Winning at Video Poker without a Royal

[Alan Mendelson]

In another thread Rob Singer wrote in a discussion about "winning" and advantage play:

Those royals MUST HIT in order to achieve that edge,

I am surprised Rob wrote this, because it goes against everything he has always said about win goals and how you can be a winner by quitting when ahead with big wins but not necessarily a royal flush.

I personally have had many winning trips without hitting a royal flush in video poker. I've also had winning trips at craps without hitting a Fire Bet, which is akin to hitting a royal flush in craps.

So the question: who else has had a winning session, day, trip to a casino without a royal flush? I would guess many.

[Rob.Singer]

I've also won the vast majority of my sessions--and I mean VAST--w/o a royal. However, AP's absolutely require these things if they want to realize their miniscule "edges".

[arcimede$]

I think the claim that you need to hit your quota of RFs to win over time is more or less true. It does not apply to any particular session especially when playing high variance VP. However, I have had a few plays in the past where hitting the RF was not required. In general, this would be when you have an edge over 2%. Also keep in mind you can get more (or less) RFs than a frequency analysis predicts over a specific period of time. Here's one example:

110K hands - 6 RFs
505K hands - 2 RFs
570K hands - 20 RFs

This pretty much covers my last 3 years of play. I had 28 RFs in about 1.2 million hands and the odds predict around 30. Pretty close. But look at the variance within that range.

This year I had 29 winning sessions and 16 RFs so that means I had 13 winning sessions without a RF (never had 2 in one session).

[SLaPiNFuNK]

I think where that statement comes from is here...

Then an player says its a positive returning game or it has a 99.54% return plus cash back... Unless you hit the royal you aren't supposed to be near the 99.54% return.

[Alan Mendelson]

If the royal is worth 2.1% (which is what I think it is in most games) 9/6 Jacks is a 97.44% game without a royal. You would need MORE than 2.5% in comps and cash back and whatever to get your 100% return. Since comps and cashback are about 1% I don't know how anyone could claim to be 100% without a royal.

But that doesn't mean you didn't or can't have a winning session.

[slobdinger]

9/6 Jacks is a 99.54% game. The royal represents 1.98% of the payback so the return between royals is 97.56%. That means you have a 2.44% loss rate between royals. The royal odds with optimum strategy is 40,391. So what is the average cost to produce the royal on a dollar machine?

40,391 X $5 X 2.44% = an average cost to produce a royal of $4928

But what if you were getting 1% cashback?

40,391 X $5 X 1% = $2020

So getting 1% cashback would cut the average cost to produce a royal to $2908

[slobdinger]

Note that your freeplay also cuts your cost of producing a royal.

[slobdinger]

Alan, I've read that you play a lot of dollar 8/5 Aces and Faces which is a 99.2544% game. The royal odds are 40,502 with optimal strategy....which means the royal represents 1.9752% of the payback (800/40502). So you have a 97.28% return between royals. That means your loss rate between royals is 2.72%. So the average cost to produce the royal is:

40,502 X $5 X 2.72% = $5,508

Your freeplay cuts into this cost. How much it does depends on how much action you run.

[slobdinger]

Even recreational players should be tracking their play. They should document how much action they run every session. With a CET card, if you are gettting 1 regular tier credit per $20 in action and you ran 200 points....that would mean you ran $4000 in action, 800 hands on a dollar machine. The reason for tracking your action is to compare the freeplay offers to the amount of action you are running.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't get 1% in free play or cash back or anything. When I played at Rincon their cash back was one-tenth of one percent. Free play was a fixed amount but it was spread over a month so unless you were there just about every day you could never get all of it. But in a typical month I would get about $500 of free play by going once a week, and $750 a month by going twice a week.

There was no cashback at Caesars, and in the last year free play was in the range of $300 a month.

But the APs talk about 1% cashback. Where? I've also played at Morongo and at Red Rock and Bellagio.

I know the APs want to keep their secrets but when they say they want to keep a cashback program paying 1% a secret I have to be very skeptical. Any casino offering 1% cashback will certainly advertise it. So, I doubt it exists EXCEPT for maybe a special promotion for a day. And if that's the case I have to exclude it from any routine AP math, because that would be like me going to the Great Gift Wrap Up and getting $1200 of free play instead of $1200 in gas cards -- a one time event.

[slobdinger]

I don't get 1% in free play or cash back or anything. When I played at Rincon their cash back was one-tenth of one percent. Free play was a fixed amount but it was spread over a month so unless you were there just about every day you could never get all of it. But in a typical month I would get about $500 of free play by going once a week, and $750 a month by going twice a week.

There was no cashback at Caesars, and in the last year free play was in the range of $300 a month.

But the APs talk about 1% cashback. Where? I've also played at Morongo and at Red Rock and Bellagio.

I know the APs want to keep their secrets but when they say they want to keep a cashback program paying 1% a secret I have to be very skeptical. Any casino offering 1% cashback will certainly advertise it. So, I doubt it exists EXCEPT for maybe a special promotion for a day. And if that's the case I have to exclude it from any routine AP math, because that would be like me going to the Great Gift Wrap Up and getting $1200 of free play instead of $1200 in gas cards -- a one time event.

You nailed it pretty good, Alan. One percent cashback is pretty much a thing of the past. But by tracking your action you can determine how much the freeplay is adding to your game. If you are getting $750 in freeplay per $100,000 in action that would be a .75% add on.

[Alan Mendelson]

You nailed it pretty good, Alan. One percent cashback is pretty much a thing of the past. But by tracking your action you can determine how much the freeplay is adding to your game. If you are getting $750 in freeplay per $100,000 in action that would be a .75% add on.

I just looked at my records including coin-in and free play for all sorts of casinos. My cash back and free play is always in the range of one-tenth of one percent. And if I didn't play as much as I did I wouldnt even get one-tenth of one percent.

This time you nailed it when you said "one percent cashback is pretty much a thing of the past."

[Rob.Singer]

And that .75% "add-on" is just another smoke & mirrors tool of theory in the AP playbook when in reality, it's very seldom that anyone will realize the full value of their free play. But it makes them feel good--just like Jean Scott filling her "AP" purse with rolls and fruit from all those germ-free buffets she goes to.

Busted again, Mickey.

[slobdinger]

I just looked at my records including coin-in and free play for all sorts of casinos. My cash back and free play is always in the range of one-tenth of one percent. And if I didn't play as much as I did I wouldnt even get one-tenth of one percent.

This time you nailed it when you said "one percent cashback is pretty much a thing of the past."

The casinos moving from cashback to freeplay was actually a pretty good strategic move. Before they did that a person just had to cash out his card before leaving. But by moving to freeplay the casinos are offering players an incentive to return to the casino.

[slobdinger]

And that .75% "add-on" is just another smoke & mirrors tool of theory in the AP playbook when in reality, it's very seldom that anyone will realize the full value of their free play.

Yes, you are right. Freeplay would only carry 99.2555% of it's value if you run it on Aces and Faces.

[arcimede$]

Most of the times cash back approaches 1% is due to multipliers. I had a 14x multiplier at Fiesta on one particular day. Sam's Town often had 5x and 6x multipliers on their play when I played there. These were applied to a base of .1%. My best long time multiplier was 5x tier multiplier on a .2% base. That was 1% every time I played.

On top of this is the free play given by the casino. That also varies quite a fit. This year the total of cash and freeplay has totaled .55%.

[Alan Mendelson]

This year the total of cash and freeplay has totaled .55%.

I trust your numbers. Still a long way from 1%.

[arcimede$]

I trust your numbers. Still a long way from 1%.

True. However, the game I was playing was 100.28%. They cut the cash back by 60% for this game. I could play at the casino with the 1% cash back but the best game is around 98%.

[Dan Druff]

The casino edge is too great on even the best VP games for you to be able to win for an extended period of time with no royals.

That 2% is just too hard to overcome.

Interestingly, I never had a royal in my life until I hit six of them at Rincon in March 2015. I also didn't hit any in my subsequent sessions.

My six royals came in about 65k hands played, which was obviously way above expectation.

[Boygenius]

Alan,

I know it's been a while since you've played at Rincon. But, could you please explain how the "bounce back" program works? I've been all over the board with explanations on how this program is dispensed. Some months o get it. While others there is zippy!