Single Coin VP Math

No one who is even slightly interested in profiting from video poker would play anything less than max coins. The only advantage to single coin play is increased seat time. Or is it?

In the majority of the casinos where we play, the single coin odds at a higher denomination are often better than max coins at a lower denomination. Let's take Cherokee for example. The single line max coin (5) quarter Deuces Wild odds at that casino are 97.055%. If you play max coin (5) dollars, the game odds are 98.9%. If you play single coin dollars, the odds are 97.686%. By playing single coin dollar VP, you gain .631% making single coin dollars a significantly better game than max coin (5) quarters. Both games are significantly negative, so both games are long term losers.

Variance is important to a recreational player. 9/6 Jacks is often given as an example of a low variance game. The variance of 9/6 Jacks at max coins (5) is 19.5 per coin. The variance of the dollar Deuces Wild game above at max coins (5) is 25.6 per coin. The variance of the dollar game above at single coin is 12.2. The lower variance is due to the change in strategy from max coins to single coin.

If you find this subject boring, I am sorry. At least you could acknowledge that most players don't play with an advantage. They are struggling through a maze of games all designed to transfer the most amount of their money to the casino. Playing like you have an advantage when you don't is doing exactly what the casino wants you to do.

That's nice that you cherry picked a single situation in a single casino where you get a higher edge playing single coin higher denom. Do a full inventory at that casino and it won't be the case. Do an inventory across multiple casinos and it won't be the case.

It just plain isn't usual for the next denomination up to be a 2%+ better game. Obviously in some instances it is. Those are unusual exceptions.

Your variance argument is completely unrelated to your lower house advantage argument.

Obviously most players don't play with an advantage. It's in their best interest financially to short coin the lowest denomination if they play at all. But this "tool" of playing a single coin at a higher denomination just isn't extremely useful in the real world, except in very limited circumstances. You seem to think it's the holy grail of reducing the house advantage for the common man, when in reality it's totally useless to the vast majority of gamblers.

I get it ... your casino cripples the 5 cent paytables. Yes, playing single quarters produces a lower house advantage in your instance. Your case ISN'T COMMON AT ALL.

I like sausage with my spam. Other prefer eggs and spam. Still others dislike spam. Some , I suspect, am sick of spam. Variance in action.

Quote: sabre

That's nice that you cherry picked a single situation in a single casino where you get a higher edge playing single coin higher denom. Do a full inventory at that casino and it won't be the case. Do an inventory across multiple casinos and it won't be the case.

Video Poker, like politics is local. The exact same Deuces Wild example as I have given occurs at most of the Florida casinos. It's the norm in Biloxi Mississippi and both the Cherokee and Murphy casinos in North Carolina. Players in Vegas probably see this on the Strip. The last time I was at the MGM, those were the odds. Can you find better games? Sure. Are they everywhere, sadly no.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

No one who is even slightly interested in profiting from video poker would play anything less than max coins. The only advantage to single coin play is increased seat time. Or is it?

In the majority of the casinos where we play, the single coin odds at a higher denomination are often better than max coins at a lower denomination. Let's take Cherokee for example. The single line max coin (5) quarter Deuces Wild odds at that casino are 97.055%. If you play max coin (5) dollars, the game odds are 98.9%. If you play single coin dollars, the odds are 97.686%. By playing single coin dollar VP, you gain .631% return making single coin dollars the better game. Both games are significantly negative, so both games are losers.

Wasn't there a thread, or perhaps multiple threads, in which this exact scenario has already been discussed?

Quote:

Variance also is important to a recreational player. 9/6 Jacks is often given as an example of a low variance game. The variance of 9/6 Jacks at max coins (5) is 19.5 per coin. The variance of the dollar Deuces Wild game above at max coins (5) is 25.6 per coin. The variance of the dollar game above at single coin is 12.2. The lower variance is due to the change in strategy from max coins to single coin.

The lower variance is due to the fact that royals pay substantially less relative to your bet. It should also be noted that, when playing a negative expectation game, lower variance basically means that the player is going to approach the, "Long-run," more quickly. In other words, on average, it will take substantially fewer hands to get to the point where a player is all but guaranteed to be showing a loss because the player is not getting 800-FOR-1 on any of his/her bets.

There is a change in strategy, that's correct, but that's not the main component responsible for the change in variance.

Here's an example:

If you look here:

http://www.beatingbonuses.com/simulator.htm

I took Jacks or Better with a 1,000 unit deposit (0 bonus) and 5,000 wagering with a bet size of five units. In other words, it's going to play 1,000 hands. The probability of some sort of gain at the end of that time is 34.05% and 0.11% busted out completely.

I will now do the same thing, except the 5,000 wagering will be bets of one unit, so let's see what happens. Obviously, we are modifying the Royal payout to 250:

The average return plummets from about -25 to -93 (rounded), the probability of showing a gain drops to 25.86%, though the probability of busting, I grant you, does go down to 0.00% based on 10,000 simulations.

Now, let's take this same concept, except now we're going to bet a total of 50,000 units instead of 5,000.

With the full pay 9/6 Jacks, we're going to see a probability of bust at 65.33% while the probability of showing a gain looks to be 21.7%. Now, when we bet the same 50,000 on single units with a 250 royal, the probability of busting is still lower at 53.74%, but the probability of showing some sort of profit is reduced to 4.37%.

100K total credits bet, Gain is about 17% and bust is 80% on the full pay five bet. At this point (actually, some point before this) the probability of busting out the initial $1,000 is actually MORE likely betting a single credit with the 250 royal and the probability of some sort of gain drops to 0.71% with a bust rate of about 92.5%.

So, over a long enough period of time, what you are doing starts to fail (bust rate) even in terms of the reason why you are doing it. In fact, what you are doing fails more quickly because the difference in house edge is not as great as in the example I am using, which is just 9/6 jacks all the way.

Quote:

If you find this subject boring, I am sorry. At least you could acknowledge that most players don't play with an advantage. They are struggling through a maze of games all designed to extract the most amount of their money as possible. Playing like you have an advantage when you don't is doing exactly what the casino wants you to do.

There is nobody here who disputes that most players do not play with an advantage. If they consider themselves, "Struggling," then they should quit playing and would thereby lose nothing with an expected loss of nothing and a house edge of non-existent. I don't think very many of these players at all perceive themselves as having an advantage.

I have no interest in debating again what has already been debated. If you want to know about the math behind stuff, do me a favor and just ask that without the usual accompaniment of bizarre straw man positions to argue things that nobody (or almost nobody) has ever said.

I agree the best way to avoid both scenarios is to not play. Obviously this doesn't deter many people. This same question is being asked all over the country. Is it better to play a bad game at a smaller denomination with max coins or a slightly better game with single coin at a bigger denomination?

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I agree the best way to avoid both scenarios is to not play. Obviously this doesn't deter many people. This same question is being asked all over the country. Is it better to play a bad game at a smaller denomination with max coins or a slightly better game with single coin at a bigger denomination?

I don't think most people who do play concern themselves with this subject to quite this extent. I don't know what you're talking about with, "All over the country," I have had literally nobody ask me this particular question in person. Further, I have probably discussed it more times in the last month with you specifically than I have discussed it on forums in my entire life prior to that.

The last question, as always, doesn't specifically ask anything. What is better? It's a meaningless question. You can ask questions such as:

What has a lower house edge?
What has a lower expected loss per hand?
What will stretch your money longer?
I want to (goal) which game gives me the greatest probability of achieving (goal)?

Asking what is, "Better," is meaningless, though I think most gamblers would just answer in terms of a lower house edge is, "Better," just because they will assume that is what you are asking. In any case, just asking what is, "Better," lacks context, so no meaningful answer can be given.

Quote: Mission146

Asking what is, "Better," is meaningless, though I think most gamblers would just answer in terms of a lower house edge is, "Better," just because they will assume that is what you are asking. In any case, just asking what is, "Better," lacks context, so no meaningful answer can be given.

I totally agree, "Better" can have different definitions depending on the player. If "Better" when playing a negative video poker game is defined as reducing the long term cost per hand, isn't gaining a half percent by playing single coin dollars vs max coin quarters better?

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I totally agree, "Better" can have different definitions depending on the player. If "Better" when playing a negative video poker game is defined as reducing the long term cost per hand, isn't gaining a half percent by playing single coin dollars vs max coin quarters better?

Yes. And, if that is the definition of, "Better," then the definition of, "Best," would be not to play at all.

Also, nickels, one coin, probably.

Quote: Mission146

Yes. And, if that is the definition of, "Better," then the definition of, "Best," would be not to play at all.

Also, nickels, one coin, probably.

For sure. Most players don't play video poker just to watch the numbers flash by. They all want something to happen. I have spoken with people who can't get excited about gambling unless there are big stakes involved. Others are just as happy with a $50 quad deuce. The example I gave above shows that playing single coin dollars at some casinos costs less than playing max coin quarters. To get this benefit you must be able to accept a $250 royal. This is unacceptable to most players, so they choose to pay more for their royals. It's their money, so they play the way that gives them what they want.

Variance

One more thing that I feel the need to make sure that you and everyone understands is that you said this:

Quote:

Variance is important to a recreational player. 9/6 Jacks is often given as an example of a low variance game. The variance of 9/6 Jacks at max coins (5) is 19.5 per coin. The variance of the dollar Deuces Wild game above at max coins (5) is 25.6 per coin. The variance of the dollar game above at single coin is 12.2. The lower variance is due to the change in strategy from max coins to single coin.

(Quote clipped, relevance)

That statement is extremely misleading and is only minimally even true.

The variance is reduced primarily because the royal flush pays less than it normally would. Even if you played the same exact strategy as if the royal paid 800-FOR-1 (even though the short coin pays 250-FOR-1) your variance would be reduced as compared to max betting. The return-to-player would be lower playing a non-optimal short coin strategy, but the variance would still also be lower.

You change your strategy because the natural royal flush becomes less important due to the fact that it pays 250-FOR-1 rather than 800-FOR-1---so you prioritize other hands when making decisions---but the strategy change itself has less to do (percentage-wise) with the reduced variance than does the fact that the royal pays 3.2x less relative to the bet amount.

Great subject. I believe variance is one of the most important factors when choosing a video poker game. I can't speak for APs on this as I can hardly ever play with an advantage. I have played a lot of single coin deuces wild. With the same money, I can play single coin VP significantly longer than the same game with max coins. This is partly due to the bet being smaller per hand. It is also due to the fact that a completely new hand in deuces wild often has more value than going for a royal. When I play single coin deuces wild, the software tells me to rarely hold two cards to a royal without a deuce. If I am dealt 4 to a flush with three cards to a royal, it also tells me when to hold all four cards. This does not happen with max coins and never happens in Jacks or Better.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

Great subject. I believe variance is one of the most important factors when choosing a video poker game. I can't speak for APs on this as I can hardly ever play with an advantage.

Depending on bankroll, some AP's would be virtually unconcerned with variance.

Quote:

I have played a lot of single coin deuces wild. With the same money, I can play single coin VP significantly longer than the same game with max coins.

That's generally true, and again, if that's your primary goal. The reason I say, "Generally true," is because it is only true to a point. Again, comparing 9/6 Jacks or Better to 9/6 Jacks or Better with a short royal on the same simulator, I find:

$1,000 bankroll, $250,000 coin-in, $1 bets, 250,000 hands---0/10000 of these guys are still playing, they've all busted out.

$1,000 bankroll, $1,250,000 coin-in, $5 bets, 250,000 hands---338/10000 of these guys are still playing, hell, 334 of them are still ahead overall.

Anyway, it won't even take that many hands with what you are proposing because, not only is the house edge against the player greater than in these examples, but also because there is less of a difference between one house edge and the other.

So, your statement is both true and not true. It could be true for a session, but over a long enough period of time, the players of the lower house edge game with the increased variance will still be going...even across the same number of hands. Eventually, they'll all bust out, but yeah.

Now, if you're talking about popping $50 in, then yes, I agree, one will generally last more hands betting $1 than betting $5 per hand, even with a short-coin royal.

Actually, we can even do that with Jacks or Better:

$50 bankroll, 100,000 hands, $500,000 coin-in, $5 bets---32/10000 players still going, all of whom are ahead. Our luckiest player is ahead well over 18 grand.

$50 bankroll, 100,000 hands, $100,000 coin in, $1 bets---5/10000, somehow still going

So, even your statement is qualifiable by how long of a time period are we looking at? That is to ask, how many hands are we talking about lifetime?

In the shortest possible run, you're obviously correct. Someone with a $50 bankroll can bust out in ten hands on max betting which is clearly not even possible for the person betting $1 per hand. In fact, on average, about 23 of 10,000 players will have the misfortune of losing ten hands right off the bat with max betting and their days are done, unless they want to break out more money. For our $50 player even betting a total of $50, it's nearly impossible for him to lose fifty hands in a row.

Depending on the period of time in question and starting bankroll, our low variance player will even show a greater probability of profit and reduced probability of busting out compared to our player with the greater variance and lesser house edge, but that will all change over time.

When it comes to a potential for profit over a long enough period of time, on a negative expectation game (all else relatively equal) variance is your friend. A zero variance game would be you just lose whatever the house edge is every single play. You hand me $100 and I'll give you back $99, we can play that game all day long...but the point is that you have zero chance of winning.

Quote:

This is partly due to the bet being smaller per hand. It is also due to the fact that a completely new hand in deuces wild often has more value than going for a royal.

I don't know why this is relevant. I want to say that a completely new hand in deuces wild often has more value than a majority of the hands that you would make a hold, depending on the paytable. Some deuces wild games, holding a deuce by itself is barely better than is the starting (pre deal) value of the next hand.

Quote:

When I play single coin deuces wild, the software tells me to rarely hold two cards to a royal without a deuce.

Obviously. I think King-anything ceases to ever be a hold, for one thing. Maybe KQ in an extremely rare situation that probably depends on how the straight flush pays, but probably usually not...just shooting from the hip. Q-10 is certainly less often, probably depending on straight and/or flush penalty cards that are being thrown away. I imagine J-10 is probably still almost always a hold, maybe always, as opposed to throwing all away because of the straight flush possibility. I don't know for sure, but I bet QJ is an extremely tricky one when it comes to how penalty cards come into play.

Quote:

If I am dealt 4 to a flush with three cards to a royal, it also tells me when to hold all four cards. This does not happen with max coins and never happens in Jacks or Better.

Well, yeah, because the difference in what a flush pays and what a royal pays is less. I also should point out that some DW games pay 2-FOR-1 on the flush, so it would probably still be three to a royal on those, even with the short royal.

For some reason, you think the reduced variance is due to the change in strategy as opposed to the change to the royal and, again, that is only partially true. For one, the strategy changes BECAUSE the royal pay changes, otherwise the strategy wouldn't change. Granted, both are going to reduce variance, but:

Single-Coin strategy, bet five coins:

vs.

Full-coin strategy, betting one coin:

The second one is going to change the variance significantly more than the first one will. The royal dictates the variance. Look at 9/6 Jacks and drop the royal to 250, the four-of-a-kind now has more variance than the royal does.

Thanks for the reply. I find the discussion of variance interesting. I don't expect everyone here will. I can tell you from experience, one of the biggest concerns the average video poker player has is busting. No other factor causes more angst. Very few players have an unlimited bankroll. Even if their limit is not financial, it is often psychological.

I drive an hour and forty five minutes to and the same amount back to my closest casino. I do not wish to run out of money in 30 minutes. I can prevent this by increasing my bankroll or decreasing my coin-in. I am not going to win every time. If I lose $200 on any given day, I am not adversely affected. If I lose $500 or more, I feel like a fool. Personally, I would rather lose a little money long term than stomach big losses and make a long term profit. I don't believe I am alone in this.

Quote: billryan

I like sausage with my spam. Other prefer eggs and spam. Still others dislike spam. Some , I suspect, am sick of spam. Variance in action.

For the first time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like SingleCoinVP—block SingleCoinVP and don't visit SingleCoinVP's threads. What is so complicated about it?

Quote: FTB

For the first time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like SingleCoinVP—block SingleCoinVP and don't visit SingleCoinVP's threads. What is so complicated about it?

What a concept! Makes perfect sense to me.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

Thanks for the reply. I find the discussion of variance interesting. I don't expect everyone here will. I can tell you from experience, one of the biggest concerns the average video poker player has is busting. No other factor causes more angst. Very few players have an unlimited bankroll. Even if their limit is not financial, it is often psychological.

No problem. I clearly found it interesting enough to participate, but also to correct the misconception that it is the change in strategy that is primarily responsible for the reduced variance rather than what the change in the royal pays.

Quote:

I drive an hour and forty five minutes to and the same amount back to my closest casino. I do not wish to run out of money in 30 minutes. I can prevent this by increasing my bankroll or decreasing my coin-in. I am not going to win every time. If I lose $200 on any given day, I am not adversely affected. If I lose $500 or more, I feel like a fool. Personally, I would rather lose a little money long term than stomach big losses to make a profit. I don't believe I am alone in this.

That's going to be true if you're looking at things in terms of a, "Session," or what have you. Over the course of your life, you probably would have had a better chance at an overall profit by playing the same number of hands at max coin based on the number of hands you say you have played. I think you said tens of thousands of hands per year, or something to that effect?

I also believe when you compare betting $1.25 with a greater house edge than short-coining and betting $1.00 at a slightly reduced house edge (but also a royal that pays $250 as opposed to $1,000) you will reach a point (coin-in) where the $1.25 player has a higher probability of being ahead, but I would have to know the exact paytables and run the simulations to determine when exactly that point is. This likely fact is also a function of variance.

It has also been mentioned that most video poker in most casinos is not such that single-coining a $1 game is going to have a lower house edge than max betting quarters, though I will admit that I have seen this myself. I think the example I can name is that a casino I have seen has 9/6 jacks for dollars and a short-coin bet (98.3735%) was better (house edge) than the best game that was available for quarters. I want to say all of the quarters games were below 98% with a max bet, but I couldn't swear to it. Again, this is the exception rather than the rule.

Speaking of exceptions, make sure to take a look at SPIN POKER games in your travels. It's not typical, but sometimes the games are set to return 800-FOR-1 on a single coin bet for the royal. On those rare occasions, you could play one coin, one line if you wanted to and it wouldn't cost you anything from a house edge standpoint. Again, don't expect to find this, (I have only discovered it in two different places) but it's worth looking for since this is a high priority for you.

Quote: Mission146

Speaking of exceptions, make sure to take a look at SPIN POKER games in your travels. It's not typical, but sometimes the games are set to return 800-FOR-1 on a single coin bet for the royal. On those rare occasions, you could play one coin, one line if you wanted to and it wouldn't cost you anything from a house edge standpoint. Again, don't expect to find this, (I have only discovered it in two different places) but it's worth looking for since this is a high priority for you.

At one time, Gulfstream Park, a Miami Racino, had an 800 coin royal single coin game. We played there exclusively for some time. It didn't last. I expect few players realized what it meant to them. I have a friend who plays VP in Connecticut. He tells me there is an single coin 800 coin royal game there now.

We travel and play video poker all over the country. Most video poker today is about balancing cost with entertainment value. If you play VP in Vegas, you are fortunate.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

At one time, Gulfstream Park, a Miami Racino, had an 800 coin royal single coin game. We played there exclusively for some time. It didn't last. I expect few players realized what it meant to them. I have a friend who plays VP in Connecticut. He tells me there is an single coin 800 coin royal game there now.

We travel and play video poker all over the country. Most video poker today is about balancing cost with entertainment value. If you play VP in Vegas, you are fortunate.

I'm guessing that enough players realized it that they didn't last.

I don't play VP in Vegas and, in the rare event that I do play VP, I'm playing it at an advantage due either to the fact that I am playing a vulturable game or because I expect future offers (free play) to exceed my expected loss on whatever the paytable is and coin-in needed. Basically, the same fundamental concept as you mentioned doing to get your hotel rooms.

I am aware of one set of Spin Poker games around me (as of a couple of months ago) that pay 800-for-1 on the Royal. The games are not as strong as 9/6 Jacks or Better, though, but they are games that exceed 98%. I see that they are not listed on VPFree2.com, and I am certainly not going to be the one to put them there.

Quote: Mission146

I see that they are not listed on VPFree2.com, and I am certainly not going to be the one to put them there.

We have found VPFree2.com to be notoriously inaccurate. For years we would travel to a particular casino because they had a certain game listed on their website only to find it no longer existed. We haven't used it in years, so it may be better now.

Most video poker players we know are looking for more than vulturing or big progressives. They want to play a positive game that lasts for more than a limited amount of time. Comps are important to us. Hotel rooms in South Florida, Colorado and the Smokies are expensive. I'm convinced they will do anything to get you to play in Mississippi. They can keep their airfare and comped rooms. All we want is a 99% quarter video poker game. There were still a few of them left at the IP last year. At the present time, there are a few of these games left in Florida, but you have to look for them. If you want to drive out into the Everglades, the little Immokalee casino has good games. Watch out for the gators.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

We have found VPFree2.com to be notoriously inaccurate. For years we would travel to a particular casino because they had a certain game listed on their website only to find it no longer existed. We haven't used it in years, so it may be better now.

No idea, no need, know how to read a paytable. I could see where it might be useful in Vegas, or something. I don't know if people are necessarily as eager to take away games from there as they seem to be to add them.

Most of the areas I go, if you find a good paytable, it's probably a mistake someone made...so I would be hesitant to list anything that I stumble upon on VPFree2. I can say that, if you look at a 200 mile radius or so, they either have missed or are missing several 98%+ games.

Quote:

Most video poker players we know are looking for more than vulturing or big progressives. They want to play a positive game that lasts for more than a limited amount of time. Comps are important to us. Hotel rooms in South Florida, Colorado and the Smokies are expensive. I'm convinced they will do anything to get you to play in Mississippi. They can keep their airfare and comped rooms. All we want is a 99% quarter video poker game. There were still a few of them left at the IP last year. At the present time, there are a few of these games left in Florida, but you have to look for them. If you want to drive out into the Everglades, the little Immokalee casino has good games. Watch out for the gators.

Okay, if that's what they want, then they clearly need to go somewhere else. However, I will say that the plays predicated on offers can last for a significant amount of time, require several visits and the playing of several hands.

I don't know anything about the casino scene in Florida specifically and I know very little about the casino scene anywhere in the south.

Quote: FTB

For the first time, let me offer a radical idea to those of you who don't like SingleCoinVP—block SingleCoinVP and don't visit SingleCoinVP's threads. What is so complicated about it?

and we could do that with just about anything or anyone on these forums and just let it get overrun and run wild with dice setters, Sports touts, hit and run system guys and all the other bunk methods touts out there.

Most people are going to do what they're going to do, however, once in awhile someone comes along reads all the arguments and information and they realize how the stuff actually works.

I'm sure this site is full of guys who at one time where big ploppies or people who thought systems might actually work who are now the total opposite of that after reading thread similar to this.

I play Pai Gow poker at a $10 table. I sometimes bet $25. I FREAKING KNOW THAT I AM NOT BETTING OPTIMALLY BY NOT BETTING A "Single coin".

This thread is not substantively different from your last thread stating THE SAME THING.
REPEATEDLY
OVER AND OVER AGAIN
REITERATIVELY
SYNONYMOUSLY
Etc....

I DO NOT dispute the fact that the average Joe would do 'better' from a $EV standpoint betting a single coin.

WE GET IT!



Sorry. Rant over.

I absolutely love these threads to be honest. Phil's lugubriousness and his deft way of weaving claims of victimhood with sotto voce* insults make for a unique and fascinating character. Every new Phil thread is like an early Christmas present - what inimitable mixture of hypocrisy and rationalizing degeneracy will we find today?




* I reluctantly settled on this term. "Passive-aggressive" seems too clinical to me. I would like to say "backhanded insults" but there apparently is no such phrase.

Quote: SOOPOO

I play Pai Gow poker at a $10 table. I sometimes bet $25. I FREAKING KNOW THAT I AM NOT BETTING OPTIMALLY BY NOT BETTING A "Single coin".

This thread is not substantively different from your last thread stating THE SAME THING.
REPEATEDLY
OVER AND OVER AGAIN
REITERATIVELY
SYNONYMOUSLY
Etc....

I DO NOT dispute the fact that the average Joe would do 'better' from a $EV standpoint betting a single coin.

WE GET IT!



Sorry. Rant over.

So now we have two people from Florida(one is no longer a member here) who like to start multiple threads who talked in circles and say the same thing over and over again and have an excuse for everything.

Quote: smurgerburger

I absolutely love these threads to be honest. Phil's lugubriousness and his deft way of weaving claims of victimhood with sotto voce* insults make for a unique and fascinating character. Every new Phil thread is like an early Christmas present - what inimitable mixture of hypocrisy and rationalizing degeneracy will we find today?

I'm glad you enjoy them as much as I enjoy posting them. There is so much diversity among video poker players that it's easy to annoy or inflame someone. What I grow tired of is intolerant people who believe their way is the only way the game should be played.

I have learned more on this forum in a couple of months than I have learned on some other forums in ten years. I learned that there are people who profit playing the game. I learned how they do it and why their way won't work for me. Not because of the games or any mental or physical shortcoming, because I don't wish to do what they do. I am not going to wait around looking to pounce on a profitable opportunity. I am not going to suffer through huge financial downturns waiting for a profit. I hate losing more than I enjoy winning. Fortunately, I am not relying on video poker to pay my bills.

I enjoy the game as a game. It doesn't matter to me if I win or lose as long as losing doesn't hurt and I have a good time while I am doing it. I hate leaving my home with my wallet filled with hundred dollar bills and coming home with it empty. To keep this from happening, I play small enough so losses don't hurt me and big enough so I have a chance at something meaningful. $250 royals spend just the same as max coin quarter quad deuces. It's all good.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind, write a book or sell you a strategy. I want you to know there are intelligent successful people who don't care if they profit from video poker. If you do, we are happy for you.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

What I grow tired of is intolerant people who believe their way is the only way the game should be played.

I learned how they do it and why their way won't work for me.

Nobody is intolerant and believe their way is the only way to play. No one cares how YOU play VP. Some might think your way is stupid, but we really don't care that you play a quarter of a million hands a year and lose thousands by doing what would be considered by most people one of the most boring wasteful time consuming things ever.

We grow tired of hearing the same thing over and over all while junking up the recents threads list with new threads that basically the same crap.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I learned how they do it and why their way won't work for me.

No you haven't, not even close. It's painfully obvious nothing will work for you other than what you're currently doing. We could come up with a Holy Grail in the perfect situation for you and you would still claim that wouldn't work for you for some reason or another.

The best subject you came up with was all these supposed gaffed machines you found. Let's get back on that embarrassing subject.

Quote: AxelWolf

The best subject you came up with was all these supposed gaffed machines you found. Let's get back on that embarrassing subject.

I suspect I have probably played more hands of VP in the last ten years than 95% of the members of this forum have in a lifetime. I have never seen any video poker machine that I suspected was "gaffed" until I saw what I saw in AC. The floor manager could have easily come over and proved me wrong. He chose not to. You can draw your own conclusions. It's your money.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I suspect I have probably played more hands of VP in the last ten years than 95% of the members of this forum have in a lifetime.

And yet...

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I have never seen any video poker machine that I suspected was "gaffed" until I saw what I saw in AC. The floor manager could have easily come over and proved me wrong. He chose not to. You can draw your own conclusions. It's your money.

Would you like to take a wild guess as to what my conclusion is?

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I suspect I have probably played more hands of VP in the last ten years than 95% of the members of this forum have in a lifetime. I have never seen any video poker machine that I suspected was "gaffed" until I saw what I saw in AC. The floor manager could have easily come over and proved me wrong. He chose not to. You can draw your own conclusions. It's your money.

You could have easily proven what you saw. You chose not to. We have all drawn our own conclusions based on that

Quote: TomG

You could have easily proven what you saw. You chose not to. We have all drawn our own conclusions based on that

I concluded more than one video poker machine in this casino was malfunctioning while we were playing there. I reported the malfunction and the casino chose not to respond. I am sure our play was recorded along with the three of us standing around waiting for the manager. As a direct consequence of these malfunctions, the house edge was being increased. I did not draw a conclusion on whether the casino did or did not intentionally allowed this to occur. Whatever the cause or motive, we made the decision to play elsewhere.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I concluded more than one video poker machine in this casino was malfunctioning while we were playing there. I reported the malfunction and the casino chose not to respond. I am sure our play was recorded along with the three of us standing around waiting for the manager. As a direct consequence of these malfunctions, the house edge was being increased. I did not draw a conclusion on whether the casino did or did not intentionally allowed this to occur. Whatever the cause or motive, we made the decision to play elsewhere.

All due respect, but in no way does the above paragraph meaningfully respond to TomG’s apparent criticism.

With all due respect, if you had seen what we saw you would have done the same thing. We reported what we saw and waited for a response. No response came. We left and went to another casino.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I'm glad you enjoy them as much as I enjoy posting them. There is so much diversity among video poker players that it's easy to annoy or inflame someone. What I grow tired of is intolerant people who believe their way is the only way the game should be played.

I have learned more on this forum in a couple of months than I have learned on some other forums in ten years. I learned that there are people who profit playing the game. I learned how they do it and why their way won't work for me. Not because of the games or any mental or physical shortcoming, because I don't wish to do what they do. I am not going to wait around looking to pounce on a profitable opportunity. I am not going to suffer through huge financial downturns waiting for a profit. I hate losing more than I enjoy winning. Fortunately, I am not relying on video poker to pay my bills.

I enjoy the game as a game. It doesn't matter to me if I win or lose as long as losing doesn't hurt and I have a good time while I am doing it. I hate leaving my home with my wallet filled with hundred dollar bills and coming home with it empty. To keep this from happening, I play small enough so losses don't hurt me and big enough so I have a chance at something meaningful. $250 royals spend just the same as max coin quarter quad deuces. It's all good.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind, write a book or sell you a strategy. I want you to know there are intelligent successful people who don't care if they profit from video poker. If you do, we are happy for you.

Given the first two bolded items, why not just play for free online?

With respect to the last item, of course there are "successful intelligent people" that gamble without caring about having an edge.

Unfortunately you are not one of them. You do care that you don't have an edge which is why you constantly make posts trying to assure yourself and others that you actually prefer being a losing player.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

With all due respect, if you had seen what we saw you would have done the same thing. We reported what we saw and waited for a response. No response came. We left and went to another casino.

I would have video recorded it then called gaming.

Phil only records jackpots.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

With all due respect, if you had seen what we saw you would have done the same thing. We reported what we saw and waited for a response. No response came. We left and went to another casino.

I’m glad you’re me to know what I would have done or would not have done. Can you also tell me what I will eat for dinner tonight and what time I will go to bed?

What I would have done is obtain some sort of proof after having a relatively independent third-party witness what I was seeing. Maybe it’s, “Let’s just go to another casino,” for you...but for many of us and the industry a blatantly cheating machine from the #1 manufacturer located in a casino in the #2 local casino market would be a pretty big deal.

By, “Pretty big deal,” I mean it would probably be the biggest story in gambling circles for a few days, if proven. Which, for some reason, you seem to think a gambling writer (me) wouldn’t care about.

"Pretty Big Deal"? I agree. Why don't you ask the casino to look back at the recordings of our play that night? Ask them why they didn't respond. Have they ever had similar complaints? Do they wish to respond now? Poor machine maintenance or whatever happened that night increases the house edge.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

"Pretty Big Deal"? I agree. Why don't you ask the casino to look back at the recordings of our play that night? Ask them why they didn't respond. Have they ever had similar complaints? Do they wish to respond now? Poor machine maintenance or whatever happened that night increases the house edge.

Why doesn't he? Because there is not a SINGLE person on this forum who believes you saw what you say you did. That's why. You could have had a few believers but when you said it was happening on MULTIPLE machines, and REPEATEDLY, you lost ANY believers. What increases the house edge, unequivocally, is having players play at less than maximum coins with machines that have higher paytables for maximum coins!
I really wish we could have a psychiatrist analyze you to figure out what your motivation for posting here is...?

Quote: SOOPOO

I really wish we could have a psychiatrist analyze you to figure out what your motivation for posting here is...?

Surely the psychiatrist would quickly get a 3-day suspension.

Quote: SOOPOO

I really wish we could have a psychiatrist analyze you to figure out what your motivation for posting here is...?

I post only about what happens when I play video poker. I am just like most of the players you see only I don't claim to beat the casino. Probably because I do not let math dictate how I play. I am not alone.

How I play video poker has nothing to do with what we saw that night in AC. It happened. I have nothing against that casino. The fact is that casino is part of a large group of casinos that are kind enough to comp our rooms. There was something going on that night in that casino that was affecting our results. I asked for an explanation. I did not receive one. I reported what we saw right after it happened. A forum member asked me about it here. I responded. That's all there is.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

I post only about what happens when I play video poker. I am just like most of the players you see only I don't claim to beat the casino. Probably because I do not let math dictate how I play. I am not alone.

How I play video poker has nothing to do with what we saw that night in AC. It happened. I have nothing against that casino. The fact is that casino is part of a large group of casinos that are kind enough to comp our rooms. There was something going on that night in that casino that was affecting our results. I asked for an explanation. I did not receive one. I reported what we saw right after it happened. A forum member asked me about it here. I responded. That's all there is.

Next time call theGaming Authorities, call the local news, or get a 2341 gold key and look at the game recall yourself and take a picture.

You would think and experienced video poker player would know that if the machines we're doing what he described you should call gaming, AND YET...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure if he mentioned what year this was(I should have asked him first) but wasn't there a time where a gaming agent was on each casino property at all times in Atlantic City?

Quote: DRich

Next time call theGaming Authorities, call the local news, or get a 2341 gold key and look at the game recall yourself and take a picture.

I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and attribute what we saw to poor maintenance. Have you ever played a video poker machine with broken or malfunctioning buttons? How about a bad screen? Sometimes we search an entire row of machines before we find one without issues. All of these issues have the potential to increase the house edge.

You would need to be pretty gullible to believe this is not intentional and non of these issues would affect the results of the Regulator's RNG test as I understand it. The experts tell us not to play machines that have problems. As soon as it was discovered, we did exactly what they told us to do and left.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

You would need to be pretty gullible to believe this is not intentional and non of these issues would affect the results of the Regulator's RNG test as I understand it. The experts tell us not to play machines that have problems. As soon as it was discovered, we did exactly what they told us to do and left.

I must be very gullible, I don't believe it is intentional. You did the right thing. Anyone that doesn't trust a machine or casino should walk away.

Quote: DRich

I must be very gullible, I don't believe it is intentional. You did the right thing. Anyone that doesn't trust a machine or casino should walk away.

Thank you.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

Thank you.

Not sure it was a compliment.

Either way, could you kindly stop admitting you are from Florida? We have a big enough issue with the public’s perception of it already.

Quote: SingleCoinVP

"Pretty Big Deal"? I agree. Why don't you ask the casino to look back at the recordings of our play that night? Ask them why they didn't respond. Have they ever had similar complaints? Do they wish to respond now? Poor machine maintenance or whatever happened that night increases the house edge.

I am going to list a small sample of the reasons why I will not do that:

1.) The casino would not care to acknowledge my request. I would be requesting to review their surveillance footage on what purported authority?

2.) I would be making this request based on the findings that some random person (to me) posted on an Internet forum and did not make any effort to document.

3.) I don't know how long NJ law says they must keep the tapes, but it is quite possible that the surveillance footage does not exist anymore.

4.) The surveillance footage might not have a clear shot of the screen itself.

5.) I would have to go to Atlantic City, which is something I have no immediate plans to do.

6.) Again, I have no authority to demand to know what complaints they have had or have not had.

7.) I believe that you believe that it happened, but I don't believe that it happened.

Quote: Mission146

I believe that you believe that it happened, but I don't believe that it happened.

Fair enough. I am skeptical about many of the claims made on these forums myself. How can you expect someone to believe you if you don't produce proof or at least some documentation to back up your claims?

Quote: SingleCoinVP

Fair enough. I am skeptical about many of the claims made on these forums myself. How can you expect someone to believe you if you don't produce proof or at least some documentation to back up your claims?

Most of us don't care if anyone else believes them. I tell people that I have designed and programmed slot machines and slot systems in some capactity for the last 25 years, if they don't believe me I am not going to lose any sleep over it.