vpFREE2 Forums

Hard Rock $1 and $2 NSUD Spin Poker - PLAY DEAD

#1

Paladin:

Outing (and sharing with all members) exceptional plays ASAP, to
see if they will survive in the open market (or to kill the
play), is in the best interest of all vpFREE members, except for
the very, very, very small number of members who may be actively
participating in the play.

Protect exceptional plays by trying to keep them non-public, if
you think it's in your best interest to do so, but don't expect
non-participants to help, because that's contrary to their best
interests.

FAQ #60 "http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ.htm#60" addresses
your points, and disagrees with most of your conclusions.

Excerpts:

"vpFREE believes that the free and open exchange of information
is vital and beneficial to the video poker community as a whole,
and is dedicated to sharing, promoting and preserving good video
poker situations that can survive and prosper in an open market
environment. If publicity kills a good play that had been a
secret, it's no great loss to the video poker community as a
whole, since they weren't even aware of the play previously."

"Since the only beneficiary of a protected play is the very small
group of active participants (who are winning, which is contrary
to all non-participants best interests), vpFREE non-participants
should share the play with all members. Then, if it's a viable
game it will be available for everyone, and if not, the sooner it
dies the better (for everyone except the active participants)."

vpFREE Administrator

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "paladingamingllc" <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com>
Date sent: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:46:09 -0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Hard Rock $1 and $2 NSUD Spin Poker - PLAY DEAD

My intent is to keep plays public if and when I find them. Others
have shared their plays with the group and me so I will do the same.

1) I don't believe the play ever existed, and Mr. Bill had a
hallucination. Since I checked out the same machines that Mr.
Bill did, if it wasn't his hallucination, it must have been mine.
But, gentle reader, do read on/...

2) I know the amateurs and wannabes are jealous of the
professionals, and this is their way of getting even with those
who actually can make money playing machines. Assuming the play
did exist (see above), consider this a victory for you.

3) Many of those with Mr. Bill's mindset just never ever consider
that in 99.9% of the circumstances, the casino never intended to
put in such a game. All such a post does is wise up the casino,
many suits read VPFree.

4) There will always be one in every crowd. You just can't
convince these folk that their approach is absolutely the wrong
one. Thank God most of those "ones" live in Vegas, or someplace
where I have very little equity invested.

4a) Most of those with the same mindset as Mr. Bill saved the
casinos countless sums of money in the 90s by giving them a
decent enough tutorial in protecting blackjack games via posting
on sites like BJ21. I see the same thing happening here. Slot ops
suits in the larger casinos make over $100K/year, before profit
sharing. Let them figure out on their own where the holes are in
the casino, ok?

5) Since virtually everyone here, save for a handful of members,
are quarter and dollar players, I see no purpose in outing a play
most would consider too risky for their bankroll. Again, see (2).

#2

(lecture to Paladin about Sunshine Policy snipped)

Dear Admin:

Please save me the speech. The speech is flawed in its premises on
many different levels, and henceforth in its analysis. In sum, I think
I understand human nature and the casino business much, much better
than you.

I don't believe VPFree's intent was to put a $300/hr play online where
the (historically) likely scenarios are: a) a non-member professional
will burn it down, or b) a casino employee will read said post,
realize a mistake has been made, and alert management to the post. I
see nothing in (a) or (b) which causes VPFree or its membership to
gain from such a post. The result of what you are trying to accomplish
is to eliminate all professional play from the casinos, which is what
the casinos try to do when setting their machines and calibrating
their slot programs.

I have long assisted the Administrators over the years with assistance
with the database, but generally speaking, there has been an unwritten
rule not to discuss any denom higher than $1, unless Jacks are
involved. I'm happy to assist with anything at the $1 denom or smaller.

While I enjoy the forum and try to make valuable contributions and
give insights to the gaming public at large, my primary focus here is
to protect my EV. As stated several times previously, those well
meaning posters cost me on average $15K/year, or roughly 10% of my
usual annual EV. So, this is already an expensive enough forum for me
to be a member of. It's not personal, it's just business, and it's
disappointing that of the professionals who post here, we don't get
the respect we deserve often enough (that is, when I'm not fighting
with them myself lol).

I'm happy to discuss this with you privately, if you wish.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@...> wrote:

#3

That's fine, but you seem to think it's everyone's responsibility to
protect your EV.

IT'S NOT.

HTH. HAND.

···

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:01 PM, paladingamingllc <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com> wrote:

While I enjoy the forum and try to make valuable contributions and
give insights to the gaming public at large, my primary focus here is
to protect my EV.

#4

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that it is in an
individual's interest to kill plays they are not involved in as soon
as possible. The problem with this strategy is that if everyone
employs it, there will soon be no plays for anyone left. If I kill
Joe's plays, why shouldn't he kill my plays, etc? This is an excellent
strategy from the standpoint of the casinos however.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@...> wrote:

Outing (and sharing with all members) exceptional plays ASAP, to
see if they will survive in the open market (or to kill the
play), is in the best interest of all vpFREE members, except for
the very, very, very small number of members who may be actively
participating in the play.

#5

It isn't and I never said that. I'm a big boy about this. If I can
give professional courtesy to everyone, why can't I get it in return?
At least Mr. Iguana worked it out (see his post above).

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@...> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:01 PM, paladingamingllc > <paladingamingllc@...> wrote:

> While I enjoy the forum and try to make valuable contributions and
> give insights to the gaming public at large, my primary focus here is
> to protect my EV.

That's fine, but you seem to think it's everyone's responsibility to
protect your EV.

IT'S NOT.

HTH. HAND.

#6

...there has been an unwritten
rule not to discuss any denom higher than $1...

You probably should have written that rule down.

Apaladingamingllc <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com> wrote:

As stated several times previously, those well
meaning posters cost me on average $15K/year, or
roughly 10% of my
usual annual EV. So, this is already an expensive
enough forum for me
to be a member of.

Thanks for calling me a well meaning poster :slight_smile: but if
this group costs you so much then why continue
belonging to it?

Bill
Palms Moderator

···

paladingamingllc <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com> wrote:

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

#7

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

I'm happy to assist with anything at the $1 denom or smaller.

Isn't this a bit of a double standard? If we are willing to out the
flea plays we would never consider playing, why should we be surprised
if they do the same with higher denomination plays?

#8

I think it's everyone's responsibility to protect EV in general.
Outing a play is -EV for everyone. Why is that hard to grasp?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@...> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:01 PM, paladingamingllc > <paladingamingllc@...> wrote:

> While I enjoy the forum and try to make valuable contributions and
> give insights to the gaming public at large, my primary focus here is
> to protect my EV.

That's fine, but you seem to think it's everyone's responsibility to
protect your EV.

IT'S NOT.

HTH. HAND.

#9

I think it's everyone's responsibility to protect EV in general.
Outing a play is -EV for everyone. Why is that hard to grasp?

Why is that so hard to grasp? Uhhhhhhhhh....because it's not true?

"Outing" a play only hurts if a casino has put a good play out

there in total ignorance, a lurker from that casino sees a post on
VpFree, or on the database, and that lurker reports the existence of
the play to his (presumably ignorant, up to this point) boss, who
then destroys the play. Think of the conditions necessary:

1. A casino puts out a good play without KNOWING that it's a good
play.
2. Said casino, nonetheless, has a VPFree lurker whose job it is to
find out if there are any good plays in his own casino.
3. That casino now uses the report of the lurker to change its mind
about the existence of this good machine/play.

OR---------

1. The play is there, it's good, the casino is aware of it (by FAR
the more likely scenario), and the collective EV of VpFree players is
raised by the availability of this information.

Why is THAT possibility "so hard to grasp"???

#10

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

OR---------

1. The play is there, it's good, the casino is aware of it (by FAR
the more likely scenario), and the collective EV of VpFree players is
raised by the availability of this information.

If you're talking about a single machine that has a paytable different
from all other machines in the casino, and that machine gives players a
solid advantage (say, as good as $2 Deuces) then your statement is not
supported by the evidence we can observe.

There are no $2 FPDW machines in casinos. Therefore we must conclude
that casinos have no intention of offering players a play that good.

On the other hand, if you're talking about a casino that installs a
bank of 12 machines, all of them have 10/7 DB, and there's a sign over
them announcing "100%+ return", then I'll agree with you.

Mac
www.CasinoCamper.com

#11

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mac McClellan" <mac_mcclellan@...>
wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tralfamidorgooglycrackers"
<tralfamidorgooglycrackers@> wrote:
>
> OR---------
>
> 1. The play is there, it's good, the casino is aware of it (by

FAR

> the more likely scenario), and the collective EV of VpFree

players is

> raised by the availability of this information.
>

If you're talking about a single machine that has a paytable

different

from all other machines in the casino, and that machine gives

players a

solid advantage (say, as good as $2 Deuces) then your statement is

not

supported by the evidence we can observe.

There are no $2 FPDW machines in casinos. Therefore we must

conclude

that casinos have no intention of offering players a play that good.

On the other hand, if you're talking about a casino that installs a
bank of 12 machines, all of them have 10/7 DB, and there's a sign

over

them announcing "100%+ return", then I'll agree with you.

Let's say that a casino DID install one or more $2 FPDW. What do

you think would be more likely: that the casino deliberately
installed these machines, being TOTALLY IGNORANT that they could be
played at positive EV, despite the fact that FPDW has been around for
about twenty years, and dozens of books, websites, blogs, forums,
etc. have touted the benefits of FPDW for the VP player--DESPITE ALL
THIS, they nevertheless install these machines---

OR: that they feel they will get enough play by unskilled players to
offset any advantage play that those machines receive?

In the former case, VPFree postings COULD alert the casino to their
horrible mistake. In the latter case, VPFree wouldn't make any
difference. So given the scenario I posited, which is more likely?
Note that I am NOT asking how likely we are to see $2 FPDW--I am
asking, rather, that if we DO see such a thing, how likely is it to
be an egregious mistake by the casino?

Keep in mind that there are plenty of good plays listed in VPFree for
all to see that somehow have survived the experience---for months or
years.

#12

You'd be wrong.

You're not responsible for my EV, and I'm not responsible for yours.

···

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:28 PM, xxxent <xxxent@yahoo.com> wrote:

I think it's everyone's responsibility to protect EV in general.

#13

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

>>>Let's say that a casino DID install one or more $2 FPDW. What do
you think would be more likely: that the casino deliberately
installed these machines, being TOTALLY IGNORANT that they could be
played at positive EV, despite the fact that FPDW has been around

for

about twenty years, and dozens of books, websites, blogs, forums,
etc. have touted the benefits of FPDW for the VP player--DESPITE

ALL

THIS, they nevertheless install these machines---

OR: that they feel they will get enough play by unskilled players

to

offset any advantage play that those machines receive?

And then, given that the machines get advertised to all the better
players once they are outed here, they decide it is NOW more prudent
to remove them.

In the former case, VPFree postings COULD alert the casino to their
horrible mistake. In the latter case, VPFree wouldn't make any
difference. So given the scenario I posited, which is more likely?
Note that I am NOT asking how likely we are to see $2 FPDW--I am
asking, rather, that if we DO see such a thing, how likely is it to
be an egregious mistake by the casino?

Keep in mind that there are plenty of good plays listed in VPFree

for

all to see that somehow have survived the experience---for months

or

years.

As I indicated above I think many of you are missing this 3rd
variation. The machines may or may not be a mistake, but the last
thing the slot director wants is a horde of advantage players who can
beat the machines. What would you do if you were the SD?

Dick

#14

My $0.02 ...

Any "winnings" that we, as advantage VP players, may have, do not really come out of the
coffers of the casino. Those winnings actually come out of what VP (and other casino)
players lose.

In my (hard-hearted) opinion, if there are people gaining "huge" winnings (like the so-
called six-figure winnings of the pro's), there is less in the pot left for me (as a mere
recreational player).

So, I do not think that I have to be altruistic and "protect" the EV of the pro's, nor, for that
matter, of any of the other players, by not "outing" "fantastic plays" that may or may not
be "mistakes". I think that sharing them with the "masses" is the proper thing to do. I
would like others to share these "fantastic" finds with me.

Finally, I do share in the "free market" idea, expressed elsewhere, that VP plays that can
exist in the free market and should be shared with the "masses", and have them be used
in whatever way they can.

Call me naive, but my feelings are my feelings.

..... bl

#15

But, anyone who out's a play may end up being responsible for lowering
everyone's EV who happens to be aware of the play. If you don't care
(it's not my responsibility ...), then you may not place the same
meaning to "responsibility" that some of us do.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@...> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:28 PM, xxxent <xxxent@...> wrote:
> I think it's everyone's responsibility to protect EV in general.

You'd be wrong.

You're not responsible for my EV, and I'm not responsible for yours.

#16

My $0.02 ...

Any "winnings" that we, as advantage VP players, may have, do not really come out of the
coffers of the casino. Those winnings actually come out of what VP (and other casino)
players lose.

Yes, mostly. It's a lot like a poker game in which the casino just
takes a "rake" and doesn't care who wins.

In my (hard-hearted) opinion, if there are people gaining "huge" winnings (like the so-
called six-figure winnings of the pro's), there is less in the pot left for me (as a mere
recreational player).

So, I do not think that I have to be altruistic and "protect" the EV of the pro's, nor, for that
matter, of any of the other players, by not "outing" "fantastic plays" that may or may not
be "mistakes". I think that sharing them with the "masses" is the proper thing to do. I
would like others to share these "fantastic" finds with me.

What if they don't? Would it still be "proper?"

Finally, I do share in the "free market" idea, expressed elsewhere, that VP plays that can
exist in the free market and should be shared with the "masses", and have them be used
in whatever way they can.

"Should?" Independent of an agreement or reciprocation? Why be
altruistic to the masses and not to the pros? The masses might cost
you more than the pros do. Maybe being selfish and selling the
information to the highest bidder is the "proper" thing to do. Isn't
that how to best apply "free market" principles?

Call me naive, but my feelings are my feelings.

..... bl

"Religious" is a better word than "naive." You've divorced morality
from relationships.

#17

What if they don't? Would it still be "proper?"

Yes. I stated what I would do and what I would like other people to do. I am not putting
anyone under any moral obligation to do so.

Why be
altruistic to the masses and not to the pros?

Note that I stated "I do not think that I have to be altruistic", neither to the masses nor the
pros.

"Religious" is a better word than "naive."

I don't understand "religious" in this context..

..... bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:

#18

Try reading comprehension 101. Did I say you are responsible for mine
or I for yours? I said everyone should be responsible to protect EV
in general. Give me one good reason you wouldn't want to protect EV?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@...> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:28 PM, xxxent <xxxent@...> wrote:
> I think it's everyone's responsibility to protect EV in general.

You'd be wrong.

You're not responsible for my EV, and I'm not responsible for yours.

#19

I've said my piece on this thread and am moving on. There will always
be people you just can't reach ever. Either you get it or you don't.

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:28 PM, xxxent <xxxent@> wrote:
> > I think it's everyone's responsibility to protect EV in general.
>
> You'd be wrong.
>
> You're not responsible for my EV, and I'm not responsible for yours.
>

Try reading comprehension 101. Did I say you are responsible for mine
or I for yours? I said everyone should be responsible to protect EV
in general. Give me one good reason you wouldn't want to protect EV?

#20

Oh, I get it. I just don't agree there's any reason to expect others
to keep your secrets.

You (and I) can hope all we want, but expect? That's just foolish.

···

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:35 PM, paladingamingllc <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com> wrote:

I've said my piece on this thread and am moving on. There will always
be people you just can't reach ever. Either you get it or you don't.