Splitting up your bankroll

[Vman96]

Obviously it's better to find the "full pay" version of Loose Deuces when you can. But in the short term, it's really about hitting the Deuces.

That's still on my "bucket list" for any deuces quarters or higher.

Also at Sunset Station (and other Stations), you might also want to consider Triple Deuces (99.92%) over Loose Deuces (100.15%) because you'll earn points 12 times faster!

[onemoretry]

Obviously it's better to find the "full pay" version of Loose Deuces when you can. But in the short term, it's really about hitting the Deuces.

Many years ago, a fellow player stated that, in deuces wild, there are really only two hands you're playing for - four deuces or a royal. Aside from giving an honourable mention to a wild royal, I think he was right on. The better pay tables normally give you a better chance at the two big hands, but nothing is guaranteed.

[FloridaPhil]

Many years ago, a fellow player stated that, in deuces wild, there are really only two hands you're playing for - four deuces or a royal. Aside from giving an honourable mention to a wild royal, I think he was right on. The better pay tables normally give you a better chance at the two big hands, but nothing is guaranteed.

I agree. Better pay tables let you play more hands with the same money. More hands equals more chances at a royal or a quad deuce. Playing single coin, I see a lot more of both than the average player. This is not because single coin pays better than max coins. It's because I play so many more hands.

With a few hundred dollars, I can play 5,000 hands a day with very little risk. As a Recreational player, that's what I want. The estimate is one quad deuce every 5,000 hands and I have found this to be about right. I can go days without one, then hit more than one.

The increased number of hands played is what makes CS work. If I hit two "lucky" max coin wild royals in a day, I can easily break even. If I hit a max coin quad deuce, I go home a winner. If I hit a max coin royal, I stay a winner for six months. Aside from comps, the only real negative is a single coin royal which pays slightly more than a single coin quad deuce.

If I play 5,000 hands at max coins on a 97% VP game, my cost is substantial. In time I will get some of my money back when I hit a royal. In the mean time I have to suffer through long losing days, weeks or months.

I am not posting this to convince anyone to play CS. I want Recreational players to seriously think about what I am saying because it has merit to a player who wants to play a lot of hands without a lot of money or risk.

[onemoretry]

I am not posting this to convince anyone to play CS. I want Recreational players to seriously think about what I am saying because it has merit to a player who wants to play a lot of hands without a lot of money or risk.

To me, it seems that your second sentence contradicts the first.

[FloridaPhil]

Not really. CS is an optional way to play negative video poker games. It saves money by reducing your coin-in. It's not for everyone.

Years ago, we had no need for CS. 18 years ago, full pay or nearly full pay games were common. When I first started playing VP, 9/6 quarter Jacks or Better was what I played. Then 9/6 Jacks turned into 8/5 and 8/5 turned into 7/5. A couple of hours of play would buy lunch. Now it takes a full day at max coins if you are lucky. Most casinos offer nearly nothing and free play has slowed to a dribble.

If we continue to play these games like we used to, the casino will continue to feed them to us. If not, we should use money saving tactics. I will give you an example. Right now I can drive 4 hours to play 98.9% Deuces Wild in Hollywood. If I go to Tampa the best quarter Deuces Wild game is 97.5%. The comps and free play are the same. When I play at Hollywood I play max coins. When I play in Tampa, I use CS to save money.

How you choose to play VP depends upon your bankroll, how much time you are willing to invest in the game and your expectations. My bankroll is adequate. I wish to play VP until I am too tired to push the buttons anymore. My financial expectations are low. My choices may not be your choices. If all we talk about on this forum are the choices of professional players, we are leaving out the majority of players.

[onemoretry]

Not really.

Yes, really. Wanting folks to seriously consider your approach because it has merit is definitely, despite your contradictory statement, attempting to convince.

[billryan]

Phil is 100% convinced that he has some revolutionary system that saves a player money by playing less.
That he doesn't see the ignorance of such a belief is sad, yet comical.

[onemoretry]

There isn't anything inherently wrong with the notion that playing smaller results in smaller losses. If you're OK with a higher percentage loss of a smaller overall amount of coinin, and getting 250 for 1 rather than 800 for I for a royal flush, go for it. Just stop telling me why you think it's so great!

[billryan]

Of course playing small results in smaller losses. IF CS is so great, not playing CS is even better. If losing less is good, losing nothing must be better. Risking no money means no losses. Most players try to win as much as possible while reducing their risk of ruin.
Phils system eliminates the chance of the highest rewards, but keeps all the games negative aspects.
In the bizarro Universe, Phil would receive great recognition.

[FloridaPhil]

CS is a proven method you can use to play today's seriously negative VP games longer with less money, avoid large bankroll swings and still have a chance at a max coin jackpot. It is not revolutionary and it did not take a mathematical genius to figure it out. You won't beat the casinos using CS. You will play an exciting VP game longer and cheaper without losing your shirt. You won't wake up in the middle of the night mad at yourself because you dropped $500 or $1,000 bucks in the casino with nothing to show for it. You won't have to lie to your wife, family or friends about your losses. Best of all, you can enjoy playing VP for what it is meant to be, entertainment.

Anyone who plays 97% VP games with max coins for more than a week will soon find out much money it can cost. If someone wants to pay 2-3 times the royal amount to hit one, it's their business. My casino is full of players like that. I do not.