October 20th, 2013 at 10:42:35 PM
permalink

I LOVE IT. My illiteracy showed in last post. Was trying to say I can explain your calculator and even my wife will understand.

Many years ago she called me at work as car had dead battery. I suggested she add hot water to cells as last resort. When I got home she wanted me to check car. I said it started so was probably OK now. Josie said she did add water and leaned as low as she could, but she never heard the battery ring !

FILL TO RING stenciled on battery

Many years ago she called me at work as car had dead battery. I suggested she add hot water to cells as last resort. When I got home she wanted me to check car. I said it started so was probably OK now. Josie said she did add water and leaned as low as she could, but she never heard the battery ring !

FILL TO RING stenciled on battery

Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet

October 21st, 2013 at 2:30:31 PM
permalink

I always found it difficult seeing the House Edge based on your expected bet, but then found it slightly strange calling it a $5 table when in reality you needed at least $10 to start the game.

Personally I would like to know three things...

Firstly if it's called a $5 game (i.e. the sign on the table says "My Nice Game, Min=$5") what is my expected cost to play each game assuming I make the minimum bet(s). Thus I can directly compare this game with other games that also have "Other Game, Min=$5".

Secondly what is my total initial (or minimum) outlay just to play the game to completion. In an Ante/Raise (or Let It Ride, remove), how much do I need to complete the game, assuming optimal strategy. I accept in Blackjack that it is not defined and the expectation is that you might need to double or split and occasionally need multiple additional bets.

Thirdly is the non-maths profit/loss per hand part: how many hands are played an hour; is the variance quite low (e.g. Pai Gow like); is the game fun to play and perhaps have something to think about; is there a player or betting strategy?

Personally to compare new games with existing ones such as

(a) a single $5 bet at Roulette or similar

(b) one hand of $5 Blackjack (even though in practice I may have to make additional bets)

(c) $5 bet on Pass at Craps (even though I may have a chance to make an Odds bet of whatever size I wish)

(d) $5 Ante bet in an Ante/Raise game (accepting that I will have to add $5-$20 extra.)

I should like these two figures:

(i) the cost per initial $5

(ii) the expected additional wager(s) required.

However where I have to make multiple initial bets, such as in Two-Way Poker, with raises etc., it isn't so easy.

I guess most people nowadays (except Blackjack) reduce the expected loss per initial wager(s) by the total expected bets required. Personally I just want to compare whether it's better to play the "$5 Game A" or "$5 Game B" and which loses me the least money per hand or per hour.

I know my view doesn't align to modern thinking, but then I was brought up looking at simpler games with one initial wager, Book values and percentage paybacks.

Personally I would like to know three things...

Firstly if it's called a $5 game (i.e. the sign on the table says "My Nice Game, Min=$5") what is my expected cost to play each game assuming I make the minimum bet(s). Thus I can directly compare this game with other games that also have "Other Game, Min=$5".

Secondly what is my total initial (or minimum) outlay just to play the game to completion. In an Ante/Raise (or Let It Ride, remove), how much do I need to complete the game, assuming optimal strategy. I accept in Blackjack that it is not defined and the expectation is that you might need to double or split and occasionally need multiple additional bets.

Thirdly is the non-maths profit/loss per hand part: how many hands are played an hour; is the variance quite low (e.g. Pai Gow like); is the game fun to play and perhaps have something to think about; is there a player or betting strategy?

Personally to compare new games with existing ones such as

(a) a single $5 bet at Roulette or similar

(b) one hand of $5 Blackjack (even though in practice I may have to make additional bets)

(c) $5 bet on Pass at Craps (even though I may have a chance to make an Odds bet of whatever size I wish)

(d) $5 Ante bet in an Ante/Raise game (accepting that I will have to add $5-$20 extra.)

I should like these two figures:

(i) the cost per initial $5

(ii) the expected additional wager(s) required.

However where I have to make multiple initial bets, such as in Two-Way Poker, with raises etc., it isn't so easy.

I guess most people nowadays (except Blackjack) reduce the expected loss per initial wager(s) by the total expected bets required. Personally I just want to compare whether it's better to play the "$5 Game A" or "$5 Game B" and which loses me the least money per hand or per hour.

I know my view doesn't align to modern thinking, but then I was brought up looking at simpler games with one initial wager, Book values and percentage paybacks.

October 22nd, 2013 at 9:51:22 AM
permalink

What is a sucker bet?

I mean: from what level of HE does it stop being a normal game and begin being a sucker bet.

I agree that playing like Varmenti (betting both Player and Banker in Baccarat) is guaranteed loss -- that sucks!

But the strongly negative HE of betting "Tie" is less negative than, for example, State lottery. Should we say that the notion of "sucker bet" is a personal one? Does it involve something other than HE?

I mean: from what level of HE does it stop being a normal game and begin being a sucker bet.

I agree that playing like Varmenti (betting both Player and Banker in Baccarat) is guaranteed loss -- that sucks!

But the strongly negative HE of betting "Tie" is less negative than, for example, State lottery. Should we say that the notion of "sucker bet" is a personal one? Does it involve something other than HE?

Reperiet qui quaesiverit

October 25th, 2013 at 1:35:14 PM
permalink

I recognize that I am coming in at the dying end of this thread, but what the hell.

We published a file in our Help system that bears on some of the earlier parts of this discussion. (Yes, I know - our file is too long, contains too many words, no one is going to read it, and so forth. But by the Gods we've got it!)

This file's focus is on RTP rather than HE. It is from the Player's perspective in that for RTP it addresses the question "How much money has gone into or come out of my pocket?", and for TRTP the question "How much money can I expect to go into, or come out of, my pocket?".

Scroll down to the bottom section labeled "Theoretical RTP - Game Group 3". An important bit here is "... how do the results of this definition compare to a game's Reported RTP? In other words, how well does this definition do at accurately answering the question: 'How much money can I expect to go into, or come out of, my pocket?'"

One of the games which has been mentioned a few times in this thread is (Caribbean) Stud Poker. In our Help file we report a Theoretical Maximum RTP of 98.36%, and this is based on "Element of Risk".

This game's production lifetime RTP (well over 10 million rounds) is 97.37%. Thus a 1% difference between theoretical and actual. How much of this difference do we assign to "less than optimal play"?

Two other games which have also seen well over 10 million rounds are Blackjack and Jacks or Better Video Poker. (I don't know off the top how many of these JoB rounds are "Double Down") Their production lifetime RTPs are:

Blackjack - 98.62%

JoB Video Poker - 98.55%

So, here's some real world data to play around with.

In my opinion, the best formula for calculating the "Theoretical Return To Player" for any game like those in my "Game Group 3" is that formula which results in a number that (assuming optimal play) most accurately answers the Player's question: "How much money can I expect to go into, or come out of, my pocket?"

Put another way, it is the formula whose result most closely matches the actual, or Reported, RTP. (I'll repeat that nagging question - how much of a difference do we assign to "less than optimal play?")

TRTP is only one part of the decision on which game(s) to play, but it sure as hell is an important one.

Chris

We published a file in our Help system that bears on some of the earlier parts of this discussion. (Yes, I know - our file is too long, contains too many words, no one is going to read it, and so forth. But by the Gods we've got it!)

This file's focus is on RTP rather than HE. It is from the Player's perspective in that for RTP it addresses the question "How much money has gone into or come out of my pocket?", and for TRTP the question "How much money can I expect to go into, or come out of, my pocket?".

Scroll down to the bottom section labeled "Theoretical RTP - Game Group 3". An important bit here is "... how do the results of this definition compare to a game's Reported RTP? In other words, how well does this definition do at accurately answering the question: 'How much money can I expect to go into, or come out of, my pocket?'"

One of the games which has been mentioned a few times in this thread is (Caribbean) Stud Poker. In our Help file we report a Theoretical Maximum RTP of 98.36%, and this is based on "Element of Risk".

This game's production lifetime RTP (well over 10 million rounds) is 97.37%. Thus a 1% difference between theoretical and actual. How much of this difference do we assign to "less than optimal play"?

Two other games which have also seen well over 10 million rounds are Blackjack and Jacks or Better Video Poker. (I don't know off the top how many of these JoB rounds are "Double Down") Their production lifetime RTPs are:

Blackjack - 98.62%

JoB Video Poker - 98.55%

So, here's some real world data to play around with.

In my opinion, the best formula for calculating the "Theoretical Return To Player" for any game like those in my "Game Group 3" is that formula which results in a number that (assuming optimal play) most accurately answers the Player's question: "How much money can I expect to go into, or come out of, my pocket?"

Put another way, it is the formula whose result most closely matches the actual, or Reported, RTP. (I'll repeat that nagging question - how much of a difference do we assign to "less than optimal play?")

TRTP is only one part of the decision on which game(s) to play, but it sure as hell is an important one.

Chris

November 13th, 2013 at 12:09:06 PM
permalink

I think the Element of Risk as calculated by the WoO is a Usefull Concept.

The only problem is its name which is confusing to an average person.

The concepts could be called:

House Edge (on Initial Bet) and

House Edge (on Average Total Bet) = Element of Risk

Consider Caribbean Stud Poker

The HE is 5.22%

But Consider an Identical game with Caribbean Stud whereas with the only Difference is that you put All the bet at beggining and you can surrender and get 2/3 of the bet back (instead of Ante 1 + Raise 2 as normal, you Bet 3 and can surrender and get back 2)

The HE on this identical CS game is 1/3 of the normal, ie 1.74%.

So is someone where to tell you if this fantastic new carnival game with only 1.74% HE, you would see that is just CS with just a change in procedures.

The element of risk for CS of 2.55% is a much more appropriate number for someone to compare with other games.

The other imporant factor for APs (when they have the advantage), is that Expected Value (EV, or Advantage) on its own is not a good enough measure to compare game.

For example, say a BJ game with a 1% advantage OR a game like CS (EV because of advanced techniques) of 2%.

Which one is better.

The BJ game with 1% advanathe is better than the 2% of the CS because of the much bigger Variance of CS.

For APs the relevant measure is of course the SCORE.

The only problem is its name which is confusing to an average person.

The concepts could be called:

House Edge (on Initial Bet) and

House Edge (on Average Total Bet) = Element of Risk

Consider Caribbean Stud Poker

The HE is 5.22%

But Consider an Identical game with Caribbean Stud whereas with the only Difference is that you put All the bet at beggining and you can surrender and get 2/3 of the bet back (instead of Ante 1 + Raise 2 as normal, you Bet 3 and can surrender and get back 2)

The HE on this identical CS game is 1/3 of the normal, ie 1.74%.

So is someone where to tell you if this fantastic new carnival game with only 1.74% HE, you would see that is just CS with just a change in procedures.

The element of risk for CS of 2.55% is a much more appropriate number for someone to compare with other games.

The other imporant factor for APs (when they have the advantage), is that Expected Value (EV, or Advantage) on its own is not a good enough measure to compare game.

For example, say a BJ game with a 1% advantage OR a game like CS (EV because of advanced techniques) of 2%.

Which one is better.

The BJ game with 1% advanathe is better than the 2% of the CS because of the much bigger Variance of CS.

For APs the relevant measure is of course the SCORE.