vpFREE2 Forums

Less Than Five Coins Question.

#1

No one replied to my Royal Cycle Question. I guess everyone plays
perfect strategy and so no one bothers with changing it and figuring
out the possible consequences.

Well, I have another question, and I hope I don't sound like a child
asking, "dad, why is the sky blue?"

Playing with less than five coins certainly is giving up on that big
fat Royal, but it does stretch the bankroll. Does anyone have
experience with this? A good system or technique of varying the
number of coins? It'll be interesting to read about it.

Of course, playing the best machines long term, with five coins,
perfect strategy, is the best approach, it would seem. Someone
mentioned there are two other approaches people take to Video Poker:
playing aggressively for the Royal, playing conservatively to make
the bankroll last. My unanswered question of three days ago had to do
with the first of these. This question has to do with the second.

I welcome any comments. Like everyone else, I want to win at VP, but
I also look for alternatives, shortcuts, variations to dispel
monotony. Thanks.

"Ed"

#2

If you want to conserve your bankroll, it makes much more sense to
play a lower (fullpay) denomination than to play that one coin. With
one quarter bet and hitting a royal, you get $62.50. Hit the royal
with the same .25 cents in a nickel machine and you get $200.
I've seen so many people play the variable coin system and hit
royals. How fun is it to hit $62.50 on a royal when it should have
been $1000? Play Winpoker if you don't want to risk money, JMO.

#3

<<No one replied to my Royal Cycle Question. I guess everyone plays
perfect strategy and so no one bothers with changing it and figuring
out the possible consequences.>>

I don't know if you have the Frugal VP software, but that would help you a lot in making some of these decisions. First, you can set it on one coin and analyze the results. And second, it has a very valuable feature that allows you to put in your own strategy (like going more aggressively for royals) and you will see the results of that.

About 1 coin vs. 5 coin - the ideal situation is to go down in denomination and play full coin rather than 1 coin on a higher level. However, this is usually not possible because the pay table at the lower level usually has a considerably lower EV paytable if you want to go from quarters to nickels. In that case, playing one coin on the higher level IS an option if your bankroll is quite small and you want longer playing time. However, mathematical considerations sometimes are overpowered by psychological ones - a lot of people just can't stand the stress of getting a royal at one coin and not getting the full-coin bonus.

···

____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
Note new e-mail address.
Order autographed book, cassette tape, and the new
   Frugal VP software at http://www.frugalgambler.biz
Read Frugal Fridays at http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com

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

#4

Thanks for replying to my post.

Yes, of course I have Frugal, that gave me the idea of this post. In
the machine statistics at Frugal I saw that FPDW with less than five
coins has a payback of 99.57%. Now that is a little better than 9/6
Jacks or Better. So if you like playing quarters and do not want a
return worse than JB, and still you like varying the number of coins,
then you can play FPDW with less than five coins. If occasionally you
play five coins, then your return should be above 99.57%.

You say, as far as the Royal Cycle question on my previous post,

"And second, it has a very valuable feature that allows you to put in
your own strategy (like going more aggressively for royals) and you
will see the results of that."

I have done what you say in the above, and I do get the payback with
the tweaked strategy, but I do not get the Royal Cycle or other
statistics. Let me give you an example. I took the perfect strategy
of 9/6 JB and tweaked the strategy so that it will hold three to a
Royal above a high pair. The return which is 99.54% with perfect
strategy, I found out in Frugal that becomes, with the above change
in play, 99.47%. A little less, as expected. But I could not find the
new Royal Cycle. If there is a way, I would thank you to enlighten
me.

I know about the psychological considerations. It is hard to give up
the big royal, even if it could make sense in certain cases.

Thanks again for your reply.

"Ed"

<<No one replied to my Royal Cycle Question. I guess everyone plays
perfect strategy and so no one bothers with changing it and

figuring

out the possible consequences.>>

I don't know if you have the Frugal VP software, but that would

help you a lot in making some of these decisions. First, you can set
it on one coin and analyze the results. And second, it has a very
valuable feature that allows you to put in your own strategy (like
going more aggressively for royals) and you will see the results of
that.

About 1 coin vs. 5 coin - the ideal situation is to go down in

denomination and play full coin rather than 1 coin on a higher
level. However, this is usually not possible because the pay table
at the lower level usually has a considerably lower EV paytable if
you want to go from quarters to nickels. In that case, playing one
coin on the higher level IS an option if your bankroll is quite small
and you want longer playing time. However, mathematical
considerations sometimes are overpowered by psychological ones - a
lot of people just can't stand the stress of getting a royal at one
coin and not getting the full-coin bonus.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:

____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
Note new e-mail address.
Order autographed book, cassette tape, and the new
   Frugal VP software at http://www.frugalgambler.biz
Read Frugal Fridays at http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com

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

#5

If you want to play short coin, that is OK, but I don't agree with varying your number of coins , play the same number all the time for that session. Varying your coins played based on how you are doing is like trying to time the stock market. It can't be done and you will most likely do worse than flat betting. Don't ever bet 4 coins on a 5 coin machine, that doesn't save enough to have any benefit.

I would suggest the following alternative to short coin play if a lower denomination machine with a good paytable does not exist. Play less often, but with a bigger stake.
Instead of going once a week with $100, go once a month with $400. That is the strategy I use at home where the only good machines are in a higher denomination than I usually play.

Regards
A.P.

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

#6

Mrs. Scott,

Please disregard my question concerning the Royal Cycle below. It
happens that I'm too lazy reading long "help" notes in software. I
went to Frugal and got the answer to my question. The Royal Cycle for
changing the strategy favoring three to a Royal over a high pair, I
found out there after I did what I had to do, is 34375.9. So, unless
Furgal is wrong, that is what it is. Now that I discovered how to do
these things, I will have a lot of fun exploring. Thanks very much
for your reply. It led me back to the software and, yes, it does give
you all that information.

"Ed"

Thanks for replying to my post.

Yes, of course I have Frugal, that gave me the idea of this post.

In

the machine statistics at Frugal I saw that FPDW with less than

five

coins has a payback of 99.57%. Now that is a little better than 9/6
Jacks or Better. So if you like playing quarters and do not want a
return worse than JB, and still you like varying the number of

coins,

then you can play FPDW with less than five coins. If occasionally

you

play five coins, then your return should be above 99.57%.

You say, as far as the Royal Cycle question on my previous post,

"And second, it has a very valuable feature that allows you to put

in

your own strategy (like going more aggressively for royals) and you
will see the results of that."

I have done what you say in the above, and I do get the payback

with

the tweaked strategy, but I do not get the Royal Cycle or other
statistics. Let me give you an example. I took the perfect strategy
of 9/6 JB and tweaked the strategy so that it will hold three to a
Royal above a high pair. The return which is 99.54% with perfect
strategy, I found out in Frugal that becomes, with the above change
in play, 99.47%. A little less, as expected. But I could not find

the

new Royal Cycle. If there is a way, I would thank you to enlighten
me.

I know about the psychological considerations. It is hard to give

up

the big royal, even if it could make sense in certain cases.

Thanks again for your reply.

"Ed"

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...>

wrote:

> <<No one replied to my Royal Cycle Question. I guess everyone

plays

> perfect strategy and so no one bothers with changing it and
figuring
> out the possible consequences.>>
>
> I don't know if you have the Frugal VP software, but that would
help you a lot in making some of these decisions. First, you can

set

it on one coin and analyze the results. And second, it has a very
valuable feature that allows you to put in your own strategy (like
going more aggressively for royals) and you will see the results of
that.
>
> About 1 coin vs. 5 coin - the ideal situation is to go down in
denomination and play full coin rather than 1 coin on a higher
level. However, this is usually not possible because the pay table
at the lower level usually has a considerably lower EV paytable if
you want to go from quarters to nickels. In that case, playing

one

coin on the higher level IS an option if your bankroll is quite

small

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mubowor" <erchalb@c...> wrote:

and you want longer playing time. However, mathematical
considerations sometimes are overpowered by psychological ones - a
lot of people just can't stand the stress of getting a royal at one
coin and not getting the full-coin bonus.
>
>
> ____________________
> Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
> Note new e-mail address.
> Order autographed book, cassette tape, and the new
> Frugal VP software at http://www.frugalgambler.biz
> Read Frugal Fridays at http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#7

I see what you are saying, but there are lots of views on this
matter, it seems.

First of all, most machines do give you an option of betting from one
to five coins. Some might think this is just a trap the casinos and
manufacturers create to make you spend more, others might view this
as a convenience.

I don't see exactly why should it be totally verboten to bet four
coins. I have given below an example of a guy that wants to save. He
is at a quarter machine, and just wants to up his bet when he has
lots of credits, and wants to go down when he has few credits. If he
does it in a prudent way, he might be led to play longer than just
betting five coins all the time. This is the frugal gambler. Now, the
guy might be in a casino where the points and comps are such to make
a Jacks or Better machine attractive. If he is playing FPDW with less
than five coins at times, he is doing better long term than if he
were betting full coin at JB.

Now take a guy who is at a quarter machine and made money. Say, he
got a Royal. He wants to keep playing, but does not want to lose all
he won. He could stay on the quarter machine but he really wants to
see more bang to his quads and full houses, say. On the other hand he
does not want to go to a dollar machine and bet five dollars, he
might lose what he won. The change from $1.25 to $5 is huge. He
decides he will play the dollar machine, a dollar or two or more,
depending on how he does. Why not? If he has two coins in and gets a
four-of-a-kind, then he gets paid $50, and that is better than the
thirty one dollars he would get full coin on the quarter machine. Say
after the quad, he gets trios and such, and all of a sudden on a four
dollar bet he gets a Royal. Well, he is paid a thousand dollars, just
what he would have gotten on the quarter machine. I don't see
anything wrong with that. Sure, he missed four thousand dollars, but
he did not know ahead of time what he was going to win, so that
thousand dollars is nice.

As far as the payback of the machine, it is the same with any number
of coins from one to four, and larger with five coins. If the payback
is acceptable no matter what number of coins, then why not play
varying the number of coins? It does kill monotony.

It is not always the case that varying the number of coins makes the
machine negative. Depends on the conditions as to comps and such.
Favorable conditions might be rare, but they do exist.

Now, another alternative is multi play, of course. A very valid
alternative.

"Ed"

If you want to play short coin, that is OK, but I don't agree with

varying your number of coins , play the same number all the time for
that session. Varying your coins played based on how you are doing is
like trying to time the stock market. It can't be done and you will
most likely do worse than flat betting. Don't ever bet 4 coins on a 5
coin machine, that doesn't save enough to have any benefit.

I would suggest the following alternative to short coin play if a

lower denomination machine with a good paytable does not exist. Play
less often, but with a bigger stake.

Instead of going once a week with $100, go once a month with $400.

That is the strategy I use at home where the only good machines are
in a higher denomination than I usually play.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Pearson" <a-p@s...> wrote:

Regards
A.P.

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

#8

If you feel that playing 4 coins versus 5 coins is a good way to maximize your playing time , I will not attempt to dissuade you. Most of the time you will last longer before you go broke. Playing the 5 coins will make your losing sessions 20% shorter.
The only difference is the 5 coin player will have more winning sessions than the 4 coin player.
Going from 5 coins at quarters to 2 coins at dollars is beyond my limited comprehension so I can't intelligently comment on it.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: mubowor
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 4:21 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Less Than Five Coins Question.

  I see what you are saying, but there are lots of views on this
  matter, it seems.

  First of all, most machines do give you an option of betting from one
  to five coins. Some might think this is just a trap the casinos and
  manufacturers create to make you spend more, others might view this
  as a convenience.

  I don't see exactly why should it be totally verboten to bet four
  coins. I have given below an example of a guy that wants to save. He
  is at a quarter machine, and just wants to up his bet when he has
  lots of credits, and wants to go down when he has few credits. If he
  does it in a prudent way, he might be led to play longer than just
  betting five coins all the time. This is the frugal gambler. Now, the
  guy might be in a casino where the points and comps are such to make
  a Jacks or Better machine attractive. If he is playing FPDW with less
  than five coins at times, he is doing better long term than if he
  were betting full coin at JB.

  Now take a guy who is at a quarter machine and made money. Say, he
  got a Royal. He wants to keep playing, but does not want to lose all
  he won. He could stay on the quarter machine but he really wants to
  see more bang to his quads and full houses, say. On the other hand he
  does not want to go to a dollar machine and bet five dollars, he
  might lose what he won. The change from $1.25 to $5 is huge. He
  decides he will play the dollar machine, a dollar or two or more,
  depending on how he does. Why not? If he has two coins in and gets a
  four-of-a-kind, then he gets paid $50, and that is better than the
  thirty one dollars he would get full coin on the quarter machine. Say
  after the quad, he gets trios and such, and all of a sudden on a four
  dollar bet he gets a Royal. Well, he is paid a thousand dollars, just
  what he would have gotten on the quarter machine. I don't see
  anything wrong with that. Sure, he missed four thousand dollars, but
  he did not know ahead of time what he was going to win, so that
  thousand dollars is nice.

  As far as the payback of the machine, it is the same with any number
  of coins from one to four, and larger with five coins. If the payback
  is acceptable no matter what number of coins, then why not play
  varying the number of coins? It does kill monotony.

  It is not always the case that varying the number of coins makes the
  machine negative. Depends on the conditions as to comps and such.
  Favorable conditions might be rare, but they do exist.

  Now, another alternative is multi play, of course. A very valid
  alternative.

  "Ed"

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

#9

> Going from 5 coins at quarters to 2 coins at dollars is beyond my

limited comprehension so I can't intelligently comment on it.

Regards
A.P.

Well, I was trying to give an example considering all aspects,
including psychology. You have to consider all the facts. Take a
casino with a best paying quarter machine an 8/5 Bonus. That is only
a 99% payback. In dollars the casino has 10/7 Bonus. Tha machine
paysback is 100.17%, but with less than five coins it pays back 99%,
about the same as the quarter machine you were playing. Assume with
triple points, and comps, and cashback you get over 1%.

Why would going from five coins at quarters to 2 coins at dollars
after you hit a Royal in quarters be so incomprehensible? Think of
four kings. In the quarter machine you get $31.25 with five quarters,
in the dollar machine, with two dollars, you get $100. Even with one
dollar you get more, $50. So what is wrong going from the quarter
machine to the dollar machine that pays back with less than five
coins the same than the quarter machine with five coins? Assume all
other benefits like triple points and all that are the same for both
machines.

Assume also you have been long hours at the casino, you are ahead,
and you like to play games so you vary your bet, increasing it when
the credits are high, decreasing it when they start to go low, on the
dollar machine. At one point you play 4 coins, but maybe on average
you play 3 or 2 coins. You certainly will play longer than with five
coins that way, on less money.

I can't comprehend your incomprehension. Best regards,

"Ed"

  From: mubowor
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 4:21 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Less Than Five Coins Question.

  I see what you are saying, but there are lots of views on this
  matter, it seems.

  First of all, most machines do give you an option of betting from

one

  to five coins. Some might think this is just a trap the casinos

and

  manufacturers create to make you spend more, others might view

this

  as a convenience.

  I don't see exactly why should it be totally verboten to bet four
  coins. I have given below an example of a guy that wants to save.

He

  is at a quarter machine, and just wants to up his bet when he has
  lots of credits, and wants to go down when he has few credits. If

he

  does it in a prudent way, he might be led to play longer than

just

  betting five coins all the time. This is the frugal gambler. Now,

the

  guy might be in a casino where the points and comps are such to

make

  a Jacks or Better machine attractive. If he is playing FPDW with

less

  than five coins at times, he is doing better long term than if he
  were betting full coin at JB.

  Now take a guy who is at a quarter machine and made money. Say,

he

  got a Royal. He wants to keep playing, but does not want to lose

all

  he won. He could stay on the quarter machine but he really wants

to

  see more bang to his quads and full houses, say. On the other

hand he

  does not want to go to a dollar machine and bet five dollars, he
  might lose what he won. The change from $1.25 to $5 is huge. He
  decides he will play the dollar machine, a dollar or two or more,
  depending on how he does. Why not? If he has two coins in and

gets a

  four-of-a-kind, then he gets paid $50, and that is better than

the

  thirty one dollars he would get full coin on the quarter machine.

Say

  after the quad, he gets trios and such, and all of a sudden on a

four

  dollar bet he gets a Royal. Well, he is paid a thousand dollars,

just

  what he would have gotten on the quarter machine. I don't see
  anything wrong with that. Sure, he missed four thousand dollars,

but

  he did not know ahead of time what he was going to win, so that
  thousand dollars is nice.

  As far as the payback of the machine, it is the same with any

number

  of coins from one to four, and larger with five coins. If the

payback

  is acceptable no matter what number of coins, then why not play
  varying the number of coins? It does kill monotony.

  It is not always the case that varying the number of coins makes

the

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Pearson" <a-p@s...> wrote:

  ----- Original Message -----
  machine negative. Depends on the conditions as to comps and such.
  Favorable conditions might be rare, but they do exist.

  Now, another alternative is multi play, of course. A very valid
  alternative.

  "Ed"

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

#10

Well, I was trying to give an example considering all aspects,
including psychology. You have to consider all the facts. Take a
casino with a best paying quarter machine an 8/5 Bonus. That is
only a 99% payback. In dollars the casino has 10/7 Bonus. Tha
machine paysback is 100.17%, but with less than five coins it pays
back 99%, about the same as the quarter machine you were playing.
Assume with triple points, and comps, and cashback you get over 1%.

In the first place, the scenario you describe, where in a given
casino the best game offered in .25 is 8/5 Bonus, but at the same
time you can find 10/7 DB in dollars, does not exist. In general,
these days if you move up in denomination from quarters you move
down in game quality. The best you could do is to find the same
slightly negative EV game as you had been playing--NSUD or something
like that. So you would be taking the full EV hit of 1.5%+ by moving
up in denomination but playing short-coin. In other words, you can
only play short-coin dollars at something like 98% (plus cashback,
etc. of course).

Doubling your negative EV while increasing your bet by 75% (as in
your moving from five quarters to two dollars example) increases
your potential losses by 250%. AND, you lose the incentive that
compensates, in the minds of most people, for the negative EV of
most casino games--the chance of a big payoff.

I also suspect that hitting a royal with two dollars in and getting
paid HALF of what you would have gotten paid at a quarter game would
sour you on this "strategy" pretty quickly.

#11

You made two replies to my posts, let me answer them both here. I
must comment I have the impression that you do not take me seriously.
There is nothing I can do about that if it is the case.

The problem about $200 freeplay at TI is a very clear-cut
mathematical problem. If you don't want to do the math distribution,
then go to Lotspiech's page. There is a java program there called
gambler's ruin calculator. You can play with the numbers there and
see that more people end up with more money playing $200 in nickels
than in quarters, even at a paytable a little worse. TI has NSUD in
quarters and Bonus in nickels.

In the present post, you say the situation above does not exist.
Well, it used to exist in Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, exactly that
situation. For all I know, maybe it still does.

You also have given me advice about playing the best machines under
the best conditions. Well, sure, that is what every player wants all
the time. But a lot of players end up with freeplay at Treasure
Island broke, or at Trump Plaza with some dollars, or at a boat in
Iowa or wherever. What do they do then? Playing Little Green Men is
fun, but if you like Video Poker, you try to play it the best way
under the conditions given. Not every place in the world has FPDW.

Have a good afternoon.

"Ed"

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mkl54321" <mkl54321@y...> wrote:

> In the first place, the scenario you describe, where in a given
casino the best game offered in .25 is 8/5 Bonus, but at the same
time you can find 10/7 DB in dollars, does not exist.

#12

If the E.V. remains the same as in your example, then it is a great play.
If you were going from a 10/7 db quarter machine to a 10/7 db dollar machine it would be a bad play.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: mubowor
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 7:00 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Less Than Five Coins Question.

  Well, I was trying to give an example considering all aspects,
  including psychology. You have to consider all the facts. Take a
  casino with a best paying quarter machine an 8/5 Bonus. That is only
  a 99% payback. In dollars the casino has 10/7 Bonus. Tha machine
  paysback is 100.17%, but with less than five coins it pays back 99%,
  about the same as the quarter machine you were playing. Assume with
  triple points, and comps, and cashback you get over 1%.

  Why would going from five coins at quarters to 2 coins at dollars
  after you hit a Royal in quarters be so incomprehensible?

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

#13

Sick of reading about people winning? Here's something you'll enjoy....

Here's one that sure makes you wonder why you play VP.

Today on triple play .25 NSUD.

21296 hands (7098 deals) $26620 coin in
Lost $1,420
ZERO sets of deuces
At the lowest point we were down $2050 and then the wife got a ROYAL on the
redeal. Amazingly enough even after the Royal were were down $1,050. We
kept playing in hopes of some deuces . No luck. After 12 hours we quit.
This is our worst ever run and brings my total recent hands without a ROYAL
to about 3 Royal cycles.

Here's another example of a bad run.

#14

This should be required reading for newbies, maybe they will make sure their
bank roll and intestinal fortitude are ready for action. It happens and it
happens more frequently than most players admit to.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ednar" <ednar@kconline.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 8:45 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] I beat the odds on NSUD

Sick of reading about people winning? Here's something you'll enjoy....

Here's one that sure makes you wonder why you play VP.

Today on triple play .25 NSUD.

21296 hands (7098 deals) $26620 coin in
Lost $1,420
ZERO sets of deuces
At the lowest point we were down $2050 and then the wife got a ROYAL on

the

redeal. Amazingly enough even after the Royal were were down $1,050. We
kept playing in hopes of some deuces . No luck. After 12 hours we quit.
This is our worst ever run and brings my total recent hands without a

ROYAL

to about 3 Royal cycles.

Here's another example of a bad run.

vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/a7ga

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#15

I'm sorry about the bad run, but thanks for sharing your experience.
While not as bad as yours, I too had a bad run my last trip. I played
12000 hands and lost $870. No deuces or royals during the time I
played(2days).
Better luck in the future.

Sick of reading about people winning? Here's something you'll

enjoy....

Here's one that sure makes you wonder why you play VP.

Today on triple play .25 NSUD.

21296 hands (7098 deals) $26620 coin in
Lost $1,420
ZERO sets of deuces
At the lowest point we were down $2050 and then the wife got a

ROYAL on the

redeal. Amazingly enough even after the Royal were were down

$1,050. We

kept playing in hopes of some deuces . No luck. After 12 hours we

quit.

This is our worst ever run and brings my total recent hands without

a ROYAL

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:

to about 3 Royal cycles.

Here's another example of a bad run.

#16

Thanks. I think sharing the bad runs is as important as the good runs.
Maybe even more important.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "jhtks2002" <jthimes@kc.rr.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 12:36 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: I beat the odds on NSUD

I'm sorry about the bad run, but thanks for sharing your experience.
While not as bad as yours, I too had a bad run my last trip. I played
12000 hands and lost $870. No deuces or royals during the time I
played(2days).
Better luck in the future.