Bob Dancer's LVA Column - 19 JAN 2016
Teaching Advanced 8/5 Bonus
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2016/0119.cfm
*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************
I'm thinking if it's an advanced class you should teach max-non-royal strategy as well which means:
4RF>4FL
3SFo (includes i+1H and di+2H) >3RF>AKQJo>QJs>4STi3H>2RF2H
only hold the high card in JTs, QTs, KTs, ATs
Max-non-royal strategy is the more optimal strategy in most Nevada and California casinos today.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Just curious, what does a max-non-Royal strategy for NSUD look like and what is the corresponding EV. I think it would be difficult since you go for Wild RF so often.
Max-non-royal strategy is the more optimal strategy in most Nevada and California casinos today.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sent from my iPhone
I don't think management cares if you hit wild royals. Knock yourself out.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <vegasvpplayer@...> wrote :
Just curious, what does a max-non-Royal strategy for NSUD look like and what is the corresponding EV. I think it would be difficult since you go for Wild RF so often.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Vegasvpplayer asked: "Just curious, what does a max-non-Royal strategy for NSUD look like"
5FL>4RF>5ST
4FL>3RF>2P
4STi>JTs>T876o
average return = 0.992%
variance = 20.6
average royal cycle = 66,598
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Oops, get rid of that percent sign:
average return = 0.992
variance = 20.6
average royal cycle = 66,598
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Let me guess, Bob will suggest that you can teach that at your classes.
Do you guys know each other in real life or this is an online 'bromance'?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It's not clear to me that simply assigning zero to the royal flush is
sufficient to determine optimal strategy. You really ought to assign a
negative value to the RF, specifically its nominal value minus the net
present value of all future expectation times the chance of your getting
kicked out by hitting this royal. Setting it to zero is very lazy thinking.
Cogno
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:25 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA Column - 19 JAN 2016
Vegasvpplayer asked: "Just curious, what does a max-non-Royal strategy for
NSUD look like"
5FL>4RF>5ST
4FL>3RF>2P
4STi>JTs>T876o
average return = 0.992%
variance = 20.6
average royal cycle = 66,598
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
There are costs to hitting jackpots, but I find it hard to believe
that these costs generally even come close to the amount of the
jackpot. Setting the royal flush to 0 already costs .5% overall.
That's way too expensive and will often make the difference of whether
it's playable at all. It's better to hit jackpots and get kicked out.
getting kicked out is being greatly exaggerated. It's as if a casino
is so trigger happy that one jackpot will get you barred for life, but
if you otherwise play as a professional but get unlucky, they'll love
you. That's extreme.
From my experience, the correlation between hitting jackpots and
It's not clear to me that simply assigning zero to the royal flush is
sufficient to determine optimal strategy. You really ought to assign a
negative value to the RF, specifically its nominal value minus the net
present value of all future expectation times the chance of your getting
kicked out by hitting this royal. Setting it to zero is very lazy thinking.Cogno
NOTI wrote: I'm thinking if it's an advanced class you should teach max-non-royal strategy
Think again because that is absolutely NOT the way the class will be taught. The class will be MAX EV.
The NSU strategy he presented gives up half a percent. Professional players for stakes higher than quarters generally have less than half a percent advantage while playing MAX EV. Playing a strategy where the house has the edge is against my religion. NOTI's strategies are more for non-playing theoreticians. My strategies are more for actual players.
Bob
________________________________
[Yahoo! Groups]<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbTBsam5hBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ2NDEwMTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzMyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxNDUzMjQwNTU0>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
About max-non-royal strategy:
The day I try not to get a royal flush is the day I will quit playing VP!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------
Jean $¢ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
http://jscott.lvablog.com/
UPDATED TAX BOOK
(Download 2015 eBook now)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
007 writes: "There are costs to hitting jackpots, but I find it hard to believe
that these costs generally even come close to the amount of the
jackpot."
Let's look at some numbers. MaxEV has an average royal cycle of 43,456 and an average return of 0.997 making the average cost to hit a royal about 130 bets. Max-non-royals has an average royal cycle of 66,598 and an average return of 0.992 making the average cost to hit a royal about 533 bets. But Max-non-royals gives you an extra 23,142 hands to make up that deficit, meaning 403/23142 = 1.7% is the crossover. That could be one extra mailer or one extra day on a big multiplier, or at a tight casino maybe two extra mailers and two extra days on a double multiplier plus a bonus gift card day plus a drawing.
You have to keep in mind that getting backed off excludes you from future casino promotions, the actual video poker game itself is relatively meaningless, it's just a cost of getting into the promotions.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
My experience has been that game denomination is probably the biggest risk factor for barring or casino countermeasures. To some extent many casino managers have embraced the video poker flea model and seem to only become upset when they are beat by players at high denomination play, especially above $1. Multiline play at a lower denomination probably is beneficial when available, but really high coin in figures probably stand out too.
Personally, I only like to play 2000-3000 hands a day maximum for physical comfort and mental sanity. That's why I prefer to play high denomination games. Unfortunately it comes with the added casino scrutiny.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2016, at 10:52 PM, 007 007@embarqmail.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
From my experience, the correlation between hitting jackpots and
getting kicked out is being greatly exaggerated. It's as if a casino
is so trigger happy that one jackpot will get you barred for life, but
if you otherwise play as a professional but get unlucky, they'll love
you.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Queen of Comps wrote: "The day I try not to get a royal flush is the day I will quit playing VP!!!!!!!!"
Trying to get a royal is not enough to specify a strategy, as long as the machine locks up on dealt royals, any strategy will get a royal. You need an additional constraint, such as average cost of getting a royal.
If money is no object, like in free tournaments or free play or you're forced to play for pennies when you have a Bob Dancer or Richard Brody sized bankroll where there is no difference between a penny and zero, then maxRoyal strategy is optimal:
5RF>4RF>3RF>2RF>1RF>draw five
If the average cost of getting a royal is an issue, then min-cost-royal strategy is optimal:
http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/FAQ_S.htm#MCR
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Cogno wrote: "Setting it to zero is very lazy thinking."
This is probably true, but setting the royal to zero to generate a strategy is a bit of a sweet spot, since it optimizes the return of the non-royal hands. But one could certainly generate a strategy at say half a royal (400bets) and then ask the question: at what amount of promotion would this strategy be better than maxEV, and so on. Negative values are also plausible. One could imagine a scenario where hitting another W2G conflicts with SS or Medicare or an income based benefit and the result could easily be a strong net negative. Many people would choose to not gamble, but there may be an optimal strategy that allows one to continue gambling even when a W2G is a net negative after taxes.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I am certainly in that category where W-2Gs would significantly affect other benefits I get...so much so that I would basically lose 100% of my win! I still would not play a strategy other than max-EV. Instead, I play $1 single line until I hit one W-2G (which my finances can handle) and then switch to quarters for the rest of the year. Maybe not everyone's choice, but why would I want to give the casino any more money than I already am?
Stu
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stu wrote: "I am certainly in that category where W-2Gs would significantly affect other benefits I get...so much so that I would basically lose 100% of my win! I still would not play a strategy other than max-EV. Instead, I play $1 single line until I hit one W-2G (which my finances can handle) and then switch to quarters for the rest of the year. Maybe not everyone's choice, but why would I want to give the casino any more money than I already am?"
That's certainly a very reasonable approach. The only capitalist reason you would want to give the casino more money would be if they offer better promotions for more money. If you can get the promotions just playing quarters, then just play quarters. On the other hand, if the promotions for more play are good enough (more than 1.6% total promotions for playing jacks) then you could "win more" by playing up. If your tax situation is such that you lose 100% of a taxable royal, then the real value of a royal to you is zero, and the appropriate strategy to play would be the strategy found by setting the royal to its real value for you, namely zero. I guess it tugs at the heart strings to think of a royal as having no value, but that is the cold hard capitalist truth, in some situations.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stu asked: "... why would I want to give the casino any more money than I already am?"
Actually, your situation is even simpler. If your choice is between Jacks for quarters (0.46% casino hold) or Jacks with taxable royals (1.1% casino hold using the strategy found by setting the royal to zero, assuming the tax cancels the royal), then you would give the casino more money (play for the taxable royals) if you can get more than 1.1-0.46 = 0.64% in additional promotions for playing the taxable royals game. One way this might happen is with promotions based on daily play or play in a certain time period where the extra coin in counts. For example there might be a promotion where for earning so many points you get something, and you can't earn the points playing just quarters before the deadline.
The bottom line is that you'd be willing to give more, if you get more in return.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Cogno wrote: "Setting it to zero is very lazy thinking."
noti wrote: This is probably true, but setting the royal to zero to generate a strategy is a bit of a sweet spot, since it optimizes the return of the non-royal hands. But one could certainly generate a strategy at say half a royal (400bets) and then ask the question: at what amount of promotion would this strategy be better than maxEV, and so on. Negative values are also plausible. One could imagine a scenario where hitting another W2G conflicts with SS or Medicare or an income based benefit and the result could easily be a strong net negative. Many people would choose to not gamble, but there may be an optimal strategy that allows one to continue gambling even when a W2G is a net negative after taxes.
My reply: Hard for me to imagine such a scenario. Even if a royal W-2G results in an increased Medicare Part B premium for the ensuing year (and a corresponding decrease in one's Soc Sec), the negative effect will most likely last one year. And the W-2G winnings will almost certainly cover the reduced SS income with a major portion of the winnings left over.
Pat Roach
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stu wrote: "I am certainly in that category where W-2Gs would significantly affect other benefits I get...so much so that I would basically lose 100% of my win! I still would not play a strategy other than max-EV."
For what it's worth, if I was in your situation, I'd play quarter slots and table games, whatever doesn't involve extra paperwork or disclosing one's SSN. At many casinos this will get all the interesting promotions anyway. I'd go with Kelly strategy, but it's probably not much different than maxEV in many situations.
I'd be real leery about playing anything that involved W2G's. For one thing, there's the tax consequences as you say. For another thing many casinos use W2G's to decide who to backoff or no mail, so you'd be putting all that hard earned quarters reputation at risk. I'd keep my eye out for a casino, or casinos, that was looking to increase their business and doing a lot of promotions. If the promotions were enough (probably over 1.6% total) and I couldn't get them just with quarter play or table play, then I'd be tempted to play something that involved W2G's. But W2G plays have a lot of hidden costs, so I'd want to make pretty sure I covered all the bases. There's too many risks involved with W2G play to make playing tight situations a good idea. As you say, there's no reason to give the casinos even more money, unless you get something of value in return.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]