Im a local recreational FPVP player. This site provides a valuble
service, especially to those folk from other parts of the country who
are looking for good VP value. However, Id like to ask an honest
question involving the ugly part of the game seldomly discussed. Im a
local who plays FPVP recreationaly but i realize there are alot of
folk who frequent this site seeking to make a living at or
supplementing their incomes playing positive VP. My question is for
all of you, aspiring Bob Dancers or not,who've quit because you
suffered an ugly, long losing session early on. I recently lost 800
dollars in a recent 7 hour session on FPDW. I didnt realize such a
horrible loss was possible, considering i can play Win Poker perfect.
All my thoughts of turning ''pro'' are gone and I think Ill stick to
playing recreationally. Yeah I know one needs the 3-5 Royal bankroll
to even consider playing for a living, but losses that stomach turning
are obviously possible and I have no interest in repeating that
performance after I quit my job and the rent is due 3 days later! I
appreciate any input/feedback and thank the group moderator for
allowing this post.
Beware of the ugly session
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "davidmontelago" <davidmontelago@y...>
wrote:
My question is for all of you, aspiring Bob Dancers or not,who've quit
because you suffered an ugly, long losing session early on.
I appreciate any input/feedback and thank the group moderator for
allowing this post.
Since you mentioned the man himself in your post, this recent article
by Bob may give you some insight:
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/0726.html
Best of luck!
Steve
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "davidmontelago"
<davidmontelago@y...> wrote:
Im a local recreational FPVP player. This site provides a
valuble
service, especially to those folk from other parts of the country
who
are looking for good VP value. However, Id like to ask an honest
question involving the ugly part of the game seldomly discussed.
Im a
local who plays FPVP recreationaly but i realize there are alot of
folk who frequent this site seeking to make a living at or
supplementing their incomes playing positive VP. My question is
for
all of you, aspiring Bob Dancers or not,who've quit because you
suffered an ugly, long losing session early on. I recently lost
800
dollars in a recent 7 hour session on FPDW. I didnt realize such a
horrible loss was possible, considering i can play Win Poker
perfect.
All my thoughts of turning ''pro'' are gone and I think Ill stick
to
playing recreationally. Yeah I know one needs the 3-5 Royal
bankroll
to even consider playing for a living, but losses that stomach
turning
are obviously possible and I have no interest in repeating that
performance after I quit my job and the rent is due 3 days later!
I
appreciate any input/feedback and thank the group moderator for
allowing this post.
Many people who play with Bob Dancer 3-5 royal bankroll will go
broke. Anyone who thinks that is enough money to play with a .70
edge is in for a rude awakening. You might not go 5 royal cycles
between royals but you could hit 3 royals in 10 cycles.
Doesn't the 3-5 royal bankroll rule mean that you stop playing when
your bankroll dips below this level? Your options are then to
replentish your bankroll through other means or drop down in
denomination such that your remaining bankroll is 3-5 royals at this
new denomination. If you strictly adhere to these rules, you will
never go total broke. Lose money? Very possibly.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "VpKing77" <vpking77@y...> wrote:
Many people who play with Bob Dancer 3-5 royal bankroll will go
broke. Anyone who thinks that is enough money to play with a .70
edge is in for a rude awakening. You might not go 5 royal cycles
between royals but you could hit 3 royals in 10 cycles.
vpKing77 wrote: Many people who play with Bob Dancer 3-5 royal bankroll
will go
broke. Anyone who thinks that is enough money to play with a .70
edge is in for a rude awakening. You might not go 5 royal cycles
between royals but you could hit 3 royals in 10 cycles.
Doubtful. Although the 3-to-5 royals rule of thumb was intended as a
guideline for the non-mathematical, and there are high-variance
low-advantage games like 10/6 DDB where it isn't close to being
sufficient, the case against it in this post is overstated.
Consider: Hitting 3 royals in 10 cycles has a 0.7% chance (i.e. 1 in
132). Hitting 3 or fewer has about a 1% chance. Even if you are in the
worst 1%, after 10 royal cycles, you'll be ahead about 3.4 royals from
having the 0.76% advantage, minus 7 royals because you only hit 3 out of
10. That leaves you down 3.6 royals or more about1% of the time. Before
slot club benefits. This is hardly a contradiction of the 3-to-5 royals
rule of thumb.
If you want to say that one out of 300 people (depending on the slot
club) with this bankroll will go bust over ten cycles, then I can't
fault your logic. If you personally demand less risk than that, then
that's a personal choice that only you can make, although I suggest that
you are more risk-adverse than most. But saying "anyone who thinks that
is enough money . . . is in for a rude awakening" implies a large
percentage of these folks are going to be going bust. And that is simply
not correct.
Bob Dancer
For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vegasvpplayer wrote:
Doesn't the 3-5 royal bankroll rule mean that you stop playing when
your bankroll dips below this level? Your options are then to
replentish your bankroll through other means or drop down in
denomination such that your remaining bankroll is 3-5 royals at this
new denomination. If you strictly adhere to these rules, you will
never go total broke. Lose money? Very possibly.
Hmmm ... a bankroll defined as including funds that are never to be
touched for gambling.
All this time, when my wife would send me off to AC with the parting
comment of "don't bet the house", I never realized that she was simply
defining part of my "bankroll" for me 
- H.
Seriously though, a bankroll defines the amount of money that you're
prepared to lose on a specified play ... it assumes that you'll play
it 'til you're broke.
Well said. As a recreational player that plays every day, I find the
concept of a "VP pro" to be ridiculous. This may upset some people,
but how many are so sure that they would bet their life on it. That's
a big bet; way beyond mere money or numbers on a financial statement.
Having detailed notes on every session year to date, I can confirm
that playing only 100% plus machines will not matter in some sessions,
as a trouncing will result regardless of paytable. 100% plus sounds
real nice, but only if and when you play 10 million or so hands, and
play them perfect. How many of the so-called "pros" can document
playing 10 million hands? At 600 hands per hour, that's only 16,666
hours of play. A mere 694 days of play.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "davidmontelago" <davidmontelago@y...>
wrote:
Yeah I know one needs the 3-5 Royal bankroll to even consider
playing for a living, but losses that stomach turning
···
are obviously possible and I have no interest in repeating that
performance after I quit my job and the rent is due 3 days later! I
appreciate any input/feedback and thank the group moderator for
allowing this post.
<<<Seriously though, a bankroll defines the amount of money that
you're
prepared to lose on a specified play ... it assumes that you'll play
it 'til you're broke.>>>
Harry,
Thanks for the definition. No wonder you are so conservative in
bankroll matters and always cautioning on risk of ruin stuff. I'm
sticking with my interpretation. I may end up playing penny video
poker in the Gold Spike Copper Mine with a $200 bankroll but I'm
never going totally "broke" playing video poker!
Seriously, I guess I think of gambling bankroll as a separate
disposable fund which I would never replenish with anything but more
disposable income or funds. I know others would not be so risk
averse. Are there really people out there with $20,000 to their name
that would bet that last $5 hand on dollar video poker after losing
the other $19,995? I guess that's why it is so difficult to find a
casino hotel window that opens. :=)
···
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:10:36 -0000 "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net> writes:
If someone has enough disposable income to fund a bankroll with $20,000, then they should feel comfortable playing with it -- and losing it. I know some people who earn over $500k/year, and they would have no problem having a $20k bankroll -- it's no different than the person who earns $50k/year and has a $2k bankroll.
The bottom line is that if you have a separate disposable fund that you replenish with other disposable funds, theoretically, there's no difference between a fund started with $200 and a fund started with $20,000. In either case, you'd play through your bankroll and replenish if necessary.
In reality, there's an enormous difference. You have to have enough of a bankroll to give yourself a shot at staying in the game and winning. If you don't fund your bankroll enough to statistically win, you could wind up spending more of your disposable income on gambling than you had originally intended.
Put differently, if you look up various risks of ruin on the Wizard of Odds charts, http://wizardofodds.com/videopoker/appendix1.html, you'll see that you would be much better off with a single $20k bankroll than having 100 bankrolls of $200 each.
Lainie
···
vegasvpplayer <vegasvpplayer@juno.com> wrote:
Seriously, I guess I think of gambling bankroll as a separate disposable fund which I would never replenish with anything but more disposable income or funds. I know others would not be so risk averse. Are there really people out there with $20,000 to their name that would bet that last $5 hand on dollar video poker after losing the other $19,995?
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<<Having detailed notes on every session year to date, I can confirm that
playing only 100% plus machines will not matter in some sessions, as a
trouncing will result regardless of paytable.>>
Nonsense. To say it "will not matter" is simply incorrect. You're gambling.
You win some, you lose some. A smart gambler makes bets with good odds.
<< 100% plus sounds real nice, but only if and when you play 10 million or
so hands, and play them perfect.>>
Nonsense. Regardless of how many hands you play or your skill level, a bet
with better odds is a bet with better odds.
Cogno
Well said. As a recreational player that plays every day, I find
the
concept of a "VP pro" to be ridiculous. This may upset some people,
but how many are so sure that they would bet their life on it.
That's
a big bet; way beyond mere money or numbers on a financial
statement.
I'm also a recreational player, however, the concept of a "VP pro"
does not seem all that ridiculous. I think the key to being
successful is finding plays with a significant advantage. This would
not be 10/6 DDB with .1% CB. I think .5% advantage is OK for a small
amount of the time with 1-3% being the meat of a VP Pro's playing
time. This requires playing in promotions, on multiple point days and
doing lots of research before selecting a play. Things not really
required for recreational play.
Having detailed notes on every session year to date, I can confirm
that playing only 100% plus machines will not matter in some
sessions,
as a trouncing will result regardless of paytable. 100% plus sounds
real nice, but only if and when you play 10 million or so hands,
and
play them perfect.
Where do you get a requirement for 10 million hands? Certainly the
more hands the better your odds of hitting a goal, but the liklihood
of success can be found in much less than a million hands for most
games. Again, playing high variance games with a small edge would not
be a good idea.
How many of the so-called "pros" can document
playing 10 million hands? At 600 hands per hour, that's only 16,666
hours of play. A mere 694 days of play.
I assume there are some that have played that much over many years.
Once again, I don't see where you get the number 10 million.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" <fromthevault@y...> wrote:
Hi There
Too many people think of money as money. In vp business money is just
a tool. If you go into the pizza business you have to have enough
funds. Under funding in any business makes for a bad business plan.
In pizza business you need dough, sauce, ovens, soda machines, rent
etc. It's the cost of doing business. In the vp business you just
need "dough".(I had to write that.) Money is the cost of doing vp
business. In vp the only insurance against the 100 year drought is
more money. Same in all forms of gambling. Gambling is only a
business if one plays positive plays. For most, gambling business as
a player is crummy business. Most pros I have met didn't really seem
to enjoy their work. Many don't take care of their health and are
sour on life. Note to all readers: Please don't attack me here; I
said MOST not all. Even the owners of the gambling joints have some
bad runs. Look how many go broke.
A fpvp recreational player needs funding too. Same as a guy who
collects, let's say, model trains. You have to buy that special
Lionel steam train for a $1000. You know, it's got to be worth $1500
in 3 years. But, it may never happen. No matter what the recreational
business, there is still risk. Also, to buy and enjoy those trains
you need the cash to risk. Same with the vp, you gotta have the
cash.
Bottom line; You must have a plan. Of course you had one. But plans
are changed as you get more experience. This site helps one compare
their experience with others. Losing $800 in afternoon is not odd. If
you were playing quarter fpdw, 4 ducks would have brought you out of
the woods.
Cheers....Jeep
.
.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "davidmontelago"
<davidmontelago@y...> wrote:
Im a local recreational FPVP player. This site provides a
valuble
service, especially to those folk from other parts of the country
who
are looking for good VP value. However, Id like to ask an honest
question involving the ugly part of the game seldomly discussed. Im
a
local who plays FPVP recreationaly but i realize there are alot of
folk who frequent this site seeking to make a living at or
supplementing their incomes playing positive VP. My question is for
all of you, aspiring Bob Dancers or not,who've quit because you
suffered an ugly, long losing session early on. I recently lost 800
dollars in a recent 7 hour session on FPDW. I didnt realize such a
horrible loss was possible, considering i can play Win Poker
perfect.
All my thoughts of turning ''pro'' are gone and I think Ill stick
to
playing recreationally. Yeah I know one needs the 3-5 Royal
bankroll
to even consider playing for a living, but losses that stomach
turning
···
are obviously possible and I have no interest in repeating that
performance after I quit my job and the rent is due 3 days later! I
appreciate any input/feedback and thank the group moderator for
allowing this post.
You got it. Well said. I think we should add, playing at dollar and
above makes it profitable. You just have to know the business. (" doing
lots of research before selecting a play.") It takes work just to find
a play.
Cheers....Jeep
.
···
.-- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
I'm also a recreational player, however, the concept of a "VP pro"
does not seem all that ridiculous. I think the key to being
successful is finding plays with a significant advantage. This would
not be 10/6 DDB with .1% CB. I think .5% advantage is OK for a small
amount of the time with 1-3% being the meat of a VP Pro's playing
time. This requires playing in promotions, on multiple point days and
doing lots of research before selecting a play. Things not really
required for recreational play.>
vegasvpplayer, in reply to:
<<<Seriously though, a bankroll defines the amount of money that
you're prepared to lose on a specified play ... it assumes that
you'll play it 'til you're broke.>>>
replied:
Harry,
Thanks for the definition. No wonder you are so conservative in
bankroll matters and always cautioning on risk of ruin stuff. I'm
sticking with my interpretation. I may end up playing penny video
poker in the Gold Spike Copper Mine with a $200 bankroll but I'm
never going totally "broke" playing video poker!Seriously, I guess I think of gambling bankroll as a separate
disposable fund which I would never replenish with anything but more
disposable income or funds. I know others would not be so risk
averse. Are there really people out there with $20,000 to their
name that would bet that last $5 hand on dollar video poker after
losing the other $19,995?
Obviously my reference to "broke" concerned the exhaustion of the
bankroll, not bankrupting yourself.
I'm conservative when it comes to "bankroll" precisely because real
bucks are involved and a bankroll is necessarily defined as the amount
that you're willing to risk down to the last $.
If I say that I've bankrolled myself with $25K for $1 play, but am
going to abandon that play after I lose $18K of that, then clearly I
only have allowed a $1 play bankroll of $18K ... the other $7K, by
your example, would be a reserve for lower denomination play after I
exhaust my $1 bankroll.
These distinctions are ones that ensure that I intelligently manage my
bankroll and, when everything is said and done, I don't suffer
"gamblers remorse".
- Harry