also matchplay coupons are worth more on longshots. for example if you had a $10 matchplay coupon that you could play on one number in roulette. your EV would be ($20)(35)(1/38) - $10(37/38) which is better than an even money bet such as red or black, $20(18/38) - $10(20/38). so the higher the variance the better.

to make the most from this promotion i should play high denomination games with very high variance to make it similar to betting one number on roulette and as close to a matchplay coupon as possible.

so my question is, which videopoker/slot games have the most variance?

Quote:rudeboyoi

so my question is, which videopoker/slot games have the most variance?

Considering just video poker, 10-5 Royal Aces Bonus Poker has a standard deviation of 13.58. You can just square that to get the variance, but I think standard deviation is the better measurement of volatility. However, that game is hard to find. I've only seen it once in Mesquite in 2006.

Among games you have a realistic chance to find, I'm going to go with Triple Double Bonus. The 9-7 pay table has a standard deviation of 9.91.

You might also try a 2-3 coin dollar machine with a nice payout, like Wheel of Fortune or something.

Quote:WizardConsidering just video poker, 10-5 Royal Aces Bonus Poker has a standard deviation of 13.58. You can just square that to get the variance, but I think standard deviation is the better measurement of volatility. However, that game is hard to find. I've only seen it once in Mesquite in 2006.

Among games you have a realistic chance to find, I'm going to go with Triple Double Bonus. The 9-7 pay table has a standard deviation of 9.91.

He'd be hard-pressed to locate that paytable in anything over $2 and he'd be lucky if the Mirage or South Point still had those.

How much play did you give them beforehand to get this offer?

Quote:rudeboyoialso matchplay coupons are worth more on longshots. for example if you had a $10 matchplay coupon that you could play on one number in roulette. your EV would be ($20)(35)(1/38) - $10(37/38) which is better than an even money bet such as red or black, $20(18/38) - $10(20/38). so the higher the variance the better.

to make the most from this promotion i should play high denomination games with very high variance to make it similar to betting one number on roulette and as close to a matchplay coupon as possible.

At first look, the idea that a game with a greater variance would increase the value of match play seemed counterintuitive - wouldn't cutting the cost in half without changing the payouts result strictly in doubling the expected return (added:) regardless of the game?

Then, I saw the example of roulette in the quote above, and I contemplated. Perhaps a higher variance does prove useful; after all, it is easy to see the difference in the EV of the two roulette examples. And I fail to see fault with either the calculations or the underlying assumptions. So, then I pondered the Wizard's suggestions for high variance VP games, and thought, "What about Super Aces Bonus, or Loose Deuces, or even Five Aces DDB?" Granted you cannot always find full pay, but if variance is at a premium, maybe a slightly inferior paytable will do. Why? If you are looking for a high variance game, it's because you want a "decent" chance at a jackpot-like payout. But at what cost? How low can the return of the game be, and how high does the variance have to be to cover? In other words, how can I combine the two into one metric to evaluate and compare the available paytables or other games? (If you want a high variance, and return may not be priority one, then is video keno an option?

So, in case you have not notices, I have this driving need to quantify things in order to qualify an assertion. (Can anyone show me figures to prove that higher variance give higher EV during match play?) In order to formulate some VP paytables, I took a closer look at our Roulette example as a simplified model. While I do agree that picking a number in Roulette has a higher variance than picking red or black, I have a tendency to disagree that variance is the only driving force in the change in EV. I believe that the probability of loss to be a greater factor.

More to come...

~camapl

Quote:camaplI believe that the probability of loss to be a greater factor.

If we analyze the Roulette example we see that the expected returns (using "for 1" figures instead of "to 1") for the respective bets would be as follows:

Single Number: (36 * 1/38) - (0.5 * 37/38) = (36 * 2.6316%) - (0.5 * 97.3684%) = 143.4211%

Half the Field: (2 * 18/38) - (0.5 * 20/38) = (2 * 47.3684%) - (0.5 * 53.6316%) = 121.0526%

Note the result of subtracting the base returns from the figures above and multiplying the difference by two.

Single Number: (143.4211% - 94.7368%) * 2 = 97.3684%

Half the Field: (121.0526% - 94.7368%) * 2 = 52.6316%

The figures above are the respective probabilities of loss of the two Roulette games. What does this mean? If we divide the probability of a loss in half and add it to the base return of the game, we get the return of the game during match play.

Return (match play) = Return (base) + 1/2 * Probability of Loss

Could this be right? If we consider how the coupon works, then perhaps it is. Due to the nature of the coupon, or the partial loss coverage, there is actually a premium for losing - namely, one half a unit. If we play VP or some other game where a decision affects the outcome, we may need to alter the strategy to account for the value of losing! Seem strange? I know. You may blame my driving need to analyze these things.

As always, have fun - it makes winning big even better!

~camapl

Quote:camapl(Can anyone show me figures to prove that higher variance give higher EV during match play?)~camapl

Actually, variance does not affect EV. The two concepts are entirely separate.

Example: Game A: There are 99 ping-pong balls in a bowl, numbered consecutively from 1 to 99. If you draw a number 50 or higher, I pay you even money. Since you have 50 ways to win but only 49 ways to lose, the EV of your bet is +1% (rounded down). Game B: Same bowl of balls, but this time you have to draw the "mystery number" to win. However, if you do, I will pay you 99-1. This is the same +1% EV (approximately), but in the case of Game B, your variance is MUCH higher. However, after a gazillion trials in both games, your expected result would be the same.

For any given bet with an equivalent overall house edge the higher the standard deviation of the expected final bankroll the higher the value of the loss-rebate.

This is becuase with any given bankroll or coin-in you have a greater chance of busting the bankroll or zero-ing your coin in when the standard deviation of the bet is larger relative to the size of you bankroll. The reason for this has to do with the 'floor effect' of zero-ing out your coin in. Once you hit zero dollars you stop playing, and don't have a chance to catch a possitive swing to bring you back towards your EV (loss or gain). Essentially I am talking about an ROR calculation here.

Now, the more interesting question is how much of a increase in house edge (or decrease in player edge) can you afford in exchange for an increased variance if you are using a loss-rebate promotion to gain an advantage. The answer to this is likely non-linear, and not easily generalized. I would guess that you'd have to approach this on a case by case basis.

Luckily, the math should be pretty straight forward for any individual game with a known SD and house edge.

Quote:CoolMikeRemember that we are talking about the EV of a loss-rebate here.

Luckily, the math should be pretty straight forward for any individual game with a known SD and house edge.

The trouble is, you're asking two different questions, but combining them into one. Consider: let's say you had a $10,000 loss rebate instead of $100. Your motivation would be to find a game where your chances of getting behind by that much would be essentially zero. This is essentially a RoR calculation, in that your "bankroll" is the difference between the amount of the rebate and zero. Two things affect RoR: inherent EV, and variance. Higher EV (ideally, positive, but the concept applies for any EV) reduces RoR; lower variance reduces RoR.

However, there is always a time limit. So if you play low denominations, you won't be maximizing the utility of the promotion.

Therefore, the best play is to play at the lowest denomination where a positive EV is available, and play the game with the lowest variance. When push comes to shove, you maximize your results by playing the game with the best EV, whether or not you have a loss rebate.

An unanswered question, which needs to be asked, is if you were so horribly unlucky as to win :), when would you stop? At what point does the utility of the promotion get overridden by the realized gain? Of course, if you are playing a +EV game, the optimal strategy is to keep on playing, at least until it's obvious that you could not possibly sink back down to a loss equal to the rebate (which would make the rebate moot).

they got rid of their $2 denomination video poker machines. the ones that used to be at the $2 denomination now you can only play blackjack on. there was a slot promotion going on where u get a multiplier effect too if u won $40 or more in a bonus round.

so i had a few different things to weigh. high denomination. high variance. bonus payouts. bonus frequency. i settled on a $10/spin machine that had three different bonus games that could be triggered.

i dropped $200 on 3 separate nights (getting $100 back each night). the 4th night i went back and last day of the promotion. first spin. the very first spin. i won 8000 credits or $400. i spun once more and didnt hit anything so cashed out $580.

This was touched on in the Terrible's loss-rebate thread, where it was advised to go for broke (use extreme variance) to make a lot of money or go bust (and take advantage of the rebate) trying. In the case, the OP should find the highest variance slot machine or video poker machine and go for broke trying to hit a big jackpot. That's the only way he can take best advantage of the loss rebate. If he plays 9/6 Jacks at .25c, or whatever their best game is, he's just going to grind it away and never get anywhere.

This is at Four Winds casino in New Buffalo, Mich.

In conclusion, I recommend taking advantage of this promotion. I found Four Winds to be a very nice casino, and they had my favorite table game, WPT 3X Hold-'Em! I also got a discretionary dinner comp, which was a first at any casino. Later on I went to Blue Chip in Michigan City Indiana, which is also very nice if you are in the area.

Since the house advantage on higher denomination slots should be less than 10%, perhaps in the 5% arena, the "Go big or go home" approach may be best to find a big winner.

:::shrug:::

Quote:teddysThat's the only way he can take best advantage of the loss rebate. If he plays 9/6 Jacks at .25c, or whatever their best game is, he's just going to grind it away and never get anywhere.

That's completely untrue. A low-variance game would allow the player quite a few chances at the royal before he reached the rebate threshold. A high-variance game would cut down of the number of plays he had available before hitting bottom.

The EV of playing .25 JOB with a $100 loss rebate has been estimated to be around $34 (I don't know how this was arrived at). Moving up in denomination, or up in volatility, both increases your win when you manage to win, and decreases the frequency of such wins.

It probably comes down to mindset. I am not inclined to "go for broke" very often in any context, because I know that's both an unrealistic and a meaningless concept--it's not going to be the last money I ever have, or the last bet I ever make--so I have no particular motive to be reckless. But rebates like this work for the casino precisely because most people DO think in "go for broke" terms.

I would set a "stop-win" of at least the amount of the rebate--so a $400 win would make me stop playing, if the rebate was $400. Since I am more likely to reach the -$400 point than the +$400 point, I'm going to wind up losing more often than winning, and then have to scramble to recover as much of that as possible via the rebate. But the times when I win $400 or more will more than offset that.

mkl, that thinking is perfectly fine and wise for the long term, and that's how I used to approach these rebates. Why not play the best game available at the lowest denomination possible, like I would in "real life?" However, the Wizard and I believe others have said that is not the best strategy; the best way to take advantage of these loss rebates is to "shoot the moon" and get as much variance as you can. We are not in the long-term, here; we are in "rebate-land" and our play must be different to accordingly take advantage. It goes against every thing I believe in to be reckless, but I make an exception at these times. That's why I played $2 VP for this promo. I played $.25 Jacks to recoup my basis, and got it back plus more.

That said, for this particular promotion, I would take a different approach. This promo takes into account real losses only. So I would take a $20 bill and play low-limit VP or penny slots or video roulette until I've grinded out close to $400 in losses. This would require careful record keeping, or checking in with the slot desk often to see what "losses" I am up to. This is one occasion where I would want the lowest variance machine possible.

A fellow WoV member also did this promotion; he was short bankroll so he played a $20 through a blazing sevens quarter progressive machine, lost it, and got a $50 rebate. He got back the $50 exactly playing penny poker.

Quote:teddysUpdate: I went to Four Winds this weekend to check out this promotion. .

I think I'll try to get over to Four Winds if the rebate promo is still running over the Christmas Holidays. The promo details are on the Four Winds website. Seems like there are mostly favorable reviews on TripAdvisor.com for Four Winds.