Can You Keep From Losing?

[FloridaPhil]

Why do you feel the need to keep repeating this SO. MANY. TIMES?!?!

Because people keep bringing it up. This particular post was suppose to be about doing things to keep from losing on a particular day. Things like walking out ahead for example. I was trying to point out the fallacy in this strategy. Instead, I am drawn right back into the same old arguments with the same old participants. I am well aware that a player who only plays positive VP perfectly with generous comps can profit from VP. Why would I be concerned with that when I have only seen one casino in my entire life offering positive VP games and it was 2,300 miles away?

There are many discussions about negative games we could have on this forum that would help players who play them. If I'm not doing it right, let's talk about it. Refusing to discuss negative VP games is refusing to help 99% of the players in America.

[Eduardo]

Refusing to discuss negative VP games is refusing to help 99% of the players in America.

I don't see anyone refusing to discuss things.

[billryan]

Like every snake oil salesman, Phil has to keep braying lest the audience have time to think about what is really being said.
What can be said about playing negative games? Don't play them and if you are so addicted that you must,drink heavily. Getting four or more double whiskies an hour can offset your losses, and helps make your ride home something special.

[markinca]

And like I said before, almost all of Bob Dancer's play (I assume) is on negative VP paytables. So yes, people talk about them. Yes, they can be profitable. No, they can't ALL be profitable. And no, if you're insistent on playing a 95% game, there's likely not enough comps in the world to make that profitable.

[FAA]

Turning a 99.5 positive is a neat casino trick I've yet not mastered. Perhaps run up boffo losses en route to Diamond and pray for some 100X comp windfall. Pass.

[Tedlark]

You're the only one who sees this forum as AP land. Most of us are not professional AP's and there is plenty of room for people to share their own experiences whatever they are.

I disagree. Most long time forum members know I can play VP at any denomination I wish. I choose to play VP like the retirees who play around me. They aren't consumed with odds, simulations, ER or drawings in the middle of the night. They are only concerned with the cost of entertainment and they calculate that cost on a daily basis. We know we may not live long enough to see "long term", so those words have no meaning to us. Whenever I post something relative to them, I am told I don't know what I am talking about. I know what I am talking about when it comes to the games we play. The experts on this forum know nothing about us or why we play the games we do. They refuse to discuss playing negative games at all.

I suspect some would like me to go away permanently. How would that help other players like me? Telling them to play only positive games is worthless as there aren't any they can afford to play within 2,200 miles of our local casino. I want forum members to be able to discuss playing VP any way that brings them enjoyment. I asked for the Recreational Forum so this might happen. Whenever we start to have a conversation about negative games, someone jumps in with a statement that shows he doesn't know beans about us or those games.

This continuing argument is silly. If you don't want to hear a bunch of "for fun" players talk about VP as entertainment, stay on the Strategy Forum. That's what it's there for. If you play VP for profit, state your case without becoming abusive. Ted is a great example. His questions are thoughtful. He doesn't insult anyone. He states his opinion without being overbearing. Do we always agree? No. When I see one of his questions, I know he doesn't have an agenda. Some of the players on this forum have no other purpose than to confront everything I say without even reading what I post. "Plenty of room?" I don't think so.

Thanks for the props Phil. When I ask you the questions that I do, it is done with a purpose and that purpose is to seek clarity in my mind (and hopefully some others) with something that you may have written in a post. I have an analytical mind so I tend to break things down to their lowest denominator and digest those instead of just swallowing something whole as gospel.

You do though; appear to sway from your points instead of remaining on point. Usually when you do this you will say something contradictory to a previous stance that you took. A good example would be when you asked for examples of advantage plays in Florida and when one was pointed out to you, you then said something about a long term advantage play in Florida. This would be akin to changing the rules in mid-game to your advantage.

I do think of myself as an educated recreational player more than an advantage player. The big difference though is I firmly believe that I am a much more disciplined player than you are. I look at the results of my play in no other way than strictly in dollars and cents. I have made many trips to casinos in my area that were under 2 hours (and quite a few at an hour or less) that I've walked out with anywhere from $300.00 and up. I look at this $300.00 and immediately think of what good uses I can put this money to. I'll drop a card to my niece who is away at college and put $100.00 bucks in it. Or I'll buy a new pair of hiking shoes, you get the idea. You once asked me how I could drive 5 hours to a casino in St. Louis; gamble for an hour; eat at a pretty good free buffet there; and, drive 5 hours back to Chicago. The answer was simple: I got up $700.00 in that hour and was comfortable with that, so I left.

There is only one person in these forums whom I consider myself to be truly at odds with and you aren't DaHim.

Ted

[FloridaPhil]

Thanks Ted. When I start my posts I usually have a particular subject in mind. What throws me off track is when some forum member starts throwing insults. The subject goes off track and I am forced into the same old back and forth arguments. Attacking me is not going to make me go away quietly.

Where I play VP, most of the players are there to enjoy the day. Everyone hopes to make a profit. Few people believe they will pay their mortgage from the game or grow a million dollar bankroll. When you see someone playing single coin quarters, he/she may not be doing it because they're broke. They may be doing it because it's smart.

On occasion a player next to me will see me playing single coin and ask me why I do it. I point out the odds in the game they are playing are 96%. I tell them how much they are losing by the hour. I tell them they are paying to see jackpots. All of this is true. Few players want the truth. They want to believe they can beat the casino. They want to believe by playing computer perfect they can make a profit on a 96% game. The guy in the book got rich playing VP, why can't they?

I am not trying to encourage everyone to play like I do. What I am trying to do is tell people that Advantage Play only makes a profit when you have an advantage. If circling Ultimate X multipliers is the only advantage you can find, do you want to do that all day? If your choice is to play 96% games or stay home, the math says to save the gas. If you want to have a day's fun in our casinos, the smaller you play the less it costs. 99% of the VP games in America are negative even with comps. I am trying to help the players who play them save money.

The question I keep asking myself is why anyone would be against that?

[FAA]

+$700 makes any day trip worthwhile. This shouldn't be a revelation. But thanks for offering a solid example of your usual amazing luck. +$100 is a banner day for me. You easily bring 700% of my BR.

[FAA]

+$700 makes any day trip worthwhile. This shouldn't be a revelation. But thanks for offering a solid example of your usual amazing luck. +$100 is a banner day for me. You easily bring 700% of my BR.

[DaBurglar]

`

I suspect some would like me to go away permanently. How would that help other players like me? Telling them to play only positive games is worthless as there aren't any they can afford to play within 2,200 miles of our local casino. I want forum members to be able to discuss playing VP any way that brings them enjoyment. I asked for the Recreational Forum so this might happen. Whenever we start to have a conversation about negative games, someone jumps in with a statement that shows he doesn't know beans about us or those games.

This continuing argument is silly. If you don't want to hear a bunch of "for fun" players talk about VP as entertainment, stay on the Strategy Forum. That's what it's there for. If you play VP for profit, state your case without becoming abusive. Ted is a great example. His questions are thoughtful. He doesn't insult anyone. He states his opinion without being overbearing. Do we always agree? No. When I see one of his questions, I know he doesn't have an agenda. Some of the players on this forum have no other purpose than to confront everything I say without even reading what I post. "Plenty of room?" I don't think so.

Thanks for the props Phil. When I ask you the questions that I do, it is done with a purpose and that purpose is to seek clarity in my mind (and hopefully some others) with something that you may have written in a post. I have an analytical mind so I tend to break things down to their lowest denominator and digest those instead of just swallowing something whole as gospel.

You do though; appear to sway from your points instead of remaining on point. Usually when you do this you will say something contradictory to a previous stance that you took. A good example would be when you asked for examples of advantage plays in Florida and when one was pointed out to you, you then said something about a long term advantage play in Florida. This would be akin to changing the rules in mid-game to your advantage.

I do think of myself as an educated recreational player more than an advantage player. The big difference though is I firmly believe that I am a much more disciplined player than you are. I look at the results of my play in no other way than strictly in dollars and cents. I have made many trips to casinos in my area that were under 2 hours (and quite a few at an hour or less) that I've walked out with anywhere from $300.00 and up. I look at this $300.00 and immediately think of what good uses I can put this money to. I'll drop a card to my niece who is away at college and put $100.00 bucks in it. Or I'll buy a new pair of hiking shoes, you get the idea. You once asked me how I could drive 5 hours to a casino in St. Louis; gamble for an hour; eat at a pretty good free buffet there; and, drive 5 hours back to Chicago. The answer was simple: I got up $700.00 in that hour and was comfortable with that, so I left.

There is only one person in these forums whom I consider myself to be truly at odds with and you aren't DaHim.

Ted

"DaHim"?

No.....just, No. Of course, the fact That you are now admitting being "at odds" with me all these years and despite my persistent attempts to just leave you the Faack alone, is the closest yet i've had you admitting your intense irrational hatred of me.....

What's most mind boggling here though is how, now, Phil has seemingly had some sort of breakdown in the above highlighted/underlined portion of his previous statement......Phil, are you feeling well? Let me encourage you to just go back and re-read the past year's worth of posts that Ted has made in threads either in reply to YOU, or about you, or in reference to you and your many theories and evolving understanding of Video Poker. Seriously, go back and carefully and objectively read ALL of Ted's posts vis-a-vis YOU....take note of his Tone, his intent, context, the spirit behind the posts and the apparent point(s) he is trying to make regarding YOU and what you have posted all these years. I cannot fathom how you can then stand by what You are now saying.....

This is just totally beyond absurd......what needs to happen to allow Ted to just "move past" being "at odds" with me? I've GREATLY reduced my time and profile and involvement here, at least when compared to what previously was taking place.....but I refuse to completely "go away", especially since it won't seemingly make any difference to Ted because he apparently can't help obsessing over me or otherwise thinking about me in his adversarial, hostile manner.