Quad Aces Three Times in 15 minutes

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm at Caesars and Saturday night before the Elton John show we played a little video poker. I hit quad aces on Bonus Poker three times in 15 minutes. Unfortunately it was on a 25-cent game.

It's no surprise that VP sucks here. The 25-cent single line game had a 6/5 pay table with a royal progressive. The royal was at about $1009 when we sat down. Two hours later, after the show, it was $1010.

[Dan Druff]

Surprised you played 6/5 Bonus. Was this just to keep your host satisfied that you played, or were you just killing time before Elton John?

I hate rewarding casinos for awful pay tables by giving those machines action.

Speaking of aces, I got soooo many quad aces on my last Tahoe trip, but unfortunately I was playing JoB so it didn't matter. They even had a low kicker most of the time.

I could just picture DDB players chiding me for it, telling me what a fool I was for not playing their 8-5 game.

[Alan Mendelson]

We were killing time. But does a 6/5 pay table really matter for casual play? In the short time we played I had one full house and it was dealt to me. Ironically the FH was AAA33. Because the game was 6/5 the correct strategy is to hold just the aces and that's what I did. But the draw was a bust and instead of the dealt full house I was left with trips.

By the way, in the same 15 minutes I was dealt quad fives AND quad tens.

[Dan Druff]

Yes the pay table matters less if you play a short time (in terms of absolute loss), but I just hate it out of principle.

The fact that you're dumping full houses shows just how bad it is.

[Alan Mendelson]

The correct strategy is to hold AAA and dump the full house because quad As pays 400 coins. You wouldn't break up any other full house in 6/5 Bonus.

[Dan Druff]

No I'm sure you did the right thing. It's just laughable how the pay tables are so bad to where this becomes correct.

[Count Room]

This brings to mind a few things for me:

Looking on the bright side, Alan, you only lost 15 credits chasing after the quad AAAA's. Throwing away a FH is never "quite" as cringeworthy as it looks. I can see where Alan would feel insulted by these tiny 25-cent hits given the bad streak he is undergoing.

With these new 6/5 and 7/5 BP machines, your paytables are becoming as bad as the ones I see in rural countryside casinos in my area. They're specifically designed to rip off the local farmers, but on special days there is a 2% cashback for coin-in promotion to make up for it. (ie. $10,000 coin-in would earn you $200 cash on your player's card).

The last time I hit quad AAAA's three times in less than an hour, I was at least fortunate enough to be playing $1 and $2 9/5 TBP+ (99.8%) at the time. (one at $1, stepped up the aggression and hit a couple more at $2)

A long time ago, Rob Singer once wrote some intriguing comments that appeared to be a provocative joke on the surface. He said something along the lines that if you worry a lot about the math, why not play video poker for free at home and go on an imaginary huge losing streak? Afterwards you simply go to the casino to play real money to catch up on all the quads you missed.

In other words, just play at home while keeping track of your current theoretical loss expectation given the imaginary coin-in you've played. Once you are well below expectation, just quit and go to the casino!

[regnis]

I'm at Caesars and Saturday night before the Elton John show we played a little video poker. I hit quad aces on Bonus Poker three times in 15 minutes. Unfortunately it was on a 25-cent game.

It's no surprise that VP sucks here. The 25-cent single line game had a 6/5 pay table with a royal progressive. The royal was at about $1009 when we sat down. Two hours later, after the show, it was $1010.

Stopped in at Caesars Saturday night and did walk through the VP to see if I would see you there (figured I would recognize the hair). I had no luck in VP but every one around me was popping aces. Craps were very good however.

I was at the Orleans for an event and have to say that besides the better pay tables, there just seemed to be a lot more ebb and flow---you got a lot of play for your dollar compared to Caesars where it was gone in minutes. Of course, on the other hand, I couldn't stand the crowd and smoke at the Orleans. At least at Caesars you could almost breathe.

[Alan Mendelson]

I finally found the Dream Card game. It's on a multigame machine at Caesars. Yes I got AAAA on it twice thanks to the Dream Card feature. It was at $1.

But the machine seems to have a defect: I could not find the "button" to change the Dream Card.

Regnis there are now six areas at Caesars where you will find video poker. Sorry we didn't hook up. I did see Dave Nash.

[regnis]

I always play the area just off the craps tables next to the high level room (near the bathrooms). I usually don't play in the other areas for no particular reason.

[arcimede$]

This brings to mind a few things for me:
...

A long time ago, Rob Singer once wrote some intriguing comments that appeared to be a provocative joke on the surface. He said something along the lines that if you worry a lot about the math, why not play video poker for free at home and go on an imaginary huge losing streak? Afterwards you simply go to the casino to play real money to catch up on all the quads you missed.

In other words, just play at home while keeping track of your current theoretical loss expectation given the imaginary coin-in you've played. Once you are well below expectation, just quit and go to the casino!

There's no such thing as regression to the mean. All probabilities are forward based.

[regnis]

Arci--clearly if you compare my girlfriends of 20 years ago to those today, there is regression to the mean.

[Alan Mendelson]

There's no such thing as regression to the mean. All probabilities are forward based.

I think this is an interesting topic for discussion.

So many times you talk to players who say "the odds have got to catch up with me," or "I'm due for a winner after so many losses."

I don't think anyone believes that all of their bets will even out in the end, but I do think that over time players think that things will go their way after they haven't, and that things will start to go against them after a hot streak.

In other words -- losing streaks don't last forever nor do winning streaks last forever.

Whether or not that means a return to the mean isn't the point -- but that the "tables will turn."

And that brings up the question, will they turn enough or will they turn before it's too late?

[arcimede$]

My statement was a purely mathematical one. The math only works looking forward and always gets the same answer ... the ER of the play. Now, in reality we all know that we will have cold streaks and hots streaks. Nothing prevents a person from playing above the ER for some time in the future (or below). So, regression to the mean does happen at times, it just isn't the way the math works.

My own situation this year is a good example. So far this year I'm playing at 102.53% return on a 100.28% game. That's even after a bad session this past weekend. Even my freeplay is at 100.5% on a 98% game. Last year my results were 99.47% and 74.9% respectively. So, in reality I have experienced a regression to the mean. My overall results are 101.5% and 92.1%.

My point was there is nothing that creates a regression to the mean. Like everything else in gambling, it is just random variation.

[Alan Mendelson]

My point was there is nothing that creates a regression to the mean. Like everything else in gambling, it is just random variation.

Agreed. Nothing CREATES a regression. I think CREATES is the key word here.