18 responses

  1. IndyJeffrey
    May 1, 2018

    My guess is the folks who are closer to (1) are more willing to put in the effort and hard work than those who are closer to (2). I perceive, even though you stress often, many folks just do not understand how much work it takes to get to (1). We all want to be (1), but few have the work ethic. This column is a good one. Thanks.

    Reply

  2. Liz
    May 1, 2018

    The math is actually pretty simple. If you’ve won more than your EV, you’re lucky, if you’ve won less than your EV, you’re unlucky. Don’t make the common mistake of confusing your EV with the computer perfect EV, almost always your true EV in a casino environment will be less than the computer perfect EV and your true EV is the one that counts. The following numbers are totally approximate and are meant as a rule of thumb and assume a normal distribution and so on, feel free to derive the exact numbers: but anyway, plus or minus about a half of the SD is about a third of the possible results, minus about a half of SD or more is about another third and plus about a half of SD or more is about the other third, so there you have it. As Dancer correctly says, there is a middle ground, around a third of gamblers will “experience” (I love that as a marketing term) being within plus or minus a half SD of their EV, while around a third of gamblers will “experience” being screwed with minus a half SD or more below their EV and the other third will “experience” celebrity fame and status with positive a half SD or more over their EV. SD is the square root of variance times the number of hands (sqrt(var x hands)), the more you play, the larger it gets. There is no convergence of SD to EV in the long run, or the short run for that matter. Regardless of number of hands played, about a third of gamblers will be unlucky (results less than EV-SD/2), about a third of gamblers will have about average luck (results within +/-SD/2 of the EV), and the remaining third of gamblers will be lucky (results greater than EV+SD/2).

    Reply

    • Liz
      May 1, 2018

      Correction: there is no convergence of SD to zero. There is convergence of SD to EV, that is Nzero (occurs at variance/EV/EV hands). But SD always increases, it never decreases.

      Reply

  3. Liz
    May 1, 2018

    For one hand of breakeven jacks or better (976 royal) using maxEV strategy, the chances of hitting the EV (getting a push) are the same as the chances of hitting a pair of jacks or better, namely 21.27%. The chances of losing your bet are 54.78%. The rest, 23.95%, get lucky and get more than their bet back. Jazbo.com has the curves for 1000, 5000 and 10,000 hands. At 1000 hands, the chances of hitting the EV are 0.65%. At 5000 hands, the chances of hitting the EV are 0.26%. At 10,000 hands the chances of hitting the EV are 0.16%. The more you play, the less likely you are to hit the EV. You are far more likely to get less than the EV (unlucky) or more than the EV (lucky).

    Reply

  4. Victor Shaw
    May 2, 2018

    So 19.15% fall within half a standard deviation on each side. 38.3% are within a half standard deviation of the mean. So your one third oversimplification is not actually too bad. Take it out to one standard deviation and you capture 68.27%. One standard deviation seems more meaningful. If you are within 1 SD you are neither lucky or unlucky. This is the case Bob is talking about where the group within a SD is larger than those that are lucky and unlucky combined. After a million hands of break-even $1 9/6 JoB (976 Royal) your EV is 5 Million. 1 SD is $22,100. So a player that is 1 SD to the good has $5,022,100 instead of the true EV of $5 million. That 22,000 does not make one boast. A million hands is almost full time for a year. The true AP’s are not playing to break even…nor are they lucky or unlucky. They find a small advantage and exploit it millions of times or even 20 to 50 million times. Possibly a 100 million times in the case of the 100 play full pay deuces that no longer exist.

    Reply

    • Liz
      May 3, 2018

      The coin in would be $5 million, the EV is 0. +1SD would be +$27,459, -1SD would be -$27,459. (Variance of 976 jacks is 30.16).

      Reply

      • Liz
        May 3, 2018

        If you divide the possible results into roughly equal thirds, it looks like this:

        Bottom unlucky third loses more than $13,730

        Middle third has results somewhere between losing $13,730 to winning $13,730

        Top lucky third wins more than $13,730

        If you were to increase the number of hands to say 10 million, these numbers would increase, not decrease (SD/2=$43,417@10millionhands). The more hands you play, the bigger the numbers become.

        Reply

      • Liz
        May 3, 2018

        If you want to be slightly more precise, the boundary is closer to SD/2.33

        Reply

      • Bob Dancer
        May 3, 2018

        These comments presume a 100% game exactly. What competent player would play an even game? You need an edge to make it worthwhile. If you want to crank out these numbers with a 0.3%, 0.6%, 0.9% or whatever edge, knock yourself out, but a 0% edge is not for winning players.

        All these comments infer you can calculate the edge precisely. In the real world that’s simply not the case. You don’t know for sure how many tickets are in the drum. You don’t know for sure how much your mailer is going to be. You don’t know if and when the game will be removed — or you will — or if the slot club will be reduced. All the math skills in the world can’t eliminate these uncertainties.

        Reply

  5. Blitzkrieg
    May 3, 2018

    Nice article Bob. I seen that your buddy Anthony Curtis was mentioned in this article yesterday… http://www.latimes.com/travel/lasvegas/la-tr-las-vegas-fees-may-mean-fewer-visitors-20180501-story.html

    Reply

  6. Theodore Donald Kiravatsos
    May 3, 2018

    Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to contribute in the depth that I would like this time around, but I do want to share the following –

    Liz’s second class of player brought to mind a pair of articles Bob wrote in 2003, called “A Different Look at the Difference in Pay Schedules” and “A Continued Look at Bankroll requirements”. My links to these articles are now broken so I can’t share them.

    These articles cover a number of points worth discussing in this thread, but what struck me as particularly relevant was how it is quite possible to be a player who plays perfectly and still can run badly over 100,000 hands or more.

    Reply

  7. Liz
    May 6, 2018

    Bob wrote: “These comments presume a 100% game exactly. What competent player would play an even game? You need an edge to make it worthwhile.”

    Edge is just an offset to the curve, for example on the normal curve, an edge of SD/2.33 would mean about 2/3rd’s of the gamblers are lucky winners while about 1/3rd are unlucky losers:

    bottom unlucky third lose
    middle lucky third win from 0 to double SD/2.33
    top lucky third win more than double SD/2.33

    Reply

    • Bob Dancer
      May 6, 2018

      I don’t dispute your math.

      The problem is, in my mind, is that nobody can correctly define the edge in real world situations. And the edge for some players is significantly different than the edge for other players ostensibly playing the same game.

      For example, different skill levels in the game itself; different knowledge in the way the rules of a particular promotion works; different abilities to extend your welcome when the casino is considering kicking your out; different strategies available to some for reasons of bankroll and/or risk aversion; etc.

      Just calling it an “offset to the curve” hides a number of real world considerations. Wallowing in those situations and trying to figure them out is what I’m trying to do. Just knowing that your you’ll be lucky, average, or unlucky each 1/3 of the time isn’t that useful of a predictor. Knowing how to increase your skill level is.

      If you can increase your skill level enough, even if you’re in the “unlucky third,” you can possibly still be a lifetime winner.

      Reply

      • LC Larry
        May 6, 2018

        Ughhhhh. How many times do I have to repeat this. If you need promotions to come out ahead, you are NOT beating the game itself. You’re beating the players club!

        Reply

      • Bob Dancer
        May 6, 2018

        You can complain about the wording concerning beating the game over beating the casino all you want, but it’s not going to change my terminology. I consider myself a successful video poker player who utilizes casino promotions as part of the mix.

        Reply

  8. Liz
    May 6, 2018

    Bob wrote: “If you can increase your skill level enough, even if you’re in the “unlucky third,” you can possibly still be a lifetime winner.”

    I don’t dispute that at all. Mickey Crimm is an example of a gambler who can beat the odds no matter what the gods might throw at him. Of course casinos have enough edge and number of hands that they can effectively beat the odds. The true “Advantage Players” are the casinos.

    Reply

  9. Robert Manheim
    May 10, 2018

    A couple of days ago, I saw a Bob Dancer blogpost on here on the subject of whether or not APs cheat. I didn’t read the post, leaving it to savor later, since the title seemed especially intriguing. Today when I went to read it, I saw it is no longer there. I found a cached page of the article. I see no reason why it was deleted. I would lke to know the reason that the blogpost was deleted. Thanks for a reply

    Reply

    • Liz
      May 10, 2018

      That’s interesting. You can find it on google cached pages, “Do APs Cheat?” Maybe this website is being hacked?

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop