Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

snidely333 is most perspicacious.

In his post of 10:43LVAT 26 November - a post which MoneyLA concluded summed things up nicely - DonDiego suggested the "RS System" could not be tested in a casino or simulated on a computer.

The answer to snidely333's question - "Why is the question even relevant to what we're discussing?" - is that it is invaluable in extending this 5-year+ debate.

Arthur C. Clarke posited in his Third Law that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Mr. Snyder's system is so advanced that it cannot be tested; it is indistinguishable from magic.

While there are almost 2.6 million combinations of 52 cards that is not the total number of deal-draw combinations. That number is much larger and that's another reason why it takes a large number of hands to approach the ER.

Keep in mind that all references to "long term" are arbitrary. Every hand that is played gets you statistically closer to the expected return of the game. Instead of trying to pick some number out of the air I believe it's better to just understand that simple fact. That's why I typically use the phrase "over time" rather than "long term".

Guys go easy on me. I have a hard time between Medicare Part A and B. Sp Arc do you accept the figure of one million hands
? A simple answer please because I might not survive another five year debate. Thanks.

Not really. Let's say you've played 500K hands to make it simple. You are much more likely to be closer to the ER than you would be if you played 100K hands. You'll be even closer after 500,001 hands, etc.

Think of it like driving from LA to LV. If you are crossing the NV border do you consider it the same as if you were pulling out of your driveway? I hope not. I also hope you wouldn't try to classify those two situations as being one possibility and the other possibility is you arrived at LV. Every mile you drive gets you closer LV ... every VP hand you play gets you slightly closer to the ER.

Now, you might define "arriving in LV" in different ways. You might claim that once you reach the M you have arrived. Or, you might decide it's whatever exit you are taking off of I15. Or, it might be when you pull into the hotel. Or, when you reach your room. These are similar to the choices one might make in defining the "long term". If you want a 99% chance of being within 1% that is one choice. 95% chance of being with .5% is another. There is no exact answer in either case.

Edit to add: I hope this answers your question. There is no exact answer so 1 million hands in and of itself is meaningless.

Very good analogy Arc. Thank you. Let me ask the question differently: what is the minimum number of hands?

For example with a coin flip the minimum must be at least two. With a six sided die the minimum must be at least six. And with a deck of 52 cards?

You question is the same as asking ... what is the minimum distance I have to travel to LV to be part way there. It all depends on how you want to define "part way". There is not one single answer. If you said half way there then it's possible to make the computation.

For VP you have to qualify what one means by "long term". Once you qualify that meaning then you can compute a minimum number of hands for any particular paytable. One such qualification is what Frank stated above ... 99% chance of being within 1% of the ER. But you could also define it as a 90% chance of being with 2% of the ER. This 2nd qualification would require far fewer hands. Or, you could say it's 99.9% chance of being within .1% of the ER. That would require a lot more hands.

This is the reason I prefer not to use "long term". In and of itself it has no meaning. You're looking to give it some default meaning and that requires agreeing to a definition. That is what Frank is asking people to give him and why I stated there is no precise meaning.

you could also do this by actually following through with leaving the board.

you have posted links to your website countless times and yet this thread is still going on this board, because people have no interest in yours. take a hint, go away.

Arci has hit the nail on the head this time. In and of itself "Long Term" has no meaning unless you set parameters. Anyone that knows math understands this. Rob has said it's impossible to get to "long Term" and "somehow" he has done this without setting parameters. Currently his actual definition that he sent me is paraphrased, "Something a player can't get to". The "somehow" is obviously by not using the mathematical definition of the word.

I would like to suggest this as a guideline:

99% chance to be within X of 100% return where X is the percentage of overlay.

Translated, this means you'd have a 99% chance to, at worst, break-even.

Whatever we set it to it should be understood that Arci is correct here, we can't discuss Long Term without setting it to something. That so few people understand this is frightening to me. I knew America was 68th in the world for math comprehension, but its always just been a statistic to me. It is sad to see it first hand.

Apparently, 117% of Americans don't understand percentages.

What I am getting out of this Frank and Arc is that a lot of the definitions about video poker math are nebulous. Singer cannot be right and he cannot be wrong? And if one plays one million hands or 20 million hands he can never say he has reached the long term promised land?

The more I think about it one of the few things I can say with 100 percent certainty is that in a 52 card game when dealt 4 to the royal I have 1/47 chances of drawing the royal card.

I can also say with 100 percent certainty that being dealt a flush with 4 to the royal I might never draw the royaal card when dropping the non royal flush card.

I can also say with 100 percent certainty that I have blocked Jenaphir. And I am 200 percent certain that this aggravates her.

i dont know why this would bother me.