what is Video Poker "baloney"?

[Rob.Singer]

Playing 8/5 JOB instead of 9/6 JOB...you're giving up about 2 bets (or 10 credits) every ~90 hands, ie: 1 bet (5 credits) every ~45 hands [it's actually more frequent than that]. I don't know how much recreational gamblers play, let's say 2 hours per visit, playing a leisurely 600 HPH, on $1 denom. On a trip, that's 1200 hands of play, losing $5 every 45 hands....that's $130 per trip in extra losses. Playing once a week, that's $520/month.

This is not some "theoretical mathematical mumbo jumbo" where you gotta play a million hands before you begin to realize how much it hurts the player. It's something you will easily and quickly realize it's hurting you, quite a lot. Next time you go out and play, whatever game you're playing (preferably full-pay or close to it), and every time you hit a hand that isn't on the full pay pay-table, keep count. (ie: Playing 9/5 JOB, every time you hit a flush, keep count....if you're playing 7/5 BP and hit a FH, keep count...playing 8/5 DDB and hit a FH or flush, keep count...etc.) Just add '1' every time you hit an under-paying hand...unless you're getting underpaid by 2 (ie: 6/5 BP) then add 2 to it.

At the end of the session, multiply your number by the size of your bet ($1 denom playing 5 credits...you'd multiply by $5). I tried this before, on a $5 8/5 JOB machine [a pretty good promotion]....the loss in 8/5 vs 9/6 was a little over $1,000.


Rob, you can hit a big hand today, tomorrow, or next year. Always going to be ups and downs, no doubt about it. But if you play for any good amount of time, and it quickly (and constantly) eats you down. If you pay attention, you'll see. But I gotta give it to you, you sound very much like a gambler, more concerned with a game's volatility than the return/HE.

The way you look at playing vp is the exact reason Chuck DiRocco (owner of Gaming Today) fired Dancer and Skip Hughes and asked me to replace both of them that lasted nearly 8 years--and only because he died. He was tired of all the AP theory nonsense and wanted to inject some reality into his paper. The baloney about losing $130 and $520 is probability at its finest with no basis in reality....and job is a loser's game anyway. Sure, if you sit there for 4 hours a day or whatever on the same denomination and do it time and time again, you'll likely lose more playing an 8/5 game than the guy next to you playing 9/6. But that's a far cry from MY game. These big winners come, and when you get to the $5/$10/$25/$100 levels that I've played in my strategy, many time a simple quad does the trick. There's no magic or mystery to it, and while the better pay table may yield some extra hands, they overwhelmingly do not help and everyone knows that.

When it comes right down to it all you're doing is repeating the same old rhetoric about how much those phantom bucks are worth. To me they're worth nothing, and the only time they mean anything to someone like you is when you're writing about theory from your keyboard.

[Alan Mendelson]

I started this new thread with the post above. It didn't belong in the discussion about jackpots.

So what is baloney?

I think it's also baloney to be sure that when you lost playing at $1, $2 and $5 video poker that you will get quads at $10, $25 or $100 to bail out your previous losses.

I think there is as much baloney in Rob.Singer's strategy as there is in "advantage play."

[jbjb]

That's why these people need jobs. They can't cut it beating casinos.

I didn't know you split the last thread here, but like I said, winners play and keep quiet, losers talk shit all day.

[slingshot]

That is the single play strategy and you can start at lower levels-and since I don't have $171,000 that would be nickels. I started and after an hour and just getting past dimes at +$40, I had to stop and pick up my wife. So if you really like playing VP a LOT, it's not baloney-just takes some time and thought-unless you hit the session ending hand early in the lower levels.
There actually 3 basic strategies with variations to fit whatever. Rob has posted them here before.

[slingshot]

That's why these people need jobs. They can't cut it beating casinos.

I didn't know you split the last thread here, but like I said, winners play and keep quiet, losers talk shit all day.

I just can't fathom why the topic gets stuck on the high dollar part of the strategy. I'm just trying to say you can play at your personal level. I really could care less about anyone's belief in the strategy- just be honest, quit repeating the same old crap you KNOW is a lie, and forget about it.

[jbjb]

I'm not the one talking shit. You won't see me exposing my plays.

[RS__]

just be honest, quit repeating the same old crap you KNOW is a lie, and forget about it.

What are these 'lies' you're talking about?

[Alan Mendelson]

Slingshot does it make sense to you to go to a casino for a $40 win? It costs me $40 in gas to drive to the closest casino.

[jbjb]

I have a sneaking suspicion sling and sing are the same person.

[Alan Mendelson]

I have a sneaking suspicion sling and sing are the same person.

They are not. But slingshot is a loyal follower of Rob.

[slingshot]

Slingshot does it make sense to you to go to a casino for a $40 win? It costs me $40 in gas to drive to the closest casino.

I plainly said I STARTED the single play strategy and didn't realize the time and attention involved and HAD TO PICK UP MY WIFE so I left at +$40 in what would have been my soft profits. That, plus the fact I had previously played a session of another of his shorter sessions at what I believe was +$60. Nonetheless, I took my wife to a comped meal that day and I didn't LOSE. Also, this week I played another quickie strategy- $180 in 90 seconds-that was posted here also. But here' the point, Alan- every time I even mention these sessions it's taken that I just walk in and it happens. I even had taken photos of playing 5 sessions where I DIDN'T stop after hitting 4 A's on ddbp and ended up with only $35 but then the two posters made me sick to my stomach and I said forget it. Play however you want.

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay sling and thanks for clarifying.

Since you are devoted to Rob's strategy would you mind telling us how you are doing so far this year? Perhaps for all of last year also? I think you play small denominations and there is nothing wrong with that, so can you put your results into percentages? Everyone can identify with percentages whether they are playing dollars or dimes.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, if sling tells you he's ahead, are you gonna blindly criticize him for hitting quads at the higher denominations? See how dumb that line of thinking is?

You should know enough about time at the machine that in most sessions where you go in with 2400 credits, you will hit at least one big or intermediate winner, and some of those hits are so large that the few losing sessions become irrelevant.

People like to criticize without having any idea what they're talking about because not only do they not understand this method--they have no intention of trying it. At least when I expose the various pitfalls and flaws of advantage play, it comes from six years of play experience, and at a time when lucrative plays were a dime a dozen.

So it doesn't make much sense to proclaim things about something the critics know little about. As I've said a thousand times here and everywhere, to the closed minded blind, +ev means you win and -ev means you lose. That is their beginning and that is their true-believing end. And they will forever be enraptured by the thrilling thought of phantom bucks before they sit down to actually play.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob the problem with your strategy is that you assume you will hit big winners. I've played many sessions without even one quad. And had I moved up in denominations following your strategy I just would have lost a lot, lot more.

[redietz]

Rob the problem with your strategy is that you assume you will hit big winners. I've played many sessions without even one quad. And had I moved up in denominations following your strategy I just would have lost a lot, lot more.

That's because you're a heathen, Alan, and Rob leads a reputable god-fearing life. Luck follows the moral man like flies follow an elephant with diarrhea.

[Alan Mendelson]

That's because you're a heathen, Alan, and Rob leads a reputable god-fearing life. Luck follows the moral man like flies follow an elephant with diarrhea.

Why didn't I figure that out myself? I am paying for my multiple marriages and many girlfriends not only with the costs of divorce and alimony, but also at the video poker machines. Of course that's what's going on. This means Rob has to write a new book explaining why staying married leads to more video poker profits.

[regnis]

Nope--that system doesn't work. I am with the same woman 33 years and I always lose at VP. But maybe because the first 15 years we were not married so I am a heathen too.

Hmmmmmmmm.

[dannyj]

Regnis--I got you beat. Been with the same woman for 34 years and got married after "only" the first 9 years.

[regnis]

what was your hurry??

we got married for the best reason----get me on her health insurance

[Rob.Singer]

Rob the problem with your strategy is that you assume you will hit big winners. I've played many sessions without even one quad. And had I moved up in denominations following your strategy I just would have lost a lot, lot more.

And all the more reason not to be criticizing the special plays that have quads in mind.

At 2400 credits on your $5 machines, that means you went in with a $12k bankroll. I don't think you ever said you did that. And at $2 only that's a $4800 roll.

The problem you're getting into is not realizing that big winners do come IN MOST SESSIONS. People can say they haven't seen quads all day long, but it is extremely rare. Again, never having actually tried the strategy, all you can do is offer conjecture.