The VP MENSA MYTH LIVES ON

[bandstand54]

Howdy

Today I started a conversation with an intelligent rather impressive
gentleman at The Borgata in AC. I found it rather disappointing and was somewhat
taken aback he was playing a 1.00 9/6 JoB...ONE DOLLAR AT A TIME.

Why I asked was he only playing one at a time. He explained he had read a
book by a mensan that determined any VP game that was not a positive game was
not worth playing full coin because you are going to lose anyhow. By playing
one coin your money will lasts longer and somehow it works out better for you
in the long run..... or something like that!

Although I had not read this hypothesis a red flag went way up. I remember
this being discussed on a VP forum before but I only gave it a cursory look. I
told him that I was not prepared to go into precise mathematical detail but
take my word this is a false premise. He seemed to get my drift by my
certainty and rationalization how playing the same game with different odds( not
full pay) will hurt you in the long run.

How anyone can prove otherwise in a convincing matter is some sort of genius
I guess.

Grumpy

**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

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

[Dave_Moy]

I think I know what the source is for that. There is a book by a Mensa member that discusses all sorts of games but I don't think the author actually plays them. If he did he would notice that there is a bonus for full coin that you do not get for a single coin.
   
  The true advantage players won't trust a general gambling book because they are looking for specific information on particular games such as Blackjack and Video Poker. Any book that tries to condense a number of games into one book either has to be very well edited or a glossing over. I think it was the latter.
   
  By the way, I commend you for trying to help someone out. We need more people like you!

BANDSTAND54@AOL.COM wrote:
          Howdy

Today I started a conversation with an intelligent rather impressive
gentleman at The Borgata in AC. I found it rather disappointing and was somewhat
taken aback he was playing a 1.00 9/6 JoB...ONE DOLLAR AT A TIME.

Why I asked was he only playing one at a time. He explained he had read a
book by a mensan that determined any VP game that was not a positive game was
not worth playing full coin because you are going to lose anyhow. By playing
one coin your money will lasts longer and somehow it works out better for you
in the long run..... or something like that!

Although I had not read this hypothesis a red flag went way up. I remember
this being discussed on a VP forum before but I only gave it a cursory look. I
told him that I was not prepared to go into precise mathematical detail but
take my word this is a false premise. He seemed to get my drift by my
certainty and rationalization how playing the same game with different odds( not
full pay) will hurt you in the long run.

How anyone can prove otherwise in a convincing matter is some sort of genius
I guess.

Grumpy

**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

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

···

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

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

[Albert_Pearson1]

I'm no genius but I don't think it is that difficult
of a question.

The basic premise is correct, but you have to
determine a few things first.

It is true that the less you bet on a negative game
the better off you are BUT it all depends on the
circumstances and the players objectives.

points to ponder

1. Why is the person gambling in the first place.
If you are just killing time, Play a penny machine one
coin at a time slowly.

2. Person likes to gamble small stakes and is looking
for best bang for the buck. If the casino has 9/6
jacks at quarters then that would be a better play,
but if the best quarter play is 8/5 jb then you are
certainly better off playing a buck at a time on the
9/6 $ machines.

3. For myself if the only option was 9/6 jb for
dollars or a much inferior play for quarters, and I am
a quarter player, then I would play the dollar game
less frequently. Instead of going once a week with
$500 to play I would go once a month with $2000 and
play the $ machines.

4. If the casino has good cash back and/or benefits it
should be easy to convince the person that the play
taken as a whole is actually positive not negative.

Regards
A.P.

···

--- BANDSTAND54@AOL.COM wrote:

Howdy

Today I started a conversation with an intelligent
rather impressive
gentleman at The Borgata in AC. I found it rather
disappointing and was somewhat
taken aback he was playing a 1.00 9/6 JoB...ONE
DOLLAR AT A TIME.

Why I asked was he only playing one at a time. He
explained he had read a
book by a mensan that determined any VP game that
was not a positive game was
not worth playing full coin because you are going to
lose anyhow. By playing
one coin your money will lasts longer and somehow it
works out better for you
in the long run..... or something like that!

Although I had not read this hypothesis a red flag
went way up. I remember
this being discussed on a VP forum before but I only
gave it a cursory look. I
told him that I was not prepared to go into precise
mathematical detail but
take my word this is a false premise. He seemed to
get my drift by my
certainty and rationalization how playing the same
game with different odds( not
full pay) will hurt you in the long run.

How anyone can prove otherwise in a convincing
matter is some sort of genius
I guess.

Grumpy

[reyer]

Just a brief comment on this thread -- I happen to be a Mensa Member
because on a day long ago I happened to answer a lot of questions on a
test correctly. However, the reason that I belong to this group is
because I learn from all of you and I follow the full coin rules. A
book by a non player doesn't stack up against lots of practice on the
computer programs and reading the messages in this type of group. For
the last 4 years my wife and I have had a lot of fun playing VP and the
IRS has enjoyed our 6 figure total of W2G wins. I doubt that my Mensa
card has really contributed to the wins.

Howdy

Today I started a conversation with an intelligent rather impressive
gentleman at The Borgata in AC. I found it rather disappointing and

was somewhat

taken aback he was playing a 1.00 9/6 JoB...ONE DOLLAR AT A TIME.

Why I asked was he only playing one at a time. He explained he had

read a

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, BANDSTAND54@... wrote:

book by a mensan that determined any VP game that was not a positive -

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

[Jeff_Cole]

BANDSTAND54@... wrote:
...By playing one coin your money will lasts longer and somehow it
works out better for you in the long run..... or something like that!...

···

======================================
Maybe he was getting at this:
Playing 1-4 coins gives you a return of 98.373%.
Playing 5 coins gives you a return of 99.544%.
Playing 500 hands per hour gives you a loss of $11.40 at 5 coins and a
loss of $8.14 at 1-4 coins, so you're saving $3.26 per hour by playing
short coin, and at one coin, no W2G.

[Eric1]

It seems unlikely that the gentleman in question was playing basic
strategy, so this probably doesn't apply.

And it sounds like he ignored (I'm speculating this is what it said)
where the author says to play the lowest denomination machine at short
coin. A REAL genius would be playing 25c full coin over $1 short,
right?

I have the Mensa book somewhere, it is a GREAT introduction to casino
games, I would highly recommend this as a gift for a casual gambler
that insists on playing prop bets on the Crap Table or 6/5 Blackjack.
Lots of common sense advice that educated gamblers take for granted.

http://www.amazon.com/Mensa-Guide-Casino-Gambling-Winning/dp/1402713002/

···

On Jan 29, 2008 11:03 PM, jeffcole2003oct <jeff-cole@comcast.net> wrote:

so you're saving $3.26 per hour by playing
short coin, and at one coin, no W2G.

[Richard_McKenna1]

Jeff. Your conclusion is correct. I believe the book in question is,
"American Mensa Guide to Casino Gambling " by Andrerw Brisman. Their
basic premise is: If you are going to play a negative game and lose
money, you should do it as slowly as possible. The exact summation quote
is: Any time you're stuck (playing a game) below 100%, the less money
you risk the better. If it is a losing proposition, you shouldn't
expose five times your money to make it a "better" proposition". It goes
on to state that slot club promotions may bring the return into positive
territory, and in that case you should definitely play maximum coins.
The whole discussion is on page 113 of the aforementioned book.
Interesting concept. Dick McKenna

jeffcole2003oct wrote:

BANDSTAND54@... wrote:
...By playing one coin your money will lasts longer and somehow it
works out better for you in the long run..... or something like that!...

Maybe he was getting at this:
Playing 1-4 coins gives you a return of 98.373%.
Playing 5 coins gives you a return of 99.544%.
Playing 500 hands per hour gives you a loss of $11.40 at 5 coins and a
loss of $8.14 at 1-4 coins, so you're saving $3.26 per hour by playing
short coin, and at one coin, no W2G.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

[Craig1]

I glad this topic came up today.

I went to Mohegan Sun today for a practice session. I'm flying out to
Las Vegas in two weeks. I played the one dollar 9/6JoB machines, one
dollar a hand.

After an hour and a half, I was down only 15 dollars and decided to
play five coins a hand - I was down an addition 50 dollars very
quickly. I knew that I didn't have the bankroll to chase the bonus.
There are no 25 cent 9/6 machines at the reservation. If there were
any I would be playing 5 coins on them - I can't wait for Vegas. I
switched back to $1 per hand. I played this way, last week, for 4
hours and broke even.

Just before switching back to $1 per hand, I remember thinking the
calculated amount for your bankroll (before hitting a royal) at $5 per
hand was something like $30k. I just looked it up in the "Frugal
Gambler." It says $12,000 (pg 75). Even this is too much of a
bankroll for me - right now.

Even though I wasn't playing for the bonus, I was earning players club
points at a faster rate than playing a 25 cent machine (twice as
fast). The free buffets, drinks and a free birthday cake ($25) are
keeping my bottom line in my favor.

ok blah blah blah

It was todays practice session that has me thinking about that bonus
for playing the five coins. There has to be a royal flush coming some
day and to finally hit it and not be playing for the bonus is silly
and could sour the moment.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, BANDSTAND54@... wrote:

Howdy

Today I started a conversation with an intelligent rather impressive
gentleman at The Borgata in AC. I found it rather disappointing and
was somewhat taken aback he was playing a 1.00 9/6 JoB...
ONE DOLLAR AT A TIME.

[Harry_Porter]

Craig wrote:

Just before switching back to $1 per hand, I remember thinking the
calculated amount for your bankroll (before hitting a royal) at $5
per hand was something like $30k. I just looked it up in the "Frugal
Gambler." It says $12,000 (pg 75). Even this is too much of a
bankroll for me - right now.

It's been some time since I've referenced Frugal Gambler. Jean's
subsequent texts, "More Frugal Gambling" and "Frugal Video Poker",
offer stronger play guidance. I've misplaced my copy of the original
book so can't reference the language you cite.

I'll note that the "bankroll" concept usually is expressed in terms of
dollars set aside for all cumulative losses in play -- not just those
until the next royal. That's because after hitting a RF, continued
losses might deplete it and more, taking you further into the red.

In "More ...", Jean cites a "3 royal" bankroll number (which, for $
play, would be $12,000) as a guideline only for play with a strong
player edge (say 1%+, e.g. full-pay deuces with cb) and where play is
accurate.

A game such as you're playing (9/6 JB) is subject to greater loss
potential, even when offset with a respectable cashback rate. You're
at great risk of a cumulative 3 RF equivalent loss -- with active play
of 10 hr/mo this might quite possibly occur within a year's timespan.
Generally speaking, it might be deemed advisable to take on active JB
play only if you're prepared to accept a cumulative loss potential of
8-10 royals over the extended term of play. (Maybe this was the
context in which you saw the $30K number you mention.)

You might wish to tap features within software such as VP for Winners,
Frugal VP, or Wolf VP, to get a better feel for the loss prospects in
play.

- Harry

[Craig1]

My 30k reference was an error - the book said 12k. I know that this
is a projected amount - "your mileage may vary." I also know that my
short run numbers are irrelevant. Being able to calculate a positive
return at this point has no bearing on my future return. I just hope
my luck runs better than the average. At this point, I am just
enjoying myself. The biggest draw for me is the free concerts at
their 'wolf's den.'

VP at the Mohegan Sun is a tough game - not many good machines. If
the (coming soon) Massachusetts casinos can reduce the number of
players, maybe the casino would introduce 25 cent 9/6 machines. But I
doubt it.

I think my first stop in Vegas will be a bookstore for some more
reference materials (any recommendations???). I might play another
game while in the oasis, but will be playing 25 cent machines. I am
happy that this forum exists. Its helping me think about my game play
and how to avoid dumb play.

···

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

Craig wrote:
> Just before switching back to $1 per hand, I remember thinking the
> calculated amount for your bankroll (before hitting a royal) at $5
> per hand was something like $30k. I just looked it up in the "Frugal
> Gambler." It says $12,000 (pg 75). Even this is too much of a
> bankroll for me - right now.

It's been some time since I've referenced Frugal Gambler. Jean's
subsequent texts, "More Frugal Gambling" and "Frugal Video Poker",
offer stronger play guidance. I've misplaced my copy of the original
book so can't reference the language you cite.

I'll note that the "bankroll" concept usually is expressed in terms of
dollars set aside for all cumulative losses in play -- not just those
until the next royal. That's because after hitting a RF, continued
losses might deplete it and more, taking you further into the red.

In "More ...", Jean cites a "3 royal" bankroll number (which, for $
play, would be $12,000) as a guideline only for play with a strong
player edge (say 1%+, e.g. full-pay deuces with cb) and where play is
accurate.

A game such as you're playing (9/6 JB) is subject to greater loss
potential, even when offset with a respectable cashback rate. You're
at great risk of a cumulative 3 RF equivalent loss -- with active play
of 10 hr/mo this might quite possibly occur within a year's timespan.
Generally speaking, it might be deemed advisable to take on active JB
play only if you're prepared to accept a cumulative loss potential of
8-10 royals over the extended term of play. (Maybe this was the
context in which you saw the $30K number you mention.)

You might wish to tap features within software such as VP for Winners,
Frugal VP, or Wolf VP, to get a better feel for the loss prospects in
play.

- Harry

[Harry_Porter]

Craig wrote:

My 30k reference was an error - the book said 12k. I know that this
is a projected amount - "your mileage may vary." I also know that my
short run numbers are irrelevant. Being able to calculate a positive
return at this point has no bearing on my future return. I just hope
my luck runs better than the average.

The "short term" / "long term" distinction that some make re expected
vp gaming results is quite possibly one of the greatest examples of
misdirection in discussion of gambling to be found. Among other
things it leads some to believe that gaming statistics have little
bearing on their month to month play and might reasonably be
downplayed and that particular paytables are fairly insignificant (a
logic that leads some to find elements of what R Singer writes appealing).

However, this is a harsh fallacy. Once you set aside the return
attributable to the royal (and other very infrequent hands, such as
A's with a kicker in DDB), the expected return of the remaining hands
can be expected to bear out in actual play in relatively short order.

The reason playing a strongly positive return game (101%+) is
beneficial in the short to medium term is that when you exclude the
return from the royal the balance of the game return approaches break
even. This means that during those periods you suffer a royal
drought, the drain on your bankroll is a fraction of what it is if
you're playing a break even or poorer game.

Play of a strong game is what keeps short term loss prospects
tempered. If you're relying upon luck to make your play profitable
(or just hope to keep losses mild), you put a tremendous strain on
what you hope luck will do for you when you opt for a game with a
return that is 1% or 2% smaller than the best game available to you.

- Harry