9/6 Double Double Bonus

[misterlister]

But alpax, you're assuming people play that many hands and they do not make mistakes, when in reality each time we play we enter and leave somewhere in the middle of all that, rendering the millions of hand's percentages practically useless. So whether we're playing a fantastically positive game or a miserably negative one, we have almost the same possibility of doing anything.

What exactly are you getting at?

[alpax]

But alpax, you're assuming people play that many hands and they do not make mistakes, when in reality each time we play we enter and leave somewhere in the middle of all that, rendering the millions of hand's percentages practically useless. So whether we're playing a fantastically positive game or a miserably negative one, we have almost the same possibility of doing anything.

What exactly are you getting at?

I am merely doing an analysis of the most popular video poker game among recreational players at its finest form in most state gaming jurisdictions, full pay 9/6 DDB (even so it will require $1 minimum denomination). Not much needs to be said about 9-5 or any lower tables; it is somewhat a steep cost of entertainment if people wish to play it for more than the quarter denomination even after receiving what the casino offers. Bottom line, the more play the more you pay for most people's lifetime playing DDB.

I will write up a summary of conclusions soon. There are some things I expected to be true before the analysis and a few things I have gained from these efforts/insights.

The simulation is running at 3.6 million rounds at the moment, and only 0.16% (1 out of about 600) will be outright winners from playing that many.

I do agree with you that a million rounds and playing accurate at the same time is totally unrealistic. I could have stopped at 500k rounds, but I am trying the 5 million round mark to see if that gets close to a bell curve narrow to the expected return of 98.9808% which will reflect the long run. Unfortunately I do not think 5 million is still a high enough number and I probably will have to use another reliable way to research that without using the Video Poker for Winners software (yes I have been running this stuff for 2 whole days).

I have not seen people play these situations in 9-6 DDB perfectly:

1. Ace vs Jack-Ten Suited
2. Ace vs King-Jack or King-Queen Offsuit
3. Ace vs Queen-Jack Offsuit
4. Two Pairs deal with a pair of high cards

The penalty for these situations I do not think is 1%.

[notes1]

if i am understanding 'mister' post (excuse me if i am wrong), it is the same arguement i have made numerous times. i should also note this is something Fa la la la la... la la la... la. believes. that is the notion that one's play over time is all one continous event. the idea that if one player stayed on a machine 24/7 for 10 years in a row, would be the same mathematical results as another player on the same machine who played 30 minutes, 3 days a week, over that same time period.   

[alpax]

if i am understanding 'mister' post (excuse me if i am wrong), it is the same arguement i have made numerous times. i should also note this is something Fa la la la la... la la la... la. believes. that is the notion that one's play over time is all one continous event. the idea that if one player stayed on a machine 24/7 for 10 years in a row, would be the same mathematical results as another player on the same machine who played 30 minutes, 3 days a week, over that same time period.   

On a negative expectation game. Someone who plays 24/7 (10,080 minutes a week) should have a loss 112 folds greater than someone who plays 3 days a week for 30 minutes each day (90 minutes).

I think mister is saying it is pointless to analyze the game the way I am doing when people play the game out of recreation.

[notes1]

  Someone who plays 24/7 (10,080 minutes a week) should have a loss 112 folds greater than someone who plays 3 days a week for 30 minutes each day (90 minutes).


 only if you believe that the results are the same for sporadic/periodic play than non stop continous play over the lifetime of the machine.

[misterlister]

What I'm saying is that machines experience tremendous ups and downs during their life cycle. When we play those machines all we're doing is stepping into the middle of that life cycle, and many times we are either the victim of one of those many "downs" or the happy recipient of one of those "ups". So for anyone who play and I don't care who that is or how often they play, I'm not satisfied that it's all one continuous session that will automatically work out according to what a simulation concludes with perfect play. We could step into a windfall or step into a buzzsaw, and we could do it over and over.

notes, if I'm saying basically the same as you and falalala? believe, I think others here come under that umbrella too.

[notes1]

What I'm saying is that machines experience tremendous ups and downs during their life cycle. When we play those machines all we're doing is stepping into the middle of that life cycle, and many times we are either the victim of one of those many "downs" or the happy recipient of one of those "ups". So for anyone who play and I don't care who that is or how often they play, I'm not satisfied that it's all one continuous session that will automatically work out according to what a simulation concludes with perfect play. We could step into a windfall or step into a buzzsaw, and we could do it over and over.

notes, if I'm saying basically the same as you and falalala? believe, I think others here come under that umbrella too.
 thanks for clearing that up. in case you are wondering 'falala'...is substituted for another poster, who may be banned, i do not know. but he does post on mendelson's site. he can say some really terrible things, has made claims to his consistent winning which i highly doubt, but can offer some casino insights that you would likely agree with. whenever one types his name, up comes falalala.

[misterlister]

I do not believe there is anyone who wins all the time, even that banned fellow and I think I know who you mean. Look at the holes found in Dancer's claims, and the more he says he wins the more new holes appear.

[Tedlark]

  Yes falalala has been banned but if you go to the "chit-chat" forum here and check out the last group you'll see all about falalala

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=misterlister]When we play those machines all we're doing is stepping into the middle of that life cycle, and many times we are either the victim of one of those many "downs" or the happy recipient of one of those "ups".[/quote]True.  The odds are calculated into infinity, not over the time you actually play. There will always be a small number of players that will win over their lifetime.  Most will lose, but we all hope to be among the winners.   Odds are an very important part of the video poker game, but not the total "law of everything".  We use the odds to make decisions on which games to play.  There is no guarantee we will win on a machine with better odds, but we are confident we can play more hands with the same money which gives us more chances at a jackpot.