what is long term video poker play?

I think you're arguing semantics. 'The long run' as it relates to Video Poker is not typically defined as "the amount of play needed to see all possible hands"...but rather the amount of play necessary for your return to approach the statistical norm with a high level of confidence. As arci points out this can be as few as a couple of hundred thousand hands with an 85% confidence level.

That is how probablility analysis works. This is why scientists can take certain sized samples and predict a wide variety of phenomena from the strength of materials to drug reactions to video poker outcomes with great certainty. In your world, sampling is not possible because you seem to think one must observe every possible event in order to have any confidence of your results approximating the math. That just ain't right because it defies well established math and science...but what do I know. I wear a lucky hat.

Now if you insist on having your own personal definition of Video Poker 'Long Run', well I guess that's ok...but you should realize that since you're making up your very own definition, it only applies to you.

Excuse me?

I do not remember ever answering a VP question with a specific play, unless it was based on the math.

Anyone who understands the math, and probabilities, and believes in statistics, would be able to answer correctly.

I do understand why you sniped at me with that reply. You think you are "better". After all, you have had numerous W2G's, and I've only had one.

Just how much did you profit last year? Oh, never mind. I forgot.

I have always stated my expertise is Live Poker. I supplement my income playing poker, not VP. However, prior to visiting Vegas in 2009, I learned Video Poker. I read books, articles, columns, almost anything and everything I laid my hands on, or my browser landed on. I acquired software to practice the games. I printed strategy cards/pages including exceptions, to take with me to the machines, and used them. And still carry them in my "casino kit" all the time, just in case. I practiced with a "tutor" program for accuracy. I spent a lot of hours learning and studying the game. I believe I "play" on an expert level, with few errors most of the time. I prepared to play the game if/when I found opportunities during my Vegas trip. I did. And that is where and when I had my W2G.

I spent literally hundreds of hours learning and building my confidence and expertise before risking one cent. Was the time worth the profit? Hell no. But the education was/is priceless.

Most of my VP play was in Vegas, on +EV situations. At home, there are none, and if/when I do play, it's very small. With limits and goals.

I've hit royals several times. But at 5 or 10 cent denominations, a W2G does not figure into the equation at those denominations.

You hit two royals in one year to total in excess of $70,000.00. Yet you've often stated, "I've never had a winning year."

I strongly and unequivocally believe in "Advantage Play". And the only time I play VP now is with one. Since my "local" pay tables suck, I only play when I find a machine with a bonus (Super X) which, mathematically makes it worth playing. Or a "banking" slot worth playing. I do not "expect" to win, and my sessions are short, usually one spin. I only play machines with what I perceive to be a +EV, or a temporary overlay. That is smart gambling. I respect my money. I worked hard for it.

I am a well prepared and educated player, well disciplined with patience and willpower.

I am not in a casino to "gamble". I visit the casino on my way to or from the poker room, where I have a significant advantage and supplement my income nicely. And I have received my share of W2's for tournaments (I don't like playing them often, but will on occasion), jackpots, etc.

Having a losing year, with over $70,000 in jackpots versus a player with "only one" small W2G is not a fair comparison. But, since you chose to make one............

It might make an interesting poll question.

Who is the smarter casino patron? Player MLA or Player RT.

I don't need to ask. I'm satisfied with my knowledge and abilities. Are you willing to ask?

Did not think so. That could be embarrassing.

I've never won a single "jackpot" of $35,000+. I do not play in denominations that would lead to that sort of win. And I don't lose an amount of money in one session that would feed a starving family for years in one session either.

And, most importantly, I've been an overall winner, with a profit generated every year for much more than a decade.

alanleroy, yes it could be a matter of semantics.

but if the best you can do is a confidence level of 85% or 95% I still don't consider it the "long run."

in a criminal case, 99.999% is not enough to convict someone (at least it shouldnt). It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. 85% or 95% leaves room.

that's the "test" I am using.

I will never forget being in a court room when a defense lawyer added a drop of ink to a glass of water. the water look clear. and the lawyer said to the jury -- it looks like clear water, but you have your doubts about drinking it, don't you?

(the crook was convicted anyway, but it was a good demonstration of doubt.)

roadtrip this was your comment: "Think of all the Royals he could have / would have had if he did not spend so much time on LVA."

It was nothing less than a crude attempt to insult me. I returned the favor. Suck it up.

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond any doubt. But, I want you on my jury.

Just curious? Does NASA launch rockets using this kind of math?

Money, based on your comments I would guess you've never gotten into a car. You see, you can't rule out the small probability that you will be killed by some other driver. Since you need to know VP probabilities down to the nth degree, you must treat other statistical situations the same? Right?

In addition, using the total number of possible deal/draws as anything meaningful in real life play is silly. Even if you played 19 trillion hands you still would not see all the possible combinations. Many of them would repeat and many would never occur. That's the way randomness works. Just because we can list all the combinations is not useful in any way, shape or form. Besides, many of those combinations result in duplicate results so you don't need to see all 19 trillion to experience all the possible paying situations.

Finally, you really need to spend a little time to understand statistics. Your complaints here really are complete nonsense. You are only making yourself look bad.

Ever heard them use the word "nominal"? Ever hear them mention a "flight window". How about "tolerance"? Yup, all based on statistics. And, I could go on and on.

What other kind of math is there?

NASA better use this kind of math. As Richard Feynman pointed out, the Challenger disaster was caused by a basic misunderstanding of the probability of failure of the O-rings.