Can You Keep From Losing?

[Vman96]

People there don't constantly post bad information, with Nathan being the exception. I suspect VP isn't discussed because outside of promos and mailings, because there isn't much to say.
We get plenty of newbies that misunderstand math or who invented a new system. Many stay after realizing how little they know.
Many members associate with each other so any decent finds are discussed privately. I live pretty far east in the valley, so I occasionally get inside info from someone who lives forty miles northwest and to whom the play isn't worth the trip. The opposite is also true.

I'm 99% sure Nathan is Kentry there, but the mods don't see it. Lol.

And generally I agree. You just need to find VP scenarios are clearly above 100% when all factors are considered to make "advantage plays". Once you know that, it's unlikely you'll need to ask about it in a public forum. And like you say, good promos often won't be disclosed publicly on forums.

[FloridaPhil]

The only thing most posters (including me) have a beef with is when you say 'AP Strategy tells you to do <so and so>' or 'Dancer says to do <so and so>', when the things you say are simply NOT TRUE.

I think you are misinterpreting my words.

Let me ask you a few simple questions? How would an AP play a 96% game. The answer is he wouldn't go anywhere near it. Am I right so far?

How would an AP play a 105% game? I believe he would play it is big as possible until the advantage went away. Nothing would deter him as long as the advantage remained. Am I right?

What happens if a player plays a 96% game using the same strategy an AP uses on a 105% game? He loses more and more until he eventually cleans out his entire bankroll and goes bankrupt.

Are you still with me?

OK, what happens if a Recreational player realizes the 96% game is a huge loser and plays single coin quarters? He still loses, but he limits his losses to pocket change.

This is math, not VooDoo. Why is this important? Because players read how APs make money playing VP and assume they can do the same without the same games and skills. I talk to players all the time who think they have some scheme that can beat a negative game. I am trying to make them aware of that mistake.

We can tell them all day long not to play 96% games and they will. They do because they go to the casino to have fun and those are the games they can afford to play. I am showing them they can have fun without the financial damage.

[markinca]

I think you are misinterpreting my words.

Let me ask you a few simple questions? How would an AP play a 96% game. The answer is he wouldn't go anywhere near it. Am I right so far?

Yes, you're right.

How would an AP play a 105% game? I believe he would play it is big as possible until the advantage went away. Nothing would deter him as long as the advantage remained. Am I right?

Yes, also right.

What happens if a player plays a 96% game using the same strategy an AP uses on a 105% game? He loses more and more until he eventually cleans out his entire bankroll and goes bankrupt.

Ok no, this is the problem. 'AP Strategy' is simply using optimal play PLUS extras (comps, etc) to make the game positive. Thus, unless there is some ridiculous comp going on, there is NO SUCH THING as 'AP Strategy' on a 96% game. I believe the term you're looking for is 'optimal strategy'.

Use that term from now on and I doubt you'll get into nearly as many arguments.

A player who uses optimal strategy to max-coin a 96% game with little comps will indeed lose all their money shortly. Saying that player is using 'ap strategy' is nonsense, because that is an impossibility. Using the term 'ap strategy' on a horrible paytable implies that there is some sort of strategy you can use on that game to make it a profitable game, but there likely isn't. So don't use that term.

[FloridaPhil]

What happens if a player plays a 96% game using the same strategy an AP uses on a 105% game? He loses more and more until he eventually cleans out his entire bankroll and goes bankrupt.

Ok no, this is the problem. 'AP Strategy' is simply using optimal play PLUS extras (comps, etc) to make the game positive. Thus, unless there is some ridiculous comp going on, there is NO SUCH THING as 'AP Strategy' on a 96% game. I believe the term you're looking for is 'optimal strategy'.

Use that term from now on and I doubt you'll get into nearly as many arguments.

Got it. I will try not to use the words AP from now on. I assumed Advantage Players play optimally. Let's assume there are no comps. Would an AP play full pay deuces wild?

[markinca]

Got it. I will try not to use the words AP from now on. I assumed Advantage Players play optimally. Let's assume there are no comps. Would an AP play full pay deuces wild?

Wait, what? APs do use optimal strategy. Advantage play = using optimal strategy in combination with extras. But the converse is not necessarily true; that is, using optimal strategy does not necessarily mean you're playing at an advantage. Like in your 96% payback game example. You can use optimal strategy all day long, but unless you're getting some ridiculous comps, nothing will make that an advantage play.

And if all comps/extras/etc were suddenly outlawed, then yea, I suppose FPDW at quarters and the occasional huge progressive royal would be about as good as one could get.

[billryan]

In a world where no one offered any comps, an Advantage Player would play the game with the highest pay table if he played at all.
In the real world, a player must often chose between games with higher payouts and lower comps or one with lesser payouts and higher comps.
Best paying FPDW game I know has no slot club and caps off at $2.50 a spin. There are dozens of better games to play after factoring mailings and the like.
I play one place with decidedly inferior pay tables, but amazing benefits. $10 free play for walking in, a free meal after $200 coin in, and weekly raffles for anything from free gas to $200 restaurant coupons.

[FloridaPhil]

So, what you are saying is an AP would play a 96% game if the comps, progressive or incentives were large enough to turn the net odds positive? If my use of the words "AP Strategy" is causing the ruckus, I can avoid using those words.

Let me rephrase my statement and see if this works for you. If a player ignores the odds and comps and plays a negative VP game like the game is positive, would his losses be larger than if he played the same game with single coin as small as possible?

[markinca]

Really, the specific paytable is irrelevant. It's all about total return. If you had a ddb machine with a 99% payback with 2% comp value and another with a 95% payback with 6% comp value, they're essentially the same play.

So sure, if there were enough comp value to turn a 96% game healthily positive, an ap would absolutely play it.

The problem of course is that you won't find 6% comp value very often, which means that 95% machine will never be part of an ap's rotation. There is no possible 'ap strategy' on that machine.

[FloridaPhil]

How about this? If the combination of game odds plus comps and incentives in any VP game are less than 100%, it is less costly to play the game smaller than bigger.

[markinca]

All I am saying is this. If the combination of game odds plus comps and incentives in any VP game are less than 100%, it is less costly to play the game smaller than bigger. Anyone disagree?

I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with that.

The problems start when you follow this claim up with a statement like 'well ap strategy says to max coin the bigger game'. No, an ap would never do or say that.