Thoughts For Beginners

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=Bob Dancer]Wow, FP. You're becoming more and more hostile. Perhaps
my criticism of your cheap strategy has turned you into an enemy. I hope
not. My comments were not personal at all. I was criticizing what you
published, not who you are. Most of my students are recreational
players. More than 100,000 of them have come through one or more of my
classes since I started holding classes in 1997. Many ask questions
during and/or after the classes. It is not my goal to insult them. And
for the most part I don't. (And it's probably fair to assume that with
some many of them talking to me over the years, I understand the
recreational player mindset far better than I'm given credit for around
here.)I use the term 'recreational' as a catchall phrase --- meaning, to
me,  "doesn't have the understanding that a pro does." You may use the
term differently. Any ten recreational players have ten different skill
levels (as would ten different pros). Assuming you could rank them, if
you want to call the bottom three "ploppies," the middle four "real
recreational players," and the highest three "semi-pros," that's fine
with me. Only your breakdown will be different than anybody else's
because the terms aren't precise. Also, recreational players aren't weak
in exactly the same areas. Some have poor game selection. Some have
poor game strategies. Some have no understanding of how to milk a slot
club. Some use the same strategy for all games and all pay schedules.
Some have several of these leaks. Etc. It's impossible to uniquely rank
such diverse players on one scale.(Pros differ from each other too. None
of us have exactly the same bag of tricks as any other pro.) The fact
tact that let yourself play negative games is a problem to deal with,
but it does not mean that many of the thought processes the pros use are
inapplicable to you. Playing a 97.2% game well is no easier than
playing a 99.7% game well. But playing a 97.2% game well leads to better
results than playing a 97.2% game poorly. You, FP, are somebody who's
actively trying to get more bang for your dollar --- given that you play
bad games. Fine. I accept that. A lot of the tools I use are applicable
in your situation. You showed considerable thought and skill in
creating your cheap strategy. But the final result is ill-equipped to
reach your goals.The 'bet one coin' part of it definitely works at
reducing your hourly loss. I've written numerous articles over the last
20 years about 'one coin or five.' Betting one coin works at its goal
of minimizing your loss while playing bad games. It does have the
drawing back of "heartbreak" when you get that one-coin royal. You may
be well-equipped to deal with that, FP, but I assure you many players
aren't.But your strategy includes sections where you increase your bet
on these bad games simply because you've been running good over the past
few minutes. This doesn't work. (If it really did work, as soon as you
run well for a couple of minutes, rush over to the $100 machine and
start banging away. You don't need much money. after all, you're running
well! If you can see the fallacy of this, you should be able to see the
fallacy of betting max coins on bad games for lower stakes as well.)
And calling yourself a recreational player instead of a pro as a badge
of honor doesn't make it work any better. It's still bogus
mathematics.You study the games and then say things like,
(paraphrasing), 'in Deuces Wild I hate going for inside straights, so I
don't." That's a leak. That increases your loss --- not because you are
playing a bad game but because you are playing a game badly. Every
deviation from the computer-perfect strategy costs you. You, FP, are
smart enough to understand this. Many others here aren't. Some think
they can actually win using your cheap strategy. They are mistaken,
assuming we are talking about the sum over 10 or more trips. If you're
talking just one session, anything can happen whether you're brilliant
or clueless. You don't need any strategy to get lucky once. But over
time, the sum of your plays finds its correct level.If you play 97%
games one coin at a time, your results will average 95% over time. But
95% of 20% of the coin in definitely is a smaller loss than 97% of 100%
of the coin in. It's never a win, but it is a smaller loss.You and I do
not have to be enemies, FP. You are smart enough to understand many of
the points I try to explain. As you learn more, your results will
improve. Just don't be so married to your cheap strategy that you can't
learn from others. [/quote]I'm going to frame this post and put it on my wall.  I haven't read this in some time.   It came from a time when things were more civil around here. Everything Bob Dancer said in this post is accurate and honest.  Thanks for digging it out.There are some circumstances that led me to this point.  Most of my early experience with VP was in Biloxi.  At that time Florida did not have casino gambling, so a 9 hour drive was all we had.  I didn't realize it at the time, but the Beau Rivage has truly horrible VP odds.  Because of the distance our trips were 3-4 days long.   Eventually the Beau flew us there for free and gave us free rooms, sometimes a suite.  My wife and I loved those vacations.  We had great quality time together. She loved the water and the beach.  I loved the hotel and the people there.  Unfortunately, the Beau Rivage has a dark side.  If you are going to play VP there for more than 2 hours, you will most likely take a huge financial beating. A three day trip could easily cost you $1,500 just to play quarters.  $3-5K losses were normal.  As you could imagine we were always running in catch up mode.  To counter this, I found I could play single coin quarters and use pot shots to refill my quickly depleting bankroll.  As you would expect, this didn't always work.  I read an article on the web called "frugal video poker" where the author espoused indexing your coin count to the previous hands win.  It sounded plausible, so I tried it. The main problem was you were always using up your profits waiting for a max coin score.  I modified it moving to max coins only on a 4 coin win and it worked much better. The first time I tried it on vacation, I hit a max coin royal and was delighted.  Time after time this strategy held down my loses and the max coins hits kept me ahead.  I switched to this strategy all the time and kept records of my progress.  I played this way for over two years and it kept working.  Where I got in trouble with Bob Dancer was I created a website called CheapVideoPoker.com where I discussed what I had been doing.  I thought others would be interested and it worked so well for me I was excited to share it.  This brought down a firestorm of criticism from Bob Dancer and his followers.  I tried to explain that I was using it only on seriously negative games which they never played.  They wrongly interpreted this to mean I thought my strategy worked better than theirs across the board and that I was recommending people play lousy games poorly.   The truth was these were the only games I had at the time and I was trying anything just to survive.To make a long story short, I learned a lot from this experiencing.  Here's some of what I learned.  Don't play terrible video poker games no matter what the casino gives you.  We no longer play in Mississippi.  Move your play to another casino even if it means you have to travel farther.  We got lucky when we discovered playable odds and good comps at the Hollywood Hard Rock.Never and I mean never go public or publish a website that goes against what most people think.  People will only read a few sentences, they make wrong assumptions and you will find yourself in a war.  If you discover the "purpose of life" in your basement, keep it to yourself.I also learned I made a lot of other mistakes. I assumed because something worked for me it would for others.  I also assumed it would work forever.  Bob Dancer is 100% totally correct on this.  No matter how clever or thought out your strategy of the day, you are never going to beat math into infinity. Eventually the tide will turn and you will be looking for the next new thing.I was also wrong to question Bob Dancer's winning VP claims and chosen profession.  If someone wants to play video poker for a living, it's none of my business.  I don't have any way of knowing if Bob's ever made a dime playing VP, but I suspect he has done very well.  He does have a way with forum posts that occasionally angers some people, me included.  I have always said he was a great businessman and I meant it.Whether you think so or not, I'm a pretty smart guy.  I use my intelligence, logic and experience to make my decisions and I don't fall into lock step with everyone else just because they think what they believe is never to be questioned.  I never said I couldn't be wrong. I would like it immensely if everyone on this forum would just chill out.  I'm not your enemy or your critic.  I would like to stop trading negative posts with Bill Ryan, but I seriously doubt he will read down this far.  Maybe others can help me with that issue.  Anyway, I'm offering an end to this thread.  If others want to continue to fight, it's up to them.

[rapidbison]

With what appears to be complete omission of the 95% RNG factor from all of Bob Dancer's writing/math:

I believe Mr. Dancer has legally/financially painted himself into a symbiotic corner with the casino industry...If he goes--they go....Notice how clever and quick he is to refute/beat down any appearance of a chink in his well-feathered armor....everything pseudo-mathematically and pseudo-intellectually explained away by a pseudo[nym].....everything except-------yep-------95% random generators......Perhaps he even privately believes [or knows] that casinos have technically-legally fed him 5% fixed-winners to keep him happy and keep their ratings up......by the same token knows most of the rest of us schmucks are technically-legally dealt up to 5% fixed-losers......

And yes, end this madness and relentless auto-shill- response thread... Hopefully newbies, as well as elders, can do clearer soul-searching and retooling of why they really play video-poker so often, for so long---and so expensively...

[alpax]

There are some circumstances that led me to this point. Most of my early experience with VP was in Biloxi. At that time Florida did not have casino gambling, so a 9 hour drive was all we had. I didn't realize it at the time, but the Beau Rivage has truly horrible VP odds. Because of the distance our trips were 3-4 days long.   Eventually the Beau flew us there for free and gave us free rooms, sometimes a suite. My wife and I loved those vacations. We had great quality time together. She loved the water and the beach. I loved the hotel and the people there.

Unfortunately, the Beau Rivage has a dark side. If you are going to play VP there for more than 2 hours, you will most likely take a huge financial beating. A three day trip could easily cost you $1,500 just to play quarters. $3-5K losses were normal. As you could imagine we were always running in catch up mode. To counter this, I found I could play single coin quarters and use pot shots to refill my quickly depleting bankroll. As you would expect, this didn't always work. I read an article on the web called "frugal video poker" where the author espoused indexing your coin count to the previous hands win. It sounded plausible, so I tried it. The main problem was you were always using up your profits waiting for a max coin score. I modified it moving to max coins only on a 4 coin win and it worked much better. The first time I tried it on vacation, I hit a max coin royal and was delighted. Time after time this strategy held down my loses and the max coins hits kept me ahead. I switched to this strategy all the time and kept records of my progress. I played this way for over two years and it kept working.    



I think most of us understood at the time how you and your wife enjoyed the Beau Rivage resort and the scenery of Biloxi. I think a number of us recommended you to pay full price to stay there and play VP at the many other places in Biloxi which have better odds. None of us told you to stop going there all together, as long as you do the suggested.

If you are trying to earn free rooms and meals there by playing those VP games, you will lose much more theoretically than what those comps are worth.



Where I got in trouble with Bob Dancer was I created a website called CheapVideoPoker.com where I discussed what I had been doing. I thought others would be interested and it worked so well for me I was excited to share it. This brought down a firestorm of criticism from Bob Dancer and his followers. I tried to explain that I was using it only on seriously negative games which they never played. They wrongly interpreted this to mean I thought my strategy worked better than theirs across the board and that I was recommending people play lousy games poorly.   The truth was these were the only games I had at the time and I was trying anything just to survive.



As someone who paid very close attention to the whole ordel, it is not entirely the case. Here's why

There was a portion on the website where you properly distinguished between recreational and professional players (specifically Mr. Dancer). I recall Mr. Dancer appreciated what you've stated on that portion.

You went on a very good stretch, it led you to promoting it everywhere excessively on this forum. It led you to make claims that it works better than Mr. Dancer's bread and butter strategies. It led you to make libelous comments like "I won playing this strategy, and went full tilt playing the Dancer way".

Most people here are Double Double Bonus / Triple Double Bonus die hards. They know it costs a lot of money to play high variance games, but they know its worth their fun and experience. To urge them to play cheap will not sit well with them. To promote it as much as you did got on people's nerves.

Most people here were happy to see that you've won, but to encourage this got on people's alert since in the long run, it is not a winning strategy.



I was also wrong to question Bob Dancer's winning VP claims and chosen profession. If someone wants to play video poker for a living, it's none of my business. I don't have any way of knowing if Bob's ever made a dime playing VP, but I suspect he has done very well. He does have a way with forum posts that occasionally angers some people, me included. I have always said he was a great businessman and I meant it.

Whether you think so or not, I'm a pretty smart guy. I use my intelligence, logic and experience to make my decisions and I don't fall into lock step with everyone else just because they think what they believe is never to be questioned. I never said I couldn't be wrong. I would like it immensely if everyone on this forum would just chill out. I'm not your enemy or your critic. I would like to stop trading negative posts with Bill Ryan, but I seriously doubt he will read down this far. Maybe others can help me with that issue. Anyway, I'm offering an end to this thread. If others want to continue to fight, it's up to them.



Your opinions about the downsides of professional gambling is valid many of us share the same. The only part that was offensive was when you called it "dishonorable".

I am sure you have a degree from a four year college program, or even a Masters or an MBA if you ran a business. Reading the cheapvideopoker.com in the past, I think you've also avoided binge alcohol drinking which can lead to other issues so you have the right to consider yourself intelligent.

The math behind video poker is beyond high school level mathematics. Not everyone that goes through the curriculum. For the small portion of people that do will understand the dynamics of the game.

What I see from my own personal opinion is that I see some signs of memory loss. I am no doctor to say such things but there is some impact at your ability to learn things that Mr. Dancer and others are trying to tell you.

I am not sure that your experiences at Beau Rivage and Tampa Hard Rock (quarter denomination) can lead you to widely assume Vegas is the only place and the rest of the nation are inferior. I know you group the Gulf Coast region, but you always leave out the state of Louisiana for some reason. I know it is an additional 100 miles of travel beyond Biloxi to get there, but they got some good Airport and NSU Deuces out there. Some of them are entirely smoke free as well. I heard New Orleans is a fun place to be, but if it is personal I will not ask.

Regardless of all these things, your passion for Video Poker is undeniable. To avoid further conflicts, you have to cut back on making blind claims or assumptions if you are not 100% about something. Rather you should turn them into questions.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=alpax]Regardless of all these things, your passion for Video Poker is
undeniable. To avoid further conflicts, you have to cut back on making
blind claims or assumptions if you are not 100% about something. Rather
you should turn them into questions.[/quote]Good advice. I'll take it.  

[rapidbison]

See previous updated post.....95% RNG seems to never be addressed in any of Dancer's writing....and math....

[billryan]

He's also never discussed the unicorn effect.

[paco13]

Unicorn's are evil. Never trust them.

[Tedlark]

paco do you have any relatives named Eduardo? Who may have an affinity for tacos?

[ukaserex]

A point Phil has made, and it is , indeed, valid, is that casinos often offer better pay scales at higher denominations. Sometimes, playing short coin at the higher denomination with a reduced royal payout is still better, percentage-wise, than playing full coin at the lower denomination.

I agree - sometimes. I've found it depends on what casino I'm at.

At the IP in Biloxi, if you're outside of the non-smoking area, you'll get robbed no matter what denomination, because the 6/9 JoB is in the non-smoking area - but it's not available above $2 per credit.

If you want to play $5, you have to go to Hard Rock. And if you play less than $5 per credit at hard rock - the pay table drops to 5/7 on the nickels, if memory serves. Maybe 5/8 on the dollars.

My point was that as far as the risk of your cash, given the upgrade in the Royal pay out with max-coins, you're better off playing Max coins with nickels as opposed to single coin quarters (Unless, as you said, the pay-table is high enough on the quarters to make it a slightly better play. )

[New2vp]

See previous updated post.....95% RNG seems to never be addressed in any of Dancer's writing....and math....95% refers to the confidence limits of a statistical test (known as a chi-squared test for goodness of fit) that is applied to outcomes from the Random Number Generator.  This does not mean that an RNG can be random 95% of the time and nonrandom 5% of the time.  If you look at page 2 athttp://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3450 you can see that the tests in Nevada are applied to successive blocks of 10,000 outcomes.  The use of 95% means that a truly random number generator will in fact pass this statistical test about 19 times out of 20 (95%) and fail about 1 time out of 20 (5%).  That means that the test will generate false positives about 5% of the time.  You can see that the website verbiage says that the play will be disabled whenever there are two successive failures.  The idea behind these tests is that a defective or biased RNG will fail the test more often and thus be detected in relatively short order.I realize that intuition may cause one to think that a 99% test would be better somehow, but in fact that means that the test is actually less sensitive.  There would only be 1% false positives but that also means that the test would be less powerful in its detection of slight deviations from randomness.I don't know the specific tests that are performed, but for illustration I constructed such a test to see how Excel would do in the generation of 10,000 cards.  Using the Randbetween function, I generated 10,000 cards by calculating random integers between 1 and 52, inclusively.  With 10,000 cards there should be about 192.3 cards of each specific rank-suit combination on average (10,000/52 = 192.308).  The first 12 times through the outcomes passed the chi-squared goodness-of-fit test at the 95% level, with one just barely passing.  On the 13th try, the chi-squared statistic was 73.3152.  The critical value at the 95% level is 68.6933 (51 degrees of freedom for those of you trying to recall your statistics class).  On this 13th try, I had extreme values of only 155 instances of the 7 of clubs with 226 instances of the queen of spades, again with the comparison of an average around 192.  This set of outcomes failed the 95% test.  According to the p-value of the statistical test (0.0220), results this extreme occur only 2.2% of the time.What does this show?  It illustrates that even a nonbiased random number generator will fail this test sometimes.  A biased generator, say one that shorts the number of aces, will fail more often (than 5% in this instance).If successive tests continued to show deficient values for one card or a surplus values for other cards, we could posit that the RNG was acting up.  I actually was a little lucky here in that it took only 13 times to fail the test when the test is supposed to fail about 1 time in every 20.  Nevertheless, it would generally not take too many attempts before finding a false positive.All the tests for RNGs are not going to be this simple.  For example, one might also look at combinations of pairs or trios of cards being generated.  One could also check for randomness after a particular card has been previously dealt.  There is a whole segment of mathematical study devoted to testing random numbers (see diehard tests for one example).  Odds are if you can think of some way to get around a particular test, there is a Ph.D. math guy that has figured out another test that would detect it. I know this may seem like overkill, but I was also trying to illustrate why you might not have seen Bob Dancer write columns about this.  I imagine if Dancer devoted a whole column to something like this, first he would lose a lot of his audience, and second, he would probably want to enlist the services of an expert in statistics.  On the other hand, he is used to writing for a less technical audience and may be able to explain it on a simpler plane in a more entertaining fashion than I could.None of this is to discourage healthy skepticism.  I'm just hoping to point it towards more productive uses.