Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50

Thread: Multi Line VP

  1. #1
    On multi line VP , can someone explain why 5 line is preferred ?
    Thanks
    Ron

  2. #2
    Preferred by who?

    Multi-line game returns are no different than single line. The only difference is the variance.

  3. #3
    I think it's only a function of your budget whether you play one line or three line or 100 line. You also seem to spread out your risk when you take what would have been the budget for a single line and play multi lines.

    For example, instead of play one line of $1 VP for $5 total, you could play a three line game at 25-cents per coin for $3.75 or a five line game for $6.25 and your money doesn't all go to "a single line chance."

    However, I have found that most multi line machine have reduced paytables. I'm not sure how that affects things.

    I generally don't play multi line because the games I see do have reduced paytables. About ten or so years ago playing a 50-line DDB game at Mandalay Bay I was dealt a royal. It was 5-cents per coin, 25-cents per line, and $12.50 to push the button... and I was dealt a royal for a $10,000 payday.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by OceanCityMD View Post
    On multi line VP , can someone explain why 5 line is preferred ?
    Thanks
    Ron
    Are you referring to something that Rob Singer wrote about playing 5-line? Just got an email about your post that says Rob prefers 5-line.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Are you referring to something that Rob Singer wrote about playing 5-line? Just got an email about your post that says Rob prefers 5-line.
    I think that you are referring to the following

    The Singer Multi-Play Strategy



    The following is my Play Strategy developed for those who prefer to play Multi-Line Video Poker. Multi-Line play is interesting to me, but with all the different Multi’s out there, I wanted to know which game was the optimal one to play in order to consistently win. Three-Play, Five-Play, Ten-Play, Fifty-Play, Or Hundred-Play? After over a year of studying the games with several of my former colleagues who also assisted in the development of the Singer Play Strategy, I have developed this play strategy. It has been re-written after several reviews, and I have practiced it successfully a number of times in lower denominations. As with any gambling strategy, only use it or choose to use a variation of it if you are very comfortable with its guidelines and can reasonably withstand the limits you are about to face. It is a true goal-oriented, short-term winning play strategy.
    Rule #1: Five-Play machines are the only games you should play if you want to experience consistent winning. There are mathematical and practical reasons why the other 4 multi’s cannot be beaten as often as Five-Play, but in short, Triple-Play does not offer a good “deal” enough chances to score big on the draw; Ten-Play of course offers more, but the trade-off of experiencing many losing hands, required reasonable bankroll, and game availability make it impractical; Fifty and Hundred Play, while a novelty, are totally off the wall and offer those without a 7-figure bankroll a quick trip to the poor house.

    Rule #2: Bankroll required for a session with my play limits: $62,500. I recommend a total gambling bankroll of 3 times a session’s – or $187,500. My play starts at quarters and goes thru $25. You can lower the bankroll requirement by starting at nickels and of course, your required bankroll will go down exponentially. My goal is to win a minimum of $500 every session, and immediately leave for home. Similarly, should I be very unlucky and lose with no cash-outs, I will leave as soon as I lose my $62,500 session bankroll, or after I have gone through all the denominations and show a loss of any amount less than that after any soft profit cash outs.

    Rule #3: I only play alone and on no one else’s time schedule. Expected distractions cause error in judgment. I begin play on 25c SDBP, TBP+, Super Aces, or DDB. Play up to $500 (2000 credits) on quarters first. Cash out every time I get ahead by 100 credits and pocket it as profit towards my $500 session goal. If I eventually lose the 2000-quarter credits, I play 2000 - $1 credits on the same games. Again, whenever I get ahead of the 2000 credits by 100 or more credits, I cash this out as soft profit (profit not yet pocketed until all $500 lost in quarters is recovered as well as at least $100 in additional dollar credits are won as profit). I then return to 25c play. My goal of $500 overall profit is now reduced by at least $100.

    Rule #4: If I lose my 2000 in dollar credits, any dollar cash outs not yet pocketed remain as soft profit, and I proceed to the $5 machine – same games, with 2000 credits ready to be risked again. This time, however, I must first recover the $2000 (400 credits @ $5) in dollar credits lost and 2000 quarter credits ($500, or 100 additional credits at $5) lost – regardless of how many soft profit dollars I have saved on the side – and then I need only enough $5 credits as profit that, along with any soft profit dollars I have saved up from the dollar game and pocketed 25c game profits, will be enough to total a minimum $500 session win. If I go thru my 2000 credits at $5 then I play up to 2000 credits at $25 and follow all the same rules of cashouts and returning to lower denominations as I have previously.

    Rule #5: Know when to break away and make non-expert plays if the opportunity presents itself. In my Single-Play strategy, at rare times a dealt suited KQJ is the choice to hold over KKK, unless hitting the quad will send me home or back to my baseline denomination. However, in Five-Play strategy, there is the chance to hit the quad on more than one line (expect it on 2-lines maximum for your decision-making), and that may be enough to recover & retreat or go home. There are many special plays I make, but by definition these plays are designed to maximize the opportunities that are presented - with the final outcome of winning the pre-set goal and leaving the casino always as the ultimate goal to strive for. Understand this concept and you can feel your way through each hand. Remember, there is no rush when playing this or any other of my strategies.

    Rule #6: Whenever a royal flush is hit, pack up and leave for home immediately. The session goal has been surpassed.

    Golden Rule: Never deviate from strategy no matter how hot or cold the action. NEVER!

    Comments: As in the original Singer Play Strategy, You will find that leaving a winning or losing machine or game is probably against your nature. Do it! There is no other way to consistently defeat the video poker computers except with a strong will to follow a structured plan with pre-set goals.
    Always look for the best available pay tables. It is likely none will be found offering >100% pay back with computer-perfect play, but no one ever needs 100% to win in the short-term. 95% -100% is fine for what you about to do and for how long you are about to do it. You are trying to experience luck, and when you do you will immediately react by taking complete advantage of it. In long-term play, you will always play through luck as if it never happened. That is the difference between short-term & long-term play.

    The overall win goal of $500 may seem low, but the games are volatile and I am progressing within 4 levels. I do not play a progressive denomination where the ratio is less than 4:1 (such as going to 50c from quarters and then to dollars or $2). $500 is the optimal profit under these circumstances.

    Finally, recognize the fact that there is a possibility to hit some very huge jackpots in these games. Each hand’s final outcome on the 5 play lines are usually very dependent on the deal, and the hand dealt usually controls whether you win or lose more than the 25 credits initially bet. Thus, recognize you are playing a game that utilizes only about a 5% skill level while relying on luck for 95% of your wins. That skill is a common sense knowledge of the game of poker, as well as knowing when to make special plays that deviate from what you know are expert plays. Never be afraid to go for the hands that have the ability to, if hit, send you home a winner, because after all, that’s why you are playing. And always have fun.

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Yes. And where else would anyone ever find such a thorough explanation of how and why a strategy is played? DELETED
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 08-20-2012 at 03:28 PM.

  8. #8
    Singer claims: "You can lower the bankroll requirement by starting at nickels and of course, your required bankroll will go down exponentially."

    This tells one everything they need to know about Singer's competence. If you simply divide your denominations by 5 the bankroll goes down linearly, not exponentially. Only a complete mathematical DELETED would ever make such a simple mistake.

    And, risking $62,500 to win $500 is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 08-20-2012 at 06:24 PM.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    And, risking $62,500 to win $500 is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
    I have to agree with you on this one. Just as I questioned having a similar sized bankroll to win $2500.

    By the way Rob, why on multi line games do you have a lower win goal for about the same sized bankroll?

  10. #10
    Arci showing his "math skills" again. Where on the Internet did you find THAT gem!

    Alan, when you see a high bankroll with a relatively small win goal, that means several things to a strong player. First, get that bankroll out of the same place arci keeps his--in your everyday life discretionary income/expense money. Once you eliminate that, you eliminate a large wall that's keeping you from understanding the concept.

    A gambling bankroll is nothing more or nothing less than that which has been determined to give the player a 99.999% chance of attaining your win goal at least 80% of the time. You don't agree that it has to be so large? Then that's only because you're looking at that $62k as being better used to buy a Mercedes in order to impress all the California flakes who are into that sort of thing. When I was gambling for a living, these large bankroll requirements basically guaranteed consistent success, whereas if I went outside the safety box limits then I'd have been out of the game early on. You cannot approach winning any game with greed being more important than your goals.

    The win goals are less on the five play strategy because win goals, in my strategies, are a function of the denominations being played as well as the number of them being played. I could have used more, yes, but that would have made the strategy riskier since the ratios would be less. It's all in the math that you'll see, and arci will cry foul because he won't undertand it since he didn't find it on the Internet.

  11. #11
    Not a single word of logic in Singer's response. And, don't you just love this gem ... "give the player a 99.999% chance of attaining your win goal at least 80% of the time". Let's see, risking $62,500 for an 80% chance of winning $500. That comes out to 4 wins and 1 loss. Or, 4*$500 = $2000 vs. the $62,500 loss.

    What a system. You too can get rich by losing $60,500 every 5 times you play.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Not a single word of logic in Singer's response. And, don't you just love this gem ... "give the player a 99.999% chance of attaining your win goal at least 80% of the time". Let's see, risking $62,500 for an 80% chance of winning $500. That comes out to 4 wins and 1 loss. Or, 4*$500 = $2000 vs. the $62,500 loss.

    What a system. You too can get rich by losing $60,500 every 5 times you play.
    Yup, look at it in that worst-case-possible scenario when it's too complicated for you. I wonder why I never lost more than $7500, and the wins averaged out to about $11000 when I played it to $25. And it won over 90% of the time. I guess that's steeerike THREE! More jealousy I presume.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Yup, look at it in that worst-case-possible scenario when it's too complicated for you. I wonder why I never lost more than $7500, and the wins averaged out to about $11000 when I played it to $25. And it won over 90% of the time. I guess that's steeerike THREE! More jealousy I presume.
    Just taking you at your word. Are you saying you were wrong?

    Of course, no one would lose that much on 99% games, or even 90% games. Over time you will converge on your expected return. Just like every other gambler.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    A gambling bankroll is nothing more or nothing less than that which has been determined to give the player a 99.999% chance of attaining your win goal at least 80% of the time. You don't agree that it has to be so large? Then that's only because you're looking at that $62k as being better used to buy a Mercedes in order to impress all the California flakes who are into that sort of thing.
    Here's my view on gambling bankrolls: my idea is to a bring little bankroll and leave with a lot of profit. In your case, you bring a lot of bankroll hoping to leave with a little profit.

    Your approach just doesn't make sense to me.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Here's my view on gambling bankrolls: my idea is to a bring little bankroll and leave with a lot of profit. In your case, you bring a lot of bankroll hoping to leave with a little profit.

    Your approach just doesn't make sense to me.
    I'm not posting much lately because I don't like saying something just to have arc come on and insulting me over it. Doesn't he ever get tired of that and doesn't he believe his words mean less and less the more he does it? I like many of Singer's ideas, too bad. You hate and are jealous of Singer, that we've seen all over the various forums. Too bad also. Doesn't mean you have to take your frustrations out on me.

    Alan what's this about bringing a little bit of money to win a lot? That sounds like taking a wild shot every time you gamble and hope something you don't even expect will pop out of nowhere. That's also what every tourist who plays in a casino does. Most players are underbankrolled while the pros aren't. When Singer takes a lot to win a little, I don't get how that can be argued with? It's like taking a ton of bait to the lake knowing you'll lose a lot of it and hoping to make a few catches and call it quits. You may catch some big ones along the way too. Not so likely when you just bring a little bait. I fish often so I know.

    If Rob's reading this you may contact me at any time when you are able to go to Arizona. Please give me at least two weeks notice.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by jatki View Post
    I'm not posting much lately because I don't like saying something just to have arc come on and insulting me over it. Doesn't he ever get tired of that and doesn't he believe his words mean less and less the more he does it? I like many of Singer's ideas, too bad. You hate and are jealous of Singer, that we've seen all over the various forums. Too bad also. Doesn't mean you have to take your frustrations out on me.
    Since this is obviously addressed to me ...

    First of all you came on here with one lie after another about things I have said. When I corrected you all you did was keep telling the same lies. And yes, I called you on it many times. It just goes to prove that lies can only only take you so far. After that you have nothing. I'm not surprised you have been MIA. You should have kept it that way.

    So, what do you do on this little return? You proceed to tell more lies. It's hilarious to think of anyone being jealous of Singer. He is a fraud. The entire reason you choose to make these false statements is you have fallen for Singer's lies and feel compelled to support him or look like you were extremely stupid. Now you pay the price when I point out the truth.

  17. #17
    jatki, Im not a pro gambler and never pretended to be a pro. I am not going to risk a $73,000 bankroll in Las Vegas with the goal of winning $2,500. That is simply crazy.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    jatki, Im not a pro gambler and never pretended to be a pro. I am not going to risk a $73,000 bankroll in Las Vegas with the goal of winning $2,500. That is simply crazy.
    I would say that you're right, you are not a pro and you aren't in tune with how a pro like Singer manipulated his bank roll. I can see it because I don't have a large gaming bank roll, and I don't play like you do either. It takes money to win money, and if you're going to do it on a consistent basis you need to risk a lot of money to win a little and eventually that little becomes very large. It also can become very large with one instant hit, as he has shown. So I don't see it as crazy, especially since it works and it very strongly seems like it would. Just an opinion though.

  19. #19
    Im a recreational player now and always have been. It's only entertainment for me.

    I like the idea of winning, but Im not going to bang my head against the wall when I lose.

    And the reason why I play craps, for example, even though I know it is a losing game, is that I like the challenge of trying to influence the dice. It's the only reason to play the game -- the challenge of doing what seems to be impossible.

    For me, throwing the dice in a "controlled manner" is akin to pitching a perfect game in baseball, or hitting a drive like Tiger Woods. Obviously I can't throw a major league pitch, or even drive a golf ball several hundred yards to a green. And I can't control the dice either. But it's certainly a challenge and fun to try which is why playing on a $3 table in Jean, Nevada is as much fun (actually more fun) than playing on a $25 table on the Strip in Vegas. The "fun" is not in the amount of money, but in the "challenge" of doing what for the most part is impossible.

    In live poker, I play a low stakes game. It doesn't take much money to give me the enjoyment of playing live poker. I could just as easily buy into a $500 game -- but there is less enjoyment with that much money at risk.

    The other night at Hollywood, my $100 game broke up, and while I waited for a seat at another $100 table I was moved to a $40 (forty dollar) table, and to be honest -- that $40 table with lower blinds was even more fun than playing at a $100 table. And ironically I won more money playing at the $40 table than I usually win at a $100 table. At a $40 table you can still go all-in, just as you can at a $100 table.

    So my point is this: if a professional determines he needs a $73,000 bankroll to win his $2,500 then good luck to him. But if you give me $73,000 I can find several lower risk opportunities for you to get $2500 or more, including selling covered calls on Wall Street. Risking $73,000 for a $2,500 return does not make sense to me.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Since this is obviously addressed to me ...

    First of all you came on here with one lie after another about things I have said. When I corrected you all you did was keep telling the same lies. And yes, I called you on it many times. It just goes to prove that lies can only only take you so far. After that you have nothing. I'm not surprised you have been MIA. You should have kept it that way.

    So, what do you do on this little return? You proceed to tell more lies. It's hilarious to think of anyone being jealous of Singer. He is a fraud. The entire reason you choose to make these false statements is you have fallen for Singer's lies and feel compelled to support him or look like you were extremely stupid. Now you pay the price when I point out the truth.
    Arc you try and try to get mileage out of the same repeated foolishness you've said and it isn't working. I know why you're sore though. You made claim after claim everywhere about Singer supposedly requiring students use his card in training sessions, part of his larger conif I'm not mistaken. I came on and told you that did not happen with me, you called me a liar because you weren't happy with how dumb that made you look, and you made up how somebody said he did it to them and Singer admitted to it, where else but on videopoker.com. Singer then says that wasn't true, you're losing your mind at this point, and your thin skin was challenged even more by a request to prove it by posting proof. No big surprise all you did was cry foul. You do it everywhere. While you're at trying to explain your lies away, provide proof Singer's a fraud. Come on Mr. All Facts, all the time. Factualize it.

    If you weren't so jealous of Singer you'd never chase him over every forum imagineable trying to get him to see things your way. I'm not a ppsycologist or anything, but I strongly believe he is a major driver in your life. We all saw how you knock down anyone who supports him on videopoker.com and LV A as him with an alias, and all you do is end up as a known repeat liar. So you still try to sell BackSider was him even when no one else believes you, so you come over here to tell your fake tales. I once thought Singer was brilliant for being able to read you. I'm no Singer, but it isn't difficult at all.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •