vpFREE2 Forums

Playing Short Coin - Dangerous OR Smart?

#1

Last weekend I was doing one of my occasional inventory "surveys" at some local California casinos.

Sure enough, near the end of the evening, I did notice in one casino that in an area where there had been 4 $5 machines with full-pay games there were now only 3.

But what really caught my attention was something else I always notice.

A woman seated at the far left of the bank of 3 machines was playing one $5 coin.

My immediate reaction (which I will soon be questioning with you) was that the woman is clueless about VP. This could be the one night she hits a royal, and she will lose $18,750 by not betting just $20 more to get her up to max bet. What a lamebrain!

Two days ago as I was recording my own result for the weekend (which was a loss) I began to rethink my position.

In many games you sacrifice a little over a per cent or so by playing a full-pay game for 1 coin vs 5 coins. For example, 9/6 Jacks becomes a 98.3% game with one coin played vs.a max bet 99.5% game.

But since all payoffs are proportional EXCEPT for the royal, maybe that woman was smarter than I thought. Maybe she was betting she wouldn't get a royal and was just trying for the best return from the rest of a paytable.

Consider that elsewhere in the casino the best single-line $1 Jacks game probably has an 8/5 paytable. True, the one coin $5 game isn't playable. But it's certainly MORE playable than the $1 game IF no royal appears. And it's actually not a bad bet that during a session you won't see a royal! Sort of like betting NO PASS at the craps table, only now you get to hate yourself instead of everyone else hating you.

If that makes sense.

So I wonder how many others out there seek the safety of a full-pay game in High Limit and play short coin when options in the rest of the casino are dismal.

Indeed, another "one-coiner" sat next to me a few weeks ago as I played $5 3 Play NSUD. Sure enough, she hit 4 Deuces on one $5 coin and collected her $1000 with no lights going off, no music playing, no tax forms.

But a few hands later, she was dealt four-to-the royal and gasped.

So did I.

The odds prevailed, and the draw card was an off-suit 7, We both were actually "relieved", in a way.

That's the flip side of betting against yourself.

#2

I have to admit I pulled an incredibly bad move once doing this. I was just trying to put points on my husband's card on a low volatility game at Harrah's Las Vegas, so I went into high limit and played $10 9/6 JOB with only one coin. The worst thing that could possibly happen happened that night -- I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat, stomped my foot, and yelled, "NO!"

Needless to say, I have never done that again.

···

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

Last weekend I was doing one of my occasional inventory "surveys" at some local California casinos.

Sure enough, near the end of the evening, I did notice in one casino that in an area where there had been 4 $5 machines with full-pay games there were now only 3.

But what really caught my attention was something else I always notice.

A woman seated at the far left of the bank of 3 machines was playing one $5 coin.

My immediate reaction (which I will soon be questioning with you) was that the woman is clueless about VP. This could be the one night she hits a royal, and she will lose $18,750 by not betting just $20 more to get her up to max bet. What a lamebrain!

Two days ago as I was recording my own result for the weekend (which was a loss) I began to rethink my position.

In many games you sacrifice a little over a per cent or so by playing a full-pay game for 1 coin vs 5 coins. For example, 9/6 Jacks becomes a 98.3% game with one coin played vs.a max bet 99.5% game.

But since all payoffs are proportional EXCEPT for the royal, maybe that woman was smarter than I thought. Maybe she was betting she wouldn't get a royal and was just trying for the best return from the rest of a paytable.

Consider that elsewhere in the casino the best single-line $1 Jacks game probably has an 8/5 paytable. True, the one coin $5 game isn't playable. But it's certainly MORE playable than the $1 game IF no royal appears. And it's actually not a bad bet that during a session you won't see a royal! Sort of like betting NO PASS at the craps table, only now you get to hate yourself instead of everyone else hating you.

If that makes sense.

So I wonder how many others out there seek the safety of a full-pay game in High Limit and play short coin when options in the rest of the casino are dismal.

Indeed, another "one-coiner" sat next to me a few weeks ago as I played $5 3 Play NSUD. Sure enough, she hit 4 Deuces on one $5 coin and collected her $1000 with no lights going off, no music playing, no tax forms.

But a few hands later, she was dealt four-to-the royal and gasped.

So did I.

The odds prevailed, and the draw card was an off-suit 7, We both were actually "relieved", in a way.

That's the flip side of betting against yourself.

#3

" I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat, stomped my foot, and yelled, "NO!"

It nearly makes me sick to read that. It's so typical that would happen!
I was playing a $1 progressive a few years ago which was up to $6000.00 and was becoming disgusted at how badly I was doing. So I decided to play three coins for a few minutes and of course I drew to a Royal right at that moment. Add that to all the times I've missed Royals just by the luck of the draw (for instance, not holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching the rest of the royal pop up - ) it's that horrible feeling, the agony of irritation.

I too have never played short coin again.

Valerie

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5220 (20100623) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

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

#4

Another painful story. Guess we both had to learn the hard way.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Pollard" <vpollard@...> wrote:

" I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat, stomped my foot, and yelled, "NO!"

It nearly makes me sick to read that. It's so typical that would happen!
I was playing a $1 progressive a few years ago which was up to $6000.00 and was becoming disgusted at how badly I was doing. So I decided to play three coins for a few minutes and of course I drew to a Royal right at that moment. Add that to all the times I've missed Royals just by the luck of the draw (for instance, not holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching the rest of the royal pop up - ) it's that horrible feeling, the agony of irritation.

I too have never played short coin again.

Valerie

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5220 (20100623) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

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

#5

I think that's actually the best possible outcome, not the worst.

Cogno

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of

Mary

Ann
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:04 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Playing Short Coin - Dangerous OR Smart?

Another painful story. Guess we both had to learn the hard way.

>
> " I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat,

stomped

my foot, and yelled, "NO!"
>
>
> It nearly makes me sick to read that. It's so typical that would

happen!

> I was playing a $1 progressive a few years ago which was up to $6000.00

and

was becoming disgusted at how badly I was doing. So I decided to play

three

coins for a few minutes and of course I drew to a Royal right at that

moment.

Add that to all the times I've missed Royals just by the luck of the draw

(for

instance, not holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching

the

rest of the royal pop up - ) it's that horrible feeling, the agony of
irritation.
>
> I too have never played short coin again.
>
> Valerie
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus

signature

···

-----Original Message-----
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Pollard" <vpollard@...> wrote:
database 5220 (20100623) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#6

Playing $5 on short coin, you are losing 1.7% every hand, so the actual loss
in dollars is $0.085 per hand.

Playing $5 on max coin, you are losing 0.46% every hand, so the actual loss
in dollars is $0.115 per hand.

Unless there are other factors involved, it appears to be better to play
short.

···

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@gmail.com>wrote:

I think that's actually the best possible outcome, not the worst.

Cogno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
Mary
> Ann
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:04 PM
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Playing Short Coin - Dangerous OR Smart?
>
> Another painful story. Guess we both had to learn the hard way.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, "Valerie
Pollard" <vpollard@...> wrote:
> >
> > " I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat,
stomped
> my foot, and yelled, "NO!"
> >
> >
> > It nearly makes me sick to read that. It's so typical that would
happen!
> > I was playing a $1 progressive a few years ago which was up to $6000.00
and
> was becoming disgusted at how badly I was doing. So I decided to play
three
> coins for a few minutes and of course I drew to a Royal right at that
moment.
> Add that to all the times I've missed Royals just by the luck of the draw
(for
> instance, not holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching
the
> rest of the royal pop up - ) it's that horrible feeling, the agony of
> irritation.
> >
> > I too have never played short coin again.
> >
> > Valerie
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
> database 5220 (20100623) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > [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]

#7

Mary Ann & Val -

Do you guys realize that you almost certainly would not have hit the royal if you had been pressing maxbet or deal instead of stopping to press betone once or three times. The cards would have been in a different position as they continuously shuffle until you press deal then continue to shuffle the remaining 48 till you press draw.

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEATING YOURSELVES UP FOR NOTHING!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Ann" <justmare111@...> wrote:

Another painful story. Guess we both had to learn the hard way.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Pollard" <vpollard@> wrote:
>
> " I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat, stomped my foot, and yelled, "NO!"
>
>
> It nearly makes me sick to read that. It's so typical that would happen!
> I was playing a $1 progressive a few years ago which was up to $6000.00 and was becoming disgusted at how badly I was doing. So I decided to play three coins for a few minutes and of course I drew to a Royal right at that moment. Add that to all the times I've missed Royals just by the luck of the draw (for instance, not holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching the rest of the royal pop up - ) it's that horrible feeling, the agony of irritation.
>
> I too have never played short coin again.
>
> Valerie
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5220 (20100623) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

#8

One coin $5 machine I think is a good play vs. the short paying $1 machines. You are right unless you hit that "pie int he sky" Royal during your short session, you are doing better than the short pay machines. Single line, you don't hit a Royal very often, so in the short run, with a smaller bankroll. you get more play.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Ann" <justmare111@...> wrote:

I have to admit I pulled an incredibly bad move once doing this. I was just trying to put points on my husband's card on a low volatility game at Harrah's Las Vegas, so I went into high limit and played $10 9/6 JOB with only one coin. The worst thing that could possibly happen happened that night -- I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat, stomped my foot, and yelled, "NO!"

Needless to say, I have never done that again.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mikeymic" <mikeymic@> wrote:
>
> Last weekend I was doing one of my occasional inventory "surveys" at some local California casinos.
>
> Sure enough, near the end of the evening, I did notice in one casino that in an area where there had been 4 $5 machines with full-pay games there were now only 3.
>
> But what really caught my attention was something else I always notice.
>
> A woman seated at the far left of the bank of 3 machines was playing one $5 coin.
>
> My immediate reaction (which I will soon be questioning with you) was that the woman is clueless about VP. This could be the one night she hits a royal, and she will lose $18,750 by not betting just $20 more to get her up to max bet. What a lamebrain!
>
> Two days ago as I was recording my own result for the weekend (which was a loss) I began to rethink my position.
>
> In many games you sacrifice a little over a per cent or so by playing a full-pay game for 1 coin vs 5 coins. For example, 9/6 Jacks becomes a 98.3% game with one coin played vs.a max bet 99.5% game.
>
> But since all payoffs are proportional EXCEPT for the royal, maybe that woman was smarter than I thought. Maybe she was betting she wouldn't get a royal and was just trying for the best return from the rest of a paytable.
>
> Consider that elsewhere in the casino the best single-line $1 Jacks game probably has an 8/5 paytable. True, the one coin $5 game isn't playable. But it's certainly MORE playable than the $1 game IF no royal appears. And it's actually not a bad bet that during a session you won't see a royal! Sort of like betting NO PASS at the craps table, only now you get to hate yourself instead of everyone else hating you.
>
> If that makes sense.
>
> So I wonder how many others out there seek the safety of a full-pay game in High Limit and play short coin when options in the rest of the casino are dismal.
>
> Indeed, another "one-coiner" sat next to me a few weeks ago as I played $5 3 Play NSUD. Sure enough, she hit 4 Deuces on one $5 coin and collected her $1000 with no lights going off, no music playing, no tax forms.
>
> But a few hands later, she was dealt four-to-the royal and gasped.
>
> So did I.
>
> The odds prevailed, and the draw card was an off-suit 7, We both were actually "relieved", in a way.
>
> That's the flip side of betting against yourself.
>

#9

…remaining 47 until you press draw…tecnically.

From iPhone

···

On Jun 23, 2010, at 9:01 AM, "maclarenv12" <ahduff@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mary Ann & Val -

Do you guys realize that you almost certainly would not have hit the
royal if you had been pressing maxbet or deal instead of stopping to
press betone once or three times. The cards would have been in a
different position as they continuously shuffle until you press deal
then continue to shuffle the remaining 48 till you press draw.

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEATING YOURSELVES UP FOR NOTHING!

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Ann" <justmare111@...> wrote:
>
> Another painful story. Guess we both had to learn the hard way.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Pollard" <vpollard@> wrote:
> >
> > " I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my
seat, stomped my foot, and yelled, "NO!"
> >
> >
> > It nearly makes me sick to read that. It's so typical that would
happen!
> > I was playing a $1 progressive a few years ago which was up to
$6000.00 and was becoming disgusted at how badly I was doing. So I
decided to play three coins for a few minutes and of course I drew
to a Royal right at that moment. Add that to all the times I've
missed Royals just by the luck of the draw (for instance, not
holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching the rest
of the royal pop up - ) it's that horrible feeling, the agony of
irritation.
> >
> > I too have never played short coin again.
> >
> > Valerie
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus signature database 5220 (20100623) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

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

#10

Not to mention that if you're "not holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching the rest of the royal pop up" your deal would have been, for example, Qh-10h-Qd-x-x and after the draw in your example you would have had Qh-Jh-Qd-Ah-Kh. Not only would you have had to have drawn the A & K in exactly the same position, but the J would have had to have slid over into the Qd slot. If you assume that you would have taken EXACTLY the same time holding the 10h as you took holding Qd, and then pressed the deal button, you wouldn't have gotten the Jh where you wanted it. And if the J did come up there because you took a different number of nanoseconds, then the A-K in all probability wouldn't have been where they ended up.

Guru

"Certainly the game is rigged. Don’t let that stop you; if you don’t bet, you can’t win." - Lazarus Long

There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe. - Robert Heinlein
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Yogi Berra

···

________________________________

Mary Ann & Val -

Do you guys realize that you almost certainly would not have hit the royal if you had been pressing maxbet or deal instead of stopping to press betone once or three times. The cards would have been in a different position as they continuously shuffle until you press deal then continue to shuffle the remaining 48 till you press draw.

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEATING YOURSELVES UP FOR NOTHING!

_,_._,___

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

#11

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEATING YOURSELVES UP FOR NOTHING!

Ha, ha - thanks for the kind words. It still hurts to see it happen though!

Valerie

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5222 (20100623) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

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

#12

Technically, yes. lol

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...> wrote:

I think that's actually the best possible outcome, not the worst.

Cogno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Mary
> Ann
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:04 PM
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Playing Short Coin - Dangerous OR Smart?
>
> Another painful story. Guess we both had to learn the hard way.
>
> — In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Pollard" <vpollard@> wrote:
> >
> > " I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat,
stomped
> my foot, and yelled, "NO!"
> >
> >
> > It nearly makes me sick to read that. It's so typical that would
happen!
> > I was playing a $1 progressive a few years ago which was up to $6000.00
and
> was becoming disgusted at how badly I was doing. So I decided to play
three
> coins for a few minutes and of course I drew to a Royal right at that
moment.
> Add that to all the times I've missed Royals just by the luck of the draw
(for
> instance, not holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching
the
> rest of the royal pop up - ) it's that horrible feeling, the agony of
> irritation.
> >
> > I too have never played short coin again.
> >
> > Valerie
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
> database 5220 (20100623) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

#13

Sure, but you really don't think of that at the time!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "maclarenv12" <ahduff@...> wrote:

Mary Ann & Val -

Do you guys realize that you almost certainly would not have hit the royal if you had been pressing maxbet or deal instead of stopping to press betone once or three times. The cards would have been in a different position as they continuously shuffle until you press deal then continue to shuffle the remaining 48 till you press draw.

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEATING YOURSELVES UP FOR NOTHING!

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Ann" <justmare111@> wrote:
>
> Another painful story. Guess we both had to learn the hard way.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Valerie Pollard" <vpollard@> wrote:
> >
> > " I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat, stomped my foot, and yelled, "NO!"
> >
> >
> > It nearly makes me sick to read that. It's so typical that would happen!
> > I was playing a $1 progressive a few years ago which was up to $6000.00 and was becoming disgusted at how badly I was doing. So I decided to play three coins for a few minutes and of course I drew to a Royal right at that moment. Add that to all the times I've missed Royals just by the luck of the draw (for instance, not holding a suited Q, 10 when I had two Q's and then watching the rest of the royal pop up - ) it's that horrible feeling, the agony of irritation.
> >
> > I too have never played short coin again.
> >
> > Valerie
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5220 (20100623) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

#14

I would not normally ever play JOB at anything but max bet simply because the only way to really win big is to hit the royal, but I'm glad to know it wasn't as bad of a move as I thought.

···

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

One coin $5 machine I think is a good play vs. the short paying $1 machines. You are right unless you hit that "pie int he sky" Royal during your short session, you are doing better than the short pay machines. Single line, you don't hit a Royal very often, so in the short run, with a smaller bankroll. you get more play.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mary Ann" <justmare111@> wrote:
>
> I have to admit I pulled an incredibly bad move once doing this. I was just trying to put points on my husband's card on a low volatility game at Harrah's Las Vegas, so I went into high limit and played $10 9/6 JOB with only one coin. The worst thing that could possibly happen happened that night -- I was DEALT a royal for $2500. I literally jumped out of my seat, stomped my foot, and yelled, "NO!"
>
> Needless to say, I have never done that again.
>

#15

Jason,

The problem with your logic is that you are comparing two hands of unequal
wager amounts: $5 (playing one-coin) vs. $25 (playing max-coin).

Yes, playing $5 short-coin, you will lose $0.085. But, you only wagered $5,
not $25. Obviously, if you risk less money, you will lose less money.

You should be comparing playing equal dollar amounts: $25 (playing five
one-coin hands, for example) and $25 (playing one max-coin hand).

Playing short-coin 9/6 JoB, you are losing 1.63%. So, the actual loss is
$0.408 per $25 wagered.

Playing max-coin 9/6 JoB, you are losing 0.46%. So, the actual loss is
$0.115 per $25 wagered.

On any negative-expectation VP machine, you will lose less money by playing
max-coin.

Luke

···

On 6/23/10, Jason Pawloski <jpawloski@gmail.com> wrote:

Playing $5 on short coin, you are losing 1.7% every hand, so the actual
loss
in dollars is $0.085 per hand.

Playing $5 on max coin, you are losing 0.46% every hand, so the actual loss
in dollars is $0.115 per hand.

Unless there are other factors involved, it appears to be better to play
short.

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

#16

These are my opinions only - and I've tried some of the best short coin parlay systems around.
a. its always dangerous , and yes - you find yourself hoping for NO-ROYAL on those 4 card draws
b. I've got burned once on a dollar machine betting $2 got $500 RF back , should have been 800-1 for $1600
c. I've received 9 full pay $4000 royals , playing short coin parlay methods where the Royal ended up while I was playing Max. Should I have played 25C with lower bankroll ? -- no way, the more you bet over your head, the more fun it is !
d. While I've played $2 and $5 VP short coin, I've never got a royal at these denoms short or long play.

best wishes...Tom

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "mikeymic" <mikeymic@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:35 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Playing Short Coin - Dangerous OR Smart?

Last weekend I was doing one of my occasional inventory "surveys" at some local California casinos.

Sure enough, near the end of the evening, I did notice in one casino that in an area where there had been 4 $5 machines with full-pay games there were now only 3.

But what really caught my attention was something else I always notice.

A woman seated at the far left of the bank of 3 machines was playing one $5 coin.

My immediate reaction (which I will soon be questioning with you) was that the woman is clueless about VP. This could be the one night she hits a royal, and she will lose $18,750 by not betting just $20 more to get her up to max bet. What a lamebrain!

Two days ago as I was recording my own result for the weekend (which was a loss) I began to rethink my position.

In many games you sacrifice a little over a per cent or so by playing a full-pay game for 1 coin vs 5 coins. For example, 9/6 Jacks becomes a 98.3% game with one coin played vs.a max bet 99.5% game.

But since all payoffs are proportional EXCEPT for the royal, maybe that woman was smarter than I thought. Maybe she was betting she wouldn't get a royal and was just trying for the best return from the rest of a paytable.

Consider that elsewhere in the casino the best single-line $1 Jacks game probably has an 8/5 paytable. True, the one coin $5 game isn't playable. But it's certainly MORE playable than the $1 game IF no royal appears. And it's actually not a bad bet that during a session you won't see a royal! Sort of like betting NO PASS at the craps table, only now you get to hate yourself instead of everyone else hating you.

If that makes sense.

So I wonder how many others out there seek the safety of a full-pay game in High Limit and play short coin when options in the rest of the casino are dismal.

Indeed, another "one-coiner" sat next to me a few weeks ago as I played $5 3 Play NSUD. Sure enough, she hit 4 Deuces on one $5 coin and collected her $1000 with no lights going off, no music playing, no tax forms.

But a few hands later, she was dealt four-to-the royal and gasped.

So did I.

The odds prevailed, and the draw card was an off-suit 7, We both were actually "relieved", in a way.

That's the flip side of betting against yourself.

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#17

If you don't always play max coins, for whatever reason, I can't think of any reason for play more than one coin. One coin or max!

···

________________
Jean $�ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://jscott.lvablog.com/

#18

Luke Fuller wrote:

You should be comparing playing equal dollar amounts: $25 (playing
five one-coin hands, for example) and $25 (playing one max-coin
hand).

Playing short-coin 9/6 JoB, you are losing 1.63%. So, the actual
loss is $0.408 per $25 wagered.

Playing max-coin 9/6 JoB, you are losing 0.46%. So, the actual
loss is $0.115 per $25 wagered.

On any negative-expectation VP machine, you will lose less money by
playing max-coin.

Were you the one who coined: "Sure, we're losing money but we make up for it in volume"?

#19

Unless your wad is thicker than a Foster's can, short coin strategy is the better strategy anyhow. What is short coin strategy? Always hold a suited kicker with three royal cards and never hold a suited Ten with a single high card, instead just hold the high card and go for trips, boats, or quads. The variance is less than even Pick'Em Poker.

···

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

These are my opinions only - and I've tried some of the best short coin
parlay systems around.
a. its always dangerous , and yes - you find yourself hoping for NO-ROYAL on
those 4 card draws
b. I've got burned once on a dollar machine betting $2 got $500 RF back ,
should have been 800-1 for $1600
c. I've received 9 full pay $4000 royals , playing short coin parlay methods
where the Royal ended up while I was playing Max. Should I have played 25C
with lower bankroll ? -- no way, the more you bet over your head, the more
fun it is !
d. While I've played $2 and $5 VP short coin, I've never got a royal at
these denoms short or long play.

best wishes...Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "mikeymic" <mikeymic@...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:35 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Playing Short Coin - Dangerous OR Smart?

> Last weekend I was doing one of my occasional inventory "surveys" at some
> local California casinos.
>
> Sure enough, near the end of the evening, I did notice in one casino that
> in an area where there had been 4 $5 machines with full-pay games there
> were now only 3.
>
> But what really caught my attention was something else I always notice.
>
> A woman seated at the far left of the bank of 3 machines was playing one
> $5 coin.
>
> My immediate reaction (which I will soon be questioning with you) was that
> the woman is clueless about VP. This could be the one night she hits a
> royal, and she will lose $18,750 by not betting just $20 more to get her
> up to max bet. What a lamebrain!
>
> Two days ago as I was recording my own result for the weekend (which was a
> loss) I began to rethink my position.
>
> In many games you sacrifice a little over a per cent or so by playing a
> full-pay game for 1 coin vs 5 coins. For example, 9/6 Jacks becomes a
> 98.3% game with one coin played vs.a max bet 99.5% game.
>
> But since all payoffs are proportional EXCEPT for the royal, maybe that
> woman was smarter than I thought. Maybe she was betting she wouldn't get a
> royal and was just trying for the best return from the rest of a paytable.
>
> Consider that elsewhere in the casino the best single-line $1 Jacks game
> probably has an 8/5 paytable. True, the one coin $5 game isn't playable.
> But it's certainly MORE playable than the $1 game IF no royal appears. And
> it's actually not a bad bet that during a session you won't see a royal!
> Sort of like betting NO PASS at the craps table, only now you get to hate
> yourself instead of everyone else hating you.
>
> If that makes sense.
>
> So I wonder how many others out there seek the safety of a full-pay game
> in High Limit and play short coin when options in the rest of the casino
> are dismal.
>
> Indeed, another "one-coiner" sat next to me a few weeks ago as I played $5
> 3 Play NSUD. Sure enough, she hit 4 Deuces on one $5 coin and collected
> her $1000 with no lights going off, no music playing, no tax forms.
>
> But a few hands later, she was dealt four-to-the royal and gasped.
>
> So did I.
>
> The odds prevailed, and the draw card was an off-suit 7, We both were
> actually "relieved", in a way.
>
> That's the flip side of betting against yourself.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

#20

Luke, not every plays to make money.

Playing short coin costs you 1.17% based on the numbers listed above. Harry is correct that playing short coin is less costly per dollar wagered.

Playing short coin is fine as long as you know what you are getting into. It' really 2 different games. The strategies are a little different. If you only focus on when the royal pops up, sure short coin play looks like a stupid wager. But I think the reason people play short coin is because they don't want to risk the larger amount wagered.

I agree that playing one coin on a dollar 9/6 JOB is silly if a quarter 9/6 JOB is available. But if the quarter JOB is 7/5, playing dollar JOB single line isn't such a bad play.

Back to playing single coin 9/6 JOB, losing $0.0163 per hand vs losing $0.0230 per hand on the full coin game makes a difference
over the course of play. You are paying a penalty to reduce variance. Now if the only reason you play is for the big hit, single coin doesn't make any sense.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

Luke Fuller wrote:
> You should be comparing playing equal dollar amounts: $25 (playing
> five one-coin hands, for example) and $25 (playing one max-coin
> hand).
>
> Playing short-coin 9/6 JoB, you are losing 1.63%. So, the actual
> loss is $0.408 per $25 wagered.
>
> Playing max-coin 9/6 JoB, you are losing 0.46%. So, the actual
> loss is $0.115 per $25 wagered.
>
> On any negative-expectation VP machine, you will lose less money by
> playing max-coin.

Were you the one who coined: "Sure, we're losing money but we make up for it in volume"?