When 7/5 Bonus Poker is BETTER than 8/5 Bonus Poker.

Brace yourselves advantage players and numbers crunchers because this might hurt: when it comes to earning 7 Stars at Caesars in Las Vegas, it is better to play 7/5 Bonus Poker than it is to play 8/5 Bonus Poker.

I just crunched the numbers with a lot of help from forum member John ke6cdh.

The conventional thinking is that playing 8/5 Bonus with a return of 99.17% is a much better game than playing 7/5 Bonus with a return of 98% but when you are working towards 7 Stars or Diamond it's not the case. The 7/5 Bonus game will actually cost you less. And the reason is that Caesars Palace (and other Total Rewards casinos in Vegas) have a rule that the 8/5 Bonus Game requires $25 coin-in for 1 tier point (also for 1 Reward Credit) while the 7/5 Bonus Game requires $10 coin-in for 1 tier point (also for 1 Reward Credit). So, here's the math:

Your goal is to play for 5,000 Tier Points each day for ten days to get the maximum 10,000 Tier Point Bonus each day. Combined the 150,000 tier points will give you 7 Stars. You will also get a total of 50,000 Reward Credits which is the equivalent of $500 in comps.

PLAYING 7/5 BONUS POKER 98% RETURN

You earn 5,000 tier points in a day with $50,000 coin in at an expected cost of $1,000.

Over 10 days that's an expected cost of $10,000.

You will also get $500 in comps ($50 per day X 10) so your net cost will be $9,500.

PLAYING 8/5 BONUS POKER 99.17% RETURN

You earn 5,000 tier points in a day with $125,000 coin in ($25 per tier point) at an expected cost of $1,037.50 per day.

Over 10 days that's an expected cost of $10,375.

You will get the same $500 in comps so your net cost will be $9,875.

Comments?

If you're playing $5 BP ($25 per hand), it will take 20,000 hands to reach 7 Stars with 7/5 BP and 50,000 hands to reach 7 Stars with 8/5 BP.

With a $375 expected loss difference between the two, that is only 15 hands at the $5 level.

I'd actually consider playing the 8/5 anyway because of the 50,000 chances for a much-needed royal rather than just 20,000 chances at 7/5. The risk profile seems to be worse overall for 7/5 rather than 8/5 because of the reduced royal chance. With only a $375 difference I'd probably stick with the 8/5 assuming the freeplay mailers returned for play on the 8/5 machines are as good as the 7/5. That's a big unknown.

Not worth $10,000 a year to me.

Count Room if there are free play mailers they will be better for a 7/5 player because the house has a better edge. That's how casino marketing works.

I find it odd that you would raise the issue of playing more to get a royal. For TR members the objective is reaching 7 Stars at the lowest cost-- not playing for a royal. And if you want to keep playing for a royal you have some extra money from the 7/5 path to do it.

The point is simply this: when Caesars made those 8/5 machines $25/point they raised the price of 7 Stars.

Fortunately you still have a "deal" at Rincon where you'll also get bounce back money too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Count Room if there are free play mailers they will be better for a 7/5 player because the house has a better edge. That's how casino marketing works.

I find it odd that you would raise the issue of playing more to get a royal. For TR members the objective is reaching 7 Stars at the lowest cost-- not playing for a royal. And if you want to keep playing for a royal you have some extra money from the 7/5 path to do it.

The point is simply this: when Caesars made those 8/5 machines $25/point they raised the price of 7 Stars.

Fortunately you still have a "deal" at Rincon where you'll also get bounce back money too.

---

Alan: Yes, I fully understand that the theoretical loss factored into 7/5 BP may allow for better free play offers, but I am not certain at all how Caesars' operates in this exact instance.

The royal is extremely important in this case to prevent outsized losses beyond the expected $10,000. You only have a limited set of hands with which to meet or come close to the theoretical numbers if you want to rely on your calculations.

I'd still lean towards the 8/5 BP myself despite all the other considerations presented. It's your decision, though.

If nothing else ---->>> Just remember that going through 20,000 hands at 7/5 BP without a royal will likely cost you a lot more than 50,000 hands at 8/5 BP with one royal (both scenarios here well within the middle zone of the bell curve).

And what if you play 50,000 without a royal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

And what if you play 50,000 without a royal?

---

I will send you a condolence card if that happens.

There is a 71% chance you will hit one or more royals during a 50,000 hand 8/5 BP sample.

There's only a 39% chance of hitting one or more royals during the 20,000 hand 7/5 BP sample.


As Dirty Harry would say, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

As an aside, you also have a better chance of hitting two or more royals going the 8/5 BP route.

This is when you would owe me a steak dinner, is that correct?

Well, if the point was all about hitting royals then obviously the more hands you played the better your chances.

But this is not about hitting royals. This is about the expected return (yes, chance of a royal is included) and achieving 7 Stars at the lowest cost.

You should not be swayed into thinking that playing an 8/5 game is superior in this case. It would be at a casino such as Rincon where $10 of coin-in even on a $5 video poker game earns 1 point. But you have to think differently at Caesars and other casinos.

But if you want more hands to hit royals, play the $1 7/5 Bonus.

Alan: I will concede that I was mistaken earlier in the thread by saying the 7/5 BP approach has a worse risk profile than the 8/5 BP. 50,000 hand sample at 8/5 has more volatility compared to 20,000 hands of 7/5 when final results are tallied.

It's just a personal preference of mine in this case even though the numbers are slightly inferior for 8/5. It's not about hitting royals for the sake of hitting royals. I would just rather be looking for a good chance of getting away with 7 Stars more cheaply with the understanding there is a small chance of a disaster (50,000 hands with no royal).

You could also play 7/5 at $2 or $1 but you would just have to play more hands and spend more time. You still get one point for $10 coin-in and you have more chances to hit a royal. Perhaps then you would prefer playing 7/5 $2 as a compromise for the best of both worlds -- a lower cost than 8/5 Bonus and more hands to catch a royal?

Phenomenal thread Alan. Very eye opening. Not sure why you have the idea that APs would be playing to get 7 stars....or think your idea is new -- playing a worse return game because you earn points faster.

RS___ There is no reason why an AP can't be 7 Stars. Even card counters can be 7 Stars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

RS___ There is no reason why an AP can't be 7 Stars. Even card counters can be 7 Stars.

---

Re-read my post. I didn't say APs cannot be 7 stars. I'm 7 stars, but it's not because I developed a plan to become 7 stars.

AP's care about making money, not status.

7 Stars also has a value to it. I will leave Dan Druff a true AP to discuss that. 7 Stars is more than "status."

Alan: Playing 50,000 hands of $2 7/5 BP is a good idea if you want to smooth out some of the volatility associated with hitting royals or lack thereof.

If you fail to make any royals happen at the $2 level you would be expected to lose about $20,000. One royal will cut that loss to $12,000.

At the $5 8/5 BP level, the disaster "no royal" scenario would average a loss of about $36,000.

On the flip side, let's say you get really lucky and grab two royals:
You'd still be at a modest loss ($4,000) playing the $2 level, yet at the $5 8/5 BP level you'd actually be ahead $6,000 by the time you finish your quest for Seven Stars.

The difference is even more pronounced at three royals, and so on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

it's not because I developed a plan to become 7 stars.

---

There are advantage players who do have a plan, and by following their plan their goal is to get their 7 Stars at the lowest possible cost -- and hopefully with a profit. If you are a recreational player a plan might not matter to you. But for an AP who goes through the trouble of card counting, or learning proper strategies, or playing for maximum comps, or being aware of wins and losses, having a plan to reach 7 Stars makes 100% sense.

In fact, if you don't have a plan to reach 7 Stars then you can't possibly call yourself an AP because true APs have a plan for everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

There are advantage players who do have a plan, and by following their plan their goal is to get their 7 Stars at the lowest possible cost -- and hopefully with a profit. If you are a recreational player a plan might not matter to you. But for an AP who goes through the trouble of card counting, or learning proper strategies, or playing for maximum comps, or being aware of wins and losses, having a plan to reach 7 Stars makes 100% sense.

In fact, if you don't have a plan to reach 7 Stars then you can't possibly call yourself an AP because true APs have a plan for everything.

---

AP's don't aspire to be 7 stars, noir, or anything else. If we get it, cool. First and foremost is beating casino games for profit. 7 stars, noir, etc., can't pay the bills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

AP's care about making money, not status.

---

Making money is the ONLY thing that's important to me also, but I go a step further. I'll accept all slot club benefits but overall use very few of them.

The moment any player concerns themself with status, that's the moment they enter the Jean Scott Hall of Shame. And whenever any player finds himself or herself continually roped in to any casino thru offers, that is the moment they should quit gambling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

In fact, if you don't have a plan to reach 7 Stars then you can't possibly call yourself an AP because true APs have a plan for everything.

---

Umm....wtf? I didn't go on some quest to become 7 *....so obviously there was no plan for it.


Alan, you speak about APs as if you were an AP....but you really have no idea about advantage play. I like seeing your quote of Wiz in your signature -- it's a quick reminder that you usually don't know what you're talking about, especially when it comes to anything AP related.

RS___ and jbjb then it seems to me that you and the others should not be concerned with this thread. Thanks.

And regarding that quote from the Wizard... it was clearly one of his low points. Yes, I can't get past a die having six sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

7 stars, noir, etc., can't pay the bills.

---

I think this will start an interesting discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

RS___ and jbjb then it seems to me that you and the others should not be concerned with this thread. Thanks.

And regarding that quote from the Wizard... it was clearly one of his low points. Yes, I can't get past a die having six sides.

---

I clearly understand where you're coming from about the actual cost of "getting there."

Getting back to the thread:

That extra $75,000 of coin-in on the 8/5 Bonus Game to reach the same number of tier points, if played on the 7/5 Bonus game would be an extra $75 comp dollars.

While that would not offset the additional expected loss of the 7/5 game it shows that play on the 8/5 game with $25 per point also reduces Reward Credits.

What aboutot the $1 full pay Pick em poker Windsor has? That's 99.95% but requires $80 per tier point. Also this is in Canadian dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

What aboutot the $1 full pay Pick em poker Windsor has? That's 99.95% but requires $80 per tier point. Also this is in Canadian dollars.

---

I don't think anyone has ever advocated playing that game to reach 7 Stars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I don't think anyone has ever advocated playing that game to reach 7 Stars.

---

No-one should advocate playing any game to reach 7 stars. But we're talking about doing it as cheap as possible. I was just curious as to the cost and then converted into U.S. dollars.

$80 per tier point kills it. Isn't that $4 - million coin-in in US, Canadian or whatever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

$80 per tier point kills it. Isn't that $4 - million coin-in in US, Canadian or whatever?

---

If that's the case, 4,000,000 x .9995 = 3,998,000 for a cost of $2000 Canadian ($1580 U.S.). Also winnings there aren't taxed if you happen to hit the very rare royal. Obviously it'll take longer, but pick em is much faster than draw poker.

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting anyone go out and achieve this. Just discussing the economics of doing it.

For me it's not an option for several reasons including travel and I never played the game, though it sounds attractive. Rincon used to have full pay Super Aces Bonus which I think also paid what Pick'em paid... but then the table was downgraded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

For me it's not an option for several reasons including travel and I never played the game, though it sounds attractive. Rincon used to have full pay Super Aces Bonus which I think also paid what Pick'em paid... but then the table was downgraded.

---

Certainly wouldn't expect anyone from the west coast to fly there specifically for that. But for players in that area, it's probably the best option. Especially regular players of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Umm....wtf? I didn't go on some quest to become 7 *....so obviously there was no plan for it.


Alan, you speak about APs as if you were an AP....but you really have no idea about advantage play. I like seeing your quote of Wiz in your signature -- it's a quick reminder that you usually don't know what you're talking about, especially when it comes to anything AP related.

---

This pot of gold....from a player of ultra-experience in gaming who swears by an "AP" forum owner (Does "I'd rather make a GOOD bet than a WINNING bet" ring a bell?) who had to publicly beg members for cash. RS__....the gift that keeps on giving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Getting back to the thread:

That extra $75,000 of coin-in on the 8/5 Bonus Game to reach the same number of tier points, if played on the 7/5 Bonus game would be an extra $75 comp dollars.

While that would not offset the additional expected loss of the 7/5 game it shows that play on the 8/5 game with $25 per point also reduces Reward Credits.

---

Alan: Wait a second! You get $1 in comps for every $1,000 coin-in? You made a mistake saying you need an extra $75,000 coin-in with 8/5 BP...you actually need an extra $750,000 coin-in. $500,000 for 7/5 and $1.25 million for 8/5.

So does this imply an extra $750 in comps, which negates the original $375 in savings for 7/5 BP and swings it $375 back in favor of 8/5 BP again??

Help me clarify, thanks!

I could be wrong, but I believe the donation were to keep the site up and running. Not for personal profit. No matter, he or the new owners should start a separate paid for only section like Blackjacktheforum.com does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

Alan: Wait a second! You get $1 in comps for every $1,000 coin-in? You made a mistake saying you need an extra $75,000 coin-in with 8/5 BP...you actually need an extra $750,000 coin-in. $500,000 for 7/5 and $1.25 million for 8/5.

So does this imply an extra $750 in comps, which negates the original $375 in savings for 7/5 BP and swings it $375 back in favor of 8/5 BP again??

Help me clarify, thanks!

---

Yep, my error. I get mixed up with big numbers. The original math in the original post was done with the help of forum member John. I would never trust myself to get it right. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

I could be wrong, but I believe the donation were to keep the site up and running. Not for personal profit. No matter, he or the new owners should start a separate paid for only section like Blackjacktheforum.com does.

---

I agree. The websites were losing money and he couldn't support them on his own. Frankly, that surprised me. How much money did he need for his websites?

My main website www.alanbestbuys.com costs me EXACTLY $142.65 a year to operate which is what I pay my hosting company BOTH for hosting the site and for the software to run it. I post and maintain all of the content myself -- all 400+ pages of content including hundreds of videos.

This forum runs on free software but I do pay a hosting company $400 per year to host the forum and to maintain the software and operations.

Altogether my expenses are $542.65 and it's no secret that I have Google Adsense ads on my main website pages. I don't get rich from the ads but the ads do generate about $300 to $400 a month in income. So yes, my main website generates a modest profit. This forum, on the other hand, does not.

So why exactly did the Wizard need those donations for his websites? When I read about him asking for donations I suggested that he run Google ads on his sites -- but he didn't for reasons I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

I could be wrong, but I believe the donation were to keep the site up and running. Not for personal profit. No matter, he or the new owners should start a separate paid for only section like Blackjacktheforum.com does.

---

He needed the money because he was going broke, personally and otherwise. Remember he said he couldn't sleep at night at all because of his money woes? A stupid website wouldn't do that to someone like him. He was worried because he has a family to support. It all trickles down to that. Always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

He needed the money because he was going broke, personally and otherwise. Remember he said he couldn't sleep at night at all because of his money woes? A stupid website wouldn't do that to someone like him. He was worried because he has a family to support. It all trickles down to that. Always.

---

I'm sure having a shit ton of money stolen from a foreign bank account didn't help. And in no way am I defending or admonishing his decision.

Ugh... Alan, can I select "NONE OF THE ABOVE"???

Your premise is flawed because nobody simply shooting to earn Seven Stars (as I was earlier this year) would ever play EITHER 8/5 BP for $25/tier or 7/5 BP for $10/tier. Both are horrendous choices, with huge variance and high expected losses.

In short: It's not worth it.

If you playing VP for fun and/or the hopes of winning money, you should forget about tier points and just concentrate finding on the best paytables.

If you are playing VP to earn Seven Stars, you need to be willing to travel to Rincon, Tahoe, or New Orleans, and play the full pay $10/tier machines there. Or play that Ultimate X machine with a high return at Flamingo (I think) which still returns well over 99% and is 10%/tier.

But never, never, never try to earn Seven Stars at an 8/5 at $25/tier or 7/5 at $10/tier.

Here are two other myths I would like to dispel:

1) "You cannot be an advantage player if you are intentionally playing losing games simply to earn Seven Stars." FALSE! If you can derive more out of the Seven Stars benefits than your average expected loss, then yes, you are an advantage player.

2) "Playing 7/5 bonus may not be that bad, because it will earn you a lot of extra freeplay for your higher theoretical loss." Mostly FALSE! Believe it or not, CET is not computing theoretical properly, and you get far more credit for your theoretical loss at 99%+ machines than you should. I am not even sure you get ANY additional credit for playing machines with bad paytables like 7/5, but even if you do, the difference in your offers is likely to be negligible. This is because CET is now very frugal with offers, and is more concentrating upon your regular coin-in than trips where you run a ton of play and then don't play again for awhile. Even for regular players, comps have really dried up for VP players.

Dan, no one said you had to play Bonus at either 8/5 or 7/5 to work towards 7 Stars. I was just pointing out something that a lot of people might not realize. I happen to play Bonus almost exclusively because it gives me a chance to win some nice pots as opposed to Jacks or Better which makes you want to hit your head against the wall when you hit certain quads like AAAA.

Yes, I agree with this statement you made:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

1) "You cannot be an advantage player if you are intentionally playing losing games simply to earn Seven Stars." FALSE! If you can derive more out of the Seven Stars benefits than your average expected loss, then yes, you are an advantage player.

---

But who said this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

2) "Playing 7/5 bonus may not be that bad, because it will earn you a lot of extra freeplay for your higher theoretical loss." Mostly FALSE! Believe it or not, CET is not computing theoretical properly, and you get far more credit for your theoretical loss at 99%+ machines than you should. I am not even sure you get ANY additional credit for playing machines with bad paytables like 7/5, but even if you do, the difference in your offers is likely to be negligible. This is because CET is now very frugal with offers, and is more concentrating upon your regular coin-in than trips where you run a ton of play and then don't play again for awhile. Even for regular players, comps have really dried up for VP players.

---

And while VP promos and comps have been cut, if there are extra comps given they are going to go to the players who play the games with the bigger house edge. I found that out as soon as I switched from playing DDB to Bonus/Aces and Faces at Rincon. My weekly offers tumbled from as much as $800 to where they are now at about $80.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I found that out as soon as I switched from playing DDB to Bonus/Aces and Faces at Rincon. My weekly offers tumbled from as much as $800 to where they are now at about $80.

---

It's possible that CET mailers improve when higher-variance, higher denomination games are given some decent coin-in, such as what you seemed to witness with DDB.

If one certain game being played created offers 10 times as good as the other game with roughly the same coin-in, it might be worth investigating why this is happening a bit more.

Three things contributed to my cut in offers:

1. The switch from DDB to Bonus/Aces and Faces.
2. Lower levels of play at Aces and Faces.
3. The overall cut in offers and comps.

But the biggest "cut" came when I switched from DDB to Aces and Faces (Bonus). The other cuts were smaller and came over time.

Just found one I like-with the ultimate X games. It's called Random Rewards and you bet 6 credits instead of 5. I hit 4 A's today on BP and was paid $235-more than ddbp..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Three things contributed to my cut in offers:

1. The switch from DDB to Bonus/Aces and Faces.
2. Lower levels of play at Aces and Faces.
3. The overall cut in offers and comps.

But the biggest "cut" came when I switched from DDB to Aces and Faces (Bonus). The other cuts were smaller and came over time.

---

You are overestimating #1.

I am skeptical that there is much difference at all in the theo generated between identical play at DDB and Aces/Faces. This is from examining the theo generated at full pay games I played this year at CET. I think there is more of a blanket theo they use for VP games at a given limit.

I believe your major cuts were due to lower levels of play and a general philosophy recently at CET to give weaker offers.

Dan I am pretty positive that the switch from DDB was the major cause. But it's just an academic discussion at this point.

I'm not getting what all this talk about "theo" has to do with comps or offers. I heard that theory all thru the 90's & 2000's so I did an investigation up and down the Strip, in N. Nevada & Laughlin, and downtown. Then I reported my findings in an article.

When I questioned casino managers, marketing directors, and/or business development managers about how & if they use this theo as a way to determine comps etc., some said it had nothing to do with it and more than half didn't even know what it meant. Most did say that it was a player's win/loss pattern that determined what they got.

So all this bantering about and theorizing the what's and what ifs? Not time we'll spent. Hosts are some of the dumbest casino employees around, and they will tell you anything to sound important or smart.

Not to rudely interrupt this discussion, I was wondering a couple of things for Total Rewards.

1. Does it matter where you get the tier points? This discussion is primarily determining the better play 7/5 or 8/5 Bonus Poker for Caesars Palace in Vegas, so do you have to play there to get offers from there? The Rio has $1 8/5 Bonus Poker for $10 coin in per tier credit. I think 5000 hands for both days on a single weekend should work for most people wanting maintain Diamond status or ten weekends for 7 stars (they should be there that often to maximize their benefit).

The MGM M-Life rewards program does take into where you have played for the free hotel offers, otherwise the higher tier membership gets substantial discounts to where they want to stay.

2. For the Diamond in a Day or Platinum in a Day play, do you also get the reward credits along with the bonus tier credits. Meaning if you play 5000 tier credits in a day and get the 10000 bonus tier credits, do you end up with 15000 reward credits given that 1 tier credit of casino play is 1 reward credit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpax

1. Does it matter where you get the tier points? This discussion is primarily determining the better play 7/5 or 8/5 Bonus Poker for Caesars Palace in Vegas, so do you have to play there to get offers from there? The Rio has $1 8/5 Bonus Poker for $10 coin in per tier credit. I think 5000 hands for both days on a single weekend should work for most people wanting maintain Diamond status or ten weekends for 7 stars (they should be there that often to maximize their benefit).

---

Are you sure about this? I see it listed on vpfree2, but have you verified these machines exist for $10/tier?

Anyway, the problem is that, even if real, these machines are $1/credit. This means it will be SLOOOOOOW earning tier credits.

How slow?

Even if you play VP fast, it will probably take you 10 hours of play to earn 2500 tier credits, and 20 hours of play (nearly impossible in a 24 hour period) to earn 5000 tiers.

So forget Diamond in a Day. Diamond in 2 days can be done, but it will require 20 hours of play in 2 days.

But to answer your question, if you play a lot at the Rio, you should get offers from all Vegas casinos affiliated with CET.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpax

2. For the Diamond in a Day or Platinum in a Day play, do you also get the reward credits along with the bonus tier credits. Meaning if you play 5000 tier credits in a day and get the 10000 bonus tier credits, do you end up with 15000 reward credits given that 1 tier credit of casino play is 1 reward credit?

---

No, you don't earn RCs on bonus tiers. If you earn 5000 base tier credits on a $10/tier machine, you will only have earned $50.00 in RCs.

Dan, much appreciated for the responses.

I even verified that the $1 8/5 Bonus Poker at the Rio did accrue a tier credit every $10 coin in as recent as this past week

I called up a buddy who was staying at the Rio (he does not play video poker) to check out those machines the first thing he got there so he started at 0. I told him where to find them and to play 2 hands over the phone (told me what got dealt), got 2 pairs on the first hand and a loss on the second hand, so I do not owe him anything. He verified that his tier credit went up by one. It is still there at $10 a tier credit. I was able to verify there is 9/6 DDB and 9/7 DB on the very same machine.

Yes I do recall we did have quite a thread with regards to how long this will take to play on that machine. The quickest option in Vegas is either the $5 9/5 Jacks or Better at the Rio or Bally's, or maybe the 9/5 Double STP Jacks or Better for 3-line $1 at Harrah's ($21 a spin at 98.95% theoretical return with HIGH variance).

If there are any casino execs reading what's going on here then they are licking their chops. Players talking constantly & seriously about playing for slot card status and "reward credits" instead of playing to win & how to play to win money, is their elixir of life. It seems that few if any ever learn a thing from the seldom but useful inputs that populate these forums, and even less people learn from all their losing. What a shame. Rather, the thrills seem to endlessly evolve thru repetitive discussions of which machines need $10 or $25 for a sacred "RC" or if hosts (who obviously care nothing about any of their clients beyond the actual....and not "theoretical"... amounts they lose) can hand out discretionary comps or if you can save two lousy bucks on this buffet vs. that buffet. And please don't forget if and how an extra comp can be squeezed out of Mlife vs. Total Rewards, or lessons given on how to show no shame and neurotically argue with hosts, front desks, & supervisors over the occasional, totally incomprehensible $3 "overcharge" on your bill.

It is almost beyond all belief.

Rob, I take it that you didn't earn many gold stars on your papers in second grade? You probably hated your den mother, too, and didn't make Webelos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Are you sure about this? I see it listed on vpfree2, but have you verified these machines exist for $10/tier?

Anyway, the problem is that, even if real, these machines are $1/credit. This means it will be SLOOOOOOW earning tier credits.

How slow?

Even if you play VP fast, it will probably take you 10 hours of play to earn 2500 tier credits, and 20 hours of play (nearly impossible in a 24 hour period) to earn 5000 tiers.

So forget Diamond in a Day. Diamond in 2 days can be done, but it will require 20 hours of play in 2 days.

But to answer your question, if you play a lot at the Rio, you should get offers from all Vegas casinos affiliated with CET.




No, you don't earn RCs on bonus tiers. If you earn 5000 base tier credits on a $10/tier machine, you will only have earned $50.00 in RCs.

---

Wtf are you talking about?

500 HPH is "fast"? I got over 5k TC in a little over 10 or 11 hours. Think it was like 5.6k or 6.5k TC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

if you play a lot at the Rio, you should get offers from all Vegas casinos affiliated with CET.

---

While this is true, where you play will influence the "extra offers" that a host can get for you.

I know TR players who play heavily at Rincon but can't get anything at Caesars outside of "normal offers." That means if there is a special weekend or if they need something extra the answer will be "no."

Over July 4th weekend, a friend of mine who is a very heavy player at Rincon wanted to go to Caesars -- and could not get a room or get into the party. He is a high diamond. He had a very weak history of play at Caesars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

While this is true, where you play will influence the "extra offers" that a host can get for you.

I know TR players who play heavily at Rincon but can't get anything at Caesars outside of "normal offers." That means if there is a special weekend or if they need something extra the answer will be "no."

Over July 4th weekend, a friend of mine who is a very heavy player at Rincon wanted to go to Caesars -- and could not get a room or get into the party. He is a high diamond. He had a very weak history of play at Caesars.

---

Yes and no.

It is 100% true that you have very little cross-market power regarding getting extras. Rincon and Vegas are different markets.

However, if you play a lot in Vegas, you will typically have access to extras at other Vegas properties via your host.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Wtf are you talking about?

500 HPH is "fast"? I got over 5k TC in a little over 10 or 11 hours. Think it was like 5.6k or 6.5k TC.

---

Congrats for being a breakneck speed VP player, I guess.

Most people can't do that.

When I say "fast", I mean playing fairly quickly and not taking any significant breaks. You will get in about 500 hands per hour doing that.

Maybe a super fast player could get in 1000 hands per hour, but that's not common, and that's not the speed I would advise most players they could achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

If there are any casino execs reading what's going on here then they are licking their chops. Players talking constantly & seriously about playing for slot card status and "reward credits" instead of playing to win & how to play to win money, is their elixir of life. It seems that few if any ever learn a thing from the seldom but useful inputs that populate these forums, and even less people learn from all their losing. What a shame. Rather, the thrills seem to endlessly evolve thru repetitive discussions of which machines need $10 or $25 for a sacred "RC" or if hosts (who obviously care nothing about any of their clients beyond the actual....and not "theoretical"... amounts they lose) can hand out discretionary comps or if you can save two lousy bucks on this buffet vs. that buffet. And please don't forget if and how an extra comp can be squeezed out of Mlife vs. Total Rewards, or lessons given on how to show no shame and neurotically argue with hosts, front desks, & supervisors over the occasional, totally incomprehensible $3 "overcharge" on your bill.

It is almost beyond all belief.

---

I know you don't believe this, but casino execs actually hate people who take advantage of maximum benefits for the minimum amount of play.

They make little to no money on players like that, even if the players lose a little bit of money in the process of earning their status (due to overhead and the cost of providing the comps).

This is why Seven Stars grinders get terrible offers and hosts don't make much (or any) commission off of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I know you don't believe this, but casino execs actually hate people who take advantage of maximum benefits for the minimum amount of play.

They make little to no money on players like that, even if the players lose a little bit of money in the process of earning their status (due to overhead and the cost of providing the comps).

This is why Seven Stars grinders get terrible offers and hosts don't make much (or any) commission off of them.

---

Since these tier bonuses allow players to achieve higher statuses with one-third of the normal play it takes to enter. Will they receive just a third of what normal Seven Star players get? Seems like Total Rewards use the Average Daily Theoretical based on the threads I've seen.

10 Diamond in a Day to get into Seven Stars represents 50,000 TC of actual play and 100,000 TC coming in the form of bonus points.

I had someone check out what the quarter games were set at, it was 8/5 DDB, 7/5 Jacks or Better, 6/5 Bonus Poker, 9/5 Double Bonus, and 25/16/13/4/3 Deuces Wild. All approximately 96% return games, so forget going the quarter route.

Your offers will have nothing to do with your tier level. Some people get better offers as Gold than others do at Seven Stars (I've seen this with my own eyes!)

Seven Stars is only for its guaranteed benefits (free rooms, priority lines, lounges, annual trip, $500 worth of meals, cruise, etc). It doesn't matter how you get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Your offers will have nothing to do with your tier level. Some people get better offers as Gold than others do at Seven Stars (I've seen this with my own eyes!)

Seven Stars is only for its guaranteed benefits (free rooms, priority lines, lounges, annual trip, $500 worth of meals, cruise, etc). It doesn't matter how you get there.

---

Understood the reasoning, thanks for the explanation.

I can also understand that the Gold player can get better offers than the Seven Stars player if they happen to be the penny video slot players and quit playing before reaching 2500 TC ($12,500 coin in). Penny video slot players are the most valuable commodity for a casino. With at least a 10% hold, the penny player would have already lost more than a thousand dollars on a single play day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Congrats for being a breakneck speed VP player, I guess.

Most people can't do that.

When I say "fast", I mean playing fairly quickly and not taking any significant breaks. You will get in about 500 hands per hour doing that.

Maybe a super fast player could get in 1000 hands per hour, but that's not common, and that's not the speed I would advise most players they could achieve.

---

Then our ideas of "fast" are different. I say 700-800 HPH is average. Less than 700 is slow. 800-1000 is fast. Above 1K HPH is super fast.

I don't see how playing 1 hand every ~13-14 seconds is at all "fast"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Then our ideas of "fast" are different. I say 700-800 HPH is average. Less than 700 is slow. 800-1000 is fast. Above 1K HPH is super fast.

I don't see how playing 1 hand every ~13-14 seconds is at all "fast"

---

It's the same reason you can probably sprint 1/10th of a mile in 30 seconds, but can't run a full mile in 5 minutes. Doing anything for a sustained period of time is a lot harder than doing it short term.

BTW, you need to work on your math. 1 hand per 13.5 seconds would only be about 267 hands per hour.

You will get 500 hands per hour done if you play a hand every 7.2 seconds.

Can you really play a hand every 3.6 seconds at a sustained rate for several hours? I have my doubts, but I know that the vast majority can't.

I probably play a hand every four to five seconds. But when I hit a winner I will pause to enjoy it. The bigger the win the longer the pause. And hand pays can take five minutes or longer.

If someone tells me they're playing faster than 500 hands per hour they're either not getting any winners or they're playing a very low denomination.

Speed is going to depend on a lot of factors. Are you playing on turbo, is your eye/hand coordination great, are you making mistakes, the type of game being played, etc. If playing the FPDW at Sam's Town, you're getting maybe 200 HPH as the game is purposely set on super slow motion. Personally when DG'ing, I play and average speed but have never clocked my HPH. Only when I'm scavenging multipliers off various vulturable games do I play on turbo speed because that's the only time I'm playing with an advantage.

The very concept of super speedy play is irrelevant. When the Reserve opened with all and only full pay or greater than 100% games on every vp machine, most had speed controls and were also set to accumulate credits instantaneously with a double hit on the draw button. So I tested them out for an article and had a local friend help.

I played for 1 hour and had just under 1400 hands booked. The problem? So many mistakes were made that it was a session that any AP would brag about for the speed aspect but wouldn't dare mention a lack of accuracy. In fact, every one who has claimed to play that fast or faster whether on one machine or the very foolish two, always claims such a very miniscule error rate that it makes no sense at all. You know our friend Frank "two machines at a time" Kneeland. I watched him play for ten minutes at the M, and I saw at least a half dozen optimal hold errors every couple minutes. (Whether this helped or hurt him is unknown).

So the debate is pointless. Speed creates errors, and so does extended play at regular rates. It also takes away from the enjoyment of what gout doing.

I think the average player does a tad over 500 hands per hour. Sustaining anything over 700 hands per hour for more than a couple of hours would tax most players. Yes, I've seen the 1000 per hour people, and I've seen one gentleman who rolled his head like Stevie Wonder while playing two machines at almost that pace. But I think those folks comprise less than 2% of the players.

I prefer the sessions when I hit so many hand pays that I play a dozen hands per hour.

Didn't Frank Kneeland say somewhere that he could play two deuces wild machines simultaneously at 1,000 hands per hour each? For a total of 2,000 hands per hour or so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

Didn't Frank Kneeland say somewhere that he could play two deuces wild machines simultaneously at 1,000 hands per hour each? For a total of 2,000 hands per hour or so?

---

I remember seeing that and he even told me that in person, to which I said it was empty, unprovable bragging or just another made-up AP story by a famous name. That's why I watched him for a bit--playing with someone else's money of course, and only until I got bored out of my mind.

I still don't understand the importance of speed? Playing video poker isn't a race, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I still don't understand the importance of speed? Playing video poker isn't a race, is it?

---

If you are only playing the $1 denomination (single play), then speed can matter if you want to earn bonus tier credits. At 500 hands per hour, this would take you 10 hours just to earn 2500 base tier credits. If you can play faster, you aren't stuck grinding as long.

But personally I would find it miserable to play faster than 500 hands per hour. There's no way that can be even slightly fun or relaxing, especially over several hours.

When I play VP, even if it's to earn tier credits, I also like to have fun while doing it. So yes, I pause when I have a big draw, I pause to admire big hits, and I will take little breaks to look at my phone, text, go to the bathroom, give my arm a rest, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

If you are only playing the $1 denomination (single play), then speed can matter if you want to earn bonus tier credits.

---

Stop there. I never play for comps, tier points, bonuses or anything except with the idea of playing the best I can while watching my loss limits and win goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I still don't understand the importance of speed? Playing video poker isn't a race, is it?

---

I'd rather I put my action through in 2.5 hours at a fast rate than taking 4-5 hours. Oftentimes there are time limits and gotta finish by a certain time...but am not able to start whenever I want. Sometimes I only got 3 hours to put through a certain amount of action....I'm not gonna sit there and play 500 HPH.

I may pause for a second or two if I'm dealt 4 to a royal...or if I'm dealt something like 3 aces (or better) on a bonus-type. Although yes, I definitely want to win, that is (usually) not the main objective when putting through big coin in amounts....and it's not like hitting a royal flush, four aces, or any other premium hand is going to stop me from finishing putting through my desired amount of action. I think the only time I'd probably consider quitting early is if I hit some super crazy hand that would multiply my bankroll, like a dealt RF with a multiplier on DSTP [$200K].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

I'd rather I put my action through in 2.5 hours at a fast rate than taking 4-5 hours.

---

I think people have different reasons to play and different "personal rules" for playing.

I go to play when I have time to relax and enjoy... like when I go to Vegas for a weekend. Even when I used to go to Rincon for a night I had plenty of time to play and could sit for hours and not have to worry about when I had to get home, etc.

I guess for those of you who consider yourselves advantage players or professionals you have a different set of personal rules for playing including how many hands, what time limits, etc.

So I think how fast you want to play can only be a personal decision and what's best for you might not apply to anyone else. If you want to play fast I wish you fast times. If you want to play slow and order plenty of drinks in between hands, I hope they give you the top brands.

The most telling aspect of the RS__ post is in how he says he plays more for the action than winning. This will eventually be his downfall. I don't even thinks he knows what he's saying.

I learned long ago--people who play fast or two machines at a time are simply trying to get that insatiable feeling of intermittent satisfaction from winning hands to occur as quickly and as often as humanly possible. And not only do these people defeat their own "AP" purposes by making exponentially more optimal play mistakes the longer they play past the first hour--they do not realize their severe addiction nor do they understand that they are on the path to losing.

The slower one plays, the more they control their enjoyment of the game, and the more likely one is to leave a winner. This is such simple stuff that is almost embarrassing to have to be educating other "regular" players on....

I've never played two at once and have no reason to. I've seen people play three also.

My AP VP play isn't from games like FPDW, chasing promos, drawings or points or the like either.

It's like women. I like them 2 at a time and I go as fast as I can.

I WISH!!!!!!

If you are playing with a small edge then the faster you go the higher the win rate. That is not important at all to recreational players nor is it important to anyone playing a negative game. I could play FPDW at about 1200 HPH but could only maintain it for an hour maybe two. Since the game is boring to me I couldn't play any longer at any speed.

The game I currently play is old, old, old (still coin based machines). Can't really hit 600 HPH unless I'm losing badly. Hence, I don't even try to play fast although I will play 2 machines at once occasionally just to keep in training. When I do that I can get to around 1000 HPH.

Yes, there are people who can play around 1600-2000 HPH playing 2 machines and still maintain high accuracy (not me).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

If you are playing with a small edge then the faster you go the higher the win rate.

---

I understand the thinking but this is dangerous. I wonder if that "small edge" in video poker can really survive the variance of the game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I understand the thinking but this is dangerous. I wonder if that "small edge" in video poker can really survive the variance of the game?

---

Why do you think card counters want to play heads up with a fast dealer?

The "Stevie Wonder" guy I saw playing two machines at a combined 1700-1800 hands per hour was on FPDW for quarters at the Palms. Speed would matter on a game like that as long as you weren't making many mistakes. I didn't see many errors from him, but there was one every once in a while.

As for "small edges surviving variance," one would have to ask the casinos that to put reality in perspective, one would think.