Random? I don't think so.

[Tedlark]

I'd like to say that was a classy response by Phil but I'd be lying.

[FloridaPhil]

Let me add this comment. This is not about some perceived war between me and the Dancer Enterprise. I believe all of BDs comments and directions in reference to playing VP with an edge are correct. My concern is the millions of players who read these comments and apply them to games where they do not have an edge. Those are the players who are paying AP and casino bills. All I am attempting to do is reduce the amount they pay. Do I think anyone listens to my advice? Probably not.

I enjoy playing VP. I limit my investment in these games. I play as accurately as I am able. I take whatever free stuff the casino is willing to offer me. I accept the cost to play these games as an entry fee. By betting small, I keep that entry fee as low as possible. I believe my strategy helps more players than a strategy based on games that the majority will never see.

I can't understand how any strategy based on reducing risk can be conceived as dangerous. If you would like proof, I propose a test that everyone here can participate in. Webman can set up two identical 95.596% deuces wild games. Those are the quarter odds at the Hollywood Hard Rock. One game is locked at single coin, the other at max coins (5). Both games start with 10,000 coins. We will let everyone participate. At the end of three months we will see who has the most coins. Unless the max coin players hit a string of royals, my bet is the single coin players will win.

The purpose of this exercise is not to disprove Advantage Play strategy. The purpose is to find out if playing like you have an edge when you don't costs more when playing today's severely negative games. Let's find out.

[onemoretry]

When you can't find positive opportunities for these folks, tell them the best way for them to play VP is to play as small, slow and limited as possible. While you are at it, tell them playing single coin is cheaper long term than playing max coins when playing 96% games at the same denomination.

I believe he has stated that, or something very similar to that, many times. I guess you haven't been paying attention?

[Eduardo]

I appreciate the swimming advice from Joe Swimmer Enterprises, and I know they say not to use their tips in shark infested waters. But my concern is people who decide to swim in shark infested waters using their swimming advice. If Joe Swimmer Enterprises would simply tell people how to have more fun in shark infested waters and maybe lose only their toes and not their legs, I wouldn't have to post this.

[Carcounter]

Back on July 9th, I posted about a particularly terrible .50 SDB session that I had at Borgata. Last Friday, i got paid back. Put $100 in and hit 4 Aces for $400 within 10 minutes. Then Kings, Jacks, Queens twice within a minute and two more generic quads, all within an hour and a half. best non-royal session I have ever had on SDB. Finished up $1,400.

[FloridaPhil]

I appreciate the swimming advice from Joe Swimmer Enterprises, and I know they say not to use their tips in shark infested waters. But my concern is people who decide to swim in shark infested waters using their swimming advice. If Joe Swimmer Enterprises would simply tell people how to have more fun in shark infested waters and maybe lose only their toes and not their legs, I wouldn't have to post this.

If someone says I am going to jump off a building, what would you say to them? Do you think telling them not to jump would keep them from it? What I think we should do is tell them it's going to hurt a lot, then call the fire department and have them bring a net. At the least we should tell them to tie a bunch of pillows around their body. Stating that some else gets away with it all the time, is not helpful.

[New2vp]

Great posts on this thread … by almost everyone.

[FloridaPhil]

Great posts on this thread … by almost everyone.

You may be asking yourself "Why is FP so hung up on players that do what BD tells them not to do?" I think this is a reasonable question. My reason is many players believe they can beat negative odds with a strategy of their own making. I believed this myself for years. Negative VP games are losers. You can accept that and adjust your risk, or go down fighting.

Advantage play strategy works for players who have access to net positive games, can play computer perfect forever, who take advantage of all comps and incentives and who have an adequate bankroll. The real world problem is the majority of players can't come close to all those criteria.

Advantage play strategy works for the casinos as well. It fills the floor with hopeful players who lack one of more of what it takes to profit. I am one of those players. There are millions more of us than APs. We are the players BD says are paying his bills and he is right. I just want my payments to be as small as possible.

I want players to know what they are up against. I want them to do an inventory of their skills, finances, opportunities and discipline. If you don't have what it takes to profit, you have two choices. You can play anyway and accept the cost as part of the game or you can do something to reduce that cost. My VP methodology is all about reducing that cost.

I suppose no one is gong to take me up on my single coin vs. max coin test? Will proving that playing 96% games with single coin costs less than max coins make a difference? It may. When you choose to play negative games, you can't sit there and grind out your wins. The negative odds will grind up your bankroll until you have nothing left. Betting bigger will only make it worse.

If you make money playing video poker and you have it all figured out, ignore what I post. If you are losing more money playing VP than you want to, you may want to listen. Either way, it's your money.

[Carcounter]

Phil, Judging by the number of posts you make, I think VP is too big a part of your life. I say this not being critical, but there have got to be other things you enjoy?

[Eduardo]

You don't have to run a test to decide if someone will lose more money putting 5 times as much money through the machine on a negative pay table.

They would be better off playing 5 times slower on max bet or 1/5 as often.

And by "better" I mean losing less, not winning (plus having the chance at a full pay royal).

But if someone prefers to play single coin... well, that's just fine of course if it suits them. The only gain is more play time with less risk (and less possible reward) in any given session.

I like to call this secret strategy "betting less money."