Thoughts For Beginners

[case]

New2vp
Your post disecting Florida Phils post is probably the best written piece of work I have seen on here. You totally understand video poker. Well done!

[FloridaPhil]

Correct on practically every point. Yes, I do understand the math.  Yes, I believe players would be better off financially if they used computer perfect strategy.   Yes, I do like to spice up this forum. I especially enjoy pulling Bill Ryan's chain as he is so easy to set off.  It's done in fun, but I'll try to tone it down.To the point.   Does anyone here argue that there are some players who will never see a royal flush in their playing lifetime or at least not receive them with mathematically average frequency? Everyone including Bob Dancer are betting their jackpot frequency will be in lock step with the math.  If it is not, they lose.  There are no guarantees, so they are "gambling" that it will.  Using computer perfect hand strategy will earn you the best return, but still there is no guarantee you will win long term.  The question is "How much money are you willing to gamble knowing this is the case?".   In my case, this gamble is worth some quarters with an occasional foray into dollars to spice things up.  Others on this forum may gamble $5, $10, $25 or more.  So what?I am concerned that some players influenced by the marketing, ignore the math and become so convinced they will come out ahead they are willing to risk damage to themselves and their families.  My only real problem with the whole Bob Dancer thing is his public pronouncements of gambling huge stakes.  I believe this is egregiously irresponsible.  Why do this?  He surely doesn't need another jackpot?   If he does it and keeps it to himself, I could care less.  Using it as a marketing tool reinforces the belief that his strategy somehow guarantees you will win, which is not the case.  This is especially true if you do not play positive games or possess computer perfect skills.This all started a few years ago when he published an article stating he would bless his fictional daughter's marriage to a professional video poker player.   I could not sit still and let this slide.  To me it showed he was more interested in profiting than actually helping people to play better.  I am a father and a grandfather with three grand kids. The image of my daughter waiting at home while her husband sits in a dark smoky casino all night betting on a slot machine is revolting.  There are some things more important than video poker profits.  There is no question that seeking out the best games, learning to play with computer perfect strategy, applying that strategy and using common sense money management techniques will earn you the highest return.  I am not against casino gambling for recreational purposes.  Professional gambling is not the NFL, NBA or PGA.   It has no rules and no limits.  It doesn't come with a pension, health care or even common moral standards.  "Heroizing"  professional gamblers benefits no one except casino operators, marriage counselors and lawyers.  In recent years I have noticed he has lightened up a little and talked about more about the negatives of professional gambling.  I suspect he has seen some of these play out in his own life.   He should take back his statements about his fictional daughter's marriage and tell us what he really thinks.   This will tell us once and for all if he is a real human or a fictional character created to sell products.  I realize this subject may be too heavy for many forum members.  I think it's important and we have a responsibility to bring it out into the open.  It may seem to some like I'm always being negative.  I'm an optimistic person at heart and we all want to win, but being blindly optimistic is not being totally truthful and is often dangerous.

[New2vp]

Case, thank you.  It is truly nice to hear your
compliments.  I know I don’t often stop
to do that myself.  And I was neglectful
in thanking Tring (i.e., Vman) who had some kind words for me the last time I
posted.  By the way, Vman, I don’t know
if you ever have explained the meaning behind the term Tringlomane.  I think I get how you came up with the name
Vman.

 

As some know, I posted frequently up until around the time that Vman got here.  There is no correlation with his arrival and my stopping.  It is simply coincident with the
time that I left teaching/consulting and rejoined the business world
fulltime.  I still take the time to read
the forum from time to time and always make it a point to read Vman’s posts,
even though I don’t chime in with a well-deserved, “Well done.”

 

Phil, I don't recall if you were active
on the forum when Frank Kneeland posted here regularly.  I imagine you
would enjoy his book immensely.  It has the most extensive treatment of
progressive poker that I have seen.  He also has some serious concerns
about the damage that problem gambling can do.  He is off-the-wall quirky
in his sense of humor.  While he has a genius IQ, there are quite a few
mathematical errors in what he wrote.  However, the good and unique
information completely outweighs the bad.  Most will not detect nor care
about the math errors ... and I'm afraid that not all will be able to use all
the tools that he has laid out as well as possible.  But I know I learned quite a bit from his
words even if they were not error free. 
I didn’t care so much about his concern for problem gambling, but you
might.
 
I do recall that you were frustrated early on when you got here and were the
inspiration for what you wanted to be a math-free zone to discuss recreational
gambling.  I do believe that was a positive addition to the forum. 
However, I do not come down as favorable on attacks on anything mathematical,
however verbose and well meaning.  The
forum does not have to cater exclusively to one point of view.  Everything does not have to be math free,
particularly given that many are drawn to video poker by its relationship with
mathematics.

Bob Dancer doesn't emphasize problem gambling nearly as much as Frank, but does
attack a number of fallacies that many intelligent people hold.  It is not
that he is necessarily smarter than all of them.  However, they may not
have thought as deeply about as many video poker phenomena as he has.  Certainly
with all the things he has written, he has made some mistakes and certainly
ruffled some feathers.  I have noticed a few math mistakes from time to
time, but if I were teaching a class on theoretical video poker, I'm certain he
would be one of the A students, probably A+.  I am also certain I could
not hold a candle to him in teaching practical video poker to beginners
and intermediate players, because with all the classes he has taught and all
the students, I presume he knows the fallacies that people have better than I
do.  Maybe avoiding problem gambling isn't the main focus or as large as
you would have it.  However, there are other places that people can learn
that.  He doesn't have to be the sole purveyor of all knowledge for
anyone.  And having him participate in the video poker world and in
particular this forum is certainly a net positive.  I know I learned a lot from his writings,
particularly early on.

 

Phil, I wish you and yours well.  Yours appears to be an interesting and
ambiguous world.  You gamble more than
most but want to make sure that others do not do so in a way that is harmful to
them.  I get that both can be
simultaneously good things even if some cannot. 
I will continue to come here to see if anything interests me.  I’ll go elsewhere if I’m concerned with reading
about problem gambling, the evils of legally prescribing addictive painkillers,
whether liberals or conservatives have the answer on any given policy question,
or how to solve the rest of the worlds ills.

[FloridaPhil]

Thanks for the kind words.  I realize my penchant for gambling more than most and my concern for problem gambling seem to be at odds.  This is the main reason I am a strong proponent of gambling smaller even if you give up some ER when doing so.  As you are well aware, it is significantly cheaper to play a 97% video poker game with single coin quarters that max coin dollars. If I am in error, please point it out so we can go over the math together.  I have never attacked mathematics on this forum.  I have expressed doubts on the accuracy of math to predict real time results in the short term of one's playing life. I like to play a lot of video poker.  In order to play anything near a 100% game in my parts I would have to gamble at least $10 a hand.  Playing at this level would mean I could possibly lose $10,000 or more on a bad day.  Video poker is a hobby for me, nothing more.  If I'm going to spend $10,000 a day on a hobby, believe me I want more than memories.Even if I had 100% games available, I doubt I have the skill and stamina to play 100% perfectly forever.  Playing small works well for me.  It allows me to play as much video poker as I want with very little risk.  I believe I am being misunderstood as someone who condones playing with no strategy.   I am fully aware that the Dancer strategy is the way to go if profit is your motive.  It isn't mine.  My motive is to have an enjoyable full day each week playing the game I love.  If I win, good.  If not, I want to play as cheaply as possible.  How many players on this forum would be happy with that result?Honesty is the best policy when it comes to gambling.  Be honest with yourself.  Ask yourself why you are playing video poker in the first place.  If it's to make money, I suspect you will do better with another endeavor because the odds and your own human frailties are working against you.  If on the other hand you are playing for recreation, ask yourself if you are getting your money's worth.  Is playing bigger netting you better results or are you doing it because someone says you will?  Years ago I was sitting next to a man in a casino.  We were both playing video poker.  I was playing max coin dollars, he was playing single coin quarters.  We both were losing, but I was losing hundreds while he was losing quarters.  I commented on his single coin play and he turned to me and said "It's all the same game".  In time I found that he was right.  If others wish to gamble big believing doing so gives them an advantage, that's fine with me.   All I'm asking for is the right to enjoy playing more video poker for less, to say so openly stating my reasons for doing it and to ask for some understanding for playing the way I choose to.

[billryan]

Here we have a perfect example of what I consider to be Phil's hypocrisy.
He states he would be horrified if his daughter were stuck waiting at home while her husband spent hours in a dark, nasty, smoke filled casino. This is his fallback whenever he wants to denigrate professional players. That he can't imagine being forced to spend hours in nasty dark smoke filled casinos.
Yet, when questioned on if he enjoyed cruising, he responds that he and his wife would rather spend their time in casinos.
He is nothing more than a troll, a hypocrite and an attention whore.

[FloridaPhil]

Is there any Dad on this forum that wants his daughter to marry a professional video poker player? I think we've pretty much exhausted this subject.  I don't like professional gamblers.  Billy idolizes them.  I want my kids to have productive respectable lives.  Billy doesn't care how they make money as long as they do.   To him I guess being a whore would be OK as long as the math was right.  Lord knows there are plenty of openings for those in Vegas.  I'm done for the day.   After this forum post I feel like I need a shower. 

[billryan]

Changing your diaper would work just as well.

[Tedlark]

Not that I want to reignite smoldering embers but what is so dis-respectful about being a professional video poker player? It seems that many people in the world have a similar distaste for those who practice law for a living and me personally? It matters not to me what a person does for a living to support themselves or a family as long as its honest and fruitful work.

Every casino employee is also subject to working in nasty, smoke filled casinos, should we denigrate them in such the same manner?

[New2vp]

Every casino employee is also subject to working in nasty, smoke filled casinos, should we denigrate them in such the same manner? I'm guessing that "no" is the correct response.  Is that right?

[billryan]

Phil lives to spend time in those dark nasty smoke filled casinos, and subjects his wife to them.
Nuff said.