Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 186

Thread: LUCK is almost EVERYTHING in Video Poker

  1. #21
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Let's talk about the example of a full house with three aces in 7/5 bonus. Your strategy is to hold the three aces and your strategy, if I recall, is based on single line machines.
    Recently I played a 50-line machine and I was dealt AAA-TT ... a full house with three aces and the pay table on the 50-line machine was also 7/5.

    So I sat there a moment and "did the math" and considered the correct conventional play (hold the full house) and hold just the three aces (your play).

    Holding the dealt full house the pay was $1750 (it was a $1 game).

    Using your strategy, I considered these options:

    1. At the worst, I would have trip aces worth $750
    2, If I converted one of the hands to quads, I would have $400 + 49 X 15 = $1135
    3. If I converted two of the hands to quads, I would have $800 + 48 X 15 = $1520
    4. If I converted three of the hands to quads, I would have $1200 + 47 X 15 = $1905

    I did not figure what would happen if I had drawn additional full houses while holding just the three aces because at best I would still be back at $1750.

    So I was pretty darn lucky being dealt a full house for $1750. Tossing that out I would have to get really lucky to draw quad aces at least three times to beat it. But since there was only one ace left, and the odds of drawing a fourth ace was 1/47 on each hand and I would need at least three quad aces to beat the dealt jackpot, I held the dealt full house.

    Yes, I was lucky enough and didn't want to make myself unlucky. of course it would have been different playing any number of other games, but this was 7/5 Bonus.
    You all go right ahead and have the same discussion over and over again. This has already been discussed a zillion times on this forum. It's just another twist to the same story. First Rob claimes all his winnings are based 95% on luck and he has the same amount of luck as everybody else, after that he starts telling he actually has more luck than AP-ers because of his system (which by his own saying just determines the outcome of all his gambling exploits for 5%).

    But then there is this little akward thing called reality, all people playing videopoker who depend on luck (playing any kind of strategy) lose except for one person who is just the luckiest sob in the world (as I have been saying for about a year). And here we are again, one year later, same results for a new twisted story.

    If you don't see how this topic is very similar to beating the horse some more (after it already died months ago) than please continue and have fun. I seriously hope nobody else while chime in so you and Rob can discuss the same old same old until eternity and Rob can continue to dislocate his own shoulder by patting himself on the back some more.

    Am I irritated? Yes, Rob I'm irritated! Why? because you're the most pathetic individual I have ever encountered. In post number 17 you are replying to me and the first thing you do is another attempt to drag Arci in to derail this whole discussion again from the get go. You're just being the usual troll.
    Last edited by Vegas_lover; 03-27-2013 at 01:45 AM.

  2. #22
    Vegas_love, I think the question about luck vs skill is valid. We ask it all the time in "live poker" so why not in video poker?
    In fact, skill is higher ranked in live poker than in video poker... so much so that live poker is "legal" in more areas than is video poker because it is considered to be a skill game vs a game that is primarily luck.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Vegas_love, I think the question about luck vs skill is valid. We ask it all the time in "live poker" so why not in video poker?
    In fact, skill is higher ranked in live poker than in video poker... so much so that live poker is "legal" in more areas than is video poker because it is considered to be a skill game vs a game that is primarily luck.
    Well Alan, in that case by all means: keep beating the dead horse.

    Why are you even interested in any vp "strategy"? 95% is luck, only 5% skill. Do you mean you really spend all this time discussing, filming and posting about VP over as little as 5%? Forget about any strategy and just start pounding the buttons, throw in a win goal and a loss limit and you're good to go. No need to discuss anything else, case closed. The math guys, programming these machines will love the idea!

    Now, please don't come back validating these silly Singer claims like in this thread. Because as has been said before: you'll look tremendously stupid.

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by Vegas_lover View Post
    Now, please don't come back validating these silly Singer claims like in this thread. Because as has been said before: you'll look tremendously stupid.
    Have I ever validated any of Rob's silly claims? No. Have I examined them, interviewed him about his claims, and even challenged his claims about non-random machines? Yes.

    Did I just question one of his strategies for playing 7/5 Bonus? Yes... and you even highlighted my post in your post above. And I would like to know Rob's response since, as I pointed out, his "strategy" applies to single line games and I wonder if he might change it for a 50-line machine? Is there some reason why you don't want Rob to respond? I look forward to reading his response. Wouldn't it be funny if he agreed with what I did because it was on a 50-line machine and not a single line machine?

    If asking questions about Rob's system makes me "look tremendously stupid" as you seem to indicate above, then I will just have to be the dumbest jerk on the Internet for questioning Rob. Because asking questions is what I do, and have done for more than 40 years as a professional.

    I resent your comments.

    You seem to have confused "reporting on Rob Singer" with "endorsing Rob Singer."

    Earlier in this particular thread I even questioned his breakdown of 95%-5% and even in live poker that ratio is always being debated though the skill part of the equation is highly favored over the luck part in live poker.

    Don't dismiss the value of a win goal and a loss limit because they are very valuable despite what the "advantage players" claim. I recently had a very heated discussion with an "advantage player" who said win goals and loss limits were hogwash but then I learned that his daily bankroll for playing casino games was thirty dollars. That made me laugh. Now if he had a bankroll of three thousand dollars each day he might look at win goals and loss limits a bit differently.

  5. #25
    Interesting: Bob Dancer's newest column is also about luck and skill: http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/0326.cfm

  6. #26
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Have I ever validated any of Rob's silly claims? No. Have I examined them, interviewed him about his claims, and even challenged his claims about non-random machines? Yes.

    Did I just question one of his strategies for playing 7/5 Bonus? Yes... and you even highlighted my post in your post above. And I would like to know Rob's response since, as I pointed out, his "strategy" applies to single line games and I wonder if he might change it for a 50-line machine? Is there some reason why you don't want Rob to respond? I look forward to reading his response. Wouldn't it be funny if he agreed with what I did because it was on a 50-line machine and not a single line machine?

    If asking questions about Rob's system makes me "look tremendously stupid" as you seem to indicate above, then I will just have to be the dumbest jerk on the Internet for questioning Rob. Because asking questions is what I do, and have done for more than 40 years as a professional.

    I resent your comments.

    You seem to have confused "reporting on Rob Singer" with "endorsing Rob Singer."

    Earlier in this particular thread I even questioned his breakdown of 95%-5% and even in live poker that ratio is always being debated though the skill part of the equation is highly favored over the luck part in live poker.

    Don't dismiss the value of a win goal and a loss limit because they are very valuable despite what the "advantage players" claim. I recently had a very heated discussion with an "advantage player" who said win goals and loss limits were hogwash but then I learned that his daily bankroll for playing casino games was thirty dollars. That made me laugh. Now if he had a bankroll of three thousand dollars each day he might look at win goals and loss limits a bit differently.
    That you resent my comments is tough luck. There's so much that goes on around here that is to be resented that's part of being active on this forum. Life's a bitch. You like to read into this thing in a different way than I intended but that's your issue, not mine.

    I'll respond one more time with the same statement. This thread is just another twist to the same old story. Only in an attempt to keep discussion going. I'll guess someone is bored more than he likes to admit because if this all doesn't mean anything anymore, why keep going on about the same thing over and over and over again. The only thing that has changed is the gift wrapping. And you seem to enjoy it so by all means, continue!!

    Now, where did I say I hoped Rob didn't reply? I said I was hoping the majority wouldn't step into this trap again to discuss the same old story so maybe we could all move on to more interesting things that don't involve Singer and Arci beating eachother up within 3 posts. Until now, that has only turned out to be wishful thinking.

  7. #27
    Originally Posted by Vegas_lover View Post
    I said I was hoping the majority wouldn't step into this trap again to discuss the same old story so maybe we could all move on to more interesting things that don't involve Singer and Arci beating eachother up within 3 posts. Until now, that has only turned out to be wishful thinking.
    Frankly, you haven't contributed much besides complaining about our two playground toughies. I look forward to your other contributions.

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Frankly, you haven't contributed much besides complaining about our two playground toughies. I look forward to your other contributions.
    Well I have done that but there was hardly any interaction because most were to entangled into the playground fights. And besides that, the two playground toughies hyjack every other topic within a couple of posts without any restriction. Until that changes we are all limited to kick the same dead horse over and over again.

    I could make the same argument about your own contributions. You make little effort to bring diversity to your own forum so we're not getting anywhere. Why do you think the number of active posters on your forum is still limited to about 10? You know the answer but I guess sometimes it's more convenient to pretend you're blind.

    And by the way, this was the only thing you could think of in response to my post (#26)? Please, again, tell me where did I say in this thread I hoped Rob wouldn't reply? And pretty please, explain to me how this thread is completely new and the content hasn't been discussed at lenght before (maybe in slightly different wording)? Waiting for the education
    Last edited by Vegas_lover; 03-27-2013 at 06:50 AM.

  9. #29
    Alan, when you have a 2-card draw you have 2 chances to draw the ace. That gives you a 2/47 chance.

    Now, since Alan appears to want people to lose more money playing VP, let me once again point out that giving up those credits on the vast majority of Singer special plays actually REDUCES the chances of hitting a win goal. That Alan allow Singer's lies to continue unchallenged says he is willing to have the people that read his forum believe a lie. Since this has been pointed out multiple times in the past it clearly calls Alan's ethics into question.

    Now, as for Singer ... just look at all his posts. On one hand he claims to hit one big winner after another. Then, he claims he doesn't play very often as that would indicate an addicted APer. When you combine his lack of play with fantastic claims of winning there's only two possibilities. Either he's the luckiest person in the Universe or he's a lying sack of bovine excrement. Alan appears to be complete oblivious to these facts.

  10. #30
    I am certain that every one of us that participates in this Forum know how to play video poker--we know how to play the various hands that are encountered. So whether you are an AP, or Singer, or somewhere in between, if you get the cards (LUCK) you will win; if you don't get the cards (BAD LUCK) you will lose. The strategy of the game is not that difficult. So I have no problem with attributing a great portion-whether 95% or any other reasonable number--to luck.

  11. #31
    No one has ever questioned the fact that mathematically the special plays will lower the expected return. However, you are not taking into account that the special plays increase the chance of hitting a big hand, albeit possibly sacrificing a small % long term. So someone playing on a session by session basis may find the special plays are more suitable for their goals. If you eschew proper strategy and gon for the royal every hand, you probably will hit more royals that a player using proper strategy. If you hit that extra royal before you go broke playing poor strategy (LUCK) you will win.

    Again, this all ain't that hard to understand.

  12. #32
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Interesting: Bob Dancer's newest column is also about luck and skill: http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2013/0326.cfm
    What Dancer is talking about in this article is the bell curve of yearly returns. Results vary over time which forms a probability distribution. The highest probability is right in the middle. When results fall on the high side of the bell curve we call this lucky. When they fall on the low side we call this unlucky. But is luck really involved? Generally, we will find that all the results are within the expected probability distribution curve (computed based on the games played and strategy used). Hence, the results are NOT really either good or bad luck. They are completely normal.

    And this gets us back to Singer. By trying to claim that luck can somehow be taken advantage of through a betting strategy is completely dishonest. It is a proven lie. As long as Alan allows Singer's lies to potentially influence the readers of this forum he is allowing them to be led astray. Sorry Alan, that is a fact. You may think you are just "reporting" but that ship has long sailed. You are now part of the problem. Would you debate the benefits of responding to Nigerian emails asking for money? Would you allow the person sending those emails to have a voice here? I certainly hope not. QED.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 03-27-2013 at 07:54 AM.

  13. #33
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    No one has ever questioned the fact that mathematically the special plays will lower the expected return. However, you are not taking into account that the special plays increase the chance of hitting a big hand, albeit possibly sacrificing a small % long term.
    NO ... that is not correct. Most special plays REDUCE the chance of hitting a big hand.

    You see Alan, people do get led astray by the lies that Singer spews. By allowing Singer's lies to have a voice you are part of the problem.

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    NO ... that is not correct. Most special plays REDUCE the chance of hitting a big hand.

    You see Alan, people do get led astray by the lies that Singer spews. By allowing Singer's lies to have a voice you are part of the problem.
    If you have 2 aces and 2 6's, you can't get 4 aces if you keep the 2 pair. If you keep the aces only, you do have a better chance (than nil) of getting 4 aces. Arci--don't lose me here--try to keep up. It is that simple. I didn't say it is the correct way to play, but it does increase the chance of a big hit.

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    What Dancer is talking about in this article is the bell curve of yearly returns. Results vary over time which forms a probability distribution. The highest probability is right in the middle. When results fall on the high side of the bell curve we call this lucky. When they fall on the low side we call this unlucky. But is luck really involved? Generally, we will find that all the results are within the expected probability distribution curve (computed based on the games played and strategy used). Hence, the results are NOT really either good or bad luck. They are completely normal.

    And this gets us back to Singer. By trying to claim that luck can somehow be taken advantage of through a betting strategy is completely dishonest. It is a proven lie. As long as Alan allows Singer's lies to potentially influence the readers of this forum he is allowing them to be led astray. Sorry Alan, that is a fact. You may think you are just "reporting" but that ship has long sailed. You are now part of the problem. Would you debate the benefits of responding to Nigerian emails asking for money? Would you allow the person sending those emails to have a voice here? I certainly hope not. QED.
    I sent money--they sent me a Nigerian. Now what do I do??

  16. #36
    And exactly as I was saying earlier today, same old discussion all over again. Now, Alan want to question that? Or should we now start discussing the colour of the gift wrapping? Polish a turd, it's still a turd.

  17. #37
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    If you have 2 aces and 2 6's, you can't get 4 aces if you keep the 2 pair. If you keep the aces only, you do have a better chance (than nil) of getting 4 aces. Arci--don't lose me here--try to keep up. It is that simple. I didn't say it is the correct way to play, but it does increase the chance of a big hit.
    Too narrow of focus. What you are missing is the extra credits you earn from following proper strategy increase the number of hands that gets played. The opportunity to hit quads is increased more by these extra hands than the single chance you get when taking the special play.

  18. #38
    Nope-we have had this discussion before. I play til I'm done playing based upon the clock or my fatigue. I never say after I'm done playing--"wait--I have 3 more spins cause I played the right way". I can't leave til I play the 3 more spins. Try to think (for once) short term. Session by session. If I keep the 2 aces I have a better chance of getting 4 aces. I don't care about future sessions today. There is no such thing as extra hands. You play until you don't play. Any extra hands will never be played because you will either be not playing anymore or dead.Extra hands are strictly theoretical.

  19. #39
    Originally Posted by Vegas_lover View Post
    And exactly as I was saying earlier today, same old discussion all over again. Now, Alan want to question that? Or should we now start discussing the colour of the gift wrapping? Polish a turd, it's still a turd.
    LOL-you didn't answer my question tho.

  20. #40
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    LOL-you didn't answer my question tho.
    Uhm, I guess I must have missed that question. Bu go ahead, what's your question?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •