vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's LV Advisor Column - 8 JAN 2013

#1

Why is it that some people insist that luck is the most important factor in gambling successfully? Don't they see those huge buildings and fancy attractions built by casinos and where they got the money to do it?

I see one particular VP player famous for discounting the value of EV, and who criticizes the strategy and thinking of the guys who do "Gambling with an Edge" and can't help but think he sounds like a close relative of mine--someone I love. He insisted on playing 6-5 TDB at the local indian casino, and that all he needed to do was get lucky. He had a "system." I must have tried over a hundred times to explain the math to him in dozens of different examples to no avail. He would just smile and say "OK," then go back to his system, and trying to get "lucky." Needless to say, after three years of repeated disasters, his entire retirement of over $400,000 was gone, he was in debt and owed over $90,000.

To all who may be new to this site, you should be clear about claims some players make. I'll keep it simple:

--The math DOES matter--you can't win at VP unless you have an over 100% EV.
--Luck WON'T change this in VP over an extended period because the top jackpot is not big
enough to overcome your losses.
--Beware of players who criticize or seem to take enjoyment at the supposed failures of pro
players like Shackleford and Dancer, who are trying to help you learn to play better. Yes,
they ask you to WORK to get better. It it were EASY to win, everyone would be doing it.

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

#2

I'm sorry but that is palpably false.
You CAN win at VP with far less than 100% VP. You can sit down at a dollar 6-5 progressive with an $8000 meter (still way under 100%) and hit the progressive with your first 5 coins while your pal at the next machine loses $500 an hour on the Loose Deuces progressive-a positive play.
Luck CAN change this "over an extended period". Lets take 20 years- an extended period in any book. Ralph Retiree retires to LV and enjoys playing VP at his local casino once a week for 2 hours at 500 hph. Over the next 20 years he plays a million hands. All of it on dollar "negative" games like NSUD, 9/6/90 JOB, under 100% progressives. Good paying games but all negative. However luck rewards Ralph with a few more royals and a few more 4 deuces than he is "supposed" to get so ends his life as a sizable winner "over an extended period".
Conversely, Ralph could find the Valley's only $25 Loose Deuces machine, blow his $500,000 life savings in 6 months (or less) and end up at the Shade Tree shelter.
Can someone really tell Ralph "it doesn't matter if you win or lose"?
Really?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Barefoot wrote:

--you can't win at VP unless you have an over 100% EV.
--Luck WON'T change this in VP over an extended period because the top jackpot is not big

#3

mike wrote: (in part) Over the next 20 years he plays a million hands. All of it on dollar
"negative" games like NSUD, 9/6/90 JOB, under 100% progressives. Good
paying games but all negative. However luck rewards Ralph with a few
more royals and a few more 4 deuces than he is "supposed" to get so ends
his life as a sizable winner "over an extended period".
  
Two things: First of all, you're listing games without considering slot club, mailers, promotions, etc. The games you're listing are frequently over 100% considering everything. When the players in this thread are talking about over-100% opportunities, they are almost certainly considering benefits in addition to the return on the game itself. Most winning video poker players do NOT play games that are over 100% in and of themselves.

Second, you're drawing an isolated hypothetical example. If you are claiming it is possible for 1 guy in many thousands to end up ahead long term while playing slightly negative games, you are absolutely right. It is possible. It is very unlikely however. Smart decision makers go with the likely, not with the remotely possible.

It's remotely possible that Angelina Jolie will leave Brad Pitt and take up with you. But basing your whole life on that possibility is certainly not a good use of your time.

Bob

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

#4

There is a high percentage of possibility gamblers. There is a low
percentage of probability gamblers. There is a low percentage of winning
possibility gamblers.
There is a not as low percentage of winning probability gamblers.
If you all the above percentages were reversed we would loose the
possibility of gambling in casinos.
GL!

It's remotely possible that Angelina Jolie will leave Brad Pitt and take

up with you. But basing your whole life on that possibility is certainly
not a good use of your time.

Bob

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