{"id":120502,"date":"2020-02-11T09:47:13","date_gmt":"2020-02-11T17:47:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/gambling-with-an-edge\/?p=120502"},"modified":"2023-08-24T14:37:51","modified_gmt":"2023-08-24T22:37:51","slug":"the-math-is-meaningless","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/blog\/the-math-is-meaningless\/","title":{"rendered":"The Math is Meaningless!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

An interesting article was recently published by FrankB on the gamblingwithanedge.com blog<\/a>. (I think of that page as \u201cmy page\u201d because GWAE is \u201cmy show.\u201d In fact, I\u2019m only a co-host on the show and one of many gambling experts who publish on that page — which is hosted by Anthony Curtis\u2019 Las Vegas Advisor<\/em>. Whether it\u2019s my page or not, I\u2019m proud to be associated with it.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FrankB is a friend, and quite expert at figuring out combinational mathematics, among other things. Doing it the way he did, his 1-in-288 million is computationally correct. But I have a major bone to pick with doing it that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The problem is that this was done \u201cafter the fact,\u201d and then the math assumed you took the exact same path as happened in real life. What\u2019s wrong with that? Well, you can do this and make the number however large you want.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you decide that being in diamonds is an important part of the story, then multiply your 1-in-288 million by 1\/4 and come up with more than 1 in a billion. If you think that specifically starting with KQJT suited is important, multiply a factor of 1\/5. If you think that having the cards in the exact order of K Q J x T is important, multiply the number by 1\/60. Using all the multipliers, you can get 1 in 350 billion, which is 1,200 times as large as the paltry 288 million. Now we\u2019re talking!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why would anybody do it that way? People like to tell stories that are very, very<\/em> unusual. Which proves they were very, very<\/em> lucky. (Or unlucky — depending on how you like to tell stories.)\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, we\u2019re talking about taking down the royal-on-all-three-hands, and that is \u201cmerely\u201d 1-in-650,000. (Actually, 1 in 649,740.) If you\u2019re planning on taking down the progressive, THAT\u2019s the number you\u2019re thinking about. Sometimes the \u201cbackdoor\u201d method of being dealt 4-to-the-royal and hitting three times wouldn\u2019t pay off. Some of these machines specifically say, \u201cDealt Royals Only,\u201d which guards the casino against this 1-in-288 million longshot. And, if you ask me, it\u2019s pretty chintzy on the part of the casinos that do this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you want to add the 1-in-288 million to 1-in 649,740, (assuming you\u2019re at a place where both ways will pay you off), you get all the way up to a robust 1-in-648,285 — which is still going to be rounded off to 1-in-650,000 for most people explaining it.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, is this a 1-in-288 million jackpot or a 1-in-648,285 jackpot? Take your pick! When you figure this out after the fact, either number can be justified. As can several other numbers as well. It\u2019s the same $12,280.25 jackpot, which most of us would call a very nice hit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An interesting question, to me anyway, is how much does this \u201cdealt royal\u201d bonus add to the EV? To figure this, I use $3,000 as a normal amount for three $1,000 royals. Once you know this figure, it\u2019s easy to adjust to the actual number.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s quite simple. Every 650,000 hands (using rounded numbers), you get another 800 coins per coin bet. And 800 \/ 650,000 = 0.0012 = 0.12%.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On this game in particular, where the individual progressive royals averaged a bit more than $1,800, the game itself was worth 99.6%. Add in two extra 0.12% bonuses, and then some, because the dealt royal bonus is based on $12,280 in this case and the undealt royals added up to $5450 or so. Call that 99.9%, with 0.3% of that based on the 1-in-650,000 dealt royal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The signage on the machine implies it\u2019s a Boyd property machine and they regularly have 11x points for senior days and sometimes at other times. Eleven times multiplier (their base rate is 0.05%), adds another 0.55%. That makes the game worth 100.45% before including the meter progression and the extra benefits. (There is usually a senior drawing of some sort available, possibly a free buffet, plus some people get mailers.\u00a0 If you play enough, hosts also sometimes give you meal comps, etc.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was definitely a mildly positive play — the player got lucky and got a good story. The picture was taken, and this is at least the second major article written about the hand — plus I know it was spoken about on at least one radio station.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I still think 1-in-650,000 is a much more valid number than 1-in-288 million. I don\u2019t think it is worth an extended argument — but obviously I did think it was worth an article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author\u2019s note:  I passed this article by FrankB and Anthony Curtis before publishing. I\u2019m friendly with both and want to keep it that way. Frank responded (I\u2019m shortening his response but not changing his intent, I believe).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don’t necessarily have a problem with it. The uniqueness of how they got to that end result was what I thought people would find interesting and have. . . . Regardless of how others chose to view it, I think it’s the most interesting hand I’ve ever seen.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An interesting article was recently published by FrankB on the gamblingwithanedge.com blog. (I think of that page as \u201cmy page\u201d because GWAE is \u201cmy show.\u201d In fact, I\u2019m only a co-host on the show and one of many gambling experts who publish on that page — which is hosted by Anthony Curtis\u2019 Las Vegas Advisor. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15763,"featured_media":6498,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"The Math is Meaningless! by Bob Dancer","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[601,558,557],"tags":[561,712,585],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120502"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15763"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120502"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120502\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120502"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120502"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/shop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120502"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}