Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Rob.Singer]

The higher variance play is keeping the kicker. The "special play" (aka special education) is just lower variance and expectation.

Less gamble , less likely to hit a big hand, lose more money.

What sort of idiocy is this shit?

You sound like kew: "I don't understand it, so I'll make believe I know all about it".

It's already known there's an EV give-up when the kicker gets tossed for twice the possibility of hitting four A's....and, as in Jason's example, there's still an opportunity for the bigger winner (as well as a better chance at the FH).

You claim "you lose more money". Well, how much money do you think Jason "lost" on this day? And do you think he'll ever see that deal enough times over his lifetime for him to be a loser by making this play? Certainly, he could hit it under the same circumstances again...and again also. His reason for doing it is because he likes to, and he's ahead because of it. Not much to criticize, is there.

In SPS, the same play is ALWAYS made (I've hit it once on a $10 machine at the Venetian in the 4 years I made it) not because I like the play--but because it gives me a better chance of hitting a cash-out goal as well as being able to go down in denomination--which is the overriding goal on every hand played.

Short term strategy. The hand is not being played a thousand or more times. Not today.

[redietz]

I can't believe I'm semi-defending Singer and Alan's son, but here goes:

I think the phrase "lose more money" speaks volumes and cuts to the chase. Assuming, as video poker goes these days, that you don't have Bob Dancer's slot ratings or possible rebates, then you are playing a negative expectation game, as 99.9% of all people are. Then as long as you are operating on a set budget, how you play has nothing to do with how much you lose. Your budget determines how much you lose. That's the reality for at least 99.9% of the population. This is not 1990. If Bob Dancer, Jean Scott, and Richard Munchkin are all struggling with vp, then one can assume people are not really operating at (cough, gag) +EV in terms of making actual cash.

Now, if you are a sucker for "time on device," the industry phrase, and are addicts, then I guess how you play matters.

As far as comps go, the non-optimal player playing fewer hours is going to (at some point) get more generous status faster than the optimal player, or at least that's how things have been trending. So you can't even argue that playing more hours by playing optimally yields more comps. It may not. In fact, it probably won't going forward.

Rob's nutcase level jumping, whatever its non-optimal nature and deficits, created a nutcase profile, which I'm sure has led to much better offers than somebody grinding optimally.

In conclusion, as long as you're adhering to a budget, since video poker is a losing proposition for pretty much 990 out of 1000 players, it doesn't make much difference to that budget if you are playing optimally or not. You will lose. The question is how fast. And unless you're an addict, who cares how fast?

From my perspective, I play enough video poker to get on comp radars. I'm ahead about 5K lifetime playing vp. I expect a long downhill trend going forward, because pay tables suck, but I think being precise with games, counts and amounts, and timing of the play will yield a (cough, gag) +EV if you count meals, rooms, and cash back. I don't expect Alan's son or Rob to copy me, because that is not who they are, and they have other priorities. I was happy to get between a dozen and two dozen nights a year and a couple dozen meals comped at Boyd, for example, which ended about eight years ago. That was my goal for playing a very modest amount of VP.

I doubt many people are making substantive actual money on video poker. You'd have to be operating at Dancer-type levels to do that, and even he has run into sustained rugged outcomes the last couple of years.

[jdog]

Short term strategy. The hand is not being played a thousand or more times. Not today.

Many people are just not going to grasp that concept Rob.

I don't play TDB, but if I did, I might drop the kicker as well. It doubles the chances of reaching my short term goal and getting off that machine a winner. But if you're just pounding on machines, trying to grind out the long term EV, then of course you do the proper math hold.

As far as comps go, the non-optimal player playing fewer hours is going to (at some point) get more generous status faster than the optimal player

Depends upon where you're playing. There are still plenty of properties that just seem to look at theo only, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong.


That minimum bet is odd, I've never seen that before. Jason, if you play 25c denom, does it say 4cr minimum??

[coach belly]

None of you will ever play enough hands of video poker to realize these mathematical returns.

The statement above seems to be the big divide on these forums.

[coach belly]

Rob's nutcase level jumping, whatever its non-optimal nature and deficits, created a nutcase profile, which I'm sure has led to much better offers than somebody grinding optimally.

Are you sure that casinos base offers on their analysis of individual VP playing strategy, rather than individual coin-in and results?

I read something along those lines, but my recollection is that, while this type of analysis may be forthcoming, it is not currently utilized.

How long have they been using it?

[Cerveza Fria]

The higher variance play is keeping the kicker. The "special play" (aka special education) is just lower variance and expectation.

Less gamble , less likely to hit a big hand, lose more money.

What sort of idiocy is this shit?

I've been doing "Special Plays" like Rob describes even before I met him.

None of you will ever play enough hands of video poker to realize these mathematical returns. I'd rather pull two cards for a chance at an Ace and possibly also get a kicker...

Holding 4 cards for 1 shot at an Ace that is a 1 in 47 chance at pulling the case Ace. I can't even count how many open ended straights I've held and can't even hit 1 of 8 cards when having an 8 in 47 chance...

Some of my special plays:

IF I'm playing a shit pay table (which I do try to avoid), like if a full house only pays 8 on DDB and I'm dealt 222XX, I will go for the 222 and hope for quads. Many times I pull another full house.

IF I'm playing DDB and I'm dealt KKQQX, I will pick either the KK or QQ and go for quads or better. However, If I'm dealt 5566X, I will hold that two pair. Get more than enough 2 pairs dealt no reason to hold a two pair when it pays even money... Also, again... pulling 1 card with a 4 in 47 chance of hitting a full house, so rare to hit, I'd rather have 3 cards to pull to hit trips, another full house, or quads (which I've done multiple times).

IF I'm playing a progressive and am dealt 3 to the royal and 3 of a kind, I will break up the 3 of a kind if the progressive is high enough... I've hit royals twice this way...

As much as you all don't believe it, Robs plays make sense and they are better plays than what "the book" or "math" says...

Hey Gringo, I don't think you understand the basic concept of Triple Double Bonus. The whole point of playing this game is that you understand you will get shaved on the lesser hands like 3 of a Kind, is so you can get bigger payouts on bigger hands like Quads with a kicker. To abandon the draw for a bigger hand in favor of a much lower payout goes against the reason for playing the game in the first place. Singer's bullshit system is -EV bigtime.

[Cerveza Fria]

Don't listen to Singer.

He threw the kicker away before Singer commented.

What's the difference, mathematically, between holding the kicker vs drawing 2 cards?

First coach, the illegal is furious this hit was posted by anyone but him.

Jason may already have known that tossing the kicker in this game was one of my special plays that deviated from expert strategy. He was holding the camera when he and his dad filmed the math give-up and rationale behind many of these type plays. While this particular one didn't make the cut, Alan & I discussed it many times.

Ever since I stopped playing my strategy in early 2004, I always play optimal strategy on all hands. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking these shots when you're playing recreationally. His win proves that. And just one hit of this kind because of how he chose to play it, very likely more than makes up for all the times he gets beat on the hold. IE---it's not like it's gonna be dealt to him a thousand times.

This why this Stupid Gringo has the zero credibility. The only thing "Special" about this "System" is that it was created by a freaking Racist Retard.

[accountinquestion]

The higher variance play is keeping the kicker. The "special play" (aka special education) is just lower variance and expectation.

Less gamble , less likely to hit a big hand, lose more money.

What sort of idiocy is this shit?

You sound like kew: "I don't understand it, so I'll make believe I know all about it".

It's already known there's an EV give-up when the kicker gets tossed for twice the possibility of hitting four A's....and, as in Jason's example, there's still an opportunity for the bigger winner (as well as a better chance at the FH).

You claim "you lose more money". Well, how much money do you think Jason "lost" on this day? And do you think he'll ever see that deal enough times over his lifetime for him to be a loser by making this play? Certainly, he could hit it under the same circumstances again...and again also. His reason for doing it is because he likes to, and he's ahead because of it. Not much to criticize, is there.

In SPS, the same play is ALWAYS made (I've hit it once on a $10 machine at the Venetian in the 4 years I made it) not because I like the play--but because it gives me a better chance of hitting a cash-out goal as well as being able to go down in denomination--which is the overriding goal on every hand played.

Short term strategy. The hand is not being played a thousand or more times. Not today.

He can do what he wants clearly. I'd never criticize him. It was you who plopped your head in. You still have no reason for this play. It is nonsense. You wrote a book on nonsense.

The only thing that makes sense are consideration for taxes or stretching out your bankroll longer by lowering the chance you hit a 4000x layout.

[accountinquestion]

This is the dumbest thing ever posted in here. I feel dirty having this convo. Like I need a paper towel to wipe the stupid off my hands.

[coach belly]

This why this Stupid Gringo has the zero credibility.

You may have a credibility problem of your own....

I only play VP occasionally.

I have spent tens of thousands of hours over the years honing my skills on various games from Game Kings, Super times, Ultimate, Deal Draw, Spin and Triple Spin, Extra Draw Frenzy etc...

[Cerveza Fria]

You may have a credibility problem of your own....

I have spent tens of thousands of hours over the years honing my skills on various games from Game Kings, Super times, Ultimate, Deal Draw, Spin and Triple Spin, Extra Draw Frenzy etc...

Those comments are not mutually exclusive. I don't play every day or every week for that matter. I'm not like others who play it every day or those who play it for a living. But, over many years, I have played a tens of thousands of hours on many different games.

[tableplay]

Does that mean you must bet at least 2 credits on a 50 cent machine?

Yes.

The paytable shows a column for betting 1 credit, does the Deal button not activate if you only bet 1 credit?

Correct.

[accountinquestion]

I can't believe I'm semi-defending Singer and Alan's son, but here goes:

I think the phrase "lose more money" speaks volumes and cuts to the chase. Assuming, as video poker goes these days, that you don't have Bob Dancer's slot ratings or possible rebates, then you are playing a negative expectation game, as 99.9% of all people are. Then as long as you are operating on a set budget, how you play has nothing to do with how much you lose. Your budget determines how much you lose. That's the reality for at least 99.9% of the population. This is not 1990. If Bob Dancer, Jean Scott, and Richard Munchkin are all struggling with vp, then one can assume people are not really operating at (cough, gag) +EV in terms of making actual cash.

Now, if you are a sucker for "time on device," the industry phrase, and are addicts, then I guess how you play matters.

As far as comps go, the non-optimal player playing fewer hours is going to (at some point) get more generous status faster than the optimal player, or at least that's how things have been trending. So you can't even argue that playing more hours by playing optimally yields more comps. It may not. In fact, it probably won't going forward.

Rob's nutcase level jumping, whatever its non-optimal nature and deficits, created a nutcase profile, which I'm sure has led to much better offers than somebody grinding optimally.

In conclusion, as long as you're adhering to a budget, since video poker is a losing proposition for pretty much 990 out of 1000 players, it doesn't make much difference to that budget if you are playing optimally or not. You will lose. The question is how fast. And unless you're an addict, who cares how fast?

From my perspective, I play enough video poker to get on comp radars. I'm ahead about 5K lifetime playing vp. I expect a long downhill trend going forward, because pay tables suck, but I think being precise with games, counts and amounts, and timing of the play will yield a (cough, gag) +EV if you count meals, rooms, and cash back. I don't expect Alan's son or Rob to copy me, because that is not who they are, and they have other priorities. I was happy to get between a dozen and two dozen nights a year and a couple dozen meals comped at Boyd, for example, which ended about eight years ago. That was my goal for playing a very modest amount of VP.

I doubt many people are making substantive actual money on video poker. You'd have to be operating at Dancer-type levels to do that, and even he has run into sustained rugged outcomes the last couple of years.

Rob talks about hitting certain win levels and quitting. Ok fine I get fun gambling and all but that's not what the play does. It stretches out a bankroll. You play vp all your life, you may very well have missed a 4000x payout on a trip by doing this. This is not a point I see being made.

The play simply doesn't make sense in the context in which singer talks. If you want to stretch out your trip bankroll then sure, this will keep you in action. You draw a8 and wonder if the a would have come keeping aaa4. It goes both ways.

[coach belly]

I don't play every day or every week for that matter. But, over many years, I have played a tens of thousands of hours on many different games.

If you played 8 hours per day every day for 10 years that would be less than 30000 hours.

So how many tens of thousands of hours and years are you claiming?

[Rob.Singer]

I can't believe I'm semi-defending Singer and Alan's son, but here goes:

I think the phrase "lose more money" speaks volumes and cuts to the chase. Assuming, as video poker goes these days, that you don't have Bob Dancer's slot ratings or possible rebates, then you are playing a negative expectation game, as 99.9% of all people are. Then as long as you are operating on a set budget, how you play has nothing to do with how much you lose. Your budget determines how much you lose. That's the reality for at least 99.9% of the population. This is not 1990. If Bob Dancer, Jean Scott, and Richard Munchkin are all struggling with vp, then one can assume people are not really operating at (cough, gag) +EV in terms of making actual cash.

Now, if you are a sucker for "time on device," the industry phrase, and are addicts, then I guess how you play matters.

As far as comps go, the non-optimal player playing fewer hours is going to (at some point) get more generous status faster than the optimal player, or at least that's how things have been trending. So you can't even argue that playing more hours by playing optimally yields more comps. It may not. In fact, it probably won't going forward.

Rob's nutcase level jumping, whatever its non-optimal nature and deficits, created a nutcase profile, which I'm sure has led to much better offers than somebody grinding optimally.

In conclusion, as long as you're adhering to a budget, since video poker is a losing proposition for pretty much 990 out of 1000 players, it doesn't make much difference to that budget if you are playing optimally or not. You will lose. The question is how fast. And unless you're an addict, who cares how fast?

From my perspective, I play enough video poker to get on comp radars. I'm ahead about 5K lifetime playing vp. I expect a long downhill trend going forward, because pay tables suck, but I think being precise with games, counts and amounts, and timing of the play will yield a (cough, gag) +EV if you count meals, rooms, and cash back. I don't expect Alan's son or Rob to copy me, because that is not who they are, and they have other priorities. I was happy to get between a dozen and two dozen nights a year and a couple dozen meals comped at Boyd, for example, which ended about eight years ago. That was my goal for playing a very modest amount of VP.

I doubt many people are making substantive actual money on video poker. You'd have to be operating at Dancer-type levels to do that, and even he has run into sustained rugged outcomes the last couple of years.

Rob talks about hitting certain win levels and quitting. Ok fine I get fun gambling and all but that's not what the play does. It stretches out a bankroll. You play vp all your life, you may very well have missed a 4000x payout on a trip by doing this. This is not a point I see being made.

The play simply doesn't make sense in the context in which singer talks. If you want to stretch out your trip bankroll then sure, this will keep you in action. You draw a8 and wonder if the a would have come keeping aaa4. It goes both ways.

When I played that strategy for 4 years, my goal was not to stretch the $57,200 bankroll I used each weekly trip. It was to win a mere approx. 5% of that bankroll using a very complex method of varying denominations, games, volatility levels, and a 40-credit minimum soft profit cash-out. And in just over 200 Nevada trips to every corner of the state, the win rate was near 90%.

At this point, critics like to say "but the 10%+ times you did not win were -$57,200 disasters, which would have made all your other $2500 wins meaningless because you lost overall!"

But they would be wrong. The play stops as soon as I've played thru my 400 $100 credits. Along the way, thanks to numerous "soft profit" cash-outs, the session loss is never $57,200. My largest ever loss was $33,000. The next largest was $11,000, and it goes down from there--all the way down to a $700 loss.

At the same time there were several $100,000 wins and quite a few 5-figure wins between $10k and $40k. And of course, most wins were more than $3k. This is how the strategy netted me about a $375k profit over those 4 years, with much of it documented in my Gaming Today column.

I'm not saying this would work for everyone because it won't. I trained many players, and only 1 other player (a successful businessman in LV) had the aptitude, intelligence, determination, bankroll and discipline I have in order to pull it off correctly.

If it was so successful then why stop playing it after only 4 years? Because I found a much better/extremely high +EV play with the DU bug. But at the time that play abruptly ended thanks to the two greedy dildos who got arrested playing it stupidly, I got tired of the weekly round-trip drive between Phx. & Nv. My wife retired, we bought an RV, we lived in it and traveled for the next 5 years, and I chose to only play for entertainment after my professional vp player career ended.

I realize this re-cap will cause a bit of distress among those of lessor ambition and ability. All I can say is: TOUGH LOVE!

[accountinquestion]

Your post is such braindead rubbish. Only those who seek to win by sheer will find it worthwhile reading.

That and actual winning gamblers who want a giggle. Thanks for that robby.

[Cerveza Fria]

I can't believe I'm semi-defending Singer and Alan's son, but here goes:

I think the phrase "lose more money" speaks volumes and cuts to the chase. Assuming, as video poker goes these days, that you don't have Bob Dancer's slot ratings or possible rebates, then you are playing a negative expectation game, as 99.9% of all people are. Then as long as you are operating on a set budget, how you play has nothing to do with how much you lose. Your budget determines how much you lose. That's the reality for at least 99.9% of the population. This is not 1990. If Bob Dancer, Jean Scott, and Richard Munchkin are all struggling with vp, then one can assume people are not really operating at (cough, gag) +EV in terms of making actual cash.

Now, if you are a sucker for "time on device," the industry phrase, and are addicts, then I guess how you play matters.

As far as comps go, the non-optimal player playing fewer hours is going to (at some point) get more generous status faster than the optimal player, or at least that's how things have been trending. So you can't even argue that playing more hours by playing optimally yields more comps. It may not. In fact, it probably won't going forward.

Rob's nutcase level jumping, whatever its non-optimal nature and deficits, created a nutcase profile, which I'm sure has led to much better offers than somebody grinding optimally.

In conclusion, as long as you're adhering to a budget, since video poker is a losing proposition for pretty much 990 out of 1000 players, it doesn't make much difference to that budget if you are playing optimally or not. You will lose. The question is how fast. And unless you're an addict, who cares how fast?

From my perspective, I play enough video poker to get on comp radars. I'm ahead about 5K lifetime playing vp. I expect a long downhill trend going forward, because pay tables suck, but I think being precise with games, counts and amounts, and timing of the play will yield a (cough, gag) +EV if you count meals, rooms, and cash back. I don't expect Alan's son or Rob to copy me, because that is not who they are, and they have other priorities. I was happy to get between a dozen and two dozen nights a year and a couple dozen meals comped at Boyd, for example, which ended about eight years ago. That was my goal for playing a very modest amount of VP.

I doubt many people are making substantive actual money on video poker. You'd have to be operating at Dancer-type levels to do that, and even he has run into sustained rugged outcomes the last couple of years.

Rob talks about hitting certain win levels and quitting. Ok fine I get fun gambling and all but that's not what the play does. It stretches out a bankroll. You play vp all your life, you may very well have missed a 4000x payout on a trip by doing this. This is not a point I see being made.

The play simply doesn't make sense in the context in which singer talks. If you want to stretch out your trip bankroll then sure, this will keep you in action. You draw a8 and wonder if the a would have come keeping aaa4. It goes both ways.

When I played that strategy for 4 years, my goal was not to stretch the $57,200 bankroll I used each weekly trip. It was to win a mere approx. 5% of that bankroll using a very complex method of varying denominations, games, volatility levels, and a 40-credit minimum soft profit cash-out. And in just over 200 Nevada trips to every corner of the state, the win rate was near 90%.

At this point, critics like to say "but the 10%+ times you did not win were -$57,200 disasters, which would have made all your other $2500 wins meaningless because you lost overall!"

But they would be wrong. The play stops as soon as I've played thru my 400 $100 credits. Along the way, thanks to numerous "soft profit" cash-outs, the session loss is never $57,200. My largest ever loss was $33,000. The next largest was $11,000, and it goes down from there--all the way down to a $700 loss.

At the same time there were several $100,000 wins and quite a few 5-figure wins between $10k and $40k. And of course, most wins were more than $3k. This is how the strategy netted me about a $375k profit over those 4 years, with much of it documented in my Gaming Today column.

I'm not saying this would work for everyone because it won't. I trained many players, and only 1 other player (a successful businessman in LV) had the aptitude, intelligence, determination, bankroll and discipline I have in order to pull it off correctly.

If it was so successful then why stop playing it after only 4 years? Because I found a much better/extremely high +EV play with the DU bug. But at the time that play abruptly ended thanks to the two greedy dildos who got arrested playing it stupidly, I got tired of the weekly round-trip drive between Phx. & Nv. My wife retired, we bought an RV, we lived in it and traveled for the next 5 years, and I chose to only play for entertainment after my professional vp player career ended.

I realize this re-cap will cause a bit of distress among those of lessor ambition and ability. All I can say is: TOUGH LOVE!

Translation: Singer went broke from playing V.P. His wife was the earner in the family, and when she retired they had to resort to living out of a camper.

[Cerveza Fria]

Well, I've been playing V.P. for more than 25 years, but not every day and not all day. Would you prefer I amend that statement to just Thousands of Hours? Jeez, you're worse than a woman.

[SLaPiNFuNK]

Even if you played for 25 years, you are not going to realize the full return of a game.

Back to the minimum bet thing... I went to pickup some free play after breakfast today and went to some different machines...

The $0.25 with a $0.50 minimum bet was a TDB Progressive. Right behind that was a gameking that did not have a progressive but required a $0.75 minimum bet on $0.25 and the $0.50 denom had a minimum bet of $1.00. The $1 and larger denom did not require a minimum bed. I did not try to play less than max bet on these games...

I guess there are people out there grinding single credits :-/

[coach belly]

Would you prefer I amend that statement to just Thousands of Hours?

I would prefer if you stopped contradicting yourself and changing your story.

You make a lot of noise over the difference between an expected return of 16 vs 20 in short session play, but shrug off thousands of hours vs tens of thousands of hours like it's no big deal.

It's clear that you're not getting enough attention IRL, so you seek it here from strangers.

Out of nowhere, you picked a fight with Singer on your second ever post.

Now you whine like a bitch because he teased you about being a degen.

If you have been playing VP for 25 years, then you suffer from arrested development, because you act like a petulant child around here.