Gold Exclusive
My Favorites
Two $25 machines = one $50 machine if they are next to each other almost touching. But you need 2 slot cards, they have not figured out how to solve that bug yet. Igt will address that more once they solve how to keep people from detecting hot and cold cycles. The casinos are taking a beating with all the Singerites busting their chops. I hear that Ceasers is on the verge of closing after getting hit big when machines were in hot cycle and they all converged there at once to exploit. I even got me a piece of it. 2- 50k jackpots.
OEJ, JOE, 1ijack, The shadowknows
VP Progression
-
MikeA
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:50 pm
Mike, you might want to remove your $50 denom and add a $2. I've never seen a $50 machine. I know it's not really relevant to what you're doing but I'm sure it's a simple change and keeps your levels to 8.
Rob, a "negative" progression is when you move up in denom after a loss. A positive progression is moving up on a win.
I think I will insert a $2. That will make that gap more even between $1 and $5 denominations.
One think is for sure, after playing a few progressions, you won't have to exert much of a memory drill to figure out your break-even and win goals for each denomination. They are consistant for you either win your goal or lose. If you lose, the next denomination's goals will be the same as that denomination 23 sessions ago!
I did update it with the first three rounds in session #3. All loses so far and I'm up to that new $2 bracket. Came close to break even at 150 coins in the $1 round though.
Rob, a "negative" progression is when you move up in denom after a loss. A positive progression is moving up on a win.
I think I will insert a $2. That will make that gap more even between $1 and $5 denominations.
One think is for sure, after playing a few progressions, you won't have to exert much of a memory drill to figure out your break-even and win goals for each denomination. They are consistant for you either win your goal or lose. If you lose, the next denomination's goals will be the same as that denomination 23 sessions ago!
I did update it with the first three rounds in session #3. All loses so far and I'm up to that new $2 bracket. Came close to break even at 150 coins in the $1 round though.
-
shadowman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:42 pm
Mike, if I understand correctly you have an 8 level progression with a 100 coin/level play. Your win goal is 40 coins or more ($10). If you reach this goal you declare it a "win" and start over.
If this is correct then I think you should see around 90% wins.
If this is correct then I think you should see around 90% wins.
-
babybubba
- Senior Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:18 pm
Mike, if I understand correctly you have an 8 level progression with a 100 coin/level play. Your win goal is 40 coins or more ($10). If you reach this goal you declare it a "win" and start over.
If this is correct then I think you should see around 90% wins.
And why don't you finish off your guess with your other theory that says "Mike, why bother with all this stuff anyway? If you're playing a negative EV game you will lose and if you're playing a positive game you will win"! And "If you're playing a 98.6% game you're TRULY wasting you're time--OVER TIME NOBODY EVER WINS ON THOSE GAMES"
If this is correct then I think you should see around 90% wins.
And why don't you finish off your guess with your other theory that says "Mike, why bother with all this stuff anyway? If you're playing a negative EV game you will lose and if you're playing a positive game you will win"! And "If you're playing a 98.6% game you're TRULY wasting you're time--OVER TIME NOBODY EVER WINS ON THOSE GAMES"
-
shadowman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:42 pm
[QUOTE=shadowman]Mike, if I understand correctly you have an 8 level progression with a 100 coin/level play. Your win goal is 40 coins or more ($10). If you reach this goal you declare it a "win" and start over.
If this is correct then I think you should see around 90% wins.
And why don't you finish off your guess with your other theory that says "Mike, why bother with all this stuff anyway? If you're playing a negative EV game you will lose and if you're playing a positive game you will win"! And "If you're playing a 98.6% game you're TRULY wasting you're time--OVER TIME NOBODY EVER WINS ON THOSE GAMES"[/QUOTE]
While your statement is generally true (except for the "nobody"), I like it when people investigate the various aspects of the game. In fact, I have mentioned this here before you ever showed up.
It may be that the best game available to Mike is 9/6 DDB. He may not expect to win but still plays it for the entertainment value. Looking for approaches to increase that entertainment value fine. It also is fun just to do the simulations. I simulated your strategy a couple of years ago for the same reasons. The program I developed was flexible enough that all I had to do was change some input parameters to get the 90% figure I quoted above.
It is also how I KNOW your approach cannot change the expected return. When I ran this latest sim for 100 sessions the highest payback was 141% while the lowest payback was 85%. There were net more losers than winners and the average return was ... right around 99%. Gee, what a surprise.
If this is correct then I think you should see around 90% wins.
And why don't you finish off your guess with your other theory that says "Mike, why bother with all this stuff anyway? If you're playing a negative EV game you will lose and if you're playing a positive game you will win"! And "If you're playing a 98.6% game you're TRULY wasting you're time--OVER TIME NOBODY EVER WINS ON THOSE GAMES"[/QUOTE]
While your statement is generally true (except for the "nobody"), I like it when people investigate the various aspects of the game. In fact, I have mentioned this here before you ever showed up.
It may be that the best game available to Mike is 9/6 DDB. He may not expect to win but still plays it for the entertainment value. Looking for approaches to increase that entertainment value fine. It also is fun just to do the simulations. I simulated your strategy a couple of years ago for the same reasons. The program I developed was flexible enough that all I had to do was change some input parameters to get the 90% figure I quoted above.
It is also how I KNOW your approach cannot change the expected return. When I ran this latest sim for 100 sessions the highest payback was 141% while the lowest payback was 85%. There were net more losers than winners and the average return was ... right around 99%. Gee, what a surprise.
-
MikeA
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:50 pm
Actually, I could easily increase the game to a 100.067% DDB 10/6 paytable. However, that game is available to me only in LV. The best I can find around locally is the 9/6 game.
I like to crunch numbers Rob. Even though I do not play progressions in the casinos (learned my lesson in Blackjack), I do have a curiosity about the systems and like to analyze them myself so that I have more than a theoretical concept of the methods employed by those with whom I communicate.
In developing the data, I am MANUALLY playing each hand using two different simulators. There is no method used to select which simulator I use. Just which ever one happens to either already be running or which one is closest to my cursor when I decide to start another session.
By manually playing hands (which I would be doing anyway) I am getting in a lot of practice. Casinos are not close to me so I cannot just get off work and pop over to one for a couple of hours when the mood hits me.
So, why not put some analytical purpose to the exercise?
I like to crunch numbers Rob. Even though I do not play progressions in the casinos (learned my lesson in Blackjack), I do have a curiosity about the systems and like to analyze them myself so that I have more than a theoretical concept of the methods employed by those with whom I communicate.
In developing the data, I am MANUALLY playing each hand using two different simulators. There is no method used to select which simulator I use. Just which ever one happens to either already be running or which one is closest to my cursor when I decide to start another session.
By manually playing hands (which I would be doing anyway) I am getting in a lot of practice. Casinos are not close to me so I cannot just get off work and pop over to one for a couple of hours when the mood hits me.
So, why not put some analytical purpose to the exercise?
-
MikeA
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:50 pm
394 hands since my last Quad. About time for another one. Maybe at the $5 level
-
babybubba
- Senior Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:18 pm
Actually, I could easily increase the game to a 100.067% DDB 10/6 paytable. However, that game is available to me only in LV. The best I can find around locally is the 9/6 game.
I like to crunch numbers Rob. Even though I do not play progressions in the casinos (learned my lesson in Blackjack), I do have a curiosity about the systems and like to analyze them myself so that I have more than a theoretical concept of the methods employed by those with whom I communicate.
In developing the data, I am MANUALLY playing each hand using two different simulators. There is no method used to select which simulator I use. Just which ever one happens to either already be running or which one is closest to my cursor when I decide to start another session.
By manually playing hands (which I would be doing anyway) I am getting in a lot of practice. Casinos are not close to me so I cannot just get off work and pop over to one for a couple of hours when the mood hits me.
So, why not put some analytical purpose to the exercise?
Mike you sound more like the type analyst that might be able to understand reading through my strategy developmental work instead of shadow because he's going into it with an already closed mind as you have seen, and I'm not all that convinced he'd know what he was looking at anyway. On top of that he just doesn't want it to be logical. Or maybe you'd like to be there in the Fall?? Are you interested?
I like to crunch numbers Rob. Even though I do not play progressions in the casinos (learned my lesson in Blackjack), I do have a curiosity about the systems and like to analyze them myself so that I have more than a theoretical concept of the methods employed by those with whom I communicate.
In developing the data, I am MANUALLY playing each hand using two different simulators. There is no method used to select which simulator I use. Just which ever one happens to either already be running or which one is closest to my cursor when I decide to start another session.
By manually playing hands (which I would be doing anyway) I am getting in a lot of practice. Casinos are not close to me so I cannot just get off work and pop over to one for a couple of hours when the mood hits me.
So, why not put some analytical purpose to the exercise?
Mike you sound more like the type analyst that might be able to understand reading through my strategy developmental work instead of shadow because he's going into it with an already closed mind as you have seen, and I'm not all that convinced he'd know what he was looking at anyway. On top of that he just doesn't want it to be logical. Or maybe you'd like to be there in the Fall?? Are you interested?
-
oej719
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:46 pm
Go ahead take the bait Mike. Then he will mount you over his fireplace like a dear head.
-
MikeA
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:50 pm
Mike you sound more like the type analyst that might be able to understand reading through my strategy developmental work instead of shadow because he's going into it with an already closed mind as you have seen, and I'm not all that convinced he'd know what he was looking at anyway. On top of that he just doesn't want it to be logical. Or maybe you'd like to be there in the Fall?? Are you interested?
It is possible that I could be there "in the Fall" but if so, it would be for purposes of getting away from "work". I debug "faulty logic" at least 8 hours out of every day not counting the time I spend messing around with Blackjack and VP, both of which are to me nothing more than exercises in reason based on probabilities put into practice.
But if things happen to work out that I'm out there during your demonstration or at a time where I could go over some of your "notes" with you, I might be interested in such a meeting. But that would be contingent on a decision made by my wife....she usually has my every step plotted on a spreadsheet!
You've seen my methods. They do not provide empirical results at the snap of a finger.
