Gold Exclusive
My Favorites
"mysterious man on the motorcycle" (regardless of the game's EV)
Of course, the nature of this game dictates that you will lose more sessions than you win (unless using a progression)~Benford's Law
I've never read anything that says using a progression will result in a larger number of winning sessions at v.p.. What literature are you citing, or is your observation based strictly on your personal experiences in casinos?
The Meaning of Discipline
-
royal flush
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:50 pm
by the nature the to have winning sessions players must hit top hands which are rare even though positive ev games can be beaten over most sessions will result in losses the wins are so sweet
-
Webman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:11 pm
I've never read anything that says using a progression will result in a larger number of winning sessions at v.p.. What literature are you citing, or is your observation based strictly on your personal experiences in casinos?
I think MikeA (or someone else) posted some good numbers on that with a negative progression. I think it was true that you get more winning sessions overall (assuming you play the progression within that same session) but that the volatility was much higher, meaning when you lose you can lose a ridiculous amount of money, in exchange for a higher chance at winning the same low amount.
Very simple example... flip a coin and if you lose, call double or nothing until you win. If you kept that up for up to 10 flips (10 doubles) within a session, you would have a very high chance at breaking even. But you risk losing 2^10 (1024!) coins instead of only 10 coins if you never doubled. That gets out of hand fast.
In the case of this 50/50 coin flip situation, you have an extremely high chance of coming away even by playing a progression... far higher than the 50% chance if you just placed fixed bets. But if you're placing fixed bets, you can still win just as much and only risk 10 coins instead of a whopping 1024.
MikeA, correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I think MikeA (or someone else) posted some good numbers on that with a negative progression. I think it was true that you get more winning sessions overall (assuming you play the progression within that same session) but that the volatility was much higher, meaning when you lose you can lose a ridiculous amount of money, in exchange for a higher chance at winning the same low amount.
Very simple example... flip a coin and if you lose, call double or nothing until you win. If you kept that up for up to 10 flips (10 doubles) within a session, you would have a very high chance at breaking even. But you risk losing 2^10 (1024!) coins instead of only 10 coins if you never doubled. That gets out of hand fast.
In the case of this 50/50 coin flip situation, you have an extremely high chance of coming away even by playing a progression... far higher than the 50% chance if you just placed fixed bets. But if you're placing fixed bets, you can still win just as much and only risk 10 coins instead of a whopping 1024.
MikeA, correct me if I'm wrong on that.
-
MikeA
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:50 pm
I think that is pretty close to being on the mark Webman. The thing about a negative progression is that you absolutely HAVE to continue playing it once you start else you lose that ridiculous amount of doubled bets! So, to play it, you have to have pretty much an unlimited bankroll and you have to find machines that have large enough denominations to allow you to advance in your progression.
But, most of the time (assuming you don't run out of money) you WILL WIN so I guess you could say that you would have a larger number of winning sessions.
In Poker Strategy, there is a thread called "Progressions" and there are spreadsheet results of a series of negative progressions I played on a simulator. Pretty eye opening.
Here's a link to the spreadsheet thread:
http://www.videopoker.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=471
Edited to add link by request
But, most of the time (assuming you don't run out of money) you WILL WIN so I guess you could say that you would have a larger number of winning sessions.
In Poker Strategy, there is a thread called "Progressions" and there are spreadsheet results of a series of negative progressions I played on a simulator. Pretty eye opening.
Here's a link to the spreadsheet thread:
http://www.videopoker.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=471
Edited to add link by request
-
oej719
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:46 pm
Anyone who gets on a motorcycle to ride home dead tired in the middle of the night is probably real good about not TELLING THE TRUTH.(aka LYING). Especially if his wife is upstairs in a luxury room with a comfortable bed. Unless his wife requested him not to stay as "what happens in vegas stays in vegas"
I know he is lurking about and will read all this.
I know he is lurking about and will read all this.
-
shadowman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:42 pm
The coin flip analogy is very good. Everyone knows that you expect to win 50% of the time with no progression. Add in a two-level progression and that number goes up to 75%. The more levels the higher it goes. A VP progression doesn't go as high as fast because the session win rate is less than 50% (more like 30-40%). The trade-off is larger losses when you lose.
-
bigboy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:03 pm
[QUOTE=bigboy]I've never read anything that says using a progression will result in a larger number of winning sessions at v.p.. What literature are you citing, or is your observation based strictly on your personal experiences in casinos?
I think MikeA (or someone else) posted some good numbers on that with a negative progression. I think it was true that you get more winning sessions overall (assuming you play the progression within that same session) but that the volatility was much higher, meaning when you lose you can lose a ridiculous amount of money, in exchange for a higher chance at winning the same low amount.
Very simple example... flip a coin and if you lose, call double or nothing until you win. If you kept that up for up to 10 flips (10 doubles) within a session, you would have a very high chance at breaking even. But you risk losing 2^10 (1024!) coins instead of only 10 coins if you never doubled. That gets out of hand fast.
In the case of this 50/50 coin flip situation, you have an extremely high chance of coming away even by playing a progression... far higher than the 50% chance if you just placed fixed bets. But if you're placing fixed bets, you can still win just as much and only risk 10 coins instead of a whopping 1024.
MikeA, correct me if I'm wrong on that.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, i will re-phrase it. I have not seen anything published by a known and respected published author that substantiates the claim of a progression system being the better way.
I think MikeA (or someone else) posted some good numbers on that with a negative progression. I think it was true that you get more winning sessions overall (assuming you play the progression within that same session) but that the volatility was much higher, meaning when you lose you can lose a ridiculous amount of money, in exchange for a higher chance at winning the same low amount.
Very simple example... flip a coin and if you lose, call double or nothing until you win. If you kept that up for up to 10 flips (10 doubles) within a session, you would have a very high chance at breaking even. But you risk losing 2^10 (1024!) coins instead of only 10 coins if you never doubled. That gets out of hand fast.
In the case of this 50/50 coin flip situation, you have an extremely high chance of coming away even by playing a progression... far higher than the 50% chance if you just placed fixed bets. But if you're placing fixed bets, you can still win just as much and only risk 10 coins instead of a whopping 1024.
MikeA, correct me if I'm wrong on that.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, i will re-phrase it. I have not seen anything published by a known and respected published author that substantiates the claim of a progression system being the better way.
-
Webman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:11 pm
"Better way" is very different from a larger number of winning sessions.
You sayin' I'm not known and respected?!
You sayin' I'm not known and respected?!
-
shadowman
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3587
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:42 pm
Sorry, i will re-phrase it. I have not seen anything published by a known and respected published author that substantiates the claim of a progression system being the better way.
And, you never will. There's a big difference between stating it will win more sessions and that it is a "better way". It will not increase the expected return of any game. That has been proven mathematically. It will increase the percentage of sessions wins at the expense of a few large losses.
Note that this also requires a precise "definition" of a session, such as reaching a win goal of XXX or playing YYY number of hands. Or, in my coin flip example, exactly two flips (to get a 75% win rate).
I'm not sure what else you're looking for here. We're talking pretty simple math. Maybe I'm missing something.
-
bigboy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:03 pm
[QUOTE=bigboy]
Sorry, i will re-phrase it. I have not seen anything published by a known and respected published author that substantiates the claim of a progression system being the better way.
And, you never will. There's a big difference between stating it will win more sessions and that it is a "better way".
I'm not sure what else you're looking for here. We're talking pretty simple math. Maybe I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
Oy vey! I'll try one last time. My initial question related to the fact that i have never read anything from Dancer/Scott,etc. about their experience with using a progression system. I was asking benford if he had read something on the progression subject that had been written by a noted author(other than R** S****r), or if he had a personal "progression" casino experience or experiences to share with the forum. That's it. No math questions, no references to the sim that was performed by Mike(which was an informative and appreciated piece-thanks Mike A.). If anyone is'nt clear on my question, than PM me with your questions. I really don't want to do the Fa La La La La.... La la la la semantics word games where everything is taken literally.
Sorry, i will re-phrase it. I have not seen anything published by a known and respected published author that substantiates the claim of a progression system being the better way.
And, you never will. There's a big difference between stating it will win more sessions and that it is a "better way".
I'm not sure what else you're looking for here. We're talking pretty simple math. Maybe I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
Oy vey! I'll try one last time. My initial question related to the fact that i have never read anything from Dancer/Scott,etc. about their experience with using a progression system. I was asking benford if he had read something on the progression subject that had been written by a noted author(other than R** S****r), or if he had a personal "progression" casino experience or experiences to share with the forum. That's it. No math questions, no references to the sim that was performed by Mike(which was an informative and appreciated piece-thanks Mike A.). If anyone is'nt clear on my question, than PM me with your questions. I really don't want to do the Fa La La La La.... La la la la semantics word games where everything is taken literally.
