In the midst of the fairly stupid current debate about whether or
not there actually exist living, breathing consistent winners at
video poker, one simple fact is overlooked: if the best video poker
game returned only 98%, there still would be SOME players who are
ahead overall when the dust settles. Hell, there are Keno and state
lottery players who are and will be ahead for their lifetimes. So
the debate is meaningless: of COURSE there are consistent winners.
The only remaining question is: are these people winning because of
skill and game selection, or are they just the beneficiaries of
stupid, blind luck? The answer is: yes, and yes. The wafer-thin
advantage conferred on an expert VP player doesn't preclude him from
getting crushed on a given day, week, month, or lifetime.
It can also be noted that the higher rate of return you play at, the
more "lucky" you are likely to be. Anyone familiar with basic
probability math has seen the bell curve with the vertical line
rising to meet it at the "theoretical" result, or expectation. The
expert player nudges the line in his direction. Thus, his long-term
results fall on the favorable side of the curve (i.e., profit) a
little more often than for the unskilled player. The important thing
to remember is that the DISTRIBUTION of results is the same for both
players. A $10,000 loss at quarters may be an 0.002% event for the
expert, a 0.007% event for the "amateur", but each player's bell
curve is equally broad. The "width" of the curve is a function of
the given game's volatility.
Given that the distribution of results remains the same for a player
who graduates to "advantage" play, it's important to remember that
such graduation only SLIGHTLY decreases the chance of a bloodbath,
and only SLIGHTLY increases the chance of a big payday. These small
advantages work for the casino because of billions of decisions in a
year, but for the recreational player/visitor, the numbers are
simply not large enough to reach the "theoretical" result, except by
coincidence. So, winning or losing remains primarily a matter of
luck.
BUT!!!!! Those people who use this (otherwise sound) reasoning as an
excuse to not learn all they can about VP, and to play the best
games as well as they can, are missing the point. Joe Tourist loses
$247 one weekend; he reads his VP books, comes back next month, has
THE EXACT SAME LUCK, and loses $188. Or he makes $199 instead of
$37. Or whatever. If you play 10/7 DB instead of 9/7 DB you will
have 5 more coins x the number of full houses you hit; this is the
difference, which may still result in a negative overall total; but
why wouldn't you play the 10/7?
For what it's worth, my personal logs for .25 FPDW show a net win of
$13/hr for 2001 based on 1000 hands/hr. This includes cashback and
comps valued at full redemption, as well as mailings. This figure is
very close to actual expectation given that I played at .25 or .3
comps most of the time.