Things I Do...Things I've observed

[EDC1977]

 Shadow, is the "optimum play" masking no different than the "game king" other than paytables? I remember you telling me that "optimum play" machines were positive return based on perfect play. The games or selection isn't any different is it?

[shadowman]

Ed, they are the same, standard Game King machines. It's just the face plate that is different.

[shadowman]

I agree with you Marie.  There is nothing worse than losing money that you've already won!  I'd rather lose my entire bankroll every visit than to have to go through the belly-aching ride home thinking to myself........"If I would have just cashed out sooner........", DOH!
 
I too have adopted more "responsible" habits relating to cashing out and it does feel much better on the ride home...... win, lose, or break even!
 
I used to feel bad when I won early and lost it all back (and more). Not anymore.
 
By playing only positive games now it no longer bothers me at all. I know that I could have just as easily won more money. Since I know I am always playing with an advantage, the more I play the more I will win over time. There's no reason to feel bad.
 
Of course, having done both many, many times makes it a little easier to accept.
 

[aceswithakicker]

Yeah, I keep forgetting you are one of the "lucky" ones who has the option to play only positive games Shadowman.  I have to settle for 98 -99.7 around here, and the players club coin-in amounts are horrible, so I'm screwed without a good amount of luck involved.  But I do get the occasional umbrella or tote bag that is supposed to make up for it all.

[clwn2]

I like the topic that Marie brought up and all the subsequent posts.  I  would like to add a post discussing the differences between playing positive play machines and less than positive play machines.  Both Aces and Shadow brought up good points regarding their casino play.
 
Shadow, it has taken me a long time to get the idea of positive play and todays score doesn't matter into my thick skull.  Now that I understand the thinking behind this point of view I agree with it.  In other words, what this is saying is that since you always have the edge it is always a good play percentage-wise.  And, since you will be sure to keep playing many times past this session then.. todays result is not so important. 
 
As with Aces, I live in an area with no positive plays that I have found that interest me.  This to me is a totally different mindset with a different set of rules called survival.  Since these games and opportunities are not close to those in large gambling cities we less fortunate have to do with what we have.  As Shadow has posted before(I may not have this complete and if I am wrong or mistaken I apologize) "I almost never gamble".  This is due to the fact that he only plays where he has the edge.  That said, I guess that would make playing these sometimes horrible schedules in these less than optimum playing conditions as "Gambling"!! 
 
This brings me to my method of survival which parallels Marie's.  As I have stated many times, my game of choice is quarter DDB.  With this game, in the casinos in my area, I usually bing 2-$300.  More often than not I leave with nothing, sometimes within an hour.  This is playing 9/6 DDB close to perfect (I make mistakes, usually with holds).  This is hardly the worst game, I have seen 6/5!!!  I haven't even done a run on my program to see what the payback percentage is because I won't play it.  At this rate you might as well play slots or save yourself the drive to the casino and flush your money down the toilet at  home.  So anyway, back to survival.   When I hit a quad I cash it out and then put another bill in the machine.
So far, I have never had a negative session with I have hit 4AwK or a Royal.  If I am this lucky I cash out and take a minute to consider my options.  What I usually do next is make a general plan on how much I will take home.  This changes slightly as I continue to play but I rarely don't settle for a win at less than half of the big hand I hit previously.  The only exception to this has been when I go to Vegas or somewhere else and play for several days in a row.  At that point, the money won is fair game until I get closer to leaving.  And, of course, if I am down more than the Royal or whatever it was I hit then I have to consider a stopping point.
 
This is the method I use for playing that works best for me under my playing conditions.  I hope I have not offended anyone that I quoted in my post. I thought it would be easier to post this message by combining everything I wanted to say instead of quoting each of the posts I had mentioned separately.   Thank you to everyone for their posts on this subject...

[aceswithakicker]

Hey clwn2, I too behave similarly after a nice hit in that I will decide what amount I won't play below.  Sometimes I reach that amount, sometimes I win more and establish a new amount to go home with.
 
One point I would like to bring up is the fact that on nearly every session, there is a point in which I am up money.  It may be $100, or it could be $1000.  The problem I face is discerning when to cash out and call it a day. 
 
Since we all are playing against expected values that are based on millions of hands played for any given game,  one could theoretically play for YEARS straight before achieving the actual return for the game in question. If I'm playing at 700-800 (guestimate) hands per hour, then I would need to play for 12500 - 14000 hours+ just to achieve the ER of the game based on 10 million hands.  And that value is never going to be "positive" on my choice of local game selections. 
 
Now I realize that the "average" with perfect play is going to continually work toward that EV, but the law of averages has many highs and lows thoughout the cycle.  If one could simply gauge his point in the overall cycle, and cash out while ahead, couldn't these "negative" machines actually produce positive results since no one is going to physically play for  520 - 583 days straight 24/7.  Perhaps over a lifetime one could get close to this, but I know I don't play nearly enough to achieve this as many others would probably agree. 
 
So, if I am up money on nearly every session at one point or another, wouldn't it make sense to just call it a day and take what winnings I have accumulated?  Some days it would be small, others might be huge.  But the bottom line would be, I would be "positive" for my overall play even on a less than positive machine.  Does this sound feasible to anyone, and at what point should one make the determination to call it quits?  Otherwise, aren't WE in the majority of having to play the negative expectation games just prolonging the inevitable of LOSING even on the longterm?
 

[EDC1977]

 I too, am faced with the problems of clwn2(since we live in each others backyard!) I used to do the same thing. Hit big and cash out but stopped doing it since it does balance out for me. Bounceback and comps? I don't play enough to register on the casinos radar so I have to take that out of the equation. Now that 98. 8 or 99 percenter has dropped down to 96,97% level. Sure it's gambling.Spending earned income on the hopes of hitting a jackpot in return. I don't enjoy having to play lower percentage machines but I've learned to tolerate them and enjoy chasing the prize nonetheless. Worst I've played is 8/5, won't touch the 7's and 6's for a boat games.BTW, hitting a jackpot doesn't change my mindset when to leave or how much do I lose etc. I t does however add to the entertainment value of the trip. I may see a show or I can now eat at the steakhouse instead of the coffee shop.

[cddenver]

If one could simply gauge his point in the overall cycle, and cash out while ahead, couldn't these "negative" machines actually produce positive results since no one is going to physically play for  520 - 583 days straight 24/7. 
 
The answer to your question is "no" as far as games with negative returns go.   You're making an assumption that the "negative" aspect of play doesn't manifest itself until a player approaches the mathematical long-term.   A new player may start out "hot" with highs and lows averaging out to above ER, or start out "cold" with highs and lows averaging below ER.  The "hot" player may begin cooling off after 50K hands, the "cold" player may not warm up for 150K hands.  My point is that good and bad runs come in all different shapes and sizes as far as $'s and duration go. 
 
It doesn't take much in the way of losing to offset a nice run of winning days.   A player could have sessions that go like:
 
 +$100, +$100, +$100, +$100, -$500
 
A nice run of winning days working out to an 80% winning percentage, but still in the hole overall.  "Hot" as far as winning percentage goes, but "cold" in terms of $'s.  Now turn those numbers around:
 
-$100, -$100, -$100, -$100, +$500
 
"Cold", in that the winning percentage is only 20%, but "hot" in $'s.
 
As far as my own play goes, I have a fair number of sessions every year where I'm never ahead at any point - some sessions I hit no quads at all, and other sessions that begin with a dry spell long enough that the quads I do hit are just catch-up. 

[aceswithakicker]

Well in theory then, the same applies to the positive expectation games doesn't it?  Just because I'm playing a positive expectation game doesn't mean I won't loose the next 500 sessions since ALL the ER values are based on such astronomical amounts of hands played.  The point I was trying to make is that if you take any small slice of the overall pie you will either be ahead or behind.  You aren't going to be exactly at 100.76%(etc.) on all hands played, even though each an every hand will have it's own EV, that as a sum of all the parts will add up to your overall payback percentage for the game. 

[shadowman]

It doesn't take an "astronomical amounts of hands" to start approaching the ER of a game. It can for some players, but for many others there is nothing that prevents them from hitting it and staying with it almost immediately. That is one of the possible outcomes of random events. Of course, losing and winning are also possible outcomes.
 
I had a string of trips last summer where I hit 3 RFs almost exactly 40K hands apart and played right at expectation for well over 100K hands. This could happen to a beginner just as well. When I first started playing expert startegy I went 5 1/2 months without a RF and had poor luck in just about every aspect of the game I was playing. This could (and did) happen to a beginner.
 
The point is we have no idea whether we will fortunate or not over any period of time. Hence, there is no "approach" that will improve one's results better than simply playing the best games possible.