Odds vs. Denomination

[billryan]

More hype, exaggerations, veiled insults and outright lies. What a surprise.
Rant on, brother, rant on.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=billryan]More hype, exaggerations, veiled insults and outright lies. What a surprise.
Rant on, brother, rant on. [/quote]The dream lives on.  Unfortunately, it's a nightmare for many.   I don't expect you to be concerned with other people's problems.  As long as casinos have a steady flow of suckers, all is well with your world.I'm pretty much done with this issue.   Math can be of great benefit to all VP players.  Playing the best games, using computer perfect hand strategies and maximizing comps can make playing the game less costly.   All these things combined may even allow you to play for free and/or enjoy perks you wouldn't ordinarily pay for.  Grinding your finances into the ground believing that math will restore your loses is not math, it's pure folly.   I have no problem if someone wants to believe they can beat the casino, as long as they don't try to sell the rest of us on it.

[billryan]

   You are the one recommending players use a strategy that has no real chance of winning, who advocates playing a game that could pay 99% with a strategy that greatly reduces it, and then have the balls to accuse me of working for the casinos?   I'd be upset if you weren't such a joke. Anyone who takes your pearls of wisdom to heart deserves the inevitable losses that follow.

I'll ask you this simple question.
Would the casinos prefer a million players like myself who eak out every possible edge or a million players who follow your strategy? Which one will end up giving the casinos mo money? I don't expect an honest answer, but at least be honest with yourself.

[FloridaPhil]

OK, I'll be honest.  I think casinos prefer players who believe they can beat them and are willing to back it up with big money.  Those of us who know we can't, play within our bankrolls and quit when things aren't going well.  It's the dreamers who are building big  facilities and paying stock holder dividends, not some single coin quarter player. 

[billryan]

Delusional and dishonest. What a way to go through life.
So you think the casinos prefer players that play at 99% rather than those that play at 97%. That makes about as much sense as the rest of your proclamations.

[FloridaPhil]

Billy, if you were as good at math as you claim to be you would realize it's not only the odds that determine losses on negative VP games it's also the amount of money run through the machine.  A quarter player playing 500 max coin hands per hour invests $1.25 times 500 or $625 per hour.  If that player loses 5% an hour, the mathematical loss is $31.25 per hour.   Another player playing max coin dollars at the same speed invests $2,500 an hour.  If he loses 3% an hour his mathematical lose equals $75 per hour or double the loss of the quarter player even though he gained 2% by playing bigger.  On page 168 of Bob Dancer's book Million Dollar Video Poker, Bob explains this in detail.  He also offers an example where playing single coin pays better than max coins, something I'm sure you will find enlightening.   He also says he never plays negative VP games.  If I want to play video poker I have no choice, so I always choose the cheaper solution.

[billryan]

Why do you keep repeating the same tired statistic as if it means anything.
Do you only play VP for one hour? If not, that stat is meaningless. Why not figure it by ten minutes, two days, A week?
As is pretty obvious, you don't understand applied math and evidently think bull****ting your way through it will somehow convince us you are right.
By your argument, having a dollar bill is better then having a twenty, because if you lose it, you lost less.
Brilliant.
Misquoting Dancer seems to be a thing with you.
Sad.
Almost as sad as you reverting back to your single coin strategy. I thought you'd finally wised up ,at least about that.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=billryan]Misquoting Dancer seems to be a thing with you.
[/quote]You have just highlighted the number one problem I have with the Dancer play strategy.  The problem is not with anything Bob Dancer says, teaches or does, it's how players apply his strategy that is the problem.  The Dancer's VP strategy boils down to this.   If you play positive VP games computer perfectly forever, you will be a long term winner.  He defines a positive VP game as any game situation where the odds including comps are more than 100%.  Then he extends that by saying that playing bigger in these situations returns bigger profits.  He even wrote a book about this and proved it by winning over a million dollars in six months.  I have absolute NO problem with any of these statements or facts.The real problem is not with him or his strategy, it's with the players.  They ignore what he says and add their own assumptions.   The example I gave you is a perfect example of what happens when someone plays negative VP games.  When playing these games every hand is a long term loser.  Anyone who would play these games can't play perfectly and the longer they play the more they lose. The result is they lose and keep losing until they go broke, quit the game or realize the best way to play under these conditions is small and slow.  Bob agrees on a few rare occasions, but it's not to his or his casino manager customers advantage to promote cheap play.  If you think I'm misquoting him, I will be happy to copy page 168 of his book verbatim into this forum.  I'm sure Bob would appreciate the plug of his book. Comps always enter into these discussions as the right comps may turn a negative game positive.  Unfortunately, at the play level of most recreational players, rarely does a comp have this much value.  A few dollars in free play, some free drinks and a free room are normally not enough to justify the cost of betting bigger.I've made all the mistakes I outlined here myself and some you probably never thought of.  Unless you have the opportunities, skills and bankroll of a Bob Dancer, playing VP as small as possible will limit your loses.  In many casinos around the country playing single coin is the cheapest way to play VP.   I don't recommend this to most players because of the heartbreak of hitting a short coin royal.  Odds do have an effect, but when playing negative VP games the amount of money you put through the coin slot is much more significant.  Remember this fact "Every time you push the button on a negative VP game or make a playing error it costs you money, betting bigger just costs you more."Most long time members of this forum know I am right on this issue.  Bob Dancer knows it too.  I'm not sure about Bill Ryan.  I think his only purpose on this forum is to respond negatively to every post I make regardless of how truthful it is.  I predict he will read two sentences of this post and return to name calling, which is what people do when confronted with facts that disprove their beliefs.  Billy lives in Vegas.  He says he only plays positive games and he claims to play computer perfectly.  If all that is true, he should continue to do what he does.  He may even want to turn pro.  He's not the VP player this post is talking about.If we are on this forum to truly help someone, it's about time we talked about this issue instead of covering it up by limiting our discussions to positive VP situations that an average player will never see.  It's fun to talk about winning all the time, but we are not helping anyone by doing so.  All we are doing is creating more and bigger profits for the casinos and their stockholders.

[olds442jetaway]

Phil, I will use myself as an example of what you are saying. Assuming I play 99.54% games perfectly all year at my current and soon to be distant play level I lose 50k a year. I stay over at Mohegan and Foxwoods 100 nights a year or so. Some of the rooms are suites. If I value the rooms and suites at 200 bucks a night which is very conservative, I get 20k back there in retail value. Food comps are at least another 15k retail a year. Free play, shows, free gas, special events, gifts and misc other freebies add up to at least 20k more retail which puts me ahead for the year. Hmmmmm. However, in 5 years, if I wasn't playing at all I could buy a beautiful 2nd home down in your neck of the woods for 250k worth at least 50k more than my current little home in Ct. on a 50x100 lot. All of this has been my choice for sure, and following Dancer, I would be ahead. The big picture however, one can see for themselves. Now stretch this out for 20 years. After the first 5 I would have the 2nd home in Florida. I would be able to buy and maintain 2 new luxury or sports cars every couple of years, take really nice vacations and on and on. That is the big picture. I just want the newer players who have visions of playing at a high level and raking the coin in to see the real story. Now, I have no regrets, but for me it is time to tone things way down. That is our choice too. Life is about choices. I hope the new player out there will make the right ones for their wants and needs.

[onemoretry]

Hmmmmm. However, in 5 years, if I wasn't playing at all I could buy a beautiful 2nd home down in your neck of the woods for 250k worth at least 50k more than my current little home in Ct. on a 50x100 lot But, isn't it a bit unrealistic to think that you would save all of that $250000?

How would you replace the recreational component of video poker? You would definitely have a lot more time on your hands, and, unless you're going to spend five years looking at the walls, there would likely be a cost associated with whatever you do with all that time.

I am in no way suggesting you would replace the $50000 per year with something of equal value, but I think it's likely you would spend some of it.