Printable View
I was trying to find them, and I wasn't having much success.
I did find a few in the Reno/Tahoe market, as well as Harrah's New Orleans and Harrah's North Kansas City.
Any others?
I'm talking about $5 ($25 per hand at max coin) JoB games where you still earn one tier credit per $10.
I was looking here: http://vpfree2.com
Just curious. Do you get any enjoyment out of JOB? I would rather kill myself than play a boring game like JOB where the only win is the Royal.
Are you just playing for the comps with no room for enjoyment?
Dan I don't think you will find it. At Rincon, 9/6 Jacks no longer exists -- period. At Caesars they have 9/6 Jacks but the game requires $25 coin in for 1 tier credit, and not $10 for one tier credit as you find on other machines.
HOWEVER there may be one exception-- and just one. And someone who goes to Caesars will have to check this out and report back:
In the high limit slots room there is a wall of video poker machines. The single line games are all $25/coin or $100 per coin. In the corner, against the exterior wall is a SINGLE $5/$10 per coin game with Jacks and Bonus on it. The last time I was there it did NOT have the sign saying it was $25 coin in per tier credit.
A little background: this is the machine that I loved to play at the $5 level and I played Bonus on it. It also has 9/6 Jacks. I know that there was an oversight on this machine when Caesars made the other 8/5 Bonus games require $25 coin in per tier point, because this machine still gave you one tier point for $10 coin in. However, a few months ago, Caesars switched the old slant top machine out for the new upright machines that they are now installing. When I looked at the new upright model, I did not see the $25 coin in sign. So I don't know if the lack of a $25 coin in sign was an oversight or if indeed that machine is the last one and the only one to give still one tier point per $10 coin in. If the sign is missing, then maybe this is the machine you are looking for.
Thanks, I will look for this and run a few credits through and see how many tiers I earn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Main reason I play is to earn Seven Stars as cheaply as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Secondary reason is to have fun. However, I have the least fun when I lose badly. The problem with 8-5 bonus is that there is still too much variance. If you don't hit the "good" quads or better, you will usually do poorly.
I thought to build tier points the quickest was 8/5. Not 9/6. I'm confused
Dan is correct that playing 9/6 Jacks is the cheapest way to build tier points. But the last time I played $5 9/6 Jacks I was dealt AAAA for $625 instead of getting $2000 on 8/5 Bonus.
So, Allen. What be the next best?
8/5 Aces and Faces at Rincon has a slightly higher return than 8/5 Bonus. The games are available as low as 25-cents per coin and go up to $25 per coin. I made 7-Stars this year playing $2 Aces and Faces and I hit a royal which allowed me to make 7 Stars with a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
Awesome, thanks for the info. I'm headed there now.
Just got back from Harrah's Rincon. I only saw one Game King vp machine that was 1,2, or $5. It was in the high roller room. One lady was playing it the whole time I was there. With her stack of hundred dollar bills I didn't have a chance at it. We were there last night and I would swear there were more of those machines. I don't know if they were moved or if I;m mistaken. Most of the vp that had multi poker games were 25 cents-$1. I found one that had Aces and faces it was 10/4. I saw some 9/5. I thought the norm was 8/5 or 9/6. I'm a newbie so If I'm wrong, please correct me. Can anyone tell me what the difference is between Aces and Faces and Jacks or Better?
In the video poker section are several "uprights" with 8/5 Bonus and 8/5 Aces and Faces at levels ranging from 25-cents up to $5.
In the high limit room where the $5 progressives there are Game Kings where you can select $5 Aces and Faces.
I haven't been in the no smoking section recently but they used to have at least one Aces and Faces machine.
Alan do you know the difference between Aces and Faces, and Jacks or Better?
Aces and Faces is like Bonus Poker, except with Aces and Faces the bigger payoffs are on the quad Jacks, Queens and Kings instead of the quad 2s, 3s, and 4s in Bonus. What makes Aces and Faces a slightly better paying game is that you will hold a single Jack, Queen or King in Aces and Faces, but you will never hold a single 2, 3 or 4 in Bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
Cool, thanks!
I remember when I was going to Rincon a lot late last year, and you mentioned liking Aces and Faces the best. Instead, I chose to play 99.40% return ACE$ instead of Aces and Faces, which is 99.26%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I think that I am going to start taking the Alan approach, as the problem with ACE$ is that it's so unlikely to hit (FAR less than a Royal) that you are unlikely to ever get it if you're only running 20,000 hands like I am. To show you how unlikely, I only have about a 6.6% chance of hitting ACE$ when I run 20,000 hands of VP! So I could play my usual allocation of video poker for 15 years, and would only be likely to hit ACE$ once. I could easily never hit ACE$, even if I played 20,000 hands of VP per year for the rest of my life.
Therefore, I think I will stick with the less-variance approach and just do Aces and Faces in the future. I think Rincon is still my best bet to run my VP hands at the moment, as Vegas has destroyed the tier credits at the JoB machines (unless that one machine is still there at Caesar's), and everywhere else is too far. I wish Tahoe was closer to me, because they have the 99.54% JoB with regular tier earnings, and I like to ski. The 500 mile drive each way is brutal, though.
This is an excellent VP discussion with no B.S. or unnecessary criticism thrown in. Kudos, y'all.
Dan: when I am in Vegas I play very little video poker -- period. I go there to play "real craps" which you can't do in California as you know.
For players who are not part of the Caesars Total Rewards system, Pechanga had lots of "full pay" games at DDB and Bonus and even 9/6 Jacks when I was last there about a year ago. I heard that many higher limit DDB and JOB players left Rincon to play at Pechanga -- and I guess they were not Total Rewards players and had no interest in Bonus or Aces and Faces. I know when the $100 machines were taken out those players went to Pechanga.
You are all very seasoned video poker players. I'm a newbie. Has anyone heard of videopokertrainer.org. I've been using this a training tool.
I found Aces and Faces on it here: http://www.videopokertrainer.org/aces-and-faces.phpQuote:
Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
I also looked at the free trainer and used the trainer for Bonus Poker. I like that it's free, but they have it hoping you will play for real money.
Hi Dan,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I share your concern about variance. The swings at $5 single play is too much for my comfort zone. Accordingly, at Rincon I like to play Triple or 5-Play Bonus Poker. I do not know if Aces and Faces have multiple hands options. The multi-hand variance is much less and since I am playing multiple hands, the chance of getting that elusive Royal go up accordingly.
I am just curious about the pay table on the multi hand machines. Is it also 8/5 for Bonus at Rincon? Honestly, I never looked.
Hi Alan:
I was at Rincon (aka Harrah's Southern California Resort) in the first week of June last month. I found in the high limit area plenty of multi-hand 8/5 Bonus at the dollar level. This included two Dream Card machines which I played on the normal mode. I even hit one for Royal. I came home with a $2,000 profit for the whole trip. I stayed in a nice suite with a view of the Lazy River. Below is a photo of the Royal and the view from my balcony.
Nice hit and it's good to know those multi hand machines are full pay.
Hi Alan, I saw you on Friday night and appreciate your help. I have a question when playing the aces and faces. If I am dealt a pair that aren't faces with a single J,Q,K or A. Should I hold the pair or save the single ace or face??
Sorry for what seems like would be silly questions for the seasoned poker player. I'm assuming you would hold a pair of 8's and not a single J, Q,K or Ace. Again, I've been playing the JOB @ http://www.videopokertrainer.org/ and what I like about it is that it tells you when you're wrong. So, Alan when You yelled at me for holding the double aces and the double 2's I got that because of the pay table difference between the full house and quad A's. Of course you'd want to throw the deuces. In Jacks or Better if you have an As, Kd, Qc, you hold the K & Q, drop the A. Unless the A is suited with the face card. In that instace you hold the suited A and face card. I think you suggested I hold all 3 in the Aces and Faces? Also in JOB they suggest you holding 4 cards in one suite does that apply with Aces and Faces? Thanks again. I've been getting 90% or better with the trainer. Mainly stupid mistakes. I didn't see a free trainer for Aces and faces. Thank you. C:
Hi. I met VPnewbie at Rincon on Friday. I have a photo but can't post it till my new computer service starts... I'm using my phone. When we met she was playing 8/5 Jacks and I showed her both 8/5 Bonus and 8/5 Aces and Faces were on the same machine and both of those games were superior to Jacks because of the bonus quads.
She switched to Aces and Faces.
Yes you hold a small pair over single high cards. In this case you almost missed holding a pair of deuces... and you drew a third deuce. In the other example you had two pair with one pair of aces. The correct strategy is to hold both pairs but what I said is that giving up the second pair was outweighed by the chance for quad aces in this game.
If you want to play strict strategy you hold both AA and the other pair.
So what your saying is that the strategies that are set for these games are not always what a seasoned player would do? Because of the payoff. I was playing that same machine yesterday Alan. It was supposed to be a quick game because we really went to Rincon for the sunshine that got trumped by the rain showers. I put in $100 for a quick game. Played for around an hour. Then hit 4 Kings. I played a couple more hands and decided to quit while I was a head. It was a good feeling.
How'd you do Friday Alan?
The published strategy to hold two pair with AA one pair is correct. But its my personal preference to give up the second pair on that game at low denominations. When I play Aces and Faces at $5 I hold both pairs. At 25cents I gamble.
I had a very good night using only the free play.
Bad news. That $5 machine in the high limit slots area has the sign that $25 coin in equals one tier point.
Alan, that 3116 machine. Is that the only progressive machine that has Aces and Faces. On a different note. Have you ever had Rincons coffee? Had some last night. It was very tasty.
3116 doesn't have any progressives that I've seen. I know of 3 machines with Aces and Faces at low denominations. There might be more.
One more Alan,back by the poker room.
Is that the one in the no smoking section? If that is the one then the total is four.Quote:
Originally Posted by spojoey
You're talking about Caesar's and not Rincon, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So is that it? No full pay VP at $10/tier in all of Vegas at CET properties (aside from that one Rio DDB machine), right?
It can't be that bad a deal Dan. Dancer just talked about how anyone in LV expecting to make $100,000/year playing vp needs all those slot club freebies, cruises, gifts, and tournament/drawing wins to accomplish it, since there are no more 100%+ machines for the "heavy-hitters". In other words, the more you play the more you'll lose, but conversely, the freebies go up exponentially, since he's claiming on purpose or via another one of his errors, that all of your losses will be peanuts compared to all the wonderful loss-deleting freebies you'll be getting no problem, from the casinos.
Anyone who thinks they can't win on negative games needs to consult with Dancer, for his quoted rate of $250/hr.
Dan that was the Caesars machine. There are still 9/6 Jacks games that give one tier point for each $10 bet but they are $25 and $100 machines in the Palace Court high limit slots room at Caesars.
Yes Alan,that's the one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Rob, that was one of your better Dancer slings and arrows. Cogent, snarky, and pretty accurate. Dancer is basically now at the point where he's recommending a kind of Sanford and Son clearing house if you're a vp player. Collect all the various junk, resell it, and claim your winnings.
Alan, did you know that you get a 10,000 tier bonus by getting 5,000 tier credits in one day?
It's funny that the masses can't see this. When someone comes right out and admits losing to the negative percentages of the games available today, and in the same paragraph announces that the slot club not only covers those losses, but also adds at least another hundred thousand to the mix, it actually DOES bring up an analogy of a very educated and highly motivated, incredibly successful Sanford & Son.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Does he really think people believe this and that it sells his wares? And all the while, I thought stuffing rolls and fruit from the buffet into a purse was the end-all answer to profitable gambling.
If you advocate that the only way you can win is by playing "positive pay tables" then you are forced to find a way to turn a negative pay table into a positive one. Adding the value of promotions is one way to add to the return of the pay table.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
If, on the other hand, you use a different way to leave with a profit (win goals, loss limits) you don't have to live-and-die by the pay table returns and the value of promotions.
We all know that paytables are being reduced -- even our friend Arc has told us that his favorite games with a positive return have been eliminated. This means that video poker players who want to play more than "recreationally" will have to find a new "methodology" for winning. The "old way" of choosing pay tables won't work anymore.
Now, you might want to reject the idea of using win goals and loss limits and that's okay with me... if you know of something better. Do you?
Alan, if at any point you truly wanted to know whether loss limits and win goals worked at all, you would consult a professional mathematician. They aren't hard to find.
If you are playing a negative expectation game, I have no qualms with anything that reduces your play. If you are playing a positive expectation game, win goals and loss limits are somewhat silly. One would be better off determining when or how long to play based on fatigue and the resulting error rate.
If there are no positive expectation games available, my "something better" recommendation is "Don't Play." Video poker ain't that fascinating. Twenty years ago, there were plenty of positive games with good comps. Now they are rare, but not quite extinct. I point out the 10/7 machines at The Four Queens. They are, however, merely quarters, and some people would rather lose at dollars than win at quarters. I'm not sure why, but some people would.
I suspect there's a correlation between not consulting mathematicians and preferring to lose at dollars to winning at quarters, but that's sheer speculation on my part.
To paraphrase Johnny Cochran, "If the pay table don't fit, then you oughta quit."
I don't need a mathematician to examine my wallet, or my check book. But thanks for the suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Alan, aside from Red's misunderstanding of how to beat a barely negative pay table on a visit of a few hours much more often than not, the way Dancer puts it, the more you lose the more you win. He makes it appear that when you play a -EV game and "lose as expected", the slot club will show up with immaculate intentions to cover your losses, then say "you know what--how about we throw a hundred thousand in on top of it, so you can make a profit off of us anyway!" At least arci gives it the good 'ol college try by claiming to win the small +EV% amount from the machines, then add slot club gravy on top of it. Dancer, it seems, is muttering this stuff via a position of declining senility.
I think what's being overlooked is that this is an all or nothing bet. When you sit down to play at s negative paytable game you have multiple chances to hit winners that give you a profit and you can cut your losses at any time.
Here's that photo of Vpnewbie and me when we met at Rincon.
redietz is correct.
The "math deniers" like to point to individual results ("I did really well last week, despite the paytable being bad!") or ("I played a 100.07% machine and lost on it 5 sessions in a row!"), ignoring how they are simply costing themselves money in the SHORT TERM with bad paytables, as well.
When you play 8-5 JoB instead of 9-6 JoB, the casino is keeping an extra credit every time you hit a flush or full house. If you're playing a $5 machine, that's $5 each time you get either of those. So if you hit 5 flushes and 3 full houses in that session, the casino kept $40 that should have been yours. Even if you hit a $20,000 royal that session as well, you are still short another $40. And that's the point here. That adds up over time. It adds up a lot.
Why do you think pay tables keep getting worse? Because too many gamblers think that math doesn't matter, and instead rationalize things like "only the big wins matter, and they are the same across all pay tables" or "this machine is lucky, so I don't care if the pay table sucks". Or they don't even understand pay tables at all.
The only reason to play a game with slightly worse odds is to avoid variance. For example, I understand playing 99.26% Aces and Faces over 99.40% ACE$, since the last 0.23% of the ACE$ game is something you're unlikely to hit unless you play a ridiculous number of hands.
Dan, all I can say is there's a reason you don't do so well with the game and instead, spend such an inordinate amount of time on what you are and are not getting from your slot club. In order to do well on any single trip you have to understand how to play in the short term. You will never beat the casinos at their own game, which is long term theory. Why do you think people like Dancer can never quit work, and why do you think he chose divorce over quitting the casino life to help his sick wife? None of this is rocket science.
I played the 8/5 Bonus Game at Caesars a week ago... and in almost an hour of play I didnt get even one full house.
I thought you could get ahead every time you play. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The idea that slot club benefits can turn a negative game into a positive game is really, really simple math. I find it hilarious that anyone would claim it doesn't make sense. Even Alan has shown us numerous times where his free play has generated a lot of money. Before they took out my machines I was getting 1.5-2% player's club benefits. Player's who could take advantage of the monthly drawing were getting over 2%. Even with a 99% game this would be very profitable.
Yes, I hit a royal and only hit a full house three times the entire trip.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
You're right -- it is simple math. And I would like someone to show us which slot club gives back more than what is lost?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
To the best of my knowledge, a combination of offers and cash back and bounce back at best will return one-tenth of one percent of coin in. And if you are playing a game that returns 99.54% then the slot club benefits of one-tenth of one percent would raise your return to 99.64%. Now... using simple math... how does that make this game positive?
But I have an open mind. Someone please show us which casino slot club has benefits that will make negative games positive? Anybody? Any casino?
Your question is the basis for what I said about Dancer's antics earlier. He not only claims slot clubs will make up your negative percentage loss--he asserts that they'll then go ahead and give you the difference so you can always go home with a profit! In other words and to make it simple, THE MORE YOU LOSE, THE MORE YOU WIN! And of course, the casinos he plays at have no problem letting him do this to them year after year after year. Casinos are known to "look the other way" when AP's come in to play, and they just LOVE giving it all away. Yup. Yupper.
I've shown this before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Making Seven Stars requires $500,000 coin in if you play the optimal number of tier credits per day (either 2500 or 5000). A 99.54% JoB game would yield an average loss of $2300 with perfect play.
Of course, that's an AVERAGE loss. Since hitting Royals is so important, and since it requires 20,000 hands at $5 machines to make $500,000 in coin-in, you only have a 50-50 chance of hitting a Royal. So, yes, there's variance. If you don't hit a Royal, you will lose about $12,300 on average. If you do, you will win about $7700 on average.
So due to that variance, I wouldn't recommend doing this unless your bankroll is deep enough to withstand a $12k loss (maybe more if you run really poorly) in the quest for Seven Stars.
But the "expected" loss is indeed $2300.
The Seven Stars benefits are worth more than $2300, provided you actually have a use for those benefits.
If you don't have much of a need for free CET rooms around the country, don't enjoy taking cruises, don't like to travel, and don't enjoy eating expensive dinners, then indeed Seven Stars isn't worth very much.
However, I actually do enjoy all of these things, and I extract maximum value out of them.
It's not a way to make money, but it's a way to have the fun of gambling while knowing you will get some substantial discounts/freebies to cover all or some of your losses if you end up having worse luck than expected.
Also, keep in mind that you get Seven Stars for TWO years, so you can get two years' worth of benefits without putting another dime into the machines. That makes it worth even more.
I've played no VP in 2014 aside from running freeplay.
I'm one who enjoys travelling to various comped CET rooms across the country--I've done it three times. But even though this is my first time ever at 7-Stars level, I'm using very little of the benefits. And that so-called "expected loss"? Well, the reality is I'm tens of thousands of dollars ahead, and it's ONLY because I knew enough to quit after reaching a win goal each time I played. No I wasn't playing that loser's game 9/6 job. The pay tables were much worse than that. Chase this stuff the way the casino wants you to and you will always be asking yourself how, why, and where it all went wrong.
Ahhh I see we're back to the same irresponsible situation as before where our webmaster is denying math while at the same time he's really trying everybody to believe he's not trying to deny the math. Our resident vp "wizz kid" is also back to his usual routine: using the vp-machines as his personal ATM and insulting his fellow "vp wizz kids" like Dancer because he just hates the attention the man gets while slapping himself on the back in almost every post.
Back to the same old same old. And since beating the same dead horse so many times is the daily routine at Alan's Best Buys Forum I wish you all good luck. Vegas Vic, I'm going to follow your example.
I'm sorry you don't understand what is being discussed here. No one is denying the math of the game(s). What is being discussed here is how to play so you can do better than what the math says to expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
In fact, "recreational players" do this all the time: they hit a winner and leave for the buffet or go home. It seems that only the AP and the math guys are glued to their seats and must keep playing.
A question for Vegas_lover and anyone else who is glued to the math (and their seats): do you advise a player to keep playing after hitting a big winner?
I've read comments from math guys that there is no reason to quit playing a game with a positive pay table except for reasons such as hunger, fatigue and going to empty your body of waste materials. And I think that's absolutely irresponsible because it eliminates the possibility that any accumulated profits could be lost in subsequent play.
Alan, I'm not going to respond to any of those silly questions anymore because you don't want to hear (or listen to the answers). You've got your mind made up and obviously love to continue the same old discussions (you know, the ones that have been discussed a zillion times already).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You think it's absolutely irresponsible of math guyes to state there is no reason to quit playing positive EV games. I think it is highly irresponsible of YOU to state that people can consisantly beat -EV games (or let me rephrase that: consistantly win at -EV games) with win goals and loss limits. Good luck with your forum. This is the point where I'm going to say goodbye and follow Vegas Vic's example.
The only thing I'll say, sort of in Alan's defense, is that responsibility for many lies in loyalty to who is buttering your bread. Alan's advice may be irresponsible for a general population or readership, but they aren't paying his bills. It could be considered responsible if he's juggling occasional contracts for CET or others in the casino industry.
What's irresponsible is for people who don't understand the game and don't even play it, to even begin to think they could have any meaningful input on the game at all. They come on with pre-conceived notions, and then end up arguing those while dismissing people who regularly play. Sounds like a cultural failing if you ask me.
Oh, and as usual they'll be back. They can't live without me.
Hi guys!:)
I never said that you will consistently win. I asked you several times to keep track of the number of sessions that you played when you were ahead at some point in each of those sessions. I think if you did that you would find that most of the time if not all of the time, you were ahead at least one bet playing video poker. My point was to illustrate that even at a negative expectation game you can be ahead of the expected return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
You, however, have continued to twist and turn the things I say and while there is no reason to prevent you from posting (ban you, suspend you) I think it's better that you don't post here. Your misinformation can be costly to the people who come here for helpful information. It is dangerous to have anyone here who advocates continued gambling once a player has converted the casinos money into his own money.
In another thread I said in a comment to redietz that once you win a bet the money you have won is now your money. It is not the house's money that you are playing with -- it is your money that you are playing with. Even at a positive expectation machine (game) there is still a significant risk of losing your money -- whether it came out of your pocket or was just won from the casino. So I say take the money and run.
As I also pointed out in the other thread, the average Vegas gambler has a budget of less than $600. (See http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...get-five-years ) so your preaching of big money gambling statistics and deep pocket statistics is inappropriate for this forum.
You deep pocketed professional gamblers should have a meeting in a suite at the Wynn drinking cognac and champagne to discuss your deep pocket theoretical math. The rest of us have to deal with reality. And the reality is we can't sit at a video poker machine expecting a royal flush to give us the return that the pay table says we should expect. We have to take what luck gives us in the short time we play with the available budget we have. In short, we have to adapt theory to the reality we are facing.
Sure we should all be playing the best pay tables available -- but even at a positive pay table there is no guarantee we will win. So... we take the money and run.
I sent you a private message about a week ago asking you not to make references to my business. While I have done some work for some casino companies and while I have met and consulted with various executives of casino companies in Vegas and elsewhere, my comments here are my own and have nothing to do with my business relationships or with my business providing advertising and marketing information.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
If you want to debate my position about gambling then debate what I say and the issue. This comment you made is irresponsible.
Think about WHY casinos PAY Dancer to teach optimal play INSIDE CASINOS. That ought to undress the mystique about the long-term method that should shake every savvy gambler out there. But why doesn't it? Because of THEORY. And that's exactly how the casinos want and expect every player to react. Then they throw continuous, constant super duper slot club promos at all players every day of the year and all over the state, that they KNOW will be descended upon by mostly AP's, and whom they know will bring in as much cash as they can get their hands on. It's as if they're just GIVING it away, is it not?
It is all such simple common sense.
I attended one of Dancer's in-casino seminars some years back and it was clear (and even discussed) why the casino had him there giving away gambling info for free: the more players banging away and the longer that they banged away at the machines the more the casinos raked in. I recall Dancer's seminar was given in part of the video poker area where there was a row of 9/6 jacks or better machines with a big card mounted on top with Dancer's picture saying these were machines/games he endorsed. Of course the casino wanted the signs -- the casino had an edge on every dollar played. Which is why you can't beat the casinos with extended play. The only chance you have is to get ahead of the casinos as much as you can in each session and quit that session -- and when you can't get ahead you know when to cut your losses.
Actually its worse than that. If you are playing a $5 machine at max credits it is costing you $25 every time you hit a flush or a full house, $200 in your example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And if you are looking for a $5 JoB machine in the west that gives full tier points try Phoenix. I'll even meet you out there for a beer.
9/6 Jacks $5 flush pays 6X25 = $150Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfoot66
8/5 Bonus $5 flush pays 5X25 = $125
9/6 Jacks $5 full house pays 9X25 = $225
8/5 Bonus $5 full house pays 8X25 = $200
I got a chuckle out of this, because one royal is the equivalent of the difference of a full house or flush in an 8/5 game 800 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
But what makes 8/5 Bonus (or Aces and Faces) so appealing is that:
Quad Aces which pays $2,000 on a $5 machine is the equivalent of the difference of a full house or flush 80 times.
The other "bonus quads" which pay $1,000 is the equivalent of the difference of a full house or flush 40 times.
Oops, you're right. I knew what I meant when I wrote that, but I typed it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfoot66
Yes, at a 9/6 $5 JoB machine, you are losing $25 on every flush or full house versus an 8/5 JoB machine. This is why pay tables matter so much.
Of course, it's a lesser difference at 8-5 bonus (because of the extra pay on quads), but you are still losing more overall between royals than you are at 9/6 JoB, even with the extra credits for AAAA or the other bonus quads.
Alan, your advice to quit after a big win is only good if you aren't going to play VP again for awhile.
If you are a regular VP player, you will eventually give back that win, so it doesn't matter so much if you run those extra hands just moments after the big win, or 2 weeks later. You will still lose the money.
So let's say I have a friend named Joe, who visits Vegas once every 2 years, and will run $5-per-credit VP for an hour or so. He hits a quick royal and he's up $20k. I would say, "Joe, don't keep playing. You've hit what you came for. Quit and go home with your $20k", and that would be great advice because Joe will not play again for 2 years, and even when he does at that point, it's not likely to result in much of a loss.
However, if Joe is a weekly VP player, his quitting now will be negligible. He will return in subsequent weeks and lose it anyway, and in fact will likely have lost it all back by the time a year has passed. So quitting today will mean very little for Joe's bankroll in this case.
That's why "session based" quitting is so dumb for regular players. It makes zero sense.
Your advice is like pressuring a habitual smoker to stop smoking for the day for health reasons, yet having no problem with them lighting up tomorrow and smoking regularly again.
Quitting something harmful/unhealthy only works when you aren't going to regularly do it again soon.
With that said, I think everyone is getting too emotional over this.
I hope that Vegas_Vic, Vegas_Lover, and whoever else doesn't quit the forum.
I don't think any of this discussing is harming anyone, though I definitely disagree with Alan & Rob here.
Who says you are going to give it back? Where is it written that you will give it back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You'll give it back if you let yourself give it back. But if you get lucky, you will never give it back.
This is the problem: there are no absolutes. It is not absolute that if you only play negative expectation games that you will lose. It is not an absolute if you only play positive expectation games that you will win.
Alan, give him some time--maybe a few more years and maybe even this year. When he finally wins money by the end of a year from playing negative machines, he'll finally realize that you actually CAN win--and keep it AND add to it--on ANY machines if you do something other than to sit and play for the points.
Rob let me also add that playing for a certain amount of time is also dangerous. If you say you will play for five hours per day you are opening the door to disaster. Instead play but stop when you've won. And yes you will win again on a future trip and stop then too. And between the wins learn to control your losses.
Dan's plan to reach 7 Stars in ten sessions is only asking for trouble. He won't be able to leave with a profit unless he made his 15-thousand tier points.
He's also always planning on hitting at least one Royal, when that's a tall order for ANY amount of play.
That's my plan: Go play vp, get ahead, then quit. Do it every day for three years. Maybe twice a day for three years. Hell, three times a day for three years. May as well retire with some extra cash.
You make fun of it, but you have to try it. Then let us know what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
As I've said before: go to a casino and keep track of how many days you play VP when you are ahead at some point by at least 5 credits. I think I have been ahead at least 5 credits at least 90% of the time I've played VP.
Try it and let us know.
They won't do it Alan, mainly because they can't play a short period and even if they could, there's no way any of them would want to spoil their "theories". Reality is a real killer, you know.
I have no problem doing it. VP ain't my schtick, so I'll be more than happy to be the guinea pig for this nonsense once football is over.
Unless, of course, Rob thinks I'm a member of "they," in which case my soul-robbing addiction to pushing buttons will prevent me from doing so. Anybody want to wager on the likelihood of that? Of course, the fact I'm probably not playing until football is over kind of puts the lie to the idea that "APs" and vp addiction are somehow irrevocably intertwined. Oh well, I guess that's the sort of reality some folks do not like to acknowledge.
Again, there is nothing "dangerous" about my plan unless you believe I psychologically can't handle a terrible session while earning 5,000 base tiers in one day. I guess you could also say it would be "dangerous" if I couldn't afford to lose in the worst-case scenario, but I could afford it (I just wouldn't like it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If I put $500,000 of coin-in at the same machine (Aces and Faces) as you put $1.5 million in coin-in during the same year (2015), then I am likely to lose exactly 1/3 as much as you, regardless of how our sessions are broken down, or when we quit at particular times.
I don't see why you aren't understanding this.
People understand what they prefer to understand.
Putting either of those amounts thru a machine while expecting to lose, is completely stupid, so no, there is no difference. The available difference that goes over AP and wannabee AP heads, is expecting to win (wow....what a concept!) every time you play. It's absolutely amazing that this concept escapes nearly every vp player, and almost always because of a half of a per cent..
That's what the theoretical math says. In reality, this past year I made 7 Stars again with a profit because I hit a royal. So far this year I have eight royals. Does the math account for 8 royals for the amount of play I did so far this year? Of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And that's the point: your results might vary.