A Question for Bob Dancer

[FAA]

DJC, I have never played a nickel machine so I have no idea. Are they even single line nickel? No clue. Quarter machines are fun. I like the whimsical sliding scale aspect of it depending on how cheap I feel in the moment. Sometimes my quad is a hefty $31, sometimes $12.50. True min coin is 2% of my play. Which accounts for a losing day exceeding Phil's numbers by a mile. 9/5 nickels sounds right. And as you say, that's essentially the same as 9/6 quarters non max. I did hit the dispiriting $62 RF last year. You got to be in it to win it. I knew the terms.

[FAA]

King, I understand the enmity too. Bob is selling Kool Aid, delicious but bad for you. Phil has piping hot Maxwell House. CS is a practical meat and potatoes strategy for the masses. You probably won't see a jackpot anytime soon due to the highly curtailed max betting. But you leave town relieved and in a positive state of mind by avoiding a bust and even making a few bucks as often as not.

[djc32]

DJC, I have never played a nickel machine so I have no idea. Are they even single line nickel? No clue.
True min coin is 2% of my play. Which accounts for a losing day exceeding Phil's numbers by a mile. 9/5 nickels sounds right. And as you say, that's essentially the same as 9/6 quarters non max. I did hit the dispiriting $62 RF last year.

Yes, single line nickel machines do exist.
If you have some time to burn the next time you go to AC, scout out some nickel machines, id be interested to hear what you find for pay tables.

[Minn. Fatz]

My experience has been that it's possible to play multi-line machines for a single line, including activating bonus features; since VP payouts are limited in my state by compact that's generally what I'll do. But most lower-denomination paytables are not going to be as good as quarters or dollars.

[FAA]

That's true, MF. It's not the same thing, but I did a bit of spin poker single lining it at Tropicana. I still lost $40 in two hours. Unfortunately no silver lining single lining!

[New2vp]

I completely understand Bob Dancer's emnity toward Phil. Phil has basically hijacked Bob's entirety website promoting a strategy that is contrary to everything Bob stands for, and continually implies that Bob is a fraud who encourages people to gamble irresponsibly. I for one have stopped reading this forum often because of Phil's posts. Every so often I come back to see if he's died down, but it never changes. A shame, this used to be a fun and informative forum.
Good post.  I don't post here regularly anymore either.  I guess since it is Saturday, I can make an exception and spend a little time here.Spoiler alert:  I have learned things over the years from Bob's writings and I have learned nothing from Phil's posts.  I have no enmity for either.  Forums like this allow everyone to write regardless of whether their writings are provably right or wrong.  And people can mistakes and are rarely 100% wrong (or right).  The chances for making errors go up as the number of posts (and words within posts) increase.  Some are more careful than others.  There are a lot of people who post here who I still do enjoy reading and I occasionally learn from; e.g., Vman96, Minn Fatz, onemoretry to name a few of the more recent posters ... not to mention Eduardo who frequently makes points in his own whimsical way!  Tedlark, I would include you, but I know that might make some others mad ... and I don't really want to spend more time here defending this single post.  The "king" long ago was shadowman.  I hope he is still around, both on the earth and out there in cyberspace.  Of course, Bob Dancer and Frank Kneeland (a few years ago) are nearly always interesting as well.  There are others; sorry if I missed writing your name.I interpret that some of Phil's disagreements with Bob are over thoughts that Phil attributes to Bob that Phil has innocently twisted somewhat but it is clear that Phil has good intentions and is truly trying to be thoughtful.  One-coin strategies have been around for years and Bob and others before him have written long ago that one loses less playing that way on negative EV games.  I don't know how many times that has to be repeated, but maybe others can continue to benefit from what seems to be endless repetition.  It is good for Phil's own play that he has picked up on that discovery whether or not he realizes he is not the first to observe this; it should serve him well in a less than 100% market.  Strategies like using 1-coin wins of a certain size to time when you are going to switch to max-coin plays are no better (and no worse) over a year's time than switching every 25 plays or so (I picked the number 25 out of the air to correspond with the required wins just guessing that such wins happen around 4% of the time; one could fashion a more precise estimate, but I didn't take the time to determine the percentage of time that any particular one-coin strategy that is being espoused would yield a winner sufficient to allow the progression to max coin.).Certainly if one's goals are to maximize the percentage of casino visits that will result in a positive outcome (or at least not too negative of an outcome), one might be better served by using something other than max-EV strategy in some circumstances.  However, it would be helpful if it was also realized that this would be at the expense of the annual (and lifetime) expected win/loss results.One thing that saddens me, but will never change, is the number of players that think the only way they can determine likely outcomes from a given strategy is to observe what happens AFTER they have used it.  Those that insist on this test are destined to be a slave to recent actual results which are fairly poor at predicting future success. A few hundred or a few thousand hands today are not generally repeatable the next day when there are 2.6 million possible final hands as outcomes.  Some who believe only in actual results can easily come to the conclusion that the casinos must have gaffed the machines when negative results follow previous positive results while using a given strategy, whether or not that "gaffing" has in fact occurred.And lots of people will continue to play without using any strategy ... just playing by the seat of their pants; many of those will have never seen a post in this forum!!  It does not bring me joy, but most of these will likely add more to a casino's bottom line, preventing further degradation of pay schedules.Mathematics (and statistics) can be used to analyze any pre-determined and completely specified strategy.  These disciplines are not confined solely to analyzing Max-EV play.I would be interested if Phil could give me the quote from what Bob has written that suggests that Bob guaranteed to anyone that they would win millions or even ANY dollars.  I suppose such a quote may in fact exist or be intimated.  I would certainly agree with Phil that such a guarantee would be faulty.  Risk of ruin calculations have been around longer than even Bob has been writing, so it would be incorrect to issue such a guarantee.At the same time, I would like to help dispel the myth that one needs an infinite amount of play to have a probability very close to 1 (100%) of being a winner after a few million hands with the right set of circumstances and positive EV plays when combined with other monetary comps or promotions.  Hopefully people can see that both statements above can be true simultaneously.  Any tiny difference from 100% removes the "guarantee," but still makes it highly likely that gains will occur.Of course, the reverse is true with negative-EV plays.  One is not guaranteed to be a loser, but depending on the amount of play and the level of negativity, the probabilities of losing get closer and closer to 1.I do acknowledge that it is difficult to disagree without crossing the line and hurting another's feelings from time to time, especially in prolonged discussions.  So I am not defending or attacking the proponent of either strategy.  And I know it is often more fun, at least in the short run, to come up with smart-aleck one liners.  Phil (and those who agree with everything he writes), I apologize in advance if I crossed that line.I also know that it is doubtful that anyone will pick up much from my post to change their own views.  In situations like these at work, I do advise a lot of my staff not to respond immediately to an email or post that they disagree with ... and also not to intentionally escalate the disagreements so that others will solidify there contrary opinions.  It is also best to see if one can learn anything at all from an email (or here a post) that you disagree with.  By the way, in the interest of realism, I should acknowledge that this advice is not often successful in modifying behavior.Enjoy your play and this website however you want to proceed.

[New2vp]

[QUOTE=KingofAmerica]I completely understand Bob Dancer's emnity toward Phil. Phil has basically hijacked Bob's entirety website promoting a strategy that is contrary to everything Bob stands for, and continually implies that Bob is a fraud who encourages people to gamble irresponsibly. I for one have stopped reading this forum often because of Phil's posts. Every so often I come back to see if he's died down, but it never changes. A shame, this used to be a fun and informative forum.
Good post.  I don't post here regularly anymore either.  I guess since it is Saturday, I can make an exception and spend a little time here.Spoiler alert:  I have learned things over the years from Bob's writings and I have learned nothing from Phil's posts.  I have no enmity for either.  Forums like this allow everyone to write regardless of whether their writings are provably right or wrong.  And people can make mistakes and are rarely 100% wrong (or right).  The chances for making errors go up as the number of posts (and words within posts) increase.  Some are more careful than others.  There are a lot of people who post here who I still do enjoy reading and I occasionally learn from; e.g., Vman96, Minn Fatz, onemoretry to name a few of the more recent posters ... not to mention Eduardo who frequently makes points in his own whimsical way!  Tedlark, I would include you, but I know that might make some others mad ... and I don't really want to spend more time here defending this single post.  The "king" long ago was shadowman.  I hope he is still around, both on the earth and out there in cyberspace.  Of course, Bob Dancer and Frank Kneeland (a few years ago) are nearly always interesting as well.  I should also give a "shout out" to my buddy faygo, who was always good for an illustrative and humorous post at the right times!  There are others; sorry if I missed writing your name.I interpret that some of Phil's disagreements with Bob are over thoughts that Phil attributes to Bob that Phil has innocently twisted somewhat but it is clear that Phil has good intentions and is truly trying to be thoughtful.  One-coin strategies have been around for years and Bob and others before him have written long ago that one loses less playing that way on negative EV games.  I don't know how many times that has to be repeated, but maybe others can continue to benefit from what seems to be endless repetition.  It is good for Phil's own play that he has picked up on that discovery whether or not he realizes he is not the first to observe this; it should serve him well in a less than 100% market.  Strategies like using 1-coin wins of a certain size to time when you are going to switch to max-coin plays are no better (and no worse) over a year's time than switching every 25 plays or so (I picked the number 25 out of the air to correspond with the required wins just guessing that such wins happen around 4% of the time; one could fashion a more precise estimate, but I didn't take the time to determine the percentage of time that any particular one-coin strategy that is being espoused would yield a winner sufficient to allow the progression to max coin.).Certainly if one's goals are to maximize the percentage of casino visits that will result in a positive outcome (or at least not too negative of an outcome), one might be better served by using something other than max-EV strategy in some circumstances.  However, it would be helpful if it was also realized that this would be at the expense of the annual (and lifetime) expected win/loss results.One thing that saddens me, but will never change, is the number of players that think the only way they can determine likely outcomes from a given strategy is to observe what happens AFTER they have used it.  Those that insist on this test are destined to be a slave to recent actual results which are fairly poor at predicting future success. A few hundred or a few thousand hands today are not generally repeatable the next day when there are 2.6 million possible final hands as outcomes.  Some who believe only in actual results can easily come to the conclusion that the casinos must have gaffed the machines when negative results follow previous positive results while using a given strategy, whether or not that "gaffing" has in fact occurred.And lots of people will continue to play without using any strategy ... just playing by the seat of their pants; many of those will have never seen a post in this forum!!  It does not bring me joy, but most of these will likely add more to a casino's bottom line, preventing further degradation of pay schedules.Mathematics (and statistics) can be used to analyze any pre-determined and completely specified strategy.  These disciplines are not confined solely to analyzing Max-EV play.I would be interested if Phil could give me the quote from what Bob has written that suggests that Bob guaranteed to anyone that they would win millions or even ANY dollars.  I suppose such a quote may in fact exist or be intimated.  I would certainly agree with Phil that such a guarantee would be faulty.  Risk of ruin calculations have been around longer than even Bob has been writing, so it would be incorrect to issue such a guarantee.At the same time, I would like to help dispel the myth that one needs an infinite amount of play to have a probability very close to 1 (100%) of being a winner after a few million hands with the right set of circumstances and positive EV plays when combined with other monetary comps or promotions.  Hopefully people can see that both statements above can be true simultaneously.  Any tiny difference from 100% removes the "guarantee," but still makes it highly likely that gains will occur.Of course, the reverse is true with negative-EV plays.  One is not guaranteed to be a loser, but depending on the amount of play and the level of negativity, the probabilities of losing get closer and closer to 1.I do acknowledge that it is difficult to disagree without crossing the line and hurting another's feelings from time to time, especially in prolonged discussions.  So I am not defending or attacking the proponent of either strategy.  And I know it is often more fun, at least in the short run, to come up with smart-aleck one liners.  Phil (and those who agree with everything he writes), I apologize in advance if I crossed that line.I also know that it is doubtful that anyone will pick up much from my post to change their own views.  In situations like these at work, I do advise a lot of my staff not to respond immediately to an email or post that they disagree with ... and also not to intentionally escalate the disagreements so that others will solidify there contrary opinions.  It is also best to see if one can learn anything at all from an email (or here a post) that you disagree with.  By the way, in the interest of realism, I should acknowledge that this advice is not often successful in modifying behavior.Enjoy your play and this website however you want to proceed.

[/QUOTE]

[Tedlark]

Excellent post New, I hope my saying this doesn't make others mad. I have remained completely neutral in the FP/BD recent exchanges and as I have mentioned before; I fully support Phil for establishing a system for video poker play that he feels comfortable with. I'm not advocating that ANY other player play using Phil's system, I'll let players make that decision for themselves.

What I have been an advocate of however, is: playing max coin. About 8 years ago I was playing at Hollywood Casino in Aurora, IL and I was having a pretty good run. I was playing 3/5 DDB and I had caught 3 royals during the session. When I caught the 3rd royal there was a gentleman playing next to me who saw it and congratulated me on it. Low and behold about 10 minutes later he caught a royal. The difference was that I was playing max coin and he was playing single coin. He wanted to know why I got paid 1k on my royal but he only yielded $62.50. I pointed out that I was playing max coin and he was only playing single coin. He played for a few minutes more and he then got up and walked away. I decided to jump over to the machine he vacated and surprisingly I hit a full pay royal within a few minutes of sitting down. Little did I know that the man who left the machine was standing behind me watching. He then came up to me and complained. Typical grumbling about how THAT should have been his royal. I blew him off. This is just one example of why I will continue to play max coin even if I am playing a .01 denomination machine.

I admire Bob Dancer's skills and I appreciate his sharing little nuggets, secrets, inside information (whatever a person refers to it as) here. Bob can occasionally be blunt in his delivery but I think he does this to try and help a player become a BETTER player. Bob also knows that, and this comes from nothing but experience and math: a player will only become better by playing the best machines, playing max coin in, and taking advantage of any edge a casino may be offering at the time. This edge can be the multiplied points days, giveaways, drawings, raffles, whatever.

My bottom line is that I consider myself to be an above average player who has a lucky horseshoe in their pocket. I play the way I want to play but my style is more closely aligned with Bob Dancer's play than Florida Phils. I do wish every player here luck with their play no matter how they wish to play.

[New2vp]

Excellent post New, I hope my saying this doesn't make others mad. Thanks, Ted.  And excellent retort!  I'm sure you know from the past that I was joking.

[Tedlark]

I figured as much New but I wanted to get a shot back in before Eduardo did.....