vpFREE2 Forums

[acvpp] Old Grumpy Is Back

Steve said:

advise people who were thinking of moving here to

think twice about it!<<

Thanks to all for the replies on this important
thread. One clarification, when I said this subject
(gambling losses) was "taboo", I meant that it is a
subject people naturally do no want to dicuss not that
that moderator bans it.

When my wife and started playing VP a few years ago,
we couldn't wait to move to Las Vegas from So. Cal and
started looking into it. Luckily, the timing was not
right, because now we have totally discounted the
idea.

We found that VP is a fun hobby, but the losses can be
severe and it can become addictive. We do not want to
live too close to LV now.

I am having a hard time buying into the whole VP
advantage play theory on this board.I.E:

play as fast as possible
play as many hours of the days possible
NEVER play short coin
THEN if you live long enough and you do not go
bankrupt, you will break even.

A theory of my own (which will probably be poo-pooed
here) is that the newer VP machines while not "rigged"
may just be programed better to make the winning hands
harder to get. Technology does advance and IGT may
have advanced the RNG to make VP a more difficult
game. Probably a silly idea :slight_smile:

Good luck to all.

···

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

I am having a hard time buying into the whole VP
advantage play theory on this board.I.E:

play as fast as possible
play as many hours of the days possible
NEVER play short coin
THEN if you live long enough and you do not go
bankrupt, you will break even.

You're not alone in being skeptical of this "formula." While I don't believe that machines in modern mainstream casinos are gaffed (billion-dollar conglomerates can make money without cheating, and to risk losing licensing rights in NJ or Nevada over outright illegal activity is too costly a risk, IMHO) I do believe that the "gurus" dispensing this advice have more to gain in profit than sharing VP knowledge.

Witness the rise of things like Bob Dancer-branded VP machines on casino floors, and paid lectures at casinos by VP "experts", and the flood of books on the market spouting "advantage play". The coziness with the casinos of the proponents of "advantage play" is, I think, quite telling -- and the merchandising machine of making money off of sales to gamblers and casinos is certainly more of an "advantage play" than any VP machine you'll ever find.

You should also notice that the most vocal supporters of "other ways" are reviled and shouted down on this board -- if not banned outright.

I'm not going to get into the relative merits of "Max-EV" strategies -- play how you want. But like anything else that's being sold to you, I advise everyone to keep a healthy dose of skepticism and an open mind. The fact that someone writes a book on something or spouts a bunch of math or statistics at you does not mean that they are correct, or that what works for them will work for you.

The Hard Rock in Las Vegas offers 8/5 bonus with cash back and a
bounce back possibility based on your play. It can total 100%+

···

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:02:17 -0000, you wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:

sprinkled in is some $2 8/5 Bonus, 50-cent and $1 Multi-Strike, and
single-line $1 DB. All are 100%+ plays counting game and cash
benefits (CB,
bounceback, giftcards, etc.) - but not counting comps.

Are you referring to progressives when you include 8/5 bonus at 100%+
with cash back, if not which casino has 0.9%+ cash back.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Steve, it would be instructive to know how much vp
you and John are playing in terms of royal cycles or
hands played.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 15 Aug 2005 at 1:47, Steve Del Nero wrote:

I had a total of ONE royal in 2004

Maybe its the water. I haven't had a royal in 2004 or 2005 after hitting three in 2003. People keep telling me those are random numbers.

Just another case of the gambler's fallacy.

JBQ

···

On 8/14/05, ednar <ednar@kconline.com> wrote:

Too many
people think that if they have lets say, $7,000 that they will never run out
of money if they only play .25 FPDW. That is NOT necessarily the case. Many
people also seem to think that if the ROR for a game is $7,000 that after
they have lost $6,999 they are "due" to hit.

I do believe that the "gurus" dispensing this advice have more to
gain in profit than sharing VP knowledge.

So?

I judge commercial products on their accuracy and usefulness.
I certainly don't begrudge the authors or creators compensation
for their efforts.

You should also notice that the most vocal supporters of "other ways"
are reviled and shouted down on this board -- if not banned outright.

No one has ever been banned on vpFREE for heretical views,
and uncivil behavior isn't tolerated. I don't think there's much new
or undiscovered about video poker theory, but discussion of other
ways and alternative methods is always welcome and encouraged
on vpFREE - if done objectively and non-disruptively.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 15 Aug 2005 at 10:33, John Thomas wrote:

******************************************

DISCLAIMER

vpFREE is, and will always remain, a non-profit operation. Neither
vpFREE nor the vpFREE Administrator has any financial interest, direct
or indirect, in any commercial video poker related product or endeavor.

******************************************

Reports are more useful if they relate to number of
royal cycles or hands played.

Hope you get your share of royals in the future.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 15 Aug 2005 at 12:28, Preston Ilg wrote:

Maybe its the water. I haven't had a royal in 2004 or 2005 after
hitting three in 2003. People keep telling me those are random numbers.

Nor do I. However, I do question motivations when it's relevant to the product being sold.

For example, the cell phone company giving me a "free" cellphone is obviously doing so in an effort to get me to pay cell fees. That motivation is apparent, and so long as it's congruent with my interests -- then it's fine.

If someone's looking to sell me advice, I have to question whether that advice is worth the money, and whether they have my best interest in mind -- or at least, if their self-interest is aligned with mine.

Especially if it involves me potentially risking thousands of dollars of my hard-earned cash in reliance upon that advice.

If a person is giving me advice on VP, I'd certainly question the motives of the person doing so, if that person happens to be paid by casinos and/or gaming machine companies for supposedly giving me advice on how to, ultimately, minimize the profits of these entities.

Since casinos are not in business to lose money, and presumably would not be furthering their business interests by paying people to help them pay out more money -- that motivation is incongruous, and the advice-giver's motivation is not necessarily aligned with my interests.

It doesn't invalidate what the person is saying, necessarily -- it just makes me question it harder.

I don't begrudge anyone an honest living. All I'm saying is that people need to keep a healthy dose of skepticism available at all times, and make their own decisions. Which I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with.

In short -- I'm not going to place my bet on the craps table anywhere the stickman tells me to... because he's not looking out for me. :wink:

···

On 15 Aug 2005 at 10:33, John Thomas wrote:

> I do believe that the "gurus" dispensing this advice have more to
> gain in profit than sharing VP knowledge.

So?

I judge commercial products on their accuracy and usefulness.
I certainly don't begrudge the authors or creators compensation
for their efforts.

I just went back over my records and I realize I wasn't entirely accurate in my recent report. We HAVE had one losing year - 2002, with a small loss of about $15,000 not counting comps (which we haven't done for 10 or more years but we always have over $20,000). I'm not sure why I forgot this - unless we more than made up the loss in January of 2003 and I guess that wiped the loss figure from my memory. (Or I am having more senior moments.) I was reminded of it when I went back in my Frugal Fridays archives (which you can do anytime at http://lasvegasadvisor.com/frugalfridays-archive.cfm ). You might want to read the series of 3 columns on losing I wrote in 2003 on March 14, 21, 38. I gave the reasons WHY we lost that year and the same ones are even more pertinent today than in 2002.

Also I wrote some articles about losing in Strictly Slots that I reprint here periodically. I will put them in separate e-mails here again - I hope they will help some of you. They will also rebut the arguments of "the casinos are gaffing the machines" and "that long-term winning is an impossible dream." And they will repeat again what I say more and more now: IT ISN'T EASY!!!! We will have to work harder than we did a few years ago.

And one other thing: If we didn't hit the local bounce-back program hard, we would not be able to do what we are doing successfully now at the level we are playing. And even the quarter player needs to bolster up his edge with bounce-back!

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards.
  NEW - Blackjack Strategy Cards +
              Updated Second Edition of
             "The Frugal Gambler."

Help! Why Am I Losing At Video Poker?
Part 1 -- Doing Things Wrong and Losing
by Jean Scott

I try to use this column to help as many different kinds of gamblers as I can: serious or casual, slot players or video poker players. But this month I want to talk primarily to video poker enthusiasts -- although many slot players may find the information very enlightening.

First, here's a little background as to why I decided to write on this subject. For years, my e-mail Inbox has been flooded with cries for help from despairing video poker players who are in long losing streaks. And for years, I've tried to write helpful, encouraging words in my answering posts. But I'm going to be perfectly candid here: Looking back on all those email responses, I don't think I've done a very good job. I'm afraid I was condescending. I didn't mean to be, but my attitude was colored by the fact that Brad and I had seen 10 winning years at video poker. Sure, we experienced losing streaks -- for weeks and even several months on end. But when we added up our yearly log, the final figure was never red.

Then came the turn of the century, and Lady Luck must have decided not to escort us into the year 2000. We went several weeks without even a single winning session. And when we did come out ahead, it was only a small win. But when we lost, it was invariably a big loss. We might win three sessions straight -- then lose it all in session four. Month after discouraging month, for 11 long months we struggled, but it seemed we could never climb out of this dark hole.

NOW I can write an article on losing at video poker! Hopefully, I can be both helpful and sympathetic.

This turned out to be a longer discourse than I'd originally thought, so I'm dividing it into two parts. Next month, I plan to be more positive, talking about doing all the right things that will help you fight VP losing streaks. However, this month I must talk about the negative side -- what you're doing wrong that can cause you to lose.

You May Not Be Playing the Right Games

You protest, "But I'm playing video poker, not slots. Everyone knows you have a better chance to win on video poker!"

Not quite true! Yes, it's impossible to win over the long term on slot machines (unless you've studied the complicated subject of slot bonusing) - the machines have all been set at the factory to give the casino the mathematical edge. This edge may be large or small, but the result is the same. You CAN win one time -- or even have a long winning streak. But if you play long enough -- and, just as the sun sets in the west, no matter how many charlatans say otherwise -- you'll be a long-term loser playing the slots.

However, just playing any VP machine does not GUARANTEE that you can snatch the mathematical edge from the casino. If you've been reading this magazine for very long, you've been educated to the fact that there are many paytables for VP, but only a few will give you the chance to win in the long term. We call these positive-expectation machines.
And you'll need guidance to find them. No gambler, even those experienced in other games, can walk into a casino and choose a "good" game if he has never read anything on video poker. I wrote The Frugal Gambler for this very purpose -- to give the beginning gambler guidance in that maze called a casino. And one of the most important parts of this book is a list of resources for the gambler who wants to study to become a skillful VP player.

Remember, you can't beat the math. If you play negative-expectation VP machines, you can't win in the long run. Just like playing slot machines that are negative, it's possible to having a winning session, or even a series of winning days. But if you're interested in having something more dependable than just luck, you'll want to carefully choose plays that can give you a probable long-term result of over 100%.

You May Not Know the Correct Strategy

No VP machine can be played well with intuitive decisions only. Your years of live poker experience, rather than giving you a helping hand here, usually causes you to make many basic mistakes. Many people who play VP by the seat of their pants, especially at the dollar and above level, would be better off playing slot machines with advertised high payback percentages. You must have computer-derived strategy charts, whether you're a techie who can generate your own or you're computer-challenged (like me) and are grateful for printed strategy information and software help from math experts like Dancer, Paymar, Skip Hughes, and TomSki. [This was written before Jim Wolf's Frugal VP cutting-edge software came out]

You May Not Have Studied and Practiced Enough -- Even if You Have the Strategy Charts.

I learned to play VP - Jacks or Better, Deuces Wild, and even the much harder Double Bonus - by studying the writings first of Lenny Frome and then by using Bob Dancer's Video Poker Reports and Dan Paymar's books and laminated strategy cards. I hadn't entered the computer world yet, so studying written material was the only option I had. I succeeded, but it took a lot of time and effort. It was HARD!

However, once I decided that I wasn't too old to jump on the information highway and I broke down and bought a computer, I realized immediately that learning video poker had become much easier. Although you still need the books and charts to get you started, computer software will become your patient private teacher. It still takes a lot of study and practice to become a winning VP player, but WinPoker and TomSki's VP Strategy Master give you the tools to practice when it won't cost you anything, as opposed to practicing in a casino which will "charge" you a large fee -- until you realize that you better go back to the drawing board.

And never think you don't need to study and practice after you've played VP for a long time; study and practice are not just for beginning players. I read extensively to keep up on everything that affects our VP play. Brad and I go back to the software often: to learn and practice a new game or figure the strategy changes for a rising progressive. Periodically, we do review sessions on WinPoker, to be sure our skills are not getting rusty, especially on the very difficult strategy of Double Bonus. There's nothing like a long losing streak, we found, to send you back to the computer to test your accuracy.

You May Try to Play Too Many Different Games
or Switch Games Too Frequently

These two practices are among the biggest enemies of VP accuracy, even for serious players. I suggest that all beginners and most casual gamblers learn one game only and practice and play that game exclusively until they can very accurately "play it in their sleep." Only then should they pick up a second game, and so on.

After a player has learned several games over a long period of time, I still suggest that you do not switch games too often. I cringe when I read an e-mail from someone who talks about playing a multi-game machine and switching back and forth between two games to keep from "getting bored."

There are two problems with this for the VP player who wants to win as much as possible or lose as little as possible. I know of no multi-game machine with two games that are equal in mathematical expectation, and very few that have two that are even close. (We feel lucky if there is ONE good game on a machine.) The VP player who wants to win the most will always choose the best game possible, taking into consideration promotional factors and slot club benefits.

The second problem with switching back and forth is that accuracy suffers. We try not to play more than one VP schedule in one day. If we do play a second schedule, we play together for about a half-hour to help each other switch our mindset to the new strategy. I suppose there are some diligent and intelligent geniuses out there who can switch games at will with no loss in accuracy. Before you could convince me that you are in that category, however, you would have to take a test on WinPoker! Even the very experienced and success pros review a strategy card before they sit down at a game they haven't played for awhile.

Okay, you say you aren't doing any these wrong things, but you're still having long VP losing streaks. Tune in next month when I talk about how to decrease your chances of losing so often and how to handle losing when it does happen. Oh, and I will tell you the surprising conclusion of our video poker play in 2000.

···

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards.
  NEW - Blackjack Strategy Cards +
              Updated Second Edition of
             "The Frugal Gambler."

Help! Why Am I Losing at VP?
(Part 2 - Doing Things Right to Fight Those Losing Streaks)

by Jean Scott

Last month, I discussed some of the things VP players might be doing that would explain their losses: choosing negative-expectation games, playing without knowing proper strategy, neglecting to study enough to play accurately, and switching games too often. I promised you then that this month I would be more positive in tone and give you some suggestions to help you win more and/or lose less.

Let me make one thing very clear here. I am not trying to put a guilt trip on everyone who does not passionately embrace and put into practice every frugal idea about which I write. I have been accused of that by some in the past.

However, I think they misunderstand the purpose of my writings. I am NOT trying to make every gambler into a video poker pro. I realize that there are many and widely varied reasons why a person goes into a casino, and most of them are for the main purpose of being entertained. Most people do not want to "work" when they are on vacation.

However, you really don't need articles about how to waste money on things that don't give you good value. Most people can do that quite easily on their own! My purpose is to give so many money-saving and value-increasing ideas you can use in a casino that, hopefully, everyone can find at least a few that fit their goals and will be helpful. If you are really serious about becoming a smart gambler, then you may want to use many of them. It is your choice. I am happy if people use only one hint and it saves them money or makes their casino vacation a better one.

Here are some of the things Brad and I have done during our 11 years of playing video poker that have contributed to our losing less and winning more. I am not saying these are "requirements," but I am saying that the more of these techniques that you use the more likely and much faster you will become long-term winners, as we are today. (I have rounded off numbers to keep it as simple as possible.)

1. Know the computer-derived percentage returns (also called theoretical returns) of the common VP schedules. Just deciding to play "full-pay" video poker is not enough. Jacks or Better with a 9/6 paytable is called full-pay, but remember it only returns 99.5% for perfect play. "Full-pay" does not mean over 100%. Deuces Wild has a return of 100.7%; Double Bonus, 100.1%. They are both full-pay AND over 100%.

2. Look for slot club benefits and promotions that will add to the EV (expected value) of the games themselves. A frequent slot club benefit is bonus cashback points, double, triple, and sometimes higher. Sometimes you will get cash bonuses for designated hands, i.e., quads in the "hot" card of the day. [Now I would also emphasize bounce-back cash]

3. Choose ONLY playing opportunities where the total return is 100% or higher. Total return is the sum of the machine return plus any cash benefits. For example, if you play deuces wild at a casino with cashback of .25%, like the Suncoast in Vegas, your total return would be 100.7 + .25 = 100.95%. If you played 9/6 Jacks or Better at the Suncoast on double-points day, your total return would be right at 100% ( 95.5% + .5%). It is IMPOSSIBLE to win in the long term if you play at less than 100%. I'm sorry to have to break his news to you - but, although you can possibly be winners in the short run, you can NEVER beat the math in the long term. There is no betting system that will turn a negative game into a positive one.

4. Decide whether you want to count comps in the total return of your play. Brad and I did count comps when we first started, and many casual recreational gamblers may want to always do this. And if you were going to take money out of your pocket in the same amount for the rooms, food, shows, and other non-cash perks you get comped, it is quite correct to count them in your total return. I know many gamblers who stay in the big Vegas Strip resorts where the best game with the cashback still doesn't quite come to 100%. But with all the non-cash perks and comps, they are playing well over 100%.

However, you must be careful in your calculations here. We didn't count comps in our total return for very long, because we soon were getting so many comps that we were increasing the number of our casino vacations and the luxury of our casino lifestyle to a level that we could never have afforded on our own budget. So we started counting comps as "gravy," and chose playing opportunities that were over 100% in CASH return. If you want to count comps, figure the average amount you will lose over the long term by playing at a percentage below 100% in actual cash return. If you can't afford that loss, you can't "afford" all those luxury freebies.

5. Have an adequate bankroll. This brings up one ugly word in the video poker world-"volatility." Probably the closest mathematical term to describe volatility is the term "variance." How much can your winning and losing sessions vary from the "average" expected return? I like my non-mathematical real-life description - I call it "the roller coaster effect." Since so much of the return of any video poker game comes from the top jackpot hands, an infrequent occurrence, you must have enough money to "survive" between the jackpots.

In the sequel to The Frugal Gambler, which I'm currently finishing (it's due out in the fall), I'll cover this subject in depth, with charts by math experts who determine by computer calculations the necessary bankrolls for various games at different levels of certainty. For now, though, I can generalize by saying that you can have a smaller bankroll if you can handle a 75% "risk of ruin (ROR)," the mathematical term for "going broke" before reaching the long term. For us conservative (read that - scared) sorts who want to be surer, the bankroll figures will surprise, even shock.

I'll give you one mind-numbing example, for a "good" game. To play quarter Deuces Wild-and you have to play perfectly-with no added cash benefits, you must have $8,800 to have only a 1% ROR.

Are you discouraged already? Jump to number 6 fast!

6. Always choose the BEST playing opportunities. That means picking games that, with the extra cash benefits, give the highest possible total return. All things being equal, the bigger the edge you have, the smaller the bankroll you'll need. Let's go back to quarter Deuces Wild. If you play it at a casino with .2% cashback, then your bankroll requirement drops from $8,800 to $6,800. Play it at the Gold Coast in Las Vegas on double-points day or at another casino where perhaps you can piggyback a good promotion onto good cashback, and if your added value is .5%, you only need $5,000. Choosing playing opportunities that have a lower bankroll requirement means that you'll be more likely to get to the winning long-term faster.

7. Strive for accuracy, but take into consideration human limitations. No one plays video poker perfectly 100% of the time. A casino is full of distractions, our bodies grow weary, our minds become forgetful, and our eyes must endure the punishing glare of a computer screen. But that doesn't make winning video poker impossible. It just means that we must ever be vigilant: studying and practicing at home, cutting our session times and taking frequent breaks in the casino.

And remember, the above bankroll numbers are for PERFECT play. Whenever I figure the total return of any possible play, I subtract at least .1% for "human frailties," .2% if it's a game with a tough strategy such as Double Bonus. Being realistic is a necessary attribute for being a successful video poker player. You can try to fool yourself, but the end results always tell the truth.

8. Find ways to decrease the volatility of video poker and/or get to the long term quicker. One idea is to find a gambling buddy. Two people playing out of the same "pot" don't need a bigger bankroll than one person; and, because they're getting in twice as many hands, the roller coaster ride will be a little less breathtaking.

Another idea is to play multi-line machines. However, consider carefully before you choose this technique. For one thing, the volatility in the short term will increase dramatically because your results for all lines are still dependent on the ONE dealt starting hand. You don't need to multiply the single-line bankroll requirements by the number of lines to determine how much to increase your bankroll; math calculations say that you won't need nearly that much. But I find I'm most comfortable with a bit more than the math would indicate, because the increased volatility short-term can take you much deeper into your bankroll in any one session than on a single-line machines. I like twice the bankroll for Triple Play, three times for Five Play, and five times for Ten Play.

9. Supplement your video poker bankroll with other gambling activities that give you a big edge. Couponing has been our favorite supplement through the years, especially when we were quarter players. Because you can easily find coupons that give you an edge of 10%, 20%, and even higher edge, the volatility is extremely low and the long-term profits certain.

Now that we play dollars we don't coupon as much, but we still find many couponing opportunities that have a higher hourly expected value than most dollar video poker plays. And sometimes we just use couponing as a "rest" from the intensity at the machines.

Another activity that can pump up your video poker bankroll is "wonging" slots. Those who study how to take advantage of the new bonusing machines, playing only when someone has left a fat bonus, will reap nice monetary rewards. No longer can we generalize and say that all slot play is negative expectation. [Not too much opportunity for this anymore.]

10. Last here, but perhaps first in importance, is this advice: Have patience. The long term can be just as the term says-loooong. You can be doing everything right - but you will still have losing streaks. However, I sometimes, joking, say to people who are complaining about losing, "Play faster - you will get to the long term quicker!"

Oh, one more thing. I promised you last month that I'd tell you how 2000 ended for us. If you remember, we had happily experienced 10 straight winning video poker years before the new century arrived. But then we fell into a horrific losing streak that lasted for more than 11 months, and we were preparing ourselves for a big red final figure. However, on December 26, we hit our biggest royal of the year, and the next few days we went to casinos all over town collecting hundreds of dollars of cashback. When we closed the books on December 31, yes, we did have a red figure-but a tiny $373. [Actually this was a "technical" loss since we had delayed picking up some cashback because of a TV shoot in January.]
However, we thought about the winning figures of the past 10 years, some of them very substantial. And we thought about the thousands of dollars of comps we had enjoyed in 2000, but weren't included in our cash total. We decided it wasn't a bad year after all.

···

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

Want to read more by Jean Scott? Check out her weekly column, "Frugal Fridays," on the LVA website at www.lasvegasadvisor.com

________________________________________
Jean $�ott - http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards.
  NEW - Blackjack Strategy Cards +
              Updated Second Edition of
             "The Frugal Gambler."

I am glad I am only playing .05 and .25!!!!

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "paladin415x" <paladin415x@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:36 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

Last year, I had 5 $8K royals in ten days-and was $5K loser, playing
nothing more volatile than NSUD.

I have had six losing months in a row, which is not impossible, but
most of my bankroll goes into making lower variance, higher certainty
plays.

Sometimes, it's hard not to take the results personally. Then I
remember how much I won when learning to play and playing junk, and
two streaks at one casino where I made at least one royal every time I
played (sometimes 2) in a month. Then, there was the AC play, where
waiting for my turn on the featured machine, I hit a RF for $20 K in 3
min. There was the time in CA, I drove through the desert and hit one
for $25K-also in 3 minutes-and got walked out by security.

I know one pro who is down 10 royals playing 5-line NSUD this year.
Just a sick number. I haven't had a royal playing 5-line Deuces in
over a year, and these days lose 8% to the drop on average.

I have heard of pros playing 10/7 at Coast, with the .5% card, losing
8-9 royals straight. I have heard of one -$35K swing playing $1 FPDW
with .25% on the card. One aging 10/7 hustler told me a couple of
years back he wasn't profitable for the year until 12/23 or something
like that. A couple of years ago, I was playing part time, and won
$45K the last six weeks to get me to even-playing $1 and $2 stuff. I
know one pro who found a $2 101% Joker 3-liner and lost $65K playing it.

The most frustrating thing is that there have been a plethora of great
plays this summer, and I'm getting totally whacked at almost all of
them. Much better than last summer, where I did well playing marginal
stuff. But this is the business we've chosen, Michael...

I echo much of what you said. Without cash back and bounce back we would be losers.... 6 out of the last 7 years! 99.5% of our play is .05 and .25

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@frugalgambler.biz>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 11:15 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Our Royal Drought

I just went back over my records and I realize I wasn't entirely accurate in
my recent report. We HAVE had one losing year - 2002, with a small loss of
about $15,000 not counting comps (which we haven't done for 10 or more years
but we always have over $20,000). I'm not sure why I forgot this - unless
we more than made up the loss in January of 2003 and I guess that wiped the
loss figure from my memory. (Or I am having more senior moments.) I was
reminded of it when I went back in my Frugal Fridays archives (which you can
do anytime at http://lasvegasadvisor.com/frugalfridays-archive.cfm ). You
might want to read the series of 3 columns on losing I wrote in 2003 on
March 14, 21, 38. I gave the reasons WHY we lost that year and the same
ones are even more pertinent today than in 2002.

Also I wrote some articles about losing in Strictly Slots that I reprint
here periodically. I will put them in separate e-mails here again - I hope
they will help some of you. They will also rebut the arguments of "the
casinos are gaffing the machines" and "that long-term winning is an
impossible dream." And they will repeat again what I say more and more now:
IT ISN'T EASY!!!! We will have to work harder than we did a few years ago.

And one other thing: If we didn't hit the local bounce-back program hard,
we would not be able to do what we are doing successfully now at the level
we are playing. And even the quarter player needs to bolster up his edge
with bounce-back!

> I am having a hard time buying into the whole VP
> advantage play theory on this board.I.E:
>
> play as fast as possible
> play as many hours of the days possible
> NEVER play short coin
> THEN if you live long enough and you do not go
> bankrupt, you will break even.
>

You're not alone in being skeptical of this "formula." While I

don't

believe that machines in modern mainstream casinos are gaffed
(billion-dollar conglomerates can make money without cheating, and

to

risk losing licensing rights in NJ or Nevada over outright illegal
activity is too costly a risk, IMHO) I do believe that

the "gurus"

dispensing this advice have more to gain in profit than sharing VP
knowledge.

However, all the so called gurus got started playing and profiting
from VP, not selling VP knowledge. The ideas they put forth today
haven't changed.

Witness the rise of things like Bob Dancer-branded VP machines on
casino floors, and paid lectures at casinos by VP "experts", and

the

flood of books on the market spouting "advantage play". The
coziness with the casinos of the proponents of "advantage play" is,

I

think, quite telling -- and the merchandising machine of making

money

off of sales to gamblers and casinos is certainly more of an
"advantage play" than any VP machine you'll ever find.

You should also notice that the most vocal supporters of "other

ways"

are reviled and shouted down on this board -- if not banned

outright.

There is only one math. 1+1=2. This is the basis for profitable VP
play. I can understand how you might not understand the statistical
basis for advantage VP play. However, it is sound. By the way, I also
wondered about the accuracy of advantage play when I first heard
about it. So, I went ahead and and verified the concepts myself.

I'm not going to get into the relative merits of "Max-EV"

strategies

-- play how you want. But like anything else that's being sold to
you, I advise everyone to keep a healthy dose of skepticism and an
open mind. The fact that someone writes a book on something or

spouts

a bunch of math or statistics at you does not mean that they are
correct, or that what works for them will work for you.

They are correct and they will work. Plain and simple. However,
everyone needs to REALLY understand what "will work" means. Everyone
who plays 100% correct strategy will NOT win and everyone who plays
negative machines will NOT lose. That's the way events described by
statistical methods play out. The bell curve gives you probabilities
and nothing is guaranteed unless you have large enough numbers.

There's no magic here, nor is it a really complex math. It's not
really any different then weighted coin tosses (as has been discussed
here in the past). If you wish to discuss the theory in more detail
then I'm all for it, but please, do not doubt for a second that the
theory is 100% valid.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Thomas <jfthomas3@c...> wrote:

If you are playing .05c, you are most likely playing a negative game.
If you do not recognize this, then possible you are also playing
negative 25c games.
This would account for losses, but not for a lack of royals.

···

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:26:59 -0700, you wrote:

I am glad I am only playing .05 and .25!!!!

----- Original Message -----
From: "paladin415x" <paladin415x@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:36 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

Last year, I had 5 $8K royals in ten days-and was $5K loser, playing
nothing more volatile than NSUD.

I have had six losing months in a row, which is not impossible, but
most of my bankroll goes into making lower variance, higher certainty
plays.

Sometimes, it's hard not to take the results personally. Then I
remember how much I won when learning to play and playing junk, and
two streaks at one casino where I made at least one royal every time I
played (sometimes 2) in a month. Then, there was the AC play, where
waiting for my turn on the featured machine, I hit a RF for $20 K in 3
min. There was the time in CA, I drove through the desert and hit one
for $25K-also in 3 minutes-and got walked out by security.

I know one pro who is down 10 royals playing 5-line NSUD this year.
Just a sick number. I haven't had a royal playing 5-line Deuces in
over a year, and these days lose 8% to the drop on average.

I have heard of pros playing 10/7 at Coast, with the .5% card, losing
8-9 royals straight. I have heard of one -$35K swing playing $1 FPDW
with .25% on the card. One aging 10/7 hustler told me a couple of
years back he wasn't profitable for the year until 12/23 or something
like that. A couple of years ago, I was playing part time, and won
$45K the last six weeks to get me to even-playing $1 and $2 stuff. I
know one pro who found a $2 101% Joker 3-liner and lost $65K playing it.

The most frustrating thing is that there have been a plethora of great
plays this summer, and I'm getting totally whacked at almost all of
them. Much better than last summer, where I did well playing marginal
stuff. But this is the business we've chosen, Michael...

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Elliott.

First, I appreciate you and all the good comments and advice you provide. You have certainly provided general and personal information to me in the past that has been of great help.

There are still positive .05 games around. In fact until last week we had triple play .05 Jokers at 101%. Plus .25 cb, plus nearly 1% bounce-back, plus another .8 in comps. That sounds pretty positive to me. It was not a huge hourly rate but it was positive. There are others that I will not list for obvious reasons.

I do think I know how to recognize a positive game. And I only play positive games although sometimes the edge is smaller than I would like. (And sometimes it is the bounceback that makes it positive). I am surprised that you would imply that I cannot recognize a positive game. I would assume that from our previous conversations you would be aware that I do understand this.

Just because a person is losing does not mean they are playing a negative game.

Losses can occur and there are no guarantees even if the expectation is positive.

As of today our annual play with cash back is at 100.0549%. Without cash back it is at 99.32%. Obviously we are well within the curve although I wish it was at the higher end. There were times this year when it was well ABOVE the curve. (and for a while is was below)

The reason I shared my results and recent losing streak was to help people see the importance of bankroll, and to see that playing positive does not guarantee winning. I guess it also provided a catalyst for others to share some of their loss stories. Maybe misery does love company. :slight_smile:

Perhaps this was a mistake and I should keep these comments to myself.

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Elliott L. Shapiro" <elliotts2345@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

If you are playing .05c, you are most likely playing a negative game.
If you do not recognize this, then possible you are also playing
negative 25c games.
This would account for losses, but not for a lack of royals.

And for every bad story there is another side. I play
$1 5 line dueces. I hit 6 RF in a 24 hour period in
July. It was by far my longest session , 12 hour on ,
6 hours sleep, another 6 hour session. The next time I
played there, two weeks later, I got two RF in 24
hours. In all my other hours (about 80), nada, zip.

What I keep telling myself is, "the machine doesnt owe
me anything, other than a 1/40,000 chaance at the
royal"

Mark

···

--- ednar <ednar@kconline.com> wrote:

I am glad I am only playing .05 and .25!!!!

----- Original Message -----
From: "paladin415x" <paladin415x@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:36 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

>
> Last year, I had 5 $8K royals in ten days-and was
$5K loser, playing
> nothing more volatile than NSUD.
>
> I have had six losing months in a row, which is
not impossible, but
> most of my bankroll goes into making lower
variance, higher certainty
> plays.
>
> Sometimes, it's hard not to take the results
personally. Then I
> remember how much I won when learning to play and
playing junk, and
> two streaks at one casino where I made at least
one royal every time I
> played (sometimes 2) in a month. Then, there was
the AC play, where
> waiting for my turn on the featured machine, I hit
a RF for $20 K in 3
> min. There was the time in CA, I drove through the
desert and hit one
> for $25K-also in 3 minutes-and got walked out by
security.
>
> I know one pro who is down 10 royals playing
5-line NSUD this year.
> Just a sick number. I haven't had a royal playing
5-line Deuces in
> over a year, and these days lose 8% to the drop on
average.
>
> I have heard of pros playing 10/7 at Coast, with
the .5% card, losing
> 8-9 royals straight. I have heard of one -$35K
swing playing $1 FPDW
> with .25% on the card. One aging 10/7 hustler told
me a couple of
> years back he wasn't profitable for the year until
12/23 or something
> like that. A couple of years ago, I was playing
part time, and won
> $45K the last six weeks to get me to even-playing
$1 and $2 stuff. I
> know one pro who found a $2 101% Joker 3-liner and
lost $65K playing it.
>
> The most frustrating thing is that there have been
a plethora of great
> plays this summer, and I'm getting totally whacked
at almost all of
> them. Much better than last summer, where I did
well playing marginal
> stuff. But this is the business we've chosen,
Michael...

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

My results this year reflect both ends of the VP spectrum. From June 30th to today, playing mostly quarter positive VP, I have lost $6063 against the game.That is, cash back is not included in this number. During this period I played 163290 hands and had only 1 royal flush. The breakdown of this play is All American Poker 36.15%, FPDeuces 23.86%, Kor better Joker 19.70%, NSUD 13.67%, Sams Twn Deuces 2.43%, 9/6 Jacks & 8/5 bonus 2.01%,10/7 Double Bonus 1.31% , PicEm+9/7nickle spin 0.87%. Somewhat taking the sting out of these results, I earned about $2500 in cash and free play.
    Now for the other side of the coin. From Jan 1 to June 30th of this year I was ahead $7236, again not counting cash back.
The number of hands during this period was 695034 and I had 19 Royal Flushes.

Randi.d

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "ednar" <ednar@kconline.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Ednar's Royal Drought

I only play "inherently" positive games (FPDW, FPJW, 10/7DB) and NSUD and
JOB progressives when positive. My wife and I combine our bankroll and our
statistics so I have to break these out by hand. However, a brief analysis
of my records indicate that about 85% of the play has been on FPDW, FPJW
(4000 and 4700) and 10/7DB. The remainder (15%) has been on progressives. I
am down about $8,000 INCLUDING CASH BACK. My worst locations in order are
Fiesta Rancho, MSS, Tuscany and then Santa Fe. In this case it is all the
locations with the most positive games.

I was ahead about $7000 before this slide began so for the year (together
with my wife's play) we are still positive. If you consider the value of the
comps I have received (and we use a number that is what we would pay.... not
the inflated casino's value) we are way ahead.

I mentioned this loss and continue to update the group on the progress
because I believe it is very important for people to see that there are some
very large potential negative swings that positive games can have. I also
believe this is a clear example of the importance of bankroll. Too many
people think that if they have lets say, $7,000 that they will never run out
of money if they only play .25 FPDW. That is NOT necessarily the case. Many
people also seem to think that if the ROR for a game is $7,000 that after
they have lost $6,999 they are "due" to hit. Again this is also not the
case. But that is a different subject for a different time.

I am glad you found this to be interesting. Most people do not tell you
about their slumps because it sounds too much like whining..... Which I
guess it is to some extent....

----- Original Message ----- From: "sibercat" <glenbob@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Ednar's Royal Drought

Ednar said:

Actually I am at 9+ (cycles)for quarters. I have

some .05 in there as part of
my
total coin in. About 400,000 .25 hands at last count
with no Royal.>>>

I applaud Ednar for reporting his VP results to the
group. The thread points to subjects that appear to be
taboo in this group: gambling losses, addiction and
risk of ruin. It is human nature to only report wins
and try to forget the losses.

Ednar, Maybe this has already been reported in this
thread. If not, do you mind stating how much of a
bankroll(excluding comps) hit you have incurred during
this drought?

What VP game or games do you play.

Thanks

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

You are correct. There are a few 05c positive games around. But even
if you were playing at 102%, this would still not account for your
horrible experiences in not getting Royals.

Granting that you seek and play only those games that are positive, I
would suggest that you might try to find higher percentages.

An individual that I know plays 8/5 bonus over $1500. That is barely
0.25%. If he waited for $1800, he would not play as often but, when
playing, would earn 4 times as much. The lower percentage will cause
great bankroll fluctuations and often, many, many losing sessions.

Your experiences with the lack of royals are somewhat unique. To go
so long without has to be very discouraging.

I am well aware that you know the difference between positive and
negative. My comments, although directed to you, were really meant in
a generic way. My apologies, if I offended you.

I want a MINIMUM of 101% on quarter play, more on dollars. Perhaps
you should set your sights similarly.

···

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:02:06 -0700, you wrote:

Elliott.

First, I appreciate you and all the good comments and advice you provide.
You have certainly provided general and personal information to me in the
past that has been of great help.

There are still positive .05 games around. In fact until last week we had
triple play .05 Jokers at 101%. Plus .25 cb, plus nearly 1% bounce-back,
plus another .8 in comps. That sounds pretty positive to me. It was not a
huge hourly rate but it was positive. There are others that I will not list
for obvious reasons.

I do think I know how to recognize a positive game. And I only play positive
games although sometimes the edge is smaller than I would like. (And
sometimes it is the bounceback that makes it positive). I am surprised that
you would imply that I cannot recognize a positive game. I would assume that
from our previous conversations you would be aware that I do understand
this.

Just because a person is losing does not mean they are playing a negative
game.

Losses can occur and there are no guarantees even if the expectation is
positive.

As of today our annual play with cash back is at 100.0549%. Without cash
back it is at 99.32%. Obviously we are well within the curve although I wish
it was at the higher end. There were times this year when it was well ABOVE
the curve. (and for a while is was below)

The reason I shared my results and recent losing streak was to help people
see the importance of bankroll, and to see that playing positive does not
guarantee winning. I guess it also provided a catalyst for others to share
some of their loss stories. Maybe misery does love company. :slight_smile:

Perhaps this was a mistake and I should keep these comments to myself.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliott L. Shapiro" <elliotts2345@earthlink.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Ednar's Royal Drought

If you are playing .05c, you are most likely playing a negative game.
If you do not recognize this, then possible you are also playing
negative 25c games.
This would account for losses, but not for a lack of royals.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links