vpFREE2 Forums

A Continuation of Dicky's Education.

I'm off for a morning ride on my Harley right now. But to keep Dicky
occupied (which he desparately needs when not near a video poker
machine) I'm posting this week's Gaming Today column for those
unfortunate enough not to be able to get one on Tuesday mornings.
Here ya go, RG!-----------------------------------------

By Teaching A Friend How To Play Video Poker Intelligently
By Rob Singer 09-20-05

Most people get involved with the game of video poker with little
knowledge of what they are doing or why. That's how I started out.
A `short' roll of quarters, a quick first-time visit to Las Vegas and
the Gold Coast, and a lucky hit of a Royal Flush after a `concerned'
cocktail waitress suggested I play 5 coins per hand instead of the
one or two that I was.

A thousand dollars seems like a lot of money when it just `happens'
like that. But I soon realized that compared to what I was making in
corporate America, it wasn't really that much at all. I'm sure that's
the reason I set aside so much money over the next 6-years-plus to
play the game that made it all seem so very easy. The problem is, the
few weeks after that deceiving Royal was the only time over the
following 6 years that I was ever ahead! The casinos had me right
where they wanted me, and I was taken in by the game just as easily
as every regular player of video poker ever is.

One thing I did that I thought was right, however, was to learn the
mathematics of the game as well as anyone could. And that's exactly
how I approached my play over these years of losing. I studied the
correct holds, I practiced for hours each week while traveling the
globe, and when I returned home I went straight to Nevada, confident
in my new found ability to withdraw money "at will" from any casino
that had the games I learned to play. After all, anything over 100%
meant I would win, right?

So goes easy money. All the people who sold me a bill of goods about
the game and it's `perfect-play/long-term strategy fantasy' never
seemed to take the time to tell me that it does not work without
extreme and consistent good luck at the machines. I took them at
their marketing-best-word, and I fell into the trap hook, line and
sinker. They made money off of me while I was merely a link in the
chain of those helping them keep gambling money in their pockets. Now
I knew the real truth about whether they won or lost.

Yet that system was sold to me as THE INTELLIGENT WAY TO PLAY, but I
should have known better. Video poker is a game in which one DOES NOT
win on a consistent basis if the player chooses to sit for long hours
as often as possible at the machines, while playing as perfectly as
they possibly can. It was then that I learned the only party that
truly holds the long-term video poker advantage over the other is the
casinos.

But that was then and this is now. Time marches on and time makes us
all the wiser for it. I've had nearly 9 years of consistent success
playing the game since then, and it's all because I combined the
ingredient of knowing the optimal plays with the just-as-important-
ingredient of knowing when to deviate from expert strategy in order
to experience the best chance at short-term gain. Along with pre-set
goals, a proper bankroll, and the discipline to make it all work,
I've found there is not other way to beat the game other than to go
about it with a short-term strategy such as this.

I've had my differences with certain people about what the most
profitable way to play the game is over the years. Most of the time
it's with people who don't really matter in the overall scheme of
things. But I do take a special interest in when any of those whom
I've made friends with during my life come to me and want to learn to
be successful playing video poker too.

No doubt that's a double-edged sword. A few years ago I wrote right
here in this column about how a friend of mine from Australia was in
debt far over his head – regardless of his 6-figure income – only
because he played far too much video poker. He played in the States,
he played Down Under, and he played on cruise ships. He was basically
out of control, yet he always felt he SHOULD be winning because of
his brilliant mathematical abilities, his detailed knowledge of the
game as well as optimal strategy to along with his large bankroll.
His story did not end well.

That's why I was somewhat timid to teach the proper way to play the
game to a long time friend from my high school days who came to me
this past year for assistance. He had a medium sized bankroll, had
read about me on the Internet, and decided that being a professional
gambler was his calling. Thank God he came to me!

He came out here from New England and spent a week with us, and I in
turn trained him at both the Indian Casino in Scottsdale as well as
in Laughlin. He was adamant in that he only wanted to learn the
expert way to play, which to him was only optimal play. Although it
took several days to get him to see why that was the wrong approach,
he soon enthusiastically began going for the hands that would best
allow him to meet his win goal and cash out, and he no longer was a
slave to mathematical play only. He felt he was on a roll.

But video poker is such an unforgiving game, and for those who can't
stomach the swings then it's best for them to only play
recreationally and seldom. My friend was ahead almost $1500 in 6 days
of play, but during his last session where he was down $900, my
strategy required he play at the $5 level – which was his highest. He
got the familiar case of cold feet, asked if I would think he
chickened out if he took his $600 and went home, and I gave him my
blessing to go.

That's a lesson in true intelligent play. If you can't do what you
said you were going to do while gambling, quit. Take the profit (or
accept the loss) and go home immediately. Plans have to be followed
through on to attain success. People who go up in denomination after
a jackpot, feel the urge to quit but are compelled to stay out of
habit, or run to the ATM machines after getting wiped out have no
business playing video poker. To do so would be playing directly into
the hands of every casino manager ever born. Learn the smart way to
play. And remember it.

<<After all, anything over 100% meant I would win, right?>>

Lie. Apparently you didn't study the mathematics after all.

<<All the people who sold me a bill of goods about the game and it's
`perfect-play/long-term strategy fantasy' never seemed to take the time to
tell me that it does not work without extreme and consistent good luck at
the machines.>>

Lie. In fact it takes extreme BAD luck for an advantage player not to win
over the course of a few Royal cycles.

<<Video poker is a game in which one DOES NOT win on a consistent basis if
the player chooses to sit for long hours as often as possible at the
machines, while playing as perfectly as they possibly can.>>

Lie. Just the opposite is true, assuming you're playing a positive game.

<<I've had nearly 9 years of consistent success playing the game since then,
and it's all because I combined the ingredient of knowing the optimal plays
with the just-as-important- ingredient of knowing when to deviate from
expert strategy in order to experience the best chance at short-term gain.>>

Lie.

<< Along with pre-set goals, a proper bankroll, and the discipline to make
it all work, I've found there is not other way to beat the game other than
to go about it with a short-term strategy such as this.>>

Lie.

<<A few years ago I wrote right here in this column about how a friend of
mine from Australia was in debt far over his head - regardless of his
6-figure income - only because he played far too much video poker. He played
in the States, he played Down Under, and he played on cruise ships. He was
basically out of control, yet he always felt he SHOULD be winning because of
his brilliant mathematical abilities, his detailed knowledge of the game as
well as optimal strategy to along with his large bankroll. >>

Lie. Where is the positive video poker in Australia and on cruise ships that
you are claiming?

<<My friend was ahead almost $1500 in 6 days of play, but during his last
session where he was down $900, my strategy required he play at the $5 level
- which was his highest. He got the familiar case of cold feet, asked if I
would think he chickened out if he took his $600 and went home, and I gave
him my blessing to go.>>

You would have had him risk another $2000 on negative games to try to chase
the $900 loss, so there was at least a 31% chance he would have gone bust
before getting even.

<<Learn the smart way to play.>>

We eagerly await the first smart thing to issue from your keyboard.

Where's the $2 million you owe me?

Cogno

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

<<After all, anything over 100% meant I would win, right?>>

Lie. Apparently you didn't study the mathematics after all.

I hate to say this again, but whenever there's thickness there's a
need for it. HELLO McFLY! Anybody HOME in There??! It's a knock on
people like you and your 'phantom bucks' theory.

<<All the people who sold me a bill of goods about the game and it's
`perfect-play/long-term strategy fantasy' never seemed to take the
time to tell me that it does not work without extreme and consistent
good luck at the machines.

Lie. In fact it takes extreme BAD luck for an advantage player not
to win over the course of a few Royal cycles.

Where've YOU been. First of all you're wrong in your wording but
you're saying the same thing I am. And secondly, there's no such
thing as a "Royal cycle". That's baloney and you know it. A true
royal cycle is measurable only AFTER royals are hit, and no
theoretical nonsensical method of predicting when there SUPPOSE to
show up means a thing. It's all in your mind....if you still have one.

<<Video poker is a game in which one DOES NOT win on a consistent
basis ifthe player chooses to sit for long hours as often as
possible at themachines, while playing as perfectly as they possibly
can.

Lie. Just the opposite is true, assuming you're playing a positive

game.

I see this article was written for the benefit of people like you!
It's OK, you may thank me later.

<<I've had nearly 9 years of consistent success playing the game

since then,and it's all because I combined the ingredient of knowing
the optimal playswith the just-as-important- ingredient of knowing
when to deviate fromexpert strategy in order to experience the best

chance at short-term gain.

Lie.

No the jealousy shows. I love it!

Lie. Where is the positive video poker in Australia and on cruise
ships thatyou are claiming?

Adelaide had 9/6/100 JB with cash back and comps, and so did
Canberra. Probably many more. Cruise ships? Ha! That's where the
addiction comes into play. Ask Jean Scott & Bob Dancer how they
create positive games out of negative ones on their sponsored cruises
and use that formula. Then become enlightened and see why I expose
them all the time.

<<My friend was ahead almost $1500 in 6 days of play, but during

his last

session where he was down $900, my strategy required he play at the

$5 level

- which was his highest. He got the familiar case of cold feet,

asked if I

would think he chickened out if he took his $600 and went home, and

I gave

him my blessing to go.>>

You would have had him risk another $2000 on negative games to try

to chase

the $900 loss, so there was at least a 31% chance he would have

gone bust

before getting even.

That's right. Now you're getting it.

Where's the $million you owe me?

<<All the people who sold me a bill of goods about the game and it's
`perfect-play/long-term strategy fantasy' never seemed to take the time
to tell me that it does not work without extreme and consistent good
luck at the machines.

Lie. In fact it takes extreme BAD luck for an advantage player not to
win over the course of a few Royal cycles.

<<Where've YOU been. First of all you're wrong in your wording but you're
saying the same thing I am. And secondly, there's no such thing as a "Royal
cycle". That's baloney and you know it. A true royal cycle is measurable
only AFTER royals are hit, and no theoretical nonsensical method of
predicting when there SUPPOSE to show up means a thing.>>

My truth is the opposite of your lie. You say it takes extreme good luck to
beat a positive game over the course of a few hundred thousand hands. I'm
saying it takes extreme bad luck not to beat it. The two statements couldn't
be more different.

I will be happy to bet you $100,000 at even money that I or my agent will
hit a Royal Flush within 100,000 hands playing the $1 9/6/400 at full coin
at the Wynn Resort. You or your agent may observe. The money must be held by
a trusted third party before the play starts.

Since you say there's no theoretical nonsensical method of predicting, would
you take this bet?

<<Adelaide had 9/6/100 JB with cash back and comps, and so did
Canberra. Probably many more. Cruise ships? Ha! That's where the
addiction comes into play.>>

So you did lie when you said he played good mathematical strategy on cruise
ships.

9/6/100 JB is a 98.36% game. So you're saying Adelaide had cashback of 1.64%
or better? What kind of comps are you talking about? Unless they can be
converted to cash, it's not positive.

<< Ask Jean Scott & Bob Dancer how they
create positive games out of negative ones on their sponsored cruises
and use that formula.>>

They both say the same thing: you cannot count comps unless they can be
converted to cash or they are for something you would have paid for anyway.
Yet you continue libeling them. I'm really surprised you haven't been sued
into bankruptcy long ago. Then again, their lawyers have probably
investigated and discovered you're broke.

You would have had him risk another $2000 on negative games to try

to chase

the $900 loss, so there was at least a 31% chance he would have

gone bust

before getting even.

<<That's right. Now you're getting it.>>

"I'm getting it?" But I've been saying all along that your system is the
road to ruin. What is it exactly that you think I'm "getting"?

Cogno

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

My truth is the opposite of your lie. You say it takes extreme good
luck to beat a positive game over the course of a few hundred
thousand hands. I'm saying it takes extreme bad luck not to beat it.
The two statements couldn't be more different.

If you have extreme good luck you will beat it. If you don't you
won't. The definition of 'don't' is the absence of good luck - which
is bad luck. We're looking at it two different ways, but it means the
same. You're too close to the word 'lie' to have an open mind here.
that makes me wonder even further.

I will be happy to bet you $100,000 at even money that I or my
agent will hit a Royal Flush within 100,000 hands playing the $1
9/6/400 at full coin at the Wynn Resort. You or your agent may
observe. The money must be held by a trusted third party before the
play starts.

I'm not sure why you're throwing a challenge out. I'd never bet that
because it's very possible to see a Royal in that amount of hands,
and you could also abandon optimal play to go for royals and no one
would know. What's the point?

Since you say there's no theoretical nonsensical method of
predicting, would you take this bet?

Again, what's the point?

<<Adelaide had 9/6/100 JB with cash back and comps, and so did
Canberra. Probably many more. Cruise ships? Ha! That's where the
addiction comes into play.>>

So you did lie when you said he played good mathematical strategy
on cruise ships.

Nope. As far as I know when I wasn't with him on some of the ships,
he stuck to his mathematical-best strategy.

9/6/100 JB is a 98.36% game. So you're saying Adelaide had cashback

of 1.64% or better? What kind of comps are you talking about? Unless
they can be converted to cash, it's not positive.

9/6/100 is almost exactly a 100% game. The SF is 100.

They both say the same thing: you cannot count comps unless they
can be converted to cash or they are for something you would have
paid for anyway.

That's a crock. I've never seen either write that or heard them speak
that.

Yet you continue libeling them. I'm really >surprised you haven't
been sued into bankruptcy long ago. Then >again, their lawyers have
probably investigated and discovered >you're broke.

Sounds a bit biased, don't you think? You worry about it, I'll relax
some more.

You would have had him risk another $2000 on negative games to try
to chase the $900 loss, so there was at least a 31% chance he would
have gone bust before getting even.

"I'm getting it?" But I've been saying all along that your system
is the road to ruin. What is it exactly that you think I'm "getting"?

The procedure, Einstein. And there's virtually no difference if the
game is 99% or 100% for 400 credits. Again, you insist on applying
long-term theory to short-term play. Stop lying to yourself.

My truth is the opposite of your lie. You say it takes extreme good
luck to beat a positive game over the course of a few hundred thousand
hands. I'm saying it takes extreme bad luck not to beat it.
The two statements couldn't be more different.

<<If you have extreme good luck you will beat it. If you don't you won't.
The definition of 'don't' is the absence of good luck - which is bad luck.
We're looking at it two different ways, but it means the same.>>

Lie. If you don't understand the difference between "having extreme good
luck" and "not having extreme bad luck" you're stupider than anyone thought.
It doesn't mean anything close to the same. One is less than 1% to happen
and the other is better than 99%.

I will be happy to bet you $100,000 at even money that I or my agent
will hit a Royal Flush within 100,000 hands playing the $1 9/6/400 at
full coin at the Wynn Resort. You or your agent may observe. The money
must be held by a trusted third party before the play starts.

<<I'm not sure why you're throwing a challenge out.>>

To demonstrate that you are a liar and a fraud.

<<I'd never bet that because it's very possible to see a Royal in that
amount of hands, and you could also abandon optimal play to go for royals
and no one would know. What's the point?>>

To demonstrate that you won't put your money where your mouth is, because
you are a liar and a fraud. What does "very possible" mean? Oh! You're
saying there's a mathematical theory by which I can predict the likelihood
of a Royal? What about all those lies you told before?

So you did lie when you said he played good mathematical strategy on
cruise ships.

<<Nope. As far as I know when I wasn't with him on some of the ships, he
stuck to his mathematical-best strategy.>>

The mathematically optimal strategy for playing a negative game is easy.
Don't play.

<<9/6/100 is almost exactly a 100% game. The SF is 100.>>

Hey! You've posted some potentially useful information! Thanks.

Do you know what denomination these are, whether they are Nevada-style
fair-dealing machines, and what the cashback is?

They both say the same thing: you cannot count comps unless they can
be converted to cash or they are for something you would have paid for
anyway.

<<That's a crock. I've never seen either write that or heard them speak
that.>>

Don't know what to tell you there, bucko. You're the only one.

You would have had him risk another $2000 on negative games to try to
chase the $900 loss, so there was at least a 31% chance he would have
gone bust before getting even.

"I'm getting it?" But I've been saying all along that your system is
the road to ruin. What is it exactly that you think I'm "getting"?

<<The procedure, Einstein. And there's virtually no difference if the game
is 99% or 100% for 400 credits. Again, you insist on applying long-term
theory to short-term play. Stop lying to yourself.>>

Tell you what. Let's flip a coin. Heads, you pay me 100 bets, tails I pay
you 98 bets. This is a 99% game. I'll let you use your progression system
starting at $1 up to a maximum of $1000 (payouts are $98,000 or $100,000).
Again, we put up the money in advance. Short term, the payback doesn't
matter, right?

By the way, if you have the audacity to dispute that you lost both the $1
million and the $2 million bets, we need to take it to a judge, where you
will lose. Where's the $2 million you owe me?

Cogno

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

Lie. If you don't understand the difference between "having extreme

good

luck" and "not having extreme bad luck" you're stupider than anyone

thought.

It doesn't mean anything close to the same. One is less than 1% to

happen

and the other is better than 99%.

You truly are way out there somewhere. Waaaay out there.....

I will be happy to bet you $100,000 at even money that I or my agent
will hit a Royal Flush within 100,000 hands playing the $1 9/6/400 at
full coin at the Wynn Resort. You or your agent may observe. The

money

must be held by a trusted third party before the play starts.
To demonstrate that you won't put your money where your mouth is,

because

you are a liar and a fraud. What does "very possible" mean? Oh!

You're

saying there's a mathematical theory by which I can predict the

likelihood

of a Royal? What about all those lies you told before?

Congo's beating his make-believe drums again. No one cares what
theories say or don't say. Joe Blow could get a royal, and it has
nothing to do with theories. You live in a world of vp fantasy if you
believe half the nonsense you write.

The mathematically optimal strategy for playing a negative game is

easy.

Don't play.

That's because you're obsessed with all that nonsense you preach.
That dumb statement has zero meaning to a player who plays to win
every visit.

Do you know what denomination these are, whether they are Nevada-

style

fair-dealing machines, and what the cashback is?

25c/50c/$1 for now, fair deal, and cb of either .1 or .2%. I don't
follow that stuff because it's not important to me.

Tell you what. Let's flip a coin. Heads, you pay me 100 bets, tails

I pay

you 98 bets. This is a 99% game. I'll let you use your progression

system

starting at $1 up to a maximum of $1000 (payouts are $98,000 or

$100,000).

Again, we put up the money in advance. Short term, the payback

doesn't

matter, right?

Coin-flipping again. How about we bring in Flippy-The-Fish to do the
flipping?

By the way, if you have the audacity to dispute that you lost both

the $1

million and the $2 million bets, we need to take it to a judge,

where you

will lose. Where's the $2 million you owe me?

Let me see!....Let me see! Where's the chain? I want to yank it some
more!!

Wow, I seem to have scored a strike! Not one coherent response!

Re the Adelaide games, thank you for the useful information. I'm sure I'm
not alone in wishing you'd stick to that.

Cogno

···

-----Original Message-----
From: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FREEvpF…@…com] On
Behalf Of rsing1111
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 7:07 AM
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: A Continuation of Congo's Education.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti"
<cognoscienti@g...> wrote:

Lie. If you don't understand the difference between "having extreme

good

luck" and "not having extreme bad luck" you're stupider than anyone

thought.

It doesn't mean anything close to the same. One is less than 1% to

happen

and the other is better than 99%.

You truly are way out there somewhere. Waaaay out there.....

I will be happy to bet you $100,000 at even money that I or my agent
will hit a Royal Flush within 100,000 hands playing the $1 9/6/400 at
full coin at the Wynn Resort. You or your agent may observe. The

money

must be held by a trusted third party before the play starts.
To demonstrate that you won't put your money where your mouth is,

because

you are a liar and a fraud. What does "very possible" mean? Oh!

You're

saying there's a mathematical theory by which I can predict the

likelihood

of a Royal? What about all those lies you told before?

Congo's beating his make-believe drums again. No one cares what theories say
or don't say. Joe Blow could get a royal, and it has nothing to do with
theories. You live in a world of vp fantasy if you believe half the nonsense
you write.

The mathematically optimal strategy for playing a negative game is

easy.

Don't play.

That's because you're obsessed with all that nonsense you preach.
That dumb statement has zero meaning to a player who plays to win every
visit.

Do you know what denomination these are, whether they are Nevada-

style

fair-dealing machines, and what the cashback is?

25c/50c/$1 for now, fair deal, and cb of either .1 or .2%. I don't follow
that stuff because it's not important to me.

Tell you what. Let's flip a coin. Heads, you pay me 100 bets, tails

I pay

you 98 bets. This is a 99% game. I'll let you use your progression

system

starting at $1 up to a maximum of $1000 (payouts are $98,000 or

$100,000).

Again, we put up the money in advance. Short term, the payback

doesn't

matter, right?

Coin-flipping again. How about we bring in Flippy-The-Fish to do the
flipping?

By the way, if you have the audacity to dispute that you lost both

the $1

million and the $2 million bets, we need to take it to a judge,

where you

will lose. Where's the $2 million you owe me?

Let me see!....Let me see! Where's the chain? I want to yank it some more!!

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I guess from you're lazy reply that you're now fully Singer-Educated
and are ready to play to win for a change.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@g...>
wrote:

Wow, I seem to have scored a strike! Not one coherent response!

Re the Adelaide games, thank you for the useful information. I'm sure

I'm

···

not alone in wishing you'd stick to that.