The Recreational Forum Has Been "Hijacked"

[billryan]

I'd go as far as to say give Phil a separate forum for CS as long as he doesn't post about it elsewhere.

[FloridaPhil]

CS is a betting strategy I can live without discussing any further. If someone asks me about it, I should be able to respond. If you like I can ask them to PM me so you don't have to read my response. Playing single coin is a legitimate Recreational Strategy. It is used by thousands of retirees and budget minded players. Splitting your bankroll is also popular. We should be able to discuss any strategy even if math says it's not the best option. There is nothing wrong with disagreement as long as you don't "troll" this Forum just to stir up trouble.

There are many different ways players change the game around to fit their particular likes and goals. Most of them are not based on math. The Recreational Forum is not the place to teach video poker. It should be a place to talk about playing VP any way you enjoy playing it. How I like to play VP may not be how someone else does. This doesn't mean I should disrupt their post and start calling them names.

[Webman]

I posted a thread in the Recreational area about splitting up your bankroll that involved playing negative games at times as a "vacation" player. It didn't start any arguments with "math" people and went along quite nicely while FP was "away" from the forum.

It did however get "hijacked" by no less than FIVE posts by FloridaPhil upon his return talking about the wonders of CS.

I think there should be ONE topic where CS can be discussed and no more.

Eduardo is as wise as he is handsome. Phil, let's keep CS discussion to the CS 2.0 thread. If discussion appears elsewhere, I will simply merge it into that thread.

Likewise, there shall be no discussion of mathematics or formulas in the Recreational forum unless the mathematics or formulas apply directly to the subject at hand. For example, if someone starts a thread about making friends in the casino, math people should not talk about quadratic equations. But they may point out that one is the loneliest number.

Thank you.

[FloridaPhil]

That is perfectly fine with me as long as you don't consider any talk of playing single coin VP as CS? Playing single coin VP is a legitimate way to save money playing today's seriously negative VP games. That is a proven fact. As the casinos drop the odds, players pay the price. We owe it to our members to tell them that. If you can instantly make all the VP games in the world positive, we won't have anything to discuss.

I'm OK with having a forum where math is not a topic. Actually, it would be refreshing for a change.

[Webman]

Single coin is also worthy of a single discussion (as opposed to repeating it throughout multiple threads many times a week).

The truth is, I really don't think it's something people need to be educated about. People play lower denom and single coin games all the time because the benefits to bankroll management are self-evident.

I don't understand the continual repetition on the matter, but it's worth mentioning. I do think it needs to be consolidated to a single topic going forward.

[onemoretry]

I don't understand the continual repetition on the matter,

You're not the only one.

[New2vp]

That is perfectly fine with me as long as you don't consider any talk of playing single coin VP as CS? Playing single coin VP is a legitimate way to save money playing today's seriously negative VP games. That is a proven fact. As the casinos drop the odds, players pay the price. We owe it to our members to tell them that. If you can instantly make all the VP games in the world positive, we won't have anything to discuss.

I'm OK with having a forum where math is not a topic. Actually, it would be refreshing for a change.

It will be interesting how to explain that "single-coin VP is a legitimate way to save money playing today's seriously negative VP games" without math. In addition to the words that I've already highlighted, the use of positive is also a mathematical term. How much money will be saved? Sorry that would require math.

Maybe we'll be better served by just hearing someone say that they have come to believe something is true from a couple trials (sorry, I probably should have said "few" rather than a "couple." Too much precision might be too difficult to handle). Or one of the favorite justifications, "it works for me" when it is understood that the words "for the last few visits" should be added. It is much better to have a thought, perhaps one that you had a couple years ago and forget how damaging it was, then go to the casino and invest a few thousand dollars of coin-in rather than having a clue about the expectation beforehand. Oh, sorry again, I meant to say "a lot" of dollars rather than a "few thousand."

So as soon as you start calculating EVs of single-coin vs. max-coin pay schedules, or comparing Deuces Wild variance to that of Jacks or Better or Bonus Poker to make your point against all those mean, evil, nasty "experts" (are those people that don't have trouble stringing a couple logical thoughts together to reach valid conclusions?), you will violate the math prohibition. And if you can get in a subtle "jab" at insulting anyone who would dare to try to maximize return, all the better. No one in that camp should respond because after all the Recreational Forum is only allowed to be used by a couple posters. All others with opinions are merely trolls.

Is it ok to use the mathematical term "odds"? How about if you almost always use it incorrectly? If something is mathematically illiterate, I can imagine that it should be extra specially worthy of protection. And I guess it shouldn't count, since it is not "real math."

This has really gotten silly over the years. Phil chased Bob Dancer away by relentlessly dogging his every post, whined that he needed protection from other posters, and used the Recreational Forum as a bunker from which to lob grenades at anyone that he considered had dissed one of his posts in the past. I know chasing Dancer away made a lot of people happy for whatever reason since many dislike him, but seriously is the forum better served with Phil and not Dancer or Dancer and not Phil?

I, for one, am aghast over Phil cancelling his Gold membership. I wonder how much he will save? Wait ... that would involve numbers again. And I'm sorry that I said "for one."

Don't get me wrong. I realize that Webman is doing the best he can to try and mollify a number of whiny posters. The forum stats might be used to determine who makes the most of these if you were able to count up the posts from one poster and divide by the total. But I've already violated the new code enough times, so I won't do that here.

I always took the Recreational Forum's purpose to mean that a methodology would not be criticized solely because its expectation was negative. Or it would be ok to post jackpot pictures without someone asking why the poster was choosing to play such a negative game. However, when claims are made about how a particular strategy is better than another, then either the poster really SHOULD have been making such points in the Strategy forum or others should be able to make comments that improve upon the points made.

I don't expect anything to change. Except when Phil's explanations of his many inconsistencies flop back and forth as he tries to keep from losing money while chasing bigger jackpots with lesser coin-in on negative games. Best of luck in your math-free world where there are no wrong answers, at least no provably wrong answers.

[OTABILL]

Here's where I stand on this...

The forum is for discussion, not monologues. If you have a fun way to play the game, this of course is the place to do that. If you want to share your experiences playing low return games... that's great.

If you're going to invent a betting method, give it a name, and encourage people to try it, you have to also expect people to critique it.

If you're going to post about how a Martingale worked out great for you, I would certainly hope that the potential dangers of playing this way are allowed to be pointed out.

Keep sharing your experiences, expect not everyone to agree with you, and carry on.

Webman is spot on regarding monologues and posts. Simply stating something in a few sentences is great. Who has time to read through a dissertation. I don't and usual skim through extra long posts. What is worse and frequently creates discord is repetition. Say your piece once and respond to any critiques succinctly and not repeatedly. The same for comments. Once is enough.

[OTABILL]

That is perfectly fine with me as long as you don't consider any talk of playing single coin VP as CS? Playing single coin VP is a legitimate way to save money playing today's seriously negative VP games. That is a proven fact. As the casinos drop the odds, players pay the price. We owe it to our members to tell them that. If you can instantly make all the VP games in the world positive, we won't have anything to discuss.

I'm OK with having a forum where math is not a topic. Actually, it would be refreshing for a change.

It will be interesting how to explain that "single-coin VP is a legitimate way to save money playing today's seriously negative VP games" without math. In addition to the words that I've already highlighted, the use of positive is also a mathematical term. How much money will be saved? Sorry that would require math.

Maybe we'll be better served by just hearing someone say that they have come to believe something is true from a couple trials (sorry, I probably should have said "few" rather than a "couple." Too much precision might be too difficult to handle). Or one of the favorite justifications, "it works for me" when it is understood that the words "for the last few visits" should be added. It is much better to have a thought, perhaps one that you had a couple years ago and forget how damaging it was, then go to the casino and invest a few thousand dollars of coin-in rather than having a clue about the expectation beforehand. Oh, sorry again, I meant to say "a lot" of dollars rather than a "few thousand."

So as soon as you start calculating EVs of single-coin vs. max-coin pay schedules, or comparing Deuces Wild variance to that of Jacks or Better or Bonus Poker to make your point against all those mean, evil, nasty "experts" (are those people that don't have trouble stringing a couple logical thoughts together to reach valid conclusions?), you will violate the math prohibition. And if you can get in a subtle "jab" at insulting anyone who would dare to try to maximize return, all the better. No one in that camp should respond because after all the Recreational Forum is only allowed to be used by a couple posters. All others with opinions are merely trolls.

Is it ok to use the mathematical term "odds"? How about if you almost always use it incorrectly? If something is mathematically illiterate, I can imagine that it should be extra specially worthy of protection. And I guess it shouldn't count, since it is not "real math."

This has really gotten silly over the years. Phil chased Bob Dancer away by relentlessly dogging his every post, whined that he needed protection from other posters, and used the Recreational Forum as a bunker from which to lob grenades at anyone that he considered had dissed one of his posts in the past. I know chasing Dancer away made a lot of people happy for whatever reason since many dislike him, but seriously is the forum better served with Phil and not Dancer or Dancer and not Phil?

I, for one, am aghast over Phil cancelling his Gold membership. I wonder how much he will save? Wait ... that would involve numbers again. And I'm sorry that I said "for one."

Don't get me wrong. I realize that Webman is doing the best he can to try and mollify a number of whiny posters. The forum stats might be used to determine who makes the most of these if you were able to count up the posts from one poster and divide by the total. But I've already violated the new code enough times, so I won't do that here.

I always took the Recreational Forum's purpose to mean that a methodology would not be criticized solely because its expectation was negative. Or it would be ok to post jackpot pictures without someone asking why the poster was choosing to play such a negative game. However, when claims are made about how a particular strategy is better than another, then either the poster really SHOULD have been making such points in the Strategy forum or others should be able to make comments that improve upon the points made.

I don't expect anything to change. Except when Phil's explanations of his many inconsistencies flop back and forth as he tries to keep from losing money while chasing bigger jackpots with lesser coin-in on negative games. Best of luck in your math-free world where there are no wrong answers, at least no provably wrong answers.

If a recreational player for example posts that he plays single coin to make his/her bankroll last longer, it belongs here. Discussing the ramifications in detail belongs in the strategy forum. In any event, the subject matter should be limited to one topic as Webman has ruled. My view.

[OTABILL]

To expand on my original post. While there may be some overlap, there are other aspects of the VP experience that can and should be discussed here. Such as why do you play VP? Do you go solo or with your significant other or someone else. Do you meet friends there? How much of a health hazard does second hand smoke pose and will that impact where, how long and often you stay/play. How much of a social experience is a night at the casino. Do you talk with others around you? What percent of your time is playing VP and do you engage in other activities while at the casino. Which ones? Do dining choices influence which casino you patronize? Do you primarily play locally, only while visiting Vegas, AC, elsewhere or a combination of the two. These are what I believe also should be discussed in the recreational forum.

Those sound like great topics. You should start them.

Webman, I did start a topic related to the health hazards of smoke in June 2017. Thought it was time to revive so I opened it again last week. Figured after nearly a year and a half it wouldn't hurt to bring it back. Said my piece, no need to repeat. I will start other topics where applicable to me but I am hoping others will start ones relating to the above topics and other relevant ones.