VP Comments

I just wanted to chime in that there is probably a reason vp machines that return less than 100% are called "negative expectation" machines. It seems to me -- stop losses, win goals, and pixie dust aside -- they would be called something else if there were a way around the fact they will return less than 100%.

It also seems to me that casinos would have the math figured out sufficiently that if everyone adopted Rob's strategy or Alan's ideas, the casinos would not lose money on vp. Call me cynical, but that's the way it looks to me.

So I guess my questions have to do with -- if everyone adopted what either Rob recommends or Alan recommends, what would happen? Because if Rob or Alan is correct, the vp world would then collapse in a heap, as far as casinos are concerned, and they would have to close shop and toss out the vp games.

Am I interpreting this stuff correctly? If everyone were to adopt your strategies, what are you saying would happen?

Negative expectation is a term that is used in math. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can win. It is similar to the term "no house advantage" in craps which refers to the odds bet that is made along with a passline bet. While there is "no house advantage" the player is still more likely to lose that money.

"Math speak" is not exactly simple English.

Regarding this comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If everyone were to adopt your strategies, what are you saying would happen?

---

You still have to get lucky. Strategy alone does not make you a winner.

I expect Rob to espouse this nonsense, but the fact that Alan goes along with it is pretty amazing.

Alan is reasonable with everything he posts here except for this stuff.

Dan, you keep delivering the dumbest of comments about me, and the reason is simple: not only are you passing your social security deductions onto me--you are troubled that you're also giving me your losses at CET! Yes, that would burn my butt too, esp. when you think you've got the poker machines all figured out "theoretically". I can think of no other explanation for your disdain, esp. when I'm trying to help you.

Red, if everyone played as I do then the casinos would quite simply no longer have the vp machines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Red, if everyone played as I do then the casinos would quite simply no longer have the vp machines.

---

Rob, you give yourself too much credit for being lucky. That is not to say that the strategy for win goals doesn't help -- because it certainly does help. But win goals still need "wins" in order to work and that depends, literally, on the luck of the draw of the RNG.

Frankly Rob if you eliminated the drama and the self serving statements, people would find it easier to understand what is reasonable about your overall strategy and they might actually see what is valuable about it. It's the BS that you pile on which prevents or hinders the general population of players to see what's good about what you say.

So allow me to restate your strategy/philosophy in a way that will appear to be more reasonable and perhaps even Dan might see the value in it:

1. No strategy will make you a winner, nor will it make the RNG give you the "cards" you need to win. This applies to both positive expectation games and negative expectation games. No matter the paytable you still have to get lucky.

2. When you do get lucky, take the profits home with you. Once you win the money it is no longer the casino's money -- it is yours. And even at a positive expectation game, additional play could cause you to give back that which you have won.

3. Going home with a session win means you won money in that session and it does not mean you won in the previous session nor does it mean you will win in a subsequent session. And this applies to negative expectation as well as positive expectation games.

4. So-called special plays are designed to either maximize the chances for smaller wins, or to maximize the chances for larger wins. But no matter if you are holding 3 aces in a full house in triple double bonus, or three aces in a full house in Jacks or Better, only the RNG will "decide" if you are going to draw quads. Only the player can decide what is best for their wallet and what chances they want to take. If you get lucky with a "special play" once, you might never again.

5. It's gambling and only the player can decide how much risk they want to accept. Different strategies and philosophies measure risk tolerance differently.

According to Alan, then, one has to be "lucky" to win at video poker. I assume, then, that one needs to "have more luck" on negative expectation machines than on positive expectation machines to win?

Would that be correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

According to Alan, then, one has to be "lucky" to win at video poker. I assume, then, that one needs to "have more luck" on negative expectation machines than on positive expectation machines to win?

Would that be correct?

---

You need luck on both positive expectation and negative expectation games/machines. Can you quantify luck?

The only time I was really very lucky was when I dated a former Miss Miami and then a former Miss Florida. Which one was luckier? I'll never tell.

Alan is making a few true statements, but he is drawing the wrong conclusions.

For example, I can make the following statements:

1) There are some summer days where the San Fernando Valley is hotter than Las Vegas.

2) Averages do not determine the weather TODAY. They determine the weather in the long term. I've seen 110 degree days in Seattle, and I've seen July days in Vegas with a high of 85. It varies. You need some luck to get good weather in any place in the US.

3) Therefore, if you hate the heat, you shouldn't necessarily choose Los Angeles over Las Vegas in the summer. You just need to be lucky for the weather to be good wherever you are.


Statements #1 and #2 are true, but #3 is flawed. The reason #3 is flawed is because you have a much better chance of having a cooler day in Los Angeles, even if there are some outlier days where LA is hotter than Vegas.

So that's what I feel Alan is doing when talking about luck and +EV machines.

Truth #1: A +EV machine will not always win for you.

Truth #2: A -EV machine will not always lose for you.

Truth #3: If you go home when ahead on a -EV machine, you have beaten the odds and are banking a win.

However, the above does NOT translate into "going home a winner is the proper strategy to becoming a profitable VP player."

Going home a winner is only the right thing to do if you are a very infrequent player, as you are preventing the odds from catching up with you by playing more hands.

However, if you are a regular VP player like Alan or Rob, quitting today is meaningless if you are surely coming back to play again soon.

Simply put, for regular players, it is one long session, rather than a succession of short sessions where you are banking wins and feeling good about it.

Alan, can you explain why playing 100 hands today, 100 hands next week, and 100 hands two weeks from now is any different from playing 300 hands today? Does the machine change its odds in the middle? If not, why does quitting affect anything? Why does a "session" matter?

I am still looking for an answer to this.

When you play and how many hands you play does not matter. Whether you go home with more than you started with does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

When you play and how many hands you play does not matter. Whether you go home with more than you started with does.

---

Why does "going home" matter if you are going back again soon?

Let's take this example:

Alan goes to Rincon on August 10, plays 450 hands, gets $300 up, and goes home a winner.

Alan goes to Rincon on August 17, plays 800 hands, loses $500, and leaves.

Now let's take this other example:

Alan goes to Rincon on August 10, plays 1250 hands, loses $200, and leaves.

Alan does not go to Rincon on August 17.

-----

So in both examples, you played 1250 hands and lost $200.

How is one different from the other? Because you took a 7 day break in between some of the hands?

Do you really believe your odds to win over 1250 hands is any different whether you play them all at once, or split it up in various sessions where you leave when you're a certain amount ahead?

If not, then why bother leaving when ahead?

I like this better: Alan goes to Rincon every day to win $10 every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

According to Alan, then, one has to be "lucky" to win at video poker. I assume, then, that one needs to "have more luck" on negative expectation machines than on positive expectation machines to win?

Would that be correct?

---

2 similar quotes from the world of sports:

"Luck is the residue of design" - Branch Rickey

"Luck is the residue of preparation" - Jack Youngblood

VP players can control the design and preparation of their game leading up to the draw. If you have no idea how to design or prepare your game, the "amount of luck" needed to win on the draw becomes greater.

How about this: the harder I work the luckier I get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

According to Alan, then, one has to be "lucky" to win at video poker. I assume, then, that one needs to "have more luck" on negative expectation machines than on positive expectation machines to win?

Would that be correct?

---

Since Dan is stuck in the beginner cliches of "you can't POSSIBLY win on 3 straight trips when playing -EV machines" and ".5% makes all the difference in the world" I'll see if I can answer Red's question.

When I first started as a pro, my advanced BP games of choice were 9/7/5 DBP & 10/6 DDBP. The luck I experienced on those machines was no different than the luck experienced on the games that I've played since they disappeared that come in at maybe .2%-.5% less. Why? Because it's not about the flush and it's not about the FH. And in my strategy, it's not even about the royal--I never need them to win. When you're playing for a win TODAY, you can go a lifetime w/o a royal and still win very consistently, although the overall win will be down some.

Dan erroneously believes that you somehow MUST string together every session, thereby making it mandatory that , because of playing .2% less, it he machines are REQUIRED to snatch away all previous profits....and a little bit more! And the funniest part of all this is how, suddenly, royals are now also REQUIRED in order to meet his requirement to LOSE according to the negative percentages.

This is why I'm trying to help him learn the game, and to help stop him from putting the little guy's college education into the poker machines.

Alan, you're on the right track but you're headed in the wrong direction. GOOD LUCK actually IS the only way to beat vp. But you have to have AND USE a strategy that allows for more lucky" opportunities than the machines normally would afford, and without them consistent profitting is doubtful. IE, the special plays. But even those are meaningless without a progressive strategy in denomination and game volatility as well as strong discipline and the proper bankroll.

PS: all the colorful language and descriptions are meant to draw people into the discussions. It was a positive on my website, in my GT column, and obviously it's worked on all the forums. The more I get banned, the more email traffic I have. And THAT's where the majority of my help gets dispensed.

Rob I understand how some of your special plays allow the luck factor to help you. For example: if you always hold a full house with three aces in 7/5 Bonus you will never draw quad aces. Your special play in 7/5 Bonus is to hold only the three aces and hope that luck will give you the fourth ace. Conventional strategy is to hold the full house in 7/5. In 8/5 you also hold the full house. In 6/5 the correct strategy is to hold only the aces.

The difference between your special play on 7/5 and the conventional strategy on 7/5 is that you are willing to sacrifice a smaller full house for the chance at quads. And that may be because you realize that another full house paying 7 coins per coin bet won't do you much good -- but the quad aces will.

The point is that you have a different value assigned to getting a full house than others do. That might be because of your "bankroll" or it might be because you are more of a risk taker.

Alan:

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to observe that when you are on a winning streak at VP (either a string of modest wins or maybe a royal or two) you seem to be more supportive of Rob's strategies. Yet, when you are on a losing streak you seem to become more argumentative and confrontational with Rob.

Would this be a fair statement with some kernel of truth, or am I mistaken?

It's both. I'm probably one of the very, very few players that will not play for profit without the true and proper bankroll required at the denominations I'll/they'll play. And I don't use that silly "Kelly Bankroll" system or the even dumber "RoR" that you regularly see the confused geeks babble about.

As far as being willing to take bigger "risks"--yes & no. I play mostly by the math, and that same math dictates when and if I make a special play that deviates from optimal strategy. Purests see this as a "big risk" because they make believe it's happening thousands of time throughout the very obscure "long term". But in REALITY, it is a small overall risk, because if it doesn't work, it usually means very, very little in the session I'm playing.

And don't forget--sometimes, albeit not frequently, they work! Yet predictably, every time I've written about a special play working and working BIG (like the time I held one Q instead of the offsuited QK on $25 SDBP and got three more for $15,000) the math people couldn't wait to laughably claim (and of course, out of hateful envy) how much that "loser's play" really "cost me" in the ridiculous "long run".

It's dumb things like this that hold people back from learning how to play the game for a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

Alan:

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to observe that when you are on a winning streak at VP (either a string of modest wins or maybe a royal or two) you seem to be more supportive of Rob's strategies. Yet, when you are on a losing streak you seem to become more argumentative and confrontational with Rob.

Would this be a fair statement with some kernel of truth, or am I mistaken?

---

I don't play Rob's strategy. I don't do "special plays." So whether I win or not has no impact on how I react to Rob. When he posts obnoxious statements I let him know -- whether I am winning or losing. When he makes claims about fantastic wins with little play -- I question them, whether I am winning or losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

And don't forget--sometimes, albeit not frequently, they work! Yet predictably, every time I've written about a special play working and working BIG (like the time I held one Q instead of the offsuited QK on $25 SDBP and got three more for $15,000) the math people couldn't wait to laughably claim (and of course, out of hateful envy) how much that "loser's play" really "cost me" in the ridiculous "long run".

---

All you did there was get lucky Rob. Your "special play" allowed you to get lucky, and you did. Would you have a story to tell if you didn't? No.

Since we're talking strategy....

Do you see any advantage to cashing out after a win. Alan, say you got quad Aces on Aces and faces. The only game I play now. Thanks to you. Do you see an advantage to cashing out and putting your card and money back in to the same game? If I haven't misunderstood you Alan, I think you have said you've been most lucky at the beginning of a session.

Vpnewbie if I hit quad aces on Aces and Faces at the $5 level I will probably cash out and go home. That's $2,000. Yes, there were those rare sessions when I hit quad aces again, but in those cases I kept playing because I already had big profits.

If you think cashing out and removing your card and then reinserting your card and depositing money again is going to "fool" the machine into thinking you are a new player at a new session... then forget it. I don't believe any of that crap.

But yes, I have had winning sessions where I hit early. In reality if I don't hit early it's not going to be a winning session -- because I am not going to sit there and keep putting money in the machine until I do hit. And I am not going to move up in denomination either hoping that I will make up previous losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

All you did there was get lucky Rob. Your "special play" allowed you to get lucky, and you did. Would you have a story to tell if you didn't? No.

---

So it looks like you're agreeing with the fact that I utilize these opportunities to hopefully get that session-ending LUCKY hit, right? And if I didn't use it, all I'd have is 3 Q's instead of four, because the 4th card drawn was the 4th Q. And that's precisely what the special plays are all about--giving myself MORE opportunities to hit these type of hands.

This play experience also appeared in GT. The hate mail to my editor shot sky high that week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vpnewbie

Since we're talking strategy....

Do you see any advantage to cashing out after a win. Alan, say you got quad Aces on Aces and faces. The only game I play now. Thanks to you. Do you see an advantage to cashing out and putting your card and money back in to the same game? If I haven't misunderstood you Alan, I think you have said you've been most lucky at the beginning of a session.

---

Really, it makes no difference if you do ANY razzle dazzle at the machine, and neither does it hurt if you do it. It just looks stupid to others if that's any concern. In my case, I've been luckiest at the very END of almost every session I play. Why? Because I quit and go home after the big hit.

Honestly, I've never done it. But, I do see others around me do it. And I saw Alan post a picture with 4 tickets a couple weeks ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vpnewbie

Honestly, I've never done it. But, I do see others around me do it. And I saw Alan post a picture with 4 tickets a couple weeks ago.

---

When you saw the tickets its because I was cashing out the winnings from free play. Then I went to the redemption machine and got money and went home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Really, it makes no difference if you do ANY razzle dazzle at the machine, and neither does it hurt if you do it. It just looks stupid to others.

---

There USED TO BE a high limit VP player at Rincon (emphasis intended) who would cash out EVERY winner -- and he did this to the point that the machines ran out of ticket paper when he played. A floor person and a manager finally came over to him and asked him what he was doing and why? He muttered something about superstition -- and then fed back all of the tickets into the machine to repeat the process.

I think he went broke.