third royal of the year

[Alan Mendelson]

Just hit a $2 royal holding only JQ at Caesars on 7/5 bonus. had $200 in machine. Same machine I hit a roYal on three years ago near the bathrooms.

[slingshot]

When it starts, it starts. Congrats!

[redietz]

Congrats -- !!

That was a big one -- !

[Rob.Singer]

A father's day gift? But how in the world could you POSSIBLY feel good about an $8k royal when the "smartest" people in the business can say with certainty that you'll only end up a loser anyway because you don't play "positive EV" games? Why, you might as well just hand Caesar's the money back because you'll just give it back to them "over time".

BTW, don't think for one minute arci's not salivating over such a hit. He's never seen such a one, and he can just dream about all the copays that would cover!

[Vegas Vic]

Congrats for hitting it. I'm off to a great start in '12 getting my 4th royal on June 5. 2 weeks ago, I played a bit more than normal and hit aces w/ kicker 4 times over 3 days, which felt as good as the royals.

[arcimede$]

Nice one, Alan. I expected it and I wouldn't be surprised if you don't make it a 3-peat real soon.

And thanks to wheels for giving me another belly laugh. Notice how he claims that now you can win playing a negative game but he never admits that anyone can win playing a positive game. In fact, he states very often that APers lose even when they get RFs. Only a real d---- could come up with something that crazy.

[Rob.Singer]

At least you weren't feeling badly about how you spend all your time calculating co-pays while we calculate all that we'll be doing for the foreseeable future.

Ain't life great?!

[Alan Mendelson]

Just a comment about the ongoing debate about you know what by you know who:

Yes APers can get lucky on their positive games just as I got lucky on this negative game. But what keeps you lucky is knowing that you have to quit when ahead. I'm now driving home with a big wad of cash and will enjoy the win till my next trip which might come in a week or in several months.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I also drove home today with a big wad of cash. Interestingly, I added about $1200 of that win in my last 15 minutes. If I had left just a bit earlier I would not have won near as much. So, quitting while ahead is like everything else on a random game. Some times you do come out better, some times you come out worse. Imagine that.

BTW, as I mentioned before there is one good reason to quit while you're ahead. That's when you are playing a negative game.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, a question. You wrote: as I mentioned before there is one good reason to quit while you're ahead. That's when you are playing a negative game.

Do you mean this to say that you will always be ahead playing a positive expectation game? Or that you can never lose playing a positive game? Does this mean that as long as you are playing a positive game you never run the risk of hitting a string of losses that would destroy your gambling budget?

Arc, I am sure there are players who lost playing positive expectation games because even positive expectation games have their high points and low points that might not fit the budget or bets of a player... even a knowledgeable player.

On the other hand, if your bet levels are so small that you can easily ride out the low points of your positive expectation game, then your wins must also be small and I don't think winning small would make for a successful profession as a professional or expert player?

And I also have a story to tell... after hitting the royal at the $2 bonus game, I went to a $5 8/5 bonus game. Here I started losing from the start, but cashed out a nice win when I hit six quads in less than 20 hands. Twice the quads were back-to-back pairs. Remember, this was a $5 Bonus game so no W2Gs for these.

[arcimede$]

Arc, a question. You wrote: as I mentioned before there is one good reason to quit while you're ahead. That's when you are playing a negative game.

Do you mean this to say that you will always be ahead playing a positive expectation game? Or that you can never lose playing a positive game? Does this mean that as long as you are playing a positive game you never run the risk of hitting a string of losses that would destroy your gambling budget?

It simply means that your expectation on a positive game is .... well, er .... positive. So, the more you play the more you are expected to win. Are bankroll requirements important? Of course, and I have a bankroll more than adequate for the dollar denomination I play.

Arc, I am sure there are players who lost playing positive expectation games because even positive expectation games have their high points and low points that might not fit the budget or bets of a player... even a knowledgeable player.

On the other hand, if your bet levels are so small that you can easily ride out the low points of your positive expectation game, then your wins must also be small and I don't think winning small would make for a successful profession as a professional or expert player?

Who said anything about being a professional. I'm simply talking about the reality of regular play by recreational gamblers. Win goals only accomplish one thing ... they influence how much you play. For negative games reducing play is a good thing. For positive games it only limits your win potential.

And I also have a story to tell... after hitting the royal at the $2 bonus game, I went to a $5 8/5 bonus game. Here I started losing from the start, but cashed out a nice win when I hit six quads in less than 20 hands. Twice the quads were back-to-back pairs. Remember, this was a $5 Bonus game so no W2Gs for these.

I've had a lot of natural quads lately. A lot of dealt quads too. Of course, that's not a big deal in OEJs but it would have been great on any bonus game. I only had quad aces once yesterday after having them 7 times in the last two trips. You know what this means???????

[Alan Mendelson]

Funny that you mention quad aces... I had no quad aces over the weekend, but had multiples of every other quad. The bonus game pays extra for quad 2s, 3s, 4s, as you know and I had plenty of those. Plenty of every other quad on this trip except aces. Not even three aces dealt on any hand to utilize a "special play." Just a lack of aces.

You and I will never see eye to eye on this Arc... you wrote: For negative games reducing play is a good thing. For positive games it only limits your win potential. Yeah, like it's so easy to win at a positive game. Get real before you get busted.

[arcimede$]

You didn't answer my question ... admittedly a trick question. Of course, what hitting all those aces meant was absolutely nothing. Just random fluctuations. Same as you not getting any.

And, it's nice you made this comment: "Yeah, like it's so easy to win at a positive game." .... It isn't easy in high variance games for many people. The number of RFs and/or quads will have a large influence on results and leads to high hand requirements to zero in on the expected return. However, that isn't a problem to anyone with a sufficient bankroll.

[Alan Mendelson]

It isn't easy in high variance games for many people. The number of RFs and/or quads will have a large influence on results and leads to high hand requirements to zero in on the expected return. However, that isn't a problem to anyone with a sufficient bankroll.

Thanks for posting this Arc. This is very important information. The most popular video poker game is double double bonus. It's rarely found with a positive pay table. Most casinos have it as 9/6. But could you tell us what the "sufficient bankroll" is for playing it at the various denominations including 25-cents, 50-cents, one-dollar and 5-dollars?

And for comparison, what's a sufficient bankroll to get the expected return of 99.5% on plain vanilla Jacks or Better at the various denominations? This will be important information, so if you don't mind, what are the numbers?

[bigfoot66]

Thanks for posting this Arc. This is very important information. The most popular video poker game is double double bonus. It's rarely found with a positive pay table. Most casinos have it as 9/6. But could you tell us what the "sufficient bankroll" is for playing it at the various denominations including 25-cents, 50-cents, one-dollar and 5-dollars?

And for comparison, what's a sufficient bankroll to get the expected return of 99.5% on plain vanilla Jacks or Better at the various denominations? This will be important information, so if you don't mind, what are the numbers?

Predicted answer from Arci: It depends on how much cashback and other cash equivalents you are earning

[Alan Mendelson]

Predicted answer from Arci: It depends on how much cashback and other cash equivalents you are earning

I'm really interested in seeing his response. There are positive double double bonus games at Stateline Primm (paying over 100% without cashback, comps) but they are rarely played. You'd think there would be a line out the door with "advantage players" waiting to rob the ATM.

[arcimede$]

Thanks for posting this Arc. This is very important information. The most popular video poker game is double double bonus. It's rarely found with a positive pay table. Most casinos have it as 9/6. But could you tell us what the "sufficient bankroll" is for playing it at the various denominations including 25-cents, 50-cents, one-dollar and 5-dollars?

And for comparison, what's a sufficient bankroll to get the expected return of 99.5% on plain vanilla Jacks or Better at the various denominations? This will be important information, so if you don't mind, what are the numbers?

The bankroll requirement for negatives games is the same for every game. It is infinite. Now, that doesn't mean you have to have an infinite amount of money to play the games. However, all you can expect is to lose over time.

Now, to make bigfoot66 happy I will point out that if there were sufficient extras to raise the expected return over 100% then we could talk about a real bankroll.

[arcimede$]

I'm really interested in seeing his response. There are positive double double bonus games at Stateline Primm (paying over 100% without cashback, comps) but they are rarely played. You'd think there would be a line out the door with "advantage players" waiting to rob the ATM.

I assume you're referring to 10/6 DDB. It is only 100.06%. Not much of an edge and nothing that any knowledgeable APer would waste their time playing unless there was nothing else better to play. Of course, if it had great CB, etc. it could be reasonable. I used to play a 10/6 DDB progressive at one time with a pretty good meter.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nice wiggle, Arc. I never expected a straight answer.

[arcimede$]

Nice wiggle, Arc. I never expected a straight answer.

That is a straight answer. You have to understand what "bankroll" means. Now, you could ask the question a little differently and get a non-infinite answer. For example, you might want to know the bankroll requirements to have a 95% chance of playing 100K hands of dollar 9/6 DDB. That could be calculated.

OTOH, I don't think you really care. After all, you believe the fantasy that setting win goals can turn a negative game into a positive one. That belief requires throwing out all mathematics and replacing it with nonsense.