For what it's worth.

[pokeherguy]

I've been reading some of the post that involved "Fa La La La La.... La la la la vs Shadowman" and even though I don't know enough about either one I kind of lean on the side of Fa La La La La.... La la la la. Why? Because as near as I can tell Fa La La La La.... La la la la seems to rely on something I agree with and thats the best defense is offense. In most situations regardless of what a person is doing when they find themselves losing they tend to be defensive when in most cases they should attack. I'm not much on all the finer points of all the mathmatics involving VP and really don't care to be. I like to keep it simple and I think its how the game should be played. Learn the games, be informed about the correct plays, find your comfort level and get after it. It actually does make good sense to me when you're getting pushed around push back harder.
 
Oh by the way had a good day today. Got down early playing DDB but made a comeback hitting several quads which included A's twice, 3's twice, 2's some of which happened while I was at the $2 level. I got up about 4K and decided my next machine would be my last and dropped $300.00 on $1.00 plays and on the first $100.00 of my $2.00 plays I hit a $8K Royal. Got my money and hit the door to return another day.

[babybubba]

Here's the difference: Follow shadowman's advice and you'd still be sitting there until most or all of that royal was gone trying to reach that inexplicable "long-term"--and it'd only have been on your lowest level played anyway because optimal play belief is to only play one denomination all day long. You had a good day, enjoy it, and next visit start off at a lower denomination again unless and until you start to lose. And remember, the math is always and only on the side of the casino, so anyone who goes in and expects they have "an edge" because the play of the moment is over 100% when measured within a period of time you are not even playing in--the "long-term" it is a true loser's perspective.

[knagl]

And remember, the math is always and only on the side of the casino
 
So tell us, then, how are you beating the casinos at their own game when by your own statement right there the math is "always and only on the side of the casino"?

[babybubba]

[QUOTE=babybubba]
And remember, the math is always and only on the side of the casino
 
So tell us, then, how are you beating the casinos at their own game when by your own statement right there the math is "always and only on the side of the casino"?[/QUOTE]


I'm not beating the casinos at their own game--that's the point. What you're saying is how the math people pretend they win. Remember, they never lose. If they play a game that thru infinity has a 2% edge then even if they lose $1000 they make believe they won twenty bucks. That's why they all claim they win every year when in fact they don't. Actually, they get killed. Why do you think Dancer has to work so many jobs and the Queen has the guy with the heavy 401k? Simple common sense answers these questions.
 
What I'm doing is playing the exact opposite the way the casinos want me to play--in short-term bursts with win and loss goals. I have no mathematical edge when I walk in, but when I walk out I have usually just experienced huge +EV. It's only measurable at that point and not before. That's the mistakes the gurus and geeks make--they think they have a momentary edge because they've corrupted the meaning of long-term edge for their daily fantasies.
 
Casinos love when people come in with the intentions of playing their games all day long. They love it when people come in and manufacture a reason to play the game because they added in comps and cash back and all the fluff to come up with a theoretical +EV play. Why do you think there's soooo many promotions everywhere all the time and why do you think these people are roped into playing for them so often?
 
People don't really like playing all those hours, they become seriously addicted and they HAVE to play as long as their bankroll holds out. I played a whole 20 hours this year and I'm done, at +$69,000. Last year it was 50 hours @ +$91,000. Name a guru that could've created a +EV hourly play like that BEFORE going into play. The concept of how to beat the game is really very simple. It's the math people who've complicated it and thus, have turned so many innocent people into losers.

[Eduardo]

But knowing math helps right?In video poker winners i can see odds of getting a 4 of a kind if i hold a pair or three of a kind and how much i would win if i did that every time on that exact hand. Some people will win and some will lose and that is what the expect return or whatever it is called tells me right? I can not expect to win more than that even though i would win more sometimes i would also lose more than i would win or am more likely to. I do not see where that is incorrect or am i missing something. Can there really be strategy to get a better average return than what the odds are? I guess that is where i am confused. If a lot of people played short bursts and you added together their winnings would that not be the same as if one person had played all those bursts in a row? Very confused. Please describe how that is not the case? I want to know more!

[babybubba]

But knowing math helps right?

In video poker winners i can see odds of getting a 4 of a kind if i hold a pair or three of a kind and how much i would win if i did that every time on that exact hand. Some people will win and some will lose and that is what the expect return or whatever it is called tells me right? I can not expect to win more than that even though i would win more sometimes i would also lose more than i would win or am more likely to. I do not see where that is incorrect or am i missing something. Can there really be strategy to get a better average return than what the odds are? I guess that is where i am confused.

If a lot of people played short bursts and you added together their winnings would that not be the same as if one person had played all those bursts in a row? Very confused. Please describe how that is not the case?

I want to know more!

 
Certainly knowing the math helps--but that's all it does. I play 95% of my hands optimally, and I learned from an older version of WinPoker.
 
The biggest fallacy of playing individual sessions i.e. in "short-term bursts" is that if you added them all together you'd get the long-term anyway. Yes, if one were to play the same game on the same denomination, then adding the visits together would have some meaning. But when switching games and denominations after attaining goals and quitting at higher denominations, the long-term has zero meaning. The illustration is even easier to comprehend when you understand that the long-term is applicable & measureable only to the casino and on each individual machine.
 
What's you're missing on the special plays that hold two 2's and tosses the two 8's on any advanced BP game is that you will NEVER play that hand the theoretically required number of times needed to apply long-term rules to. As you progress in denomination and those hands appear, you will see the big winner appear now and then, and because of that you win huge. And where the geeks and nerds say you're throwing away a bunch of little winners you really are not. Holding two 2's yields all kinds of "little winners" along the way to receiving the big hit. As I said, it is a simple concept that has been totally corrupted by the math people distorting the truth about what long-term strategy really is, and as such, they have no other knowledge or choice but to apply long-term rules to short-term play.

[MikeA]

Please, understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative with this post.  I truly do not understand the premise of your analogy of the two-pair hand with deuces and eights.
 
The odds predict that there is a 4 coin difference in advantage of holding the two pair in hopes of drawing a Full House rather than throwing away the eights and going for the only hand that would justify making that move (quad deuces).
 
Even if I conceed that I'll never play 2,000,000 hands consisting of a pair of deuces and some other pair, how can what is a true advantage play for the long term NOT be the best play for the "short term?" 
 
It has been my experience at the machines themselves as well as on practice software simulations, that I hit a full house a lot more often by holding two pair than I have hit quads by holding a single pair or a full house from a single pair. 
 
Of course, you have to hit quads a lot less frequently than the FH to make a case for it being more profitable to hold the deuces by themselves.  I have not kept records of thousands of hands (would that be considered long term?) to see how much in actual cash I've won by drawing quads from a pair compared to the amount I've won by hitting FHs from two pair.  So I can't make an objective statement to the validity of that.
 
I meet your criteria of a player who resorts to the probabilities of long term play.  That comes from similar situations that comes up all the time in Blackjack.  One has to do with splitting 8's against every other hand the dealer shows (ignoring the advantage of card counting which I can and have used and that gives indices for deviation from Basic Strategy).
 
I asked if this was the correct move regardless of the amount of money that I had on the hand thinking that with a large bet, it might be better to just toss in the towel rather than split 8's against a dealer TEN knowing that the odds were that I would lose both hands and twice the money.  All Basic Strategy will tell you to split unless you "know something" (as you would if you were counting cards or if you got a hole shot at the dealer's down card).
 
Ken Smith (of blackjack tournament fame and also a cash player) told me that the odds were the same for a small bet as for a large bet and that playing that hand for a split EVERY time would result in less money lost than if you didn't split.  On individual hands, you might win by standing, but in the long run, you would lose less by splitting it.  He then stated that what ever is best for the long run is also best for any single hand played.  I tend to agree with him on this so I guess that even though I can't sit down and work out the math myself, I can certainly run the simulators and see what the predictions are.
 
There are a lot of long-term versus short-term conflicting arguments in BJ as well as I'm learning now that there are in VP.  Basically, it comes down to the concept that implies that what is a good decision for 1,000,000 hands is good for 10 hands since you have no idea when those monster hands are going to miraculuously occur.
 
Now, if I DID know when those big hits would occur with VP (as I can know in BJ they are likely to happen when the count is HIGH) then I would certainly ramp up my bets accordingly.
 
But, without external knowledge such as I can atain in Blackjack, I have to depend on Basic Strategy that predicts what the optimal play is. 

[babybubba]

Please, understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative with this post.  I truly do not understand the premise of your analogy of the two-pair hand with deuces and eights.
 
The odds predict that there is a 4 coin difference in advantage of holding the two pair in hopes of drawing a Full House rather than throwing away the eights and going for the only hand that would justify making that move (quad deuces).
 
Even if I conceed that I'll never play 2,000,000 hands consisting of a pair of deuces and some other pair, how can what is a true advantage play for the long term NOT be the best play for the "short term?" 
 

 
Mike:
 
In polite layman's terms, you've been brainwashed and have been handed blinders by the math geeks about what happens & why in video poker.
 
Let's make it simple. You're playing 9/6 DDB and are dealt 8822X. If you're playing Fa La La La La.... La la la la-smart then you'd first ask if hitting the FH would allow you to attain a mini or overall session goal and if so, you hold the two pair. And since it's the correct "math" play then no one suffers a heart attack (unless you have your slot culb card in and you just notice it says "REINSERT CARD!"). But wait---a FH won't reach a win goal and you've been given the opportunity to meet your overall session goal with four 2's (with or without the kicker) if you toss the 8's. Only an idiot player would pass that up.
 
Why? You ask: "how can what is a true advantage play for the long term NOT be the best play for the "short term?"  There's your answer right there. You're not playing long-term, i.e. millions of hands, so why wouldn't this ONE draw be the one you really are playing the game for? There are no averages when playing just one hand. Even when dealt four to the royal people like to put the resulting intrigue into sensationalized mathematical terms "you have a 1 in 47 chance to hit it". Oh yeah? I had 6 RF's last year and 3 of them were from holding four cards. And in my mere 50 hours of play I saw far far less than (47X3) four-to-the-royals dealt. Who's to say on this one opportunity of going for the four 2's you won't get them--esp. when getting that type of hand is why you're playing the game in the first place. People use the invalid long-term argument for short-term play and it never holds water. If your goal is to hit as many FH's as you possibly can then by all means, go for the FH. All you're doing is filling up the machines for a guy like me.

[MikeA]

So your deviations from Optimum Strategy (you've stated that you play optimum strategy 95% of the time) are based on "win goals" or "session goals."  You must have parameters you impose to determine when you "go for it" and when you "play it by the books."
 
I can sort of understand why you would throw away a pair of 8's and keep 2's if a 400 or 800 credit hand of quads would reach a win goal.  As already established, the expected loss over time on holding it they way you suggest is only 4 coins? 
 
In another example from another thread, I think you recommend holding the "A" in a AQJxx (all offsuit) rather than the QJ.  That represents only a probable .024 coin loss.  Again, I can sort of understand that play.  The probably loss is small enough to almost justify the potential gain.
 
However, I doubt that being dealt KKxxx would result in you throwing away one of the Kings and going for a Royal just because a 4000 coin win would reach your win goal and trips, FH or Quads wouldn't. 
 
I am truly interested in how your restrictions on acceptable expected loss are established.  Is it a ratio of potential loss versus potential win?  If you have established these deviations, there has to have been some sort of logic utilized to determine what those deviations from Basic Strategy are.
 
 

[babybubba]

So your deviations from Optimum Strategy (you've stated that you play optimum strategy 95% of the time) are based on "win goals" or "session goals."  You must have parameters you impose to determine when you "go for it" and when you "play it by the books."
 
I can sort of understand why you would throw away a pair of 8's and keep 2's if a 400 or 800 credit hand of quads would reach a win goal.  As already established, the expected loss over time on holding it they way you suggest is only 4 coins? 
 
In another example from another thread, I think you recommend holding the "A" in a AQJxx (all offsuit) rather than the QJ.  That represents only a probable .024 coin loss.  Again, I can sort of understand that play.  The probably loss is small enough to almost justify the potential gain.
 
However, I doubt that being dealt KKxxx would result in you throwing away one of the Kings and going for a Royal just because a 4000 coin win would reach your win goal and trips, FH or Quads wouldn't. 
 
I am truly interested in how your restrictions on acceptable expected loss are established.  Is it a ratio of potential loss versus potential win?  If you have established these deviations, there has to have been some sort of logic utilized to determine what those deviations from Basic Strategy are.
 
 
 
I have many parameters that determine when to as you say "go for it" vs. playing it by the book. Each special play has a calculated risk that was assessed when the strategy was developed, always with a short-term win goal in mind. Holding the two 2's and tossing the 8's is one of my more common plays when needed. I would never throw out one of the two K's and go for a Royal. Every special play does have a related calculation of risk associated with it and it is all hand written on paper--lots of it. To date, even though the math geeks and losers whine about my results and label me all kinds of names out of their frustration, and even though I've published my offers to meet with any of them at any time so they can review and determine how short-term play does indeed have math behind it that makes it much more profitable than long-term play, they all would rather continue to sit back and criticize than see their fantasy about me end. You've seen that first hand here from the shadow. His video-poker-playing world would crumble and his addiction to the game would be an incredible conflict if he ever came to the realization of these facts. so he chills and enjoys criticizing with the blinders on just as they all do.