Swinging for the fences isn't always the best strategy

[Vegas Vic]

http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...rce=newsletter

[slingshot]

Notice that the key is to KEEP YOU PLAYING LONGER. I want outta there as soon as possible.

[Rob.Singer]

John is a decent gambling personality, but his video poker knowledge is severely limited because he's doesn't play the game much, and instead relies on quoting theoretical ong-term applicability in order to sound authoritative. But alas, he's really saying little different than anyone who believes a strict adherence to the math will get you to the video poker promise land--albeit via the longest, most boring road known to man, but the quickest route to becoming addicted.

Where John misses the mark, as he always has, is in his blind claim that making strategy changes--or special plays, as I'm sure he was referring to--gives less opportunity to hit the big hands because you end up "playing less hands overall" which is a classic case of making believe each of these plays is being played millions of times when they're in reality only being played a handful of times, at best, in a session.

The stark truth is, that you will end up with a higher ratio of big-hit opportunities to hands played, and when analyzed in a single session-only scenario--which is how every human plays whenever they gamble whether they like it or not--when even one of those big hits appear, and IF you were to play on and on for the points, slot club status or whatever, you will indeed sink yourself in special plays. But for the player utilizing a structured strategy that increases in denomination and game volatility and who walks away the moment the big hit occurs, that player will never see any of those overall less number of hands played because of strategy changes, come to fruition. He actually WANTS AND WELCOMES less hands to be played. So John's flawed analysis is based on theoretical probability that does not exist within the realm of a disciplined, strong player.

[Vegas Vic]

John is a decent gambling personality, but his video poker knowledge is severely limited because he's doesn't play the game much, and instead relies on quoting theoretical ong-term applicability in order to sound authoritative. But alas, he's really saying little different than anyone who believes a strict adherence to the math will get you to the video poker promise land--albeit via the longest, most boring road known to man, but the quickest route to becoming addicted.

Where John misses the mark, as he always has, is in his blind claim that making strategy changes--or special plays, as I'm sure he was referring to--gives less opportunity to hit the big hands because you end up "playing less hands overall" which is a classic case of making believe each of these plays is being played millions of times when they're in reality only being played a handful of times, at best, in a session.

The stark truth is, that you will end up with a higher ratio of big-hit opportunities to hands played, and when analyzed in a single session-only scenario--which is how every human plays whenever they gamble whether they like it or not--when even one of those big hits appear, and IF you were to play on and on for the points, slot club status or whatever, you will indeed sink yourself in special plays. But for the player utilizing a structured strategy that increases in denomination and game volatility and who walks away the moment the big hit occurs, that player will never see any of those overall less number of hands played because of strategy changes, come to fruition. He actually WANTS AND WELCOMES less hands to be played. So John's flawed analysis is based on theoretical probability that does not exist within the realm of a disciplined, strong player.

And if the big hit never comes, how is losing more money per hand (increased denomination) on a higher volatility game make the player "disciplined and strong"? That looks more like throwing good money after bad.

[arcimede$]

Notice that the key is to KEEP YOU PLAYING LONGER. I want outta there as soon as possible.

Actually, it isn't that much longer. Take the example of two pair vs. one pair. The difference is only 4 credits. That raises to 20 playable credits by using just an 80-90% return on those credits (4+3.6+3.2+3.0 ...). How long does it take to play 20 credits? Well, for me that is about 10 seconds. Of course, you run into this situation a lot. For example, if you did it 50 times in a session then it would add 50*10 seconds or about 8 minutes. And, if you really, really hate playing 8 additional minutes you could always cash out and keep the extra credits (50*4 = 200 credits).

As for the difference in odds for hitting a quad, the one hand flyer gives you 1 chance in 360 of filling out the quad. The extra 20 credits gives you 4 hands with a 1 in 420 chance or 1 in 105 overall. Now, why would anyone with a couple of working neurons choose to reduce their chances of hitting a quad? Because a proven liar said it's better? It's beyond me.

[arcimede$]

There's one simple set of logic that demonstrates Singer is lying. If going for big hits made any difference then by simply moving up to a game that pays more for quads you accomplish the same thing. Shouldn't that make any person a winner? After all when you do hit those high paying quads playing DDB or TDB your wins are much larger and you are more likely to go home a winner. So, why do casinos install these games? If Singer was right they should be taking a bath.

Of course, the truth is Singer is lying and going for big winners only reduces a persons chances to actually make these hits while costing them money. A lose-lose proposition.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, I think there is room for compromise on certain hands. Let's take double double bonus for example:

I have seen many players dealt KK55J hold only the kings with the reasoning that KK alone is a paying pair, and they would rather forgo the greater chance at the full house for the chance at the quads. However, dealt 7744J they will hold both pairs knowing that holding one pair will not give you even money in double double bonus. And using this reasoning, most players would reject Rob Singer's "special play" of just holding the pair of 4s hoping for the quad fours mini jackpot.

There is also room for compromise in a game like Triple Double Bonus when dealt a kicker along with three aces. In this game quad aces with a kicker is equal to a payout for a royal, but I accept Rob's "special play" of just holding the trip aces and increasing the chance of getting quad aces which by itself is still a very big win.

Curiously, in Bonus poker when dealt a full house with three aces everyone including Rob is in agreement that you hold the full house with an 8/5 paytable. Rob has a special play that says in 7/5 or lower Bonus you hold just the three aces. And even Bob Dancer says that with a 6/5 Bonus Paytable he also would just hold the three aces.

There is no question that there is "correct strategy," but then there is also "preferential plays" that fit the goals and pocketbooks of particular players better.

[Rob.Singer]

AP's for the most part play a single denomination. Now think about how Paymar, Hughes, Fromm, etc. all had to leave town or lose everything in their lives, think about how and why arci just HAS to spend his life on all the forums pathologically lying and making things up about himself but leaving out the parts about what it did to his family, and then think if you want to work the rest of your life like Dancer. Vic, THAT'S why increases in denomination and volatility play such an important part of SPS, and THAT'S why I've had such a successful vp career where I can now live in satisfying comfort doing and going wherever and whenever we please. It is all so increasingly simple. When special plays hit they mean a ton more than a similar hit by the addicted AP, who foolishly uses such a hit for dumb slot club points and to justify not going home to see people who irritate them, with more play.

[slingshot]

Actually, I think there is room for compromise on certain hands. Let's take double double bonus for example:

I have seen many players dealt KK55J hold only the kings with the reasoning that KK alone is a paying pair, and they would rather forgo the greater chance at the full house for the chance at the quads. However, dealt 7744J they will hold both pairs knowing that holding one pair will not give you even money in double double bonus. And using this reasoning, most players would reject Rob Singer's "special play" of just holding the pair of 4s hoping for the quad fours mini jackpot.

There is also room for compromise in a game like Triple Double Bonus when dealt a kicker along with three aces. In this game quad aces with a kicker is equal to a payout for a royal, but I accept Rob's "special play" of just holding the trip aces and increasing the chance of getting quad aces which by itself is still a very big win.

Curiously, in Bonus poker when dealt a full house with three aces everyone including Rob is in agreement that you hold the full house with an 8/5 paytable. Rob has a special play that says in 7/5 or lower Bonus you hold just the three aces. And even Bob Dancer says that with a 6/5 Bonus Paytable he also would just hold the three aces.

There is no question that there is "correct strategy," but then there is also "preferential plays" that fit the goals and pocketbooks of particular players better.

I agree with you, on this point. Whenever I'm playing the artt strategy and I go the next level and am staring at an Ace's full house, since it's my first deal, three Aces will automatically send me back to square one AND ALSO send me home if they hit. It makes perfect sense and I see no greed involved. BUT if I've played 3 or 4 hands and it takes the full house to send me back to the lowest denom, then I keep the full house.

[Alan Mendelson]

I agree with you, on this point. Whenever I'm playing the artt strategy and I go the next level and am staring at an Ace's full house, since it's my first deal, three Aces will automatically send me back to square one AND ALSO send me home if they hit. It makes perfect sense and I see no greed involved. BUT if I've played 3 or 4 hands and it takes the full house to send me back to the lowest denom, then I keep the full house.

Forgive me slingshot, but I haven't got a clue about what you're talking about. When Im holding three aces only its not because Im happy with three aces, its because Im going for quads... with or without a kicker. Just getting three aces without improving is the consolation prize of trying to get something better. And I still have no idea what artt strategy is. :-)

[slingshot]

Forgive me slingshot, but I haven't got a clue about what you're talking about. When Im holding three aces only its not because Im happy with three aces, its because Im going for quads... with or without a kicker. Just getting three aces without improving is the consolation prize of trying to get something better. And I still have no idea what artt strategy is. :-)

Sorry-it's one of Rob's play strategies-Advanced romp=thru=town=strategy. But for single play like yours, I would hold the Aces if I was losing over 100 credits.

[arcimede$]

Now think about how Paymar, Hughes, Fromm, etc. all had to leave town or lose everything in their lives

Singer has never provided any proof of these claims. So Alan, Singer is making near libelous statements on your forum? This is not new as he has done this over and over again. I often wonder why you let him spew this stuff with no evidence at all. They are all clearly lies as is almost everything he says about other people. Just look below for more lies about me.

It's kind of humorous because when I mentioned I was going to spend my winters in Vegas it was because of an addiction but somehow when we stopped going it was because I was a loser. Of course, what happened to the addiction? And, even sillier he has no evidence that I ever lost a cent. I suspect the same goes for these other guys. He doesn't know squat but lies about it to make himself feel better. That is what jealous people do.

think about how and why arci just HAS to spend his life on all the forums pathologically lying and making things up about himself but leaving out the parts about what it did to his family

I've left out nothing about my family. Probably said more than I should. One wonders why Singer chooses to lie about it since I've recently brought everyone up-to-date. Could it be more projection? Most likely.

It does demonstrate that Singer is a very jealous person. Kind of like an envious 16 year old girl in many ways.

[Rob.Singer]

Melody has told me everything I need to know.

[arcimede$]

Melody has told me everything I need to know.

Who is Melody? I know of no person named Melody that knows anything about my situation. Try as you might, you only dig a deeper hole every time you make a comment.

[Rob.Singer]

Did I mention denial being the #2 problem of a pathological liar? Or how about even the need to deny something so others might not peer down upon you as a total loom?

[arcimede$]

Did I mention denial being the #2 problem of a pathological liar? Or how about even the need to deny something so others might not peer down upon you as a total loom?

Nice projection. If you know someone then be more specific. As I said, I know no one named Melody who knows squat about our situation. If you don't back it up then all that can be said is you are a proven liar.

Obviously, you are feeling troubled after looking like a complete idiot lately, and you will say just about anything to try and get back your lost credibility. Too bad you won't back this up just like you haven't provided all those "papers" that were supposed to support your system. I believe you promised those in October ... what month is it now?

BTW, since I guaranteed you would not provide those papers what you have actually accomplished is proving me right again. Now you will do it again by providing nothing but a made-up first name. All you have done is proved you are a pathological liar.

It doesn't get any better than this ...

[Rob.Singer]

I wonder what Melody thinks about your constant denials after all the pathological lying? I'd have asked Deb, but it's been an accepted brow-beaten way of life for her, starting well before that fateful "move" to & from LV

[arcimede$]

Too late to cover your butt. Just throwing out made-up names only makes you look foolish. Of course, you do that all the time and I think most people are starting to catch on.

[Alan Mendelson]

In defense of arcimede$ the only thing you offer here is hearsay, Rob. And frankly, why should the rest of us care about your infantile playground shoving match?

[Rob.Singer]

He's always needed all the help he could get Alan, and frankly, so do you. But yes, in his defense, he DOES have a self-created albatross on his hands to deal with, day-in & day-out, while, well, you get the rest. He knows who they are, as do I.