, but I can play Jacks or Bonus Poker as well.  I can play both with minimum errors.   The best quarter VP game in most of the casinos we visit is 7/5 Bonus Poker a 98.015% game at max coins.   Most quarter Deuces Wild games are 97.6% or worse.   Occasionally we find 6/5 Bonus Poker, a 96.8% game.I want to play the best games available, but I want to play as long as possible with my money.  The question is always the same.  Which game gives the best balance of both?  I know I am not alone with these questions.This is not an easy question to answer.  Lately, I have grown fond of Bonus Poker.  I hit a $2,000 royal last week playing this game.  It seems like the game gobbles up a lot of money if you don't get quads.   Deuces Wild can do this as well.How do I determine which game to play?  I don't want to switch games mid play as I may make errors or hit hit the wrong jackpot at the wrong time.  This happened to me the last time we were in Tahoe.  I switched to Bonus Poker and hit two sets of quad deuces in 5 minutes.  Ouch!There is more to these decisions than the odds.  Right now I'm leaning toward Bonus Poker.  We are going to the Tampa Hard Rock in the morning. I plan to have a test run for our vacation.  Again, let me thank you in advance for your patience.   Experts who will not discuss these games are ignoring 90% of the players in America.

[New2vp]

As onemoretry indicated knowing how to apply math is not a handicap to being a recreational player. But it may be difficult to see that if you don't entirely get it. This is probably not the only place where those who can't understand a subject misunderstand the ramifications of its benefits. So, I'm not optimistic about reducing the "misunderstanding coefficient" in this conversation.

Also it apparently is easier to see others' criticism of your posts as shots, whereas those that you hurl are seen simply as good-natured jabs or learning experiences.

Maybe a good rule of thumb would be that you go a month without taking any shots before you complain about others taking shots at you.