Odds vs. Denomination

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=BillRyan]I'm not sure what this obsession with Dancer you have is all about. Do you think you could go a week without mentioning him?[/quote]Are you kidding?  I love Bob Dancer.  If it wasn't for him, we would nothing to talk about except your expert opinions. Honestly, he's the major promoter of the math wins over everything else VP strategy.  Most of the time when I refer to him it's his strategy I'm talking about, not the person.   If someone else had come up with this brilliant marketing scheme, you never would have heard his name.  At this point in his life I don't think he believes in it that much, but it sure sells.   You're a walking talking example.   You may be surprised to learn how many copies of his software I have sold for him.   I'm a big believer in VP math, I'm just not a believer that math can guarantee anyone a long term win. 

[Carcounter]

Every available VP game has a negative EV without the royal. You have to hit the expected number of royals to have a fighting chance to make money. I have kept records for the last 15 yrs and I am always positive when I am over-royaled and negaitive when I am under-royaled. May sound obvious, but beginners to VP need to understand this.

[Vman96]

Every available VP game has a negative EV without the royal. You have to hit the expected number of royals to have a fighting chance to make money. I have kept records for the last 15 yrs and I am always positive when I am over-royaled and negaitive when I am under-royaled. May sound obvious, but beginners to VP need to understand this.

Also people need to realize if you play poor paytables (e.g. 8/5 JoB), even if you're over-royaled, there is still a good chance you'll be behind because you need over double the normal amount of royals to possibly overcome the house edge!

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=CarCounter]Every available VP game has a negative EV without the royal. You have to
hit the expected number of royals to have a fighting chance to make
money. I have kept records for the last 15 yrs and I am always positive
when I am over-royaled and negaitive when I am under-royaled. May sound
obvious, but beginners to VP need to understand this.[/quote]Absolutely.  This is what makes VP gambling.  Using math to make your game playing decisions before you play is beneficial.  Using math based hand strategies and developing your skill will keep you from degrading the odds.  Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do to make jackpots appear on time.  If they appear more frequent than math predicts, it's called "good luck".  If they appear less frequent, it's called "bad luck".  Anyone who thinks by using a strategy of playing only positive games perfectly they are somehow "owed" enough jackpots to win long term is uninformed.  This does not mean players can't win this way as some obviously do.  No one is arguing against math because the math never says there is 100% chance you will come out a winner unless you never play at all.[quote=Vman96]Also people need to realize if you play poor paytables (e.g. 8/5 JoB),
even if you're over-royaled, there is still a good chance you'll be
behind because you need over double the normal amount of royals to
possibly overcome the house edge![/quote]This is even more true.  Unfortunately, 8/5 JOB may be the best game you have available.  That is why I say if you are going to play crappy VP games, it's better to play them as small as possible.  It's nearly impossible to stop the losing, but at least you can reduce the damage.

[billryan]

Every available VP game has a negative EV without the royal. You have to hit the expected number of royals to have a fighting chance to make money. I have kept records for the last 15 yrs and I am always positive when I am over-royaled and negaitive when I am under-royaled. May sound obvious, but beginners to VP need to understand this.

That's not always the case. Sometimes casinos offer promotions that make a game positive without the Royal. Rare, but there are several in Vegas right now. The royal is the cherry on top of a very tasty sundae.

If you are over-royaled sometimes, and under-royaled others, it sounds like the two balance each other out.
That's whats known as playing for the long term.

[billryan]

[QUOTE=Carcounter]

Every available VP game has a negative EV without the royal. You have to hit the expected number of royals to have a fighting chance to make money. I have kept records for the last 15 yrs and I am always positive when I am over-royaled and negaitive when I am under-royaled. May sound obvious, but beginners to VP need to understand this.

Also people need to realize if you play poor paytables (e.g. 8/5 JoB), even if you're over-royaled, there is still a good chance you'll be behind because you need over double the normal amount of royals to possibly overcome the house edge! [/QUOTE]

   If only there were a simple solution to avoiding that problem. Oh wait, there is.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=BillRyan] If only there were a simple solution to avoiding that problem. Oh wait, there is.[/quote]You can always move to Vegas where the sun always shines, the VP always pays and math is always positive.  In truth, we agree on almost everything.  I just like your company. 

[Carcounter]

I've been somewhat on the lucky side. Have never seen a positive oppurtunity here in AC over the years, without the value of the royal, maybe some existed, but I didn't see them. However, had quite a few good years pre-recession when AC had games that were positve overall. I've been fortunate to hit my fair share of royals overall even in the last few years. I know Olds has said he once went 500k hands w/o a royal. I never would have lasted that long. Would have given VP up.They seem to sometimes come in bunches, then vanish for a long time, but I have only had one year in the last 15 without a royal. I play 100-120k hands a year.

[FAA]

With six figures VP per year, you darn well better see a RF. I don't even hit 40,000. Lucky so far. Hope this year is as smooth.

[FloridaPhil]

Some years are good and some are bad.  Last year was a banner year with one $4K and one $2K royal on my tax form.  The rest were $1K each.  Overall, we hit 7 between us.  This year has been a big goose egg with none so far.  I usually hit at least one hand pay a year.  This happens after moving up when I'm ahead.  My wife stays with quarters all the time and runs out of the casino if she's losing.  Her cost to play is incredibly low.   My jackpots are bigger, but her overall return is better.   The bigger I bet, the more I lose.