Video Poker Forum

I've been practicing on Bob Dancer's software and recently hit a RF by playing agressively.  For example, I had a lo pair along with a Queen Jack suited.  I kept the Queen Jack suited (not perfect play) and hit the royal after playing about 500 hands.  Keeping suited hi card pairs was about as aggressive as I've gotten.
 
I know that the odds of hitting a RF is one in 40K hands, but wanted to know if taking chances like this whittles down those chances.  And, by how much?
 
 It may be that hitting that RF was a total fluke.

It may be that hitting that RF was a total fluke.
Over the course of time, you'll find that one or two RF's aren't going to compensate for the tossed lo pair's potential IE; 2 pair, trips, boats, quads. But it was fun hitting it though wasn't it? VP trainers were created to help maximize your return. Play with abandon if you want the big hits but don't think for a second that it hasn't already been calculated by someone else, especially playing JoB.

The math can answer the question for you. Holding two suited face cards leaves only one chance in 16215 of hitting the RF. You will probably only run into this siutation every now and then, so it could be years and years before you'd see the RF depending on how much you play.
 
To determine the average cost look at how much the two holds differ in value ... by about a credit. Playing dollars it would cost you $16000 more  holding the suited QJ (and more if it's other face cards) for every RF you hit. 

reminds me of dan paymars book optimum play.i think it is debatable which way one chooses to play vp,up to several circumstances,like bankroll,etc..

The right way to play VP will always depend on one's goals. However, the math does not lie.  So, the more one plays the more their results will approach the EV of the game combined with the player's strategy.

 Shadow, given the lower ER's and volatility of higher variances on certain games, why do we continue to play them knowing you may get nil for your investment? Are we really that masochistic?

i think most peoples'strategy is for playing for one day;one week.i think the casinos know this and set the machines up accordingly,as everyone cannot set at a machine for 100,000 plays like bob dancer can.

 Shadow, given the lower ER's and volatility of higher variances on certain games, why do we continue to play them knowing you may get nil for your investment? Are we really that masochistic?
 
Probably.
 
I think it's called entertainment.