Howdy
According to Mr. D's article dated July 6 2008, he believes if a vp game has a casino edge it is better to bet one coin because you will loose less over time.
IMHO all things being equal although the math is in Mr. Dancer's corner I prefer the rush of the big payoff on the Royal with five coins otherwise it's not as much fun for me.
What do you think?
Grumpy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Don't you consider the cost of that "rush", or is money no object for
you? What is the value of that "rush"? Are you saying it is priceless?
Worth whatever the cost? In my reckoning, a royal is worth the payoff,
minus tip, minus taxes, minus the accumulated cost of getting that
royal, but maybe you just chose to ignore these little issues? "Don't
Sweat the Small Stuff--and it's all small stuff"?
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/20questions.html
Howdy
According to Mr. D's article dated July 6 2008, he believes if a vp
game has a casino edge it is better to bet one coin because you will
loose less over time.
IMHO all things being equal although the math is in Mr. Dancer's
corner I prefer the rush of the big payoff on the Royal with five
coins otherwise it's not as much fun for me.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, BANDSTAND54@... wrote:
What do you think?
Grumpy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I am saying if there was no hope of a?royal I would not play period.
Grumpy
-----Original Message-----
From: nightoftheiguana2000 <nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 2:59 pm
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: One Coin versus Five Bob Dancer View
Don't you consider the cost of that "rush", or is money no object for
you? What is the value of that "rush"? Are you saying it is priceless?
Worth whatever the cost? In my reckoning, a royal is worth the payoff,
minus tip, minus taxes, minus the accumulated cost of getting that
royal, but maybe you just chose to ignore these little issues? "Don't
Sweat the Small Stuff--and it's all small stuff"?
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/20questions.html
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, BANDSTAND54@... wrote:
Howdy
According to Mr. D's article dated July 6 2008, he believes if a vp
game has a casino edge it is better to bet one coin because you will
loose less over time.
IMHO all things being equal although the math is in Mr. Dancer's
corner I prefer the rush of the big payoff on the Royal with five
coins otherwise it's not as much fun for me.
What do you think?
Grumpy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Over about a three-year period between '92 and '95, I had three "one-
coin" royals: one quarter ($62.50), one dollar ($250), and one five-
dollar ($1250) After the $1250 (versus, of course, $20,000!) royal, I
vowed, "Never again!"
BANDSTAND54 wrote:
According to Mr. D's article dated July 6 2008, he believes if a vp
game has a casino edge it is better to bet one coin because you will
loose less over time.IMHO all things being equal although the math is in Mr. Dancer's
corner I prefer the rush of the big payoff on the Royal with five
coins otherwise it's not as much fun for me.
What do you think?Grump
Hand it to Grump ... he has a knack for posing hypotheticals that give
rise to free ranging discussion.
I'd prefer to address this in the specific context of Bob's article,
but absent a specific citation/link, I haven't been able been able to
tap into it. (I'll make allowance for the fact that I'm suffering a 2
second attention span at the moment.)
Bob's pretty narrow in his focus usually. I'm gonna guess that what
he's centered in on here is a comment that surfaces frequently from a
short-coin player when they hit big: "I should have played full coin"
There's a certain logic there (putting aside the mere fact of the
bigger payout on that hit). Because of the higher pay/coin on
jackpots, the larger wager will have a stronger ER (and even when a
casual player doesn't think in terms of specific ER, they have a
working sense of what paytable represents the better return). This
leads into a feeling that "full coin" is a better bet. But for most
"negative" paytables, the short-coin wager is the one that has the
stronger "EV" (smaller coin cost per wager). A smart player (even if
a "recreational" one) isn't blinded to the economics simply by the
magnitude of the jackpot.
I have no doubt Bob recognizes that there are a large number of
considerations outside of ER/EV that come into play in a player's
choices in the casino. Those would be outside of the scope of a
commentary that seeks to illustrate that "max ER" can be illusionary
when it comes to best bet.
(As an aside, when it comes to "apples to apples", I suggest "wager to
wager" is the practical comparison. I'm hard pressed to believe that
a player, confronted with a choice between playing single coin vs.
5-coin wagers, would be inclined to play 5x as long should they elect
to go single coin.)
- Harry
Harry
Here is the link to Dancer'r article
http://www.videopoker365.com/video-poker/one-coin/
Grumpy
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: One Coin versus Five Bob Dancer View
BANDSTAND54 wrote:
According to Mr. D's article dated July 6 2008, he believes if a vp
game has a casino edge it is better to bet one coin because you will
loose less over time.IMHO all things being equal although the math is in Mr. Dancer's
corner I prefer the rush of the big payoff on the Royal with five
coins otherwise it's not as much fun for me.
What do you think?Grump
Hand it to Grump ... he has a knack for posing hypotheticals that give
rise to free ranging discussion.
I'd prefer to address this in the specific context of Bob's article,
but absent a specific citation/link, I haven't been able been able to
tap into it. (I'll make allowance for the fact that I'm suffering a 2
second attention span at the moment.)
Bob's pretty narrow in his focus usually. I'm gonna guess that what
he's centered in on here is a comment that surfaces frequently from a
short-coin player when they hit big: "I should have played full coin"
There's a certain logic there (putting aside the mere fact of the
bigger payout on that hit). Because of the higher pay/coin on
jackpots, the larger wager will have a stronger ER (and even when a
casual player doesn't think in terms of specific ER, they have a
working sense of what paytable represents the better return). This
leads into a feeling that "full coin" is a better bet. But for most
"negative" paytables, the short-coin wager is the one that has the
stronger "EV" (smaller coin cost per wager). A smart player (even if
a "recreational" one) isn't blinded to the economics simply by the
magnitude of the jackpot.
I have no doubt Bob recognizes that there are a large number of
considerations outside of ER/EV that come into play in a player's
choices in the casino. Those would be outside of the scope of a
commentary that seeks to illustrate that "max ER" can be illusionary
when it comes to best bet.
(As an aside, when it comes to "apples to apples", I suggest "wager to
wager" is the practical comparison. I'm hard pressed to believe that
a player, confronted with a choice between playing single coin vs.
5-coin wagers, would be inclined to play 5x as long should they elect
to go single coin.)
- Harry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks for the link, Grumpy. There is a major flaw in Dancer's story.
He says, "Let's assume that you have played $10,000 through the
machine....Playing five coins, your expected loss is $46."
He continues, "Here comes the critical part. If you had been playing one
coin you would only have bet $2,000 so far. Even at the higher loss rate,
your total loss would be $32.60."
Dancer is comparing apples to oranges. He is comparing wagering $10,000 to
wagering $2,000.
Well, no kidding! You mean that if I only put $2,000 at risk (vs. $10,000),
I will probably lose less money? Wow! Thank God we have authors like
Dancer to tell us these things! 
I have a real problem with Dancer's comment further into the article: "The
exact numbers will vary with the game, but this principle holds. If the
casino has the advantage, play only one coin."
His statement is highly inaccurate. Highly.
Whatever dollar amount I am willing to wager on a video poker machine, I
will play max coins. Playing less than max coins on video poker is only
giving a higher percentage of my money to the casino (over the long term).
Curtis
On 12/31/08, BANDSTAND54@aol.com <BANDSTAND54@aol.com> wrote:
Harry
Here is the link to Dancer'r article
http://www.videopoker365.com/video-poker/one-coin/
Grumpy
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: One Coin versus Five Bob Dancer ViewBANDSTAND54 wrote:
> According to Mr. D's article dated July 6 2008, he believes if a vp
> game has a casino edge it is better to bet one coin because you will
> loose less over time.
>
> IMHO all things being equal although the math is in Mr. Dancer's
> corner I prefer the rush of the big payoff on the Royal with five
> coins otherwise it's not as much fun for me.
> What do you think?
>
> GrumpHand it to Grump ... he has a knack for posing hypotheticals that give
rise to free ranging discussion.I'd prefer to address this in the specific context of Bob's article,
but absent a specific citation/link, I haven't been able been able to
tap into it. (I'll make allowance for the fact that I'm suffering a 2
second attention span at the moment.)Bob's pretty narrow in his focus usually. I'm gonna guess that what
he's centered in on here is a comment that surfaces frequently from a
short-coin player when they hit big: "I should have played full coin"There's a certain logic there (putting aside the mere fact of the
bigger payout on that hit). Because of the higher pay/coin on
jackpots, the larger wager will have a stronger ER (and even when a
casual player doesn't think in terms of specific ER, they have a
working sense of what paytable represents the better return). This
leads into a feeling that "full coin" is a better bet. But for most
"negative" paytables, the short-coin wager is the one that has the
stronger "EV" (smaller coin cost per wager). A smart player (even if
a "recreational" one) isn't blinded to the economics simply by the
magnitude of the jackpot.I have no doubt Bob recognizes that there are a large number of
considerations outside of ER/EV that come into play in a player's
choices in the casino. Those would be outside of the scope of a
commentary that seeks to illustrate that "max ER" can be illusionary
when it comes to best bet.(As an aside, when it comes to "apples to apples", I suggest "wager to
wager" is the practical comparison. I'm hard pressed to believe that
a player, confronted with a choice between playing single coin vs.
5-coin wagers, would be inclined to play 5x as long should they elect
to go single coin.)- Harry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You are quite welcome for the link.
G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 5:18 pm
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] One Coin versus Five Bob Dancer View
Thanks for the link, Grumpy. There is a major flaw in Dancer's story.
He says, "Let's assume that you have played $10,000 through the
machine....Playing five coins, your expected loss is $46."
He continues, "Here comes the critical part. If you had been playing one
coin you would only have bet $2,000 so far. Even at the higher loss rate,
your total loss would be $32.60."
Dancer is comparing apples to oranges. He is comparing wagering $10,000 to
wagering $2,000.
Well, no kidding! You mean that if I only put $2,000 at risk (vs. $10,000),
I will probably lose less money? Wow! Thank God we have authors like
Dancer to tell us these things!
I have a real problem with Dancer's comment further into the article: "The
exact numbers will vary with the game, but this principle holds. If the
casino has the advantage, play only one coin."
His statement is highly inaccurate. Highly.
Whatever dollar amount I am willing to wager on a video poker machine, I
will play max coins. Playing less than max coins on video poker is only
giving a higher percentage of my money to the casino (over the long term).
Curtis
On 12/31/08, BANDSTAND54@aol.com <BANDSTAND54@aol.com> wrote:
Harry
Here is the link to Dancer'r article
http://www.videopoker365.com/video-poker/one-coin/
Grumpy
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: One Coin versus Five Bob Dancer ViewBANDSTAND54 wrote:
> According to Mr. D's article dated July 6 2008, he believes if a vp
> game has a casino edge it is better to bet one coin because you will
> loose less over time.
>
> IMHO all things being equal although the math is in Mr. Dancer's
> corner I prefer the rush of the big payoff on the Royal with five
> coins otherwise it's not as much fun for me.
> What do you think?
>
> GrumpHand it to Grump ... he has a knack for posing hypotheticals that give
rise to free ranging discussion.I'd prefer to address this in the specific context of Bob's article,
but absent a specific citation/link, I haven't been able been able to
tap into it. (I'll make allowance for the fact that I'm suffering a 2
second attention span at the moment.)Bob's pretty narrow in his focus usually. I'm gonna guess that what
he's centered in on here is a comment that surfaces frequently from a
short-coin player when they hit big: "I should have played full coin"There's a certain logic there (putting aside the mere fact of the
bigger payout on that hit). Because of the higher pay/coin on
jackpots, the larger wager will have a stronger ER (and even when a
casual player doesn't think in terms of specific ER, they have a
working sense of what paytable represents the better return). This
leads into a feeling that "full coin" is a better bet. But for most
"negative" paytables, the short-coin wager is the one that has the
stronger "EV" (smaller coin cost per wager). A smart player (even if
a "recreational" one) isn't blinded to the economics simply by the
magnitude of the jackpot.I have no doubt Bob recognizes that there are a large number of
considerations outside of ER/EV that come into play in a player's
choices in the casino. Those would be outside of the scope of a
commentary that seeks to illustrate that "max ER" can be illusionary
when it comes to best bet.(As an aside, when it comes to "apples to apples", I suggest "wager to
wager" is the practical comparison. I'm hard pressed to believe that
a player, confronted with a choice between playing single coin vs.
5-coin wagers, would be inclined to play 5x as long should they elect
to go single coin.)- Harry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A little off the topic...
How about this to make your head spin. I once was playing next to a man who was playing the same game I was. I was playing max coins on a $1 machine and he had his set on quarters and was playing four quarters. I asked him why he wasn't playing dollars and he said he didn't have enough money to last and could only play one dollar at a time. I tried to explain that if he played one coin on the dollar machine he would last longer because the pay schedule was better. He again said he could only afford to play quarters to which I said, "Ok, break a leg".
bcnusoon
--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Curtis Rich <LGTVegas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] One Coin versus Five Bob Dancer View
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 5:18 PM
Thanks for the link, Grumpy. There is a major flaw in Dancer's story.
He says, "Let's assume that you have played $10,000 through the
machine....Playing five coins, your expected loss is $46."
He continues, "Here comes the critical part. If you had been playing one
coin you would only have bet $2,000 so far. Even at the higher loss rate,
your total loss would be $32.60."
Dancer is comparing apples to oranges. He is comparing wagering $10,000 to
wagering $2,000.
Well, no kidding! You mean that if I only put $2,000 at risk (vs. $10,000),
I will probably lose less money? Wow! Thank God we have authors like
Dancer to tell us these things!
I have a real problem with Dancer's comment further into the article: "The
exact numbers will vary with the game, but this principle holds. If the
casino has the advantage, play only one coin."
His statement is highly inaccurate. Highly.
Whatever dollar amount I am willing to wager on a video poker machine, I
will play max coins. Playing less than max coins on video poker is only
giving a higher percentage of my money to the casino (over the long term).
Curtis
On 12/31/08, BANDSTAND54@ aol.com <BANDSTAND54@ aol.com> wrote:
Harry
Here is the link to Dancer'r article
http://www.videopok er365.com/ video-poker/ one-coin/
Grumpy
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Porter <harry.porter@ verizon.net>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: One Coin versus Five Bob Dancer ViewBANDSTAND54 wrote:
> According to Mr. D's article dated July 6 2008, he believes if a vp
> game has a casino edge it is better to bet one coin because you will
> loose less over time.
>
> IMHO all things being equal although the math is in Mr. Dancer's
> corner I prefer the rush of the big payoff on the Royal with five
> coins otherwise it's not as much fun for me.
> What do you think?
>
> GrumpHand it to Grump ... he has a knack for posing hypotheticals that give
rise to free ranging discussion.I'd prefer to address this in the specific context of Bob's article,
but absent a specific citation/link, I haven't been able been able to
tap into it. (I'll make allowance for the fact that I'm suffering a 2
second attention span at the moment.)Bob's pretty narrow in his focus usually. I'm gonna guess that what
he's centered in on here is a comment that surfaces frequently from a
short-coin player when they hit big: "I should have played full coin"There's a certain logic there (putting aside the mere fact of the
bigger payout on that hit). Because of the higher pay/coin on
jackpots, the larger wager will have a stronger ER (and even when a
casual player doesn't think in terms of specific ER, they have a
working sense of what paytable represents the better return). This
leads into a feeling that "full coin" is a better bet. But for most
"negative" paytables, the short-coin wager is the one that has the
stronger "EV" (smaller coin cost per wager). A smart player (even if
a "recreational" one) isn't blinded to the economics simply by the
magnitude of the jackpot.I have no doubt Bob recognizes that there are a large number of
considerations outside of ER/EV that come into play in a player's
choices in the casino. Those would be outside of the scope of a
commentary that seeks to illustrate that "max ER" can be illusionary
when it comes to best bet.(As an aside, when it comes to "apples to apples", I suggest "wager to
wager" is the practical comparison. I'm hard pressed to believe that
a player, confronted with a choice between playing single coin vs.
5-coin wagers, would be inclined to play 5x as long should they elect
to go single coin.)- Harry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------ --------- --------- ------
vpFREE Links: http://members. cox.net/vpfree/ Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Would improved variance gained from switching from single-line to multi-line have any
significant effect on the final win/lost total? Would I lose less playing one coin in a five-
line $5 machine than five coins in a single-line $1 machine? (This is "apples to apples" in
terms of both wager and time expended.) Of course it doesn't address the possibility of
Royal jackpots, but I ask it as an occasional recreational player who has more fun winning
than losing.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
I have no doubt Bob recognizes that there are a large number of
considerations outside of ER/EV that come into play in a player's
choices in the casino. Those would be outside of the scope of a
commentary that seeks to illustrate that "max ER" can be illusionary
when it comes to best bet.(As an aside, when it comes to "apples to apples", I suggest "wager to
wager" is the practical comparison. I'm hard pressed to believe that
a player, confronted with a choice between playing single coin vs.
5-coin wagers, would be inclined to play 5x as long should they elect
to go single coin.)- Harry
Would improved variance gained from switching from single-line to
multi-line have any
significant effect on the final win/lost total? Would I lose less
playing one coin in a five-
line $5 machine than five coins in a single-line $1 machine? (This
is "apples to apples" in
terms of both wager and time expended.) Of course it doesn't address
the possibility of
Royal jackpots, but I ask it as an occasional recreational player
who has more fun winning
than losing.
Any expectation of win/loss is based on game/strategy return and
amount wagered. Variance is more a description of how you get
there... It's a useful descriptor, but it does not increase or
decrease expected return. That's how I look at it. You get much more
complex than addition and subtraction and it gets kinda like magic to me.
Chandler
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "danbvbv" <dbaise@...> wrote: