Looks Like Someone on VPFree Need's Rob's Help BADLY

[Dan_Cox]

> > > What is 'the skill factor'? Almost every single hand of video
> poker is common sense.
> >
> > This statement is pure malarky. Don't you ever watch anyone
around you play? If it were "common" sense then everyone would play

the same AND the casinos would lose money on EVERY full pay machine.

>
> Wrong, 110% wrong. Most people I've met around the world do not
> utilize the common sense they were born with.

This may be a definition problem, but if "common sense" is not used
commonly then it's not "common sense".

It is a definition problem. 'Common sense' is not at all
used 'commonly'. People have it yet don't always use it. I.E., they
know better but are mislead down the incorrect path by some other
outside force.

> That's why no human could ever approach even being close to the

near-perfection required to beat positive play machines on sheer
skill with very little luck.

Not this again. Remember the typing pool example???

And remember the pilots example??? BTW–Sat. at Sam's Town for
nearly 10 minutes I watched one side of a bank of 25c FPDW players
POUNDING AWAY at the machines–which were full. I have to assume
these were seasoned 'advantage players' because of the speed most of
them were playing at. I'm not proficient at the game but I do know
most of the holds, and I saw error after error after error being made
that the players had no idea they were making. And that's typical of
all humans playing video poker. I know I catch errors as I'm hitting
the draw button that i just cannot stop. Everybody does that, and it
happens far more often than we think.

> Dancer and you and others always say after X amount of hands it
turns into mostly skill. Why?

Because, when large numbers of hands (statistical samples) are used
the good luck and bad luck tend to cancel each other out. At that
time, your return nears the actual payback of the game. It's

exactly the same as flipping a coin. I'm sure you realize after only
a few hundred flips that both heads and tails will be really close to
50%. It takes longer in VP because of the higher variance.

But that has nothing to do with skill vs. luck. You play hands as
they're dealt, just as you do with the flip of a coin - which has
nothing to do with skill. If 2 people decide to play the game and one
quits for life after hand #1, and both are dealt RF's on stat. ex.
hand #1 while the 2nd player gets the same deal on stat. ex. hand
#35,987,354, and neither make a mistake on any of the 3 holds, your
claim is that the guy who quit played with luck. But on hand
#35,987,354 the 2nd player is somehow playing the hand skillfully by
then, and luck has long ago given way to skill. That makes no sense.

> First, that's too many hours to work every year. Then, it's
comparing apples to oranges. Gambling always begins as social

entertainment and soon easily becomes a habit--a social problem, but
work is to make a living whether you like it or not.

Gambling can also be used to make a living. If one does this then

do you agree it is not an addiction???

I know of no one else besides me who gambles for a living
successfully without having to peddle gaming wares, ask for money
from training, or require payment for advice or services--and no one
has yet proven to me that there is anyone else who does what I do. I
believe those who need to make money on the side are indeed addicted
more than they will ever know or admit to. In my case, I don't deny
that I WOULD be addicted if I lived in LV, but just as I have a
strong discipline to play as I do within my strategies, I'm able to
leave town and not go back to the machines until I want some more
money. I control what I do--unlike what the so-called gurus do.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> > > > What is 'the skill factor'? Almost every single hand of

video

> > poker is common sense.
> > >
> > > This statement is pure malarky. Don't you ever watch anyone
> around you play? If it were "common" sense then everyone would

play

the same AND the casinos would lose money on EVERY full pay machine.
> >
> > Wrong, 110% wrong. Most people I've met around the world do not
> > utilize the common sense they were born with.
>
> This may be a definition problem, but if "common sense" is not

used

> commonly then it's not "common sense".

It is a definition problem. 'Common sense' is not at all
used 'commonly'. People have it yet don't always use it. I.E., they
know better but are mislead down the incorrect path by some other
outside force.

This may be true SOMETIMES. However, in the VP world I think it is
mostly due to lack of understanding. I see many players using a poor
JOB strategy to play OEJs. They understand a little about VP but
can't make the transition to understand the finer points of the
paytable. Some never even look at the paytable. I've seen others use
a regular poker strategy keeping kickers, etc. I've never seen a VP
machine that can be bluffed. I don't think these folks lack "common
sense". VP is a game where "common sense" can't always be applied
easily.

>
> > That's why no human could ever approach even being close to the
near-perfection required to beat positive play machines on sheer
skill with very little luck.
>
> Not this again. Remember the typing pool example???

And remember the pilots example???

Yes, and as I indicated before you can't compare piloting to VP due
to the consequences of small errors. Typing comes a lot closer.

BTW--Sat. at Sam's Town for
nearly 10 minutes I watched one side of a bank of 25c FPDW players
POUNDING AWAY at the machines--which were full. I have to assume
these were seasoned 'advantage players' because of the speed most

of

them were playing at. I'm not proficient at the game but I do know
most of the holds, and I saw error after error after error being

made

that the players had no idea they were making.

I'm sure they were NOT advantage players. Where I play most often I
see lots of gamblers playing extremely fast that have NO idea about
any kind of "expert" strategy. Speed is NOT an indication of
knowledge.

And that's typical of
all humans playing video poker. I know I catch errors as I'm

hitting

the draw button that i just cannot stop. Everybody does that, and

it

happens far more often than we think.

Yes, it does happen. I rate myself at NSUD or FPDW at about 98%
accuracy and 99.9% of the maximum payback. Probably the same at OEJs
and JOB. If I venture to other games my error rate increases unless
I'm very slow. These values are sufficient since I only play if I
have a .5% advantage (or more). I only play NSUD/JOB if they are
progressives.

>
> > Dancer and you and others always say after X amount of hands it
> turns into mostly skill. Why?
>
> Because, when large numbers of hands (statistical samples) are

used

> the good luck and bad luck tend to cancel each other out. At that
> time, your return nears the actual payback of the game. It's
exactly the same as flipping a coin. I'm sure you realize after

only

a few hundred flips that both heads and tails will be really close

to

50%. It takes longer in VP because of the higher variance.

But that has nothing to do with skill vs. luck. You play hands as
they're dealt, just as you do with the flip of a coin - which has
nothing to do with skill. If 2 people decide to play the game and

one

quits for life after hand #1, and both are dealt RF's on stat. ex.
hand #1 while the 2nd player gets the same deal on stat. ex. hand
#35,987,354, and neither make a mistake on any of the 3 holds, your
claim is that the guy who quit played with luck. But on hand
#35,987,354 the 2nd player is somehow playing the hand skillfully

by

then, and luck has long ago given way to skill. That makes no sense.

Sure it does. If you only look at one hand (no matter when it occurs)
it will always be luck. You have to include ALL the hands in the
analysis before skill overrides luck. The statistical probabilties
apply to large samples only. But remember, this doesn't mean you HAVE
to play a large number of hands to win. You are just as likely to be
lucky in the short term playing skillfully than someone playing
unskillfully.

>
> > First, that's too many hours to work every year. Then, it's
> comparing apples to oranges. Gambling always begins as social
entertainment and soon easily becomes a habit--a social problem,

but

work is to make a living whether you like it or not.
>
> Gambling can also be used to make a living. If one does this then
do you agree it is not an addiction???

I know of no one else besides me who gambles for a living
successfully without having to peddle gaming wares, ask for money
from training, or require payment for advice or services--and no

one

has yet proven to me that there is anyone else who does what I do.

I've heard several "pros" comment on VPFREE about their winnings. I
don't know why you discount them.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

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

> It is a definition problem. 'Common sense' is not at all
> used 'commonly'. People have it yet don't always use it. I.E.,

they know better but are mislead down the incorrect path by some
other outside force.

This may be true SOMETIMES. However, in the VP world I think it is
mostly due to lack of understanding. I see many players using a

poor JOB strategy to play OEJs. They understand a little about VP
but can't make the transition to understand the finer points of the

paytable. Some never even look at the paytable. I've seen others

use a regular poker strategy keeping kickers, etc. I've never seen a
VP machine that can be bluffed. I don't think these folks
lack "common sense". VP is a game where "common sense" can't always
be applied easily.

Maybe, maybe not. At the Rio this Friday as I was walking by a lady
playing a machine, I noticed her being dealt 3AAA7 on $1 DDB.
Surprisingly, she held 3AAA. When a K showed up she said "you piece
of shit!" rather loudly. As she somewhat disgustingly pounded the
max bet button again, I was just turning away when I caught her
being dealt 3323X. Unbelieveably, she held the kicker AGAIN. She got
nothing extra this time also, gave a big disgruntled sigh, but I
couldn't resist saying something to her about it--even though she
was in a bad enough mood to bite my head off. I said "I'm sure the
fourth Ace and 3 were the next cards out on those last two hands,
just like you do". She was nice about it and grudgingly agreed. So I
asked he why. Typically, she said that she had a better chance of
hitting the quads with kickers if she held the one that was already
dealt. We talked it over, and she said she'd never do that again,
because I told her in DDB you don't play for kickers--they're an
unexpected bonus. This lady was no dummy. She's a Psychologist in
Wyoming. She has plenty of common sense, but in vp did not allow
herself to use it.

Yes, and as I indicated before you can't compare piloting to VP

due to the consequences of small errors. Typing comes a lot closer.

Once a person is focused on and motivated towards an effort, no
matter what the class of person or any other factor, that effort is
equally important to both. The consequence of pilot error may be
huge to you or I watching from here or from the window of the plane
they're flying, but an error made by a typist may in fact be just as
devastating to her or him depending on the ultimate consequences to
be faced and who they must answer to. The typist's world is no more
or less important than that of the pilot's, and thus the maximum
effort is always made.

I'm sure they were NOT advantage players. Where I play most often

I see lots of gamblers playing extremely fast that have NO idea
about any kind of "expert" strategy. Speed is NOT an indication of

knowledge.

But it may be, and in many cases it is. How else would they get to
that long-term promise land preached about by "Mr. tens of millions
of hands" if they don't get the hands in?

Yes, it does happen. I rate myself at NSUD or FPDW at about 98%
accuracy and 99.9% of the maximum payback. Probably the same at

OEJs and JOB. If I venture to other games my error rate increases
unless I'm very slow. These values are sufficient since I only play
if I have a .5% advantage (or more). I only play NSUD/JOB if they
are progressives.

You're fascinated by statistics so those things are important to
you. I'm only there to try and win a pre-set amount of money, and
since anything can happen at any time--and I don't play even a
million hands in any one year--that's the theory I go by. It's been
the right one by far since 1997, whereas doing as you do in 1990-
1996, I was a million miles away from success.

Sure it does. If you only look at one hand (no matter when it

occurs)it will always be luck. You have to include ALL the hands in
the analysis before skill overrides luck. The statistical
probabilties apply to large samples only. But remember, this doesn't
mean you HAVE to play a large number of hands to win. You are just
as likely to be lucky in the short term playing skillfully than
someone playing unskillfully.

Every hand in an individual adventure, and every winning hand is a
result of luck. Just because you play 35 million individual hands,
lumping them together hasn't changed any level of skilled play if
you believe that the hands ARE the result of skilled play. Just like
the flip of that coin, you keep going on forever and it's still
always only the luck of the flip.

> >
> I know of no one else besides me who gambles for a living
> successfully without having to peddle gaming wares, ask for

money from training, or require payment for advice or services--and
no one has yet proven to me that there is anyone else who does what
I do.

I've heard several "pros" comment on VPFREE about their winnings.

I don't know why you discount them.

I wouldn't discount them if I knew more about them and how they earn
their living. I have had 2 of these people write to me privately in
the last 2 years about their greatness in vp, but one is now broke
and moved away, and the other now works full-time because he
couldn't support his family on gambling. It's hard to tell, but I
don't believe there are many if any other true pros playing for a
living CONTINUOUSLY.

[Dan_Cox]

I just remembered something. A month or so ago Elliot came on here
and mentioned, with prejudice, that he read an article of mine in
Gaming Today about my play at the Venetian, and how I tossed 2-pair,
held 33 on $25 DDB, and drew 332 for $20k....and what a stupid play
that was (for who knows why).

Well, here's another one of those 'stupid plays' that I make because
in my Play Strategies it is a special play: On $25 8/5 TBP+ Sat. I
was dealt a 222XX FH. I was down nearly $11k at this point in my ARTT
session, and it was just about over. A FH would mean 8 more pops at a
good hand. But why? This IS a great chance for a good hand! So on
this game--one that the 'pros' would never put a nickle into because
it's so far 'below 100%' I make yet ANOTHER 'stupid play' that yields
a $15k winner.

Here's a hint: TBP+ is a game for winners who know what they're doing
and have the proper bankroll for whatever denominations they intend
to play. I admit playing the $25 machine is not something I enjoy,
and I rarely do play them, but within a very structured, disciplined
system they can be utilized very efficiently. Hey, if I sat at the
dollar machine for the whole time with my entire 420 credits from
that session and hit those 2's, I'd be up a whopping $75! So Elliot,
please tell me once again how dumb I am....

[mubowor]

Well, you took a chance, you said the fat pig in the bushes is better
than the pig fifteen times thinner in your hand, you were lucky, and
it worked. The problem, as I see it, if I were to be at a high
denomination machine and got that hand, is that I might end up with
just the trio of deuces, that is, a three pound pig instead of an
eight pound one. Ouch! How does one know when to be sure the fourth
deuce will appear? Otherwise, sure, it is gambling, I agree, and
sometimes these risks have a happy outcome and pay. Anyway,
congratulations on your hit.

I just remembered something. A month or so ago Elliot came on here
and mentioned, with prejudice, that he read an article of mine in
Gaming Today about my play at the Venetian, and how I tossed 2-

pair,

held 33 on $25 DDB, and drew 332 for $20k....and what a stupid play
that was (for who knows why).

Well, here's another one of those 'stupid plays' that I make

because

in my Play Strategies it is a special play: On $25 8/5 TBP+ Sat. I
was dealt a 222XX FH. I was down nearly $11k at this point in my

ARTT

session, and it was just about over. A FH would mean 8 more pops at

a

good hand. But why? This IS a great chance for a good hand! So on
this game--one that the 'pros' would never put a nickle into

because

it's so far 'below 100%' I make yet ANOTHER 'stupid play' that

yields

a $15k winner.

Here's a hint: TBP+ is a game for winners who know what they're

doing

and have the proper bankroll for whatever denominations they intend
to play. I admit playing the $25 machine is not something I enjoy,
and I rarely do play them, but within a very structured,

disciplined

system they can be utilized very efficiently. Hey, if I sat at the
dollar machine for the whole time with my entire 420 credits from
that session and hit those 2's, I'd be up a whopping $75! So

Elliot,

···

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

please tell me once again how dumb I am....

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > It is a definition problem. 'Common sense' is not at all
> > used 'commonly'. People have it yet don't always use it. I.E.,
they know better but are mislead down the incorrect path by some
other outside force.
>
> This may be true SOMETIMES. However, in the VP world I think it

is

> mostly due to lack of understanding. I see many players using a
poor JOB strategy to play OEJs. They understand a little about VP
but can't make the transition to understand the finer points of the
> paytable. Some never even look at the paytable. I've seen others
use a regular poker strategy keeping kickers, etc. I've never seen

a

VP machine that can be bluffed. I don't think these folks
lack "common sense". VP is a game where "common sense" can't always
be applied easily.

Maybe, maybe not. At the Rio this Friday as I was walking by a lady
playing a machine, I noticed her being dealt 3AAA7 on $1 DDB.
Surprisingly, she held 3AAA. When a K showed up she said "you piece
of shit!" rather loudly. As she somewhat disgustingly pounded the
max bet button again, I was just turning away when I caught her
being dealt 3323X. Unbelieveably, she held the kicker AGAIN. She

got

nothing extra this time also, gave a big disgruntled sigh, but I
couldn't resist saying something to her about it--even though she
was in a bad enough mood to bite my head off. I said "I'm sure the
fourth Ace and 3 were the next cards out on those last two hands,
just like you do". She was nice about it and grudgingly agreed. So

I

asked he why. Typically, she said that she had a better chance of
hitting the quads with kickers if she held the one that was already
dealt. We talked it over, and she said she'd never do that again,
because I told her in DDB you don't play for kickers--they're an
unexpected bonus. This lady was no dummy. She's a Psychologist in
Wyoming. She has plenty of common sense, but in vp did not allow
herself to use it.

I think you just agreed with me. The knowledge you refer to
as "common sense" just isn't that common. It's more of an acquired
skill based on experience (or study).

>
> Yes, and as I indicated before you can't compare piloting to VP
due to the consequences of small errors. Typing comes a lot closer.

Once a person is focused on and motivated towards an effort, no
matter what the class of person or any other factor, that effort is
equally important to both. The consequence of pilot error may be
huge to you or I watching from here or from the window of the plane
they're flying, but an error made by a typist may in fact be just

as

devastating to her or him depending on the ultimate consequences to
be faced and who they must answer to. The typist's world is no more
or less important than that of the pilot's, and thus the maximum
effort is always made.

How the individual FEELS about their error does not effect the
consequences of the error. There is NO way to compare a typo (or a VP
hold mistake) to a pilot error.

>
> I'm sure they were NOT advantage players. Where I play most often
I see lots of gamblers playing extremely fast that have NO idea
about any kind of "expert" strategy. Speed is NOT an indication of
> knowledge.

But it may be, and in many cases it is. How else would they get to
that long-term promise land preached about by "Mr. tens of millions
of hands" if they don't get the hands in?

There is no "promise land" at millions of hands. The skill simply
gets you statiscally closer the game payback over time. And, it does
not change the influence of luck during that time. There are not all
that many skilled advantage players (especially outside of LV).

>
> Sure it does. If you only look at one hand (no matter when it
occurs)it will always be luck. You have to include ALL the hands in
the analysis before skill overrides luck. The statistical
probabilties apply to large samples only. But remember, this

doesn't

mean you HAVE to play a large number of hands to win. You are just
as likely to be lucky in the short term playing skillfully than
someone playing unskillfully.

Every hand in an individual adventure, and every winning hand is a
result of luck. Just because you play 35 million individual hands,
lumping them together hasn't changed any level of skilled play if
you believe that the hands ARE the result of skilled play. Just

like

the flip of that coin, you keep going on forever and it's still
always only the luck of the flip.

Until the good and bad luck cancel each other out. Consider a
baseball players batting average. Sometimes they face pitchers that
make very good pitches (bad luck) and sometimes they get good pitches
to hit (good luck) and this doesn't even get into line drives hit
right at someone. Any one at bat is determined primarily by luck but
overall, skill will determine the batters average.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

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

Well, you took a chance, you said the fat pig in the bushes is

better than the pig fifteen times thinner in your hand, you were
lucky, and it worked. The problem, as I see it, if I were to be at a
high denomination machine and got that hand, is that I might end up
with just the trio of deuces, that is, a three pound pig instead of
an eight pound one. Ouch! How does one know when to be sure the
fourth deuce will appear? Otherwise, sure, it is gambling, I agree,
and sometimes these risks have a happy outcome and pay. Anyway,
congratulations on your hit.

Correct. Unlike those who march to the beat of math models and
probability theories, I don't claim that I will be OK tomorrow
because I lost today. No one ever knows what will show. But the
difference in how I play is that it is LIKELY a decent hand will
eventually show, and because of the progression (in this case, $1/$2/
$5/$10/$25) when the not-all-that-difficult-hand-to-get arrived, it
actually meant something. And if I did not get the 4th 2? A loss is
a loss, and I'm able to handle it because of my bankroll
preparation. When wins come as often as they do to me, the big
losses don't mean much. Don't forget, the bigger wins also come
along--as did a $5 royal on a recently completed trip.

[Dan_Cox]

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

I think you just agreed with me. The knowledge you refer to
as "common sense" just isn't that common. It's more of an acquired
skill based on experience (or study).

In a way. But I also have a lot of common sense on issues where I've
never studied a thing. I don't think vp requires much study at all--
at least not to the extent the gurus say we need to do in order
to 'be like them'.

How the individual FEELS about their error does not effect the
consequences of the error. There is NO way to compare a typo (or a

VP hold mistake) to a pilot error.

That's right. But the issue isn't how important the error is to
others. It's how important it is to the particular person making it.
That's what drives people to do the correct thing. As I've said, a
typist's job is just as important to the person driven to do great
at it just as much as flying the plane safely is to a pilot.

There is no "promise land" at millions of hands. The skill simply
gets you statiscally closer the game payback over time. And, it

does not change the influence of luck during that time. There are
not all that many skilled advantage players (especially outside of
LV).

If Dancer and co. put that caviat in with all their advertisements
as well as on their products, I wouldn't have such a problem with
their approach.

Until the good and bad luck cancel each other out. Consider a
baseball players batting average. Sometimes they face pitchers

that make very good pitches (bad luck) and sometimes they get good
pitches to hit (good luck) and this doesn't even get into line
drives hit right at someone. Any one at bat is determined primarily
by luck but overall, skill will determine the batters average.

You're beginning to point in the direction that I teach. Most of the
skill required in video poker is on the physical end, i.e., pushing
the correct buttons and overall machine operation. The rest is up to
luck--good or bad.

[bonuspokergod]

If you never give it a chance to show, because the math geeks tell
you not to, then you will never hit those hands unless you are dealt
them.

Most likely you got up and left after being paid too, which assures
it goes home with you. The math geeks would keep playing at the same
denomination, something i will NEVER understand.

Congrats on the hit.

TBP+ is one of your recovery games right? I'm guessing it's even
money for the two-pair? I don't think i've ever seen this game,
granted I've never looked for it.

-Tom

>
Correct. Unlike those who march to the beat of math models and
probability theories, I don't claim that I will be OK tomorrow
because I lost today. No one ever knows what will show. But the
difference in how I play is that it is LIKELY a decent hand will
eventually show, and because of the progression (in this case, $1/

$2/

···

$5/$10/$25) when the not-all-that-difficult-hand-to-get arrived, it
actually meant something. And if I did not get the 4th 2? A loss is
a loss, and I'm able to handle it because of my bankroll
preparation. When wins come as often as they do to me, the big
losses don't mean much. Don't forget, the bigger wins also come
along--as did a $5 royal on a recently completed trip.

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> I think you just agreed with me. The knowledge you refer to
> as "common sense" just isn't that common. It's more of an

acquired

> skill based on experience (or study).

In a way. But I also have a lot of common sense on issues where

I've

never studied a thing. I don't think vp requires much study at all--
at least not to the extent the gurus say we need to do in order
to 'be like them'.

I would venture that this is a result of your YEARS of experience. It
seems so simple now ... However, for those without your experience
it's a completely different ballgame.

>
> How the individual FEELS about their error does not effect the
> consequences of the error. There is NO way to compare a typo (or

a

VP hold mistake) to a pilot error.

That's right. But the issue isn't how important the error is to
others. It's how important it is to the particular person making

it.

That's what drives people to do the correct thing. As I've said, a
typist's job is just as important to the person driven to do great
at it just as much as flying the plane safely is to a pilot.

Using your arguement, it seems that a VP player would also be
driven "to do the correct thing". It's their own money. This would
seem to argue in favor of people being very accurate ... which I
think is true for most advantage players. The players who have less
respect for their money or consider gambling losses as inevitable are
less likely to put in the time and effort to learn expert play
strategies. They view gambling as a recreation only and are not
willing to put in the time to be proficient. They may know a few
plays they've seen others use, but are not driven by accuracy as
their primary motive.

>
> There is no "promise land" at millions of hands. The skill simply
> gets you statiscally closer the game payback over time. And, it
does not change the influence of luck during that time. There are
not all that many skilled advantage players (especially outside of
LV).

If Dancer and co. put that caviat in with all their advertisements
as well as on their products, I wouldn't have such a problem with
their approach.

Since I have never seen his advertisements or products, I can't
comment on "their approach". I have only seen articles and posts
concerning correct play which are normally accurate in as much as
they cover. I'm unsure exactly what it is you object to.

>
> Until the good and bad luck cancel each other out. Consider a
> baseball players batting average. Sometimes they face pitchers
that make very good pitches (bad luck) and sometimes they get good
pitches to hit (good luck) and this doesn't even get into line
drives hit right at someone. Any one at bat is determined primarily
by luck but overall, skill will determine the batters average.

You're beginning to point in the direction that I teach. Most of

the

skill required in video poker is on the physical end, i.e., pushing
the correct buttons and overall machine operation. The rest is up

to

luck--good or bad.

My point was not related to physical or mental specifically. It's
simply an explanation of how skill relates to performance ... How
good luck or bad luck at individual at bats have little impact on the
players' overall average.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

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

Most likely you got up and left after being paid too, which assures
it goes home with you. The math geeks would keep playing at the

same denomination, something i will NEVER understand.

It was an immediate, swift departure for home.

Congrats on the hit.

Thanks, but it was all luck--just as any winning hand at any time
always is--and it will remain that way even if I again hit it "tens
of millions of hands" down the road.

TBP+ is one of your recovery games right? I'm guessing it's even
money for the two-pair? I don't think i've ever seen this game,
granted I've never looked for it.

TBP+ is my chief recovery game. It pays 600 for 2's, 3's and 4's and
1200 for Aces. But the most wonderful thing about it even though it
doesn't happen very often, is the 500 credits for a SF. Machines that
pay 250 are very discouraging.

[jim_becker]

Just for fun I fired up winpoker and checked the math on your play of
being dealt the full house on TB+, it reports that you will come out
ahead by 1.44 units if you throw out the pair in 222xx FH. You
certainly increase the volitility of the game, but you will come out
ahead in the end. On this play you will end up with just trips 90% of
the time, then another FH 6% of the time, and finally what happened to
you, quads 4% of the time. I also congratulate you on the
mathmatically correct play that did work out this time.

Jim

···

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

I just remembered something. A month or so ago Elliot came on here
and mentioned, with prejudice, that he read an article of mine in
Gaming Today about my play at the Venetian, and how I tossed 2-pair,
held 33 on $25 DDB, and drew 332 for $20k....and what a stupid play
that was (for who knows why).

Well, here's another one of those 'stupid plays' that I make because
in my Play Strategies it is a special play: On $25 8/5 TBP+ Sat. I
was dealt a 222XX FH. I was down nearly $11k at this point in my ARTT
session, and it was just about over. A FH would mean 8 more pops at a
good hand. But why? This IS a great chance for a good hand! So on
this game--one that the 'pros' would never put a nickle into because
it's so far 'below 100%' I make yet ANOTHER 'stupid play' that yields
a $15k winner.

Here's a hint: TBP+ is a game for winners who know what they're doing
and have the proper bankroll for whatever denominations they intend
to play. I admit playing the $25 machine is not something I enjoy,
and I rarely do play them, but within a very structured, disciplined
system they can be utilized very efficiently. Hey, if I sat at the
dollar machine for the whole time with my entire 420 credits from
that session and hit those 2's, I'd be up a whopping $75! So Elliot,
please tell me once again how dumb I am....

[Dan_Cox]

> In a way. But I also have a lot of common sense on issues where
I've never studied a thing. I don't think vp requires much study at

all--at least not to the extent the gurus say we need to do in order

to 'be like them'.

I would venture that this is a result of your YEARS of experience.

It seems so simple now ... However, for those without your experience

it's a completely different ballgame.

That's a generalization that's true on some issues and not on others.
VP is a natural for me because numbers are a natural for me, and my
eye-hand-brain coordination is very quick. But I make mistakes even
when I don't play fast--some that I see and I'm sure there's plenty
that I don't. I can't type, but I've do a lot of writing with two
fingers, and a number of experienced people have told me I type
faster than they do. Bottom line: Everyone's different in many
different ways, and in ways others could never understand how they do
it. I believe that concept also applies to how I, to you, have
rewritten the math books.

Using your arguement, it seems that a VP player would also be
driven "to do the correct thing". It's their own money. This would
seem to argue in favor of people being very accurate ... which I
think is true for most advantage players. The players who have less
respect for their money or consider gambling losses as inevitable

are less likely to put in the time and effort to learn expert play

strategies. They view gambling as a recreation only and are not
willing to put in the time to be proficient. They may know a few
plays they've seen others use, but are not driven by accuracy as
their primary motive.

My one issue with this is that I can't accept that gamblers do what
they do with the same philosophy that typists, pilots, etc. do what
they do. Most video poker players who play 'advantage' vp are truly
compulsive gamblers. (I don't expect any of them to come out and
agree with this, but they know what they are). They epitomize the
nastiness behind the word 'habit'. Therefore, they battle not only
the machines, but they have demons at every stop along the way.
Proficiency & accuracy is affected as well as self-confidence. A
person performing a monotonous manufacturing job might get bored, but
he does not become scared and gets a guaranteed pay at the end of the
day.

Since I have never seen his advertisements or products, I can't
comment on "their approach". I have only seen articles and posts
concerning correct play which are normally accurate in as much as
they cover. I'm unsure exactly what it is you object to.

They never tell the complete story about their system. They make it
sound so easy to those who are interested in learning it, yet they
never get into the part where the player HAS to have a reasonable
bankroll (not one created in the clouds) and they never tell about
the many who have gone bust with it. They use a classroom approach as
a cover for their theoretical approach to the game, and they only use
it because the math is irrefutable in and of itself. They never say
that it is luck that makes the winner, while making people think they
just need this vp skill to get them thru. Indeed, they make it appear
that anyone can easily do as they SAY they do (which they really
don't), and it's ALL because of the fact that they want other
people's money. It's always and only first about that money, and
that's wrong.

···

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

[bonuspokergod]

What does it pay for trips and 2 pair?

TBP+ is my chief recovery game. It pays 600 for 2's, 3's and 4's

and

1200 for Aces. But the most wonderful thing about it even though it
doesn't happen very often, is the 500 credits for a SF. Machines

that

···

pay 250 are very discouraging.

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

> > In a way. But I also have a lot of common sense on issues where
> I've never studied a thing. I don't think vp requires much study

at

all--at least not to the extent the gurus say we need to do in

order

> to 'be like them'.
>
> I would venture that this is a result of your YEARS of

experience.

It seems so simple now ... However, for those without your

experience

> it's a completely different ballgame.

That's a generalization that's true on some issues and not on

others.

VP is a natural for me because numbers are a natural for me, and my
eye-hand-brain coordination is very quick. But I make mistakes even
when I don't play fast--some that I see and I'm sure there's plenty
that I don't. I can't type, but I've do a lot of writing with two
fingers, and a number of experienced people have told me I type
faster than they do. Bottom line: Everyone's different in many
different ways, and in ways others could never understand how they

do

it. I believe that concept also applies to how I, to you, have
rewritten the math books.

You haven't rewritten any books. The math is the math. It's a
description of the real world. It can't be rewritten. The problem
with VP is that the math is statistics, which allows for many
different results ... That wonderful or awful bell curve, depending
on which side you experience.

>
> Using your arguement, it seems that a VP player would also be
> driven "to do the correct thing". It's their own money. This

would

> seem to argue in favor of people being very accurate ... which I
> think is true for most advantage players. The players who have

less

> respect for their money or consider gambling losses as inevitable
are less likely to put in the time and effort to learn expert play
> strategies. They view gambling as a recreation only and are not
> willing to put in the time to be proficient. They may know a few
> plays they've seen others use, but are not driven by accuracy as
> their primary motive.

My one issue with this is that I can't accept that gamblers do what
they do with the same philosophy that typists, pilots, etc. do what
they do. Most video poker players who play 'advantage' vp are truly
compulsive gamblers.

I don't know why you would come to this conclusion. I would tend to
think the very nature of the person drawn to advantage play
(analytically inclined) would be less likely to be "compulsive".
However, given the overall addiction rate of around 3%, the rate of
addiction would be low for ANY group. I hope your reasoning here is
not based solely on personal experience.

>
> Since I have never seen his advertisements or products, I can't
> comment on "their approach". I have only seen articles and posts
> concerning correct play which are normally accurate in as much as
> they cover. I'm unsure exactly what it is you object to.

They never tell the complete story about their system. They make it
sound so easy to those who are interested in learning it, yet they
never get into the part where the player HAS to have a reasonable
bankroll (not one created in the clouds) and they never tell about
the many who have gone bust with it. They use a classroom approach

as

a cover for their theoretical approach to the game, and they only

use

it because the math is irrefutable in and of itself.

It may be due to my math background. I KNEW from the beginning of my
advantage play that losing was a very real possibility. I could
clearly fall on the left side of the bell curve. However, I also knew
that any recreational activity costs money. Gambling appeared to be
one that allows for a profit.

I really hope you are wrong here and that all the information,
including the potential for losses, is provided to beginners by
anyone selling VP products.

They never say
that it is luck that makes the winner, while making people think

they

just need this vp skill to get them thru.

Sorry, I agree that skill is the BEST approach to "get them thru".
You can't control luck with or without skill.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

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

What does it pay for trips and 2 pair?

>
> TBP+ is my chief recovery game. It pays 600 for 2's, 3's and 4's
and
> 1200 for Aces. But the most wonderful thing about it even though

it

···

> doesn't happen very often, is the 500 credits for a SF. Machines
that
> pay 250 are very discouraging.

[Dan_Cox]

You haven't rewritten any books. The math is the math. It's a
description of the real world. It can't be rewritten. The problem
with VP is that the math is statistics, which allows for many
different results ... That wonderful or awful bell curve, depending
on which side you experience.

I know that. But I get accused of 'rewriting' those books often
by optimal-play people. Since most people lose regardless of how they
play and I don't, they use that argument as a sour-grapes response.

> My one issue with this is that I can't accept that gamblers do

what they do with the same philosophy that typists, pilots, etc. do
what they do. Most video poker players who play 'advantage' vp are
truly compulsive gamblers.

I don't know why you would come to this conclusion. I would tend to
think the very nature of the person drawn to advantage play
(analytically inclined) would be less likely to be "compulsive".
However, given the overall addiction rate of around 3%, the rate of
addiction would be low for ANY group. I hope your reasoning here is
not based solely on personal experience.

I've seen reports to the contrary about that 3% figure saying it's
grossly off, and even the majority of people I meet up with do tell
me I'm right when I talk about their addiction to the game. I'm easy
to discuss that with because I readily admit that was me 1990-1996,
and it could happen again if I were to live in Nevada. So I believe
it's far higher than that. Hang around any locals casino casino ATM
for just 30 minutes and you'll move closer to my opinion. It's a
pathetic but entertaining show on desparation and anticipation. And
locals who play the advantage method, by definition, are addicted
because they can't say no to promotions, and need to get their fix
almost daily. That's why I always bring up the point about people who
cannot take a non-video-poker-playing vacation any longer like they
used to enjoy prior to discovering the curse of video poker. I
believe I'm one of the few, if not ONLY regular player, who controls
the game rather than having the game control me.

It may be due to my math background. I KNEW from the beginning of

my advantage play that losing was a very real possibility. I could

clearly fall on the left side of the bell curve. However, I also

knew that any recreational activity costs money. Gambling appeared to
be one that allows for a profit.

Yes, but most people do not have that background. They allow
themselves to be led by the lure of the potential easiness to make a
buck for next to nothing.

I really hope you are wrong here and that all the information,
including the potential for losses, is provided to beginners by
anyone selling VP products.

If you get a chance and have the stomach for it, take in one of the
Travel Channel shows where Jean Scott screaches her make-believe
fantasy about being a winning video poker player. When I started
blasting her for her phony presentations, she began touching on the
fact that all was not so easy. But she eventually fell right back
into that nonsense of how playing for the points, comps, and gifts
was the end-all, "and Oh, BTW, you can win money like I do too!"

> They never say that it is luck that makes the winner, while

making people think they just need this vp skill to get them thru.

Sorry, I agree that skill is the BEST approach to "get them thru".
You can't control luck with or without skill.

I know that's what you say, and I, through my experience, do not
agree. I don't control luck. I take complete advantage of it when it
comes. To me, skill is merely the basic knowledge of the game,
understanding how to properly operate the machines, and training
yourself the determination and discipline needed, to do what you said
you were going to do (goal-wise) before starting to play.

···

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

[rgmustain]

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

wrote:

>
> > My one issue with this is that I can't accept that gamblers do
what they do with the same philosophy that typists, pilots, etc. do
what they do. Most video poker players who play 'advantage' vp are
truly compulsive gamblers.
>
> I don't know why you would come to this conclusion. I would tend

to

> think the very nature of the person drawn to advantage play
> (analytically inclined) would be less likely to be "compulsive".
> However, given the overall addiction rate of around 3%, the rate

of

> addiction would be low for ANY group. I hope your reasoning here

is

> not based solely on personal experience.

I've seen reports to the contrary about that 3% figure saying it's
grossly off, and even the majority of people I meet up with do tell
me I'm right when I talk about their addiction to the game.

I believe there are a couple of forms of what you call addiction. The
first one is the bad kind where someone loses constantly, it impacts
their every day life and they can't quit. I think this form is the 3%
number often quoted. The second kind is not a true addiction but a
situation where the individual loves to gamble but does not allow it
to impact their everyday life. They have no desire to quit either
because they enjoy gambling. I would equate this type of gambler to a
workaholic that simply loves their job.

I'm easy
to discuss that with because I readily admit that was me 1990-1996,
and it could happen again if I were to live in Nevada. So I believe
it's far higher than that. Hang around any locals casino casino ATM
for just 30 minutes and you'll move closer to my opinion. It's a
pathetic but entertaining show on desparation and anticipation. And
locals who play the advantage method, by definition, are addicted
because they can't say no to promotions, and need to get their fix
almost daily.

I suspect many of the locals fall into the second category. They are
not truly addicted, they simply enjoy to gamble. This is often for
social reasons as much as it is for the actual gambling.

That's why I always bring up the point about people who
cannot take a non-video-poker-playing vacation any longer like they
used to enjoy prior to discovering the curse of video poker. I
believe I'm one of the few, if not ONLY regular player, who

controls

the game rather than having the game control me.

I think most (97%) control the game to their own wishes. You keep
discounting the fact that lots of people really enjoy the many
aspects of gambling. It's not all that unusual for people I sit down
next to at machines to talk my ear off after I strike up a
conversion. This is true in NV as well as MN.

> I really hope you are wrong here and that all the information,
> including the potential for losses, is provided to beginners by
> anyone selling VP products.

If you get a chance and have the stomach for it, take in one of the
Travel Channel shows where Jean Scott screaches her make-believe
fantasy about being a winning video poker player.

You can't cover everything in a few minutes on a TV show. I think
you're overly sensitive, possibly due to your previous addiction
problems. I do see some addicted gamblers now and then. They are
usually angry at themselves and the world. They are easy to pick out
in a casino.

When I started
blasting her for her phony presentations, she began touching on the
fact that all was not so easy. But she eventually fell right back
into that nonsense of how playing for the points, comps, and gifts
was the end-all, "and Oh, BTW, you can win money like I do too!"

The people who adopt Jeans' method are normally ALREADY gamblers.
They probably haven't used comps to there fullest so the information
she provides can only help. While her examples of digging through
trash cans is not for you and I, it may be great for someone else.
Her main point is to take advantage of what the casinos give you when
you gamble. She also understands that not all gamblers are cut out to
be advantage players as her pyramid example demonstrates.

>
> > They never say that it is luck that makes the winner, while
making people think they just need this vp skill to get them thru.
>
> Sorry, I agree that skill is the BEST approach to "get them

thru".

> You can't control luck with or without skill.

I know that's what you say, and I, through my experience, do not
agree. I don't control luck. I take complete advantage of it when

it

comes. To me, skill is merely the basic knowledge of the game,
understanding how to properly operate the machines, and training
yourself the determination and discipline needed, to do what you

said

you were going to do (goal-wise) before starting to play.

While all these traits are admirable they don't control luck nor do
they guarantee that you can take advantage of it when it comes along.

While I realize we will continue to disagree on this point, the fact
that every VP hand is a random, independent event makes any system
that doesn't incorporate "expert play" in positive situations a long
term loser. For a progressive system to make negative situations into
long term winners requires the concept of a "personal ER", that is,
by losing on lower denom machines you increase YOUR probability that
you will hit at higher denoms. This violates the independent event
premise.

···

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

[Dan_Cox]

I believe there are a couple of forms of what you call addiction.

The first one is the bad kind where someone loses constantly, it
impacts their every day life and they can't quit. I think this form
is the 3% number often quoted. The second kind is not a true
addiction but a situation where the individual loves to gamble but
does not allow it to impact their everyday life. They have no desire
to quit either because they enjoy gambling. I would equate this type
of gambler to a workaholic that simply loves their job.

There are few people who gamble daily where it doesn't adversly
affest their everyday life. It is a very unhealthy habit, promotes
sitting for long periods of time while breathing in smoke-laden air,
and is a catalyst to over-eating and over-drinking. And that doesn't
take into account the losses I believe most of them endure. But I
like the cute girls.

I suspect many of the locals fall into the second category. They

are not truly addicted, they simply enjoy to gamble. This is often
for social reasons as much as it is for the actual gambling.

Disagree.

I think most (97%) control the game to their own wishes. You keep
discounting the fact that lots of people really enjoy the many
aspects of gambling. It's not all that unusual for people I sit

down next to at machines to talk my ear off after I strike up a

conversion. This is true in NV as well as MN.

You'll find nearly every one of those chatterboxes are winning at
that point in their play, otherwise they're as quiet as a mouse being
stared down by a nearby cat. And it is a fact I hear from many, many
players: They just can't take a non-video-playing vacation any
longer. That is a huge problem to overcome.

You can't cover everything in a few minutes on a TV show. I think
you're overly sensitive, possibly due to your previous addiction
problems. I do see some addicted gamblers now and then. They are
usually angry at themselves and the world. They are easy to pick

out in a casino.

There's no better feeling than previously being addicted to
something, overcoming it, and then turning the tables on it in a big
way as I've done and continue to do. The sensitivity has been
replaced by a completely open mind aware of everything around
casinos. That's why people love to read my columns. It comes from a
place they know is there somewhere, and they hope to be able to
eventually get there and drop the rut they've declined into.

The people who adopt Jeans' method are normally ALREADY gamblers.
They probably haven't used comps to there fullest so the

information she provides can only help. While her examples of digging
through trash cans is not for you and I, it may be great for someone
else. Her main point is to take advantage of what the casinos give
you when you gamble. She also understands that not all gamblers are
cut out to be advantage players as her pyramid example demonstrates.

Anyone who might be successful inside a casino does not need Jean
Scott to tell them how to get the most out of them. Otherwise they
have no business being there unless they are there to be separated
from their money.

While all these traits are admirable they don't control luck nor do
they guarantee that you can take advantage of it when it comes

along.

Right. Nothing controls luck as I said. And although it's not
guaranteed that a person can take advantage of good luck when it
comes along, my strategies and discipline allow me to do it that way.
No guarantees--just ability and free will.

While I realize we will continue to disagree on this point, the

fact that every VP hand is a random, independent event makes any
system that doesn't incorporate "expert play" in positive situations
a long term loser. For a progressive system to make negative
situations into long term winners requires the concept of a "personal
ER", that is, by losing on lower denom machines you increase YOUR
probability that you will hit at higher denoms. This violates the
independent event premise.

So say the books, and thus the reason why some say I'm re-writing
them.

···

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