Rob Singer: New Commentary

[redietz]

Okay, let's try this. Let's suppose you know an honest online casino with a machine with a 110% return. And let's say you have a robot program that can play for you. The robot plays as well as you do. All you have to do is hit the start button.

Would you rather:

A) Play yourself using stop losses and win goals?

or

B) Have the robot play for you 24/7 continuously every day?


I can't wait for these answers.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz my first response to your question is A has nothing to do with B.

My next response is this: Is the 110% return guaranteed on each hand played or is it the return over time, or is it an average return with this machine and many others?

My next response is this: Unless it is a 110% return on each and every hand played, there is a risk of losing, and therefore I would use a stop loss and win goals.

My next reponse in this: While I would play with stop losses and win goals, I would want my robot to also use stop losses and win goals.

Of course if you are telling me that on each and every play I will have a return of 110% of my bet then of course I wouldnt stop.

[quahaug]

I'd play 24/7 until the meter hit a couple mil. I am not a greedy man.

[a2a3dseddie]

Redietz my first response to your question is A has nothing to do with B.

My next response is this: Is the 110% return guaranteed on each hand played or is it the return over time, or is it an average return with this machine and many others?

My next response is this: Unless it is a 110% return on each and every hand played, there is a risk of losing, and therefore I would use a stop loss and win goals.

My next reponse in this: While I would play with stop losses and win goals, I would want my robot to also use stop losses and win goals.

Of course if you are telling me that on each and every play I will have a return of 110% of my bet then of course I wouldnt stop.

Alan, just wondering how you interpret "a machine with 110% return". I always thought that the percentage return calculated on a machine meant what the machine will "payout" or "take in" over time. So in redietz's example, if $100 million was run through the machine it would theoretically pay out close to $110 million.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, just wondering how you interpret "a machine with 110% return". I always thought that the percentage return calculated on a machine meant what the machine will "payout" or "take in" over time. So in redietz's example, if $100 million was run through the machine it would theoretically pay out close to $110 million.

Interesting thought. I never thought about "over time." But I guess "over time" a machine (game) that paid out 110% would pay out $110-million if it took in $100-million.

On the other hand, the RNG might not cooperate and the machine might pay out only 90% of it's theoretical pay table.

[regnis]

I am picturing a little old decrepit Alan, still with hair, pounding away until infinity to get that 110% return and swearing at the RNG for not cooperating. That's the trouble with percentages.

[Alan Mendelson]

I am picturing a little old decrepit Alan, still with hair, pounding away until infinity to get that 110% return and swearing at the RNG for not cooperating. That's the trouble with percentages.

NEVER will you see me pounding away to get that "theoretical return." I leave that to the "advantage players" who know that elusive royal flush that will give them the theoretical return is just a few button pushes away.

[a2a3dseddie]

NEVER will you see me pounding away to get that "theoretical return." I leave that to the "advantage players" who know that elusive royal flush that will give them the theoretical return is just a few button pushes away.

But would you not agree that playing a machine with the highest theoretical return would give you the best chance to have an actual positive return and leave with a profit?

Even Rob claims that he plays machines with the best pay table.

[quahaug]

With a 10% edge I don't think it would be possible to lose playing one million hands (assuming close to perfect strategy).

[Alan Mendelson]

Of course I always play the best pay tables. But pay tables do not make you a winner.

[Vegas Vic]

Of course I always play the best pay tables. But pay tables do not make you a winner.

This, and knowing how to play, will put you in the best position to be a winner, but we've all sat next to VP noobs who have no idea what they're doing and the quads seem to get sucked out of your machine and go directly into theirs.

[Alan Mendelson]

This, and knowing how to play, will put you in the best position to be a winner, but we've all sat next to VP noobs who have no idea what they're doing and the quads seem to get sucked out of your machine and go directly into theirs.

Case in point: my son's girlfriend. First time ever playing VP, with $20 of free play she is dealt a royal for $1,000.

[Alan Mendelson]

For those of you who are enamored with the idea of playing a machine with a 110% return, consider this: Suppose the game is 5/4 Jacks or Better with ALL of the jumbo return applied to a sequential royal in diamonds. Would this still be an advantage play with a 110% theoretical return?

[Dan Druff]

For those of you who are enamored with the idea of playing a machine with a 110% return, consider this: Suppose the game is 5/4 Jacks or Better with ALL of the jumbo return applied to a sequential royal in diamonds. Would this still be an advantage play with a 110% theoretical return?

No, because the typical person would never be able to play nearly enough to hit a sequential royal, thus making the game a huge loser for almost everyone.

But the typical VP machine does not have any fluke jackpot figured into returns. Most of them pay the highest for a regular royal flush, which you hit on average once every 40,000 hands.

You are correct that short-term success in video poker depends upon the dumb luck of hitting big hands. However, the long term success (or, at the very least, lack of major failure) comes from not losing as much IN BETWEEN hitting those big hands, which is very important as well.

Let's take $5-per-credit Jacks or Better as an example.

If you play 8-5, you are losing $25 that you should have otherwise had every time you hit a flush or full house. Hitting just 12 flushes and 8 full houses in your session will cost you a whopping $500 for playing the bad pay table!

Bad paytables are known as "expense with no upside", in that they cost you money and provide you no additional value.

Similarly, if you pay $5,000 more for the same car as I do, which we both buy on the same day, again you are simply out $5,000 extra dollars and yet are getting no better product than I am.

If you pay $100 more for the exact same hotel room on the exact same night, same situation. You are overpaying and getting no extra value for doing so.

That's what you're doing by playing bad paytables -- overpaying the casino. You may not notice it during a particular session where you get lucky and hit some big hands, but you will definitely notice it over time, provided you're not in denial.

Alan, perhaps look at it this way:

Let's say I joined you during one of your casino trips, and sat next to you. Let's say you played $2 per credit Jacks Or Better. What if I demanded you hand me $10 for each full house or flush you hit? Would that piss you off? Would you think I had no right to that money? What if I said, "Yeah, Alan, but if you hit a royal, you will still leave way up, so what's the big deal?" You would tell me to get out of your sight, and you'd be right to say that. However, you are handing that exact same $10 in each of those hands to the casino when you play a game like that.

[Dan Druff]

And Alan, I know you will answer with, "But I always play the best pay tables I can find", but I will counter that you have argued many times that it's okay to play bad pay tables if nothing better is available, because that doesn't really dictate winning.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan you made my point. There is no conventional game with a 110% return which makes redietz's question ridiculous. You also backed up my point that it is not the total theoretical return on the game but the ability to hit hands that will keep you in the game.

[Count Room]

Dan you made my point. There is no conventional game with a 110% return which makes redietz's question ridiculous. You also backed up my point that it is not the total theoretical return on the game but the ability to hit hands that will keep you in the game.

...And this brings us all the way back to the ultimate skill of pressing the DEAL/DRAW button at the right nanosecond. You'll notice that Chimp and Dan have developed their button timing skills nicely as evidenced by their recent royal flushes. Why are yours and my button timing skills deteriorating as of late, Alan?

[Alan Mendelson]

Count Room I have an excuse. I just turned 63. My button pushing/timing skills have deteriorated because of age, along with my abilities in tennis, basketball, soccer and running the mile. However, I am happy to report I still have a full head of thick hair.