Video Poker Forum

Deuces wild is the best game and if you subtract the 1.76% of the time a royal hits, you're left with right around 99% payback. Let's say you couldn't receive mailers or play high enough to get any decent cash back. You're playing a losing game unless you are rolled enough and play long enough and get lucky enough until I hit a natural royal flush. Am I right or wrong? This seems to be a similar theme across all the >100% payback games.

What is your definition of long term? It's not unusual to go 50,000 hands without a Royal. If someone has gone 5,000,000 hands without one, the chances of him being ahead strictly on the game would be somewhere between nil and zero.
How does one play long term without playing enough to get decent cash back?

Let's say 5,000,000 and you are limited to nickel slots

Vp2win wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:23 pm

Deuces wild is the best game and if you subtract the 1.76% of the time a royal hits, you're left with right around 99% payback. Let's say you couldn't receive mailers or play high enough to get any decent cash back. You're playing a losing game unless you are rolled enough and play long enough and get lucky enough until I hit a natural royal flush. Am I right or wrong? This seems to be a similar theme across all the >100% payback games.

I WISH a royal hit 1.76% of the time!!

I think you meant to say its worth, not the frequency.

Yeah I meant it is 1.76% of the return value. Not sure how this translates into 1/45,000 to 50,000 spins or whatever.

Vp2win wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:27 am

Yeah I meant it is 1.76% of the return value. Not sure how this translates into 1/45,000 to 50,000 spins or whatever.

The royal pays 800 for 1, so

800 x 1/45,282 = 1.7667% return.

As for your original post. It's unlikely to be ahead without any royals unless you have a decent promo to go with the game.

It is not likely, but it is possible. Back when I was playing single coin CS, I played mostly single coin quarters. This Recreational strategy saves money when playing negative games by reducing coin-in. It is not profitable as a standalone methodology. It works well for players on a tight budget who value playing time over profit. I did this to see if single coin VP paid better. It doesn't.

I was able to play at least 5,000 hands a day at single coin quarters. I played so many hands I would get cramps in my hands and shoulders. My cost to play was very small. I used the savings to take pot shots on bigger machines. Through pure luck I hit three $1,000 single coin $5 quad deuces in one month. I also hit numerous other jackpots during that time. I posted the photos on this website. I still have them in my computer.

I kept detailed records. At the end of my test period which covered at least 500,000 hands, I had made a small long term profit. It is not fair to say I made a profit playing single coin quarters. I did not. My profit came from being lucky with my single coin pot shots on bigger machines. Whenever I would hit one of these jackpots, I would cash out and add it to my bankroll. I never sat on a big machine and fed them back in.

I tracked and reported my results on this forum. Bob Dancer told me a long term winning VP strategy is not based on luck. He is right.

I concluded the results obtained by any one player can vary significantly over time. I also concluded half a million hands is not nearly enough to prove anything.

I am reporting what happened for no other purpose than to let you know how this can happen. Do not conclude what happened to me will happen to you. I no longer use this strategy because I don't enjoy hitting $62.50 royals and $50 quad deuces. When I'm 95, I might.

Years ago, there were plays that were positive excluding the value of the royal. Mickey Crimm and others found them. Don't think there are many, if any left.

I believe the problem is with the definition of "long term". Some members have calculated it to be a number of royal cycles. One member has been fairly specific in these calculations. The problem is, they are attempting to come up with a firm conclusion based on widely variable input. One player may hit a big jackpot, get hit by a car on his way home and die a winner. Another may play one day a year for 30 years without a royal. Video poker math simulations are based on consistency in the game and the player. Human players are not computers. It is currently impossible to create a simulation that mimics every possible human playing scenario.

Can you be a winner long term at any video poker game without hitting a royal? I say yes, but it's extremely unlikely. It is also within the realm of possibility to hit 10 single line royals in one day. So far, I hit four in one day back in 2008. It hasn't happened to me since.

Yes, the definition of long term is what it's all about. I have had numerous VP players whose knowledge I respect tell me that the expected average kicks in fairly quickly. But then I have also had players who I trust tell me that they have gone for several years playing very often and yet remaining way below or way above the expected average. For every rule there is an exception, and I have gradually learned that this is true also for VP. If someone can accurately define "long term" for this board, it would be a great service.