vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's Latest CasinoGaming.com Column

#21

No, not at all. That is why we look for the best tables and
practice proper strategy.

What some are saying is that for some of us a "bankroll number" is
irrelevant as a factoid while we are playing.

We play when we are having fun and we stop when we are no longer
having fun. We play for entertainment and recreation.

E
But, enough already. I am outta this thread. LOL

.....bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Chandler <omnibibulous1@c...> wrote:

At 07:10 PM 10/1/2004, you wrote:
So, I guess playing to win is out? ;-).

#22

i play when it is "fun" too, but my definition of "fun" is probably
different from yours, for me this is fun:
(er+cashback-1)>1 (positive gamble)
10% risk of ruin bankroll < 7 royals (5600 bets)
(er+cashback-1)^2 x 10^7/Variance > 15 (sharpe ratio squared)

so, for example, when i stumble onto that hidden $5 full pay deuces
wild machine (hey, it happens more than you probably suspect), my
first concern isn't do i remember the strategy or do i feel lucky, my
first concern is do i have the bankroll
i'm not the sultan of brunei, so certain NET losses are painful,
knowledge of bankroll informs me of what i'm in for for any particular
gamble
if i could not figure out the bankroll requirement for a gamble, i
would pass, i'm not as carefree as you appear to be, i would certainly
not just start playing a machine which looked like it had a "good"
paytable without knowledge of the bankroll required to play it

wrote:

But, all of this is secondary, for me anyway, to enjoying the game
and only playing when it is fun. I play when it is fun. I do not
play when it stops being fun. And, in some sense EV, variance, and
bankroll are immaterial, as long as I play well and try to play at
machines with "good" pay tables.

er, variance and bankroll are immaterial, as long as you have access
to an infinite source of money

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>

#23

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

don't you keep a running total?
for example, your win/loss for the full year, at least for tax
purposes?
you realize that all those little session wins and losses can add

up,

to potentially a bigger loss than any given session loss?
i'm probably beating a dead horse here, the concepts of savings and
bankroll aren't mainstream american
from what i understand, the typical gambler actually generates

their

trip stake with a credit card cash advance.

Of course I keep a running total. I

happen to be in the financial services profession and fully
understand the implications of not keeping proper tax records. What
has this to do with continuely pumping more money into a machine
than you can really afford, or even that you feel comfortable about
losing? Unfortunately, all too many people do this, using as an
excuse to commit this excess, that it's O.K. "because it is only
part of my long-term bankroll, and things will eventually even out".
I know that Bob Dancer does promote this idea, althoigh, I believe,
only to people who can afford the losses. However, he is an
experienced pro, who knows what he is doing. I still believe that
this is a dangerous concept for the average, non-pro player. That's
only my opinion, and I do think that this forum does encourage
differences of opinion, if presented in a polite way. Feel
perfectly free to disagree.

Fortunately, I do not have to finance my vp with credit card
advances. If I did, I would certainly abstain from many
recreational pleasures I now enjoy, and most certainly would not
gamble at all.

Respectfully, Babe

#24

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

i play when it is "fun" too, but my definition of "fun" is probably
different from yours, for me this is fun:
(er+cashback-1)>1 (positive gamble)
10% risk of ruin bankroll < 7 royals (5600 bets)
(er+cashback-1)^2 x 10^7/Variance > 15 (sharpe ratio squared)

so, for example, when i stumble onto that hidden $5 full pay deuces
wild machine (hey, it happens more than you probably suspect), my
first concern isn't do i remember the strategy or do i feel lucky,

my

first concern is do i have the bankroll
i'm not the sultan of brunei, so certain NET losses are painful,
knowledge of bankroll informs me of what i'm in for for any

particular

gamble
if i could not figure out the bankroll requirement for a gamble, i
would pass, i'm not as carefree as you appear to be, i would

certainly

not just start playing a machine which looked like it had a "good"
paytable without knowledge of the bankroll required to play it

wrote:
> But, all of this is secondary, for me anyway, to enjoying the

game

> and only playing when it is fun. I play when it is fun. I do

not

> play when it stops being fun. And, in some sense EV, variance,

and

> bankroll are immaterial, as long as I play well and try to play

at

> machines with "good" pay tables.

er, variance and bankroll are immaterial, as long as you have

access

to an infinite source of money

I guess I play in the same "carefree" manner

as "bornloser"...it's strictly fun and games (within the parameters
of fullpay advantage vp and proper strategy.) Frankly, if I had to
figure the actual math before playing, I might feel that I might as
well be in the office working. As with the above poster, this is
purely recreation for me. I know that I have enough bankroll, on my
person, or in the safety deposit box, to complete any session that I
start. I have never run out of bankroll or had to stop gambling on
any trip I've ever taken, and, I do believe, that I've always stayed
at a machine just as long as I've wanted to be there. That's good
enough for me.

Again, to each his own...whatever works for you.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>

#25

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have hit the nail squarely on the

head!

>I agree with you 100%. Unless you are a pro (or much more
>dangerously, THINK you are a Pro) most vp players should play for
>fun, recreation, excitement, kicks, companionship, or a chance to
>clear the "ennui" from his/her brain after a boring day.

So, I guess playing to win is out? :wink: I am a recreational

player. I play

the best opportunity I can and always the best game that I know

how to

play. In one way or another I figure out how to extract as much

value from

my play as possible. The enlightened play of video poker lets me

take more

value from the casino than the casino takes from me. Perhaps you

should

list that as one of the reasons to play video poker?

I believe the key word here is FUN.

Unless you are a sadist or a degenerate complulsive gambler, there
is nothing "fun" about losing! I think I have failed in my attempt
to make clear what I was espousing, so let me try again: I believe
that a vp player should always play ositive vp, and then, only
after practicing long and hard on WinPoker or FrugalPoker, so that
their accuracy is at least 99%. I believe that playing this way
gives the vp player a slight advantage and that because of that they
SOMETIMES win. They also frequently lose. When that unfortunate
happenstance occurs, they should put considerations of long term
bankroll aside, and only continue to play (and lose) as long as it
is comfortable for them and that they are still having FUN. Us
there somerhing wrong with that concept? In my opinion, I don't
think so.

> Because of
>that, they should probably limit themselves to a SESSION Bankroll
>that they are completely comfortable losing. Otherwise, I fear,

they

>are setting themselves for a terrible, perhaps irreparable fall.
>Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
>requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.

Discussions of bankroll requirements are ruinous and misleading?

A

careless misunderstanding or disregard of several concepts

surrounding

sound video poker play could conceivably be "ruinous" but who

would be to

blame for that? I just don't get the call for ignorance.....

If you can explain to me how this is

ignorant (or "calling for ignorance") I'll be certainly re-think my
current "long-term bankroll considerations. Once again, everyone
should play advantage vp, as perfectly as possible, for as long as
they continue to enjoy the experience. BTW, I too was a consistent
loser, as I have said many tines, before studying and applying the
computer math principles of the late, great Lenny Frome, and then
the currently great Bob Dancer and Jean Scott. Now quite the
opposite is thankfully true. Our point of disagreement seems to be
when one should STOP playing, not HOW one should play.

Hopefully, I have now made myself clear. If not, again, I repeat,
enjoy playing your way and catch lots of royals before exhausting
your bankroll!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Chandler <omnibibulous1@c...> wrote:

At 07:10 PM 10/1/2004, you wrote:

#26

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:
> Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
> requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.

fascinating, truly fascinating
well, good luck with that attitude

??? What's wrong with that attitude? Mathematically speaking, as long
as the person still uses proper strategy, they have as much of a chance
of winning as you do, for as long as they are willing and able to play.
Personally, I don't have a long-term bankroll at all. I take a session
stake with me, and when that's gone, then that's all she wrote for that
trip. My session stake is not what I can afford to lose, but rather
what I am willing to lose. Now, if I were to figure that I still have a
few grand available right now in the bank, and that I'm well within my
theoretical life-time long-term bankroll, I might rationalize that I
might as well write a check at the casino for more cash, and then when
that's gone write another check, and then another. Maybe pros do that,
but recreational players who don't have gambling problems don't. I have
a great time, and even when I've lost the last cent of session stake and
go home, I'm still happy and satisfied -- although obviously not as much
as I would have been if I had won on that trip.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#27

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Because of
> >that, they should probably limit themselves to a SESSION Bankroll
> >that they are completely comfortable losing. Otherwise, I fear,
they
> >are setting themselves for a terrible, perhaps irreparable fall.
> >Hence, I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
> >requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Discussions of bankroll requirements are ruinous and misleading?
A
> careless misunderstanding or disregard of several concepts
surrounding
> sound video poker play could conceivably be "ruinous" but who
would be to
> blame for that? I just don't get the call for ignorance.....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you can explain to me how this is
ignorant (or "calling for ignorance") I'll be certainly re-think my
current "long-term bankroll considerations. Once again, everyone
should play advantage vp, as perfectly as possible, for as long as
they continue to enjoy the experience. BTW, I too was a consistent
loser, as I have said many tines, before studying and applying the
computer math principles of the late, great Lenny Frome, and then
the currently great Bob Dancer and Jean Scott. Now quite the
opposite is thankfully true. Our point of disagreement seems to be
when one should STOP playing, not HOW one should play.

Hopefully, I have now made myself clear. If not, again, I repeat,
enjoy playing your way and catch lots of royals before exhausting
your bankroll!

I think most readers are clear on this subject and understand the
concepts that Chandler and 'guana have tried to explain (in vain) to
you. But, in case there are others, maybe this will help ...

If you have been keeping a running total of your session win-losses
for many years (as you say), at some point that running total reached
a nadir. THAT figure was the "bankroll" (albeit actual rather than
theoretical) that has been under discussion.

Theoretical bankroll has practical application because it gives a
player an objective idea of just how deep that actual nadir could
go. Will you have the money on hand (and the psychologic
wherewithal) to carry you through the nadir? That's the importance
of "bankroll."

On the other hand, because most of us play recreationally and
infrequently on a variety of games, denominations, and average bets,
coming up with a bankroll figure (predicted) for your VP career is
near impossible, and thus not very practical. Perhaps that is what
you are stating in your posts?

Nevertheless, the more you play and the more time you spend on a
specific pay schedule at a specific denomination, the more important
it is to know and have the theoretical bankroll (as defined above)
for that game ... because there's a good chance it may
become "actual." That's what 'guana is referring to when he talks of
intensively attacking a lucrative game.

If this isn't clear, I can't add anything else to help you understand.

2-W

#28

you keep a running win/loss total, correct?
over the span of 500,000 hands, what is the amount of loss that would
cause you to swear off video poker forever or at least say 5 years?

$1,000?
$5,000?
$20,000?
$100,000?
$500,000?
$5,000,000?

whatever that amount is, that is your long-term bankroll, whether you
call it that or not

everybody has a long-term bankroll
and, depending on what games you are playing, everybody has a risk of
losing that entire bankroll (risk of ruin)
it's not optional, it's math
it's true whether you are aware of it or not

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

Personally, I don't have a long-term bankroll at all.

#29

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

>
> fascinating, truly fascinating
> well, good luck with that attitude

??? What's wrong with that attitude? Mathematically speaking, as

long

as the person still uses proper strategy, they have as much of a

chance

of winning as you do, for as long as they are willing and able to

play.

Personally, I don't have a long-term bankroll at all. I take a

session

stake with me, and when that's gone, then that's all she wrote for

that

trip. My session stake is not what I can afford to lose, but

rather

what I am willing to lose. Now, if I were to figure that I still

have a

few grand available right now in the bank, and that I'm well

within my

theoretical life-time long-term bankroll, I might rationalize that

I

might as well write a check at the casino for more cash, and then

when

that's gone write another check, and then another. Maybe pros do

that,

but recreational players who don't have gambling problems don't.

I have

a great time, and even when I've lost the last cent of session

stake and

go home, I'm still happy and satisfied -- although obviously not

as much

as I would have been if I had won on that trip.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

Atta boy, Bill. My

sentiments exactly. Thanks for the backup!

Cheers right back at you!

May all your sessions be winners. Babe

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

#30

As we keep saying, over and over, we play for fun and only for fun.
the numbers that you quote are irrelevant. When it is not enjyable,
we stop, until we feel like playing again.

We really are two different types, even though we both say that we
are recreational.

Perhaps we are recreational recreational playes and you are a
serious recreational player.

LOL

…,bl

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

> Personally, I don't have a long-term bankroll at all.

you keep a running win/loss total, correct?
over the span of 500,000 hands, what is the amount of loss that

would

cause you to swear off video poker forever or at least say 5 years?

$1,000?
$5,000?
$20,000?
$100,000?
$500,000?
$5,000,000?

whatever that amount is, that is your long-term bankroll, whether

you

call it that or not

everybody has a long-term bankroll
and, depending on what games you are playing, everybody has a risk

of

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
losing that entire bankroll (risk of ruin)
it's not optional, it's math
it's true whether you are aware of it or not

#31

What some are saying is that for some of us a "bankroll number" is
irrelevant as a factoid while we are playing.

I would agree. It's a little late to be thinking about bankroll requirements while you are playing.

We play when we are having fun and we stop when we are no longer
having fun. We play for entertainment and recreation.

As do most of us, I'm pretty sure, but why have you chosen VP over, say, slots or let it ride? If all you want is entertainment, there you have it. For most of us the answer would be the potential for long term gain (or at least enough free crap to make it worth our while;-) through thoughtful analysis.

E
But, enough already. I am outta this thread. LOL

Right. On to the "smoking/insult" thread? :wink:

···

At 04:26 PM 10/2/2004, you wrote:

#32

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the key word here is FUN.
Unless you are a sadist or a degenerate complulsive gambler, there
is nothing "fun" about losing!

Right. Don't be a degenerate compulsive gambler. Sound advice and best of luck if you should have to give it to any problem gambler that hasn't yet hit bottom.

  I think I have failed in my attempt
to make clear what I was espousing, so let me try again: I believe
that a vp player should always play ositive vp, and then, only
after practicing long and hard on WinPoker or FrugalPoker, so that
their accuracy is at least 99%. I believe that playing this way
gives the vp player a slight advantage and that because of that they
SOMETIMES win. They also frequently lose. When that unfortunate
happenstance occurs, they should put considerations of long term
bankroll aside, and only continue to play (and lose) as long as it
is comfortable for them and that they are still having FUN. Us
there somerhing wrong with that concept? In my opinion, I don't
think so.

Now bankroll considerations are OK and the mere discussion of them isn't "misleading" or "potentially ruinous?" This did not seem to be your original position.

I believe that discussions of LONG-TERM Bankroll
> >requirements are both misleading and potentially ruinous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you can explain to me how this is
ignorant (or "calling for ignorance") I'll be certainly re-think my
current "long-term bankroll considerations.

I think the sentence from your original post, if conveyed correctly, speaks for itself. I have no interest in convincing you to change your bankroll considerations. Play how you wish. For most gamblers the simple advice to stop playing when you're not having fun is fine. The large majority are playing negative expectation games. I prefer to apply all of my knowledge to inform my decisions on game play including how long I play a given opportunity. I'm sure it is not always the best decision but it does not exclude bankroll or fun considerations.

···

At 07:50 AM 10/3/2004, you wrote:

#33

            snip

. > > On the other hand, because most of us play recreationally and

infrequently on a variety of games, denominations, and average

bets,

coming up with a bankroll figure (predicted) for your VP career is
near impossible, and thus not very practical. Perhaps that is

what

you are stating in your posts?

Not exactly. First of all, I don't

consider vp "my career". I also don't think of having a long term vp
career. Actually, my career is VERY different than vp. I think of
vp as a very interesting and absorbing casino game that can, on
occasion, be played profitably. I also think it is very
entertaining to play vp. That is why I do it so often. I don't
believe that, after having determined that the pay schedule on a
machine is at least FP, if not 100%+, and that I have adequately
practiced the game on WP, that I have to consider any how much
money I need to continue playing it indefinetly. I will only play it
as long as it holds my interest and it is not bleeding me dry. If
either of those situations develop, or if some other external
circumstance occurs, which interfers with either my concentration or
my fun, I will leave the machine. That is my so simple, but for me,
so satisfying method of playing vp. It may not be for you, but it's
worked for me for at least 10 of the last 20+ years of playing vp.
BTW, this has caused no damage to either my bankroll or my pysche.
So far, even though I had many losing years prior to Frome, Dancer,
et al, I am now ahead of the game overall.

Nevertheless, the more you play and the more time you spend on a
specific pay schedule at a specific denomination, the more

important

it is to know and have the theoretical bankroll (as defined above)
for that game ... because there's a good chance it may
become "actual." That's what 'guana is referring to when he talks

of

intensively attacking a lucrative game.

If this isn't clear, I can't add anything else to help you

understand.

I understand both you and "quana" quite well.

I just feel that perhaps "attacking a lucrative game" to the extent
that you lose a large part of your bankroll, is not the most
practical thing for most vp players (other than pros, who MUST do
this to earn their living). Furthermore, to get back to my original
premise, I think most vp players, perhaps not as skilled or erudite,
as you and "quana", risk losing more then they can afford to lose,
while chasing the top prize on very lucrative game that just isn't
being all that lucrative, at that particular session. If they are
doing this to get back what they lost, because they have adequate
bankroll to keep at it, before they reach ror, then perhaps they
would have been better to quit sooner rather than later, bankroll
considerations aside.

Anyway, this is positively the last I have to say on this thread. I
think it's fine for everyone to play exactly how they wish to play.
And, I hope you all have "fun" while you're doing it.

        Babe

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "2-WILD" <lucky4K@C...> wrote:

#34

I can't help it.

I just have to respond with a very emphatic

"NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!".

Please, please, please do NOT speak "for the most of us". Speak for
yourself only! You do not know why "most of us" do what we do.

I can emphatically say that I, myself, play NOT for long-term gain.
There is no long-term gain possible for me (outside of luck). I am
NOT a coupon clipper and a freebie canvasser. I do NOT write books
and articles. I do NOT sell strategy cards or strategy software. I
do NOT want to do any of these things. Concerning gambling, I play
VP, and that is all!

I play to see how close I can come to the statistics quoted for the
various VP games, based upon playing near-100% machines well. The
CHALLANGE is to play well and come as close to the predicted
statistics as I can. It is NOT (repeated NOT) for a long-term
gain. The entertainment is to take the challange and try to play as
well as I can. Breaking even by the end of a trip is WONDERFUL for
me (including my comped costs of meals and lodging, and even
sometimes airfare).

I do not know your values, and, most especially, I cannot tell other
people what they are. I can only speak for myself.

WHEW! (Now, I will get off of my soap-box. LOL)

.....bl

For most of us the answer would be the potential for long term gain

(or at least enough free crap to make it worth our while;-)

through

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Chandler <omnibibulous1@c...> wrote:

At 04:26 PM 10/2/2004, you wrote:
thoughtful analysis.

#35

That's what I thought, Babe. But, as you saw in a post, just a bit
earlier than this one, I found that I could just not hold my tongue
and started to rant and rave again. LOL!

Isn't VP wonderful? And this group make it even better!

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:

···

Anyway, this is positively the last I have to say on this thread.
        Babe

#36

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:

That's what I thought, Babe. But, as you saw in a post, just a

bit

earlier than this one, I found that I could just not hold my

tongue

and started to rant and rave again. LOL!

Isn't VP wonderful? And this group make it even better!

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe"

<jackessiebabe@y...>

wrote:
> Anyway, this is positively the last I have to say on this

thread.

            Babe
       

Hi bornWINNER,

   Never trust a woman who says she's going to be quiet on a subject
about which she is passionate.

   Once again, I agree with you almost 100%. The very small % of
difference is that I LOVE coupons that give me that tiny litle
additional edge at vp & BJ (which I also play occasionally when I am
with my husband). BTW, I hesitate to admit this for fear of
additional ridicule, but I play excellent basic strategy, but do NOT
use a point-count system. Counting cards is just too much like work
for this RECREATIONAL player. I don't usually lose much, if
anything, at BJ either.

    Anyway, I'm happy to learn that there are some who agree with
me, as well as some who don't. You're my kind of fun-loving, light
hearted player who finds enjoyment in playing vp, and isn't quite so
serious about the long-term math!

     I figure that my ROR is exactly what's in my pocket, and not a
penny more. That way, I can enjoy myself w/o serious concerns about
losing more I care to, in the name of fun. I guess some players
would be amazed at how this permits me to enjoy the pure pleasure of
just playing vp.

      The best of luck to you, and above all, continue to have FUN!

                 Babe

#37

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@y...>
wrote:

   Once again, I agree with you almost 100%. The very small % of
difference is that I LOVE coupons that give me that tiny litle
additional edge at vp & BJ (which I also play occasionally when I

am

with my husband). BTW, I hesitate to admit this for fear of
additional ridicule, but I play excellent basic strategy, but do

NOT

use a point-count system. Counting cards is just too much like

work

for this RECREATIONAL player. I don't usually lose much, if
anything, at BJ either.

I can't imagine anyone subjecting you to any ridicule for BJ or the
way you play it, especially since that's exactly what I do! BJ is a
terrific way to tap into the table games comp system which only
enhances what you can get from just playing VP. Basic strategy works
to preserve your bankroll, and BJ is fun.

Keep up the good work.

Drew

#38

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe"

<jackessiebabe@y...>

wrote:
  BTW, I hesitate to admit this for fear of
> additional ridicule, but I play excellent basic strategy, but do
NOT
> use a point-count system. Counting cards is just too much like
work
> for this RECREATIONAL player. I don't usually lose much, if
> anything, at BJ either.
>

I can't imagine anyone subjecting you to any ridicule for BJ or

the

way you play it, especially since that's exactly what I do! BJ is

a

terrific way to tap into the table games comp system which only
enhances what you can get from just playing VP. Basic strategy

works

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpdeuces" <vpdeuces@y...> wrote:

to preserve your bankroll, and BJ is fun.

Keep up the good work.

Drew

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thank you, Drew. I love to play BJ with $5

or $10 match-play coupons or $20.00 iI I can get them. I rarely bet
more than $20.00 a hand (plus doubling and splitting) and sometimes
I can sit for an hour or two on a $100 buy-in. I do quit if I
double my money or lose my original stake. I also table-hop if I
have the misfortune of sitting with a dealer who develops a "hot-
hand". I'm not sure how much comp value there is in these stakes,
as I am always comped on the basis of my vp play.

Anyway, it's nice change from pounding the vp buttons.

Thanks for the post.

                Babe