The Gambler's Fallacy...

[FloridaPhil]

Well stated.

[billryan]

Great battle,eh?

Hard to have a battle of wit with an unarmed opponent.

[FloridaPhil]

My feelings exactly.  Let's get back to VP.

[FAA]

If I'm going to lose and the odds say I will, I want my cost to play to
be as little as possible.  Betting smaller reduces that cost.  It's
that simple.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yep. This cut and dried conclusion requires zero mathematical skill. Back to my concern, minimizing losses to two digits a trip. Let's cut my cost in half. Just play quarter and fifty level. Problem solved. The other pillar to topple is greed. For heaven's sake, a $2,000 hand pay is still a thrilling show stopper. What am I missing? Why obsess over a $4,000 fantasy? I will perhaps pursue that level of nirvana after the intermediate denom RF. Meanwhile, let's cool it with the insane losses!  

[FloridaPhil]

The theory is when you are playing positive VP games perfectly you don't need to be concerned about losses because all hands are part and parcel to your eventual results.  What this thinking ignores is the fact that humans are not computers. We are subject to emotions and losing causes most of us distress.  In addition, chance (bad luck) can also enter into the equation escalating emotions to the panic level.  Discipline is the cure for this, but it is easier said than executed.To combat these emotions, it takes enough discipline to play within your bankroll.   Your bankroll is not only limited by the amount of money you have to gamble, it can also be your  "psychological" bankroll.  I am sure a full time professional video poker player has the discipline of the Sphinx, I don't.  What works for me is to play like I am going to lose and be happy if I win.  This is exactly the opposite of how a professional approaches the game, but it works for me.There is no reason for anyone to be upset because I play this way.  I admit I don't play positive games.  I admit I don't play perfectly.  I admit I hate losing and I struggle with my discipline.   In short, I am not willing to gamble that doing what is "required" will make me a long term winner.  If you wish to say this makes me a long term loser, I'm fine with that.  At least I'm losing as little as possible. 

[FAA]

The theory also assumes access. The positive games crock must be swept aside. The vast majority of VP players are outside of Nevada. Maybe at some crazy denom, we can hunt down a positive game, but it's a fool's errand. I'm no Sphinx, but I can at least cap the denom at an innocuous level. So let's do that. When you go for broke, you typically end up broke.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=FAA]The theory also assumes access. The positive games crock must be swept
aside. The vast majority of VP players are outside of Nevada.[/quote]When I read my first Dancer Book, I assumed positive games were everywhere. After much searching, I found them to be extremely rare.  This was back over 10 years ago before the financial crisis.  The closest I could find locally was $2 9/6 Jacks or Better.   At the time the only comps were very limited hotel room stays, drinks, restaurant food and credits in the casino gift shop.  The gift shop charged double points for T Shirts and sunglasses. To play at the $2 level I was told I needed a bankroll of at least $30,000.   I discussed this with my wife who was the accountant in my company.   She told me I would immediately lose about 8% of my money by cashing in my investments.    She asked me if playing video poker was worth the loss.  I calculated the potential and could clearly see playing VP at that level was not for me.Later I made a few trips to Vegas and saw my first positive VP game.  I also saw my first real cash back comp.  This changed my perspective.  I have no doubt a sharp dedicated guy could make some money playing VP in Vegas.   Could you make enough big money to offset other investment opportunities?  Possible, but extremely doubtful.Here's where everything changes.  Suppose you create a thriving business of selling books, teaching classes and consulting to fund your VP play?  You don't need to draw money from your investments because someone else is paying you to play.  This is brilliant because your work and your play is combined.  You become an expert which makes people want your products more.  Nothing wrong with any of this, it's business 101.  The problem comes when you tell others they could do the same thing but they are too unintelligent or undisciplined.   If you think about this you will see the part that you are missing may have nothing to do VP.   Finding a way to have someone else pay you to play is where the real intelligence lies.

[billryan]

The theory also assumes access. The positive games crock must be swept aside. The vast majority of VP players are outside of Nevada. Maybe at some crazy denom, we can hunt down a positive game, but it's a fool's errand. I'm no Sphinx, but I can at least cap the denom at an innocuous level. So let's do that. When you go for broke, you typically end up broke.

No, you are mistaken. It does not assume a positive game.
When you sit at a game that pays 98% with full coin play, it drops to about 95.5% when you play any other way. Could be single coin, could be four coins. By playing less than max coin, you are giving the casino $25 for every $1000 you cycle through the machine. That's on top of the penalty you already accepted by playing a bad pay schedule in the first place.
On a negative machine, at full pay, you have a punchers chance of landing that elusive $1000 payout. Playing short, you have nothing to possibly save you. It's death by a thousand small cuts.
It's a fool's game.

[billryan]

I'm going to be generous and suggest Phil simply doesn't comprehend how mistaken his assumptions are. Because to think he does understand and writes what he does would be pathetic.

[FloridaPhil]

I appreciate your generosity.  As usual you are reading things into my statements that are not true and as usual you are not reading and/or comprehending my posts.   If you did you would be better able to respond to my posts instead of repeating the same misstatements over and over again. For the 10,000th time,  I have never told anyone and I do not believe playing single coin pays better than playing max coins.   What I said was running less money through a negative video poker game can reduce your losses.  Here is a direct quote from Mr. Dancer's book "Million Dollar Video Poker" Chapter Two Page 168.Question - Which is the better choice - playing an 8/5 Jacks or Better  $1 machine for $5 at a time or playing a 9/6 Jacks or Better $5 machine for $5 at a time?Answer - I don't know.  Is it better to be run over by a truck or a bus?  One-coin 9/6 Jacks returns 98.4%, slightly more than 1% better than 5-coin 8/5 Jacks, which returns 97.3%.  Both are losers.  Assuming 600 hands per hour, 1-coin $5 9/6 Jacks "invests" $3.000 per hour in action. Losing 1.6% (the resulting house edge) of the total costs you $48.  Betting the same $3,000 on a dollar 8/5 Jacks or Better machine costs $81.  You'd lose less playing 1-coin dollar 8/5 Jacks (96.1% return, but only $600 an hour in action, which costs "only" about $23 per hour.  A cheaper solution yet is to flush a $20 bill down the toilet every hour.  On top of everything, these figures assume you are playing perfectly - which is a totally unjustified assumption.  No one who has worked hard enough to play video poker perfectly would put up with a game where the house has any advantage at all.In his example, I would personally choose to lose $23 an hour over $81 because I could play a little more than 3 times longer with the same money.   Your choice may be different.1. I do not play positive VP games. Most players don't. 2. I can not play perfectly forever.  Most players can't.  3. I am not willing to invest my hard earned money gambling on a game with a minuscule profit margin on the hope that I might make some money.  4. If you play VP for fun, I say play the way that provides you with the most fun for your money.  For all these reasons, I choose to play as cheaply as possible.   I expect to lose a little money and most days I do.  I enjoy the game as entertainment and go home happy.   Some days are just happier than others.