Printable View
A Strip Casino offers me two free nights, $2500 in gift cards to a store where I shop all the time, with no strings attached as long as I check in.
I play video poker and lose $2,499, but my comps from my play also cover my modest meal charges.
Am I a video poker winner according to the AP definition of winning at video poker? or for that matter, any game?
I think I still lost $2499 playing video poker any way you look at it.
Alan, in my opinion, you should count gift cards, even at a store "where you shop all the time," at no better than 50%. That's simply because that's average retail markup. I am a cheap, sale-scouring, Kohl's cash hoarding person who can do without most things, so for me personally, I wouldn't count gift cards more than 30-33%. I'd make an exception for gasoline in small amounts, since that's not heavily discounted. So by my definition, what you're describing was not a winning trip.
But that's just me. I'm not much of a consumer.
This question has more to do with what kind of consuming you do than video poker. I don't really have a store where "I shop all the time."
As I said in the other thread I never count non-cash equivalent items in my numbers. Now, does that mean everyone should do that? No, it's just my preference. What you should do, Alan, is assign a value to the items that is meaningful to you. If you would have spent $2500 in the store independent of your VP play then I could see you treating it at 100%. If not, then you should do what redietz said and figure out what percentage you might have spent. Since this is subjective I avoid it, but that's just me.
As for gas cards, I would value them at 100%. I buy gas on a regular basis. It's not like I would buy extra gas because of the gas cards.
I wanted to make one thing clear regarding me personally -- I'm ahead lifetime playing video poker -- but not much. Enough for a used car but not a new one.
I guess I haven't lost enough to get offered gift cards and such for showing up, so this question is only hypothetical for me. I've gotten maybe $50 in gas cards in my lifetime, but not any other kind of gift cards. So my lifetime "I'm ahead" total doesn't have any gift cards in the tally other than $50 in gas or thereabouts.
I have no idea whether Dancer counts cruises as winnings -- if I won a cruise (which I did in a football contest), I'd consider it worth either what I sell it for (I'm not big on cruises) or what I'd pay if I paid for it at some rock bottom last minute discount, which would put it somewhere between 33% and 50% of listed casino price.
I'm not sure what your point here is, Alan -- the high profile advantage players maybe don't actually win? Maybe they don't, but that's no reason for you to play, and it's no reason for you to play using a different and inferior set of rules. I'm no Dancer fan -- mainly because he's luring people into playing, and only his unique personal history and cashback status allows him to win.
Actually redietz, I didn't bring up the issue concerning me, personally, but because of the claims of certain "advantage players" who do count virtually everything as part of their wins -- whether it be cash back, trips, show tickets, dinners, jackets, ashtrays, or whatever.
Personally, I think that's dishonest in the world of "video poker accounting."
If you are going to tell people that you won money playing video poker as an "advantage player" I think it should ONLY be from video poker play. Rebates, cashback, gas cards, trips, even winning a raffle for a new car doesn't cut it with me. Either you win at video poker or you don't. You can't -- or at least you shouldn't -- be allowed to offset your losses with a wardrobe of casino jackets, or cars won in a raffle, or gas cards.
Again I refer to that one time I was at a lecture of Dancer's and he said his video poker income was $250,000 for the year. Half coming from video poker, and half coming from cash back. OK, that was honest. He actually won $125,000 playing VP and good for him. The other $125-thou was a rebate or gift.
I'm like you redietz (I think) in that I really don't count "gifts" in my video poker balance sheet. Heck, I don't even count the gas cards -- and that's a 100% cash equivalent.
If you tell me that you won a certain amount of money from video poker, make sure it's really ALL from video poker and don't include anything else. Anything else is a twist of the truth.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Many of the casinos now run promotions for gift cards and gas cards that include a basic "show up amount" and then you get additional "cards" based on coin through. You don't have to lose to get them.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
A few of the recent gift card promotions I played at included $100 for showing up, and then additional gift cards for coin through. Playing a game like 9/6 jacks or 8/5 bonus at a high enough denomination -- and with a little luck -- you can easily walk away with more in gift cards than you actually lost. I've even had a few of these where I've had a winning session and had the gift cards as a bonus.
But I don't use those gift cards as proof that I am a winning video poker player -- and I never would.
I actually think cashback should count as "winnings." It is cash, after all, once you've played it through. Not counting cashback would be inaccurate. And I count all the stupid little promo things where you get $10 in vp play on this day or swipe your card if you're a guest and get $20 here or there. That's all "video poker playing," so I count it. If they want to give me Christmas vp play, I count that, too.
It's funny, though, in that I never got a gift card other than gas.
If you win stuff and sell it on ebay, that should count -- that's what I'd do with cruises and such. It is cash, after all, once the sale is complete. Now if you actually wind up taking cruises you otherwise would not have taken, I have no idea if that should count at all.
I have never counted meals, and it never occurred to me to count meals or rooms or stuff like that.
You know where I'm going next -- if your host gets you a hooker, should that count? Let's ask Dancer -- he seems like a smarmy 70's throwback kind of guy.
redietz here's my problem with counting cash back: it can hide just how well or how poorly you did playing the game. Cash back is not based on your winnings, but on your coin through. Put a million dollars through the machine and only break even on your "expert play" and you will get a ton of cash back -- BUT it doesn't show that you are a winner at video poker, does it? It doesn't mean that your "expert play" worked to beat the casino, does it?
I'm addressing the "advantage play authors" here: if the lessons and methodology of the strategy in playing video poker worked on its own, you should have a profit from video poker on its own -- not with the crutch of cash back, gifts, raffles, promotions.
Cash back, gifts, raffles, promotions are also given to losers aren't they? And one could argue that the bigger the loser, the more promotions they are given.
Besides, a lot of casinos have either eliminated cash back or cutting it down severely. It is hard to factor cash back into your video poker bottom line anymore.
I don't play enough at any given property to get cashback, so I have little first hand experience. I know cashback was cut at South Point pretty dramatically. For the last several years, I doubt I've topped 80 hours any given year, so I'm out of the cashback loop.
What you're saying is true, Alan, about the vp promoters not giving a line item accounting. If they did that nowadays, it'd make clear that without Dancer's mega-historical play levels, what he does simply doesn't work any more. That's my beef -- Dancer doesn't come out and say, "You can no longer do what I did." Now Frank, on the other hand, was straight up about how lousy things are in video poker these days.
I first started playing vp when sports comps began to be cut in the late 80's and early 90's. Prior to that, sports and race comps were equitable, and I had no interest in video poker. But then sports comps began to be slashed (now many places they're one-fifth race comps), and I took a look at vp as a way to invest a few hours and get meals and such. At that time, vp and slot comps were equitable. Well, eventually, the vp comps became a fraction of slot comps, similar to what happened to sports comps vis-a-vis race comps.
Had I seen this thread yesterday afternoon when we arrived in southern Oregon, I could have saved a little of the confusion and a lot of the arci-rambling that went into several posts here.
First off, not all AP's create a so-called positive play equally, as you probably already know and will further see. Start off by discounting whatever arci says. He moved to LV believing it was a haven of positive games and profits for advantage players, but quickly discovered all those lucrative-sounding promotions that tugged on AP's theory strings, meant he could rarely withdraw money from the casinos as he had heard. He soon left a failure, as numerous AP's have done before him. (Edited by moderator.) Filed under "Lessons Learned".
In 2004 or 2005 I was asked by the late, great publisher of Gaming Today, Chuck DiRocco, to research some of Bob Dancers articles on how he calculated these "advantage play situations" and compare them with what his latest one claimed. If I could quote actual columns and identify where they came from, he would publish my article. So I got to work. Chuck was a wealthy and successful businessman who could see right thru all the BS Dancer wrote about (which is why he fired him and went after me) so this was a fun assignment for me.
What I found was that Dancer started out his advantage play by only playing 100%+ machines--of which there were many back then just as redietz said--but the most interesting quote I copied was how the great Bob Dancer would never, ever play any vp game that on its own, wasn't over 100%.
But true to form, a year or so later after the demise of many higher limit 100%+ games, here comes hypocrite Bob again, now explaining that he gets to over 100% theoretical play by adding in cash back and,bounce back or coupon cash. He moaned how these "freebies" used to net him a 3% or 4% advantage, but no longer.
As fate would have it, Bob was once again asked to recreate himself. Machine paytables were further reduced, slot club cash was reduced, and he now had to add in tournament play, gifts, room comps, and shows to the theoretical +EV mix. Again, he was found contradicting himself, and I suspect today he now finds himself applying unreal values to his gifts and all that other "free" stuff he constantly brags about receiving. But he's still in the vp selling business, so he really has no choice.
Another example is from the time I bumped into Jean Scott and her boy toy Brad playing a 10/7 DBP game at the Hard Rock. The conversation went well, but when we were talking about how much of a theoretical "edge" she believed she had, she talked about the cash back, she talked about the coupon cash, she talked about the food and show comps, but she also looked at me and said "and truthfully, if I have to, I even add in something for the good treatment and smiles as provided for by my casino host".
Finally, Alan is pretty much on the right track here. A true vp pro or even a serious vp player would only include money won or lost directly from the vp machine as a measure of his or her success or failure. It's way too easy and indeed is a big part of every serious vp addict's game, to use those comps, gifts, giftcards, gas cards, etc. as a virtual bridge between winning and losing. And anyone who uses freeplay as part of their "theoretical" is only fooling themself.
The reason players use slot club fluff and mailed offers as part of their results is because it is way too easy to lie to onself in order to justify the losing and continued play. Who's gonna know about or complain if you 4X value anything? It is also a justification to claim problem gambling is not a part of what they are involved in.
Pure nonsense, Alan. You have to understand that the pros/APers look at CB/FP/etc. before they play. Here's an analogy. Does a top notch waiter only look at the base pay when they look for a job? There are restaurants where tips can be $50/hour or more. There are restaurants where it might be only $10/hour or less. In both these cases the base pay might be only $5-10/hour. If you were a waiter would you take a job at $5 base + $50 tips or $10 base + $10 tips?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is exactly what an APer does. They look at the combined amount and generally play the highest returning play. Now, this might be a case where the game only returns 99.5% like JOB but the CB/FP/etc. was 2%. Of course, if you only look at their VP play they are likely to show a loss. Who cares? Only those who are trying to sell a con. The APer only cares about the bottom line, just like the waiter.
Sorry, if you still believe this is true go back and read my analogy again. Cash is cash, Alan. There are not two shades of green. If a player is playing a negative game then they expect to lose at the game itself. If you don't understand that APers completely understand this fact then you are underestimating their intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Which means the APers don't play there anymore. They play where they have an advantage. Not where a certain game may be slightly positive or slightly negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Oh Arcimede$ your analogies are very creative, but not convincing.
The authors sell books, strategy cards, and hold seminars about how to win at video poker. They charge good money for their "lessons." It seems to me that if you are correct they should come out and say "you can't win at video poker, so look for cash back, free play, coffee mugs and tee shirts and other promos from the casino."
Here's an analogy for you Arc: A supermarket cashier takes a $9 an hour job but finds a way to become a millionaire because he knows how to steal out of the cash drawer, and then announces how being the best supermarket cashier can lead to a golden career.
I think you have to count cashback as part of the equation, but I also think Dancer and others are, as Rob said, being disengenuous when they tout the potential rewards of playing video poker these days. Frank's take on this stuff speaks volumes.
I wonder if Dancer and Scott were forced to post a factual disclaimer, "Despite my success, 90% of all self-described advantage players lose" or something like that, what effect that would have on their ability to promote themselves. Rob touched on this in earlier posts. Even the rare APers who have won (like Arci and me) can be vulnerable to everything else the casinos offer. So of the APers who actually pull off the enterprise of winning at video poker, how many maintain a positive bottom line vis a vis all casino games? It's the "Stu Unger Problem" -- namely whizzes in one category of gaming often blow their expertise-earned profits in other categories. The video poker, even though they win, creates an "perpetual action mode" that they may not experience if they weren't playing video poker.
I did really like Rob's "virtual bridge between losing and winning" line. I may borrow that (and give due credit) one of these days. That was an elegant line.
Silly analogy, Alan. I've only talked about legal options that are open to all players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What do you think Jean Scott's books are about? For the most part they are telling people how to garner extra money from casinos though many different means. So, she does exactly what you are saying VP writer's don't do. Come on, you are really digging deep here to try and come up something negative. Let me tell you, it only makes you look bad. The fact is, if you read her books, you'd already know this. She even discusses that her methods may simply cut losses rather than leading to any wins.
Oh, and show me where any VP writer says you can win playing a negative game ONLY. You've made a claim, now let's see you back it up.
Once again we see the only thing that comes out of Singer's mouth is lies. I won every year in Vegas. I won before Vegas and I continue to win. So, if he starts out with a lie you know the rest of his comment is not going to have much substance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I believe that may be true. However, the world changed and Bob changed with it. What's wrong with that? For example, Bob could still play FPDW in many places in Vegas. That would be a positive game and would have kept with his initial intentions. However, there's very little money to made. The casinos pulled out the high denomination positive plays and increased the money that went into promotions and player's club items. So, being of sound mind (unlike you know who), Bob altered his approach to take advantage of that change. Duh. It sounds like Singer would have take the lower paying waiter's job. How smart is that? Is this the type of individual anyone should listen to? Easy answer ... no. All you get from Singer is silly nonsense over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
There is some value in Bob maintaining an image. For example, his name is on VPfW. He also has makes money other ways. So, only a d***s would find fault with someone managing a career to make a living. He's doing exactly what Alan has done. This has nothing to do with his providing factual information about video poker. Not only that, but I suspect all of Bob's play's are cash positive. Let's see Singer demonstrate just one case where Bob played without an advantage. Notice, I didn't say Bob won every time. Only that the odds favored him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Typical nonsense strawman. No one is talking about comps. Only cash equivalent. Let me know when Singer says just one intelligent thing. It may take a while but I'm willing to wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Nope, not one single intelligent comment. No one uses "fluff" for anything. Now you know why I call him a dufus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Imagine how rattled arci was when he discovered he forgot to babble the same lies over and over again in his earlier reply? (Comment removed by moderator.)
BTW my friend, I am a writer who not only says, but has accomplished, winning on "negative machines" over time. :) And my wife didn't have to suffer one bit over it either!
Arc wrote: Oh, and show me where any VP writer says you can win playing a negative game ONLY. You've made a claim, now let's see you back it up.
Arc, get real. People win on negative games every day of the week. It's casino gambling. Playing a positive game does not give you a lock on winning.
I take issue withone thing Arci said -- namely that Dancer probably always plays a cash positive game. I sincerely doubt that, and we are not going to read a column from Dancer detailing it. Dancer does things in other lines of gambling that he thinks/describes as "having an edge" when his edge is a matter of semantics or perception, not reality, so my suspicion is that he does the same with video poker.
Let's make one thing clear here -- Dancer busted out early in his career at other forms of gambling. Did he think he had an edge? I doubt if he suddenly "got religion" with video poker.
I don't buy the whole "fashioning and adapting a career" bit as an excuse for never saying, "You can't do what I did, and you probably can't do what I now do." He's no different than other self-help gurus selling stuff that won't or cannot work for 99.99% of the population. Why do you do that? Why damage people for your own benefit? And that's what he does, because if the majority of people buying his stuff lose, which they do, he's damaging them.
And that's EXACTLY why he's still working as a consultant, selling whatever he can to the dreamers, requiring a fee to teach vp classes, not giving his advice via e-mail without a credit card number first, and charging $250 an hour for "private lessons" at the machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Now you've REALLY painted him into a corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Everyone knows people win on negative games all the time, so he'll now have to twist it to say he meant "over time", which of course is another denial and a lie because he knows I've done it as a professional player on a continuous basis. And then, after swallowing hard, he'll have no way out other than to pretend I am an "exception to the rule" here except that, I have continued to flourish playing negative games intelligently.
Keep workin' him....he has nothing better to do! :)