Where can 99.54% JoB be found at the $5 denomination at CET properties for full tiers

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, that was one of your better Dancer slings and arrows. Cogent, snarky, and pretty accurate. Dancer is basically now at the point where he's recommending a kind of Sanford and Son clearing house if you're a vp player. Collect all the various junk, resell it, and claim your winnings.

It's funny that the masses can't see this. When someone comes right out and admits losing to the negative percentages of the games available today, and in the same paragraph announces that the slot club not only covers those losses, but also adds at least another hundred thousand to the mix, it actually DOES bring up an analogy of a very educated and highly motivated, incredibly successful Sanford & Son.

Does he really think people believe this and that it sells his wares? And all the while, I thought stuffing rolls and fruit from the buffet into a purse was the end-all answer to profitable gambling.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dancer is basically now at the point where he's recommending a kind of Sanford and Son clearing house if you're a vp player. Collect all the various junk, resell it, and claim your winnings.

If you advocate that the only way you can win is by playing "positive pay tables" then you are forced to find a way to turn a negative pay table into a positive one. Adding the value of promotions is one way to add to the return of the pay table.

If, on the other hand, you use a different way to leave with a profit (win goals, loss limits) you don't have to live-and-die by the pay table returns and the value of promotions.

We all know that paytables are being reduced -- even our friend Arc has told us that his favorite games with a positive return have been eliminated. This means that video poker players who want to play more than "recreationally" will have to find a new "methodology" for winning. The "old way" of choosing pay tables won't work anymore.

Now, you might want to reject the idea of using win goals and loss limits and that's okay with me... if you know of something better. Do you?

[redietz]

Alan, if at any point you truly wanted to know whether loss limits and win goals worked at all, you would consult a professional mathematician. They aren't hard to find.

If you are playing a negative expectation game, I have no qualms with anything that reduces your play. If you are playing a positive expectation game, win goals and loss limits are somewhat silly. One would be better off determining when or how long to play based on fatigue and the resulting error rate.

If there are no positive expectation games available, my "something better" recommendation is "Don't Play." Video poker ain't that fascinating. Twenty years ago, there were plenty of positive games with good comps. Now they are rare, but not quite extinct. I point out the 10/7 machines at The Four Queens. They are, however, merely quarters, and some people would rather lose at dollars than win at quarters. I'm not sure why, but some people would.

I suspect there's a correlation between not consulting mathematicians and preferring to lose at dollars to winning at quarters, but that's sheer speculation on my part.

To paraphrase Johnny Cochran, "If the pay table don't fit, then you oughta quit."

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if at any point you truly wanted to know whether loss limits and win goals worked at all, you would consult a professional mathematician.

I don't need a mathematician to examine my wallet, or my check book. But thanks for the suggestion.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, aside from Red's misunderstanding of how to beat a barely negative pay table on a visit of a few hours much more often than not, the way Dancer puts it, the more you lose the more you win. He makes it appear that when you play a -EV game and "lose as expected", the slot club will show up with immaculate intentions to cover your losses, then say "you know what--how about we throw a hundred thousand in on top of it, so you can make a profit off of us anyway!" At least arci gives it the good 'ol college try by claiming to win the small +EV% amount from the machines, then add slot club gravy on top of it. Dancer, it seems, is muttering this stuff via a position of declining senility.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think what's being overlooked is that this is an all or nothing bet. When you sit down to play at s negative paytable game you have multiple chances to hit winners that give you a profit and you can cut your losses at any time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's that photo of Vpnewbie and me when we met at Rincon.

[Dan Druff]

redietz is correct.

The "math deniers" like to point to individual results ("I did really well last week, despite the paytable being bad!") or ("I played a 100.07% machine and lost on it 5 sessions in a row!"), ignoring how they are simply costing themselves money in the SHORT TERM with bad paytables, as well.

When you play 8-5 JoB instead of 9-6 JoB, the casino is keeping an extra credit every time you hit a flush or full house. If you're playing a $5 machine, that's $5 each time you get either of those. So if you hit 5 flushes and 3 full houses in that session, the casino kept $40 that should have been yours. Even if you hit a $20,000 royal that session as well, you are still short another $40. And that's the point here. That adds up over time. It adds up a lot.

Why do you think pay tables keep getting worse? Because too many gamblers think that math doesn't matter, and instead rationalize things like "only the big wins matter, and they are the same across all pay tables" or "this machine is lucky, so I don't care if the pay table sucks". Or they don't even understand pay tables at all.

The only reason to play a game with slightly worse odds is to avoid variance. For example, I understand playing 99.26% Aces and Faces over 99.40% ACE$, since the last 0.23% of the ACE$ game is something you're unlikely to hit unless you play a ridiculous number of hands.

[Rob.Singer]

Dan, all I can say is there's a reason you don't do so well with the game and instead, spend such an inordinate amount of time on what you are and are not getting from your slot club. In order to do well on any single trip you have to understand how to play in the short term. You will never beat the casinos at their own game, which is long term theory. Why do you think people like Dancer can never quit work, and why do you think he chose divorce over quitting the casino life to help his sick wife? None of this is rocket science.

[Alan Mendelson]

I played the 8/5 Bonus Game at Caesars a week ago... and in almost an hour of play I didnt get even one full house.

[arcimede$]

I played the 8/5 Bonus Game at Caesars a week ago... and in almost an hour of play I didnt get even one full house.

I thought you could get ahead every time you play.

The idea that slot club benefits can turn a negative game into a positive game is really, really simple math. I find it hilarious that anyone would claim it doesn't make sense. Even Alan has shown us numerous times where his free play has generated a lot of money. Before they took out my machines I was getting 1.5-2% player's club benefits. Player's who could take advantage of the monthly drawing were getting over 2%. Even with a 99% game this would be very profitable.

[Alan Mendelson]

I thought you could get ahead every time you play.

Yes, I hit a royal and only hit a full house three times the entire trip.

The idea that slot club benefits can turn a negative game into a positive game is really, really simple math.

You're right -- it is simple math. And I would like someone to show us which slot club gives back more than what is lost?

To the best of my knowledge, a combination of offers and cash back and bounce back at best will return one-tenth of one percent of coin in. And if you are playing a game that returns 99.54% then the slot club benefits of one-tenth of one percent would raise your return to 99.64%. Now... using simple math... how does that make this game positive?

But I have an open mind. Someone please show us which casino slot club has benefits that will make negative games positive? Anybody? Any casino?

[Rob.Singer]

Your question is the basis for what I said about Dancer's antics earlier. He not only claims slot clubs will make up your negative percentage loss--he asserts that they'll then go ahead and give you the difference so you can always go home with a profit! In other words and to make it simple, THE MORE YOU LOSE, THE MORE YOU WIN! And of course, the casinos he plays at have no problem letting him do this to them year after year after year. Casinos are known to "look the other way" when AP's come in to play, and they just LOVE giving it all away. Yup. Yupper.

[Dan Druff]

Yes, I hit a royal and only hit a full house three times the entire trip.



You're right -- it is simple math. And I would like someone to show us which slot club gives back more than what is lost?

To the best of my knowledge, a combination of offers and cash back and bounce back at best will return one-tenth of one percent of coin in. And if you are playing a game that returns 99.54% then the slot club benefits of one-tenth of one percent would raise your return to 99.64%. Now... using simple math... how does that make this game positive?

But I have an open mind. Someone please show us which casino slot club has benefits that will make negative games positive? Anybody? Any casino?

I've shown this before.

Making Seven Stars requires $500,000 coin in if you play the optimal number of tier credits per day (either 2500 or 5000). A 99.54% JoB game would yield an average loss of $2300 with perfect play.

Of course, that's an AVERAGE loss. Since hitting Royals is so important, and since it requires 20,000 hands at $5 machines to make $500,000 in coin-in, you only have a 50-50 chance of hitting a Royal. So, yes, there's variance. If you don't hit a Royal, you will lose about $12,300 on average. If you do, you will win about $7700 on average.

So due to that variance, I wouldn't recommend doing this unless your bankroll is deep enough to withstand a $12k loss (maybe more if you run really poorly) in the quest for Seven Stars.

But the "expected" loss is indeed $2300.

The Seven Stars benefits are worth more than $2300, provided you actually have a use for those benefits.

If you don't have much of a need for free CET rooms around the country, don't enjoy taking cruises, don't like to travel, and don't enjoy eating expensive dinners, then indeed Seven Stars isn't worth very much.

However, I actually do enjoy all of these things, and I extract maximum value out of them.

It's not a way to make money, but it's a way to have the fun of gambling while knowing you will get some substantial discounts/freebies to cover all or some of your losses if you end up having worse luck than expected.

Also, keep in mind that you get Seven Stars for TWO years, so you can get two years' worth of benefits without putting another dime into the machines. That makes it worth even more.

I've played no VP in 2014 aside from running freeplay.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm one who enjoys travelling to various comped CET rooms across the country--I've done it three times. But even though this is my first time ever at 7-Stars level, I'm using very little of the benefits. And that so-called "expected loss"? Well, the reality is I'm tens of thousands of dollars ahead, and it's ONLY because I knew enough to quit after reaching a win goal each time I played. No I wasn't playing that loser's game 9/6 job. The pay tables were much worse than that. Chase this stuff the way the casino wants you to and you will always be asking yourself how, why, and where it all went wrong.

[Vegas_lover]

Ahhh I see we're back to the same irresponsible situation as before where our webmaster is denying math while at the same time he's really trying everybody to believe he's not trying to deny the math. Our resident vp "wizz kid" is also back to his usual routine: using the vp-machines as his personal ATM and insulting his fellow "vp wizz kids" like Dancer because he just hates the attention the man gets while slapping himself on the back in almost every post.

Back to the same old same old. And since beating the same dead horse so many times is the daily routine at Alan's Best Buys Forum I wish you all good luck. Vegas Vic, I'm going to follow your example.

[Alan Mendelson]

Ahhh I see we're back to the same irresponsible situation as before where our webmaster is denying math while at the same time he's really trying everybody to believe he's not trying to deny the math. Our resident vp "wizz kid" is also back to his usual routine: using the vp-machines as his personal ATM and insulting his fellow "vp wizz kids" like Dancer because he just hates the attention the man gets while slapping himself on the back in almost every post.

Back to the same old same old. And since beating the same dead horse so many times is the daily routine at Alan's Best Buys Forum I wish you all good luck. Vegas Vic, I'm going to follow your example.

I'm sorry you don't understand what is being discussed here. No one is denying the math of the game(s). What is being discussed here is how to play so you can do better than what the math says to expect.

In fact, "recreational players" do this all the time: they hit a winner and leave for the buffet or go home. It seems that only the AP and the math guys are glued to their seats and must keep playing.

A question for Vegas_lover and anyone else who is glued to the math (and their seats): do you advise a player to keep playing after hitting a big winner?

I've read comments from math guys that there is no reason to quit playing a game with a positive pay table except for reasons such as hunger, fatigue and going to empty your body of waste materials. And I think that's absolutely irresponsible because it eliminates the possibility that any accumulated profits could be lost in subsequent play.

[Vegas_lover]

I'm sorry you don't understand what is being discussed here. No one is denying the math of the game(s). What is being discussed here is how to play so you can do better than what the math says to expect.

In fact, "recreational players" do this all the time: they hit a winner and leave for the buffet or go home. It seems that only the AP and the math guys are glued to their seats and must keep playing.

A question for Vegas_lover and anyone else who is glued to the math (and their seats): do you advise a player to keep playing after hitting a big winner?

I've read comments from math guys that there is no reason to quit playing a game with a positive pay table except for reasons such as hunger, fatigue and going to empty your body of waste materials. And I think that's absolutely irresponsible because it eliminates the possibility that any accumulated profits could be lost in subsequent play.

Alan, I'm not going to respond to any of those silly questions anymore because you don't want to hear (or listen to the answers). You've got your mind made up and obviously love to continue the same old discussions (you know, the ones that have been discussed a zillion times already).

You think it's absolutely irresponsible of math guyes to state there is no reason to quit playing positive EV games. I think it is highly irresponsible of YOU to state that people can consisantly beat -EV games (or let me rephrase that: consistantly win at -EV games) with win goals and loss limits. Good luck with your forum. This is the point where I'm going to say goodbye and follow Vegas Vic's example.

[redietz]

The only thing I'll say, sort of in Alan's defense, is that responsibility for many lies in loyalty to who is buttering your bread. Alan's advice may be irresponsible for a general population or readership, but they aren't paying his bills. It could be considered responsible if he's juggling occasional contracts for CET or others in the casino industry.

[Rob.Singer]

What's irresponsible is for people who don't understand the game and don't even play it, to even begin to think they could have any meaningful input on the game at all. They come on with pre-conceived notions, and then end up arguing those while dismissing people who regularly play. Sounds like a cultural failing if you ask me.

Oh, and as usual they'll be back. They can't live without me.
Hi guys!