When I first started playing for recreation, I almost always played Short-Coin (meaning one coin at a time) because I really didn't know any better. I realized that the Royal was worth more, but I didn't think it was worth it. Heck, I didn't know anything about strategy back then, either. Eventually, the smart folks on this group (and others) persuaded me that this was a mistake, and I have _almost_ fully embraced full-coin play at all times, which is now what I do 95% of the time or better. But for me, there is an important exception, and that is when I decide to play negative machines; there are valid reasons for this, such as when we go to Horseshoe in Tunica, MS, where there are absolutely NO JoB machines except at the bar, which has 8/6 or 8/5 (I can't remember which); their slot area is crowded with various 'wild' card games, which I am not yet proficient enough at to attempt with any reasonable expectation of success. In other casinos, the bar might be a convenient place to rendevous after our group has split-up going our separate ways; for instance, my wife likes to try all sorts of different games, and rather than walk all over the casino trying to find her, she knows where to find me -- either at the JoB 9/6 bank or at the bar.
Anyway, I normally play full-coin away from the bar where paytables are typically higher, but when I play at the bar or on any negative machine, I limit my play in two ways: first, I don't play as fast (if you are playing a game which is statistically a loser, faster play means faster losses), but that occurs almost automatically because I'll be watching a little football or engaging in some occasional conversation. (Such distractions are, in themselves, a reason to limit your play because you are more likely to make an error then and there more than while alone and concentrating on your play away from the bar.) The second way I limit my play while on a negative machine is to play short-coin (one coin bets); I know that there are lots of folks who have a different philosphy on this subject, but my I think my reasoning is sound ... assuming that there is any justification in itself for playing a negative machine. Take, for example, JoB 8/6 with the progressive Royal worth let's say $1,250 (I usually don't get lucky enough to find the progressives very high, and note also that a Royal over $1200 will apparently take some of my money at least temporarily out of play due to withholdings ... at least for state taxes since I'm a non-resident). Full-coin ER is 98.9187%, so even with cash-back and bounce-back added, I'm still looking at a negative game; if I allow a little over half-percent for them, I'm still facing a loss of a half-percent, and if I play full-coin quarters at the rate of 400 games/hour, my expected average losses will be $2.50/hour (already allowing for the rebates I'll receive); but this is the best expected ER, using perfect strategy, without which my losses will be somewhat higher. On the other hand, the short-coin ER is 97.2233% which theoretically will cost me about 1.7% more than full-coin would (theoretical in the sense that if I don't hit the Royal while playing short-coin, it has cost me nothing and has actually saved me money instead, unless I happen to be ahead of the game); and once again allowing the same percentage for rebates as with full-coin, my adjusted expected loss-rate will be about 2.2% which translates into an hourly loss of only $2.20/hour (already allowing for the rebates I'll receive), and I can play confidently because I know 'perfect' short-coin strategy for the game, and I needn't bother worthing about changing my strategy as the value of the Royal rises.
Now this is the important point, for me. The theoretical long-term difference between the two approaches, above, would undoubtedly be somewhat greater than 30-cents/hour due to my not using perfect full-coin strategy for the ever changing Royal -- perhaps as high as 50-cents/hour -- but that's chicken feed, so why worry about it? Well, during that short-session, I _probably_ won't hit the Royal nor a STFL, and I might not even get my share of Quads (if I do, I haven't been hurt by short-coin play because quads are paid the same). So, if we eliminate the percentage of return paid by those three high hands, the ER actually drops to the following: F/C = 89.6467 ... and ... S/C = 90.2933 ... before adjusting for rebates. If I then add the same percentage for cash-back/bounce-back rebates as earlier (.5813% for the sake of uniformity), they are raised to ... F/C = 90.228% ... and ... S/C = 90.8746 ... for new expected loss-rates of 9.77% and 9.13%, respectively.
Now let's look at my wallet after an hour of play at the bar. ... F/C quarters at 400 games/hour = expected loss of $48.84 ... versus ... S/C quarters at 400 games/hour = expected loss of $9.13 ... a difference of $39.71/hour. So, if there is any reason to play a negative machine (one that is still negative even after adding 'rebates'), it is better to cut your losses by playing short-coin. Compared to JoB 9/6, which is 'technically' a negative game at 99.54% -- but which becomes positive when I add the above 'rebate' percentage of .5813% and thus giving me a total ER of 100.1213% -- I will tolerate large session-losses because I know that, on the average, my eventual Royals will return me to a positive bankroll and a slight profit of .12% -- not very much, but it's a lot better than any loss, and I get to comp my meals and have a lot of fun in the process.
Hope you liked my analysis.
Cheers.
Bill Velek