Thread Rating:

Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
January 21st, 2011 at 9:50:56 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
teddys
teddys
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5444
January 21st, 2011 at 10:06:51 AM permalink
The base payback of 9/6 STP is 99.82. This casino gives cashback at the rate of .167 (for every $6 played, you receive 1 point, and 500 points are worth $5; $3000 played=$5 "rebate" or 0.167% added to your return). So the net return is 99.987. It's still a negative game overall, but pretty good for the recreational gambler. I wouldn't play all nine lines. You can still get a nice food comp after a couple minutes of play at three lines. Actually, I am going up to play that very same game this weekend. See you there? :)
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
January 21st, 2011 at 10:15:06 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
cardshark
cardshark
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 239
January 21st, 2011 at 10:47:47 AM permalink
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't just simply this:

Game: 99.82%
Cash back is worth: 0.0283% = $5 / [(500/17)*60]
Total return: 100.103%

Bet per spin $1.25
Hands per hour: 800 * 9 lines = $7,200

Expected win per hour: $9.30 = 1.25*7200*0.103%
cardshark
cardshark
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 239
January 21st, 2011 at 11:02:41 AM permalink
Also worth mentioning is that nearly 2% of the above return is due to the 4,000 coin Royal Flush payoff. So you may want to examine the probability of not hitting a royal in your session, if you are playing a "short session", as well as the expected value without the royal. I would define a "short session" as about 17 hours or less using a 5% chance of no royal for the session threshold).

I will give an example below, but it is not valid for spin poker since you are playing 9 hands at a time with the same starting cards, and therefore the outcome of these hands are highly correlated to each other.

A Royal has a 1 in 40,390.5475 chance.

Therefore, the odds of not getting a royal in a 7,200 hand session is 83.67%. In a two hour session it would be 70.01%. In a four hour session 49.01% and in an eight hour session 24.02%. The odds of not getting a royal in 7,200 of spin poker is higher.

The total expected value for the game minus the royal (but including the cash back) is 98.123%, giving an expected loss of $168.96. I believe this number should hold for spin poker, too.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 21st, 2011 at 11:09:25 AM permalink
Quote: cardshark

Also worth mentioning is that nearly 2% of the above return is due to the 4,000 coin Royal Flush payoff. So you may want to examine the probability of not hitting a royal in your session, if you are playing a "short session", as well as the expected value without the royal. I would define a "short session" as about 17 hours or less using a 5% chance of no royal for the session threshold).

I will give an example below, but it is not valid for spin poker since you are playing 9 hands at a time with the same starting cards, and therefore the outcome of these hands are highly correlated to each other.

A Royal has a 1 in 40,390.5475 chance.

Therefore, the odds of not getting a royal in a 7,200 hand session is 83.67%. In a two hour session it would be 70.01%. In a four hour session 49.01% and in an eight hour session 24.02%. The odds of not getting a royal in 7,200 of spin poker is higher.

The total expected value for the game minus the royal (but including the cash back) is 98.123%, giving an expected loss of $168.96. I believe this number should hold for spin poker, too.



I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Sure, you probably won't hit a royal today--but expected return is the sum of all possible occurences. Saying that your real return is 98% because you won't hit a royal is equivalent to saying that your return is 1000% if you DO hit a royal. In either case, the error is in focusing on the (drum roll, please) SHORT TERM. Video poker wouldn't be worth playing at all if it wasn't for the royal, and part and parcel of that is accepting the fact that today, you probably won't hit a royal, and you probably will lose.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
January 21st, 2011 at 11:11:42 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
cardshark
cardshark
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 239
January 21st, 2011 at 11:16:06 AM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Quote: cardshark

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't just simply this:

Game: 99.82%
Cash back is worth: 0.0283% = $5 / [(500/17)*60]
Total return: 100.103%

Bet per spin $1.25
Hands per hour: 800 * 9 lines = $7,200

Expected win per hour: $9.30 = 1.25*7200*0.103%



We came up with about the same figures but we were hoping someone might validate it for us. It took three days before a royal came in and we missed it at the time and only noticed it by the credits on the meter. Also being that this is spin poker and only one deck is used, we thought it might distort some of the numbers as opposed to the same game being played on say a 9 play machine with 9 seperate decks.



My understanding is that the fact that it is spin poker does not affect the expected returns of any given hand. However, it does affect the probability of hitting a royal in a session because each of the 9 hands you are playing are not independent. In other words, the variance is different than regular play but the expected value is the same.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
January 21st, 2011 at 11:18:48 AM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
cardshark
cardshark
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 239
January 21st, 2011 at 11:21:48 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. Sure, you probably won't hit a royal today--but expected return is the sum of all possible occurences. Saying that your real return is 98% because you won't hit a royal is equivalent to saying that your return is 1000% if you DO hit a royal. In either case, the error is in focusing on the (drum roll, please) SHORT TERM. Video poker wouldn't be worth playing at all if it wasn't for the royal, and part and parcel of that is accepting the fact that today, you probably won't hit a royal, and you probably will lose.



You touched on the point I was trying to make. Short term advantage play video poker is dangerous because there is a high probability you will end with a loss due to the weighting of the royal.

Also, it is useful to look at an expected value in the way I presented because it gives a picture of how the variance of the game can affect your results. You should never examine expected value in a vacuum, it should always be considered along with the variance. A good example is to imagine a game that cost $1 to play, returns $1 50% of the time and $1 billion dollars with probably 1 in 2 billion. The expected value is $1, but if you remove the $1 billion unlikely prize, you get an expected value of only $0.50, which is the expceted value you can expect to achieve in your lifetime of playing this game (and this is because of the very high variance of about 500 million $).

  • Jump to: