Should You Play VP Bigger?

[billryan]

The basic problem seems to be that Phil simply doesn't understand higher math, and rather than accept the numbers provided by commonly accepted practices, he makes up his own formulas.
Everything about video poker is based on coin in, but Phil insists it's meaningless.
In his world, number of hands played trumps all.
As any programmer will tell you, garbage in, garbage out.

[onemoretry]

I want the Recreational Forum to be a place where members can discuss any VP strategy or game they desire in any way they wish. It should not be used to discuss positive game strategies at all.

I guess the term "any" means something different to you than to me.

[FloridaPhil]

If you want this forum to be only centered around recreational play, then YOU need to do a better job of sticking to it. Stop bringing up AP play. Stop bring up Dancer. Stop.

Good suggestion. This will only work if everyone cooperates. Let's try to help Recreational Players keep more of their money. There is no need to criticize them because they don't have positive opportunities at their local casinos. Don't assume everyone has the ability to profit from VP because they don't. All the intellect in the world can not make the VP games in Florida or Mississippi profitable. I have spent years figuring out how to play average video poker games without losing my shirt. All I want is an opportunity to discuss where I went right and I where I went wrong without having a Vegas member call me stupid because I can't play his games.

[billryan]

I don't recall anyone here ever calling you stupid because you don't have access to Vegas games. You get called out for misrepresenting others posts, for your clear lack of understanding of math and for your estranged relationship with the truth. The post I responded to being a perfect example.

[Eduardo]

I don't know. What is hard to understand?
Every knowledgeable player measures a video poker game by coin in. Phil measures it by hands played. Either everyone else in the world is wrong or Phil is.
Simple question. What does payback mean?
Is it measured by money- play $10,000 and your expected results are X, or does it say if you play 1000 hands, your result is X.
As best I know, your results on a 9-6 JOB game after $100,000 coin in will be the same whither it's done on a quarter machine or a $5 machine. Pretty sure the $5 player will reap far better comps.

I think you are being a little too sensitive about this issue. And I hate to come to Phil's defense when some of his rants drive me so crazy.

BUT...

You are of course right when it comes to measuring the return on coin-in. And that's the best way to look at a machine's return.

What you miss that Phil is talking about is that a player can decide to put less coin into the machine. That WILL reduce their losses.

If someone is going to play dollar VP the rest of their life on 9/5 DDB machines, they will lose a lot more than if they make a conscious decision to instead play quarter VP the rest of their life, assuming they play the same amount of time.

That is both factual and relatively obvious. So I'm not sure why it turns into angry arguments.

[Eduardo]

Has Phil gone further than that in some of his strategy attempts? Certainly. He seems to be learning from those mistakes.

If Phil way off base in his rants about $5 poker and AP's supposedly encouraging people to play higher on bad machines? Certainly. I don't understand where that idea is coming from.

So yes, some of these things do need to be disputed.

[markinca]

If someone is going to play dollar VP the rest of their life on 9/5 DDB machines, they will lose a lot more than if they make a conscious decision to instead play quarter VP the rest of their life, assuming they play the same amount of time.

That is both factual and relatively obvious. So I'm not sure why it turns into angry arguments.

Yes, this is absolutely true, and I don't think anyone disputes it. If Phil simply said, "Hey I'm just gonna single-quarter my 8/5 DDB games because I'll lose less money than playing max $5", I don't think anyone would have anything to say.

The issue is that he doesn't do this. He instead says something along the lines of "Hey I'm just gonna single-quarter my 8/5 DDB games because I'll lose less money than playing max $5, even though max-coining $5 is what all these APs seem to advocate for." This is absolutely false and this is what brings out all the arguments. Phil doesn't actually seem to have a grasp as to what makes an AP an AP, yet he still spouts nonsense as to what he thinks it is.

[FloridaPhil]

What you miss that Phil is talking about is that a player can decide to put less coin into the machine. That WILL reduce their losses.

Bingo!! Finally someone understands what I am trying to say. When you play negative games the math is upside down. Every hand and every increase in coin in adds to your losses. Small time players don't earn nearly enough comps to cover the losses on an 8/5 DDB game. Most players that I meet don't care about VP math. All they read is a book telling them VP is beatable or a post that VP is less volatile than their IRA and that's all they know.

They don't read far enough to find out the book is not about the games they play the way they play them. When they lose, they think they aren't playing big enough. After all, doesn't the expert say $5 games are winnable? When they lose more, they think the games are rigged. I think this is sad. If you are going to be a VP expert, talk about the games most people play, not a few games 2,500 miles away or a game that only millionaires can bankroll. Avoiding the discussion of playing negative games leaves 99% of the players up to their own devices. Is it any wonder they become discouraged?

I enjoy video poker the way it is at the casino where I play. They do a good job of providing my weekly entertainment. My casino wants me to run as much money through their machines as I can stuff in them. I want to give them as little as possible. That math is not all that complicated. It's just common sense.

[Eduardo]

With all due respect, if they only get that far into the book and think that, that's kind of their own fault since it completely ignores the how.

That's like someone buying a book about investing for retirement, seeing they can make money on stocks, then losing a fortune being a day trader. Nobody's fault but their own.

[FloridaPhil]

With all due respect, if they only get that far into the book and think that, that's kind of their own fault since it completely ignores the how. That's like someone buying a book about investing for retirement, seeing they can make money on stocks, then losing a fortune being a day trader. Nobody's fault but their own.

I agree. If you are going to write a book telling people how to beat the casinos playing VP, I think you have the responsibility to write at least one chapter on playing negative games. You can't wash your hands and say "tough luck suckers, thanks for paying my bills". When I attend a retirement investing seminar, they talk more about what not to do than what to do. That's called being responsible. In many cases, your book was the motivation for them starting to play VP in the first place. You should clearly state all the math, not just the positive part.