Fw: Video Poker in Texas?

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> Lets say 2 hours provides approximately 10 full houses and 10
flushes in the my JOB example (9/6 vs. 6/5). Betting 5 coins would
yield 10*5*3 + 10*5*1 = 200 extra coins. Now this is just in two
hours. How is this misleading? To assert it would not make a
difference 99.9% of the time would be completely misleading.

It's misleading because it looks great on paper, but when the

optimal-

play-only player gets those extra credits, I've already told you

what

happens - and you already know that. If you put 500 credits into a
machine and lose it, what do you think you'll do with a remaining
200? If you play for the points instead of for the money (as the
casino wants you to do) then you're doing the right thing. That's

why

the numbers involved with expert play on positive machines always
LOOK good here, but if everyone incorporated human factors into the
equations as I always do, it would appear totally different.

I think most advantage players primarily play for money. The points
are a means to an end. Otherwise all you said here is I am right.
Introducing an undefined term like "human factors" is called an
obfuscation and "you already know that".
   

> > 800>125 means something if you hit it. 9/6 vs. 8/5 does not.
> Even in 9/6 vs. 8/5 JOB the difference is still 100 coins. Not
> insignificant in a two hours stint.

Same thing.

Yep!

>
> First of all you haven't shown me how to create the "luck" in the
> first place. Please describe how this is guaranteed so you can

quit

> for the day ahead.

Luck isn't created--it happens. Good and bad, but most of it is

bad,

of course. I use the same numbers game you do when I play, only I
maximize my chances of hitting quads

This is impossible in a random game. There is NO way to maximize your
chances of any given result. The odds are constant.

as I progress both
denominationally as well as in volatility. Nothing is guaranteed,

but

the numbers say that as you play into the progression, it's likely

No, it is not likely. The odds never change. A betting progression
cannot change the odds. Nothing you assert can change this fact. Now,
I have seen people playing machines at short coin and all of a sudden
go to max coin and hit a jackpot. I have also seen someone playing
max coin and losing, then go to short coin and hit a jackpot. That's
why they call it random.

a
quad will be hit sometime--and maybe a special quad or bigger along
the way. It works great for me, and that's why I firmly believe in
it. But unlike expert-play, it requires solid determination,
discipline, and bankroll. If you waiver even a small bit, the
expectation switches over to the casino taking your money.

Baloney! Pure and simple. If it has worked for you then you have
simply been living on the plus side of the bell curve. It won't last
for you and it won't work for the average player.

>
> Second, please show how 3 short two hours sessions is different
than one long 6 hour session.
>
That's easy. For the way you play, there's no difference at all.

With

my Play Strategies, cashing out as winners arise in the

progressions

means profits. But I don't relate my strategies to time. They only
relate to the goals and the profits.

I asked you to show how it is different and you just re-asserted it
was different with no supporting evidence. Come on, show something
concrete. Describe how "cashing out" changes the odds in a random
game.

> If not math then what? What's your definition of common sense

that

> will lead a player to making correct holds and selecting the

better

> machines?

Because just about everything in the world is based on math, and

the

fact that I don't like to be nebulous as you are in this respect,
that's not easy to answer.

Let's see, you think comparing 9/6 vs. 6/5 is nebulous. I thought I
was pretty specific. You, on the other hand, just avoided my direct
question. Please explain your "common sense" definition.

Selecting the better machines is selecting
the higher pay numbers, but that alone won't do anything for me. I
regularly play 7/5 BP at bars over 8/5 on the floors because I like
to watch the game, and more multi-denomination games are at bars. I
don't use any math here--just human factors. That's part of what
common sense is.

Talk about nebulous! I have no problem with someone enjoying
themselves in a casino. This, however, is just another obfuscation
and does not demonstrate improved results.

For selecting holds, certainly math has something to
do with it in our early-on process of understanding cards, but the
common sense hold is not always the mathematically correct one.

Actually, there may be more than one "mathematically" correct hold
depending on your goals. Your avoidence of the question continues.
Please explain what the difference is between your common sense holds
and ones mathematically based on specific goals.

>
> Now you've really gone off the deep end. The math models that
suggest there IS long term results is the same math used by EVERY
SINGLE fortune 500 company in the world to do market forecasting,
etc. Are you suggesting the math they use is wrong and the entire
world economic system is flawed?

Again, as I've said so many times, if you look at video poker as

some

kind of business model, you're falling directly into the hands of

the

casinos--who really do look at their business in those terms.

No, you can't wiggle your way out of this. I'm simply stating that
the math used by major corporations is the same as that used by
advantage players in determining long term expectations. The math
can't be right for the corporations and somehow wrong when applied to
advantage players. It is either correct or incorrect. So, what is it.
Is the math right or wrong.

Gambling is not the same as what you paint it out to be here.

Actually, I haven't been talking about gambling. I've been addressing
your assertions for which you provide absolutely no supporting
evidence.

No
matter what system anyone uses or how much money they have, the
advantage is always on the side of the casino. BJ counters and the
positive players of the gambling world scare no one.

Of course they do. Otherwise we'd still all be playing single deck
BJ. Your assertion means nothing because you have nothing to support
it. However, if you look at the changing rules for BJ and the
reduction in positive oppportunities for VP players I see lot's of
evidence that would support the premise that the casinos are worried.

why do you think
so many casinos have promotions adding to that 'theoretical
advantage' all the time--almost never-ending? The small potato

money

is good, but they know so-called advantage players will flock to
their casino, and tons of profits will be raked in from them.

The casinos still have the advantage because there are so few true
advantage players. They are willing to lose to a small fraction in
order to attract the majority of non-advantage players.

In addition, I'm sure the casinos would be absolutely delighted to
attract contingents of progressive players playing negative games and
using your, as yet, undefined "common sense". Talk about huge profits.

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> From a statisical point of view someone had to win eventually.
> Nothing lucky about that.

> I wish you the best of luck on your next trip also.
>
> Dick

I believe luck is the most crucial factor in gambling, so I thank

you

for your good wishes.

Information and strategies are important and we all use them. The
housemaid in Lowell I would say used a strategy in life that gave

her

grandchildren on whom to spend the money won, and neighbors that

like

her and don't want her to move. I'd say that was a good life
strategy. Also, it provided her with a sufficient bankroll to
purchase the Megamillion ticket that won 300 millions, I'd say that
was very smart money management.

I don't see why you put on opposite sides the concepts of

statistics

and luck. I rather view it differently; it would seem that

statistics

reveal luck.

... snip

E

I don't put statistics and luck on opposite sides. Good luck, or bad
luck, is simply a short term description of one's results while
statistics is a longer term description. Luck is not something that
defines our results over many samples nor is statistics useful in
small samples.

Since luck is a short term description of results it is easy to see
why some people are considered lucky and others unlucky based on a
small number of samples. Events like the lottery are always based on
a small number of samples from any individuals standpoint. Therefore,
luck determines their overall results.

Dick

[Dan_Cox]

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > Lets say 2 hours provides approximately 10 full houses and 10
> flushes in the my JOB example (9/6 vs. 6/5). Betting 5 coins

would

> yield 10*5*3 + 10*5*1 = 200 extra coins. Now this is just in two
> hours. How is this misleading? To assert it would not make a
> difference 99.9% of the time would be completely misleading.
>
> It's misleading because it looks great on paper, but when the
optimal-
> play-only player gets those extra credits, I've already told you
what
> happens - and you already know that. If you put 500 credits into

a

> machine and lose it, what do you think you'll do with a remaining
> 200? If you play for the points instead of for the money (as the
> casino wants you to do) then you're doing the right thing. That's
why
> the numbers involved with expert play on positive machines always
> LOOK good here, but if everyone incorporated human factors into

the

> equations as I always do, it would appear totally different.
>

I think most advantage players primarily play for money. The points
are a means to an end. Otherwise all you said here is I am right.
Introducing an undefined term like "human factors" is called an
obfuscation and "you already know that".
   
> > > 800>125 means something if you hit it. 9/6 vs. 8/5 does not.
> > Even in 9/6 vs. 8/5 JOB the difference is still 100 coins. Not
> > insignificant in a two hours stint.
>
> Same thing.

Yep!

> >
> > First of all you haven't shown me how to create the "luck" in

the

> > first place. Please describe how this is guaranteed so you can
quit
> > for the day ahead.
>
> Luck isn't created--it happens. Good and bad, but most of it is
bad,
> of course. I use the same numbers game you do when I play, only I
> maximize my chances of hitting quads

This is impossible in a random game. There is NO way to maximize

your

chances of any given result. The odds are constant.

> as I progress both
> denominationally as well as in volatility. Nothing is guaranteed,
but
> the numbers say that as you play into the progression, it's likely

No, it is not likely. The odds never change. A betting progression
cannot change the odds. Nothing you assert can change this fact.

Now,

I have seen people playing machines at short coin and all of a

sudden

go to max coin and hit a jackpot. I have also seen someone playing
max coin and losing, then go to short coin and hit a jackpot.

That's

why they call it random.

> a
> quad will be hit sometime--and maybe a special quad or bigger

along

> the way. It works great for me, and that's why I firmly believe

in

> it. But unlike expert-play, it requires solid determination,
> discipline, and bankroll. If you waiver even a small bit, the
> expectation switches over to the casino taking your money.

Baloney! Pure and simple. If it has worked for you then you have
simply been living on the plus side of the bell curve. It won't

last

for you and it won't work for the average player.

> >
> > Second, please show how 3 short two hours sessions is different
> than one long 6 hour session.
> >
> That's easy. For the way you play, there's no difference at all.
With
> my Play Strategies, cashing out as winners arise in the
progressions
> means profits. But I don't relate my strategies to time. They

only

> relate to the goals and the profits.

I asked you to show how it is different and you just re-asserted it
was different with no supporting evidence. Come on, show something
concrete. Describe how "cashing out" changes the odds in a random
game.

>
> > If not math then what? What's your definition of common sense
that
> > will lead a player to making correct holds and selecting the
better
> > machines?
>
> Because just about everything in the world is based on math, and
the
> fact that I don't like to be nebulous as you are in this respect,
> that's not easy to answer.

Let's see, you think comparing 9/6 vs. 6/5 is nebulous. I thought I
was pretty specific. You, on the other hand, just avoided my direct
question. Please explain your "common sense" definition.

> Selecting the better machines is selecting
> the higher pay numbers, but that alone won't do anything for me.

I

> regularly play 7/5 BP at bars over 8/5 on the floors because I

like

> to watch the game, and more multi-denomination games are at bars.

I

> don't use any math here--just human factors. That's part of what
> common sense is.

Talk about nebulous! I have no problem with someone enjoying
themselves in a casino. This, however, is just another obfuscation
and does not demonstrate improved results.

> For selecting holds, certainly math has something to
> do with it in our early-on process of understanding cards, but

the

> common sense hold is not always the mathematically correct one.

Actually, there may be more than one "mathematically" correct hold
depending on your goals. Your avoidence of the question continues.
Please explain what the difference is between your common sense

holds

and ones mathematically based on specific goals.

> >
> > Now you've really gone off the deep end. The math models that
> suggest there IS long term results is the same math used by EVERY
> SINGLE fortune 500 company in the world to do market forecasting,
> etc. Are you suggesting the math they use is wrong and the entire
> world economic system is flawed?
>
> Again, as I've said so many times, if you look at video poker as
some
> kind of business model, you're falling directly into the hands of
the
> casinos--who really do look at their business in those terms.

No, you can't wiggle your way out of this. I'm simply stating that
the math used by major corporations is the same as that used by
advantage players in determining long term expectations. The math
can't be right for the corporations and somehow wrong when applied

to

advantage players. It is either correct or incorrect. So, what is

it.

Is the math right or wrong.

> Gambling is not the same as what you paint it out to be here.

Actually, I haven't been talking about gambling. I've been

addressing

your assertions for which you provide absolutely no supporting
evidence.

> No
> matter what system anyone uses or how much money they have, the
> advantage is always on the side of the casino. BJ counters and

the

> positive players of the gambling world scare no one.

Of course they do. Otherwise we'd still all be playing single deck
BJ. Your assertion means nothing because you have nothing to

support

it. However, if you look at the changing rules for BJ and the
reduction in positive oppportunities for VP players I see lot's of
evidence that would support the premise that the casinos are

worried.

> why do you think
> so many casinos have promotions adding to that 'theoretical
> advantage' all the time--almost never-ending? The small potato
money
> is good, but they know so-called advantage players will flock to
> their casino, and tons of profits will be raked in from them.

The casinos still have the advantage because there are so few true
advantage players. They are willing to lose to a small fraction in
order to attract the majority of non-advantage players.

In addition, I'm sure the casinos would be absolutely delighted to
attract contingents of progressive players playing negative games

and

using your, as yet, undefined "common sense". Talk about huge

profits.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

Dick

[Dan_Cox]

> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
> are a means to an end. Otherwise all you said here is I am right.
> Introducing an undefined term like "human factors" is called an
> obfuscation and "you already know that".

What's with the fascination between you and Albert with the word
obfuscation? "You already know that" human factors is what separates
the math from the real world.

>
> This is impossible in a random game. There is NO way to maximize
your chances of any given result. The odds are constant.

I do it all the time, and I am no luckier than you or anyone else. I
don't think about or care about odds. If you get 4-to-the-royal, you
probably automatically say to yourself "I've got a 1 in 47 chance of
pulling the fifth". We all know that's nonsense. First of all, you've
got a 1 in 5 chance IF the fifth card is included in the draw cards.
The rest is moot. You either get it or you don't, and whether it's 1
in 2 or 1 in a million doesn't matter to a player. They just want it.
The rest is best left up to computer fairies and math geeks to
wrestle with.

> No, it is not likely. The odds never change. A betting

progression cannot change the odds. Nothing you assert can change
this fact.

Whether the odds change or not is again something you folks like to
wrestle with on paper. You go for the quads as you progress in
volatility & denomination, and when it comes you usually are way
ahead. Try that by staying on the same, boring game all day long.

> Baloney! Pure and simple. If it has worked for you then you have
> simply been living on the plus side of the bell curve. It won't
last for you and it won't work for the average player.

Bell Curves have absolutely nothing to do with video poker play.
They're something that Dan Paymar likes to dream about and Jazbo like
to write about, but they mean nothing to anyone when they're playing
a machine.

>
> I asked you to show how it is different and you just re-asserted

it was different with no supporting evidence. Come on, show something

> concrete. Describe how "cashing out" changes the odds in a random
> game.

Simple. Go into a casino today, put $1000 in a 100-coin JB machine.
Play 1 credit, then 2, then 4, then 8 etc. until you get ahead by 1
or more. Then cash out. You'll find this will happen over 90% of the
time. The odds were not changed at all, but you will win far more
than you will lose. When the loss comes along doesn't matter--it is
mitigated by the number of large wins along the way, and you still
win.

>
> Let's see, you think comparing 9/6 vs. 6/5 is nebulous. I thought

I was pretty specific.

That's the difference between one mathematical mind that was able to
take the blinders off years ago and conquer video poker machines, and
another who can't let go of his slide rule.

You, on the other hand, just avoided my direct

> question. Please explain your "common sense" definition.

You know what common sense is. Who cares if it's based on math at the
beginning just like everything else is. It's the ability to interject
human factors into an otherwise bland situation in order to create
some excitement out of a situation....in this case--winning.

>
> Talk about nebulous! I have no problem with someone enjoying
> themselves in a casino. This, however, is just another

obfuscation and does not demonstrate improved results.

The point is, Einstein, that I don't need >100% machines at all to
win consistently and stay far ahead of that curve you like to discuss.

>
> Actually, there may be more than one "mathematically" correct

hold depending on your goals.

That's correct. I see you've been reading my site when it comes to
how to attain goals.

Your avoidence of the question continues.

> Please explain what the difference is between your common sense
holds and ones mathematically based on specific goals.

Common sense holds are obvious because they are. You don't need a
math course to tell you that. Or maybe you did.

>
> No, you can't wiggle your way out of this. I'm simply stating

that the math used by major corporations is the same as that used by

> advantage players in determining long term expectations. The math
> can't be right for the corporations and somehow wrong when

applied to advantage players. It is either correct or incorrect. So,
what is it.

The math is correct for corporations (and casinos) and makes no
difference in the short-term for players. And it almost never makes
any difference to long-term players either, because it is luck that
determines the outcome of any session anyway.

> Of course they do. Otherwise we'd still all be playing single

deck BJ.

Right. Ask Stanford Wong why he had to start a business from home.
Ask Anthony Curtis, card-counter extraordinaire, why he had to find
another way to make a buck. Card counters are a theory and nothing
more. It's a fascination wannabees want to talk about all the time.
Those who supposedly count don't make enough to feed the dog.

However, if you look at the changing rules for BJ and the
> reduction in positive oppportunities for VP players I see lot's

of evidence that would support the premise that the casinos are

worried.

Yeah, sure they're worried. They worry all the time that players like
Dancer and Scott are going to run out of money in a casino other than
theirs. Changing rules in BJ have nothing to do with "advantage
players". It's a simple business decision that ups the profit % for
the suits to keep their jobs, just as reducing pay tables on vp
machines is for. Advantage players are a myth and nothing more. It
sells, so it is popular. Your mathematical mind let that one slip by.

>
> The casinos still have the advantage because there are so few

true advantage players. They are willing to lose to a small fraction
in order to attract the majority of non-advantage players.

That's confidence-building at it's best. You advantage players HAVE
to pat each other's views on the shoulder just so you can justify to
yourselves and who knows who else, that sitting for hours day after
day in unhealhy casinos feeding the machines is a good thing.

[mubowor]

I am drinking Chivas on the rocks, so I think I will barge in this
controversy and give my two cents.

I think you are both right. I agree with both of you.

How can that be? Well, each brings out a different aspect of the game
that is valid given the circumstances.

This reminds me years ago when most of my Opera fanatic friends were
divided among those who thought Maria Callas was the greatest soprano
alive, and those who thought Joan Sutherland was the greatest. The
discussions among these two groups almost led to stiletto fights.
Whose I Puritani was better? Well, listen to Callas' "O rendetemi";
no, listen to Sutherland's trills in the cabaletta. It nearly drove
me mad. Then a friend said, "I like them both". This friend was
right.

Going back to Video Poker, for the Las Vegas native who plays a few
hours every day, the sure long term strategy is the convenient one.
For the visitor, something that might not always work (neither will
the the long term all the time, anyway, as we can see in the poll in
the other message board), but that often does quickly, is best. Some
people like wine spritzers, others like double vodkas on the rocks.
Cheers,

E

[rgmustain]

What's with the fascination between you and Albert with the word
obfuscation? "You already know that" human factors is what

separates

the math from the real world.

You're saying math has nothing to do with the real world. Fact is,
math describes the real world very nicely. Otherwise you wouldn't
have that nice computer in front of you to say otherwise. Nothing you
can ever assert will ever change that fact.

I do it all the time, and I am no luckier than you or anyone else.

I

don't think about or care about odds. If you get 4-to-the-royal,

you

probably automatically say to yourself "I've got a 1 in 47 chance

of

pulling the fifth". We all know that's nonsense.

No, I know it's the truth. And who is this "we" you are referring to?

Random means it's a 1 in 47 chance. To say otherwise is ridiculous
and shows one more attempt at obfuscation.

First of all, you've
got a 1 in 5 chance IF the fifth card is included in the draw cards.

Yes, and a 1 in 9.4 chance that it's not in the draw cards, yielding
a 1 in 47 chance overall. Simple math.

The rest is moot. You either get it or you don't, and whether it's

1

in 2 or 1 in a million doesn't matter to a player. They just want

it.

The rest is best left up to compu ter fairies and math geeks to
wrestle with.

This is where you start calling people names. When faced with logic
and fact you resort to name calling. This really shows your true
colors.

Whether the odds change or not is again something you folks like to
wrestle with on paper. You go for the quads as you progress in
volatility & denomination, and when it comes you usually are way
ahead. Try that by staying on the same, boring game all day long.

No wrestling required. It's not a supposition, it's a mathematical
fact. Nothing else makes any difference. Any progression scheme is a
fraud, pure and simple.

Bell Curves have absolutely nothing to do with video poker play.
They're something that Dan Paymar likes to dream about and Jazbo

like

to write about, but they mean nothing to anyone when they're

playing

a machine.

They don't have to. You don't care that these same principles are
involved in the electronics in your computer do you? Just the same
someone had to know and understand these principles to enable the
technology. What you need to know to operate a computer is fairly
simple and that's pretty much the same with advantage play. So, yes
Bell Curves do have something to do with video poker play. You don't
have to care about it as long as you follow the principles developed
by Paymar, Jazbo and others.

> >
> > I asked you to show how it is different and you just re-

asserted

it was different with no supporting evidence. Come on, show

something

> > concrete. Describe how "cashing out" changes the odds in a

random

> > game.

Simple. Go into a casino today, put $1000 in a 100-coin JB machine.
Play 1 credit, then 2, then 4, then 8 etc. until you get ahead by 1
or more. Then cash out. You'll find this will happen over 90% of

the

time. The odds were not changed at all, but you will win far more
than you will lose. When the loss comes along doesn't matter--it is
mitigated by the number of large wins along the way, and you still
win.

This is a simple Martingale system which has been proven over and
over that it does NOT change the odds and has no impact on your
overall results. More small wins and a few large losses and you do
NOT come out ahead. If you think this is so great why don't you risk
your bankroll playing roulette where you can multiply your so-called
wins faster? Why? Because you know as well as I that this is all FUD
that you use to push your own system.

> > I was pretty specific.

That's the difference between one mathematical mind that was able

to

take the blinders off years ago and conquer video poker machines,

and

another who can't let go of his slide rule.

Yada, yada, yada. How often can you use the stupid slide rule
statement and think it bothers anyone.

You, on the other hand, just avoided my direct
> > question. Please explain your "common sense" definition.

You know what common sense is. Who cares if it's based on math at

the

beginning just like everything else is. It's the ability to

interject

human factors into an otherwise bland situation in order to create
some excitement out of a situation....in this case--winning.

Nothing specific here. Still avoiding the question. Your baseless
assertions are completely worthless.

The point is, Einstein, that I don't need >100% machines at all to
win consistently and stay far ahead of that curve you like to

discuss.

Please show how this accomplished? It is easy to prove that any
progressive system applied to a random game does not change the odds.
This is simple high school math. So, explain how you can accomplish
this.

> >
> > Actually, there may be more than one "mathematically" correct
hold depending on your goals.

That's correct. I see you've been reading my site when it comes to
how to attain goals.

Never been to your site. Since you've never been able to provide one
single piece of evidence to support your assertions why would I waste
my time! I was referring to "goals" as discussed on vpfree, such as,
minimum risk, etc.

Your avoidence of the question continues.
> > Please explain what the difference is between your common sense
> holds and ones mathematically based on specific goals.

Common sense holds are obvious because they are. You don't need a
math course to tell you that. Or maybe you did.

Wow, this is your conclusive proof ?!?!

If it's common sense and it's obvious, then why do I see so many
different playing strategies at a casino.

> >
> > No, you can't wiggle your way out of this. I'm simply stating
that the math used by major corporations is the same as that used

by

> > advantage players in determining long term expectations. The

math

> > can't be right for the corporations and somehow wrong when
applied to advantage players. It is either correct or incorrect.

So,

what is it.

The math is correct for corporations (and casinos) and makes no
difference in the short-term for players. And it almost never makes
any difference to long-term players either, because it is luck that
determines the outcome of any session anyway.

First, short term players WILL see a small benefit from correct play.
Just not every time. In addition, they will see more of a benefit
than those who do not use correct play.

Second, if the math is right for the corporations then it is right
for long term players. The math is exactly the same. What part
of "exactly the same" don't you understand?

> > Of course they do. Otherwise we'd still all be playing single
deck BJ.

Right. Ask Stanford Wong why he had to start a business from home.
Ask Anthony Curtis, card-counter extraordinaire, why he had to find
another way to make a buck.

Maybe because the casinos wouldn't let them play??

Card counters are a theory and nothing
more. It's a fascination wannabees want to talk about all the time.
Those who supposedly count don't make enough to feed the dog.

Another unsupported assertion.

> However, if you look at the changing rules for BJ and the
> > reduction in positive oppportunities for VP players I see lot's
of evidence that would support the premise that the casinos are
> worried.

Yeah, sure they're worried. They worry all the time that players

like

Dancer and Scott are going to run out of money in a casino other

than

theirs. Changing rules in BJ have nothing to do with "advantage
players". It's a simple business decision that ups the profit % for
the suits to keep their jobs, just as reducing pay tables on vp
machines is for.

In your previous note you mentioned that casinos have great
promotions to increase profits and now you state they lower payback
to increase profits. Need I say more?

Advantage players are a myth and nothing more. It
sells, so it is popular. Your mathematical mind let that one slip

by.

I see your getting back to your normal garbage replies when you have
no facts to back up your assertions. You can rant and rave all you
want but it doesn't change anything. Try throwing in a proveable fact
once in awhile.

> >
> > The casinos still have the advantage because there are so few
true advantage players. They are willing to lose to a small

fraction

in order to attract the majority of non-advantage players.

That's confidence-building at it's best. You advantage players HAVE
to pat each other's views on the shoulder just so you can justify

to

yourselves and who knows who else, that sitting for hours day after
day in unhealhy casinos feeding the machines is a good thing.

Whether playing VP is enjoyable is a completely different discussion.
To some folks it is. To others it isn't. How long one plays at any
given session is also a personal choice. It has nothing whatsoever to
do with advantage play. What is important to most of us is that when
we choose to gamble that we maximize our return. Advantage play does
this.

Finally, now that Rob has retreated to his normal position of name
calling, making unproveable assertions and avoiding any semblance of
intelligent discussion, this thread is no longer of interest.

Dick

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

... snip

Going back to Video Poker, for the Las Vegas native who plays a few
hours every day, the sure long term strategy is the convenient one.
For the visitor, something that might not always work (neither will
the the long term all the time, anyway, as we can see in the poll

in

the other message board), but that often does quickly, is best.

Some

people like wine spritzers, others like double vodkas on the rocks.
Cheers,

E

Since I am not a Las Vegas native either I can see where it's
tempting to go for the big one while on a short visit. Since it's
your money when you gamble you certainly have the right to choose
this approach. However, if you make many trips to LV and play at
local casinos at home then you might want to rethink this approach.

In addition, his position is that advantage play is not possible and
only by following his system can you ever be profitable. He is a self-
proclaimed guru. As you can see from his posts he loves to denigrate
all others. How can you agree with any of this?

In addition, if you walk up to your first machine and hit a big
winner would you stop gambling for the rest of your trip? If not,
then I don't really think you should be agreeing with him.

Dick

[Dan_Cox]

You're saying math has nothing to do with the real world. Fact is,
math describes the real world very nicely. Otherwise you wouldn't
have that nice computer in front of you to say otherwise. Nothing

you can ever assert will ever change that fact.

Dick, the computer would just sit their without direction and
accomplishing nothing forever and ever if it weren't for me or some
other human being sitting in front of me.

> First of all, you've
> got a 1 in 5 chance IF the fifth card is included in the draw

cards.

Yes, and a 1 in 9.4 chance that it's not in the draw cards,

yielding a 1 in 47 chance overall. Simple math.

Wrong. It's either in the 5 cards or it isn't. Why confuse the issue
with cards that make no difference. If it is you have a 20% chance.
If it isn't, then you have none. Period.

This is where you start calling people names. When faced with logic
and fact you resort to name calling. This really shows your true
colors.

That's incorrect. I called no one a name. Computer fairies and math
geeks are terminologies for those who value statictics far more than
they value the life they've been given.

   
No wrestling required. It's not a supposition, it's a mathematical
fact. Nothing else makes any difference. Any progression scheme is

a fraud, pure and simple.

It's a fraud to those who don't understand it. I took the time to do
that.

They don't have to. You don't care that these same principles are
involved in the electronics in your computer do you? Just the same
someone had to know and understand these principles to enable the
technology. What you need to know to operate a computer is fairly
simple and that's pretty much the same with advantage play. So, yes
Bell Curves do have something to do with video poker play. You

don't have to care about it as long as you follow the principles
developed by Paymar, Jazbo and others.

Again, proof that you guys love to wrestle these issues on paper
without reason. Now just how important is any of that nonsense to
anyone playing a machine in a casino?

This is a simple Martingale system which has been proven over and
over that it does NOT change the odds and has no impact on your
overall results. More small wins and a few large losses and you do
NOT come out ahead. If you think this is so great why don't you

risk your bankroll playing roulette where you can multiply your so-
called wins faster? Why? Because you know as well as I that this is
all FUD that you use to push your own system.

You again confuse table game (Martingale) with vp. You always deduct
that a win is only 2:1. Look at the paytable on a vp machine.

Yada, yada, yada. How often can you use the stupid slide rule
statement and think it bothers anyone.

If it bothers anyone, it only does so to those who bring it up again
in the manner in which you did.

Nothing specific here. Still avoiding the question. Your baseless
assertions are completely worthless.

Please show how this accomplished? It is easy to prove that any
progressive system applied to a random game does not change the

odds. This is simple high school math. So, explain how you can
accomplish this.

Rather than ranting on about 'show me' which is not possible here,
why not try it out? Those who do write me often to thank me. You
epitomize the typical critic, who goes on and on about an issue
without really knowing what the other side is like. I've been on both
sides of the track, and I now know a better way because of it.

Never been to your site. Since you've never been able to provide

one single piece of evidence to support your assertions why would I
waste my time! I was referring to "goals" as discussed on vpfree,
such as, minimum risk, etc.

If I haven't been involved in the discussions on vpfree about goals,
then there really hasn't been any meaningful discussion on it. OK,
you and Jean Scott have never been to my site. Must be because I
don't charge anything. Hmmmm....could it be that, unlike the other
phonies, I actually win at video poker?

If it's common sense and it's obvious, then why do I see so many
different playing strategies at a casino.

I don't know. I don't check out how those who lose play.

First, short term players WILL see a small benefit from correct

play. Just not every time. In addition, they will see more of a
benefit than those who do not use correct play.

Well, those words must be what the math books say, but it sure
doesn't fit my results--because , once again, of my progressions
within the $$ and the type game. I actually live the situation while
you analyze it. I've done it for 7 years now while the critics said
I'd simply fade away. Even to you, longevity at short-term play must
mean a teeny weeny bit.

Second, if the math is right for the corporations then it is right
for long term players. The math is exactly the same. What part
of "exactly the same" don't you understand?

You're confused. In vp we're the customers. The math is exactly the
same for corporations as it is for casinos.

Maybe because the casinos wouldn't let them play??

Yeah, that's their clique's wishful thinking to pass on so everyone
will buy what they're selling. That's why unlike you, I actually
checked this one out. A few years ago I knew an executive at Caesar's
where one of these has-beens used to play, and asked if he was banned
from playing there because of his well-publicized 'card-counting
advantage'. He said he was not only allowed to play, the comps were
all his if he chose to come back. That's all I needed to separate the
quacks from the quackers.

In your previous note you mentioned that casinos have great
promotions to increase profits and now you state they lower payback
to increase profits. Need I say more?

Yes, you need to. Both increase profits. What did you miss?

Whether playing VP is enjoyable is a completely different

discussion. To some folks it is. To others it isn't. How long one
plays at any given session is also a personal choice. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with advantage play. What is important to most of us
is that when we choose to gamble that we maximize our return.
Advantage play does this.

Advantage play maximizes loss potential, contributes to addiction,
and contributes to a very unheathful lifestyle. Nothing more.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

[mubowor]

Since I am not a Las Vegas native either I can see where it's
tempting to go for the big one while on a short visit. Since it's
your money when you gamble you certainly have the right to choose
this approach. However, if you make many trips to LV and play at
local casinos at home then you might want to rethink this approach.

In addition, his position is that advantage play is not possible

and

only by following his system can you ever be profitable. He is a

self-

proclaimed guru. As you can see from his posts he loves to

denigrate

all others. How can you agree with any of this?

In addition, if you walk up to your first machine and hit a big
winner would you stop gambling for the rest of your trip? If not,
then I don't really think you should be agreeing with him.

Dick

I don't play that often except on numerous trips to Las Vegas. I
really don't want to get involved in a controversy of 'either or'
because, as I said, I see advantages on both sides. As for gurus,
they all disagree. Just to name some, there is not one hundred
percent agreement between Bob Dancer and Skip Hughes, and they are
both respectable gurus.

My point is that not everything deadin7 says is censurable. Some of
the stuff is useful. For example, take his system of going up in
denomination. I have tried that and it has worked for me many times.
Now, I grant you, you might get to a machine that is dry as ice in
all denominations and you end up giving it all your money; but that
happens too if you are just playing a positive machine, straight
through, if it is dry as ice. The difference is that in one method
you might lose more than in the other, but that's where you have your
stop limits.

Now take the standard method of VP, an example. Assume you play two
million hands of 10/6 DDB. The return is 100.06%. Now, even at that
large number of hands you are certainly not guaranteed to obtain the
theoretical return. You might obtain, just to give an example, a
99.9% return. Suppose for the sake of argument that the machine is a
dollar machine. Then in those two million hands you have recycled ten
million dollars. If you lose 0.1%, you have lost $10,000. I think
that is a huge amount of money to lose for all that work. Look at it
this way. These machines come mostly in straight up machines and are
located mostly in small, remote casinos, perhaps smokey, not the
plush casinos you enjoy being at. So, it is possible that after a
year toiling away with a pain in the neck and the trapezius,
employing, how many hours? Even if you play a thousand hands an hour,
two million hands represent two thousand hours. TO LOSE $10,000!!!!!
Another aspect people talk about is 'the benefits', but the more you
play, the more benefits you have that you can't use. Some benefits
might be too expensive. You have to pay storage, or build a wing in
your house, to place all the blenders you get, LOL.

I'm not knocking down the VP player who wants to do this and
eventually profit by it. Many apparently do, and I cheer for them.
I'm just saying that an alternative that will give the visitor most
of the time, or a reasonable amount of times, nice winnings is
welcome. It beats the slots.

I know deadin7 is earnest about his system, but so are all gurus. My
God, in some message boards the insult you and put you in moderation
for just suggesting common sense stuff.

Best wishes,

E

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

[Dan_Cox]

I just read your flawed input on the Winpoker group. In 10/7 DB, when dealt A34 of spades, the correct hold EVERY TIME is ALWAYS to hold only the Ace. No, that's not according to what your multitude of boring math books say----or what Yuri, the former-"expert"-mathematical-video-poker-player-turned-homeless-because-he-couldn't-win-so-he-begged-the-Queen-to -solicit-money-for-his-family, brilliant professor would say----but it's what I say to do based on the fact that four Aces are far more important than any SF, flush, 2-pr, trips, or high pair will ever be in a short-term session like we all only play in. I get them all the time by holding a lone Ace, regardless of what 'the book' says is likely. Last week was the latest, when on $5 TBP+ I tossed the 'expert' hold and kept the Ace, and received 3 more for $6000. Two weeks earlier the same thing happened across the street at Ramada. You want to gamble using books and theory, great! It only keeps the machines filled up for me.

rgmustain <rgmustain@att.net> wrote:

···

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

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

[Dan_Cox]

superquadfullhousroyalistic <erchalb@cantv.net> wrote: Just to name some, there is not one hundred percent agreement between Bob Dancer and Skip Hughes, and they are both respectable gurus.

One comment here. Bob Dancer USED to be a respected vp guru, that is, until he began selling out to casinos by working both sides, and by sponsoring cruise ship video poker play when several years ago he condemned them as never-to-play-venues due to their lack of verifiable regulations.

And Skip Hughes? All he knows is to print what others say and then rearrange it all so he can charge the flock into PAYING him for it. He doesn nothing more than prey on players for their money because he cannot win at the game by following that stupid long-term strategy.

···

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

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

[vpFREE4]

Horrors!

Insulted - I think not.

Moderated - Definitely.

Some message boards (vpFREE) prefer not to have to
make continual remedial posts to correct a Troll who
enjoys taking absurd devil's advocate positions to
stimulate discussions.

In any event, you won't have to worry about moderation
on FREEvpFREE, and you're very welcome here. I've
always enjoyed your fertile imagination and have read
all of your posts on various forums with interest,

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 17 Jul 2004 at 17:44, superquadfullhousroyalistic wrote:

My God, in some message boards the insult you and put you
in moderation for just suggesting common sense stuff.

[Dan2]

It's true that many experts have gone broke playing expert strategy.
Also, many unskilled players have been lucky enough to hit a jackpot
and go home a winner, but neither of these facts negates the value of
accurate strategy play. Many, many more experts have become long-term
winners by following an accurate strategy without deviation, while
the vast majority of unskilled players go home a loser.

Now being dealt A-3-4 suited it not a very good starting hand. No
matter how you play it, it's a net losing situation. Suppose,
however, you were playing a 5-coin dollar machine and were dealt this
same hand a thousand times. If you always held only the ace, you
could expect to lose about $2700, but if you always held A-3-4, you
would cut your losses to $2100. That's a $600 saving. OK, so you
won't be dealt this hand 1000 times in a row, but it's still cutting
your losses by 60 cents each time this situation occurs.

One does not have to be a genius to see that holding A-3-4 is by far
the better play. The lower payoffs for flushes, straights, etc., are
far more important than the four aces jackpot, no matter whether
you're playing every day, year after year, or only on a weekend trip.

The players who go for the big payoffs in preference to solid
strategy are the real gamblers. We all appreciate these people who
keep the casinos happy with the good games.

Dan

···

Dan Cox <deadin7@yahoo.com> wrote:

I just read your flawed input on the Winpoker group. In 10/7 DB,
when dealt A34 of spades, the correct hold EVERY TIME is ALWAYS to
hold only the Ace. No, that's not according to what your multitude
of boring math books say----or what Yuri, the
former-"expert"-mathematical-video-poker-player-turned-homeless-because-he-couldn't-win-so-he-begged-the-Queen-to
-solicit-money-for-his-family, brilliant professor would say----but
it's what I say to do based on the fact that four Aces are far more
important than any SF, flush, 2-pr, trips, or high pair will ever be
in a short-term session like we all only play in. I get them all the
time by holding a lone Ace, regardless of what 'the book' says is
likely. Last week was the latest, when on $5 TBP+ I tossed the
'expert' hold and kept the Ace, and received 3 more for $6000. Two
weeks earlier the same thing happened across the street at Ramada.
You want to gamble using books and theory, great! It only keeps the
machines filled up for me.

--
Dan Paymar, author of "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor and publisher of "Video Poker Times" newsletter
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com

"Chance favors the prepared mind"
- Louis Pasteur

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

[mubowor]

Well, you do what you want with your board, I don't have to like it.
I like freedom of speech.

I consider being called a troll or a devil is sort of demeaning, and
an insult; but I do thank you the other good words.

I don't consider discussing Video Poker strategies in a different way
to what most people follow is `taking absurd positions'. Let me bring
an example being discussed right now here which would be the typical
stuff censored in vpFREE.

We have two opinions here about A 3 4 of Spades in Double Bonus. To
be more specific, let the hand be A 3 4 of Spades, 7 of hearts, T of
diamonds. What do you hold? EV of holding A 3 4 is 2.86; EV of
holding A is 2.26. The "right" hold then is A 3 4.

Now if someone were to say, "hold just the Ace", would not that
statement be interesting? Sure, the first reaction of many who accept
rules in a strict way is to call the person a loser, a troll, a devil
or whatever names, but maybe this person gambles in a different way
and thus is making sense in his style of gambling. Let us try to see
what the other numbers tell us about this hand, there is more
mathematics to a hand than just EV.

In the above hand, if you hold A 3 4 you have a 21% probability of
hitting something. If you hold just the Ace, you have a 33%
probability of hitting something. By something I mean Jacks or
better, something that returns your money or rewards you. Certainly
if you were to play this hand only once in your life, you would hold
the A, according to mathematics. This is not an absurd notion but it
is using probability correctly. If you were Marie Antoinette and they
are going to chop your head off if you lose this hand, or let you go
to Vienna free if you do not lose it, by God you will hold only the
Ace. Marie liked to gamble, but she was no expert mathematician; I'm
sure the best court mathematician would recommend her to hold only
the Ace.

Another consideration one can make is see which of the two holds
suggested above pays, say, more than $500 on a dollar machine. Well
the probability of hitting five hundred bucks or more by holding A 3
4 is exactly zero. The probability of hitting five hundred bucks or
more by holding just A is 0.025%. If a little old lady called me on
the phone long distance and asked me what to hold, and told me that
she was going to play DB only half an hour in a casino in Las Vegas
on her ride to California from Boston by way of Dedham, and that she
would be happy winning five hundred or more, and did not care losing
her bankroll, I would tell her to hold the Ace. Holding only the Ace
given her goals and her time constraints is he right thing for her to
do.

I know, the above two paragraphs are absurd positions according to
most players who accept and play according to only one system. The
only thing that makes sense for them is to be in an uncomfortable,
smoky casino getting lung cancer and damaging your eyesight, with
neck and trapezium muscles hurting, playing in a straight up machine
for hundreds of thousands of hours. In that case, by all mean, you
are not a devil; you are an angel and should hold A 3 4.

I can see both sides. So I can see why for some it makes sense to
hold A 3 4, and for others A. The person who is recommending here to
hold just A is one who practices systems of short-term play, quitting
as soon as an amount is hit, etc. Let us assume he is in casino
MonteLago using his method of going up in denomination that started
with cents, then two cents, then nickels, then dimes, and he is now
playing quarters in a DB machine and gets the above hand, and his
intention is to go down to cents as soon as he hits a three of a kind
or higher, then it would make perfect sense for him to hold just the
Ace, it would seem.

Have a good day.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:

On 17 Jul 2004 at 17:44, superquadfullhousroyalistic wrote:

> My God, in some message boards the insult you and put you
> in moderation for just suggesting common sense stuff.

Horrors!

Insulted - I think not.

Moderated - Definitely.

Some message boards (vpFREE) prefer not to have to
make continual remedial posts to correct a Troll who
enjoys taking absurd devil's advocate positions to
stimulate discussions.

In any event, you won't have to worry about moderation
on FREEvpFREE, and you're very welcome here. I've
always enjoyed your fertile imagination and have read
all of your posts on various forums with interest,

vpFREE Administrator

[vpFREE4]

Well, you do what you want with your board,

OK, but I don't have any major changes in mind.

I don't have to like it.

Correct.

I like freedom of speech.

I like freedom of speech too, and it is alive and well on vpFREE
until it shows signs of becoming disruptive. At that point it is still
welcome to be discussed ad infinitum here on FREEvpFREE.

I consider being called a troll or a devil is sort of demeaning, and
an insult;

I'm not aware of anyone calling anyone a "devil". I used the terms
"troll" and "devil's advocate" which have precise meanings and which
I believe describe your VP newsgroup participation accurately. They
aren't and weren't meant as insulting terms. They were just calling a
spade a spade.

but I do thank you the other good words.

You're very welcome.

I don't consider discussing Video Poker strategies in a different way
to what most people follow is `taking absurd positions'. Let me bring
an example being discussed right now here which would be the typical
stuff censored in vpFREE.

I don't necessarily consider "discussing Video Poker strategies in a
different way to what most people follow" is "taking absurd positions"
either. Nevertheless, this is your standard operating procedure.

You also use phrases very loosely. There isn't any "typical stuff censored
in vpFREE". The only censorship that has ever occurred on vpFREE
was done when Rob Singer was doing moderated posting and the two
of us agreed that I should censor his posts to assure compliance with
our agreement, rather than send them back to him to be rewritten.

We have two opinions here about A 3 4 of Spades in Double Bonus. To
be more specific, let the hand be A 3 4 of Spades, 7 of hearts, T of
diamonds. What do you hold? EV of holding A 3 4 is 2.86; EV of
holding A is 2.26. The "right" hold then is A 3 4.

Your last sentence is correct, and I have little doubt that you
also believe that it is correct.

Now if someone were to say, "hold just the Ace", would not that
statement be interesting? Sure, the first reaction of many who accept
rules in a strict way is to call the person a loser, a troll, a devil
or whatever names, but maybe this person gambles in a different way
and thus is making sense in his style of gambling. Let us try to see
what the other numbers tell us about this hand, there is more
mathematics to a hand than just EV.

In the above hand, if you hold A 3 4 you have a 21% probability of
hitting something. If you hold just the Ace, you have a 33%
probability of hitting something. By something I mean Jacks or
better, something that returns your money or rewards you. Certainly
if you were to play this hand only once in your life, you would hold
the A, according to mathematics. This is not an absurd notion but it
is using probability correctly. If you were Marie Antoinette and they
are going to chop your head off if you lose this hand, or let you go
to Vienna free if you do not lose it, by God you will hold only the
Ace. Marie liked to gamble, but she was no expert mathematician; I'm
sure the best court mathematician would recommend her to hold only
the Ace.

Another consideration one can make is see which of the two holds
suggested above pays, say, more than $500 on a dollar machine. Well
the probability of hitting five hundred bucks or more by holding A 3
4 is exactly zero. The probability of hitting five hundred bucks or
more by holding just A is 0.025%. If a little old lady called me on
the phone long distance and asked me what to hold, and told me that
she was going to play DB only half an hour in a casino in Las Vegas
on her ride to California from Boston by way of Dedham, and that she
would be happy winning five hundred or more, and did not care losing
her bankroll, I would tell her to hold the Ace. Holding only the Ace
given her goals and her time constraints is he right thing for her to
do.

I know, the above two paragraphs are absurd positions according to
most players who accept and play according to only one system. The
only thing that makes sense for them is to be in an uncomfortable,
smoky casino getting lung cancer and damaging your eyesight, with
neck and trapezium muscles hurting, playing in a straight up machine
for hundreds of thousands of hours. In that case, by all mean, you
are not a devil; you are an angel and should hold A 3 4.

I can see both sides. So I can see why for some it makes sense to
hold A 3 4, and for others A. The person who is recommending here to
hold just A is one who practices systems of short-term play, quitting
as soon as an amount is hit, etc. Let us assume he is in casino
MonteLago using his method of going up in denomination that started
with cents, then two cents, then nickels, then dimes, and he is now
playing quarters in a DB machine and gets the above hand, and his
intention is to go down to cents as soon as he hits a three of a kind
or higher, then it would make perfect sense for him to hold just the
Ace, it would seem.

Thanks for an interesting discussion which vividly demonstrates
my point that you routinely take absurd devil's advocate positions
in order to stimulate discussions.

And, you forgot to include other assumptions that the would bolster
your premise further: For instance, what if a recently deceased
multi-billionaire stated in his will that all of his money would go to
charity, unless the person playing DB in your example at Monte
Lago holds only the A from a holding of A 3 4 of spades on the
precise hand in your example. In which event, the person in your
example inherits the money. LOL.

Have a good day.

And you too.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 17 Jul 2004 at 23:38, superquadfullhousroyalistic wrote:

[Dan_Cox]

It appears one of the major differences here is that I consider
playing video poker in any fashion gambling. There are no levels of
gamblers....no such differentiation of 'real' vs. 'normal'
vs. 'unreal' or however you prefer to break it down. Gambling is
gambling. The only categorization I'd include is one whereas, like
Bob Dancer, the gambler goes UP in denomination after hitting a
jackpot. Those are pathological-type players who, even if they do get
lucky once or twice doing that, they'll inevitably watch their
surprise bankroll fade away.

There is a difference between experts though. I, unlike the others,
make a living out of playing the game--and a very good one. I report
everything about many of my more extreme experiences on my site and
in Gaming Today, win or lose, and I don't need to take other people's
money for products or services for any reason.

Why I know that holding a lone Ace on DB over a suited A34 is the
only intelligent play revolves around whether I go into a casino to
win money each and every time I play, or if I simply misleadingly
taught myself to think I'm only on one of the unhealthy legs of a
long, long video-poker-playing journey that culminates with a useless
percent or two at the end of the line---of course, if I played
flawlessly all those years and, surprise of surprises....was LUCKY!!
In any case, the 'theory' that you will fare better holding the A34
all the time is totally without merit. One of the problems I see with
those who play FPDW and complain "I played 76,000 hands and I DID NOT
see even one set of deuces" is that they just don't know when to hold
only the deuce over the so-called 'expert' play. As I said, twice
last week on $5 TBP+ machines in the middle of my Advanced Romp
Through Town Strategy, I tossed the computer-perfect play for huge
winners holding a lone Ace. Every session is separate, and it could
happen over and over again--and actually has in many ways for me--
someone who's no luckier than anyone else. I just know how to handle
it when it comes along. Yes, A34 suited isn't all that good of a deal
to those who would hold those cards. Anytime I see an Ace in the
deal, that's a good start. Thus the fact remains, those who are
controlled by the casinos will always play as the casinos want them
to--using long-term strategy. They get dragged in and glued to their
chairs by all the slick promotions designed only to take more of
their money than they were prepared to part with, and if everyone
doesn't know this here's a flash: Every promotion in town is geared
towards the so-called 'advantage' player.

It's true that many experts have gone broke playing expert

strategy.

Also, many unskilled players have been lucky enough to hit a

jackpot

and go home a winner, but neither of these facts negates the value

of

accurate strategy play. Many, many more experts have become long-

term

winners by following an accurate strategy without deviation, while
the vast majority of unskilled players go home a loser.

Now being dealt A-3-4 suited it not a very good starting hand. No
matter how you play it, it's a net losing situation. Suppose,
however, you were playing a 5-coin dollar machine and were dealt

this

same hand a thousand times. If you always held only the ace, you
could expect to lose about $2700, but if you always held A-3-4, you
would cut your losses to $2100. That's a $600 saving. OK, so you
won't be dealt this hand 1000 times in a row, but it's still

cutting

your losses by 60 cents each time this situation occurs.

One does not have to be a genius to see that holding A-3-4 is by

far

the better play. The lower payoffs for flushes, straights, etc.,

are

far more important than the four aces jackpot, no matter whether
you're playing every day, year after year, or only on a weekend

trip.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan Paymar <Dan@O...> wrote:

The players who go for the big payoffs in preference to solid
strategy are the real gamblers. We all appreciate these people who
keep the casinos happy with the good games.

Dan

--
Dan Paymar, author of "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor and publisher of "Video Poker Times" newsletter
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com

"Chance favors the prepared mind"
- Louis Pasteur

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

[rgmustain]

A short while ago I sat next to a person who kept suited A5 and
proceeded to draw the 234 for a SF. Using Rob (I get 'em all the
time) Singers' logic this is proof that you should alway hold the A5
and also proof that Rob's choice, the Ace, is "flawed".

Dick

I just read your flawed input on the Winpoker group. In 10/7 DB,

when dealt A34 of spades, the correct hold EVERY TIME is ALWAYS to
hold only the Ace. No, that's not according to what your multitude of
boring math books say----or what Yuri, the former-"expert"-
mathematical-video-poker-player-turned-homeless-because-he-couldn't-
win-so-he-begged-the-Queen-to -solicit-money-for-his-family,
brilliant professor would say----but it's what I say to do based on
the fact that four Aces are far more important than any SF, flush, 2-
pr, trips, or high pair will ever be in a short-term session like we
all only play in. I get them all the time by holding a lone Ace,
regardless of what 'the book' says is likely. Last week was the
latest, when on $5 TBP+ I tossed the 'expert' hold and kept the Ace,
and received 3 more for $6000. Two weeks earlier the same thing
happened across the street at Ramada. You want to gamble using books
and theory, great! It only keeps the machines filled up for me.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dan Cox <deadin7@y...> wrote:

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic" <>

.. snip
We have two opinions here about A 3 4 of Spades in Double Bonus. To
be more specific, let the hand be A 3 4 of Spades, 7 of hearts, T

of

diamonds. What do you hold? EV of holding A 3 4 is 2.86; EV of
holding A is 2.26. The "right" hold then is A 3 4.

Now if someone were to say, "hold just the Ace", would not that
statement be interesting? Sure, the first reaction of many who

accept

rules in a strict way is to call the person a loser, a troll, a

devil

or whatever names, but maybe this person gambles in a different way
and thus is making sense in his style of gambling. Let us try to

see

what the other numbers tell us about this hand, there is more
mathematics to a hand than just EV.

In the above hand, if you hold A 3 4 you have a 21% probability of
hitting something. If you hold just the Ace, you have a 33%
probability of hitting something. By something I mean Jacks or
better, something that returns your money or rewards you. Certainly
if you were to play this hand only once in your life, you would

hold

the A, according to mathematics. This is not an absurd notion but

it

is using probability correctly. If you were Marie Antoinette and

they

are going to chop your head off if you lose this hand, or let you

go

to Vienna free if you do not lose it, by God you will hold only the
Ace. Marie liked to gamble, but she was no expert mathematician;

I'm

sure the best court mathematician would recommend her to hold only
the Ace.

Another consideration one can make is see which of the two holds
suggested above pays, say, more than $500 on a dollar machine. Well
the probability of hitting five hundred bucks or more by holding A

3

4 is exactly zero. The probability of hitting five hundred bucks or
more by holding just A is 0.025%. If a little old lady called me on
the phone long distance and asked me what to hold, and told me that
she was going to play DB only half an hour in a casino in Las Vegas
on her ride to California from Boston by way of Dedham, and that

she

would be happy winning five hundred or more, and did not care

losing

her bankroll, I would tell her to hold the Ace. Holding only the

Ace

given her goals and her time constraints is he right thing for her

to

do.

Goals do make a difference, however, Rob promotes his system for the
long term so this is really irrelevant.

I know, the above two paragraphs are absurd positions according to
most players who accept and play according to only one system. The
only thing that makes sense for them is to be in an uncomfortable,
smoky casino getting lung cancer and damaging your eyesight, with
neck and trapezium muscles hurting, playing in a straight up

machine

for hundreds of thousands of hours.

Now you're starting to sound just like RS. This is not how most
advantage players operate. We have to foresight to realize that over
our lives we will play millions of hands and proceed accordingly.

In that case, by all mean, you
are not a devil; you are an angel and should hold A 3 4.

The main problem is Rob Singer says you should ALWAYS hold only the
Ace. This is clearly wrong for players looking for a long term
advantage.

I can see both sides. So I can see why for some it makes sense to
hold A 3 4, and for others A. The person who is recommending here

to

hold just A is one who practices systems of short-term play,

quitting

as soon as an amount is hit, etc. Let us assume he is in casino
MonteLago using his method of going up in denomination that started
with cents, then two cents, then nickels, then dimes, and he is now
playing quarters in a DB machine and gets the above hand, and his
intention is to go down to cents as soon as he hits a three of a

kind

or higher, then it would make perfect sense for him to hold just

the

Ace, it would seem.

Have a good day.

You really are missing the main point about progressive systems. In
random games all hands are independent. This allows you to use simple
addition properties to group hands in any way you wish without
changing the probabilities. Therefore, for any reasonable good
example you can describe I can take the very same hands and describe
a bad result. The results will have equal probabilty. All a
progressive system leads to is more small winning sessions and a few
big loses. The overall payback is unchanged.

Dick

[rgmustain]

Rob shows once more he can't answer any question directly. Instead he
continually goes off on tangents to avoid the questions.

His response to the 1 in 47 chance of hitting to RF4 vs. 1 in 5 shows
he completely lacks any understanding of simple logic.

If ignorance is bliss then Rob must indeed be a happy person.

Dick

PS. Rob, Look at the paytable on a roulette wheel. This is not only
2:1 either. You can also double your bets. So, come on, put your
money where your mouth is! Use your system playing roulette.

[Dan_Cox]

The difference is, I always tell the truth. You guys have to make up
stories.

A short while ago I sat next to a person who kept suited A5 and
proceeded to draw the 234 for a SF. Using Rob (I get 'em all the
time) Singers' logic this is proof that you should alway hold the

A5

···

In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

and also proof that Rob's choice, the Ace, is "flawed".

Dick