casinochristy wrote:
Thank you, Jean, for your response.
Yes, I am aware of the under 100% EV. But, when that is the best game
in the casino- I will seek that out.
My point was that 9/6 JOB has the lowest Variation, so I kind of
expected a little more play for my bucks. I know that in JOB-hitting
the royal is the saving grace. I didn't hit the royal.
I think my post was a roundabout way of asking for some supportive
consolation.
Poor me..."it will get better, honey."
I know you're out there! Give me some hope!!
Hey Christy,
Let me offer up a few observations of my own. They're not intended to
supplant Jean's, but ideally to constructively augment hers.
AC play necessarily entails the prospect of playing at a disadvantage
against the house. However, a game like 9/6 JB offers not only the
low variance you cite but a strong return as well. The loss
expectation weighs nicely against the joy of play and comp benefits --
making it one of the stronger recreational plays. (But, I'm not
telling you anything that you're not already aware of 
Further, the distinction between negative and positive expectation
play sometimes receives too strong of an emphasis. For a modest to
moderate stakes player I think the difference between a 99.8% ER play
(w/ cb, say) and a 100.2% ER one sometimes should take a backseat over
considerations of casino amenities and benefits and other non-economic
factors. That's particularly so if the 100.2% play involves a ramp up
in variance.
The frustrating thing with Jacks is that variance still is a strong
factor, and it tends to express itself predominantly on the downside
(or so it seems ;). In fact, one aspect that some folks cite in
having a distaste for Jacks is that once you suffer a moderate trip
loss, it seems that you rarely can recover short of hitting a royal.
From what you've expressed, you've developed some intimate familiarity
with the downside -- and likely are falling short in those royals.
Trust me, I EMPATHIZE! My play these last two years has been rather
sour -- the losses haven't progressed at a drastic rate, but they've
been rather unrelenting and I've seen what had been a very favorable
bankroll build dissipate like the air in a tire with a slow leak.
The ultimate lesson in this is that you learn that an essential aspect
to survival is to have an adequate bankroll and appropriate
expectation for loss risk. In a situation like yours, the commonly
cited bankroll guideline of "3 to 5 royals" is woefully inappropriate.
That's one best suited for playing a game like full pay deuces in LV,
with up to a full 1% advantage.
To survive play such as yours over the intermediate term, you need to
be prepared for the propsect that cumulative losses may run as high as
8-10 royals.
I expect the greater proportion of AC players look to feed a moderate
amount of cash into their bankroll each year or so, taking a
considerable sigh of relief when the play takes a consistent favorable
upswing.
···
------------
It's on the note of bankroll and loss expectation that your original
post raises some particular concerns. You describe your play:
I only play quarters and "perfect strategy" using a card if needed.
BUT, cannot seem to beat that game! Whether it's AC or LV;
single line or multi-play; regular; Spin Poker or MultiStrike. I have
literally lost thousands this year.
The latter part of your description hardly qualifies as "only quarter"
play, even if the denomination on the machine is "$.25".
$.25 3-play involves a risk that approaches $.50 single line. $.05
Spin Poker is deceptively volatile -- particularly if it involves
Joker Wild (which I suspect it does). And $.25 MultiStrike presents a
risk akin to $1 single line.
While I expect that a majority of your machine time is spent on single
line $.25 Jacks, just a modest amount of time on the plays I've noted
can do tremendous bankroll damage if you suffer the downside of play
-- and the risks are of such a magnitude that any $.25 play will pale
against it, even if the time spent on $.25 play runs to magnitudes
greater than the other plays combined.
Trust me, these comments aren't intended to serve as a "What do you
think you've been doing!" 
I just want to stress that in all
likelihood you've exposed yourself to far greater play risk than you
intended.
Frankly, I have every expectation that your non-single line play has
been tempered by your loss experiences. However, I have little doubt
that those plays have been a predominant source of the losses that
have cause pain.
------------
There's a phrase that is apt for video poker play: "Stick to your
knitting". The rough application here is that one should stick to the
plays that present the greatest comfort and with which you're most
familiar. In this case, that familiarity includes a good grasp of
loss risk, so that your focus isn't on "white-knuckling" unexpected
losses but on the sheer pleasure itself.
One of the more difficult concepts of video poker is the risk you
exposure yourself to when you jump denominations. When the play is
going well, it's tremendously tempting to take a stab at the next
denomination with a limited amount of funds. However, it's a
temptation to be avoided at all costs.
It's far more likely that you'll suffer the downside of variance over
any modest amount of play than the upside. And, when playing at a
steady denomination you can look for upswings to roughly balance out
downswings, if you take a hit at a higher denomination you can't look
to swings at your standard play to compensate. In fact, for all
practial purposes, you should consider any losses outside of your
standard play to be a permanent drain on your bankroll.
I'll go as far as to suggest that you seriously take that "8-10" royal
bankroll to heart when even thinking of venturing to a higher
denomination. Don't let a sudden spate of royals lead you into
thinking that you're in shape to take a run at the next denomination.
------
Ok, as is my style, I've offered up far more than is likely useful ...
hopefully you'll pick out a few nuggets here. I'll also admit to
being more conservative than any other active player I've encountered
(some think I'm joking when I admit to not being a "gambler" at heart
So, weigh my comments in that light. The observation that I'll
conclude with is that the most satisfied players I've encountered are
those who play at stakes that are very modest relative to what they're
personal resources might otherwise allow for.
Trust that you have my sincerest wishes that we'll here some tales of
joy from your corner in the near future!
- Harry