vpFREE2 Forums

The Less than Maximum Coins Question

#1

Actually some games are 10 coins, even 20 coins maximum in even
single line VP games. Heck, I even remember 3 coin maximum games at
the El Rancho and the Plaza. So, lets give up on the less than "five
coin" thing. (Just getting picky)

It all comes down to "utility", the perception of value to the
beholder. Playing for five time units (hours?) on any machine could
outweigh playing for one unit at a higher denomination (Fun
Coeffient), even when giving up significant return. A novice in a
one time situation (example: my first visit to Nevada...Harrahs in
Laughlin, did not return for years), or with a very short bankroll
could give short-coin in play a higher personal utility to an
individual.

"Freeplay" can be perceived differently too. If you need "cold hard
cash" for different needs besides gambling, it's utility is different.

But if "freeplay" has the same utility as "cash in the pocket" then
playing short-coin is just as harmfull to the "economic utility" as
playing short-coin in cash.

Personally, after ten years of utility refinement, I can't go play
99% games anymore just 50 minutes away south of me down the
Interstate when 100%+ opportunities exist 3 hours west. I used to be
different, but my overall utility perception has been changed over
the years to be more in line with the economic utility, the
convenience coefficient has been drastically reduced.

I am just glad this debate is over the VP spectrum.

BS

#2

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bluestreak86001" <graytleegray@a...>
wrote:

Actually some games are 10 coins, even 20 coins maximum in even
single line VP games. Heck, I even remember 3 coin maximum games

at

the El Rancho and the Plaza. So, lets give up on the less

than "five

coin" thing. (Just getting picky)

It all comes down to "utility", the perception of value to the
beholder. Playing for five time units (hours?) on any machine

could

outweigh playing for one unit at a higher denomination (Fun
Coeffient), even when giving up significant return. A novice in a
one time situation (example: my first visit to Nevada...Harrahs in
Laughlin, did not return for years), or with a very short bankroll
could give short-coin in play a higher personal utility to an
individual.

"Freeplay" can be perceived differently too. If you need "cold

hard

cash" for different needs besides gambling, it's utility is

different.

But if "freeplay" has the same utility as "cash in the pocket" then
playing short-coin is just as harmfull to the "economic utility" as
playing short-coin in cash.

Personally, after ten years of utility refinement, I can't go play
99% games anymore just 50 minutes away south of me down the
Interstate when 100%+ opportunities exist 3 hours west. I used to

be

different, but my overall utility perception has been changed over
the years to be more in line with the economic utility, the
convenience coefficient has been drastically reduced.

I am just glad this debate is over the VP spectrum.

BS

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you are right five coins was not a
happy choice, but five coin machines are the most common. You do
bring some memories, though. Aside from those you mention, there are
those 100 coin VP machines at TI. Then I remember dollar JB at Casino
Magic in Bay St. Louis, and I also remember in Atlantic City at Taj
Mahal, Sands or Tropicana a few years ago, might be the same now, if
you were considering playing $25 VP, they had it in three coins only.
$60,000 Royals in big letters.

The freeplay problem I presented was very clearly stated. You have
$200 in freeplay, you are broke, you need the highest probability of
getting the most cash out of it. The solution is just as clear. No
way of bending the mathematics. In TI you don't play quarter deuces
for that, you play bonus nickels. And if you do it one coin at a
time, better. There is no question about the mathematics of the
problem, I repeat. All the objections I have read change the problem.
Sure, if one changes the problem, then the solution is different.

You say:

"But if "freeplay" has the same utility as "cash in the pocket" then

playing short-coin is just as harmfull to the "economic utility" as
playing short-coin in cash."

Fine, you have changed the problem. You are not addressing the
problem of a guy broke, with a baby to feed, no money and $200 in
freeplay at TI. That is the problem at hand, if you want to state it
in a more dramatic way. I repeat the problem. How do I maximize the
cash I'm likely to get from my $200 freeplay at TI. That is all.

Now, if you have more money, you have a few days, you have time,
etc., etc. Then you think of luxuries and all that. Then you play the
dollar NSUD at TI and after the $200 freeplay is gone, well, you go
to Fiesta or some place with better machines.

I have to stress that life is not so simple, different situations
arise with different conditions. If you can drive an hour or three
hours, and if driving three hours brings you a better alternative,
and you have the car, the money, the time, the leisure, etc., then,
sure, you are maximizing your return according to your circumstances.
Someone, for example, on Social Security in New Jersey might not have
money for a plane ticket, might have good conditions in Trump Plaza,
and so has that choice between the quarter Bonus and the dollar 10/7
DB.

Never say never. You say you can't go play 99% games. Well, who
knows? It could happen that in five years that is all the casinos
offer, then you have to either give up playing, or figuring out how
to maximize the return given the new conditions. Not everyone can
play at Fiesta. I hope the contrary happens, and in five years there
are more 100+ machines. They should come up with a machine called
Pollyanna, to put along side Little Green Men. LOL.

Thanks for reminding me of those three coin machines. Nine years ago
I did well in Mississippi on them.

E

#3

Playing short coin minimizes your return & never (a valid word to use)
will be the correct option. If there are no 100% machines (incl
cashback) in 5 years the sensible people will stop playing them. Your
free play example at TI is not well thought out but you refuse to
listen to anyone.

Never say never. You say you can't go play 99% games. Well, who
knows? It could happen that in five years that is all the casinos
offer, then you have to either give up playing, or figuring out how
to maximize the return given the new conditions. Not everyone can
play at Fiesta. I hope the contrary happens, and in five years

there

are more 100+ machines. They should come up with a machine called
Pollyanna, to put along side Little Green Men. LOL.

Thanks for reminding me of those three coin machines. Nine years

ago

···

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

I did well in Mississippi on them.

E

#4

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
wrote:

Playing short coin minimizes your return & never (a valid word to

use)

will be the correct option. If there are no 100% machines (incl
cashback) in 5 years the sensible people will stop playing them.

Your

free play example at TI is not well thought out but you refuse to
listen to anyone.
> > E

Okay, I understand people not wanting to play less than 100+ machines
should they disappear, though the ones remaining might be better than
other games offered in a particular casino.

I don't understand why my example at TI is not well thought out. I
don't know which part about it you don't like. Maybe the drama, the
guy wanting money to feed the baby. Let's change it. Suppose you
don't like Treasure Island, you don't like to play there because they
do not have 100+ machines. Suppose you decided you will try to get as
much money in cash out of the $200 freeplay there and go play
somewhere else. You don't play full coin the 100 coin full pay Jacks
or Better if there are any left, of course, because that would give
you only four pulls of the machine and you will most likely end up
with fifty or a hundred dollars. You play the nickel Bonus machine
one coin at a time because you will most certainly end up with at
least $192. If you want to see exactly what you end up with a variety
of machines, and you are too lazy to do the math, as I am, go to

http://members.aol.com/lotsie/poker.html

and play with the java program there to see the distributions.

You tell me I refuse to listen to anybody, but I do listen carefully.
No one has told me yet why should the TI problem, as stated, have a
different solution than the one I presented. No one reallh has. The
different posters have just made fun of the TI problem, or they have
changed it. Maybe it is not a popular problem. You don't explain
yourself.

E

#5

The program that you mention does not give you the option to play less than full coin , or to change pay tables or am I mistaken ?

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: mubowor
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 8:31 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: The Less than Maximum Coins Question

   You play the nickel Bonus machine
  one coin at a time because you will most certainly end up with at
  least $192. If you want to see exactly what you end up with a variety
  of machines, and you are too lazy to do the math, as I am, go to

  http://members.aol.com/lotsie/poker.html

  and play with the java program there to see the distributions.

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

#6

No the program does not allow you to change paytables, as far as I
know. It does offer a lot of games, such as Deuces, JB, Bonus, etc.
It also does not allow you to change denomination, it is in quarters,
but you can figure out how it is for nickels calling nickels quarters
and changing the numbers. In this program you can compare very well
what happens if you use the $200 freeplay on a good game such as 10/7
DB in quarters, and then on a "bad" game such as Bonus in nickels,
and you can see that it is better to use the freeplay in the Bonus
nickels if after the $200 freeplay is consumed you want to get the
hell out of TI with the most money. With one coin nickels you achieve
most likely "close" to the long term return without a Royal or
Straight flush, if you want, something you will never do in quarters.

You know, this problem is simple, I don't know why people are so
reluctant to accept it. Let me give you an extreme example as the
simplest analogy I can think of. I throw a penny. Long term, it will
land heads half the time. The ER of heads is 0.5. Now here is the
question, what happens if I throw it only once? Well, I will not get
heads half the time -there is only one time-, not at all, I will get
either heads or tails, and if I get tails, I get no heads at all!! So
what do I do if Treasure Island gives me $200 in tokens and I can
keep the ones that land heads? I have a choice of the token
denomination. I want the most money. If I choose one $200 token, I
might get no money, there is a 50% chance of that, no money at all.
If I choose two $100 tokens I have 25% chance of getting no money. If
I choose 4,000 nickel tokens, I will most likely walk out of Treasure
Island with around $100.

E

The program that you mention does not give you the option to play

less than full coin , or to change pay tables or am I mistaken ?

  From: mubowor
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 8:31 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: The Less than Maximum Coins Question

   You play the nickel Bonus machine
  one coin at a time because you will most certainly end up with at
  least $192. If you want to see exactly what you end up with a

variety

···

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

----- Original Message -----
  of machines, and you are too lazy to do the math, as I am, go to

  http://members.aol.com/lotsie/poker.html

  and play with the java program there to see the distributions.

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

#7

mubowor wrote:

You know, this problem is simple, I don't know why people are so
reluctant to accept it.

"E", I joined this thread late because of LV and AC trips this last
week. I've skimmed it briefly, but I think I've picked up on the gist
of it.

I'm with you almost all of the way. My only hesitation was in your
phrasing which I suspect implies something you didn't intend. You
wrote, "you need the highest probability of getting the most cash out
of it".

Well, stated this way, the EV of the situation is the clear driving
force. I won't dwell on details and hope that you're prepared to
accept it on face value once I propose the alternative that you were
getting at.

I'd suggest: You need the highest confidence that you'll achieve a
return that's within a narrow margin of the EV of the play. In other
words, having nominal risk of coming up more than 10% short of 95% in
playing nickles is far preferable to having significant risk of coming
up 20% short of 99% in playing quarters. The numbers are obviously
for the sake of example but get the point across: Reduced risk
outweighs a modest reduction in EV.

I hope this satisfies you and the detractors.

- Harry

#8

Harry Porter wrote:

Reduced risk outweighs a modest reduction in EV.

I'd better clarify my post having now read back to the start of the
thread. I'm commenting on your limited example of Free Play
utilization and assuming that as soon as you've played it through that
the player cashes out and walks.

In terms of any extended play on a player's own dime, ER rules the
day. If the only options that present themselves that are within the
confines of the player's trip stake are negative, the player should
stay home and play on their computer with play money. And under no
circumstance should they walk into a casino with only a hundred or so
and sit down at a quarter machine looking for a day's play.

- Harry

#9

I'd go along with this explanation.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Harry Porter
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:17 AM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: The Less than Maximum Coins Question

   In other
  words, having nominal risk of coming up more than 10% short of 95% in
  playing nickles is far preferable to having significant risk of coming
  up 20% short of 99% in playing quarters. The numbers are obviously
  for the sake of example but get the point across: Reduced risk
  outweighs a modest reduction in EV.

  I hope this satisfies you and the detractors.

  - Harry

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

#10

Hi,

Thanks for explaining with different words what I was trying to say,

"Reduced risk
outweighs a modest reduction in EV."

Let me add that sometimes the reduction in EV might not be so modest,
but the risk is reduced.

I believe I have said all that needs to be said in this problem, and
I will not address it anymore, otherwise I'll end up taking
tranquilizers.

Let me give you one last example that might clarify it to those
adamant proponents of the highest EV or nothing else.

Suppose you are in a hypothetical casino that gives you $5 in
freeplay. Suppose the casino has Full Pay Deuces Wild in quarters,
and 6/5 Jacks or Better in nickels. Suppose they give you one further
rule with the freeplay, and that is that you must play five coins.
Suppose you hate the casino, want to get the most money out of the
$5, and go next door where they have an FPDW progressive in nickels
with the Royal at $1,000. This is a very simple mathematical problem.
You want to leave casino A with the most money from your freeplay and
go to casino B. What do you do?

The "highest EV fanatics" will play four games on the FPDW and even
though the EV is high, they have about a 6% probability to leave with
no money at all. The "risk averse fanatics" will play 100 games in
the awful 6/5 JB and will be almost certain to leave with a couple of
dollars. Their probability of leaving with no money is practically
zero.

I'm so glad you understood this problem and could explain it to
others in your own words. Cheers.

E

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

mubowor wrote:
> You know, this problem is simple, I don't know why people are so
> reluctant to accept it.

"E", I joined this thread late because of LV and AC trips this last
week. I've skimmed it briefly, but I think I've picked up on the

gist

of it.

I'm with you almost all of the way. My only hesitation was in your
phrasing which I suspect implies something you didn't intend. You
wrote, "you need the highest probability of getting the most cash

out

of it".

Well, stated this way, the EV of the situation is the clear driving
force. I won't dwell on details and hope that you're prepared to
accept it on face value once I propose the alternative that you were
getting at.

I'd suggest: You need the highest confidence that you'll achieve a
return that's within a narrow margin of the EV of the play. In

other

words, having nominal risk of coming up more than 10% short of 95%

in

playing nickles is far preferable to having significant risk of

coming

···

up 20% short of 99% in playing quarters. The numbers are obviously
for the sake of example but get the point across: Reduced risk
outweighs a modest reduction in EV.

I hope this satisfies you and the detractors.

- Harry

#11

Sorry, I made a boo boo below. The rule the hypothetical casino makes
is to force you to play five coins in quarters but not in nickels.
You can play one coin in nickels.

E

Hi,

Thanks for explaining with different words what I was trying to say,

"Reduced risk
outweighs a modest reduction in EV."

Let me add that sometimes the reduction in EV might not be so

modest,

but the risk is reduced.

I believe I have said all that needs to be said in this problem,

and

I will not address it anymore, otherwise I'll end up taking
tranquilizers.

Let me give you one last example that might clarify it to those
adamant proponents of the highest EV or nothing else.

Suppose you are in a hypothetical casino that gives you $5 in
freeplay. Suppose the casino has Full Pay Deuces Wild in quarters,
and 6/5 Jacks or Better in nickels. Suppose they give you one

further

rule with the freeplay, and that is that you must play five coins.
Suppose you hate the casino, want to get the most money out of the
$5, and go next door where they have an FPDW progressive in nickels
with the Royal at $1,000. This is a very simple mathematical

problem.

You want to leave casino A with the most money from your freeplay

and

go to casino B. What do you do?

The "highest EV fanatics" will play four games on the FPDW and even
though the EV is high, they have about a 6% probability to leave

with

no money at all. The "risk averse fanatics" will play 100 games in
the awful 6/5 JB and will be almost certain to leave with a couple

of

dollars. Their probability of leaving with no money is practically
zero.

I'm so glad you understood this problem and could explain it to
others in your own words. Cheers.

E

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
> mubowor wrote:
> > You know, this problem is simple, I don't know why people are

so

> > reluctant to accept it.
>
> "E", I joined this thread late because of LV and AC trips this

last

> week. I've skimmed it briefly, but I think I've picked up on the
gist
> of it.
>
> I'm with you almost all of the way. My only hesitation was in

your

> phrasing which I suspect implies something you didn't intend. You
> wrote, "you need the highest probability of getting the most cash
out
> of it".
>
> Well, stated this way, the EV of the situation is the clear

driving

> force. I won't dwell on details and hope that you're prepared to
> accept it on face value once I propose the alternative that you

were

> getting at.
>
> I'd suggest: You need the highest confidence that you'll achieve

a

> return that's within a narrow margin of the EV of the play. In
other
> words, having nominal risk of coming up more than 10% short of

95%

in
> playing nickles is far preferable to having significant risk of
coming
> up 20% short of 99% in playing quarters. The numbers are

obviously

···

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

> for the sake of example but get the point across: Reduced risk
> outweighs a modest reduction in EV.
>
> I hope this satisfies you and the detractors.
>
> - Harry

#12

I know some "pros" who play off their $50 Free Play at the Palms on the 50-Play (100-Play?) pennies (or nickels?) 9/6, rather than the FPDW quarters for the very reason that has been discussed in this thread. They are looking at the short-term - mistakenly, in my opinion. We play ours off on FPDW because we have at least $900 (together) every month (and sometimes more extra) so we know that we will do best by playing the highest EV since we will be doing this month after month after month - it has been going on for more than a year and we are hoping it lasts forever - or at least as long as we last!!! (Of course, we know that nothing really good like this lasts forever in Vegas!!!)

Sometimes we get very little back for our $50 each - once in awhile ( funny it is around approximately every 4884.7 hands on average) we get 4 deuces and have a big win - once we got a royal.

However, we don't EVER look at one session to make any decision as to what we will play in the future. We 99.99% of the time play the highest EV we can find, taking into consideration the games we know the strategy for. For us, life is just ONE long VP session. We have made A LOT of money doing this.

Now I realize that not everyone has the same circumstances as we do. We live in Vegas and always have 100%+ plays we can choose from. We have a more than adequate bankroll for the level on which we play. You may not have those elements in your VP life. And you may have much different goals.

But if your goal is to make the most money you can, you need to seek out not just 100% plays but the best percentage plays (game+benefits) you can find, you need to play very accurate strategy (and very few people can do this jumping from game to game), and you need to have a very adequate bankroll. If you are doing all of this, and especially continually checking your accuracy on a software tutor, you will have an extremely good chance of coming out winners in the long term. If you are doing poorly temporarily on the best EV game and switch to a lower EV game (even it is 100%+), if you play below 100% games because they are more fun and you just remember the times you did well on them in one session and forget the many more times they cleaned your clock, and if you think that "kinda" learning a half-way good strategy will get you long-term profit on a high EV game - well, I'm not going to judge you. But don't complain to me when you are in a losing streak - when you don't do ALL the right things ALL the time, you shouldn't expect any more than a occasional "lucky" win!!! Remember, the math ALWAYS win. You can fool yourself, your partner, this list, everybody - but you can't fool the math.

Two things keep most sincere VP students from being long-term winners: inadequate bankroll for the level they play and their choice of plays with too small of an edge. I think a lot of people will die before they will likely see a long-term profit playing 10/7 DB. Some people call DDB the "devil's game." Actually I think that term better describes DB, because people think that just because they play the 10/7 version which has an EV of 100+, they assume they will be a long-term winner. Almost no one plays it "perfectly" and most, I guess, play it quite a bit below theoretical perfect EV. I honestly see very few situations (maybe a special promo on quads, high comp needs, big CB bonus, etc.) where a quarter player who wants to make money playing in Vegas will play DB instead of FPDW. Same for JoB, Bonus Poker 10/6 DDB. You will almost always have to depend on luck to do as well as you would do on FPDW long term.

Remember what I always say - there is no magic bullet. It take a lot of hard study and work and especially a lot of self-discipline.

···

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

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

#13

WHERE DO YOU GET 900$ IN FREE PLAY.and how much do you play to get it, coin in that is .
                  THANKS
                    GENE

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Jean Scott
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] My opinion on some of the latest thread subjects

  I know some "pros" who play off their $50 Free Play at the Palms on the 50-Play (100-Play?) pennies (or nickels?) 9/6, rather than the FPDW quarters for the very reason that has been discussed in this thread. They are looking at the short-term - mistakenly, in my opinion. We play ours off on FPDW because we have at least $900 (together) every month (and sometimes more extra) so we know that we will do best by playing the highest EV since we will be doing this month after month after month - it has been going on for more than a year and we are hoping it lasts forever - or at least as long as we last!!! (Of course, we know that nothing really good like this lasts forever in Vegas!!!)

  Sometimes we get very little back for our $50 each - once in awhile ( funny it is around approximately every 4884.7 hands on average) we get 4 deuces and have a big win - once we got a royal.

  However, we don't EVER look at one session to make any decision as to what we will play in the future. We 99.99% of the time play the highest EV we can find, taking into consideration the games we know the strategy for. For us, life is just ONE long VP session. We have made A LOT of money doing this.

  Now I realize that not everyone has the same circumstances as we do. We live in Vegas and always have 100%+ plays we can choose from. We have a more than adequate bankroll for the level on which we play. You may not have those elements in your VP life. And you may have much different goals.

  But if your goal is to make the most money you can, you need to seek out not just 100% plays but the best percentage plays (game+benefits) you can find, you need to play very accurate strategy (and very few people can do this jumping from game to game), and you need to have a very adequate bankroll. If you are doing all of this, and especially continually checking your accuracy on a software tutor, you will have an extremely good chance of coming out winners in the long term. If you are doing poorly temporarily on the best EV game and switch to a lower EV game (even it is 100%+), if you play below 100% games because they are more fun and you just remember the times you did well on them in one session and forget the many more times they cleaned your clock, and if you think that "kinda" learning a half-way good strategy will get you long-term profit on a high EV game - well, I'm not going to judge you. But don't complain to me when you are in a losin g streak - when you don't do ALL the right things ALL the time, you shouldn't expect any more than a occasional "lucky" win!!! Remember, the math ALWAYS win. You can fool yourself, your partner, this list, everybody - but you can't fool the math.

  Two things keep most sincere VP students from being long-term winners: inadequate bankroll for the level they play and their choice of plays with too small of an edge. I think a lot of people will die before they will likely see a long-term profit playing 10/7 DB. Some people call DDB the "devil's game." Actually I think that term better describes DB, because people think that just because they play the 10/7 version which has an EV of 100+, they assume they will be a long-term winner. Almost no one plays it "perfectly" and most, I guess, play it quite a bit below theoretical perfect EV. I honestly see very few situations (maybe a special promo on quads, high comp needs, big CB bonus, etc.) where a quarter player who wants to make money playing in Vegas will play DB instead of FPDW. Same for JoB, Bonus Poker 10/6 DDB. You will almost always have to depend on luck to do as well as you would do on FP DW long term.

  Remember what I always say - there is no magic bullet. It take a lot of hard study and work and especially a lot of self-discipline.

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

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

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  vpFREE Links: http://tinyurl.com/a7ga

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

#14

<<WHERE DO YOU GET 900$ IN FREE PLAY.and how much do you play to get it, coin in that is.>>

Brad and I each get at least $450 (9 X $50) monthly at the Palms for a $40,000 daily average. That seems to be the top level.

···

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

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

#15

Jean,

What games do you play to get in the $40K average per day?

TIA

wc21

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

<<WHERE DO YOU GET 900$ IN FREE PLAY.and how much do you play to

get it, coin in that is.>>

Brad and I each get at least $450 (9 X $50) monthly at the Palms

for a $40,000 daily average. That seems to be the top level.

···

____________________

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

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

#16

<<What games do you play at the Palms to get in the $40K average per day?>>

NSUD's - $1 Three or Five Play

···

____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
Note new e-mail address
MORE FRUGAL GAMBLING can NOW
be ordered, autographed, at a pre-pub
discount, at http://www.FrugalGambler.biz

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