vpFREE2 Forums

1 coin vs 5

Curtis Rich wrote ...

Not one person (including nightoftheiguana2000) has posted
in this forum any reason why my contention is wrong:
If I am going to give up approximately the same amount of money
[$0.005] per hand, whether betting one coin or five coins per hand,
it is better to have a chance at winning a $1,000.00 royal flush
[by betting five coins] vs. winning a $62.50 royal flush [by playing
one coin].

If someone knows something that I don't, they have yet to post it.

I'm still open-minded, though. And, I look forward to hearing
nightoftheiguana2000 (or anyone else) explain to me why I am
wrong. And, please do not tell me that I am wrong, just because
someone else posted it on their website - like, LVA. LVA is not
always correct. No one is.

Curtis

The one reason I can think of for betting 1 coin instead of 5 coins ( even though the loss per hand is the same) is that in betting 5 coins, I am risking 5 times as much money.? From personal, painful experience a 20% session loss in 1000 hands is possible. Playing 5 coins per hand, I lose $250. Playing 1 coin per hand I lose $50.
The whole reason to play one coin instead of 5 coins is to make the limited bankroll last longer. Betting less per hand accomplishes that, even though my EV is less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I may have missed someone else suggesting this, but wouldn't it just
be smarter to play a nickel machine for 5 coins instead of .25 one
coin at a time? You win 200 for a RF instead of 62.50.

Curtis Rich wrote ...

Not one person (including nightoftheiguana2000) has posted
in this forum any reason why my contention is wrong:
If I am going to give up approximately the same amount of money
[$0.005] per hand, whether betting one coin or five coins per hand,
it is better to have a chance at winning a $1,000.00 royal flush
[by betting five coins] vs. winning a $62.50 royal flush [by playing
one coin].

If someone knows something that I don't, they have yet to post it.

I'm still open-minded, though. And, I look forward to hearing
nightoftheiguana2000 (or anyone else) explain to me why I am
wrong. And, please do not tell me that I am wrong, just because
someone else posted it on their website - like, LVA. LVA is not
always correct. No one is.

Curtis

The one reason I can think of for betting 1 coin instead of 5 coins

( even though the loss per hand is the same) is that in betting 5
coins, I am risking 5 times as much money.? From personal, painful
experience a 20% session loss in 1000 hands is possible. Playing 5
coins per hand, I lose $250. Playing 1 coin per hand I lose $50.

The whole reason to play one coin instead of 5 coins is to make the

limited bankroll last longer. Betting less per hand accomplishes that,
even though my EV is less.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, greeklandjohnny@... wrote:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Actually, I *touched* on this when I posted the following:

For fun, I present the following estimates of hourly losses,
assuming no comps, cash-back, or anything else deducted from
the house edge.

Playing 25¢ 9/6 JOB 500 hands per hour:
Playing five coins (99.54%), the estimated hourly loss is $2.88.
Playing one coin (98.37%), the estimated hourly loss is $2.04.

Playing 5¢ 9/6 JOB 500 hands per hour:
Playing five coins, the estimated hourly loss is $0.58.
Playing one coin, the estimated hourly loss is $0.41.

The data was there, but I did not specifically say that betting
five 5¢ coins (estimated hour loss of $0.58) is better than
betting one 25¢ coin (estimated hour loss of $2.04).

Personally, I don't play nickels. So, I'm not sure if there are
any 5¢ 9/6 JOB available. But, if there are, then - yes - playing
full coin 5¢ is much better than betting one 25¢ coin! :slight_smile:

Curtis

···

----------Original Message----------
----------Original Message----------

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM, truushot1 <acptconstruction@comcast.net>wrote:

I may have missed someone else suggesting this, but wouldn't it just
be smarter to play a nickel machine for 5 coins instead of .25 one
coin at a time? You win 200 for a RF instead of 62.50.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The LVAQOD-calculated 'loss per hand' has already taken into
consideration the fact that five coins is $1.25 per hand and one
coin is $0.25 per hand. Either way, it still averages out to
(approx.) a half a cent loss (per hand), whether you are betting
$1.25 or $0.25 (per hand).

If I did the math right....
After 1,000 hands, the expected loss is $5.75 when playing
five coins. After 1,000 hands, the expected loss is $4.08
when playing one coin.

In the long-term, playing one coin does not significantly help
a bankroll last longer. And, when comps, cash-back, and
promotions are added to the pay-back percentage, playing
one coin reduces your overall winnings (in the long run).

Although your losses may be smaller for a losing session
(by betting only one coin), your gains are also a lot smaller
when you have a winning session!

Curtis

···

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM, <greeklandjohnny@aol.com> wrote:

The one reason I can think of for betting 1 coin instead of 5 coins ( even
though the loss per hand is the same) is that in betting 5 coins, I am
risking 5 times as much money.? From personal, painful experience a 20%
session loss in 1000 hands is possible. Playing 5 coins per hand, I lose
$250. Playing 1 coin per hand I lose $50.
The whole reason to play one coin instead of 5 coins is to make the limited
bankroll last longer. Betting less per hand accomplishes that, even though
my EV is less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You'll get better marketing offers from the casino if you short coin,
plus on some plays you avoid the W2G problems.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@...> wrote:

And, when comps, cash-back, and
promotions are added to the pay-back percentage, playing
one coin reduces your overall winnings (in the long run).

I'm mostly a quarter player, although on occasion I've gone up to $1
on bonus and double bonus at some casinos if they were full pay.
Unfortunately for people here in the LV area who do not want to go to
the higher levels, play at the Harrah's group of casinos does not
afford them full pay games below $5. This discussion on 1 coin vs 5
coin play, and the fact that the estimated loss is about the same for
each, has me thinking that if I intend to continue my Diamond status
it would be best for me to play 1 coin on a $5 full pay JoB or BP game
(even if the SF were shorted to 239) rather than play, say, a 7/5 BP
progressive or STP game which would increase the expected return
slightly but still make it below the $5 game. Any comments?

There are times when it makes sense to short coin, so, figure out when
those times are and go do it. Anthony Curtis says there are times when
it makes sense to short coin, when Anthony Curtis speaks, people listen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Curtis

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpcostsmoney" <vpcostsmoney@...> wrote:

I'm mostly a quarter player, although on occasion I've gone up to $1
on bonus and double bonus at some casinos if they were full pay.
Unfortunately for people here in the LV area who do not want to go to
the higher levels, play at the Harrah's group of casinos does not
afford them full pay games below $5. This discussion on 1 coin vs 5
coin play, and the fact that the estimated loss is about the same for
each, has me thinking that if I intend to continue my Diamond status
it would be best for me to play 1 coin on a $5 full pay JoB or BP game
(even if the SF were shorted to 239) rather than play, say, a 7/5 BP
progressive or STP game which would increase the expected return
slightly but still make it below the $5 game. Any comments?

Me? I would go to anyplace other than HET!

The better question is how
long can they hold on before a Chapter 11 filing?
Vegas, and HET in particular, are the poster children
for the leveraging frenzy of the past few years. Did
these guys really think they would be able to sustain
that level of growth in the inevitable economic
downturn?

Now that even the popular press is declaring this to
be the worst depression since, well the last one, what
will happen to an outfit like HET? They apparently
built their business model on an unsustainable revenue
stream and will probably forced to default on their
massive debt. Then what?

Personally, I think this would be a good thing. After
the coming shakeout competition may be restored to the
Vegas "industry". Someone will get these places for
pennies on the dollar and then be able to provide a
more competitive product. As it stands HET and
Stations backs are against the wall - huge debt
payments in the face of dwindling revenue. They only
have a few options, the main one being cut everything
to the bone and hope it gets better. Of course as
player benefits shrink the player gets pissed and
either goes somewhere else, or cuts way back on visits
to the casino, which is my case.

Harrahs has always marketed to the middle - Caesars
being the exception. The middle is where the squeeze
will be the greatest as the middle class tourist stays
closer to home. The high end joints will probably be
okay as most of the real money doesn't feel the
economic pain the middle class will. Something has to
give, and my bet is it will be the $5000 weekends,
clubs, $250 bottles, etc. that will really feel it.

I just hope I can get all my comps used up before the
end arrives.

Cheers!

Jigger
"On some days, my head is filled with such wild and
original thoughts that I can barely utter a word. On
other days, the liquor store is closed."

"The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my
blood alcohol content."

"You don't appreciate a lot of stuff in school until
you get older. Little things like being spanked every
day by a middle aged woman: Stuff you pay good money
for in later life."

···

--- vpcostsmoney <vpcostsmoney@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm mostly a quarter player, although on occasion
I've gone up to $1
on bonus and double bonus at some casinos if they
were full pay.
Unfortunately for people here in the LV area who do
not want to go to
the higher levels, play at the Harrah's group of
casinos does not
afford them full pay games below $5. This
discussion on 1 coin vs 5
coin play, and the fact that the estimated loss is
about the same for
each, has me thinking that if I intend to continue
my Diamond status
it would be best for me to play 1 coin on a $5 full
pay JoB or BP game
(even if the SF were shorted to 239) rather than
play, say, a 7/5 BP
progressive or STP game which would increase the
expected return
slightly but still make it below the $5 game. Any
comments?

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

Generally the difference is in the 4th decimal place. For bonus poker playing a single $5 ER is .9801, playing 5 $1 the ER is .9793. The difference is 4/10 cent or $4 over 1000 plays, so it makes little difference. I agree that finding a better place to play is the best option, although they are going away fast.

···

--- On Tue, 2/10/09, vpcostsmoney <vpcostsmoney@gmail.com> wrote:

From: vpcostsmoney <vpcostsmoney@gmail.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: 1 coin vs 5
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 2:36 PM

I'm mostly a quarter player, although on occasion I've gone up to $1
on bonus and double bonus at some casinos if they were full pay.
Unfortunately for people here in the LV area who do not want to go to
the higher levels, play at the Harrah's group of casinos does not
afford them full pay games below $5. This discussion on 1 coin vs 5
coin play, and the fact that the estimated loss is about the same for
each, has me thinking that if I intend to continue my Diamond status
it would be best for me to play 1 coin on a $5 full pay JoB or BP game
(even if the SF were shorted to 239) rather than play, say, a 7/5 BP
progressive or STP game which would increase the expected return
slightly but still make it below the $5 game. Any comments?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The best way I can explain it is if you only consider the return
of the machine only exclusive of any other fringe benefits, you
make more money on 1 coin than 5. The $1000 royal you get at
5 coins does not make up the deficit accumulated in persuing it
as well as the accumulated deficit that the 1-coin $62.50 royal
does. You are farther ahead (less behind) post-royal playing
1-coin. The .005 cents/hand average loss includes all hands,
even the ones producing the royal. Your deficit at 1-coin
accumulates less in relation to the value of the royal than
the deficit generated at 5-coin.

This all looks a little constipated but I hope it makes sense.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, greeklandjohnny@... wrote:

Curtis Rich wrote ...

Not one person (including nightoftheiguana2000) has posted
in this forum any reason why my contention is wrong:
If I am going to give up approximately the same amount of money
[$0.005] per hand, whether betting one coin or five coins per hand,
it is better to have a chance at winning a $1,000.00 royal flush
[by betting five coins] vs. winning a $62.50 royal flush [by playing
one coin].

If someone knows something that I don't, they have yet to post it.

Hey, Cranky.

Yes, it definitely does make sense! :slight_smile:

In fact, I previously posted that, by only considering
the return of the game (99.54% for 5 coins and 98.37%
for 1 coin), you lose more by playing five coins vs. one.
(I also previously posted that the additional 'loss' is
only about a buck and a half for every 1,000 hands
played!)

BUT....

That is only true if you compare the same number
of hands played. Comparing hand vs. hand is like
comparing $1,250 wagered vs. $250 wagered
(for 1,000 hands). That's comparing apples to
oranges!

To correctly answer the question ("1 coin or 5?"),
you have to compare apples to apples. You have to
compare dollars wagered vs. dollars wagered.

When you compare the total money wagered, it is
obvious that playing one coin is just plain wrong.

For example:
$10,000 played through at five coins at a time is
an estimated loss of $46.00. And, $10,000 played
through at one coin at a time is an estimated loss
of $163.00.

Clearly, in the long term, you will lose less money
by playing five coins at a time (vs. playing only one).

I'm going to keep betting five coins at a time,
regardless of what Anthony Curtis's QOD says! :slight_smile:

Curtis

···

On 2/10/09, Cranky <exgeek@comcast.net> wrote:

The best way I can explain it is if you only consider the return
of the machine only exclusive of any other fringe benefits, you
make more money on 1 coin than 5. The $1000 royal you get at
5 coins does not make up the deficit accumulated in persuing it
as well as the accumulated deficit that the 1-coin $62.50 royal
does. You are farther ahead (less behind) post-royal playing
1-coin. The .005 cents/hand average loss includes all hands,
even the ones producing the royal. Your deficit at 1-coin
accumulates less in relation to the value of the royal than
the deficit generated at 5-coin.

This all looks a little constipated but I hope it makes sense.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Right. Base EV is not dependent on number of hands played, but is
a measure of return based on $ volume. At the same time, you will
get to the long term much more slowly for a given amount of $ bet
at 1 coin than 5. Plus the strategy changes at one coin produce a
much mellower, less volatile game which is good if your psychological
bankroll is shot. One coin 9/6 JB is fun when you get to play a
different strategy for a change. Of course the ultimate low
volatility play is not to play at all. I can have almost as much
fun just watching too. And its free.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@...> wrote:

Hey, Cranky.

Yes, it definitely does make sense! :slight_smile:

In fact, I previously posted that, by only considering
the return of the game (99.54% for 5 coins and 98.37%
for 1 coin), you lose more by playing five coins vs. one.
(I also previously posted that the additional 'loss' is
only about a buck and a half for every 1,000 hands
played!)

BUT....

That is only true if you compare the same number
of hands played. Comparing hand vs. hand is like
comparing $1,250 wagered vs. $250 wagered
(for 1,000 hands). That's comparing apples to
oranges!

To correctly answer the question ("1 coin or 5?"),
you have to compare apples to apples. You have to
compare dollars wagered vs. dollars wagered.

When you compare the total money wagered, it is
obvious that playing one coin is just plain wrong.

For example:
$10,000 played through at five coins at a time is
an estimated loss of $46.00. And, $10,000 played
through at one coin at a time is an estimated loss
of $163.00.

Clearly, in the long term, you will lose less money
by playing five coins at a time (vs. playing only one).

I'm going to keep betting five coins at a time,
regardless of what Anthony Curtis's QOD says! :slight_smile:

Curtis