Playing Bad VP Games

[FloridaPhil]

This post is not an instruction manual, strategy discussion or a tutorial on how to beat the casinos. It is a collection of thoughts and experiences relating to playing bad video poker games. What do I consider a "Bad" video poker game? Today's games range from 95% to near 100%. A few are over 100%. I do not have access to positive games at a denomination I feel comfortable playing. Because my experience is limited to negative VP games, I leave those discussions to the experts.

I consider any video poker game with max coin odds under 98.5% to be in the "Bad" game category. It would be very difficult for comps and incentives to overcome a 1.5% house edge. Unfortunately, most quarter VP falls into this group.

In our travels around the country, we see a lot of these games. After driving 6-8 hours to visit a new casino, we play what they have to offer or we don't play at all. This gives us a chance to experiment with these games and figure out how best way to play them.

Playing "Bad" games is going to cost you money. You can win big playing bad games, but long term you will lose more than you win. What is long term? This depends on how long you play. In my case, I gauge my results on an annual basis. I play at least 250,000 hands of VP a year or about 6 royal cycles. I average about 3-4 royals a year over the past 10 years. I have made money in some of those years. Over the ten year period, I have lost money.

Here is some of what I have learned. See if you agree with my observations.

The best way to keep from losing money in a casino is to stay out of them. Yes, there are some players who make a profit. Will you? Not if you play "Bad" games. The second best way to play these games is to reduce your coin-in. This can be done in a number of ways.

The coin-in is the amount of money you put into the machine over time. An average player plays about 600 hands of VP an hour. If I bet $1.25 a hand, I am running $750 an hour through the machine. If the house edge is 3%, that is the minimum amount I will pay the casino to play their games. If I make errors, that number could increase.

Option one is to play single coin VP. This reduces your coin in from $750 an hour to $150 which reduces the house take. It also reduces the size of your jackpots. It also takes away the royal bonus. This means you are paid $62.50 for a royal flush instead of $1,000. This removes the major incentive of playing VP. Who wants to play a slot machine with the big jackpot removed? Not many. Still, this is an option for those who want to play VP for as long as possible as cheap as possible.

Some casinos offer nickel VP. Unfortunately, they usually drop the odds even further. It is very common the find the single coin quarter odds better than the max coin nickel odds, so check this before you play.

A better option is to play less hands. You can do this by limiting your playing time, speed or by setting a bankroll limit. Instead of sitting in front of a "Bad" machine for hours at a time, take breaks, walk around, check out the other games and watch the other players. You may find a better game. The house edge costs you nothing unless you put money in the machine.

I once watched a player in BiloxI do something that I didn't understand until many years later. This player would get up and walk over to the ticket redemption machine every 15 minutes or so. I don't know what criteria he used for cashing out, but it slowed his play considerably. A smart move when the casino is taking 4% of your money just for playing their games.

How fast do you play? If you own software like Video Poker for Winners, you can time yourself. Many players play 1,000 hands an hour. A player who plays 1,000 hands an hour playing "Bad" VP games will lose twice as much as another playing the same game at 500 hands an hour. Slow down, take a lot of bathroom breaks, watch the people, talk to someone or just take in the sights.

One of our favorite things to do is "casino hopping". We like to go to cities with multiple casinos. Places like Biloxi are great for this. Within 30 minutes of our hotel are at least 10 different casinos. None of them have positive VP. Nevertheless, they can be very entertaining places to visit. We spend the day walking in and out of each casino, checking out the games and experiencing each one. Unless we find an opportunity, we play a few bucks and walk on. We avoid playing in cities that charge for casino parking.

Are there sights to see in the area other than the casino? Some casinos are in beautiful places. Black Hawk Colorado is at the top of our list. Black Hawk is about an hour west of Denver high in the Rockies. We drive around and visit the ski resorts and numerous mountain parks. A great two hour drive is to take the back road to Colorado Springs to play VP in Cripple Creek. Along this road you will see many 14,000 foot snow covered peaks. If you have never been there, put it on your list. Even Vegas has cool things to see and visit. After you have been to the obvious places like the Hoover dam and the Grand Canyon, drive out to Death Valley and check it out. You don't need to spend all your time sitting in a casino. We don't.

All over this country there are new casinos being built. Are they all going to have positive VP? I don't think so. Don't get hung up on positive odds. Don't get depressed if you can't find them. If you do find them, play them. If you can't, play smart and limit your cost to play.

I hope members who read this post will understand it's purpose. I don't want players to think they can't have fun unless they can play 100% games. Playing VP is entertaining, but you must be smart about how you play. Combining it with a couples vacation is the best of two worlds. If your wife or significant other doesn't like VP, ask her why. Her answer may surprise you.

[Eduardo]

1,121 words. That must have taken a while... I'm curious what thoughts above you believe you have not already posted multiple times. What made you decide to write about them all over again?

Sorry if this comes off as combative... that isn't my intent. It's just that I feel like we have already discussed all of these points at length several times over. Unless you expect us to also repeat our thoughts on the topic, I'm not sure what sort of discussion you are hoping for.

The above is a good summary of approaches to playing negative machines, most of which were suggested to you by the "experts" who you felt should stay away from this forum. None of them would have been reached without a mathematical reasoning. It's good to see you are at least learning from them and that some level of mathematical discussion is helpful when it comes to analyzing any approach to gambling. If that is the purpose of this topic, then you succeeded.

[Eduardo]

I'll do my best to respond, any way...

I consider any video poker game with max coin odds under 98.5% to be in the "Bad" game category. It would be very difficult for comps and incentives to overcome a 1.5% house edge.

Numbers and discussion of AP Play.

If I bet $1.25 a hand, I am running $750 an hour through the machine. If the house edge is 3%, that is the minimum amount I will pay the casino to play their games.

Math.

A player who plays 1,000 hands an hour playing "Bad" VP games will lose twice as much as another playing the same game at 500 hands an hour.

Equation.

This reduces your coin in from $750 an hour to $150 which reduces the house take. It also reduces the size of your jackpots. It also takes away the royal bonus. This means you are paid $62.50 for a royal flush instead of $1,000.

Numbers are indeed helpful.

Playing VP is entertaining, but you must be smart about how you play.

Let me read that again...

Playing VP is entertaining, but you must be smart about how you play.

One more time for emphasis...

Playing VP is entertaining, but you must be smart about how you play.

I think that's what a lot of people have been saying all along. Playing for fun and analyzing the game go pretty well together. Even a strategy intended to entertain can benefit from a mathematical viewpoint.

[billryan]

Maybe we can change the C to a B and give the strategy a title it deserves.

PS- no math was used in formulating this post.

[FAA]

Disinterest in a thread? Ignore thread. There, I just saved you both at least ten minutes.

[Eduardo]

I was very interested in hearing about playing "bad vp games."

How could I know it was a complete re-run before I'd finished reading the whole thing?

So I focused on the part that I found most interesting, which is that Phil is a strong supporter of using mathematics to support one's views in the recreational forum. That, and the fact that his best advice (don't play or play more slowly) came directly from a VP Expert who he doesn't think should post that sort of advice here.

[FloridaPhil]

Here's the problem as I see it.

Experts only talk about playing net positive VP games. They have built an entire industry on this premise. It goes like this "Find a game with a combination of odds and comps that is more than 100%, play it perfectly and ride it all the way to the bank. We get it.

Where does this leave the rest of us who don't have these games to play? When was the last time you read anyone but me tell players on this forum that limiting coin-in reduces losses? Dig it out and quote it if you can. The reason they don't is it's bad for business. So what happens? Players play "bad" games and lose. Nothing new about that. How about telling them how to play those games and lose less? You'll never hear an expert talk about that. Again, dig it out and let's see it in print.

At the casinos where I play, I see players playing bad VP games because they don't have any choice. They play them longer and bigger because they read somewhere that VP can be beat. They grind it out on a game that is guaranteed to clean out their bank account because that's how they think some professional plays VP. They come here for advice and all they get is the same old positive game strategy that only works in Vegas or in the high limit room. This drives me nuts. If it doesn't bother you, don't read my posts.

If our experts would talk about limiting losses when playing the games most players play, I wouldn't have to. Just once I would like for one of these experts to devote an entire chapter in a book or a radio show on limiting losses when playing "bad" VP games. Can you imagine the uproar from the casinos? Who would pay their bills then?

Picture this in your mind. Someone goes to a VP class in Vegas. The expert tells them to only play net positive games and explains comps and incentives. Someone in the back raises his hand and asks "How do you play a 97% quarter VP game with no comps?" The expert says "Don't play them". The player flies home all fired up looking for a positive VP opportunity he can play. When they don't find one, what happens?

[Eduardo]

When was the last time you read anyone but me tell players on this forum that limiting coin-in reduces losses? Dig it out and quote it if you can.

Seriously?

https://www.videopoker.com/forum/viewto ... f=5&t=9742

[Webman]

Closing topic as redundant. I know there are more topics to discuss in the Recreational forum. Let's not start the same ones over and over. Please feel free to continue the discussion in one of these similar threads:

Playing Single Coin VP for Retirees

Playing Speed

Should You Play VP Bigger?

How To Keep The Casino From Beating You

Why Do People Play Negative Video Poker Games?

Can You Keep From Losing?

The World of Negative VP

Can You Beat a Negative Video Poker Game?

My Best Recreational Money Management Strategy

Recreational Money Management

Or perhaps most notably... this particular thread which was called... wait for it...
"Playing Bad VP Games?"

Read the first post of that thread and you may be amazed at the similarity.

[New2vp]

What is nearly priceless is FP's reply to Eduardo's linked post:

"I think that pretty much sums it up. We'll see if anyone actually bets smaller. I doubt it. LOL"

So, it seems that Phil thinks it is worthless to make such posts because he doubts if anyone will actually bet smaller ... (even if we could somehow measure that). Yet, somehow, I sense we will see this again soon in a forum topic coming to your home website.