Video Poker Trucks Run Over Everybody

[Vegas_lover]

Now, everyone has decided that yes, you can win at negative expectation games. The question is what do you do with those winnings? Do you plow them back or do you keep them? You seem to deny that someone could pocket their wins enough times to beat a negative expectation game over time. Why?

I'm going to repeat something that's been said over a 100 times so I hope it sinks in this time. The chance you'll loose on a negative VP game is LARGER than the chance you'll win. So what is it you'll do with those winnings you pocketed? You'll save them for another day and eventually loose them to the same negative VP game. That's how simple it is. I know you would really like to believe differently but those casino's weren't built on enthousiasm......

The only way to beat a negative VP game over time is true LUCK, nothing more nothing less. Nobody I know has been lucky consistantly over a period of ten years. So if you ask me, is it possible? My answer would be: anything is possible (as Cooper said in season five of the succesful Las Vegas tv series). BUT chances are as small as being hit by lightning.

[Alan Mendelson]

Vegas_lover I think what you wrote here is fair and I agree: "The chance you'll loose on a negative VP game is LARGER than the chance you'll win." Except, I would spell "lose" correctly.

But I think that people can win, and so do you, and if you want to call that "luck" it's okay with me.

[Vegas_lover]

There was no luck involved. It was skill and hard work.

You never made a lucky point at tennis and never mad a lucky shot at basketball where you thought it was not going to work? Yes, sports are based on skill and hard work but so is VP. I've been a member of our National martial arts team (I'll leave the kind of sport out of the discussion because it doesn't make a difference) for 5 years and yes, my selection was based on skill and hard work. So what's the difference with VP? To become a consistant succesful VP player means you have to have skills and put some hard work into getting those skills. Luck is also a factor as it is in sports. Yes, I won a number of fights with an early knock-out. That could all be skill but it could also be the result of my oponent not feeling as well, rested and in shape as he normally would. So in that case, the early knock-out could be called LUCK. The conditions of the VP game don't change during the game. Every hand you get 5 cards and you get the chance to hold the number of cards you would like. After the second spin you win a prize or not. The credits you get for a full house are the same every time so nothing changes there as well. The fact that you fail to see why the analogy applies doesn't mean it "don't fly...."

[Vegas_lover]

Vegas_lover I think what you wrote here is fair and I agree: "The chance you'll loose on a negative VP game is LARGER than the chance you'll win." Except, I would spell "lose" correctly.

But I think that people can win, and so do you, and if you want to call that "luck" it's okay with me.

Yes I believe people can get lucky and yes I believe people can win playing a negative VP game. But winning consistantly at a negative VP game for 10 years is either LUCK that nobody else encounters or it is simply not true....Whatever you want to believe is fine by me as well but I think you're trying too hard to convince people you can't convince about your ideas.

PS Sorry for my spelling errors, English still isn't my native language LOL

[Count Room]

I once heard the statement: "Luck equals preparation plus opportunity"

When I avail myself of the opportunity to play a VP machine and I prepare by using currently unexplored physical methods to improve my exact timing of pressing the DEAL/DRAW button, will I get lucky?

[redietz]

Count,

Yes, if you develop telekinetic powers like some X-Men, you may win at negative expectation video poker. Outside of mutant abilities, however, you're stuck in the real world where negative EV is negative EV.

[Alan Mendelson]

One more quote that will allow me to continue with my real job of making TV...

"The harder I work, the luckier I get." Samuel Goldwyn, the movie guy

[Alan Mendelson]

Count,

Yes, if you develop telekinetic powers like some X-Men, you may win at negative expectation video poker. Outside of mutant abilities, however, you're stuck in the real world where negative EV is negative EV.

My favorite all time Sci Fi movie with a Vegas connection is "X The Man With The X Ray Eyes" with Ray Milland where he can see into the gears of the old mechanical slot machines and find the ones about to "hit." He could also see into the deck of cards in blackjack.

[Count Room]

Fun video, Alan!

It reminded me of yet another story I once read a long time ago from John Scarne's old gambling books. To the best of my memory he talked about a pair of Idaho farmers who discovered a weakness in mechanical slot machines around 1945-1946. They realized that if you timed the pull of the slot lever in certain ways you could set yourself up for a jackpot. These two guys took their discovery to Vegas casinos where they won many jackpots that left all sorts of casino owners very baffled and concerned as to how they were doing it. As the years passed more people gradually learned their methods and it was literally threatening to crater the Vegas slot industry back then. After quite a few people were using these guys' methods the total loss to Nevada casinos was in the hundreds of millions if I recall correctly (enormous amount of money back then and even today!). They were called "rhythm players" and it took the casinos several years before they counteracted the Idaho boys' discovery with a new slot gizmo called a "variator".

I'm pretty sure if someone researched Vegas history this story would be found somewhere. It was a huge financial maelstrom for the casinos back in the 40's-50's.

[Count Room]

Alan:

I am probably one of the few people around here that actually spends a little time once in a while reviewing your TV shows. Your TV shows are informative and you hit the nail on the head about companies out there hurting for machinists even in today's tough job market. What really struck me, though, is the number of posts in your Las Vegas forum section versus all the other consumer-oriented forums you post. It seems like 97% of the posts on your forums are all about gambling-related topics. Do you have any theories as to why so many people, including myself, gravitate to the "Las Vegas" section of your forums while the rest is a comparative ghost town?

Please note that I am not complaining about this and I consider it a blessing that you decided to run this forum, but I still had to chuckle at the glaring imbalance at how much attention is paid towards the gambling vs. non-gambling topics. (Just check the number of threads and posts in each section.) Also, please note I don't consider this a reflection of your TV show production abilities; I am just amazed at how the gamblers are the most vociferous of all the "Best Buys" posters by a staggering magnitude.

Various businesses in cities where casinos are newly-built often complain that money and attention that was once spent in their businesses are cannibalized by the casinos and the posting patterns on the Best Buys forum seem to be an interesting microcosm of that larger effect.

[Alan Mendelson]

Various businesses in cities where casinos are newly-built often complain that money and attention that was once spent in their businesses are cannibalized by the casinos and the posting patterns on the Best Buys forum seem to be an interesting microcosm of that larger effect.

You raised what is often the #1 argument against gaming -- that it siphons money from the general economy. I never really thought of these forums as being a measure of anything. Honestly, the traffic to my entire website is only a tiny fraction of my TV audience, so I don't think either the web traffic or the number of forum posts is representative of anything.

I think the large number of posts and views of the Vegas forum threads just reflects the intelligent discussion that goes on here. We do get some very good information -- and some very worthwhile debate. I've been told that the subjects discussed here are much more interesting than what is discussed on some of the other "Vegas Forums" but my regret is that there are many "views" of the posts but few website visitors who are actually posting. There are, as I write this, 470 registered members who could post but few do. And some of the threads have a thousand or more views.

What is really disappointing to me is that I started the forum to replace the forum on TVspy.com which was hijacked by several rude people who literally destroyed that professional forum. The TVspy forum never recovered but the forum that I set up here never caught on. Unfortunately for the TV news business there really isn't a "good forum" that is moderated and allows worthwhile discussion.

By the way, the Forum here and the articles about Vegas and gaming on our main site, have had a big impact on web traffic. And I am happy to report that in recent weeks our ranking on Alexa.com soared. Personally, I'm not impressed because I know that the Alexa stats have a narrow survey base so I don't consider them to be accurate at all. But I'll accept any measurement that shows a growth in traffic!!

[jatki]

Count,

Yes, if you develop telekinetic powers like some X-Men, you may win at negative expectation video poker. Outside of mutant abilities, however, you're stuck in the real world where negative EV is negative EV.

I'm not a math nut but I know my results from playing videopoker. I think there's very minute differences between a negative game like bonuspoker and a positive one like the fpdw that I play. You talk a lot about "over time" right? But "over time", and I mean a lot of time, I am well below even on the games vpfree'ers call "playable" and I'm at a somewhat healthy profit on the bad guy game.

I do see where people say anyone can get lucky playing negative videopoker and win a visit. Well don't you also have to be lucky to win a visit on fpdw? Why can't anything occur time after time, and then why do the advantage people have to keep saying you must string everything togeher before you can look at the results? I don't really care how I'm doing over time and it's the last thing that enters my mind when I get to a casino to play anew. I only look at this visit now as having any meaning to my finances. Stringing it out over time seems like a way to criticise others for the way they play and as we've seen here on another thread, for some to develope a way to make it look like they win just because they play positive games.

I don't believe anyone who says they don't care how they do on today's visit, because they are only there to win today. I've always learned that anyone who claims they'll be ok tomorrow after taking a loss, because someone with a math degree told them it would occur when everything is random, that those same people believe in crystal balls. When I play, all I hope for is the luck of the deal and the luck of the draw. And my rabbit's foot to mean something.

[arcimede$]

I'm not a math nut but I know my results from playing videopoker. I think there's very minute differences between a negative game like bonuspoker and a positive one like the fpdw that I play. You talk a lot about "over time" right? But "over time", and I mean a lot of time, I am well below even on the games vpfree'ers call "playable" and I'm at a somewhat healthy profit on the bad guy game.

You're sounding like a troll.

I do see where people say anyone can get lucky playing negative videopoker and win a visit. Well don't you also have to be lucky to win a visit on fpdw? Why can't anything occur time after time, and then why do the advantage people have to keep saying you must string everything togeher before you can look at the results? I don't really care how I'm doing over time and it's the last thing that enters my mind when I get to a casino to play anew. I only look at this visit now as having any meaning to my finances. Stringing it out over time seems like a way to criticise others for the way they play and as we've seen here on another thread, for some to develope a way to make it look like they win just because they play positive games.

You seem to be doing a good job of criticizing others.

I don't believe anyone who says they don't care how they do on today's visit, because they are only there to win today. I've always learned that anyone who claims they'll be ok tomorrow after taking a loss, because someone with a math degree told them it would occur when everything is random, that those same people believe in crystal balls. When I play, all I hope for is the luck of the deal and the luck of the draw. And my rabbit's foot to mean something.

Everyone wants to win today ... well, maybe with the exception of Frank. That has nothing to do with whether you understand that no one wins all the time. If you're going to gamble you have to be prepared for reality and the reality is we all lose on a regular basis. The big difference between winning players and losing players is the amount won is a little more and amount lost is a little less on almost every trip. Over time that adds up to a large difference. If you don't care about it that's fine with me, but criticizing those that have figured out how to win is just plain silly.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't think jatki sounds like a troll. I appreciate the questions.

And this question sticks in my mind. So Arc, let me ask again this question: if you lose playing today, and you lose playing tomorrow on a "positive expectation game" what makes you think you will end up turning a profit over the long run?

And conversely, if someone wins on a negative expectation game today, and they win on a negative expectation game tomorrow, why do they have to lose money over the long run?

Now, I just finished writing an article on this site about craps (see Dice Games, Craps, Card Craps at http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id139.html ) where I call craps a negative expectation game that according to the math players should lose. But I do point out that if you get lucky, you can win. And the strategy you play, coupled with the luck factor, is what can make you win the negative expectation game of craps.

Now, why is it impossible to use luck and a certain strategy (whatever it might be) to erase the "house edge" of 0.8% in a game such as "bonus poker" or the "house edge" of 0.5% in "jacks or better"? Why must you fail playing those games?

[jatki]

I don't really know what a troll is but it doesn't sound good. All I know is arcimedes is just like he's been on LV A and cannot take criticism well.

I do however agree with what Alan wrote, if not for the simple reason that no one can predict the future even if math is involved. I agree because it just does not make much sense that a person, in each session, has to lose just because of a small meaningless percentage on that particular day. And if they do not have to lose on that day, where is it written that they do not have to ever be ahead after a group, no matter how large or small, of those sessions on negative games?

Arcimedes recently called me a name (troll) because he didn't appreciate that I am ahead on these bad guy games and behind on the good guy ones. Alas, I am behind overall, because I play fpdw more than bonuspoker. My assessment is that playing positive games means so little, and there's chances on every game if you have the bank roll for it. I just don't see why anyone would condemn anybody who plays negative games, because as only positive game players, no one can prove anything they say insofar as their results without resorting to what the math says might be the case in a perfect world. The last time I looked, luck is needed to win ANY session or visit. Why is that not factored into the expert's thinking, ever?

[arcimede$]

I don't think jatki sounds like a troll. I appreciate the questions.

And this question sticks in my mind. So Arc, let me ask again this question: if you lose playing today, and you lose playing tomorrow on a "positive expectation game" what makes you think you will end up turning a profit over the long run?

Math.

And conversely, if someone wins on a negative expectation game today, and they win on a negative expectation game tomorrow, why do they have to lose money over the long run?

Math.

Now, I just finished writing an article on this site about craps (see Dice Games, Craps, Card Craps at http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id139.html ) where I call craps a negative expectation game that according to the math players should lose. But I do point out that if you get lucky, you can win. And the strategy you play, coupled with the luck factor, is what can make you win the negative expectation game of craps.

Now, why is it impossible to use luck and a certain strategy (whatever it might be) to erase the "house edge" of 0.8% in a game such as "bonus poker" or the "house edge" of 0.5% in "jacks or better"? Why must you fail playing those games?

Because there is no "strategy" that will erase the house edge. Simple math, Alan.

Of course, a few people can get lucky and win for longer than most others even on negative games. However, this is not something you can count on. There's nothing anyone can do to make themselves lucky. So, a few will win without knowing a single thing about strategy, and a few who play extremely well will lose. But, they are exceptions and there's no technique, strategy, betting system, lucky charms, voodoo curses or anything else I've ever come across that allows a person to guarantee they will be "the one" that wins in spite of the math.

[jatki]

I counted on winning playing fpdw. I didn't. There is nothing in videopoker that can be counted on except more losing visits than winning ones.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, this is where, Im afraid, you do not account for what I would describe as "the human factor." I see the human factor at work all the time in casinos. I see people playing negative games, hit a winner, and leave. Keep doing that enough times and you will have a long term profit.

I've said before that if I gave myself from tight loss limits and left when I had a profit I could become an overall winner on a negative game such as 8/5 Bonus.

There have been countless times when Ive watched average Joe players hit a winner and picked themselves out of the seat and leave with a profit. That human factor does not appear in your math, does it Arc?

[arcimede$]

I don't really know what a troll is but it doesn't sound good. All I know is arcimedes is just like he's been on LV A and cannot take criticism well.

I have no problem with reasonable criticism. Let me know when you have some.

I do however agree with what Alan wrote, if not for the simple reason that no one can predict the future even if math is involved. I agree because it just does not make much sense that a person, in each session, has to lose just because of a small meaningless percentage on that particular day. And if they do not have to lose on that day, where is it written that they do not have to ever be ahead after a group, no matter how large or small, of those sessions on negative games?

Arcimedes recently called me a name (troll) because he didn't appreciate that I am ahead on these bad guy games and behind on the good guy ones. Alas, I am behind overall, because I play fpdw more than bonuspoker. My assessment is that playing positive games means so little, and there's chances on every game if you have the bank roll for it. I just don't see why anyone would condemn anybody who plays negative games, because as only positive game players, no one can prove anything they say insofar as their results without resorting to what the math says might be the case in a perfect world. The last time I looked, luck is needed to win ANY session or visit. Why is that not factored into the expert's thinking, ever?

A troll is a well known internet term. If you don't understand it then educate yourself. When a person behaves like a troll then they will be called a troll. Don't like it? Well, quit acting like a troll.

Obviously, you don't understand random events. What you call luck is just a set of random events that happens to produce winning results. These events are actually predicted by the math. So, what you want to call luck is really just predictable random fluctuations. One things trolls often do is jump into a discussion they don't understand and attack others. Hmmmmm.

[jatki]

Alan, I saw where you are a loser at videopoker but I don't know how much percentagewise. Even so, do you treally think that if you were playing a game that is say 100.5% instead of 99.5%, you'd be that much of a winner? You said you played $1 $2 and $5 I think. If arcimedes can claim to make a hundred grand in 8 or 9 years of playing whatever he plays at quarters and dollars, it sounds like you'd be able to buy the Getty Museum with pocket change had you played the good guy games, no?