Keep the Wins

I'm a small-stakes gambler who would rather extend my sessions until I don't want to play anymore than risk big to win big and run out of money. I've also noticed that most people play until they win big (jackpot on slots, royal flush in video poker, etc.) or until they've lost all their money (more often the latter than the former). In my last trip to Vegas, I decided to try something different: Always keep what I win. As an experiment, I played Jacks or Better video poker in 25-cent machines (couldn't find 9-6 machines on the strip; best I could find was 7-5). I bet only one quarter at a time, violating the "always bet the max" maxim (I know I'm shortchanging myself if I hit a royal flush; but in 45 trips to Vegas, I've never hit one). I started by putting $5.00 in the machine and counted off as I played 20 hands (20 x $.25 = $5.00). Regardless of the outcome of the 20 hands, I cashed out what was left. I ran dozens of five-dollar bills through the machines the first day and had a net profit of $18.75 after many hours of playing (split up during the course of the day.) My thinking was that whatever remained of the original five-dollar stake was what the machine returned. The worst performance was $1.75 remaining of the $5.00 and the best was $13.25 when I hit four of a kind on the first hand and netted a few more victories as the 20 hands were played.

During my four-night, five-day stay, I tried several variations of this strategy: Sometimes I would cash out the five-dollar stake as soon as it showed a profit. For example, if the first hand I played resulted in two pairs, I would be $.25 up and cash out and start with a new five-dollar stake. I also played using dollar bills as the original stake, again cashing out if and as soon as a profit was made. During the course of my stay, I lost $62.25 and gambled as much as I cared to and was highly entertained.

Here are my questions:

1) Given that losing overall is likely, what is the optimum method for this strategy: Cashing out as soon as a profit is made, or playing through the original stake and then cashing out? At first blush, it seems like it doesn't matter, as the hands dealt by the machine will be the same regardless. However, the number of hands played will not. For example, if a dollar is put in the machine and money won on the first hand, only one hand will be played. If a dollar is put in the machine and four hands are played, the dollar may be lost, may be partially recovered, or may be significantly increased.

2) What is the optimum stake to play if the entire stake will be bet before cashing out? Is there a ratio of bet size to stake that decreases the risk and increases the reward?

3) This strategy, it seems to me, will work best in games whose paytables are skewed to smaller, higher-frequency payoffs: for example, Jacks or Better, which pays two-for-one for two pairs, as opposed to Bonus, Double Bonus, etc., which pay more for certain low-probability hands but return only one-for-one payouts for two pairs. Which video poker game is most weighted toward the bottom of the paytable?

This strategy, I believe, should be implemented by conversative players in any game they play: craps, blackjack, roulette, slots -- you name it. Playing with the house money almost always results in losing the house money and ending up with nothing.

You'll lose the same amount over time no matter how you cash into the machine. I do like this method because it makes it very easy to track short term results and manage bankroll. I usually do a slightly less busy variation with 16 plays on a $20 bill at a quarter machine, but the idea is the same.

On days when I want to keep the cashable outcome of freeplay, I'll play this way as well and cash out every win. That way, the house doesn't get back any of the free money, or any of my own. I'm toying with the idea of building a bankroll for WOVcon I using this method from now until June.

I think any of these money management systems comes down to two things:
Budgeting your money.
Budgeting your time.

Under the system you described, you may stretch out 5000 hands in 20-hand chunks over the course of a few days. Alternatively, you could play 5000 hands in one sitting very quickly. The expected loss is the same. But if you are on a 3 day vacation, the 20-hands-at-a-time is more fun.

I don't think there can be an optimal strategy for this. For recreational players on vacation (you and me), the goal is usually to stretch out the bankroll for the whole vacation while having the maximum amount of fun. Your system boils down to "play 20 hands, reset, play 20 hands, reset." If that's a good pace for you, stick with it. If you have more fun doing 50 hands at a time, do that as instead.

I have found (for me) that keeping track with these systems makes it less fun. I try to play as intelligently as possible (correct strategy at low house-edge games). If I'm up a lot, I will say "wow, I better take my money and run." and walk around and see the sights.If I'm losing to the point where it's stopped being fun, I will also move on.

If your formal system spreads 5000 hands over 3 days, and my non-sytstem also spreads 5000 hands over 3 days, our expected outcome will be identical. Go with whatever is the most fun.

On "playing intelligently as possible:" if you can find a nickel 7-5 machine, play that instead. If you DID hit that royal flush, wouldn't you rather be playing 5 nickels than 1 quarter?

At one point or another, I'm almost always am ahead by a good amount every time I go to LV. I also almost always come home a loser, because I didn't go there to stay other than the pre-planned amount of time. I think if I had the discipline to just go after my big hits I'd be all smiles today. But I don't, so I don't think it matter how you budget, play, or what you do in between. You'll more than likely lose.s

Quote: pinkycat

Here are my questions:

1) Given that losing overall is likely, what is the optimum method for this strategy: Cashing out as soon as a profit is made, or playing through the original stake and then cashing out? At first blush, it seems like it doesn't matter, as the hands dealt by the machine will be the same regardless. However, the number of hands played will not. For example, if a dollar is put in the machine and money won on the first hand, only one hand will be played. If a dollar is put in the machine and four hands are played, the dollar may be lost, may be partially recovered, or may be significantly increased.

2) What is the optimum stake to play if the entire stake will be bet before cashing out? Is there a ratio of bet size to stake that decreases the risk and increases the reward?

3) This strategy, it seems to me, will work best in games whose paytables are skewed to smaller, higher-frequency payoffs: for example, Jacks or Better, which pays two-for-one for two pairs, as opposed to Bonus, Double Bonus, etc., which pay more for certain low-probability hands but return only one-for-one payouts for two pairs. Which video poker game is most weighted toward the bottom of the paytable?

This strategy, I believe, should be implemented by conversative players in any game they play: craps, blackjack, roulette, slots -- you name it. Playing with the house money almost always results in losing the house money and ending up with nothing.

1) There is no functional difference between playing in little chunks, and playing the same number of hands all at once. The only thing that matters is the total number of hands played.

2) The smaller your bet size, the smaller your risk, and the smaller your potential reward. And the larger...you get the idea. So you can't decrease the risk and increase the reward, except by moving to a more volatile game, such as Double Bonus--both your wins and your losses will be greater at DB than at JOB.

3) The game with the highest hit frequency is Deuces Wild. The game with the payoffs weighted the most toward the bottom of the paytable is Joker Wild, Kings or Better.

I wouldn't worry about those considerations so much as I would your choice of games. 7/5 JOB is AWFUL--it returns only 96.2%. And by playing only one coin, you lose over 2% additional, so you're now in 94% returns--slot machine territory. I sympathize with your trying to minimize risk, but you don't need to accept such awful returns to do so. If you only want to bet .25 at a time, first, find a nickel machine--the paytable will be no worse, but you'll at least get the $200, not $62.50, when you hit the royal (yes, "when", not "if"). If you leave the Strip--for instance, walking ten minutes west to the Gold Coast or the Palms--you can find reasonably decent nickel paytables (8/5 JOB; 9/6 DB; 15/9 Deuces), which will return in the 97-98% range. For that matter, you can find plenty of .25 9/6 JOB.