bub
bub
Joined: Jun 2, 2014
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 4
June 2nd, 2014 at 12:20:16 AM permalink
I was playing Deuces Wild and I had the "cheat" sheet with me from wizardofodds that gives the strategy in order to have a .76% player advantage over the house (100.76% player advantage). I followed the criteria religiously but still lost the $20 I started after 90 minutes, and I am confused as to why because I was under the impression that I would not lose most bets due the advantage being in my favor. Is this for more of a long term number or have I misinterpreted (which is totally possible) the optimal strategy implications? Any advice is appreciated.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
June 2nd, 2014 at 12:27:22 AM permalink
Quote: bub

I was playing Deuces Wild and I had the "cheat" sheet with me from wizardofodds that gives the strategy in order to have a .76% player advantage over the house (100.76% player advantage). I followed the criteria religiously but still lost the $20 I started after 90 minutes, and I am confused as to why because I was under the impression that I would not lose most bets due the advantage being in my favor. Is this for more of a long term number or have I misinterpreted (which is totally possible) the optimal strategy implications? Any advice is appreciated.



Whether you have the edge has nothing to do with whether you win or lose most bets. Video poker has big swings, since so much of the payback is in big hands like royals.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
June 2nd, 2014 at 12:28:57 AM permalink
long term yes
Follow me: https://www.heavensgate.com/
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 149
  • Posts: 19248
June 2nd, 2014 at 12:29:30 AM permalink
Quote: bub

I was playing Deuces Wild and I had the "cheat" sheet with me from wizardofodds that gives the strategy in order to have a .76% player advantage over the house (100.76% player advantage). I followed the criteria religiously but still lost the $20 I started after 90 minutes, and I am confused as to why because I was under the impression that I would not lose most bets due the advantage being in my favor. Is this for more of a long term number or have I misinterpreted (which is totally possible) the optimal strategy implications? Any advice is appreciated.

Seriously? Use some logic here. If it was that easy there would be a mile long waiting list to get on the machines. You could play for months and months and still lose.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
June 2nd, 2014 at 5:13:21 AM permalink
Quote: bub

I was playing Deuces Wild and I had the "cheat" sheet with me from wizardofodds that gives the strategy in order to have a .76% player advantage over the house (100.76% player advantage). I followed the criteria religiously but still lost the $20 I started after 90 minutes, and I am confused as to why because I was under the impression that I would not lose most bets due the advantage being in my favor. Is this for more of a long term number or have I misinterpreted (which is totally possible) the optimal strategy implications? Any advice is appreciated.



If you look at his chart he shows you how the 100.76 comes to be. You will notice that the royal is worth something like 2.x% (I think)
so if you did not get a royal then you played at 98.X%

Look at it from the other direction. If you put in $20 but hit a royal you would be at $1000. Obviously $20 to $1000 is not a payback of 100.76 either.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
bub
bub
Joined: Jun 2, 2014
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 4
June 2nd, 2014 at 5:03:49 PM permalink
I cannot find this information on his website, but is he calculating a certain amount of hands to achieve this 100.76 figure? Since I played for 90 minutes (and more than 90 hands), I did not hit anything above a four of a kind due to the low probabilities of the higher return combinations.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
June 2nd, 2014 at 6:00:35 PM permalink
Quote: bub

I cannot find this information on his website, but is he calculating a certain amount of hands to achieve this 100.76 figure? Since I played for 90 minutes (and more than 90 hands), I did not hit anything above a four of a kind due to the low probabilities of the higher return combinations.



No, the figure is not derived through simulation of a lot of hands. It is the actual expectation.

The more hands you play, the more likely it becomes that your actual results are close to the expectation (when expressed as a percentage).

A few hundred hands is a very small sample, your results could be anywhere from way below expectation to way above expectation. On any given hand you could get a royal; that would add $1000 to your total return (you are playing quarters, right?) Until you are at the point where what $1000 would barely move your percent return, it's not reasonable to think that your return would be close to expectation -- while a single hand can still make it swing around, it hasn't stabilized yet.
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6270
June 2nd, 2014 at 6:44:12 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice


A few hundred hands is a very small sample, your results could be anywhere from way below expectation to way above expectation. On any given hand you could get a royal; that would add $1000 to your total return (you are playing quarters, right?) Until you are at the point where what $1000 would barely move your percent return, it's not reasonable to think that your return would be close to expectation -- while a single hand can still make it swing around, it hasn't stabilized yet.



If he played on quarters for 90 minutes with $20 and getting nothing better than 4 of a kind, I need to know his secret...lol
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
June 2nd, 2014 at 6:49:37 PM permalink
Quote: tringlomane

If he played on quarters for 90 minutes with $20 and getting nothing better than 4 of a kind, I need to know his secret...lol



Well he was checking a strategy chart for each hand. It would probably take you 5-10 minutes to play that many hands.

Slow play for cheap drinks!
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6270
June 2nd, 2014 at 6:56:01 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Well he was checking a strategy chart for each hand. It would probably take you 5-10 minutes to play that many hands.

Slow play for cheap drinks!



Yeah, it would probably take me about 10 min. for 90 hands, or more time. I tend to not play very fast unless I need to, even on slightly +EV games. I thought about him checking most hands when I typed up my response, but it sounds better if he would have some secret. ;)

  • Jump to: