Should You Play $5 Games?

[FloridaPhil]

Bob Dancer recently posted an explanation of how he wins playing $5 games.  I found this post interesting and informative.   I don't think the question is "IF" he can beat $5 games, it's can you?  In Bob's case, I get it.  His whole life is video poker.  Playing and writing about it is what he does.  Monies derived from his VP products and services help him fund his play.  In order to win playing $5 games, you must have positive games available to you.  The casino where you play must offer comps and incentives adding enough value to make the overall game positive.   You must also be able to play 100% perfect.  When playing $5 games a 3 cent quarter error becomes 60 cents and so on. You must have a bankroll big enough to survive long swings.  From what Bob has said, I would think you need $100,000 devoted to VP play.  You  must also be able to devote much of your time to attend drawings and scout new opportunities.  This is a large investment in time, money and resources.Let's tackle the bankroll issue first.  How many members of this forum have $100,000 to risk playing VP?  How many wives would put up with that?   If your wife divorced you and told the judge you were gambling $12,000 an hour, would she have an easy case?  What this means is after you have created a nice lifestyle for yourself, bought a home, put away funds to put your kids through college, saved for retirement, and set up trusts for any people or charities you wish to leave your money to, you have $100,000 left to play VP with. A player must know his/her limitations.  I know for a fact that I can not play perfect for hours at a time.  I also don't have time to attend a drawing at midnight, or hang out all day waiting for my name to be called.  This goes for slot tournaments as well.  Let's assume you are good with all this.  How much money can you make?  Most of my money is tied up in stocks and bonds.  Many are tax free.  Some of my older bonds are paying over 7% and are compounding annually.  Should I sell those bonds and take up big time Video Poker where my profits are taxable and I have to survive huge swings in income?  For what?I believe the majority of the members of this forum are like me.  We don't want VP as a career, we want entertainment with a chance to win.  There are some people who need to risk big money to be entertained.  Thankfully I am not one of them.By playing VP at the quarter level, I buy my entertainment as cheap as possible.  I still get the thrill of hitting a $1,000 royal flush without having to stomach a $30,000 loss.  The casino gives me free stuff and I appreciate it.  It's a good deal for me and my wife and we don't believe we are any worse players because we choose to play this way.If you can play like Dancer, have his resources and can do all the things he says it takes to be a winner, by all means do it.  If you don't, consider limiting your losses by playing small.  Our average annual loss playing VP is around $5,000.  $400 a month is a good deal if you count all the free hotel rooms and food we get playing quarters.  If we played $5 machines, that loss could easily be $8,000 a month.  How would we feel then?  It's your choice.

[Tedlark]

Phil what was your purpose in making this post? Was it to rebut the recent post Bob made which was rightfully moved to the Strategy forum?

If that was the post in question, where in it does Bob SAY he even plays $5.00 games? My next question is, why do you continue to drag Bob Dancer into posts you make in the Recreational Play forum? Clearly there is separation between Recreational Play and Professional play as demonstrated by the powers that be here on this site who created the Recreational Play forum to keep the two separate?

How many times have you posted that you don't care, or have any control over, what a particular person does with their money. If that is true, why make this post, where you ramble on about a player and their money?

So again, why are you trying again to blend recreational players and professional players into a post such as this?

[FloridaPhil]

This post was wrongly made on the Recreational Forum to begin with.  Then it was moved to a place where I could not respond.  Some of the replies mentioned me personally.  Without having any way to rebut, I created my own post. Encouraging players to play $5 games is potentially harmful.   It causes people to think they aren't winning because they aren't playing big enough.   Few people have the skill, intellect, discipline, devotion and opportunities that a Bob Dancer does.   In the old days when near positive games were common, Bob's Strategy was more universally applied.  I am sure Bill Ryan plays full pay quarter games at South Point and does well.   My wife and I use much of his strategy to hold down our losses.   Bob Dancer is a paid consultant for casinos.   His celebrity and influence in the video poker universe depends upon bringing new players to the game.   A few of those players will make money.  Most will not and the casinos will be happy clients.  The casinos will flourish as long as the majority of the players don't or can't take his advice.  I am an advocate of playing VP small.  I have seen what happens when you bet bigger and  it turns a fun game into a depressing addictive activity.  Is that what we want for our  members?All I want for this forum is for Bob Dancer to acknowledge that some players have good reasons for playing quarter VP.    I doubt that will ever happen.

[mightwin]

"It's your choice."

Those are words to live by.

If you read an article that says jumping off a bridge will solve your problems - would you?

It would be YOUR CHOICE.

[onemoretry]

  Bob Dancer is a paid consultant for casinos.  
Would you care to elaborate?

[Tedlark]

In that thread there was nothing for you to respond to regarding you and recreational video poker.

You clearly are in full attack mode against Bob Dancer and for as many times that you have mentioned: him being a paid consultant for casinos; him publishing books and software on video poker; his choice of how he makes money in casinos, makes it even more evident that you may be (or are very) jealous of him.

Good for you that you are an advocate of playing VP (video poker) small, that's the way you want to play and so be it. You go into full preach mode when you then mention that you've seen what happens when a person bets bigger and it turns a fun game into a depressing addictive activity.

You say that casinos will flourish as long as the majority of players don't or can't take Bob Dancer's advice. If you think this then why do you continue to derail any good advice Bob gives players? Whether here in these forums or elsewhere?

You recently made a trek to the northeast corner of the United States and you visited several casinos, including Mohegan Sun. Did you make a trip report here? Many would have enjoyed reading it, including me. The only words you wrote about Mohegan Sun were: We are at the Mohegan Sun. This place is paradise. Hit quad threes with a kicker on DDB in the first 15 minutes. Olds442jetaway showed us where the 99% games are. Sure wish we could play here all year. I'm going to sit on the 9/6 Jacks machines until I catch up with my wife. I could be here awhile...    

Did you eat at any restaurants there? How were the rooms? Was the valet service good? How about the weather? How was the gambling overall?

You instead write a post slamming Bob Dancer.

[FloridaPhil]

Bob Dancer was the one who chose to go on the Recreational Forum and state a case for playing $5 games, not me.  If he had not done this or posted it on the Strategy Forum where it belongs, I would have no need to bring it up.  If I had a choice I would never mention his name again on this forum.  As long as he sees fit to post on the Recreational Forum and stir up controversy, I have no choice.  To top it off, they moved his post to a place where I can not respond.  This is unfair.The one and only problem I have with Bob Dancer is his promotion of playing VP in large denominations.  For the majority of today's players this is either unpractical or unwise.  Bob should state that clearly and he doesn't.  He says you won't be able to make a profit, while he baits players by telling them they aren't intelligent enough.   This hangs all the players who don't have his advantages out to dry.  If you are going to play overall negative VP games inaccurately, the more money you bet the more you lose.  Playing cheaper or slower is one possible solution.   No one else that I know of says this on this forum except me. I would like to see Bob Dancer acknowledge that most Video Poker players can't play at his level and provide our members with viable alternatives to losing bigger and bigger.   If he did, there would be no need to constantly bring this up.The question about Bob's consulting for casinos is well known and is all over his books. He makes no excuse for this and doesn't need to.   I will be more than happy to post a report of my visit to AC and the Mohegan Sun.  I got seriously ill in AC and am recovering.

[markinca]

The one and only problem I have with Bob Dancer is his promotion of playing VP in large denominations.  For the majority of today's players this is either unpractical or unwise.  Bob should state that clearly and he doesn't.  He says you won't be able to make a profit, while he baits players by telling them they aren't intelligent enough.   This hangs all the players who don't have his advantages out to dry.  If you are going to play overall negative VP games inaccurately, the more money you bet the more you lose.  Playing cheaper or slower is one possible solution.   No one else that I know of says this on this forum except me.


Phil, you're off your meds again. There is so much flat-out stupidity in this one paragraph I can't even comprehend how someone with a sound mind could have put this together.

You say that Bob doesn't state clearly that playing VP for high stakes is unwise, and then in THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE you admit that Bob says you will likely lose if you play these games.

Yes, if you play overall negative games long enough, you will lose. This is a fact that I don't feel like you actually believe - you just think it's something that 'the math' says. You say no one else says to play smaller slower, but that's likely because most smart people are smart enough to realize you should just abstain from playing these games altogether.

How can you criticize Dancer for advocating for advantage play, when it's something that you clearly have no experience with? From what I can gather, you play almost exclusively <100% games, and you play them suboptimally. You're so out of your element that you don't even know what you don't know.

[Tedlark]

Phil, the "need" you had to respond to when "Bob stated a case for playing $5.00 games" was solely your "need" to throw one into Bob Dancer. That posting was started on 5/1 and the last activity was on 5/1 yet you respond 4 days later with this new forum posting? It adds up to you trying, again, to slam Bob Dancer. You didn't "need" to respond, you "had" to. This smacks of control issues.

[FAA]

Dancer Defense Team is fully staffed! Thank you, DDT. The one kernel of wisdom to be gleaned for me is that playing at a higher denomination turns a fun game into a depressing addictive activity. I played seventy five minutes or so of quarter JOB today at the end of my trip and again felt the carefree serenity of the old days. I was unfortunate to lose $45. But that's a far cry from the likely -$200 on dollars and a week long pity party. The games are negative. Your day is likely to end poorly. Don't make a bad predicament four times worse with dollar daydreaming. Down the shore or in forty eight other states.