A Question for Bob Dancer

[Vman96]

Good to see you around new.

And I agree about Bob not claiming you can get rich off the game...at least as of late. Maybe he's hinted at it in older publications, not sure. Bob is trying to be helpful, but problem with Bob is, he treats video poker as his job, which it partially is. Virtually everyone else here doesn't treat VP like it's their job, so squeezing out every possible avenue of expected value doesn't appeal to everyone.

But for the game/levels people want to play...people should strive to find casinos/machines that return them the most value, either from paytables themselves, or in some cases comp value coming from playing. Losing less money leads to more entertainment on the money that you do spend.      

[notes1]

New2vp, a thoughtful post and no one should be offended. i have never played less than max coin. isn't it possible that both parties in this debate could be correct? they are simply speaking to a different audience. there are many players such as FP, in the casino, just look around. they love playing VP, retired, do not have access to positive games and the cost of traveling to get better odds, does not make economic sense. many have accepted that long term, they are going to lose. they just want to lose more slowly, trying to extend the entertainment value. there are other players, like dancer, who have access to better odds machines. they simply cannot understand why anyone would play a 8/5, 7/5 or even a 6/5 machine.  both sides may understand the math, some may believe it more than others. if getting a positive machine requires playing at a $5/10/25 dollar level, it makes many uncomfortable, the risk is too great. i do think the cheap method has been talked to death, but if one does not want to read it, skip it, that is what i do. but, that does not mean the discussion of about how to lose less, should be frowned upon. i have been playing for about 10 years, played at many casinos and gotten to know a number of players. while i will not declare that no one wins, in the modern era of VP, long term net winners are getting harder to find. dancer himself said it was harder to find positive machines.      

[FloridaPhil]

Wow!  I am blown away by the objective turn of this discussion.  This is a great thread and I hope it puts an end to some of these issues.   The game needs all kinds of players to survive and they all should be given an equal voice on this forum.  A little more understanding and respect on both sides would be helpful.I get it that CS has been talked to death.  I was asked to keep the link up, so there it is for those who want to try it.  I am also bored with the issue of Bob Dancer's income.  I respect his opinions when it comes to the game of video poker and will try to keep any other opinions to myself.I think it's time for me to back off this forum a little.  I don't want to monopolize it and I sure don't want to be responsible for players leaving or avoiding the forum due to anything I post.Let's get back to playing video poker.

[case]

NotesThe your last paragraph is the key:  "i have been playing for about 10 years, played at many casinos and
gotten to know a number of players. while i will not declare that no one
wins, in the modern era of VP, long term net winners are getting harder
to find. dancer himself said it was harder to find positive machines."Like you said you will not declare that no one wins. What irks many on here are the people who continually say NO ONE WINS.You are 100% right in that it is getting harder to win and less people do so each year.   But to those who say it is impossible to win are....just wrong.I truly believe in a few years the pay tables and added comps will be cut to prevent any one from beating the game. However that time has not quite come yet.

[Eduardo]

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.



I agree with points 3, 7c, 14d and 37e-g. Point 2 I think is a grievous mistake and should be ignored. Point 8 I will have to give more thought to. Points 48q-r are typical of math people. Point 22 I cannot comment on due to a restraining order.

[EDC1977]

@ FloridaPhil: Both of the systems work if luck is on your side. Yours is advantageous because one doesn't have to be playing a 99% plus game. Also doesn't require a 4X royal bankroll. I did play single line quarters rather than 5 nickels recently and did manage to play a couple hours more with limited bankroll. I won't take sides. Both are there to be used and both can be useful when played correctly.

[New2vp]

I agree with points 3, 7c, 14d and 37e-g. Point 2 I think is a grievous mistake and should be ignored. Point 8 I will have to give more thought to. Points 48q-r are typical of math people. Point 22 I cannot comment on due to a restraining order.

Sorry, I inadvertently numbered two different bullets with #6 and left #8 out entirely; so could you please update your indexed objections in light of these corrections.

[Galeygoo]

[QUOTE=Eduardo] I agree with points 3, 7c, 14d and 37e-g. Point 2 I think is a grievous mistake and should be ignored. Point 8 I will have to give more thought to. Points 48q-r are typical of math people. Point 22 I cannot comment on due to a restraining order.

Sorry, I inadvertently numbered two different bullets with #6 and left #8 out entirely; so could you please update your indexed objections in light of these corrections.[/QUOTE]I am so happy to see this type of lighthearted humor brought back to the Forum.  Thanks guys.  Funny stuff.

[notes1]

case, as i mentioned in my post, FP and dancer, are speaking to different audiences.  both of them advocate playing with skill and practice and playing the best machines. the difference is that one of them is speaking to the masses, who play at negative machines, comps have been greatly reduced and play at lower denominations. these players have generally accepted they are going to lose, but want to extend their play and get as much value as possible.  the other is speaking to a much, much smaller crowd, who only play with an advantage, are willing to put in the time (like a job) and put enough money at risk, where the small edge they have, just might pay off. this crowd is offended by any mention that no one wins. one group feels that it is misleading to give the masses the idea that they are likely to win and the other group believes it is misleading to say, no one can win. some folks believe with the right equipment, the proper coaching and dedicated training, that anyone can be tiger woods, joe namath or mickey mantle. some think they can out trade the stock market. sometimes it happens, most times it does not.   

[BobDancer]

 








I think it's time for me to back off this forum a little.  I don't want to monopolize it and I sure don't want to be responsible for players leaving or avoiding the forum due to anything I post.








Best news I've heard since Christmas!