Double up or not

[alpax]

unless i am reading your most recent response incorrectly, you are agreeing with my assertion that his blanket statement is wrong.

My response was convoluted due to responding to many aspects, but I do agree with you that Mr. Dancer's blanket statement is a generalization. Everyone has a different disposition on video poker, but he does not have to care.

As long as people play within their means and purpose, that should matter most. Sadly there are people that go way overboard and it causes serious problems.

[notes1]

 
My response was convoluted due to responding to many aspects, but I do agree with you that Mr. Dancer's blanket statement is a generalization. Everyone has a different disposition on video poker, but he does not have to care.

As long as people play within their means and purpose, that should matter most. Sadly there are people that go way overboard and it causes serious problems.
  agree with everything in your post. i read too many comments where posters cannot understand that each person plays for their own reasons and each person has different financial means. recently, there was a post from a couple that won over $200k. i am confident that this same couple could also tell some horror stories about the amounts they lost. for some losing $100 is a lot, for others, that is a tip. regarding problem gamblers, i have done a little research on this subject. while it gets a lot of news print, the percentage of gamblers, who are in the 'problem category', is no higher a percentage of those who drink or use drugs in excess. i can tell you from my work in the financial area, there is a much bigger problem with those who over spend and over borrow, than there is in gambling. 

[alpax]

I was also guilty in the past for stating "congrats on winning despite a poor paytable" on the stories forum, but I stopped making such comments since I realized everyone is different. I did read about that couple under your Cherokee trip report, and there will be horror stories; the good stories happen less than the horror stories from I experience with video poker. I still think Phil is the person to look up to for those that strictly want to play the game recreationally.

One of the continual references Bob makes in public is about not having to work at a real job, and that desire has stemmed for a long time based on his recent blog article. If he was a successful backgammon player by winning competitions consistently, we would not have seen him pursue a video poker direction. Some people do admire his tenacity to avoid working in the workforce by being so immersed in video poker. It is totally understandable, must deal with different personalities everyday, office politics, and certain rules/guidelines. To most people, it is the safest option to earning a reliable income. The are benefits of being your own boss, is you are under your own terms.

[notes1]

One of the continual references Bob makes in public is about not having to work at a real job, and that desire has stemmed for a long time based on his recent blog article. If he was a successful backgammon player by winning competitions consistently, we would not have seen him pursue a video poker direction. Some people do admire his tenacity to avoid working in the workforce by being so immersed in video poker. It is totally understandable, must deal with different personalities everyday, office politics, and certain rules/guidelines. To most people, it is the safest option to earning a reliable income. The are benefits of being your own boss, is you are under your own terms.
 i would not know the guy, if he was standing in front of me. but, he obviously has his followers. if others are interested in making money, they might consider spending a little more time listening to warren buffett.  as far as how he makes his living, i believe he recently posted that in 2014, he did not make money on playing VP. he was net positive when he counted comps/extras. a quick google check, shows he hawks a bunch of products and i believe he has mentioned he teaches VP at casinos. he is no doubt paid for this. while he may like to give impression he does not have a real job, i would consider him a self employed, pushing his 'stuff' and making appearances. that is a real job. no different than what any salesperson does everyday. that is what he is, selling himself.   

[Vman96]

as far as how he makes his living, i believe he recently posted that in 2014, he did not make money on playing VP. he was net positive when he counted comps/extras. a quick google check, shows he hawks a bunch of products and i believe he has mentioned he teaches VP at casinos. he is no doubt paid for this. while he may like to give impression he does not have a real job, i would consider him a self employed, pushing his 'stuff' and making appearances. that is a real job. no different than what any salesperson does everyday. that is what he is, selling himself.   

Yep. He's working...just not in a traditional 9 to 5 way.

Dancer's LVA article is up with regards to the Double Up feature.

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2015/0609.cfm

It states two valid reasons, that I did not think of.

1. Casino factors in time played on a machine as part of the comp equation
2. Casino promotions for wins exceeding the W2G threshold of $1200.


Yes, these are quite valid. Also something I hadn't considered either.

As for his original disagreement with me (will double up allow a player to play longer?), it likely depends on the individual (i.e. tighter win/loss goals might lead to quicker sessions), but overall, he's probably right since it's a 100% game that does take up more actual time.

Maybe I will get around to a sim on this soon. But I'm tempted to go to Tunica this weekend...

[Minn. Fatz]

So using my example of the dealer showing a 10, what would the player's odds of winning the double up be if none of the 4 choices they had were either a 10 or higher? Obviously, in the case where dealer's card is a 10 and no player card is greater than 9, the odds of winning the double up are 0 and the EV is -1.But to determine the overall EV of the double up option we need to sum across all possible cases. Assuming randomness, dealer's card will then be a 2 1/13 of the time, a 3 another 1/13 of the time, etc., etc. up to an A 1/13 of the time. Those times dealer's card is a 2 and all player's cards are 3 or greater, the odds of winning and the EV are both +1.As long as the four player cards are selected randomly from the 51 remaining in the deck, the sum of the probabilities of all possible cases is going to come out to a winning probability of 1/2 and hence an EV of 0.So: the probability of your case occuring is:   the probability of dealer's card being a 10 = 1/13,  multiplied by   the probability that no player's card is greater than a 9 = 0.1439 (approximately)for a total probability of about 0.0111. On the other hand, there is a probability of about 0.0073 that all of the player's cards will be above the dealer's 10 for a total probability of about 0.0006, and varying probabilities that one, two or three of player's cards will be above the dealer's 10, etc.In the case where dealer has a 10, overall player will win 16/51 of the time, lose 32/51 and push the remaining 3/21, etc.How'm I doin'? etc.

[Minn. Fatz]

unless i am reading your most recent response incorrectly, you are agreeing with my assertion that his blanket statement is wrong. Mr. Dancer and other residents of Nevada have the good fortune to live in a state that allows casinos to spread games where the player has the theoretical advantage. I don't, and neither do many of the rest of us. The reasons I play -EV games are a) for entertainment, b) on the off chance I might win and c) because -EV is literally the only game in town. Even so, I try to play the least -EV of the games available -- with the notable exception of Dean Martin slots, for which I have an inexcusable weakness. Like the fella once said, ain't that a kick in the head?But if we take the blanket statement to be that Bob Dancer does not understand why anyone would want to play a -EV game (as opposed to "no one should want to play a -EV game"), then that statement is clearly correct. I don't understand it myself some times...then I walk into some casino and its comforting and familiar sights, sounds, smells and feelings...just not often enough to not be able to pay the bills.

[alpax]

 i would not know the guy, if he was standing in front of me. but, he obviously has his followers. if others are interested in making money, they might consider spending a little more time listening to warren buffett.  as far as how he makes his living, i believe he recently posted that in 2014, he did not make money on playing VP. he was net positive when he counted comps/extras. a quick google check, shows he hawks a bunch of products and i believe he has mentioned he teaches VP at casinos. he is no doubt paid for this. while he may like to give impression he does not have a real job, i would consider him a self employed, pushing his 'stuff' and making appearances. that is a real job. no different than what any salesperson does everyday. that is what he is, selling himself.   

That is the right way to put things. Dancer does has multiple source of income as contigency in the event the annual score is below a game's theoretical return when the game may carry higher variance. Being self-employed does have its benefits relating to self-control and freedom, but the Medicare/Social Security taxes are greater. Regardless, the self-driven aspect is impressive though I wont be able to recognize the person either.



[QUOTE=alpax] Dancer's LVA article is up with regards to the Double Up feature.

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2015/0609.cfm

It states two valid reasons, that I did not think of.

1. Casino factors in time played on a machine as part of the comp equation
2. Casino promotions for wins exceeding the W2G threshold of $1200.


Yes, these are quite valid. Also something I hadn't considered either.

As for his original disagreement with me (will double up allow a player to play longer?), it likely depends on the individual (i.e. tighter win/loss goals might lead to quicker sessions), but overall, he's probably right since it's a 100% game that does take up more actual time.

Maybe I will get around to a sim on this soon. But I'm tempted to go to Tunica this weekend... [/QUOTE]

#1 is definitely valid to some casinos since it brought up bad memories where I lost my allocated bankroll for a 3 day / 2 night trip in the first few hours (a very unlucky streak). I seeked for comp to at least get some reimbursement for losing, but was told I played very little as opposed to the actual loss stats.

#2 Might not apply to most of us. It is a nice promotion where the casino is willing to cover the federal tax costs from a W2G. There was a thread from Bob on the VPFree forum where the D casino was offering this promotion, and Bob sought out to play $5 DDB to get a W2G from any quad. Other people evaluated this promotion ahead of time and hired sitters to reserve the seat until it started on the April 15th tax deadline day. Someone mentioned the promotion at the D casino pulled the plug on the promotion at 5am that day.


[QUOTE=notes1]

unless i am reading your most recent response incorrectly, you are agreeing with my assertion that his blanket statement is wrong. Mr. Dancer and other residents of Nevada have the good fortune to live in a state that allows casinos to spread games where the player has the theoretical advantage. I don't, and neither do many of the rest of us. The reasons I play -EV games are a) for entertainment, b) on the off chance I might win and c) because -EV is literally the only game in town. Even so, I try to play the least -EV of the games available -- with the notable exception of Dean Martin slots, for which I have an inexcusable weakness. Like the fella once said, ain't that a kick in the head?But if we take the blanket statement to be that Bob Dancer does not understand why anyone would want to play a -EV game (as opposed to "no one should want to play a -EV game"), then that statement is clearly correct. I don't understand it myself some times...then I walk into some casino and its comforting and familiar sights, sounds, smells and feelings...just not often enough to not be able to pay the bills.[/QUOTE]

Well said Minn. Fatz on the first part of the response. For the second part of your post, I think it all ties back to the entertainment factor. Some casinos provide a resort for people to stay and enjoy the amenities available, it can be a great escape from the stress people have in their everyday lives. Hardly anything is free is every day life, but casino action can give you a chance to enjoy it for free, or maybe slightly lowered costs.

[notes1]

alpax, you do seem to admire this guy in vegas. you describe his 'self driven aspect as impressive'. do you know there are about 20 million small businesses in america, who are all self driven. most of these folks took a risk, wake up everyday and grind it out, trying to earn a living. many have no free health insurance, no paid vacation/sick time and must build there own retirement. and, they are ready to work, 24/7. the vp expert is no different than them. i have no way of knowing, but do not be surprised if these days, the majority of his income comes from other places than playing the machines.

[FloridaPhil]

Post unable to migrate