Is Video Poker a Game of Skill or Luck

[wildman49]

Any estimates of making a living playing vp begs a lot of definitions. There are a number of senior citizens in Vegas making $6 an hour playing FPDW and that's their only source of income other than Social Security. I wouldn't choose to live like that, but many do.What a crock, people just walk in day after day and leave with cash in there pocket from a casino. Unless the machines pay differently in the Vegas market then in the east that's not gonna happen very often.

[wildman49]

[QUOTE=BobDancer]
You keep assuming there are never any multiple point days or drawings or tournaments at that casino. At most casinos, these types of promotions abound.   i live in NC, there is only one casino, Cherokee. i know every machine in my denomination, i know every promotion. it takes over 4 hours to drive there. it makes no sense to make a long drive, for any promo, that may have limited potential. it is the only driveable casino for, nc, sc, tenn and ga. i do not know as much about Tampa, but the most compelling promotion i have seen is a give away of free play dollars at regular intervals. the promotion lasts for many hours. i would have no way of knowing how to calculate the possibilty of a single person winning one of those, with thousands of people eligible. on top of that, one would have to hang out in the casino for a 6-10 hour time period.   
 the indians control both states, there is no competition. this is the reallity for some players. and, the cost of traveling to some destination, that gives a small theo advantage makes no financial sense. you live in vegas, there are dozens of properties within a short drive, all competing for one's business. it would not be that hard to check out the best machines, best days to play at any casino. it is just absurd to keep selling the same story, that the average recreational player has a vast array of options to play VP with an advantage. Very good post notes.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=olds442jetaway]They seem to be a happy bunch. Good for them.[/quote]This is the difference between a Bob Dancer and a purely recreational player.  To a Bob Dancer, everything is about making a profit.  He will sit in a smokey casino at all hours of the night, risk ruining his health and his personal life and do whatever else it takes to win.  We play because it makes us happy.   Being happy with your life is essential.   If you want to play video poker a certain way because it makes you happy, that's a good thing.   If you hate losing like I do, the Bob Dancer strategy makes me angry as hell.  Being angry and disappointed is not what I want out of any recreational activity.  Being told I'm stupid because I don't want that to happen is worse.

[onemoretry]

Unless the machines pay differently in the Vegas market then in the east that's not gonna happen very often.
The post does refer to FPDW, which is a 100.76% game.

Why couldn't a person win playing this game? Not each and every day, of course, but often enough to come out a little ahead.

[Eduardo]

What a crock, people just walk in day after day and leave with cash in there pocket from a casino.

I guess this would depend on your style of play. If you play until you're broke no matter what, I guess it wouldn't be very likely.

If you keep your winnings one day and come back the next, even if you lose the next day's bankroll you could still be ahead even without money "in your pocket."

I think Mr Dancer is referring to average income, not income on every single given day.

Everyone will win some and lose some, probably losing more often than winning. But your net winnings is what Mr Dancer is concerned with.

For those of us who don't play too often, the value of a "winning trip" is hard to convey to people who play for a living. But that doesn't mean there is any less truth to what they say about expected returns etc.

[notes1]

thanks wildman. ted, appreciate the tax exempt waiver, pretty funny. most of the questions i asked about legality and taxes were tongue/cheek, we all know the answers to these. if a known figure is posting such info on a public forum, i hope they have their ducks in a row. mr. dancer is likely to dispute much of what i have said, which is his right, but the conversation just seems to be running in circles, so i am less likely to respond. i am no VP expert, no degrees in applied mathematics, just someone who has had his own small business and worked for more than 40 years. i work with numbers all day, but do not base my business or my own money on tenths of a percent margins. just as one can have a run of bad luck and be under royaled, all of us know that **** happens, and planned budgets do not work out as expected. this is a big reason the great recession happened, people hoped for the best and did not plan for something else. i will accept that the possibilty exists in theory that one, with lots of effort, can make money at VP, under certain situations. for many players, the situations just do not exist to gain a realistic advantage and then again, there is always the luck factor.  i stated that too much print was spent on CS, i feel the same about 'winning'. would be more receptive if it were re-labeled, 'how to lose less'. but, that probably would not sell as much stuff. 

[notes1]

 

If you keep your winnings one day and come back the next, even if you lose the next day's bankroll you could still be ahead even without money "in your pocket."

 i agree with this statement. i might be wrong, but i believe the math folks find fault with this line of thinking. what i have read is they believe all play, no matter if you break it up into shorter intervals, is all one continous act. and that continous act, goes on, until one never plays again. in advance, i may be wrong, but i believe that is their position.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=notes1] I stated that too much print was spent on CS, i feel the same about
'winning'. would be more receptive if it were re-labeled, 'how to lose
less'. but, that probably would not sell as much stuff.[/quote]I never once claimed CS was a way to win, I always said it was a way to play longer and lose less.   I also made it very clear that my CS winning streak was due to luck not any strategy.I took the CS website down as it seemed to cause so much angst and it amazed me how strongly it was attacked by people with much bigger problems than some single quarter strategy.  I think it caused some to confront the idea that they may never beat the casino and that is just too big a pill for many to swallow. 

[notes1]

[quote=notes1] I stated that too much print was spent on CS, i feel the same about
'winning'. would be more receptive if it were re-labeled, 'how to lose
less'. but, that probably would not sell as much stuff.I never once claimed CS was a way to win, I always said it was a way to play longer and lose less.   I also made it very clear that my CS winning streak was due to luck not any strategy.I took the CS website down as it seemed to cause so much angst and it amazed me how strongly it was attacked by people with much bigger problems than some single quarter strategy.  I think it caused some to confront the idea that they may never beat the casino and that is just too big a pill for many to swallow.  [/QUOTE]
 in a previous post, you mis-quoted me. in this case, you are mis-understanding. when i mentioned 'winning', it was not about CS, but rather those who advocate that opportunities to gain an advantage/win, are widely available to all . while i may not play CS, i find no reason anyone should be faulted for proposing ideas to lose less or get greater value.

[FAA]

I took the CS website down as it caused so much angst; how strongly it was attacked by people with much bigger
problems than some single quarter strategy.  I think it caused some to
confront the idea that they may never beat the casino and that is just
too big a pill for many to swallow. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LOL. The house always wins. Unless it breaks even. My second full year of VP, 2015, was acceptable. I broke even at CET. I am a net loser factoring in Borgata and Tropicana, a small percentage of my play. Will they let me know how I fared? And I'm only a semi CS guy! If I was hard core CS, I have no doubt that I would have finished in the black everywhere! That Jan RF bailed me out big time. I still must tread carefully. Who's kidding who? It would have been a four digit loss otherwise. Going the other way, I would have cleared at least $500 if I'd kept my winnings instead of giving back. LIve and learn! Pretty sure every trip would have been a three digit loser if played Mad Max. And there were about 55-60 trips.