Video Blackjack

Quote: Sonuvabish

I play video blackjack all the time. This is what I do with any free slot play. It would be smarter to play video poker than 1:1 blackjack with no DAS, but I don't care to learn the strategy. VBJ has much better odds than your average slot machine.

I ALWAYS break even. There's nothing wrong with these games. If I get down on my slot play, I just keep playing. The normal fluctuations you find in regular blackjack occur in this game. They have always brought me back to even, at which point I cash out. "Too many cases" is due to the increased hands per hour and your propensity to play this game; it's your perception, not reality. 12 10s in a row from an infinite deck is not remarkable, nor is losing 7 times in a row when the dealer has only a slim advantage each time (that's right, his "bust card" means you will probably lose with less than 18).

Video blackjack isn't a horrible use of free slot play, if you don't want to be bothered with VP, assuming the VBJ has decent rules no 2-FOR-1 blackjack. Certainly much better than slots.

What I would like to know is how you accumulate your free slot play to begin with? Usually free slot play is a result of playing through a certain amount of money on a machine to begin with, although it can be the result of a promotion or something. Most places if you only play table games, you are not 'rewarded' in free slot play, but rather free table bet coupons or matchplay coupons.

Quote: JuniorWiz

But, theoretically, I guess I should never play it. I guess I am also trying to prove to the world that it cheats.

Said every gambling addict ever

Quote: Sonuvabish

I ALWAYS break even. There's nothing wrong with these games. If I get down on my slot play, I just keep playing. The normal fluctuations you find in regular blackjack occur in this game. They have always brought me back to even, at which point I cash out.

Umm... what?

There's nothing wrong with playing through your freeplay on these games -- it's an easy way to play it off, and learning VP stategy does take some time (although, not very much time -- if you can find one machine with a good paytable and just learn the strategy for that, you might do better)

But why on earth would you chase losses on a game that is -EV? If you have $100 freeplay and after playing it off you are down to $75, that is $75 of real money. Playing a -EV game to try to get that $75 to $100 makes no sense whatsoever, for an AP.

Sorry, but this "normal fluctuations bringing me back to even" stuff is just gambler's fallacy. This is the same crap that the negative progression baccarat degenerates say.

You are not "due" to "get back to even" just because you had some bad hands. All you are doing is playing real money (it's not freeplay at this point) at a -EV game... no different from the ploppies.

I have to say, I enjoy reading your posts and you obviously know a lot about blackjack, but this burning desire to always get back to even no matter what is a really, really bad thing. It is going to hurt you at some point, if it hasn't already. You also said in another thread that "you aren't gambling", which, I think plays into this.

I think that if you accept that you ARE gambling, and you WILL lose some time, and you don't need to get back to even every single time, it would help you a lot. Remember that life is one long session.

Just some advice; think about it.

Quote: kewlj

What I would like to know is how you accumulate your free slot play to begin with? Usually free slot play is a result of playing through a certain amount of money on a machine to begin with, although it can be the result of a promotion or something. Most places if you only play table games, you are not 'rewarded' in free slot play, but rather free table bet coupons or matchplay coupons.

My local casino sends you both freeplay and match play, no matter what. I guess they figure that, even if you are not a slot player, if they send you some freeplay along with your match play they might get you hooked.

Quote: kewlj

Video blackjack isn't a horrible use of free slot play, if you don't want to be bothered with VP, assuming the VBJ has decent rules no 2-FOR-1 blackjack. Certainly much better than slots.

What I would like to know is how you accumulate your free slot play to begin with? Usually free slot play is a result of playing through a certain amount of money on a machine to begin with, although it can be the result of a promotion or something. Most places if you only play table games, you are not 'rewarded' in free slot play, but rather free table bet coupons or matchplay coupons.

It is 2 for 1 I believe...isn't that the same as 1:1? The edge is probably around 2%. Horrible for blackjack. Good for a slot.

I only play blackjack. They send me slot play as a promo. I assume this is some incentive to steer me toward the slots. There is also a particular place I have been to where the casino will pay reimburse you for the turnpike if you accumulate a nominal amount of slot points--10 hours of table games won't do the trick.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Umm... what?

There's nothing wrong with playing through your freeplay on these games -- it's an easy way to play it off, and learning VP stategy does take some time (although, not very much time -- if you can find one machine with a good paytable and just learn the strategy for that, you might do better)

But why on earth would you chase losses on a game that is -EV? If you have $100 freeplay and after playing it off you are down to $75, that is $75 of real money. Playing a -EV game to try to get that $75 to $100 makes no sense whatsoever, for an AP.

Sorry, but this "normal fluctuations bringing me back to even" stuff is just gambler's fallacy. This is the same crap that the negative progression baccarat degenerates say.

You are not "due" to "get back to even" just because you had some bad hands. All you are doing is playing real money (it's not freeplay at this point) at a -EV game... no different from the ploppies.

I have to say, I enjoy reading your posts and you obviously know a lot about blackjack, but this burning desire to always get back to even no matter what is a really, really bad thing. It is going to hurt you at some point, if it hasn't already. You also said in another thread that "you aren't gambling", which, I think plays into this.

I think that if you accept that you ARE gambling, and you WILL lose some time, and you don't need to get back to even every single time, it would help you a lot. Remember that life is one long session.

Just some advice; think about it.

LOL. I always break-even. I am not suggesting I always will.

Normal fluctuations are not gambler's fallacy. They are a fact of the game. I am not due to win. Observation of blackjack should lead anyone to conclude there are ups and downs. I bet 2x the minimum when surrender is offered, 1x when it is not. Most often, I am betting 50 cents per hand. I am usually playing a $25 free play. I have thousands in my bankroll. I don't see what is wrong with assuming I will at some point end up even (after using the freeplay). Statistically, it is almost certain. If I get too far down, which has never happened, I can cut my losses and say "oh I actually managed to lose my freeplay, maybe I shouldn't put in my own money to try and get it back."

Yes, I do have a desire to get to even. This has negative consequences like exposing my play. And to some extent, I am gambling with my free-play. But it is free, and so far, I have gotten better results than EV suggests by refusing to lose. I won't go so far as to advocate it is a mathematically sound strategy, but it works in some manner. I have NEVER cashed out less than the free play amount. But we aren't talking lots of money here. If I had lost all of it, it would be similarly inconsequential. This strategy is similar to the one I used when building my bankroll when I first began counting with zero bankroll. I honestly cannot explain mathematically why it tends to work (most of the time at least), or what the risks are.

I don't want to lose. Accepting that I will lose will lead to poorer results. A losing day keeps me at the table longer, and pushes my actual results closer to the expected ones. A winning day may get me off the table sooner, cashing out on high variance, before wiping the slate clean. Until cover becomes an urgent matter, I am not going to give up bread and butter. I am sure you play higher stakes than me. But I undoubtedly am more brazen. Our powers combined could summon Captain Planet.

Quote: Sonuvabish

It is 2 for 1 I believe...isn't that the same as 1:1? The edge is probably around 2%. Horrible for blackjack. Good for a slot.

I only play blackjack. They send me slot play as a promo. I assume this is some incentive to steer me toward the slots. There is also a particular place I have been to where the casino will pay reimburse you for the turnpike if you accumulate a nominal amount of slot points--10 hours of table games won't do the trick.

Yes 2 for 1 is the same as 1 to 1. That rule alone is -2.3%

I know of a bank of video blackjack in Nevada that pays 3:2 and is giving close to 2.5% freeplay for an edge of almost 2%. BTW, you can play up to $50 a hand. It is hidden and hard to find. I am only saying this because it has already been available for about 6 months and I don't know of anyone else who has found it. The freeplay % is clearly a mistake in the setup. Happy Hunting.

Quote: DRich

I know of a bank of video blackjack in Nevada that pays 3:2 and is giving close to 2.5% freeplay for an edge of almost 2%. BTW, you can play up to $50 a hand. It is hidden and hard to find. I am only saying this because it has already been available for about 6 months and I don't know of anyone else who has found it. The freeplay % is clearly a mistake in the setup. Happy Hunting.

Can you narrow it down to a city?

Quote: Sonuvabish

I don't want to lose. Accepting that I will lose will lead to poorer results.

In this case, it would lead to better results.

Quote:

A losing day keeps me at the table longer, and pushes my actual results closer to the expected ones.

Yes, exactly. And at this video blackjack game, the expected result is for you to lose. Playing a -EV game for real money (once you have cycled through the freeplay) is -EV, obviously.

Quote:

A winning day may get me off the table sooner, cashing out on high variance,

Gambler's fallacy. Life is one long session. You are not "cashing out" on anything.

This is no different from the baccarat players who say, well, if I win at the beginning, I can cash out, and if I lose, I can just keep raising my bets until I win! What could possibly go wrong?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

In this case, it would lead to better results.



Yes, exactly. And at this video blackjack game, the expected result is for you to lose. Playing a -EV game for real money (once you have cycled through the freeplay) is -EV, obviously.



Gambler's fallacy. Life is one long session. You are not "cashing out" on anything.

This is no different from the baccarat players who say, well, if I win at the beginning, I can cash out, and if I lose, I can just keep raising my bets until I win! What could possibly go wrong?

Yes, I realize the video blackjack is -EV. I was not intending to suggest, and hopefully did not suggest, that the OP use any sort of method to attempt to beat it. I was asserting my belief that these games are not rigged. 2% of a 50 cent is one penny. You may or may not have realized by now that if I lose the first bet, I am below EV. Actually, I think you helped me realize why this method works. After 50 bets, I am expected to be down by 1 bet. Chances are good I can stay even over a long period of time playing perfect strategy. I should add that I have never won more than $2.00 in addition to the free-play.

It's not the same as baccarat; that a negative EV game, regardless of strategy. I realize it's one continuous session, but I don't raise my bets in expectation that I am due to win. I precisely follow the count as I allows do, I just play longer attempting to get even. I play longer at an advantage, which tends to bear fruit in the long run--occasionally it increases a loss. When you have a huge win, you don't start losing at the table so that your results get in line with EV. It's completely independent. It may help to reiterate that I look at my winnings from week to week, combining them with my job's net income. How much did I make this week? Triple what I normally make. How much did I make that week? Exactly what I normally make. How much did I make another week? Zero. Then I call my friend and tell him hey I deposited this much into my account and have this much in my wallet, hahaha. Then he goes, well I make X dollars. Then I go, well my job pays for gas. Then he goes, well I deduct mileage. Then I go, you seriously think that's better? Then he's like, no.

I don't think this increases statistical edge. I would think it tends to increase hourly. When you are losing, staying longer at an advantage tends to even things out (especially when you go on pseudo-tilt like I sometimes do...I may start being very aggressive wonger, which I am normally not: "oh the table min is too high, I will table hop" oh that guy is an idiot, I will sit here with a PO'ed look on my face and play random hands to screw him up, if that doesn't work, I'll split 10s to show him how mad I am). High positive variance is an unlikely event unlikely to repeat.

Quote: Sonuvabish

You may or may not have realized by now that if I lose the first bet, I am below EV.

Of course you are! The same is true in baccarat, roulette, casino war, the big six wheel, keno, or any other sucker bet you can name. The house does not (yet) have a game with a 100% edge.

Quote:

Actually, I think you helped me realize why this method works. After 50 bets, I am expected to be down by 1 bet. Chances are good I can stay even over a long period of time playing perfect strategy. I should add that I have never won more than $2.00 in addition to the free-play.

It does not work. The more you play, the more you lose. That is how all -EV games work. Just because you are below expectation after one loss does not mean that you will somehow revert to expectation. That is not how reversion to mean works; that is just gambler's fallacy. The guy who is betting red on roulette and has seen 5 blacks in a row is below expectation as well, but that doesn't help him.

Quote:

It's not the same as baccarat; that a negative EV game, regardless of strategy.

So is 1:1 VBJ with reshuffles every hand. In fact, baccarat has a lower house edge. You would do better to cash out what's left of your freeplay and try to "get even" at baccarat than to keep playing VBJ.

Quote:

I realize it's one continuous session, but I don't raise my bets in expectation that I am due to win. I precisely follow the count as I allows do, I just play longer attempting to get even. I play longer at an advantage, which tends to bear fruit in the long run--occasionally it increases a loss. When you have a huge win, you don't start losing at the table so that your results get in line with EV. It's completely independent. It may help to reiterate that I look at my winnings from week to week, combining them with my job's net income. How much did I make this week? Triple what I normally make. How much did I make that week? Exactly what I normally week? How much did I make another week? Zero. Then I call my friend and tell him hey I deposited this much into my account and have this much in my wallet, hahaha. Then he goes, well I make X dollars. Then I go, well my job pays for gas. Then he goes, well I deduct mileage. Then I go, you seriously think that's better? Then he's like, no.

I am specifically talking about video blackjack here.

Playing long sessions to get even in regular blackjack has other problems, but, as long as your play doesn't deteriorate, this isn't one of them.

Sonuvabish are you an AP? Just had to ask, because half the s*** you say doesn't make sense.

Whenever you play at a disadvantage, you expect to lose. If you could just "play until I'm up 1 or 2 units" and win every time doing that.......well, I hope you can see why there is faulty logic there.

Quote: RS

Sonuvabish are you an AP? Just had to ask, because half the s*** you say doesn't make sense.

Whenever you play at a disadvantage, you expect to lose. If you could just "play until I'm up 1 or 2 units" and win every time doing that.......well, I hope you can see why there is faulty logic there.

I am breaking even on a $25 free play using 50 cent bets. I have already admitted it a -EV game and that there is some small risk of losing the free play involved, if this wasn't self-evident. Is it really hard to understand that it is very likely you will be ahead at some point, if you care enough to spend the time? AOC's points have merit. You are a troll, and I would appreciate you refrain from any future dick comments.

Quote: Sonuvabish

I am breaking even on a $25 free play using 50 cent bets. I have already admitted it a -EV game and that there is some small risk of losing the free play involved, if this wasn't self-evident. Is it really hard to understand that it is very likely you will be ahead at some point, if you care enough to spend the time? AOC's points have merit. You are a troll, and I would appreciate you refrain from any future dick comments.

Here is the thing. Say you play through $25 in freeplay and are left with $24. Now if you play until you either go broke or get up to $25, OF COURSE you are more likely to get to $25 than to go broke. But the problem is that you are risking $24 to win $1, and your chances of succeeding are less than 24/25. If you do this for long enough, you will do worse than you would have had you just cashed out the $24 each time.

Worse than that, this is valuable time that you could be using to play +EV real blackjack. It's not only the cost of the -EV play, it's also the opportunity cost. Your time has value.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Of course you are! The same is true in baccarat, roulette, casino war, the big six wheel, keno, or any other sucker bet you can name. The house does not (yet) have a game with a 100% edge.


It does not work. The more you play, the more you lose. That is how all -EV games work. Just because you are below expectation after one loss does not mean that you will somehow revert to expectation. That is not how reversion to mean works; that is just gambler's fallacy. The guy who is betting red on roulette and has seen 5 blacks in a row is below expectation as well, but that doesn't help him.


So is 1:1 VBJ with reshuffles every hand. In fact, baccarat has a lower house edge. You would do better to cash out what's left of your freeplay and try to "get even" at baccarat than to keep playing VBJ.


.

The more you play the more you lose? Not precisely true. That implies to me that I can never win. I mean never. If I lose the first hand, I cannot win the second, because I have to lose more. The way I see it is after one hand I am expected to be down one penny. After two hands, two pennies. Your statement is true, applied that way. But by losing the first bet, I am still below EV. This seemingly gives me excellent chances at some point of being ahead by one bet. And in practice I am 100% successful. I do not claim to be a mathematician who can give you an equation to prove this. Nor would I use this type of play when using my own money in a real game. This is just how I cash out my free-play. It works, or I should say for the time-being, has been working. However, I will add like before that this method was similar to what I did when I first started counting. Minimum bets with minimal spreading, small house edge, cashing out on a positive swing. I won over 87% of my sessions doing this in total (30+); early on, the number was over 90%. I kept track. How much did I win? About as much as the most I won in one night. In 300+ hours. Waste of time, except the experience in counting part.

Well, no I wouldn't be better off at baccarat. I have $24 left. Gonna go play a $5 or $10 minimum? Now variance is a concern, when it was of minimal concern before.

Quote: DRich

I know of a bank of video blackjack in Nevada that pays 3:2 and is giving close to 2.5% freeplay for an edge of almost 2%. BTW, you can play up to $50 a hand. It is hidden and hard to find. I am only saying this because it has already been available for about 6 months and I don't know of anyone else who has found it. The freeplay % is clearly a mistake in the setup. Happy Hunting.

Umm.....so listen DRich, old buddy, old pal......

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Here is the thing. Say you play through $25 in freeplay and are left with $24. Now if you play until you either go broke or get up to $25, OF COURSE you are more likely to get to $25 than to go broke. But the problem is that you are risking $24 to win $1, and your chances of succeeding are less than 24/25. If you do this for long enough, you will do worse than you would have had you just cashed out the $24 each time.

Worse than that, this is valuable time that you could be using to play +EV real blackjack. It's not only the cost of the -EV play, it's also the opportunity cost. Your time has value.

YES WE HAVE REACHED AGREEMENT! I am glad.

You neglect my bankroll exceeds $25. I may just be OCD enough to demand the machine give me that $25 regardless of how long it takes (I wouldn't, unless I was bored and waiting for something). There is no opportunity cost, not really, except maybe the liver damage I suffer as a result of popping pills from a headache the machine may cause. I will play about 10 hours. Doesn't matter what time I get there.

In addition, I don't do it THAT often. I bet someone could calculate the odds of me actually ending up worse, and they would be low.

Quote: Sonuvabish

YES WE HAVE REACHED AGREEMENT! I am glad.

You neglect my bankroll exceeds $25. I may just be OCD enough to demand the machine give me that $25 regardless of how long it takes. There is no opportunity cost, not really, except maybe the liver damage I suffer as a result of popping pills from a headache the machine may cause. I will play about 10 hours. Doesn't matter what time I get there.

In addition, I don't do it THAT often. I bet someone could calculate the odds of me actually ending up worse, and they would be low.

The odds of you actually ending up worse approach 100% as you play longer. It's a limit that approaches probability = 1 as play time goes to infinity.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

The odds of you actually ending up worse approach 100% as you play longer. It's a limit that approaches probability = 1 as play time goes to infinity.

Agreed. But my play time, combined with all future play time, is much closer to zero than infinity.

Once the $25 of free play has been converted, it's the same as cash. Say after 50 hands (of 0.5$ each), you end up with $20 in the machine. What Axiom is saying is you should cash out (which you should do, since its a -EV play). But you play until you either have $0 or $25. Let's say, hypothetically, at this point ($20 converted in the machine) you have to go. Maybe you have to go home as it's late or go to the bathroom, so you cash out. You now have $20 cash in your hand. You come back the next day....would you put that $20 into the machine to try to get to $25? If you do, you're risking actual cash (bankroll) to win on a -EV game....in other words, just gambling.

Quote: Sonuvabish

The more you play the more you lose? Not precisely true. That implies to me that I can never win. I mean never. If I lose the first hand, I cannot win the second, because I have to lose more. The way I see it is after one hand I am expected to be down one penny. After two hands, two pennies. Your statement is true, applied that way. But by losing the first bet, I am still below EV.

It is true that you are below EV, but this is completely irrelevant since the cards (virtual or otherwise) have no memory.

Again, this is no different that the baccarat player who says that, if he loses the first bet, he is well below his expected EV of 1% of a bet (or whatever it is) so he can just keep playing and quit when he is ahead.

Quote:

Nor would I use this type of play when using my own money in a real game. This is just how I cash out my free-play.

Once you have played through all the freeplay, it is your money. There is no difference between refusing to hit the cashout button when your balance is $24, and putting $24 of your own money into the machine. "House money" is a fallacy -- once you win the bet, it's your money.

Suppose that when you were at a $24 balance, you accidentally hit the cashout button. Now you have a ticket in your hand. Does it feel like your money yet? What if a waitress comes by and accidentally spills a cocktail on that ticket, so that the bill reader won't accept it. So you take it to the cage and they give you cash. Now you have $24 cash in your hands. Does it feel like your money yet? These situations are all identical -- money is fungible after all. There is no difference between $24 of credit in the machine and $24 of cash in your pocket. Either way, you are playing with your $24.

You seem to have a very good understanding of blackjack, but your understanding of the mathematics behind gambling seems a bit spotty. You might want to think about correcting this; it can really come back to bite you in the ass later (especially when and if you start playing for bigger stakes)

Quote: Sonuvabish

Agreed. But my play time, combined with all future play time, is much closer to zero than infinity.

But the closer you get to infinity, higher chance you're going to lose. Doesn't matter how close you are to zero.

Quote: JuniorWiz

. I say it is a pre-programmed pattern.

Since you're a Jr wiz i would guess you must be smart. Not sure why you are complaining or letting the cat out of the bag. with statements like, "I say it is a pre-programmed pattern" a wiz should be lining his pockets full of cash, since this would be highly exploitable.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

It is true that you are below EV, but this is completely irrelevant since the cards (virtual or otherwise) have no memory.

Again, this is no different that the baccarat player who says that, if he loses the first bet, he is well below his expected EV of 1% of a bet (or whatever it is) so he can just keep playing and quit when he is ahead.



Once you have played through all the freeplay, it is your money. There is no difference between refusing to hit the cashout button when your balance is $24, and putting $24 of your own money into the machine. "House money" is a fallacy -- once you win the bet, it's your money.

Suppose that when you were at a $24 balance, you accidentally hit the cashout button. Now you have a ticket in your hand. Does it feel like your money yet? What if a waitress comes by and accidentally spills a cocktail on that ticket, so that the bill reader won't accept it. So you take it to the cage and they give you cash. Now you have $24 cash in your hands. Does it feel like your money yet? These situations are all identical -- money is fungible after all. There is no difference between $24 of credit in the machine and $24 of cash in your pocket. Either way, you are playing with your $24.

You seem to have a very good understanding of blackjack, but your understanding of the mathematics behind gambling seems a bit spotty. You might want to think about correcting this; it can really come back to bite you in the ass later (especially when and if you start playing for bigger stakes)

No, I understand this. I fully realize that it's not house money, it's yours, intellectually. But there's an emotional/psychological aspect to it which makes it differ--it hurts less to lose it. I am not sure exactly if that's relevant here, but seems worth mentioning.

I don't think my understanding of the math is spotty. I am definitely no gaming math expert, but I know what is important. I know the things you are telling me, I just think we have different philosophies. You know I use a precise count. This precision leads to a precise betting amount. I have trouble not betting $1 chips on my bet. There was a point where I was absolutely compelled to do so. I seriously doubt this made my bet less accurate, although other arguments against it can be made. Have you ever had this problem? Just an example of differing philosophies.

I am playing that free play the same basic way I started counting. At a disadvantage. I didn't walk up to the machine to lose. Yes, I can cash out MY $24 instead of gambling it. But I already know I can make it $25 with high probability...in other words, I can win. In other words, I can redeem the casino offer at full value. I am compelled. It's not a gambling problem...it's just an issue. The whole $1 chips things tends to work itself out as you bet more. But these slot plays are low denominations, infrequent, and have no oversight. The issue shall continue unabated. It's not the same as a baccarat player...he is just a dummy looking for an excuse to lose. I need to win. I'm actually more reasonable when I'm tired...I may find a reason to cut my losses.

What seems odd to me, is that it seems (unless I am understanding this incorrectly) that Sonuvabish thinks the value of his $25 free play should be $25. He wants a 100% return on that $25 free play, but isn't playing a 100% return game.

When my free play comes in for the month, say we have $6000 in free play between 20 or so casinos and at least 2 accounts at each. I expect a return of 95% on that $6000 or $5700. Theoretically, playing full pay JoB is 99.5%, but there are some places that we play that don't offer full pay JoB and we have to play 8/6 or 9/5 and even a couple places that we have to play bonus @ 8/5. So you add it all up and lets just say average 99% return. Now the royal is worth 2% of the total payback. So if you hit a Royal (or two) that month, sure total payback will be over 100%, but if you don't you can reasonably expect 97ish %. I allow just a hair for my partner (business- just so we are not confused) making a couple mistakes along the way strategy-wise, as well as malfunctioning machines (you hit save on a Q and for some reason it doesn't save), and these malfunctioning machines are unfortunately too common. :( So 95%, is a good conservative number to expect, long-term from free play. But if we don't get that, we don't chase. You play the free play and not a single extra spin (as far as playing through the free play).

Quote: kewlj

What seems odd to me, is that it seems (unless I am understanding this incorrectly) that Sonuvabish thinks the value of his $25 free play should be $25. He wants a 100% return on that $25 free play, but isn't playing a 100% return game.

When my free play comes in for the month, say we have $6000 in free play between 20 or so casinos and at least 2 accounts at each. I expect a return of 95% on that $6000 or $5700. Theoretically, playing full pay JoB is 99.5%, but there are some places that we play that don't offer full pay JoB and we have to play 8/6 or 9/5 and even a couple places that we have to play bonus @ 8/5. So you add it all up and lets just say average 99% return. Now the royal is worth 2% of the total payback. So if you hit a Royal (or two) that month, sure total payback will be over 100%, but if you don't you can reasonably expect 97ish %. I allow just a hair for my partner (business- just so we are not confused) making a couple mistakes along the way strategy-wise, as well as malfunctioning machines (you hit save on a Q and for some reason it doesn't save), and these malfunctioning machines are unfortunately too common. :( So 95%, is a good conservative number to expect, long-term from free play. But if we don't get that, we don't chase. You play the free play and not a single extra spin (as far as playing through the free play).

If I had $6000 in free-play, I am 100% sure I would invent a new approach to avoid risk and time-wasting. We are talking $25. And no, I think the value of my free is $24...which is why $25 is winning.

Quote: kewlj

What seems odd to me, is that it seems (unless I am understanding this incorrectly) that Sonuvabish thinks the value of his $25 free play should be $25. He wants a 100% return on that $25 free play, but isn't playing a 100% return game.

When my free play comes in for the month, say we have $6000 in free play between 20 or so casinos and at least 2 accounts at each. I expect a return of 95% on that $6000 or $5700. Theoretically, playing full pay JoB is 99.5%, but there are some places that we play that don't offer full pay JoB and we have to play 8/6 or 9/5 and even a couple places that we have to play bonus @ 8/5. So you add it all up and lets just say average 99% return. Now the royal is worth 2% of the total payback. So if you hit a Royal (or two) that month, sure total payback will be over 100%, but if you don't you can reasonably expect 97ish %. I allow just a hair for my partner (business- just so we are not confused) making a couple mistakes along the way strategy-wise, as well as malfunctioning machines (you hit save on a Q and for some reason it doesn't save), and these malfunctioning machines are unfortunately too common. :( So 95%, is a good conservative number to expect, long-term from free play. But if we don't get that, we don't chase. You play the free play and not a single extra spin (as far as playing through the free play).

Damn I really need to look into this freeplay stuff. Most I ever had was $25.

Quote: RS

But the closer you get to infinity, higher chance you're going to lose. Doesn't matter how close you are to zero.

True. What I meant to say that was if infinity was defined as a finite amount of hours, such as a centillion hours, I would be closer to zero. I had to take calc twice, but aced finite math.

KJ, I believe 8/5 Bonus Poker has a higher return than 9/5 or 8/6 JoB. Why would you play either of the two JoB games when just about every store has 8/5 Bonus?

Quote: geoff

Damn I really need to look into this freeplay stuff. Most I ever had was $25.

Yeah, but the free play is the "reward". There are 'costs' associated with generating free play and other bonus amounts. I wish this were all profit. :-)

Quote: Sonuvabish

True. What I meant to say that was if infinity was defined as a finite amount of hours, such as a centillion hours, I would be closer to zero. I had to take calc twice, but aced finite math.

Then don't think of it as necessarily approaching infinity. Starting at 0, as you approach 10 spins, your chance of loss increases. As you approach 100 spins, your chance of loss increases.

In a -EV game you don't need to hit the long run to lose. After 500 hands, you are more likely to be a loser, even though 500 is closer to 0 than it is to 10,000.

Quote: geoff

Can you narrow it down to a city?

I could, but I won't. A few people on this site know me and may be able to narrow it down.

Quote: RS

Then don't think of it as necessarily approaching infinity. Starting at 0, as you approach 10 spins, your chance of loss increases. As you approach 100 spins, your chance of loss increases.

In a -EV game you don't need to hit the long run to lose. After 500 hands, you are more likely to be a loser, even though 500 is closer to 0 than it is to 10,000.

I realize it increases with each wager. After 500 hands, my EV is negative $5. 1 max bet and a little luck and I'm a winner. I don't know how to calculate infinity limits, nor am I going to argue that the math is wrong. But it's $25 folks. And each trial is independent. It will be OK.

Quote: DRich

I could, but I won't. A few people on this site know me and may be able to narrow it down.

The only way to keep a secret is to say nothing.

I'd love to know the location of this machine, but I think you know that you must keep it to yourself.

And how does one count at VBJ?

Quote: JuniorWiz

And how does one count at VBJ?

In almost every video blackjack game, there is a full shuffle after every hand. Counting is not effective.

Some video blackjack allows for composition dependent strategy, however.

If your goal is to run coin-in with reasonably high return, the strategy is easier to learn at VBJ than VP, and the variance is lower.