Stayed at the Palazzo last week and saw a young guy playing $1 JOB on
two machines. He played for about 15 hours and did not eat and I assume
he only took bathroom breaks. Now this was not a positve play so i do
not know what he was doing other than feeding the machine several Bens
during this marathon. I did interupt him once for him to say that he
was going at a speed of 2000 hands per hour which i believe because I
timed him myself on a very small sample. It was quite amazing (although
not to some who visit this forum) to watch both hands move at a mind
numbing pace and only the eyes and head moved to make the hold
decision. I have seen people play two machines before but not at this
pace. Curious to anyone who can shed some light as to what the
motivations of someone of this ability would be playing a negative play
as this. Why not play $2 JOB or higher for much less time?
2000 hands per hour at Palazzo
upside1581 wrote:
Stayed at the Palazzo last week and saw a young guy playing $1 JOB on
two machines. He played for about 15 hours and did not eat and I
assume he only took bathroom breaks. Curious to anyone who can shed
some light as to what the motivations of someone of this ability would
be playing a negative play as this. Why not play $2 JOB or higher for
much less time?
I'd guess that something more than the need for a sanity check-up is
involved but, in this game, you never know.
- H.
. Curious to anyone who can shed some light as to what the
motivations of someone of this ability would be playing a negative
play
as this. Why not play $2 JOB or higher for much less time?
If he's playing at 1000 hands/machine/per (assuming correct stategy),
I'm willing to assume he knows what's he's doing. As such, my guess
is that this was not, at least in his mind, a negative play.
He could have been playing for comps,either future offers, or
something specific awarded on that trip. Hell, maybe the machines
were awarding more points than they should and maybe this was true
for only $1 denom.
"Plays" are not always as clear cut as subtracting freeplay (or
cashback) earned from playing from the exepcted house take on the
play.
Did you ask if he was playing on HIS card on each of the machines?
Perhaps they were not both HIS,maybe his and his wife's card.
If he's playing for comps/offers, it would make sense to try to get
them on mulitple accounts. Why get just one gift card when your wife
can get one too?
Hell, if I could play two machines at 1000 hands/machine/hr, my wife,
who up to now is known as a low volume nickle slot player, would
become the newest VP player at every casino we visited.
I imagine he appreciated that.
···
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:42 PM, upside1581 <bradritt@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I did interupt him once for him to say that he
was going at a speed of 2000 hands per hour which i believe because I
timed him myself on a very small sample.
The forum seems to be having fits and died when i first posted this.
Sorry if it shows up twice...
Nothing of real interest here. The reasons I was playing like that
are:
1. I've never played at the Venetian/Palazzo before so I just wanted
to squeeze in a bunch of coin-in before the end of the month to see
what their mailers are like come April.
2. I have a bunch of company coming throughout the month of March
and the Palazzo is running a promo (until the end of the month) that
lets you get a suite for every 3000 points you spend. I was told
that you can do this as often as you like; I might test them on this
policy. I figure it would be nice to set everyone up at a newer
joint. I felt that alone was worth the roughly $45 I expect to lose
per 3000 points (since it was my first day I was getting 1 point for
$3 instead of the better rates for gold and platinum) plus I'll
receive whatever mailers/offers/bounceback come in April.
3. I was playing $1 single-line because that is all my bankroll
allows. I guess I could swing $1 3-play, but in general I wanted to
play whichever 9/6 they have with the absolute smallest financial
swings. My bankroll is much happier with 2000 hands at $1 than 1000
hands at $2.
4. I was playing as long as I was because I can get pretty
stubborn. As long as I'm not making mistakes (or at least not making
too many mistakes because they obviously will happen every now and
then) I figure I might as well keep playing until I pop a royal or
lose what I came with. If I have the ability to play over a cycle in
one session, why not? I know there is no difference if I play now or
later (actually this isn't completely true. If I am making more
mistakes because I have been playing for so long, that would have an
impact so I keep vigilant of that. Also, I am playing slower after
12 hours or so, so technically that has an impact in regards to time
spent). But for me at least, there is a certain psychological
benefit from posting less losing sessions on my log. Also, I think I
get some sort of strange masochistic satisfaction from playing
marathon sessions without food, water, or bathroom breaks. I am not
completely averse to taking bathroom breaks, but as was the case on
the day you saw me, often I'll go the whole session without one
(which is probably why I don't drink water while playing either).
Actually, when I was in college, I used to be a member of a martial
arts group that had insanely difficult practices and regularly beat
the heck out of each other during our full contact sparring. I used
to get a very similar satisfaction from the broken bones and
inability to walk normally, if at all, for a few days. Some weird
part of me reveled in the fact that very, very few people could push
themselves this hard (of course I realize that very, very few are
crazy enough to want to try). I was also always amazed that no
matter what happened (broken rib, liver shot, etc...) there was
always a well that you could go to dig up that extra push. To this
day, I haven't hit a wall I couldn't break through (figuratively
speaking of course). Similarly, with VP, not only can very few
people play at that speed, but even fewer could maintain that speed
after it becomes excruciatingly painful. The mental fortitude it
takes to push yourself futher one step at a time through exhaustion
and pain is something I enjoy honing and testing. I was probably the
head of some ascetic monastic sect in a past life 
BTW I did
finally pop a royal after a little over 32K hands (just shy of the 16-
hour mark).
If you ever see me again and have questions feel free to ask. I'm a
pretty friendly guy (despite my obvious psychological problems, lol)
and could probably use the "break" anyway. Oddly enough, even though
i do tend to make more mistakes when I know people are watching, this
is lessened if I am talking to them. I guess it puts me more at
ease, alleviating the "performance anxiety" (just another of my
obviously MANY neuroses).
Sorry that my reasons for playing weren't more interesting or juicy.
Stayed at the Palazzo last week and saw a young guy playing $1 JOB
on
two machines. He played for about 15 hours and did not eat and I
assume
he only took bathroom breaks. Now this was not a positve play so i
do
not know what he was doing other than feeding the machine several
Bens
during this marathon. I did interupt him once for him to say that
he
was going at a speed of 2000 hands per hour which i believe because
I
timed him myself on a very small sample. It was quite amazing
(although
not to some who visit this forum) to watch both hands move at a
mind
numbing pace and only the eyes and head moved to make the hold
decision. I have seen people play two machines before but not at
this
pace. Curious to anyone who can shed some light as to what the
motivations of someone of this ability would be playing a negative
play
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "upside1581" <bradritt@...> wrote:
as this. Why not play $2 JOB or higher for much less time?
Forgot to mention...
I've commented before that playing at this speed was possible, and
plenty of people jumped on me saying it was an obvious lie. I didn't
send that last post to start that whole debate again. I was just
replying to some questions upside1581 had about my playing. Because
I noticed a few people speculating on my reasons for playing, I
posted to the entire group instead of sending upside1581 a private e-
mail. Personally I don't care if you believe playing 2000+ hands per
hour is possible or not, and I have no interest nor see any point in
trying to convince any non-believers. So please feel free to call me
a liar if you feel so inclined, but know that I won't be responding
to any posts along those lines. It's not that I'm ignoring you, I
just don't see any point.
The forum seems to be having fits and died when i first posted
this.
Sorry if it shows up twice...
Nothing of real interest here. The reasons I was playing like that
are:1. I've never played at the Venetian/Palazzo before so I just
wanted
to squeeze in a bunch of coin-in before the end of the month to see
what their mailers are like come April.2. I have a bunch of company coming throughout the month of March
and the Palazzo is running a promo (until the end of the month)
that
lets you get a suite for every 3000 points you spend. I was told
that you can do this as often as you like; I might test them on
this
policy. I figure it would be nice to set everyone up at a newer
joint. I felt that alone was worth the roughly $45 I expect to
lose
per 3000 points (since it was my first day I was getting 1 point
for
$3 instead of the better rates for gold and platinum) plus I'll
receive whatever mailers/offers/bounceback come in April.3. I was playing $1 single-line because that is all my bankroll
allows. I guess I could swing $1 3-play, but in general I wanted
to
play whichever 9/6 they have with the absolute smallest financial
swings. My bankroll is much happier with 2000 hands at $1 than
1000
hands at $2.
4. I was playing as long as I was because I can get pretty
stubborn. As long as I'm not making mistakes (or at least not
making
too many mistakes because they obviously will happen every now and
then) I figure I might as well keep playing until I pop a royal or
lose what I came with. If I have the ability to play over a cycle
in
one session, why not? I know there is no difference if I play now
or
later (actually this isn't completely true. If I am making more
mistakes because I have been playing for so long, that would have
an
impact so I keep vigilant of that. Also, I am playing slower after
12 hours or so, so technically that has an impact in regards to
time
spent). But for me at least, there is a certain psychological
benefit from posting less losing sessions on my log. Also, I think
I
get some sort of strange masochistic satisfaction from playing
marathon sessions without food, water, or bathroom breaks. I am
not
completely averse to taking bathroom breaks, but as was the case on
the day you saw me, often I'll go the whole session without one
(which is probably why I don't drink water while playing either).
Actually, when I was in college, I used to be a member of a martial
arts group that had insanely difficult practices and regularly beat
the heck out of each other during our full contact sparring. I
used
to get a very similar satisfaction from the broken bones and
inability to walk normally, if at all, for a few days. Some weird
part of me reveled in the fact that very, very few people could
push
themselves this hard (of course I realize that very, very few are
crazy enough to want to try). I was also always amazed that no
matter what happened (broken rib, liver shot, etc...) there was
always a well that you could go to dig up that extra push. To this
day, I haven't hit a wall I couldn't break through (figuratively
speaking of course). Similarly, with VP, not only can very few
people play at that speed, but even fewer could maintain that speed
after it becomes excruciatingly painful. The mental fortitude it
takes to push yourself futher one step at a time through exhaustion
and pain is something I enjoy honing and testing. I was probably
the
head of some ascetic monastic sect in a past life
finally pop a royal after a little over 32K hands (just shy of the
16-
hour mark).
If you ever see me again and have questions feel free to ask. I'm
a
pretty friendly guy (despite my obvious psychological problems,
lol)
and could probably use the "break" anyway. Oddly enough, even
though
i do tend to make more mistakes when I know people are watching,
this
is lessened if I am talking to them. I guess it puts me more at
ease, alleviating the "performance anxiety" (just another of my
obviously MANY neuroses).Sorry that my reasons for playing weren't more interesting or juicy.
>
> Stayed at the Palazzo last week and saw a young guy playing $1
JOB
on
> two machines. He played for about 15 hours and did not eat and I
assume
> he only took bathroom breaks. Now this was not a positve play so
i
do
> not know what he was doing other than feeding the machine several
Bens
> during this marathon. I did interupt him once for him to say that
he
> was going at a speed of 2000 hands per hour which i believe
because
I
> timed him myself on a very small sample. It was quite amazing
(although
> not to some who visit this forum) to watch both hands move at a
mind
> numbing pace and only the eyes and head moved to make the hold
> decision. I have seen people play two machines before but not at
this
> pace. Curious to anyone who can shed some light as to what the
> motivations of someone of this ability would be playing a
negative
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "upside1581" <bradritt@> wrote:
play
> as this. Why not play $2 JOB or higher for much less time?
>
Forgot to mention...
I've commented before that playing at this speed was possible, and
plenty of people jumped on me saying it was an obvious lie. I
didn't
send that last post to start that whole debate again. I was just
replying to some questions upside1581 had about my playing.
Because
I noticed a few people speculating on my reasons for playing, I
posted to the entire group instead of sending upside1581 a private
e-
mail. Personally I don't care if you believe playing 2000+ hands
per
hour is possible or not, and I have no interest nor see any point
in
trying to convince any non-believers. So please feel free to call
me
a liar if you feel so inclined, but know that I won't be responding
to any posts along those lines. It's not that I'm ignoring you, I
just don't see any point.
I was hoping that you might peruse this board and explain your
motivations. I went back and read the thread on doing 2000 hands a
hour and I may of missed the part of doing two machines at once. I
think the doubters were thinking of only playing one machine.
Anyway, I felt little hesitant asking you a quick question when we
were both at the Pallazo. I had no idea how you would respond after
disrupting your concentration. It was a relief that you could have
not been more pleasant. I am happy to hear that you got the royal
that probably put you in the black for the session.
Thanks for responding.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
I was hoping that you might peruse this board and explain your
motivations. I went back and read the thread on doing 2000 hands a
hour and I may of missed the part of doing two machines at once. I
think the doubters were thinking of only playing one machine.
I purposefully never mentioned playing two machines on that thread
because I've seen people that play two machines get vilified on this
board before. I just didn't want to open THAT can of worms again by
mentioning playing two machines. Of course, I also never explicitly
said that it could be done on one machine as I've personally never
found a machine fast enough. I just mentioned that a single person
could do that rate and left it up to the reader to think a little out
of the box to figure out how. Again, that was only because I felt no
need to rekindle an old argument which I would just likely get flamed
for anyway.
Anyway, I felt little hesitant asking you a quick question when we
were both at the Pallazo. I had no idea how you would respond after
disrupting your concentration. It was a relief that you could have
not been more pleasant.
Again, feel free to ask away if you see me again, even if it's to ask
for a machine if the bank is full. I am very amicable in giving up a
machine and will offer one up without even being asked if I can deduce
that someone wants to play but might be reluctant to ask. Of course,
it can be hard to tell the difference between someone who would like to
play and someone who is just watching me play because they haven't seen
anyone play that fast before. You'd be surprised how often I get on-
lookers. So it is always better to ask for a machine if you would like
to play. I'll give one up without hesitation, and the same can be said
for the few other people I personally know that play two machines.
I am happy to hear that you got the royal
that probably put you in the black for the session.
Thank you. It gave me a $500 profit for the session, which, while not
great for the time/effort, is certainly better than the $3500 loss I
was looking at before it came.
Thanks for responding.
No problem at all. Thank you for the kind words.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "upside1581" <bradritt@...> wrote:
pokegimp wrote:
I purposefully never mentioned playing two machines on that thread
because I've seen people that play two machines get vilified on this
board before. I just didn't want to open THAT can of worms again by
mentioning playing two machines. Of course, I also never explicitly
said that it could be done on one machine as I've personally never
found a machine fast enough. I just mentioned that a single person
could do that rate and left it up to the reader to think a little out
of the box to figure out how.
Re the previous discussion, if you don't back up a claim with
necessary specifics to make it credible, you need to accept feedback
with the expectation that others won't find it credible. Looking for
someone to infer something not mentioned doesn't change that, even if
the inference seems a natural one.
Re playing two machines -- speaking only for myself, there are a
laundry list of negative implications that generally can be deemed to
outweigh any benefit. I don't believe I've commented on the topic
before here, but I grasp a basis for criticism.
Of course, for yourself, you can only be expected to weigh the value
of dual machine play against reasonably anticipated costs, yours and
spill over to others, and decide whether it's a reasonable act. If
you've made an intelligent, informed decision (that weighs all true
implications), you really can't be faulted (even if some don't like
the decision).
But, of course, as I indicate here, I don't find that it would be a
prudent choice for anyone other than under the most exceptional of
circumstances. (It's a non-pertinent question when it comes to my
casual play expertise.)
Plus, while I have no way of assessing your skills, I find the keenest
of concentration is required to avoid errors that, in aggregate, have
a regrettable and inefficient cost (except, perhaps, under unusually
strong play value). To introduce the distractions 2-machine play
involves would, in my estimation, involve an inadvisable cost --
particularly under the circumstances you describe. However, it may be
that you are one of the most extraordinary players to be found.
- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
Re the previous discussion, if you don't back up a claim with
necessary specifics to make it credible, you need to accept feedback
with the expectation that others won't find it credible. Looking
for
someone to infer something not mentioned doesn't change that, even
if
the inference seems a natural one.
I absolutely agree, which is why I think everyone here would agree
that none of my replies to doubters were negative in tone. The only
replies I made were to clarify specific points (are we talking single-
line, impact of waiting on W2-Gs, etc...) that were brought up.
Because I never mentioned the use of two machines, I did expect doubt
and as such never took it personally or felt the need to react
defensively. Even my recent reference to that old thread wasn't
intended to be negative. It was just a statement that anyone who
posts a message calling me a liar shouldn't expect a response and
that they shouldn't take offense, thinking that I was ignoring them.
I apologize if it came across negatively. In re-reading it, I admit
it is a bit "clinical" in that it was just a cold, unemotional
statement of facts.
Re playing two machines -- speaking only for myself, there are a
laundry list of negative implications that generally can be deemed
to
outweigh any benefit. I don't believe I've commented on the topic
before here, but I grasp a basis for criticism.Of course, for yourself, you can only be expected to weigh the value
of dual machine play against reasonably anticipated costs, yours and
spill over to others, and decide whether it's a reasonable act. If
you've made an intelligent, informed decision (that weighs all true
implications), you really can't be faulted (even if some don't like
the decision).
I like the way you think I actually approach it in a similar way
and do not always play two machines depending on how things "add
up." If a paytable appears to be accidentally set I won't play two
machines simply because I don't want the casino to take notice and re-
examine the paytables to see why someone is playing two machines.
Also, I don't want to pull so much out a bank so quickly that it is
removed. I think it falls well into the category of "you can shear a
sheep many times but can only skin it once." In general, you will
only see me playing two machines on banks that have always been
there. The only exception to that was the 50-cent 17/10 loose deuces
last year at the Orleans. I initially was only playing one machine
at a time until I saw how heavily they were getting played, at which
point I felt that my playing two machines would not be any more
noticeable than the extremely heavy play they were getting anyway.
Obviously, with that heavy play, I usually wound up giving up a
machine soon after 7am anyway. Although I did find that I could play
two machines longer on the side facing the front doors that had such
bad glare that not many people wanted to play those machines.
Interestingly enough, the position you have to take to be able to
play two machines put you at such an angle that the glare wasn't
nearly as bad as it was for people sitting directly in front of a
machine, but I digress.
Even when I was playing the $1 FPDW at the Hard Rock, I only played
one machine for the first 6 or 7 weeks. Although it could be safely
assumed that they hadn't set the paytable accidentally (they had a
huge wooden sign proclaiming the 100%+ games right above the
machines), I certainly didn't want to make them think that these
machines were going to get pounded. After about 6 or 7 weeks (maybe
4 or 5, I don't entirely recall) of playing regularly and hardly
seeing anyone else play, I felt I could safely play two machines and
still expect them to be around for a while. Others might disagree
with my judgment, but the machines did last many months after I
started playing two machines. Ironically they were finally taken out
a couple days after I returned from a month in Thailand, so I don't
know how heavily they were being played immediately before removal.
But having not played them for the four weeks prior to their removal,
I feel that my play was not a significant contributor to their
disappearance. Again, others may disagree with my assessment.
I originally had written comments here about the possible negative
impact it might have on me personally if casinos were to make the
obvious assumption that I am an AP because I am playing two
machines. I chose to remove these comments so as not to tempt fate,
not knowing who is reading. But I feel I can safely say that not
everyone that plays two machines is necessarily an AP. I've seen
plenty of people play non-prog reel slots and video keno two machines
at a time and would add that there are probably "action junkies" that
do the same with video poker without even being aware of correct
strategy. Also, obviously people make more mistakes playing two
machines so a casino might even be happy that they could be turning a
positive expectancy game into a losing proposition.
But, of course, as I indicate here, I don't find that it would be a
prudent choice for anyone other than under the most exceptional of
circumstances. (It's a non-pertinent question when it comes to my
casual play expertise.)
Plus, while I have no way of assessing your skills, I find the
keenest
of concentration is required to avoid errors that, in aggregate,
have
a regrettable and inefficient cost (except, perhaps, under unusually
strong play value). To introduce the distractions 2-machine play
involves would, in my estimation, involve an inadvisable cost --
particularly under the circumstances you describe.
Again, I share your thought process, and as such only play two
machines when the strategy is easy and/or very familiar to me. As an
example, I don't often play JW2 and take longer to make decisions
(especially on those frequent 5-10 holds, having to weigh
penalties). So even though I'm sure I could squeeze out a few more
hands per hour playing two JW2 machines at once, I don't think that I
would get so many more hands that it would be worth the discomfort or
offset the additional errors.
In regards to impact of errors, I am positive that I make more errors
playing two machines than if I were only playing one. But,
empirically speaking, I'm sure that many people have found that the
increase in profit due to the increase in the number of hands is
significantly greater than the loss from any increase in errors. Of
course, I'm also sure that many other people have found the opposite
to be true.
In short, I've found it to be a good way to milk a better hourly
expectancy from the same common, not-that-great-of-a-play sort of
machines that everyone else plays. Others get their boons from
finding juicy mistakes; I get mine from playing faster. Admittedly,
I've only started actively scouting in the last 6 months or so, and
probably still don't really know what to look for, as I have only
found one or two of these. Again, in these cases I would only play
one machine at a time, but if it is as juicy as you are hoping to
find when scouting, you really only need to play one anyway.
However, it may be
that you are one of the most extraordinary players to be found.- Harry
Actually, it really is easier than it looks, and I think that most
anyone could do it well. Some people might require more practice
than others, but I truly don't believe that it is out of the reach of
the average player.
I've seen
plenty of people play non-prog reel slots and video keno two machines
at a time and would add that there are probably "action junkies" that
do the same with video poker without even being aware of correct
strategy.
I have seen a this myself, players on two machines with no clue as to
the correct strategy.
Actually, it really is easier than it looks, and I think that most
anyone could do it well. Some people might require more practice
than others, but I truly don't believe that it is out of the reach of
the average player.
Although I rarely play two machines I can vouch that it is not that
difficult. It only takes a couple minutes to get into a nice rhythm. As
for lasting more than a few minutes ... not something I'd enjoy 
Dick
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
pokegimp wrote:
Actually, it really is easier than it looks, and I think that most
anyone could do it well. Some people might require more practice
than others, but I truly don't believe that it is out of the reach of
the average player.
I have sizable doubts about that claim.
I consider myself among the more deliberate and careful of players.
However, sudden conversation behind me, or any other number of
distractions typically cause me to make a significant mistake once
every couple of hours. Plus, if I'm honest, I have to admit to there
being errors due to distraction with which I'm entirely unconscious.
When I contemplate even the best of players cranking along at 2000
hph, making 10,000+ hand movements each hour (and not even factoring
the awkwardness of playing a machine that isn't sitting directly in
front of them), I can't help but imagine that the stunt costs any less
than .1%-.2% at minimum.
Simply dropping a card from a paying pair, or two pair, or any number
of basic misholds once an hour is sufficient, not to mention missing a
hold entirely until after the Draw button is pressed -- let me guess
... I'm the only one that does that.
That calls for a characterization of something other than "easy". But
I agree with your separate statement -- if you have a good promotion,
the absolute hourly EV can compensate. But, dual machine play in
Palazzo? Again, maybe there's something more than you're letting on
to. (I have my doubts the suite promo will pan out as you hope.)
- H.
Although I rarely play two machines I can vouch that it is not that
difficult.
There was a woman that used to always be at the 4 queens, playing the
dollar db, one with her left hand and one with her right playing each
faster than I can play a single machine. She was totally focused and
I never saw anyone interupt her. We always enjoyed watching her play
but I haven't seen her on our last few visits. I never timed her so I
won't claim she played 2000 hph, but she couldn't have been far from
it.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
When I contemplate even the best of players cranking along at 2000
hph, making 10,000+ hand movements each hour (and not even factoring
the awkwardness of playing a machine that isn't sitting directly in
front of them), I can't help but imagine that the stunt costs any
less
than .1%-.2% at minimum.
I think that might be a reasonable estimate; however, I personally
disagree in considering that a minimum. Of course I don't have
any "test results" to support that. I can only estimate based on
noticed errors and results over time. But even that might not really
be indicative as I've only been doing this a few years. That may or
may not be a large enough sample size to base my judgment; I really
don't know.
But even if we use the .2% loss figure (which I think might be
slightly higher than my actual), if you average 1200 hands per hour
on one machine and 2000 on two, then the break even point regarding
your expected hourly profit requires a .5% edge. I think most would
agree that .5% is easy to find (at least at the denoms I play), and
of course any edge higher than .5% means that you are making more
playing two machines at .3% edge than you are making with one machine
at .5%.
An added benefit of playing significantly more hands per hour is that
you push a larger sample size sooner, thereby allowing you to expect
to reach the point of seeing the graph "flatten out" towards
expectancy sooner. And of course there is a psychological benefit of
getting to see jackpots and mini-jackpots sooner. Whether these
benefits outweigh the negatives mentioned earlier enough to push
someone towards playing two machines when they are at that .5% break
even point is a decision that would likely vary from person to
person. But I would think that finding any game with more than a .5%
edge would be a strong push towards playing two.
Simply dropping a card from a paying pair, or two pair, or any
number
of basic misholds once an hour is sufficient,
Actually I've found that very rarely happens (in the order of less
than once per session, which is pretty small if you're playing an
average of 20K hands per session). At least when I play two
machines, I am constantly paying attention to the "hold" markers.
Plenty of times mis-hits happen, and you stop yourself to correct
it. It is important to remember that you are not playing just to hit
some magic number of hands per hour at all costs. Anytime, you need
to stop and think about a hold or re-key a hold, you stop. The mis-
hits are probably the easiest of the errors to catch and prevent as
long as you're in the habit of always watching the "hold" markers.
not to mention missing a
hold entirely until after the Draw button is pressed -- let me guess
... I'm the only one that does that.
Those are the tough ones. And to make matters worse, I am open-
minded enough to say it's likely that the number of mistakes you make
and don't notice is greater than the number of the ones you catch,
but too late. Again, I can only say that playing two machines has
shown a significant increase in results for me. That may just be the
results of getting lucky since the transition. I couldn't tell you.
It may very well be the case that some time down the road, results
will seem to indicate that I am costing myself by playing two
machines. If that happens then I'll switch back to playing one
machine. But until I see a trend in results that lead me to believe
that I am making less playing two machines than my expectancy on one,
I'm going to side with what's been producing.
That calls for a characterization of something other than "easy".
But
I agree with your separate statement -- if you have a good
promotion,
the absolute hourly EV can compensate. But, dual machine play in
Palazzo?
LOL, that was actually just a one-day affair for the aforementioned
reasons. I have more than enough points for rooms for everyone from
that one session. Of course, if I find in April that the mailers
provide a large enough percentage boost, I will start playing there
regularly.
Again, maybe there's something more than you're letting on
to. (I have my doubts the suite promo will pan out as you hope.)
Sadly, I too think that despite them saying that I could get an
unlimited number of rooms, there is a good chance that they won't let
me do it as often as I am planning. Like with the mailers, only time
will tell.
"The only exception to that was the 50-cent 17/10 loose deuces
last year at the Orleans. I initially was only playing one machine
at a time until I saw how heavily they were getting played, at which
point I felt that my playing two machines would not be any more
noticeable than the extremely heavy play they were getting anyway."
I usually only go to Vegas once a year and I think our paths have
crossed recently twice. I played those machines hard for two days. I
briefly started to sit at the bank near the entrance and i saw you
playing two machines. I think you have gotten a hair cut since
then.lol
Since I am a casual player i didn't want the W2-Gs for hitting the
deuces so I played the regular deuces at 50 cents instead and then
proceeded to hit the royal for a W2-g (I know, we should all have
these kind of problems). The mystery about that play was not whether
or not the Olreans was going to kill it, but why they did it in the
first place.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
LOL Yes, my hair is considerably shorter now.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "upside1581" <bradritt@...> wrote:
I usually only go to Vegas once a year and I think our paths have
crossed recently twice. I played those machines hard for two days. I
briefly started to sit at the bank near the entrance and i saw you
playing two machines. I think you have gotten a hair cut since
then.lol
But even if we use the .2% loss figure (which I think might be
slightly higher than my actual), if you average 1200 hands per hour
on one machine and 2000 on two, then the break even point regarding
your expected hourly profit requires a .5% edge. I think most
would
agree that .5% is easy to find (at least at the denoms I play), and
of course any edge higher than .5% means that you are making more
playing two machines at .3% edge than you are making with one
machine
at .5%.
Oops, that was supposed to be:
and of course any edge higher than .5% means that you are making more
playing two machines at .3% + x edge than you are making with one
machine at .5% + x.
I think everyone would have been able to figure that out, but just in
case, I thought I'd correct it so as not to confuse anyone.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
There was a woman that used to always be at
the 4 queens, playing the dollar db, one with
her left hand and one with her right playing
each faster than I can play a single machine.
She was totally focused and I never saw anyone
interupt her. We always enjoyed watching her
play but I haven't seen her on our last few
visits. I never timed her so I won't claim
she played 2000 hph, but she couldn't have been
far from it.
I saw her last week pan-handling change on
Fremont street.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@...>
wrote:
I saw her last week pan-handling change on
Fremont street.
Most players tying up 2 machines play so slow I don't get the point of
it.