Should You Play VP Bigger?

[billryan]

Where are these people reading that $5 games are profitable besides in your weekly thread on the evils of the game?

[BobDancer]

As best I know, your results on a 9-6 JOB game after $100,000 coin in will be the same whither it's done on a quarter machine or a $5 machine. Pretty sure the $5 player will reap far better comps.

Not quite, Bill. At least not in every state.

For Royals in Mississippi, you collect 3,880 coins on a $5 royal and 4,000 coins on quarter royals. There's a 3% ding on the straight flush as well.

If you play a $10 game or higher, you also get dinged for quads.

Now I agree with you that FP is wrong about a lot of things on this forum, but that doesn't mean he's wrong on everything.

[Tedlark]

Please, PLEASE. Don't get him started on $10.00 games.....

[FloridaPhil]

If a player in Vegas or anywhere else that has positive VP plays $5, $10 or even $100 games, I could care less. What I care about is the small time player that visits this forum and incorrectly concludes playing VP bigger is always better. The point I am trying to get across is that negative VP is a loser no matter how big you play it.

Billy thinks Recreational VP is VooDoo. I think Professional VP is a waste of resources . Who is right? Players play with their own money and time and hopefully get what they want out of the game.

If you treat video poker as entertainment, you are not doing anyone any harm. The fact is most players would be better off financially if they embraced that attitude. I don't understand the negativity on this forum toward this concept. Is Billy afraid small time players will stop paying his bills? Are the casinos afraid everyone will switch to single coin nickles? What they should be afraid of is by dropping VP odds they cause players to find something else to occupy their time. It seems to me the new kids are already on to that.

What is the purpose of having a Recreational Forum if every comment we make is berated by critics from the Strategy Forum? VP recreation is where you find it. I may love playing single coin and someone else may think it's the worse thing possible. When I play single coin, I lose less, play longer and get more entertainment for my money. What's wrong with that?

I try not to let my personal feelings influence my posts in the Strategy Forum. I know it causes problems and I don't think it helps anyone be a better player. All we are asking for is a place on this forum where we can discuss VP in all it's Recreational forms without being called VooDoo or unintelligent. Small time players make the casino work. How about giving us some respect?

[onemoretry]

All we are asking for is a place on this forum where we can discuss VP in all it's Recreational forms without being called VooDoo or unintelligent. Small time players make the casino work. How about giving us some respect?

You have stated this, or something similar, many, many times. What, specifically, are the topics you think ought to be discussed only in the recreational forum?

[BobDancer]

The point I am trying to get across is that negative VP is a loser no matter how big you play it.

And now you're off the rails again.

There ARE games under 99% that when you combine them with promotions become positive games. You have to find them. And for the most part, you MUST play for larger stakes to make them work.

One I played very heavily for the past couple years can be played profitably requires $5 Triple Play or larger on a 9/6 DDB game. You CAN play the game for stakes as low as a 25 cent game, but the promotions don't kick in and it's a negative game when you play it that way.

And no, the returns for you score today are not guaranteed. On any given day you can lose $40K or more if you run badly --- but over the many million dollars I've played the promotion, the results are very consistent with what the theoretical expectation is. Over the past 24 years of experience in this, I trust the machines very, very much to be dealt fairly.

The results in this kind of intelligent gambling are MUCH safer and MUCH less volatile than putting your money in the stock market. Yes I have a lot of money invested there too, but I don't kid myself that world-wide trade wars has to end up well for us. Playing video poker with an advantage, however, will.

[Eduardo]

...and in addition to that, if you ARE playing a losing opportunity, there is nothing WORSE you can do than play bigger. That's just a fast track to ruin. Which is why Mr Dancer has told you in the past that not playing at all is the right move in those situations, or at least playing smaller (or less often) is better than playing bigger in those situations. You have to figure out your edge before you play it big, and you have to have the bankroll.

Nobody ever said or implied that "playing VP bigger is always better. "

[markinca]

Phil is easily confused. He sees Bob say something like "Many <100% games can be profitable, but mainly at the $5+ level, when in conjunction with lucrative comps/drawings/etc they can become healthily positive" to mean "HEY EVERYBODY, YOU SHOULD ALWAYS BE PLAYING AT THE $5+ LEVEL NO MATTER WHAT!"

[billryan]

But if $5 games are good, doesn't that make $10 games better.

[billryan]

$100 games should be even betterer. Who wants to be a millionaire?