Hello LVA

Here is the whole problem with the conversations here: There are two very different camps:

Those who support Singer and Money are aiming for short-term goals.

Those supporting Arcimedes and Frank are aiming for one long-term goal.

The long-term folks trust the math and KNOW they will be ahead over time playing over 100% expected games.

The short-term folks ignore some of the math and HOPE they will get lucky and be ahead over time.

My opinion on this is in the short-term (probably less than 1,000,000 hands) it is POSSIBLE to get lucky and be ahead using unorthodox methods. In the long-term (over 1,000,000 hands) when trusting the math and playing optimum strategy on games that return over 100%, one does not need luck and will DEFINITELY be ahead.


-Mule

Nice try Mule, but wrong.

I dont think Im in a different "camp" at all. I just want to know what they do. And as Arc pointed, different businesses have different strategies. I guess what I do in my business is not the same kind of risk taking video poker players take.

Arc and Frank say they see no difference over time playing a percentage of available seats. If I were running a "team" I would want to lock up every seat once a progressive was big enough to assure that I was going to win it. Arc and Frank say that is not necessary for them to have their same expected income from their strategy.

edited to add: my experience in seeing that team get cleaned out at Rincon because they left one seat open helped me form my opinion. Also in my business I leave little to chance. In fact, TV and movie producers usually have their profit locked up before they go into production and the only things left to chance are usually insured through a bonding company.

OK. There you have it.

None of this has anything to do with Singer. don't even try that route. youre obsessed with Singer.

Actually, it makes the strong expected value (EV) of the paytable even stronger.

Expected value has a precise definition: the weighted average of ALL possible values. You can't exclude the royal if you're talking EV, because the defintion calls for "all possible values," not just some. So I think you and Money are talking about some sensible but non-mathematical trepidation you have when it comes to games with a very high variance, and not EV. Did I get that right?

I think Frank hit the nail on the head. You don't understand randomness. It doesn't matter whether you have 1 seat or all the seats as long as the expected return is positive. Your overhead and investment is higher by filling every seat. Yes you hit the progressive on this play and every play when you fill all the seats, but in the end the net profit will be equal to playing the same positive progressives on 1 seat. With 1 seat the overhead and investment is lower. If you constantly play progressives that has 10 seats and fill them all with 10 players the end profit will be equal to one player on one seat. Each seat has an equal value of 10%. As Arci said it's simple math. The randomness of which seat hits only matters in the short-term, not in the long-term.

You say you're a good businessman. Well how would you grow this business? Your profits would always stay the same whether your team has 1 player or many players. In business terms your model would be a poor one by filling all the seats because you'd be increasing your risk of liability by players making errors or even worse cheating the other team members. The only way to grow this business would be to increase your expected returns by playing higher progressives or better paytables with a small, tight-knit group of highly skilled players.

And yes, this has everything to do with Singer. Because of your association with him on your website you will forever be linked to him by knowledgeable video poker players. If it weren't for him on your website your comments wouldn't even exist as subject matter on this board.


-Mule

Perhaps I used the wrong emoticon. My post was a snide at Money's definition of EV. Of course the strategy, based on paytable, is to always maximize EV. I completely reject his bad paytable if you don't hit the royal arguments.

But, I do tend to agree with Money that the business model is better if you control a larger % of the seats.

If the net total return (this would include the paytable as played) on the additional team member is positive, then adding to the team will reduce variance without reducing expectation.

Of course, you do realize that by filling the last seat there are cases where you could increase your losses. Yup, you really need to work on your critical thinking so this is a little test. Let's see if you can figure out why ...

Arc, please explain this to me? This one comes out of left field:

"Of course, you do realize that by filling the last seat there are cases where you could increase your losses. Yup, you really need to work on your critical thinking so this is a little test. Let's see if you can figure out why ..."

The way I understand it, the team comes in and plays once the game has turned positive, so each additional player only adds to the progressive jackpot in a positive return game. Isnt that right? So filling each seat guarantees that the team wins the positive return. Is that not how it works?

Im asking -- I dont run a team. If you are telling me you could lose by having all the seats in a positive progressive game, please explain how that happens???

Randomness can bite you in the ass.

Money, with each post you make you keep proving more and more how inept your intelligence is. What if your team has all the seats filled and the royal flush, by some RANDOM event doesn't hit for 200,000 hands? Guess what, your team lost money, and alot of it. Wow, what a great businessman you are. Another example of increasing the risk of liability.


-Mule

Edited to say: Money, your post here is proof-positive of what I wrote earlier. You're in the "short-term camp" although you may not realize it or believe it.