Does the past matter?

[stevel96a1]

i guess the same question can be applied to blackjack there is a player on a forum who clocked in 200hours and still losing (large amounts i believe) does the past matter to him? to his starting bankroll? the experts there claim to be a winner 500+hours to need to be played and thats fine i see it as years not weeks at the casino i lost money last night at the casino but past 2 years and this year im still winning (im sure its peanuts/chicken feed compared to the big fish here) but i like to win regardless of the amount

im starting to believe the past does matter (espescially to the bankroll)
better off looking at gambling years not weeks
the edge is siting there for you to capture like a king in a chess game (per year not week)

and last i think everything depends heavily on your bankroll i was with you on a 25%-33% session bankroll but now looking into a 9/6 jacks type of game winning/lossing 1/4 of a royal can happen fast and you need additonal hours to play on Henry Tamburin recommends 1/2 the royal for a 10 hour session for safety

[stevel96a1]

You ARE more likely to see a royal in 60 hours of play than in 6 hours of play. Why did you answer "no" to that question when you posed it?

so if im more likely to see a royal with 60 hours under my belt than 6 then the answer is YES the past does matter if were going by human record

[Eduardo]

Nope.

[FloridaPhil]

if the past doesn't matter then why the experts claim you need to clock in 60-80hours to see a royal? again if the past never happened what difference does it make if i played 6hours or 60 hours? am i more likely to see a royal? no but then why put that number of hours in the book?

If you are asking my opinion, I will give it to you. It's my opinion, which is probably not worth much.

In video poker, there are players and there are business people who sell products to players. This is not a bad thing. Would you buy a strategy book if the author told you there was a chance you would not make a profit using his/her strategy? You may because you feel like you can beat the odds or you might learn something helpful. Providing a time line for a royal flush is the sizzle that sells the steak. It doesn't mean it is guaranteed to happen on time.

Don't get hung up on the numbers. Play the best game you have available. Play as computer perfect as you are able. The rest will take care of itself. If you are fortunate enough to have positive opportunities available to you, you have a good chance of making a profit. Don't mortgage your house to play, because it may not happen. Professional players are gamblers. They know the odds. They know the risks. They are willing to lay out their money and they accept the consequences.

[Eduardo]

Saying it will take an average of 60 hours of play to hit a royal is the sizzle that sells the steak? That sounds like a bad cut of meat to me.

And here I thought they were just being helpful in understanding the odds...

[FloridaPhil]

Saying it will take an average of 60 hours of play to hit a royal is the sizzle that sells the steak? That sounds like a bad cut of meat to me.

And here I thought they were just being helpful in understanding the odds...

Professional players are gamblers. They know the odds. They know the risks. They are willing to lay out their money and they accept the consequences.

Steve is a good example of how a player can be lead astray. He wants to believe the game is an ATM. Find a positive game, play it perfectly, wait 40,000 hands and reap the rewards. The world is full of gamblers who believed they couldn't lose.

I am not arguing against professionals, advantage play or math. I am pointing out that there is a chance it may not work as well as he thinks.

[stevel96a1]

Saying it will take an average of 60 hours of play to hit a royal is the sizzle that sells the steak? That sounds like a bad cut of meat to me.

And here I thought they were just being helpful in understanding the odds...

im quoting Henry Tamburin for the 60hour benchmark and im quoting the author gambling book for dummies for the 80hour mark and i believe Bob dance also says 80hour ball park if thats truly the average
then it doesn't apply, help or offer much to me if im doing a hit or run or if im siting all day every day in a casino, i do understand the concept of the average but again has so little meaning to the gambler of me in 2018 when i hit my first FPDW royal flush on my 8th hour not 60 or 80th hour

[Jstark]

Those numbers, if true, are an "on average" basis. If you haven't hit one in the first 60 hours, you people that think the past matters, will say that you're guaranteed to hit one ''now." We know this isn't true.

[stevel96a1]

Those numbers, if true, are an "on average" basis. If you haven't hit one in the first 60 hours, you people that think the past matters, will say that you're guaranteed to hit one ''now." We know this isn't true.

the average does not need to apply to the guy who sits down and hits a royal in his first 6hours of playing a FPDW game and retires

but it does apply to the guy who plays 400hours a per year?

is that where it stands?

i guess im just comparing players (bankroll)(hours of play) +/- edge all rolled into a "Long Shot"

[Jstark]

Those numbers, if true, are an "on average" basis. If you haven't hit one in the first 60 hours, you people that think the past matters, will say that you're guaranteed to hit one ''now." We know this isn't true.

the average does not need to apply to the guy who sits down and hits a royal in his first 6hours of playing a FPDW game and retires

but it does apply to the guy who plays 400hours a per year?

is that where it stands?

i guess im just comparing players (bankroll)(hours of play) +/- edge all rolled into a "Long Shot"

He might hit one on his very first hand or maybe not until his 1,857,376th hand. He might get 6 in that 60 hour time frame or he might not get any. What happened before had absolutely no bearing on what will happen later. So this has nothing to do with the average amount of time to get one.