Todays royal flush

[ke6cdh]

here is my royal flush of the day.

[Alan Mendelson]

Where did you find a five-cent single line video poker machine? And I can't wait till everyone jumps all over you for that pay table. LOL

[ke6cdh]

Where did you find a five-cent single line video poker machine? And I can't wait till everyone jumps all over you for that pay table. LOL

Yes! I just can not wait for someone NOT PAYING ATTENSION to jump on me for playing a better than 100% loose deuces wild machine at palace station

[Alan Mendelson]

3/2 is better than 100% on deuces?

Is that like 8/5 ACE$ being a better game than 8/5 Bonus because you might get ACE$ once in your life?

[ke6cdh]

3/2 is better than 100% on deuces?

Is that like 8/5 ACE$ being a better game than 8/5 Bonus because you might get ACE$ once in your life?

It's more like your royal aces, except the bonus is only 2500 for 4 deuces instead of 4000 for 4 aces. With one big exception it has a decent return percentage instead of harrahs poor pay tables

[Alan Mendelson]

But when I play Royal Aces it is only for a limited amount of time/money because I know it's overall pay table is bad.

Do you play this game for a limited amount? If you play it for more than a limited amount you are banking on hitting those quad deuces enough to offset the poor pays at the lower end of the pay table.

When I play Royal Aces I am well aware that it is a big gamble which is why I prefer 8/5 Aces and Faces or 8/5 Bonus.

I also avoid 8/5 ACE$ because of the "price" of sacrificing certain paying hands because the Aces are in the right position and suck you in.

[slingshot]

Where did you find a five-cent single line video poker machine? And I can't wait till everyone jumps all over you for that pay table. LOL

That's what I play at the Horseshoe in Bossier. You can bet 1-25 credits on those. Great for learning strategies and keeps me from playing above my means. Great pic.

[dannyj]

Loose deuces. 100.15%. Nice hit.

[ke6cdh]

But when I play Royal Aces it is only for a limited amount of time/money because I know it's overall pay table is bad.

Do you play this game for a limited amount? If you play it for more than a limited amount you are banking on hitting those quad deuces enough to offset the poor pays at the lower end of the pay table.

When I play Royal Aces I am well aware that it is a big gamble which is why I prefer 8/5 Aces and Faces or 8/5 Bonus.

I also avoid 8/5 ACE$ because of the "price" of sacrificing certain paying hands because the Aces are in the right position and suck you in.

I understand why I want to avoid a bad paytable like royal aces long run short run mid run bad paytable = bad long term expectation (even though anything can happen short term) . What I don' understand is why I would want to stay in the very short term on a 100.15% paytable. While I may never make the long run, the more I play the closer I should get to the long term expectation.

[Alan Mendelson]

While I may never make the long run, the more I play the closer I should get to the long term expectation.

You will never make the long run. Even Shackleford says that. You will never get close to the long run expectation either.

Your best play and best bet is always with the next single bet you make. Yes, this is the one thing Rob Singer has right.

[HKMHORNS]

I would never understand the logic of playing 8/5 Bonus over 8/5 ACE$ Bonus. Really is a head scratcher if everything else is equal and you have both options. Also I don't really understand all the worry of reaching long term. If you play with a big enough edge you can play enough to give yourself a high probability of profit. A much higher probability than if you are playing negative games. I know nothing is a guarantee but doesn't everyone just want to give themselves the absolute best chance to end up profitable?

[ke6cdh]

I would never understand the logic of playing 8/5 Bonus over 8/5 ACE$ Bonus. Really is a head scratcher if everything else is equal and you have both options. Also I don't really understand all the worry of reaching long term. If you play with a big enough edge you can play enough to give yourself a high probability of profit. A much higher probability than if you are playing negative games. I know nothing is a guarantee but doesn't everyone just want to give themselves the absolute best chance to end up profitable?

I just do not understand Alan's point of view also. I will contune to play ACE$ bonus over regular bonus with the same payout except for the extra 4000 coins for ACE$ inthe correct order. I will still continue to play over 100% paytable machines as long as I can rather than playing substandard paytables like royal aces at harrahs

[Alan Mendelson]

First of all, when I play Royal Aces it's to have a little "gamble." Since I play recreationally I can do what I want. Even lose and it doesn't matter to me.

My problem with ACE$ is that unless you are very disciplined there is the possibility that you will be sucked into to dropping otherwise superior hands because one more or more aces is in the correct position. For example you are dealt Aa K 5 9 8 with the Ace showing the "A." The correct play is to hold A K but players will drop the K because of the single A in the correct position.

Now, if you don't make that mistake, then go ahead and play ACE$.

[Dan Druff]

First of all, when I play Royal Aces it's to have a little "gamble." Since I play recreationally I can do what I want. Even lose and it doesn't matter to me.

My problem with ACE$ is that unless you are very disciplined there is the possibility that you will be sucked into to dropping otherwise superior hands because one more or more aces is in the correct position. For example you are dealt Aa K 5 9 8 with the Ace showing the "A." The correct play is to hold A K but players will drop the K because of the single A in the correct position.

Now, if you don't make that mistake, then go ahead and play ACE$.

Actually, you lost me here.

All this time, I thought you were plating Aces and Faces (99.26%) over ACE$ (99.40%) because ACE$ is so unlikely to hit (1 in approx 300,000) that you would rather take the better return on everything else that you're actually more likely to hit. ACE$ is basically 99.17% bonus with the extra money for ACE$, so if you concede that you won't ever hit ACE$, then I can see your desire to get the 99.26% paytable instead of 99.17%.

In fact, I actually considered playing Aces and Faces instead of ACE$ myself, for exactly that reason.

However, your explanation regarding playing regular Bonus Poker over ACE$ is bunk.

If you are really that worried about making bad moves in attempt to hit ACE$, why not just promise yourself that you won't EVER make any nonstandard moves, and just play normally? That will get you the big extra money for hitting ACE$ if you fluke into it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes, Dan, at Rincon I do play Aces and Faces over ACE$, and at Caesars Palace ACE$ has a miserable 6/5 paytable while Bonus pays 7/5.

Given a choice between 8/5 Bonus and 8/5 Aces and Faces I would always choose 8/5 Aces and Faces with the slightly higher pays.

But that's not the question here:

The question here is do you play the paytable with the better overall payback, or do you play the game with the better likelihood of winning?

Let's say you have two games side by side: 8/5 Bonus and 8/5 ACE$. If you are a disciplined player who knows true strategy you would choose to play 8/5 ACE$. But if you are not disciplined and do not play true strategy, then you could make mistakes playing 8/5 ACE$ that you would not make playing 8/5 Bonus -- and you could win more on the Bonus game.

Now let's go back to the original post:

John says his deuces game returns slightly better than 100% and that is true. But to get that return he has to hit quad-2s as well as a royal. In other words, for him to "win" he has to hit the home runs.

But if he played a game such as 9/6 Jacks or even 8/5 Bonus he doesn't need to hit the "home runs" to win the game. This is because in his deuces game there is a 3/2 paytable vs a 9/6 or 8/5 paytable on the other games.

If I knew I was going to sit down at a deuces game and hit 2222 or a royal, I wouldn't care what the low end of the pay table is. But because I can't expect to hit a royal or 2222 in any particular session (long term or short term) I will play the game that will give me more "base hits" than sit down at a game that might give me a "home run."

[ke6cdh]

You will never make the long run. Even Shackleford says that. You will never get close to the long run expectation either.

Your best play and best bet is always with the next single bet you make. Yes, this is the one thing Rob Singer has right.

An interesting web page about how long is the long run in video poker

http://frome.casinocitytimes.com/art...long-run-25637

[Rob.Singer]

The only statement that made any sense in this thread was "anything can happen in the short term". When you people finally realize that every time we play, we're playing in the short term, you'll finally figure it out that those silly percentages someone like Dan's so infatuated with, have no meaning or bearing whatsoever in what happens TODAY. Those who think past or future sessions have anything at all to do with their current session are much more likely to lose overall, because they think they have to just keep on playing thru big winners. And if they think in such flawed rationalizations, I guess that also means they believe past and future hands have something to do with THIS hand. So sad....

[arcimede$]

You will never make the long run. Even Shackleford says that. You will never get close to the long run expectation either.

Pure nonsense. Making it to the "long term" has never been nor never will be the goal. The goal is always to give oneself the best chance of winning. Why do you continue to confuse these issues? You will never live to be a 1000 years old, so does that mean you should live an unhealthy lifestyle? Essentially, that is what you are saying.

Your best play and best bet is always with the next single bet you make. Yes, this is the one thing Rob Singer has right.

Or not. Maybe that's one reason he's living in a trailer.

[Alan Mendelson]

Come on Arc, don't confuse the issues here.

1. Whether or not anyone will ever play enough to see the long term makes no difference.
2. You always want to play the best possible pay tables.

My point was simply:

Playing a "top heavy pay table" such as Deuces Wild requires you to hit a "home run" but in other games there are more "base hits" that might make you win.

Since you're a bowler...

Would you rather "strike out" in the tenth frame or would you rather get more pins knocked down throughout the game?

[arcimede$]

Come on Arc, don't confuse the issues here.

1. Whether or not anyone will ever play enough to see the long term makes no difference.
2. You always want to play the best possible pay tables.

Of course.

My point was simply:

Playing a "top heavy pay table" such as Deuces Wild requires you to hit a "home run" but in other games there are more "base hits" that might make you win.

Since you're a bowler...

Would you rather "strike out" in the tenth frame or would you rather get more pins knocked down throughout the game?

It really depends on how much you gamble. All games are negative without hitting a Royal. So, right away your argument is a little suspect. And, if a person gambles regularly then they will hit even the low frequency hits enough to average out over time. Same holds for bowling. You don't care where you get your strikes. There is no "rather". You simply want to optimize the overall results.