Where's the Beef?

[FloridaPhil]

I hope most player's on this forum enjoy playing video poker as much as I do.  I guess you do or you wouldn't be here?  If it seems like I'm always repeating myself, it's because I'm constantly being misquoted or misinterpreted by certain members of this forum.  I keep stating my positions and like clockwork out come my detractors.  Enough already!If you look at the game from a mathematical prospective, what game you play and how you play it is about odds, theoretical vs. actual return, bankroll and computer perfect play.   If you look at the game from a entertainment prospective, you may use math to help you make decisions, but your eventual choice will be the one that gives you the most entertainment for your money.  I do not believe there is anything flawed with the mathematical viewpoint.   A math player may spend hours running simulations and calculating each tiny minutia of a play.   Truth be known, I think some players enjoy the math more than playing the game itself.  Nothing wrong with that if you're into it.I walk into the casino with no preconceived notions that I'm going to beat the bank or walk out rich.   All I want from my casino experience is a few hours of entertainment with a possible chance of winning more than I came in with.   If I walk past a $1 DDB game, I might stop and throw in a $20.  If I hit a quad or better, I cash out and move on.  Do I think I'm somehow locking up my win for all time?  No, but it's entertaining when it happens.  I might do the same with a slot or roulette. Players like me pay the casino's bills.  Does that make me a bad player?  When I go to a fine restaurant I go there for food, drink and atmosphere.  I want the restaurant to make money because I want them to be there when I go back.  Why would I feel any differently about a casino?  As long as I'm happy with what I receive for my money, it's all good.I can hear them now "You're teaching people to play badly!"  I'm not teaching anyone anything, I'm telling people the experience counts more to me than the money.   If you want to play VP and keep more of your money, go with the math.  Personally, I don't care as long as I walk out satisfied.   Most VP players are not hurting for money.  If you are, you have no business gambling in the first place.  If I'm given the choice of grinding it out playing 99.5% Jacks or Better or walking around the casino picking out games because I like them, I'll take the second option every time.If making a long term profit is your goal, I personally think you could find a better option than VP.    If having a good time is your goal, VP is a great choice as long as you understand losing is the most likely outcome no matter how you play.  You pay your money and you pick your poison. 

[Eduardo]

I came in here looking for a Wendy's burger promotion and instead I got the same rant you've posted 300 times already. Now I'm bored AND hungry.

[FAA]

Wendy's small Frosty is fifty cents at participating stores.

[FloridaPhil]

The odds at Wendy's aren't that good.  If you're looking for a real long shot try Chipotle.  I'm bored with it too.  Let's move on.

[Eduardo]

If you pay in pennies at Wendy's you get nothing back and make the employees mad. Pay in dollars and you will almost always get some change along with your burger.Proof that low denoms is a terrible idea.

[billryan]

Wise men speak because they have something to say.
The fool speaks because he has to say something.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=Eduardo]If you pay in pennies at Wendy's you get nothing back and make the
employees mad. Pay in dollars and you will almost always get some change
along with your burger.[/quote]Depends upon how much you want to pay for burgers.   I don't eat them myself, so I save my money and buy what I like. 

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=billryan]The fool speaks because he has to say something.
[/quote]Billy, I actually liked what you said today on the Strategy Forum when you related playing max coins to royal insurance.  That was a great example.  We buy life insurance to protect our families from the consequences of unforeseen events.  When I was younger I knew I might die early, so I bought life insurance to keep my wife and kids secure.  I didn't buy an expensive whole life policy because there were better long term investments.   I don't need insurance now because I saw to it that my wife and kids are financially able to take care of themselves without playing positive VP games in a casino.    Paying 5 times the amount to play a negative VP game just to be insured against a royal popping up and ruining your day is not my idea of a good investment.   On the other hand,  if you like seeing the counters twirl by each time you hit a paying hand it might give you the feeling you're winning more.  What it comes down to is the frequency of royal flush hands.  Hitting one playing single coin is like having a traffic accident only you know what the damage is going to be before it happens.  When I was playing single coin which I don't at present and I hit a single coin royal I thought about all the money I saved up to that point.  Some years it cost me, but over time I saved a lot more money than I would have made playing max coins.The man who posted on the Strategy Forum today is right.  He better watch himself or he will find himself banned for speaking the truth.  My guess is you succeeded in running off another new forum member.  At least you didn't call him a liar,,,, yet.

[billryan]

I didn't call him a liar because he didn't lie.
That's pretty simple. Tell lies and half truths and I will call you what you are.
The guy who posted was wrong. Can't get much plainer than that. Playing a potential 99.4% game at 97% is dumb. Encouraging others to do it is worse.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=Billryan]Playing a potential 99.4% game at 97% is dumb. Encouraging others to do it is worse[/quote]Actually, playing a negative VP game of any kind is dumb.  Unfortunately, most of us play negative games or we don't play at all.  There is no reason to go over the math again.  This man made it clear.  Playing a negative VP game is a long term loser.  Playing bigger or longer just expands your losses.  Buying 1% by playing max coins is normally not enough to make up your loss unless you are lucky enough to be over royaled or you hit  a big one and walk forever.   On top of that, most players do not play anywhere near close to perfect adding insult to injury.  I am not trying to encourage anyone to play short coin.  I've been up and down this issue over the past five years and came to the conclusion if I want to experience max coin royals I must pay for them.  BillWFord was correct when he stated that playing negative VP games with single coin is cheaper for most players than playing max coins.  You can twist it around, but you can't escape the facts.  Negative VP is negative.   Making the game more negative either by playing single coin or by wagering more money is still negative.  Is it better to lose 1% on the odds up front for the advantage of losing less long term?   It's your money...