To the extent that self interest may inhibit an individual, to what ever degree, to make information available is natural, but the policy above is the only appropriate one for an open forum. JMO
At 01:45 AM 12/26/2003, you wrote:
"SUNSHINE POLICY: It is vpFREE's policy to share ALL known
positive VP plays with the membership, and to record the
information in the DataBase."
I've been intending to invite some discussion of vpFREE's
SUNSHINE POLICY, so I'm glad that lwluiki has reopened the
topic.
OK. You asked for it....
****************
"SUNSHINE POLICY: It is vpFREE's policy to share ALL known
positive VP plays with the membership, and to record the
information in the DataBase."****************
Here's some of my thoughts on reporting "good plays":
I admire video poker pros (and serious recreational players)
and wish them well, but I believe they are very
short-sighted when they try to hide good play situations.
Attempting to hide a play risks having it die because of
inactivity or unwise play by the discoverers, without ever
having tested its viability in a wider market.
I know you are a friend, but I have always called them like I see
them and so I have to say this is just plain stupid. The danger of
losing a good play due to inactivity is nominal compared to the
danger of losing one when it gets overplayed. I have heard of and
even played a couple plays that lasted precisely because they were
not well known. If they were well known they would have been killed
quickly. This idea of testing on an open market more or less works
for a play like the Orleans FPDW used to be, but otherwise it is
nonsense. A bank or 2 of a very good game will just get dominated
by the pros. This "wider market" you speak of is US, the people who
knww what we are doing.
Just what is a "good play" for the purposes of this discussion is
somewhat arbirarty. Certainly a fast $1 FPDW with 0.5% cashback
would be plenty strong to qualify as a "good play" that I would
suggest be kept quiet. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume
that $25/hour is the magic cutoff. Although in the current VP
situation, maybe that number should be lowered to $20/hour for
quarter games.
Let's look further.
Any pro who would post a "good play" is a F***ing Moron for the
reasons I have given above. And not surprisingly, most pros I have
spoken to feel the same way. However, not all posters are pros.
Some of them may not even play much or even be locals. They don't
fall under that harsh assessment. However, I still have lots of
reasons to think they should shut the hell up.
As mentioned above, once word gets out, the game dies. It really is
that simple nowadays. If left alone and with some seats for
unskilled play, a good game can provide a lot more hands to those
who know what they are doing. The posting of such plays also has
the effect of arbitrarily giving a benefit to many at the expense of
those who took the time and made the effort to find the game on
their own. It's not like anyone literlly "hides" a play. Quite
simply, "good plays" last longer, sometimes MUCH longer, if they are
not advertised.
Posting these "good plays" robs Peter to pay Paul and Paul doesn't
even get as much out of the deal as Peter loses. Not good.
I have also noticed a level of contempt for pros (though not from
Tom) on this list. We are perceived as 'vultures' and somehow
scummy. So I guess if a play is killed and that hurts us, that
really doesn't matter. However, if viewed from our perspective, it
is very different. Suppose I came to your job and messed with your
ability to make a living just for shits and grins because it somehow
amuses me or I think that I am doing some people a favor?
I know.... It's a free country and all that. I know that people
will do what they will do. I just want them to know that there may
be some aspects of these things that they are not considering.
Maybe they won't be so eager to be a do-gooder if they realize that
they are doing more harm than good.
IMO, we should primarily be interested in promoting and
preserving good video poker situations that can survive
and prosper in an open market environment.
On this I agree. Promtiong decent games, such as what is about to
become extinct at the Fiesta and Station properties is a good idea.
I am only talking about plays that will get devastated once they are
widely known.
QZ
quadzilla_666 wrote:
> I've been intending to invite some discussion of vpFREE's
> SUNSHINE POLICY, so I'm glad that lwluiki has reopened the
> topic.
>OK. You asked for it....
QZ -- Nice, sensible post ... even if coming from a scum-of-the-earth pro.
(Hmmm, guess I'd better add a "smiley" to that, huh?)
I'm hoping that we can count on some lively return debate from our
VPFree Administrator. After all, it takes two to hold up the ends of
a discussion.
Perhaps something akin to the former SNL Ackroyd/Curtin
Point-Counterpoint banter. Here's something to get you going, VPA:
"QZ, you ignorant ..."
- H.
quadzilla_666 wrote:
snip
... The danger of
losing a good play due to inactivity is nominal compared to the
danger of losing one when it gets overplayed. ...
snip
That makes sense, but of course there's a mixture of not only periods of inactivity, and periods of intense play by advantage players, but also a mixture of novices who decide to pump money into machines, even if they're losing for quite awhile. In that case, I think novelty and location also factor in (see note below), plus a lot of other variables. But at its core, your statement makes sense especially if we look at one or the other -- inactivity vs. overplay -- as a predominant factor; in that case, inactivity means the machine is just sitting there not making money, but not losing any either, while overplay by advantage players means the machine is actually losing money. I'd have to agree that the one losing money the fastest will be pulled first.
I want to add a brief note to explain a phenomena along the lines of what I just mentioned about "novelty", and I sure do hope that this is just a temporary situation. The last time I was at GoldStrike in Tunica, they had a bank of 'quarter multi-stike' machines that was fully occupied when I got there and almost full when I finally got back around to check them out much later; they seemed to be just as busy as most VP sections typically seem in most casinos in Tunica, yet they had the absolute worst paytables imaginable. I wrote them down, but I'm not sure right now where I have those notes. Anyway, as best I can recall, the paytables weren't just 'not so good' ... they were 'pathetic' -- e.g., not just something like JoB 8/6 but more along the lines of maybe JoB 7/5 -- and this on a machine that you need to play $5.00 a pop to get full pay for Royals, and a game that most folks have not yet mastered (if they even realize that there are strategy differences). All I can hope is that the folks playing those machines will soon get tired of losing their money so fast and just go back to the regular slots where they apparently belong. Once that happens those machines should die a quick death because of inactivity -- because anyone with any knowledge of VP and multistrike will avoid them like the plague.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
Sabyl, I agree whole heartedly. For example, vp-heaven has over 650 lurkers
and most of them have waited over a year and are still waiting to make a
post! Now Rastis knows how the Maytag repairman feels!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp-heaven/
----- Original Message -----
From: "sabyl" <sabyl@speakeasy.org>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] A Reply To Just Criticism, (was: $1 FPDW in Reno)
I have only recently begun to post on the list. I have made a few private
replies in the past. Lurkers are not evil. SOme people just need time to
feel
confortable with a group before they post to it. And I have to admit that
at
times there can be so much animosity to a post that it does make nervous
to
post. Also, as a fairly new VP player relative to the group, I don't
always
feel I have a lot of useful information to contribute. I will say that
anytime
I have asked a question to the group, I have always gotten answers.
Sabyl
sabyl@speakeasy.org
Video poker "pros" are nothing more than retired people with time on their
hands and optimum strategy in their heads. That term is thrown away so
loosely. Unless you are willing to average $7 an hour with no vacation or
benefits, video poker is not a "profession" that most people would be drawn
to. VP is a great recreational activity, hobby, game of chance, challenge,
indoor "sport", passion, etc. But a profession it ain't.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gamb00lin F00l" <lvgamb00ler@Cox.Net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: A Reply To Just Criticism, (was: $1 FPDW in Reno)
Mark <mark_my_words_again@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyhow, this was a most enlightening post, and I've never noticed pros
in
> Reno, maybe it takes $1 denoms of Full-Pay to lure them to this sleepy
berg,
> we'll see. My eyes will open a little wider this next trip.There are more than a handfull of pros in Reno. In the past years they
weren't as
numerous as in LV and they seemed to not pounce on the medium to good
opportunities that popped up. They generally waited for stronger plays
before they
came out in numbers. There was even one perhaps two "formal" teams in
Reno
at one time....but they seem to have declined in step with opportunities.
Keep an eye out for the red-head
> Yes, the 60% profit decrease seems like a lot, I guess I never imagined
a
> casino of such stature actually going out-of-business. Phoenix- yes-
I've
gone
> there to escape the crowds at Silver at times, I can sense the death
throes. At
> least the Silver is trying.60% does seem like a lot of business to lose! I haven't been there much
these past months so can't make a good judgement based on observation.G'luck
Gamb00lin F00l(s)vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Tom, isn't this further proof that the 100% disclosure policy needs to be
reconsidered? I mean, all it does it ruin what few "exceptional"
opportunities exist for everyone. Who benefits from this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "vp_FREE" <vpFREE@cox.net>
To: "vpFREE" <vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Silver Legacy FPDW
On 25 Dec 2003 at 21:46, Mark wrote:
> I'll be at SL next week and I'm sure these new TITO's will make there
> way into my trip report. I spent a chunk of each previous trip there on
> those .25 FPDW progressives (are they still there?).They were reported MIA yesterday in "DataBase Updates/News"
and on the Silver Legacy DataBase page.vpFREE Administrator
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
"Pros" are not the problem. I have identified the enemy and it is US.
Members of this group and other enlightened, knowledgeable players who have
learned optimum strategy are the problem because we kill these opportunities
by "outing" them in public forums. So called "pros' know about these
opportunities long before they are "outed" on discussion web sites. I
believe the "exceptional" plays like $1 FPDW should not be publicly
revealed. Tell your network of friends, relatives etc. Of course, in time
that will kill the opportunity. But publishing the information on this or
similar sites will kill it instantly. We might as well let some members
enjoy these plays for some time rather than killing them for all. You will
establish friends and acquaintances if you play often. Share with them but
keep it out of these public forums. I don't think the fact that members
abuse the opportunity kills the deal. Casino MANAGEMENT reads these forums
and is constantly provided with information from traitors like Dancer &
Compton who now earn their money as "casino consultants". Compton is paid
(blood money) to give casino suits briefing sheets, outlining exactly what
is discussed in these groups. I played at the Rainbow Las Vegas earlier this
year ($1 FPDW). Those machines were not being abused by optimum players. The
publicity/discussion from this forum killed them. Of course, opportunities
like that have a limited shelf life anyway. But there is no good that will
come from "OUTING" these limited exceptional opportunities in public video
poker forums.
Rasti$ P. Rulz
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp-heaven/
----- Original Message -----
From: "vp_FREE" <vpFREE@Cox.net>
To: "vpFREE" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:45 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: A Reply To Just Criticism,
On 25 Dec 2003 at 13:52, lwluiki wrote:
> After I posted about the $1 TITO FPDW machines at the Reno Silver
> Legacy (message #24298), I received several private emails regarding the
> merits in making public such a high profit play. The common concern
> seems to be the worry that the pros/vultures will decent upon the SL and
> kill it immediately. The following is an open reply to what I considered
> to be just criticism:I've been intending to invite some discussion of vpFREE's
SUNSHINE POLICY, so I'm glad that lwluiki has reopened the
topic.
Have you ever seen Tom play? Or really, any number of regulars in this
group. They are very fast (1,000+ hands an hour on fast slant tops). The
most misused term in video poker is "pro" and "semi-pro". IT'S US. WE all
are the pros and semi pros. If you have a brain in your head, can learn the
strategy& have average motor skills, then you too can be a "pro". Another
word for it is "optimum player" or "group member". The casinos aren't
worried about so called video poker "professionals". If they were getting
hurt by them, they would simply bar them. WE , the members of this group,
are the very people casino suits are trying to get under control. WE ARE
HURTING the bottom line. So whenever you see the term "pro" simply
substitute the name, Tom Simms or Rasti$ P. Rulz, or Jean Scott or 90% of
the members of this group.
----- Original Message -----
From: "vp1000mph" <1000mph@msn.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 4:18 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: $1 FPDW in Reno
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, sabyl <sabyl@s...> wrote:
>snip ...And I will also say the slot supervisor was
> constantly coming over and talking to me after I hit the dueces and
was
> watching me play. He made a comment about how fast I was playing
and I was
> basically unable to use my strategy card at all because I was being
watched.
> Once when I held quads instead of holding two deuces and going for
4 deauces
> he made a comment about why didnt I go for the deuces again? I
just said
> "I don't know - didn't feel like it this time I guess."Tonight at SL, I spotted a local woman, semi pro, playing two
machines at a fast clip, wonder what that sup's thinking now.
I think that point has been taken in this thread. I also take the point that someone who prizes a play, a pro for brevity's sake, would desire to protect it from competition --To derive maximum potential for himself/herself or a select group for as long as possible. I think I understand it and I accept it. By the standards of many in this forum I would be considered a dilettante and I won't pretend to have anything useful to add to the issue of whether this prolongs or prematurely terminates a juicy play (The consensus seems to be that these very high return plays are numbered regardless, I think?), but I will comment on the sunshine policy and the control or freedom of information on this forum.
IMO, the Sunshine Policy is positive to this forum from a very practical perspective, administratively, politically and ethically. Administratively it bypasses the idiocy, definitions, regulations, attention and decisions making that goes into censorship. Don't underestimate the time and energy involved there. Politically and ethically.... Do you (the people participating in this forum) want to give any administrator the thankless duty of deciding and defining what plays are acceptable for open discussion? Do you want an administrator to decide which plays get protected? Do you want to give an administrator the duty of privately chastising group members for outing a play or instructing members to "keep it under their hat?" Do you want to put an administrator in the position of deciding who is worthy of censored information rather than making it available to any that are interested? It's a political and ethical minefield. To their credit, no one has actually suggested anything of the sort, but these are some of the alternatives to the present policy. As I have said previously, I think the Sunshine Policy is the only option appropriate for this open forum. I certainly benefit from the free exchange of information, and it may even be a net gain for the pro.
At 02:45 AM 12/27/2003, you wrote:
I know.... It's a free country and all that. I know that people
will do what they will do. I just want them to know that there may
be some aspects of these things that they are not considering.
Maybe they won't be so eager to be a do-gooder if they realize that
they are doing more harm than good.
$7/hour?
1000 hands/hour times $5/hand times 1% = ?
the really good plays are 3%+
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Video Poker Vegas" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:
Video poker "pros" are nothing more than retired people with time
on their
hands and optimum strategy in their heads. That term is thrown away
so
loosely. Unless you are willing to average $7 an hour with no
vacation or
benefits, video poker is not a "profession" that most people would
be drawn
to. VP is a great recreational activity, hobby, game of chance,
challenge,
indoor "sport", passion, etc. But a profession it ain't.
From: "Gamb00lin F00l" <lvgamb00ler@C...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: A Reply To Just Criticism, (was: $1 FPDW
in Reno)
> Mark <mark_my_words_again@y...> wrote:
>
> > Anyhow, this was a most enlightening post, and I've never
noticed pros
in
> > Reno, maybe it takes $1 denoms of Full-Pay to lure them to
this sleepy
> berg,
> > we'll see. My eyes will open a little wider this next trip.
>
> There are more than a handfull of pros in Reno. In the past
years they
> weren't as
> numerous as in LV and they seemed to not pounce on the medium to
good
> opportunities that popped up. They generally waited for stronger
plays
> before they
> came out in numbers. There was even one perhaps two "formal"
teams in
Reno
> at one time....but they seem to have declined in step with
opportunities.
>
> Keep an eye out for the red-head
>
> > Yes, the 60% profit decrease seems like a lot, I guess I never
imagined
a
> > casino of such stature actually going out-of-business. Phoenix-
yes-
I've
> gone
> > there to escape the crowds at Silver at times, I can sense the
death
> throes. At
> > least the Silver is trying.
>
> 60% does seem like a lot of business to lose! I haven't been
there much
> these past months so can't make a good judgement based on
observation.
>
> G'luck
> Gamb00lin F00l(s)
>
>
> vpFREE Links: http://www.west-
point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aaquad250" <aaquad250@y...> wrote:
"Video poker "pros" are nothing more than retired people with time
on their hands and optimum strategy in their heads."
======================================================================
Great witty quote, although not necessarily true, but still worth
adding to my quote collection. Thank you.
Terry Murphy & VP Pappy
"Did you ever notice how luckier the pros are compared to the
average uninformed gambler?" --VP Pappy
> > I'll be at SL next week and I'm sure these new TITO's will make
> > there way into my trip report. I spent a chunk of each previous
> > trip there on those .25 FPDW progressives (are they still
> > there?).
> They were reported MIA yesterday in "DataBase Updates/News"
> and on the Silver Legacy DataBase page.
Tom, isn't this further proof that the 100% disclosure policy needs to
be reconsidered? I mean, all it does it ruin what few "exceptional"
opportunities exist for everyone. Who benefits from this?
AFAIK this is a case of (14) old 25c FPDW PROG being replaced
by (14) new TITO, fast 25c/50c/$1 FPDW. Doesn't appear to be a
negative development or prove anything. For that matter, anecdotal
evidence isn't usually too persuasive in proving anything.
vpFREE Administrator
On 28 Dec 2003 at 10:47, Video Poker Vegas wrote:
I think that point has been taken in this thread.
I also take the point that someone who prizes a play,
a pro for brevity's sake, would but I will comment on the
sunshine policy and the control or freedom of information
on this forum.
IMO, the Sunshine Policy is positive to this forum from
a very practical perspective, administratively, politically
and ethically. Administratively it bypasses the idiocy,
definitions, regulations, attention and decisions
making that goes into censorship.
Who said anything about censorship. VPFree has never really been a
moderated group. Any moderation has been retroactive. People are
admitted simply by requesting to be added. Even if Tom decided that
anyone who posted a good play would be expelled with no recourse,
that person is a new hotmail account away from full access again.
I have been talking about SELF censorship. I have also been talking
about the idea that the group seems to be not only allowing these
posts, but making it a point to make sure that this information is
shouted loudly and clearly via this new SUNSHINE POLICY.
Don't underestimate the time and energy involved there.
Tom can correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that the time
devoted to moderation is fairly low, since incoming posts are not
moderated and with the departure of HWSRN (sic) we have had few
reasons to deport anyone.
Politically and ethically.... Do you (the people
participating in this forum) want to give any administrator
the thankless duty of deciding and defining what plays are
acceptable for open discussion? Do you want an administrator
to decide which plays get protected?
No, but I don't think anyone has been suggestiong this.
Do you want to give an administrator the duty of privately
chastising group members for outing a play or instructing
members to "keep it under their hat?"
No need to give him that duty. The readership themselves are
capable of handling the job of criticizing such acts.
Do you want to put an administrator in the position
of deciding who is worthy of censored information rather than
making it
available to any that are interested?
Yes. Every time I learn of a good play I make that decision.
Now that Tom's position on these things is becomming so well known,
I expect many of his sources may dry up.
Of course, Tom is quite capable of making agreements to keep plays
out of public view. If I tell him I have some information, but that
I will only give it to him if he will keep quiet, I am sure he
will either decline to know or will accept my terms.
's a political and ethical minefield.
Yes. It is a downside of the business, but most of us realize that
knowledge is precious and so we tend to cut each other a little
slack. We know that sometimes we wind up with promises to different
people that are in direct contradiction of each other. We do the
best we can in such situations.
have said previously, I think the Sunshine Policy is the
ly option appropriate for this open forum.
I disagree. The sunshine policy is really more like a megaphone
policy.
I certainly benefit from the free exchange of information,
and it may even be a net gain for the pro.
This latter point is not without merit. I'm not sure it is right,
but I certainly cannot dismiss it entirely. I am sure there are
quite a few semi-pros who benefit from this. These are the sorts of
people who ususally play the same plays day after day, but rarely do
much scouting, but will change their habits if they catch wind of
something juicy. Even so, it is still robbing a dollar from Peter
to give Paul fifty cents. (since it kills opportunities quickly)
QZ
HWSRN = He Whom Shall Remain Nameless
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Video Poker Vegas" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:
"Pros" are not the problem. I have identified the enemy and it is
US. Members of this group and other enlightened, knowledgeable
players who have learned optimum strategy are the problem because
we kill these opportunities by "outing" them in public forums. So
called "pros' know about these opportunities long before they
are "outed" on discussion web sites.
And I bet the casinos themselves know about them even before the pros
do. ie Before those machines even hit the(ir) floor!
I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that casino
management groups need to(have their consultants) lurk on boards like
this one to "discover" the actual player return on the machines in
Their Casinos. Sure, posting something here increases the number of
those "in the know" about good plays, but I doubt that the casino
owners themselves are among the "newly enlightened".
Jeff wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Video Poker Vegas" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:
> "Pros" are not the problem. I have identified the enemy and it is
> US. Members of this group and other enlightened, knowledgeable
> players who have learned optimum strategy are the problem because
> we kill these opportunities by "outing" them in public forums. So
> called "pros' know about these opportunities long before they
> are "outed" on discussion web sites.And I bet the casinos themselves know about them even before the pros
do. ie Before those machines even hit the(ir) floor!
Exactly the point I have made ... not only in this thread, but a couple of times in the past, as well.
I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that casino
management groups need to(have their consultants) lurk on boards like
this one to "discover" the actual player return on the machines in
Their Casinos. Sure, posting something here increases the number of
those "in the know" about good plays, but I doubt that the casino
owners themselves are among the "newly enlightened".
I think that the casinos would be smart to have someone to quickly peruse these boards ... at least by subject ... to find out what sort of reputation the casino might be developing and to get a form of feedback from customers. But VPFree is probably one of the larger VP forums on the Internet, and yet it still have a membership of only 2,793 (I just checked it). What is that? ... maybe a tenth of a percent of the VP Players in the country. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if a good 95% of the VP pros use VPFree; they might not all participate, and they might ignore most of it, and maybe some don't even read the posts at all -- but I'll bet they at least check the inventory database occasionally.
Bill Velek
I didn't say that, "Video Poker Vegas" did.
$7/hour is not pro play, pro play is more like $25/hour and above,
and before you claim that doesn't exist, check the database. If you
can't find $25/hour+ in the current database, you are not a pro.
Maybe read Dancer's Million Dollar Video Poker - free clue: he didn't
make the money playing $7/hour games.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "aaquad250" <aaquad250@y...> wrote:
"Video poker "pros" are nothing more than retired people with
time
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vppappy" <tismurph@h...> wrote:
on their hands and optimum strategy in their heads."
======================================================================
Great witty quote, although not necessarily true, but still
worth
adding to my quote collection. Thank you.
Terry Murphy & VP Pappy
"Did you ever notice how luckier the pros are compared to the
average uninformed gambler?" --VP Pappy
And I bet the casinos themselves know about them even before the
pros do. ie Before those machines even hit the(ir) floor!>>
Here's what I personally wish would happen. Make ALL the VP games
with lousy pay schedules standalone progressives. Then the tourists
can sit down at any machine and play without knowing a thing about
the game. Meanwhile, the pros and skilled amateurs can search for
that great play (a high progressive) and play endlessly until they
finally hit a RF. That way the casinos can have their cake (a lousy
pay schedule with big profits) and eat it too (continue to attract
everyone, including the pros and skilled amateurs). The casino
managers are missing a HUGE opportunity by failing to do this IMHO.
They have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.
I have been talking about SELF censorship. I have also been talking
about the idea that the group seems to be not only allowing these
posts, but making it a point to make sure that this information is
shouted loudly and clearly via this new SUNSHINE POLICY.
"Self censorship" sounds like a synonym for discretion. If so, I like the word discretion a lot better. And I see no contradiction between an individual group member exercising discretion, or even lobbying for discretion in others, and the Sunshine Policy. Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the policy? As far as I can tell it only insures that all positive plays that are reported to vpFREE be recorded in the database and are open for discussion. Is not the alternative to this some form of top down censorship? And I am not sure how this policy insures that these extremely positive opportunities are "shouted loudly and clearly" Has there been an increase in the cover of these plays being blown since the policy has been in effect? I know I have seen lucrative plays being made public prior to the policy.
Do you want to put an administrator in the position
> of deciding who is worthy of censored information rather than
making it
> available to any that are interested?Yes. Every time I learn of a good play I make that decision.
And in your position as an individual this is as it should be. Would you not agree an administrator, and the information that he receives with the purpose of informing the vpFREE membership, is in a somewhat different position?
Of course, Tom is quite capable of making agreements to keep plays
out of public view. If I tell him I have some information, but that
I will only give it to him if he will keep quiet, I am sure he
will either decline to know or will accept my terms.
And again, as long as that information is not submitted for dissemination on vpFREE, I am not sure that I see an abrogation of the Sunshine Policy even here. Am I misinterpreting?
At 04:41 AM 12/29/2003, you wrote:
Exactly right on all counts. Do you find it amusing or frustrating
that there are so many nonpros that consistently speculate about
pros, what they think and how they work, and they're always wrong.
Like you, I've experienced enough great plays that became ex-plays
once they were posted that your simple statement that once a play
gets out it dies is obvious.
If you're a nonpro and you think you know, or your a recreational
player and you like to speculate about how pros must think, and what
invariably happens when word of a great play gets out, reread
Quadzilla's post very carefully, because things are exactly as he
describes them. And believe me, if you think that publicizing great
plays somehow helps prolong them, that idea is absurd to those of us
that consistently make money at this year after year.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "quadzilla_666" <quadzilla666@e...>
wrote:
> I've been intending to invite some discussion of vpFREE's
> SUNSHINE POLICY, so I'm glad that lwluiki has reopened the
> topic.
>OK. You asked for it....
> ****************
>
> "SUNSHINE POLICY: It is vpFREE's policy to share ALL known
> positive VP plays with the membership, and to record the
> information in the DataBase."
>
> ****************
>
> Here's some of my thoughts on reporting "good plays":
>
> I admire video poker pros (and serious recreational players)
> and wish them well, but I believe they are very
> short-sighted when they try to hide good play situations.
> Attempting to hide a play risks having it die because of
> inactivity or unwise play by the discoverers, without ever
> having tested its viability in a wider market.I know you are a friend, but I have always called them like I see
them and so I have to say this is just plain stupid. The danger of
losing a good play due to inactivity is nominal compared to the
danger of losing one when it gets overplayed. I have heard of and
even played a couple plays that lasted precisely because they were
not well known. If they were well known they would have been
killed
quickly. This idea of testing on an open market more or less
works
for a play like the Orleans FPDW used to be, but otherwise it is
nonsense. A bank or 2 of a very good game will just get dominated
by the pros. This "wider market" you speak of is US, the people
who
knww what we are doing.
Just what is a "good play" for the purposes of this discussion is
somewhat arbirarty. Certainly a fast $1 FPDW with 0.5% cashback
would be plenty strong to qualify as a "good play" that I would
suggest be kept quiet. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume
that $25/hour is the magic cutoff. Although in the current VP
situation, maybe that number should be lowered to $20/hour for
quarter games.Let's look further.
Any pro who would post a "good play" is a F***ing Moron for the
reasons I have given above. And not surprisingly, most pros I have
spoken to feel the same way. However, not all posters are pros.
Some of them may not even play much or even be locals. They don't
fall under that harsh assessment. However, I still have lots of
reasons to think they should shut the hell up.As mentioned above, once word gets out, the game dies. It really
is
that simple nowadays. If left alone and with some seats for
unskilled play, a good game can provide a lot more hands to those
who know what they are doing. The posting of such plays also has
the effect of arbitrarily giving a benefit to many at the expense
of
those who took the time and made the effort to find the game on
their own. It's not like anyone literlly "hides" a play. Quite
simply, "good plays" last longer, sometimes MUCH longer, if they
are
not advertised.
Posting these "good plays" robs Peter to pay Paul and Paul doesn't
even get as much out of the deal as Peter loses. Not good.I have also noticed a level of contempt for pros (though not from
Tom) on this list. We are perceived as 'vultures' and somehow
scummy. So I guess if a play is killed and that hurts us, that
really doesn't matter. However, if viewed from our perspective, it
is very different. Suppose I came to your job and messed with your
ability to make a living just for shits and grins because it
somehow
amuses me or I think that I am doing some people a favor?
I know.... It's a free country and all that. I know that people
will do what they will do. I just want them to know that there may
be some aspects of these things that they are not considering.
Maybe they won't be so eager to be a do-gooder if they realize that
they are doing more harm than good.> IMO, we should primarily be interested in promoting and
> preserving good video poker situations that can survive
> and prosper in an open market environment.On this I agree. Promtiong decent games, such as what is about to
become extinct at the Fiesta and Station properties is a good idea.
I am only talking about plays that will get devastated once they
are
widely known.
QZ
