Can I become a professional video poker player?

There has been intense interest in my interview with controversial video poker player and author Rob Singer. See our page "Video Poker News and Commentary" to see the video interview at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. One of the Las Vegas discussion forums on another website picked up on this interview and some of the discussion has included the question about the possibility of being a professional video poker player and what the income possibilities are.

I was curious about this so I asked a professional video poker player what it would take to earn $100,000 a year playing video poker, plus some extra money to pay for insurance and other benefits.

Here is the reply I got:

"Dollar VP with a 2% advantage playing 8 hours a day and 5 days a week for 48 weeks at 1000 hands/hour."

Let me translate that for you in case you are not familiar with the lingo. Dollar VP means you would play a video poker game at $5 per "hand" or each play. The 2% advantage means that the paytable on the game plus other bonuses and comps such as cash-back gives you a potential for a 2% profit. Perhaps the key thing is that you would have to play 1000 hands per hour-- which is awfully fast. Frankly, it takes me about 4-5 seconds to play one hand which includes the dealing of the cards and choosing the cards I want to keep. That means I could play about 12 hands per minute or about 720 hands per hour-- and that doesn't include time to take a drink of water, go to the restroom, or order a bottle of water from the cocktail waitress. I'll never be a professional video poker player.

While it is true (I've basically done it) that it is possible to make around $100,000/yr. as a professional vp player, it would take extreme dedication, extraordinary discipline, a fairly sharp (but not anal by any means) mathematical capability, the proper gambling-only bankroll, and a strong determination to follow a structured strategy without waver.

What is NOT TRUE is that it can be done in the way Alan describes above. Making any amount of money using advantage play is a myth propagated by those who sell that particular video poker system for a profit that allows them to play the game themselves. It is also perpetuated by others--almost exclusively math geeks or enthusiasts who cannot think for themselves--who believe the game goes exactly as the math books say it should go. The only thing that's a certainty about advantage play is that the player will quickly became very addicted to the game, and that could easily lead to problem gambling. Some advantage players do win now and then--although they will in fact lose around 7 out of every 10 sessions--but they only win when extreme good luck comes around, and if it comes around at the right time. As we know, AP's typically play right thru any and all winners big or small, so their royals etc. would need to appear at just the right times as they were about to get up and leave anyway.

Also, regardless of how accurate certain AP's claim they play, as a former AP for over 6 years I can attest to the fact that anyone who says they make 1% or less errors is only saying that out of denial and as further justification for continuing on with their insatiable habit to experience more intermittent satisfaction. The truth is (and I have technical experience in this field from overseeing multiple human factors' testing events revolving around fatigue vs. alertness in the aviation industry) with a simple task such as playing vp, after even 1 hour of play the mind begins to wander out of monotony, and that inattentiveness increases exponentially the longer the task continues. And that doesn't even begin to consider casino-like distractions that are never-ending and all around every player.

As far as the 2% or so "edge" that's talked about, there's no such thing. Video poker has to be played as an exercize between you and the machine only, and no machine has even a 1% theoretical advantage for the player. The slot club benefits have to be recognized as perks only and not variable fluff to compensate for losing. Besides, the only advantage in vp always and only belongs to the casinos and the machines, obviously. You must have good luck to win, and to be a winner at this game you must win consistently. To win consistently you must give yourself the most opportunity to have chances at experiencing those lucky hits, and to do that, you must use plays that deviate from expert strategy at the proper times. I've done risk analyses on each play I make that goes against the math, and they have proven to be worth every drop of effort I put into developing them. Alan's site explains the more common of them, and soon his videos will be up where I contribute even more detail. I am also available to chat with FOR FREE (unlike any of the other names in the game) and I've trained countless players over the years, also at no charge. Winners should be willing and are able to do that.

I just read an email from a viewer who asked what is the required bankroll to become a video poker player who earns $50,000 a year?

The email did not go into detail but I'm sure that the viewer wants to earn $50,000 a year as "profit" without losing his bankroll.

In the stock market there's a joke that goes like this: You can still get a million dollars out of the stock market, just start with two million dollars."

I am sure that is not what the viewer intends.

So, for those of you who have played professionally or know the numbers:

1. Your goal is to earn $50,000 a year net profit playing video poker.
2. What would be your starting bankroll.
4. What available game and paytable would you be playing.
5. What extra $$ comps would you need to make this formula "work."
6. What would be a reasonable initial loss of that bankroll before you start turning the profit? (I'm assuming you don't hit a royal on the first time you push the button.)

And I'm asking these questions hoping that there is such a formula. If there isn't let us know. I've sent an email response and I know that two of us will be interested.

1. Regardless of the dollar amount of the goal, there MUST be a support system in place, By that I mean a family that accepts what you intend to do and gives constant support, you must have already saved for and prepared for your retirement because the casinos are not going to provide you with a 401k or send you a pension & social security payments, and you must keep yourself in decent shape in order to properly handle the sometimes long grueling hours sitting inside casinos.

2. For a $50k yearly net you will need approximately half of what my starting bankroll is for playing my play strategy: $86,000.

3. Two games: BP & SDBPor TBP+. The paytables are not as important as finding casinos that offer these two or three games.

4. Comp amounts don't matter. Anything you receive is added rewards only and should never be included in the "net won" calculation.

5. A reasonable (or "maximum") initial loss would be losing everything you played in your first two sessions, or ~$57,500. Note: This has never happened to me while playing hundreds of sessions

Safety Note: Those who have claimed to win ANYTHING year-in and year-out by playing advantage vp near-flawlessly and with a million or millions of hands per year, are more full of it than Nancy Pelosi claiming she's never been to a nude dining restaurant in the Castro area of San Francisco. Not only have any of these so-called "professionals" ever offered to produce any kind of proof of their supposed continuous "winnings" as I have in a published challenge to Las Vegas AP's---the casinos have never banned any of them from playing as I have been and as proven by casino-letter publications in Gaming Today at the time of banning.

You have the facts--YOU make the call.

None of these comments on either side would have any validity nor do they ring true to my experience as a VP professional. If you ask 5 different people what they think, you may very well get 5 different answers. Since it is impossible from an outside looking in perspective to sort through them and know who's right and who's wrong I refer you to the fable of the 4 blind men all holding different parts of an elephant and all describing it differently.

Gambling contains a random element which acts in conjunction with any system you might employee and often it is impossible to distinguish between what is caused my one's own actions, and what can be accounted for by chance alone.

The real issue is the effort required to employ either conventional AP, or systems like what Singer uses. Too dam much effort for any sane person. I put playing VP professionally at around the Concert Pianist skill level and highly recommend that if you have the "right stuff" to play VP, you instead apply that "right stuff" to some "right things" instead.

I see no point in contradicting what has been said here about VP-AP earning potential. I would have listed very different numbers. But as I said before, there would be no point in posting anything without a way to know who's right or wrong, and no such way exists. The random variables overshadow all with doubt.

Frank thanks for posting. You managed and took part in a professional video poker team that went after progressive jackpots. The payoffs can be substantial when playing for progressives.

You've written how it was important for you to be part of a team, because as part of team you can better even-out the peaks and valleys of individual play. We all know that video poker players, even the pros, cannot win on a consistent basis. Video poker income doesn't come like a weekly paycheck comes.

So my question is this:

In all of your years playing with a team and managing a team do you recall if any of your team's members were a consistent winner on an individual basis? Could that individual, or several individuals, have made "good money" playing only as an individual?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Frank thanks for posting. You managed and took part in a professional video poker team that went after progressive jackpots. The payoffs can be substantial when playing for progressives.

You've written how it was important for you to be part of a team, because as part of team you can better even-out the peaks and valleys of individual play. We all know that video poker players, even the pros, cannot win on a consistent basis. Video poker income doesn't come like a weekly paycheck comes.

So my question is this:

In all of your years playing with a team and managing a team do you recall if any of your team's members were a consistent winner on an individual basis? Could that individual, or several individuals, have made "good money" playing only as an individual?

Thanks.

---

When you have the opportunity to look at a large sample of pro results, what you get is a nice bell curve, with consistent winners and consistent losers at either end of the spectrum.

It isn't possible to know where on the curve you'll land in advance of doing it. So this information is largely useless to a would be player. The most likely result is that you'll land in the middle.

It is still not a good trade off for time vs money.

I could just tell you how I did. I see no point in this. I say I did X. Someone else comes along and says I'm lying. I then have to defend myself. And the process goes on endlessly without even being proof of anything. This is one of the reasons I have never mentioned my results as a pro and why I'm not going to start now.

I will say this. If you ask most of the pros I know how they are doing, they will usually understate their wins and exaggerate their loses. They don't want competition. I have a sneaky suppression that this has happened to Rob and it has inverted truth for fallacy. He believed people when he should have questioned them, and questioned them would he should have believed them.

Thanks Frank. How about tackling this question: based on your experience, what percentage of "professional video poker players" earn $50,000 or more a year? What percentage earn $100,000 or more a year? And can you estimate the actual number of video poker pros there are in Vegas or around the country?

Edited to add: The bell curve analogy is good, but without some dollar values it means nothing. If the bell has a high, for example, of $20,000 a year I'm sure it will not make video poker professional play attractive to many people. But if the bell has a high of $300,000 then I'm sure more would be interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Thanks Frank. How about tackling this question: based on your experience, what percentage of "professional video poker players" earn $50,000 or more a year? What percentage earn $100,000 or more a year? And can you estimate the actual number of video poker pros there are in Vegas or around the country?

Edited to add: The bell curve analogy is good, but without some dollar values it means nothing. If the bell has a high, for example, of $20,000 a year I'm sure it will not make video poker professional play attractive to many people. But if the bell has a high of $300,000 then I'm sure more would be interested.

---

As I said before I do not like to talk about actual results. Any any number I would state would simply be contested or not believed. If you wish to know what you might expect to make playing VP, that number is really unique to you anyway. We are all too different in ability level. Knowing how others have done in the past is less useful than in almost any other profession; people are different and as far as the industry itself is concerned, "the times they are a 'changin". Find plays and factor in your error rate using a VP trainer to estimate your accuracy and duplicate the casino experience as much as you can when calculating this number. In other words, if you play 15 hour sessions in the casino, when you test yourself on a VP trainer at home also play 15 hour sessions and drink alcohol if that is what you do in the casino. From there it's easy math to know your expected earn for a year, if you know how much you intend to play and what there is to play in your area. Accuracy will also then fall off if you do not continue to practice at home on a trainer.

Note: Your expected result won't be your actual result. You will likely do better or worse. Doing exactly as expected is the least likely of all results.

That's too bad, Frank.

The income and winnings of professional poker players are published, as are salaries for professionals in sports. Uncle Sam has income reports for doctors, tradesmen, teachers.

But video poker pros are always cloaked in secrecy? LOL

It kind of makes the rest of us wonder if any of them really make any money?

There is a joke that is often told at poker tables in casinos, that goes like this:

Q: How do you get a professional poker player to leave your doorstep?
A: Pay him for the pizzas.

I remember going to a lecture and class offered by professional Bob Dancer who told us that his income was $250,000 per year playing VP. Half of that income came from actual wins on the machines and half of the income came from cash back, and comps and gifts from the casinos.

I'm sure he told us that as part of his efforts to sell his books and tapes.

The public is correct to reason that if the pros can't make money playing by their systems, why should the public buy their books and tapes?

Well, here I am with a website visitor who has sent me an email asking how much of a starting bankroll he needs to earn $50,000 or $100,000 a year and what games he would need to play (perfect strategy assumed, of course) and I would like to give him a straight answer.

Can I? Or should we tell him that playing perfect strategy doesn't mean much because video poker is a random game and the randomness of the game defeats the best that perfect strategy can deliver? Or should we say, it's a gamble and not a career?

A bit to add. I agree with Frank that (condensed) playing vp for a living is not the optimal way to live a life as a career. That's exactly why I decided when I started that I would retire as soon as I hit 60. How people who say they are professionals play beyond that age is a mystery to me. I'm in far better shape than most of them, and my body started saying NO! to sitting in casinos for hours at around 57.

On the flip side, even though I'm now around Nevada casinos throughout the winter months, I still play, but it's maybe once every 10 days and for 90 minutes tops. In other words, recreationally and without goals or any real meaning--and nothing over $2. The days of sweating it out at the $10, $25 & $100 machines are over for me.

Don't encourage anyone. Results would be an incentive. Just tell em it's too hard and not worth it anymore. True or false, you'll get no dispute from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

Don't encourage anyone. Results would be an incentive. Just tell em it's too hard and not worth it anymore. True or false, you'll get no dispute from me.

---

Frank, this is not about incentives. This is about giving people honest information. A viewer asked a legitimate question, and I think he's entitled to it. I was hoping that some professionals might share their knowledge without their own bias getting in the way. Oops... there's that word again... bias. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Frank, this is not about incentives. This is about giving people honest information. A viewer asked a legitimate question, and I think he's entitled to it. I was hoping that some professionals might share their knowledge without their own bias getting in the way. Oops... there's that word again... bias. LOL

---

There are many questions fools can ask that wise men cannot answer.

My first and foremost rule is "do no harm". If you can't understand that spreading around pro results and yearly earnings would encourage people to gamble and that I'm not OK with that then there is something seriously wrong with you. Also, it is extremely rude to ask people how much money they make. One's income is a private matter and not open for public consumption. Yes the celebrity examples you sited earlier might be exceptions, they are not the norm. When I worked for Cashman photo it was actually company policy that you were never allowed to discuss your pay or ask what someone else made. I'm told this is a very common rule in many companies. I have no idea how bias plays a part in this discussion. One simply doesn't ask people how much money people make and if you happen to know what another person makes because of doing business with them, one is not allowed to share that information as it is considered confidential.

You're asking me to breach ethics and share confidential information, and you think it's because I'm biased. Bias has nothing to do with it. I'm ethical and wouldn't share my partners results with you under any circumstance.

Frank if you don't understand this point about sharing information freely then there is something wrong. We don't live in a totalitarian state. People are entitled to a free flow of information to make up their own minds.

If you start to censor information about gamblers and gambling then the next will be to censor information about social ideas and political ideas and economic ideas... and then what do you have.

If you don't want to comment about your trade secrets, simply say that. But to say, and I'm quoting you , "If you can't understand that spreading around pro results and yearly earnings would encourage people to gamble and that I'm not OK with that then there is something seriously wrong with you" is not only offensive but makes me cringe that it violates everything that is basic to our American way of life.

You, Frank Kneeland, should not be the one to decide what is harmful and what is not. The laws of this country do not recognize you for having any authority.

Keep your trade secrets to yourself, but have more respect for the intelligence of others.

You anger me.

Edited to add: I never asked for any individuals personal information. You can contact my union and find out what the pay standards are for reporters and anchors and infomercial hosts and actors and voice over artists.

You can see the salary schedules in hospitals. The government statistics on pay levels mention no one by name.

Please don't create issues. You were asked for information that did not require any names.

If you asked me for a salary range for the top anchors in Los Angeles TV, I could tell you, but I don't have to reveal any names.

And you do have a bias: you are against gambling and have expressed that many times. And you are free to express that and many will support you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Frank if you don't understand this point about sharing information freely then there is something wrong. We don't live in a totalitarian state. People are entitled to a free flow of information to make up their own minds.

If you start to censor information about gamblers and gambling then the next will be to censor information about social ideas and political ideas and economic ideas... and then what do you have.

If you don't want to comment about your trade secrets, simply say that. But to say, and I'm quoting you , "If you can't understand that spreading around pro results and yearly earnings would encourage people to gamble and that I'm not OK with that then there is something seriously wrong with you" is not only offensive but makes me cringe that it violates everything that is basic to our American way of life.

You, Frank Kneeland, should not be the one to decide what is harmful and what is not. The laws of this country do not recognize you for having any authority.

Keep your trade secrets to yourself, but have more respect for the intelligence of others.

You anger me.

Edited to add: I never asked for any individuals personal information. You can contact my union and find out what the pay standards are for reporters and anchors and infomercial hosts and actors and voice over artists.

You can see the salary schedules in hospitals. The government statistics on pay levels mention no one by name.

Please don't create issues. You were asked for information that did not require any names.

If you asked me for a salary range for the top anchors in Los Angeles TV, I could tell you, but I don't have to reveal any names.

And you do have a bias: you are against gambling and have expressed that many times. And you are free to express that and many will support you.

---

Let's just call it a day. You and I have clearly have different motivations and ideas about what's wrong and right.

FYI: If someone stated that heroin was bad for you, no one would accuse them of being biased. Being biased implies one's conclusions are wrong. The entire psychological community agrees with me about the dangers of gambling. It's now considered the fastest growing addiction in America. Read the book Best Possible Odds and then tell me I'm biased. I might be the only pro gambler in existence that isn't biased towards it and you take my neutrality as negative. Please read the book before commenting anymore on things you do not understand.

Good luck with your site.

Now you throw in heroin?

You are a well read man. You have authored a book. You have hosted a radio show. You post on multiple Internet forums using your own name. Respect where these freedoms and rights come from.

Also remember:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

Here's my belief on all this. You hear all the time about AP's who call themselves professionals and who lurk on the streets of LV, and it is just as common a belief that they make a profit. But you have two sets of personalities from this group: Those like Dancer who blab on & on about how he destroys any and all casinos and at the same time is never banned and always asked to come on back in to do it all over again to them; And those like Frank, who choose to mostly keep to themselves. He did share the life of a progressives professional with us in his book. But there remains a certain segment of that life which remains sacred for some reason.

As far as us hearing about the earnings of these hidden pros, who knows? I've already said how I don't believe they win anything since my own experience from winning is that when you use a card and if the casinos cannot figure a way to make a profit off of you, you're banned. Throw in the added current practice of sticking it to the players who only go after the "positive" situations, and you have added doubt....and belief that these folks don't do anything but help maintain the buildings. And to these players, it's voodoo not to use a slot card because those benefits are absolutely necessary for the theoretical winning formula to sound good. As we all know, those slot cards are used to track and trace every move of every player who uses them, especially AP's.

This has gotten interesting. I have had to ask myself similar questions to Frank's on many occasions. But "gambling" is only a word. How does one separate day trading, buying real estate, and casino gambling? All have "vig." All have more losers than winners over the last 10 years. So being vehemently against "gambling" means what? You are against day trading, real estate buying, casino gambling?

Anyway, I'm a professional who, if I had my totalitarian druthers, would also nuke every casino in the country (kind of like Stephen King in The Stand?). But my current option is simply to make money while treating it as an exercise in cold, dry investing. The proper people, trained properly, are capable of doing the same. I ask folks, "How do you feel about losing 10 games in a row?" If they gag, or look at me with horror, I don't work with them. The proper response is, of course, "It's fine if it helps us win 11 in a row."

As you can surmise, I don't have many partners, but that's the way it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

How does one separate day trading, buying real estate, and casino gambling? All have "vig." All have more losers than winners over the last 10 years. So being vehemently against "gambling" means what? You are against day trading, real estate buying, casino gambling?

---

Very good question, but there are differences among the types of "gambles" you mention. Clearly, real estate, the stock market and every game in a casino are all gambling. But there are differences in the gamble:

Real estate has been proven to win over the long term, unlike the claims of the video poker players who cite "long term play." In the short term anything can happen in real estate. You could buy a dream property today, but be forced to sell tomorrow because of a divorce or job relocation and suffer a loss on the property. These things happen. In the past four years, real estate has suffered with the economy but that is short term and inflation over the long term will eventually bail out those who could manage to hold on.

The stock market is not a zero sum game, and in fact, all investors in the stock market can win over time. If you had bought the Dow Industrials when I first started as a news reporter in 1973 you would be sitting on some nice profits today. When I started as a reporter the Dow was at 699. The close today was 11,781. Commodities are a zero sum game and for every winner there is a loser. So if you "gamble" in the stock market, you can also win over the long term.

That brings us to the third gamble -- casino games. Well, every casino game has a house edge and a house advantage except for the magical misprogrammed machines that spit out more winners than by design and have been identified by the super wise in random bus stations and grocery stores. We'll never know about these. The idea that casino games can be beaten can also be filed along with people who win lotteries -- and yes, there are lottery winners too. In a drawer of the filing cabinet that includes the lottery winners you can also include skilled gamblers (yes, Advantage Players) who can trim the casino advantage and who might also be able to manipulate comps, cashback, promotions, etc. for an extra percentage point or two of return.

I don't deny that some can win in a casino. I've had winning sessions but Ive never had a winning year and I'm certainly not a lifetime winner either. But those who do manage to win in a casino have more luck, because the "advantage play" they have can easily be wiped out by bad luck.

Remember this: knowing what cards to hold in VP doesn't help you if the RNG doesnt know what cards you need. Knowing how to bet in blackjack doesn't help you if the cards you are counting on don't hit your hand. Knowing how to throw the dice to keep them on axis with a controlled throw doesn't help you if the dice run into a Chinese Wall of chips on the dont pass line.

What makes casino gambling different from stock market and real estate gambling is that the rules of the game put the casino gamblers at a disadvantage from the start. There are no rules in stocks or real estate that say the other guy will win. The rules of the casino clearly are written so the casino will win.