Do Pay Tables Really Matter?

[Alan Mendelson]

Do Pay Tables really matter when it comes to picking a video poker machine? Sure, we'd all like to play the best paytables, but do they really matter?

In our Jackpot thread, Rob Singer made this observation about Jason's progressive win with quad aces with a kicker on an 8/5 double double bonus pay table:

If that pay table were 10/6 he still would've beaten it--maybe with another insignificant fifty bucks or so. Or if he didn't hit the Aces he still would've lost what he put in. A few extra hands usually means nothing.

People are SO misleadingly infatuated with pay tables and tiny differences in percentages that only have meaning to the machines and the casinos that they forget the only important measurement is how were their results TODAY. Was Jason playing in a 98% environment, or was he in one of those cozy, secure, phantom-bucks-crazy 102% zones that "guarantees" it's a "good play" but--and Wizard will attest to this--it does not guarantee a win.

The photo of the pay table is below.

I think the pay table does matter significantly. That doesn't mean I won't play on an inferior pay table (I do all the time at Caesars Palace on $1 games) but they do matter. And they matter because you don't know when you will hit the big win that will end your session with a nice profit.

As you can see by the meter in the photo, Jason still had a few hundred dollars of play left so in his case it didn't matter when he hit the quad aces with kicker.

But there have been MULTIPLE TIMES when I hit my "big win" on my last five credits. I distinctly remember hitting AAAA on Super Aces Bonus at Rincon a few months back with my last five credits. Ironically, another of our forum members John also hit quad aces on the same machine a few days earlier on his last 5 credits. I remember years ago at Morongo hitting AAAA on Super Aces Bonus again with my last five credits.

Rob Singer wrote above:

A few extra hands usually means nothing.

I have to disagree because you don't know when the big win will come. Getting those few extra hands from a better pay table can make -- literally -- all the difference.

In all fairness to Rob, he has told us many times that he always plays the best pay table available. I just want to reinforce that comment -- always play the best pay table available.

On the other hand, whether or not a full house and flush are short changed might not appear to be much of a big deal to you, but you'll never know what "one more hand" might have brought you.

[Dan Druff]

Yes, of course they matter, especially if you play a lot of hands.

After a large number of hands, you can no longer claim that the paytable difference cost you "only $50". It will add up to many thousands of dollars which would otherwise be in your pocket.

[redietz]

The problem with Rob's harping that "pay tables don't matter" is that he himself has to acknowledge that there is a limit to saying they don't matter that undercuts his entire argument. Obviously, he's not going to play a vp machine with an 80% return. So pay tables do matter. He'll argue that somehow playing at 98% is okay, however, which puts him in the unusual position of being the arbiter of what is "reasonable" and beatable and what is not.

[Rob.Singer]

You'v e all had your say, so now allow me to educate you on what I was getting at in order to dispense with all the guessing.

1. I'll of course always play the best pay tables for the games I choose to play in the casinos I choose to play in. And for the past umpteen years that almost always means negative EV games. Here's where people get off the track.I have also been consistently winning since 1997.

2. When I say pay tables don't matter it simply means that if you're trying for a big winner to quit by, then your flushes & FH's (if you hit any) mean nothing along the way to your winner. Sure those extra few hands could mean hitting a big winner (I've hit some royals on my last hand) but the common sense part of this is that it will OVERWHELMINGLY not occur.Pretending that it will is certainly exciting to think about while you're home in your underwear scratching your butt, but you ALL know what it feels like as you're down to your last 7 or 8 spins in a real casino.

3. Dan remains forever stuck on applying long term rules to short term play, and truthfully, that's precisely why he is a losing vp player. All those silly comps & cruises & gifts etc. that he uses to create justification for the 7-Stars nonsense etc. along with self-valuation in order to say he played in a "positive situation" has no meaning to winning vp players. When you go in and play a session and win like Jason did, the "AP" state-of-minders really do believe that he has to lose all that profit in the future--or already has lost it--because the paytable dictates it. For some reason--and it is a very strange reason--these confused people can't fathom that he may never get behind if he keeps quitting after these big hits, which do regularly show up but are also regularly thrown away by the majority of players. Strong players know better.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz summed it up well here:

The problem with Rob's harping that "pay tables don't matter" is that he himself has to acknowledge that there is a limit to saying they don't matter that undercuts his entire argument. Obviously, he's not going to play a vp machine with an 80% return. So pay tables do matter. He'll argue that somehow playing at 98% is okay, however, which puts him in the unusual position of being the arbiter of what is "reasonable" and beatable and what is not.

And Rob pretty much agreed with it in these two statements here:

1. I'll of course always play the best pay tables for the games I choose to play in the casinos I choose to play in.

2. When I say pay tables don't matter it simply means that if you're trying for a big winner to quit by, then your flushes & FH's (if you hit any) mean nothing along the way to your winner. Sure those extra few hands could mean hitting a big winner (I've hit some royals on my last hand) but the common sense part of this is that it will OVERWHELMINGLY not occur.

So the bottom line is that pay tables DO matter but Rob is more concerned with a big session-ending win than with a long term grind that better paying full houses and flushes might offer.

[RS__]

Singer strikes again!

[Dan Druff]

3. Dan remains forever stuck on applying long term rules to short term play, and truthfully, that's precisely why he is a losing vp player. All those silly comps & cruises & gifts etc. that he uses to create justification for the 7-Stars nonsense etc. along with self-valuation in order to say he played in a "positive situation" has no meaning to winning vp players. When you go in and play a session and win like Jason did, the "AP" state-of-minders really do believe that he has to lose all that profit in the future--or already has lost it--because the paytable dictates it. For some reason--and it is a very strange reason--these confused people can't fathom that he may never get behind if he keeps quitting after these big hits, which do regularly show up but are also regularly thrown away by the majority of players. Strong players know better.

Rob, I am not valuing any theoretical.

I am valuing REAL MONEY which you actually lose every time you hit a full house or flush on a bad pay table. That adds up over time.

This isn't theoretical nonsense or long-term thinking. It's a fact, and it shows up in both the short term AND the long term.

So keep throwing away money on bad pay tables, but the ones with basic mathematical sense won't.

If you buy a $7 box of Cheerios in an expensive market, and I buy that same box for $3 down the street at a cheaper market, we are holding the exact same box of Cheerios, but you just wasted $4 extra on yours.

That's what bad paytables are like. You gain nothing, and you lose money that SHOULD be in your pocket in every session.

[slingshot]

I think special plays and fewer mistakes are just as important. I have extended my playing time, for instance, by picking the best high card of two and sometimes getting trips or even a flush or straight. Occasionally I hit quads.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think special plays and fewer mistakes are just as important. I have extended my playing time, for instance, by picking the best high card of two and sometimes getting trips or even a flush or straight. Occasionally I hit quads.

Really? Can you provide any proof or record?

[slingshot]

Really? Can you provide any proof or record?

If my word isn't enough, I guess not. I just know that if I had held differently, I wouldn't have gotten the hand. Picking a single best high card is a play extender that works more often than the others. I really don't care to prove it.

[Alan Mendelson]

If my word isn't enough, I guess not. I just know that if I had held differently, I wouldn't have gotten the hand. Picking a single best high card is a play extender that works more often than the others. I really don't care to prove it.

I don't question your word, what I question is whether or not the few times you held a single card and drew quads or a flush would have given you more winnings over time than if you had made the conventional plays.

Even Rob says he uses his special plays only 5% of the time -- which means that 95% of the time he plays "conventional poker."

His most fervent supporters seem to overlook that Rob uses his special plays only 5% of the time. Do you use Rob's special plays only 5% of the time or is it something you always do?

And I am sure that even Rob will tell you that even when he uses Special Plays 5% of the time the "success rate" on Special Plays must also be fractional.

[slingshot]

It's just that the two high card hand occurs so often and many times only one's the best choice. Many times,as I said, I get trips with the extra 4th card- sometimes a straight or flush.You were talking about prolonging the session-not some magical play to end the session. I actually try to notice the end results of each hand and mentally count the number of hands I play- keeps me cognizant of what's going on. You did the videos of this with Rob.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I am not valuing any theoretical.

I am valuing REAL MONEY which you actually lose every time you hit a full house or flush on a bad pay table. That adds up over time.

This isn't theoretical nonsense or long-term thinking. It's a fact, and it shows up in both the short term AND the long term.

So keep throwing away money on bad pay tables, but the ones with basic mathematical sense won't.

If you buy a $7 box of Cheerios in an expensive market, and I buy that same box for $3 down the street at a cheaper market, we are holding the exact same box of Cheerios, but you just wasted $4 extra on yours.

That's what bad paytables are like. You gain nothing, and you lose money that SHOULD be in your pocket in every session.

Dan you just said the #1 thing that shows how and why every argument you have against playing 99.99% or less paytables holds no water.

Every flush and/or fh that's hit on an 8/5 vs. 9/6 paytable means I've lost money? That's almost as foolish as the people who said my $100k royal at Bellagio in the mid-2000's also LOST ME MONEY because I threw out trip Q's to hit it. So really, you're only talking theoretical stuff and not that which is real. If I hit a FH on a $10 8/5 paytable, I just WON $350 and you know it. To claim I lost fifty bucks on the hand just because of a pay table non-existent on that machine is talking long-term theoretical probability nonsense about a fictitious situation.

That's why I say, a winning vp player is capable of putting aside all of that, because it is meaningless before playing, during play, and upon leaving. Ask Jason how big a deal it was at Red Rock.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan remember, my 5% figure was determined at a time when I was playing my SPS strategy weekly, and it was 60%-70% on BP--a game with many fewer special plays than TBP+/SDBP. If I were only playing one of those games or even ddbp, my guess is that % would be a bit higher.

[RS__]

Every flush and/or fh that's hit on an 8/5 vs. 9/6 paytable means I've lost money?....If I hit a FH on a $10 8/5 paytable, I just WON $350 and you know it. To claim I lost fifty bucks on the hand just because of a pay table non-existent on that machine is talking long-term theoretical probability nonsense about a fictitious situation.

I had a feeling Rob's response was going to be like this, ie: "I just WON money!"

Rob, in many (all?) games in a casino, the player only realizes his disadvantage when he wins. Other games/bets he only realizes his disadvantage when he loses.

[Rob.Singer]

I had a feeling Rob's response was going to be like this, ie: "I just WON money!"

Rob, in many (all?) games in a casino, the player only realizes his disadvantage when he wins. Other games/bets he only realizes his disadvantage when he loses.

RS....it seems the only thing you have going for you in the world of gambling is your use of my initials....

In AP slang, I play at a "disadvantage" all the time. And guess what--whether I'm winning (80%-85% of the time) or losing, the thought never enters my mind. Why? BECAUSE IT'S THEORY, AND I ONLY DEAL IN THAT WHICH IS REAL.

You'd have been a good one to have called into my publisher complaining about how I could post a picture of and write about making such a "losing ev play" to hit the $25 royal. There you would have been, yakking about theory while they were helping me count the cash sitting right there in front of them.

Please wise up.

[RS__]

RS....it seems the only thing you have going for you in the world of gambling is your use of my initials....

In AP slang, I play at a "disadvantage" all the time. And guess what--whether I'm winning (80%-85% of the time) or losing, the thought never enters my mind. Why? BECAUSE IT'S THEORY, AND I ONLY DEAL IN THAT WHICH IS REAL.

You'd have been a good one to have called into my publisher complaining about how I could post a picture of and write about making such a "losing ev play" to hit the $25 royal. There you would have been, yakking about theory while they were helping me count the cash sitting right there in front of them.

Please wise up.

My username has nothing to do with your initials: an unfortunate coincidence.

I'm not sure why you're hanging on to the $100K royal. Congratulations, you got lucky. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[slingshot]

That's what I like about the artt strategy- the right hand may not be there on the lower denoms, but may luckily be there on the higher denoms- much like the broken clock.

[Rob.Singer]

Every winning hand on the draw is the result of good luck sling. Some people like to feel it's because of some weird skill that makes the winners appear--probably because of a general lack of self-confidence.

[OneHitWonder]

My username has nothing to do with your initials: an unfortunate coincidence.

RS is okay, I guess. But AP's tend to be thrifty, even with the vowels.

Maybe the __ is the hole.