Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Rob.Singer]

Notice how these self proclaimed "AP's" all yap non-stop theory and never once put up any proof of winning anything--let alone a winning year. It's like they're all extensions of Dancer's marketing arms, where nothing is truly real and the make believe of probability and theory exist in the mind only.

That's the reason behind mickey's constant "gambling lore of years past". He hides out in some squalor existence in Montana of all places because that's the only place a slug of his ilk can afford with government handouts and no future, and he has no choice but to pretend success in the past with unverifiable crazy stories in order to keep his rotten teeth from falling out due to financial stress and the fact that he cannot get a girlfriend....his claim to fame of the past 45 years. Aside from having nothing to offer anyone, he sleeps alone also because of his bad breath and overall stinky, smelly, smoky BO. He is a prize of prizes, that's for sure

[james40]

Notice how these self proclaimed "AP's" all yap non-stop theory and never once put up any proof of winning anything--let alone a winning year. It's like they're all extensions of Dancer's marketing arms, where nothing is truly real and the make believe of probability and theory exist in the mind only.

That's the reason behind mickey's constant "gambling lore of years past". He hides out in some squalor existence in Montana of all places because that's the only place a slug of his ilk can afford with government handouts and no future, and he has no choice but to pretend success in the past with unverifiable crazy stories in order to keep his rotten teeth from falling out due to financial stress and the fact that he cannot get a girlfriend....his claim to fame of the past 45 years. Aside from having nothing to offer anyone, he sleeps alone also because of his bad breath and overall stinky, smelly, smoky BO. He is a prize of prizes, that's for sure

And yet he has you hooked on every post he makes. Mickey has a stalker.

[mickeycrimm]

I don't think 100.78 at quarters translates to forty buckaroos per hour. Maybe it does at dollars but that would mean never starting with even one flush in the bank. That's at one thousand hands per hour.

When I finished sweeping out a bank of Flush Attacks I left all the machines showing a 1 coin bet with no cashout. When I returned a few hours later I first looked for the Motel 6's. Some ploppies would make 3 flushes, turn the Flush Attack light on, play the credits off and leave without hitting the bonus flush. This was the strongest play of all. 8/5 DB with a 125 coin flush comes in at 135%. I called them Motel 6's as a joke. "I'm Tom Bodette for Motel 6 and we'll leave the light on for you." So I played those off first.

The next thing I looked for was 5-coin action on the machines. I had left the machines showing a 1 coin bet. I knew the prior player didn't make 3 flushes or else the light would be on. So did they make 2, one, or no flushes before they left? I didn't know but I knew there was a chance they made 1 flush, maybe two. As I said I averaged having to make 2.9 flushes per play. Let's just round that to 3.

If you average having to make only 3 flushes per play then the math looks like this. Two flushes pay 5 for 1 and one flush pays 25 for 1.

5 + 5 + 25 = 35
35/3 = 11.66

With the flush 50 strategy the frequency of a flush is 55. If you take the extra 1.66 and divide it by 55 then its a 3% add-on. So you are at 103.78%. In order to average making only 3 flushes per play then one-third of the plays you will have to make all 4 flushes, one-third of the plays you will have to make 3 flushes, one-third of the plays you will have to make only 2 flushes. That's pretty much how it worked out for me as I averaged having to make just 2.9 flushes per play.

[mickeycrimm]

Notice how these self proclaimed "AP's" ........never once put up any proof of winning anything--let alone a winning year.

You have never done that either, Rob. But you damn sure promised that you would. You are all bluff. You pounded your chest with arci challenging him to put up his tax returns and you would do the same. You brow beat him unmercifully to do it because you thought you knew for sure that arci would never deliver his tax transcripts to Alan. But he called your bluff. And what did you do? You welshed the bet. You've bragged all these years about making $100,000 a year at video poker without putting up any proof. Here was your chance to do that. Everybody knows how you are, Rob. If you truly had returns showing you booking that kind of win every year you would have put it up just so you could gloat at everybody. There is only one reason why you welshed the bet. Your returns would show you to be a liar of unimaginable proportions. You have no proof because it never happened. You are all bluff.

[quahaug]

Interesting. So unless you saw a blinking light and ran full bore over to that machine there is no strategy for when to play. There's no watching from afar or anything. It's a 103.78 play for any old slob who sits down randomly as long as you play through to the forth flush then give it a rest.

[RS__]

What have I said or insinuated that wasn't true?

You insinuate you can have a winning system by simply quitting when ahead.

For a session of 2400 hands played, what is the probability of being ahead at one point during the session?

I'm not sure.

Your friend who won almost every session, was he playing at the 30/70 win/lose probability you showed earlier?

When he had his infrequent losing sessions, was he prevented from quitting before wiping out all of his previous winnings?

He could certainly have quit at any time, of course. But continuing to play and increasing his bet size is what caused him to win so many sessions so frequently, while having the occasional gigantic loss.

Are these figures equivalent for fewer hands?...is the likelihood of profit better or worse or the same if you play fewer hands?

Likelihood of profit is higher if you play fewer hands.

[blackhole]

Imagine having to live your life based on the likelihoods, and probabilities this group of AP’s put forward in this thread and others for everyone’s reading pleasure. How did this site end up with this little group of self-proclaimed AP’s who should start the dumb and dumber AP non-profit club?

It just keeps getting dumber and dumber. I have to say the stupidity keeps me coming back for more and more entertainment, never being disappointed.

[bocce ball]

Interesting. So unless you saw a blinking light and ran full bore over to that machine there is no strategy for when to play. There's no watching from afar or anything. It's a 103.78 play for any old slob who sits down randomly as long as you play through to the forth flush then give it a rest.

No, it's not a 103.78 play for anyone. Mickey did not randomly sit down. He watched for, and immediately played any available machine that had already triggered the feature. I'm sure he monitored the action on other visible machines while he himself was playing. And he used techniques (such as the "1-coin no cashout") for detecting when a machine had been played.

Also, the theoretical return assumes optimal play strategy. An ordinary slob will fall a few percentage points short of theoretical due to playing errors. And you're assuming the player will make the strategically correct decision to stop after the fourth flush, whereas most players are oblivious to such considerations.

Overall, the machines were nicely profitable for the casino, and the 7/5 games under discussion were not even considered "full-pay" AFAIK. Some casinos offered 8/5 flush attacks, which were also profitable for the casino.

[bocce ball]

You insinuate you can have a winning system by simply quitting when ahead.

Yes, and it's been suggested by multiple posters on this and many other forums. But I think the underlying assumption is that all gamblers are incapable of self-control in a casino, so in reality, no one could actually maintain the discipline to always quit when ahead. That's why the system reliably fails, not because the concept is inherently flawed.

Actual AP requires both self-control and strategic decisions in a casino environment, neither of which is humanly possible, therefore anyone claiming success as an AP is lying.

[redietz]

Imagine having to live your life based on the likelihoods, and probabilities this group of AP’s put forward in this thread and others for everyone’s reading pleasure. How did this site end up with this little group of self-proclaimed AP’s who should start the dumb and dumber AP non-profit club?

It just keeps getting dumber and dumber. I have to say the stupidity keeps me coming back for more and more entertainment, never being disappointed.

Blackhole, when you're right, you're right.

The only thing dumber than winning is losing. As Jennifer Garner says, "What's in your wallet?"

[Alan Mendelson]

The only thing dumber than winning is losing.

This is certainly true if you run a business and continue to run a business so it loses money. I just had this discussion with a friend of mine who is losing money on a start up and asked for advice and some financial support.

In the course of our discussion I asked: is this a real business or a hobby? (hobby = recreation)

In the case of the start-up that was a money-loser, it was supposed to be a money making business and investors were supposed to be paid back. I advised that after three years I couldn't support the project anymore either with my time or advice (I had invested $2500 in the start-up.)

But what casino gaming? If it is a business for you and you derive most or all of your income from it, and you spend time in casinos that otherwise could have been spent at a real job, then it is dumb to lose money.

But if it's a hobby (recreation) is it really that bad to lose money? Frankly, losing money is not as much fun as winning money, but I question the statement that it's dumb.

I lose money going to the movies, renting a tennis court, and playing golf. Is that dumb?

[redietz]

It's dumb if the movies will pay you to attend or the tennis courts will pay you to play.

Unless you're like Gomez Addams, who tried like hell every day to lose money on the stock market and failed miserably.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's dumb if the movies will pay you to attend or the tennis courts will pay you to play.

What a dumb comment.

[quahaug]

This is certainly true if you run a business and continue to run a business so it loses money. I just had this discussion with a friend of mine who is losing money on a start up and asked for advice and some financial support.

In the course of our discussion I asked: is this a real business or a hobby? (hobby = recreation)

In the case of the start-up that was a money-loser, it was supposed to be a money making business and investors were supposed to be paid back. I advised that after three years I couldn't support the project anymore either with my time or advice (I had invested $2500 in the start-up.)

But what casino gaming? If it is a business for you and you derive most or all of your income from it, and you spend time in casinos that otherwise could have been spent at a real job, then it is dumb to lose money.

But if it's a hobby (recreation) is it really that bad to lose money? Frankly, losing money is not as much fun as winning money, but I question the statement that it's dumb.

I lose money going to the movies, renting a tennis court, and playing golf. Is that dumb?

Most people start a business thinking they can make money from day one. I say take you figures after your business plan is complete and multiply you projected costs by 1.15 and your projected profit by .85 and see if the numbers still work. If not move on and save yourself some time aggravation and money.

[james40]

What a dumb comment.

I eked out a small gain in gambling this year (according to the CET year end report), but lost terribly at the ski slopes and at Disneyland. I have to figure out a way to make those turn a profit.

We have Hawaii coming up later this Spring and will probably lose more there.

[james40]

Most people start a business thinking they can make money from day one. I say take you figures after your business plan is complete and multiply you projected costs by 1.15 and your projected profit by .85 and see if the numbers still work. If not move on and save yourself some time aggravation and money.

You nailed it, under capitalization is the primary reason businesses fail. It's a struggle in the early years, you may have a decent long term business plan, but keeping those doors open while going through the growing pains of starting a business is the key.

[dannyj]

Alan, I wasn't criticizing Dannyj. More power to him and any other recreational player for playing what they want to. I was pointing out the inferiority of that particular game. There are much stronger games where you can hit royals too.

BTW, Alan, in that little contest I proposed between the two of us I forgot to say that while your 10K bankroll likely won't last the entire 30 days, my bankroll will be a favorite to be higher than the 10K I started with.

No offense taken, Mickey. Thanks for mentioning the part about being a recreational player, because that is definitely what I consider myself. I will say though, that I am in no way married to that particular game. That bank of machines is in a section of the casino that I rarely frequent. The first royal I hit it in mid January was the first time I had ever played that game. I noticed right away that it was not a full paying two pair bonus game, but since the progressive was over $1100 I sat down and gave it a shot. I literally hit the royal inside of five minutes, maybe 20-30 hands, at which point I took a picture kicked the ticket out and walked away. I didn't even clear the machine. Two weeks later my wife and I are back in that section of the casino again and I noticed the progressive is over $1200. I sat down (same machine as before) and played about 45 minutes before getting lucky and being dealt the second royal. The machine locked up, I got my hand pay, and then I immediately left. Total seat time between the two royals was maybe one hour. Just dumb luck.

Maybe you can help me out with the math. If the game has a base 94% pay back, what is the return with RF at $1200? How high does the RF have to be to return +100%?

[bocce ball]

If the game has a base 94% pay back, what is the return with RF at $1200? How high does the RF have to be to return +100%?

In the photo of your dealt royal, the theoretical return was 95.2%.

To reach 100%, a 94% base game would need an RF above $3500. If the quad and straight flush progressives are elevated, you could reach 100% with a somewhat lower RF progressive.

The usual rule of thumb is that a base $1000 royal is worth 2% of a game's return, and each $500 increase adds 1%.

Congratulations on your wins. A dealt royal is a rare and spectacular sight.

[dannyj]

In the photo of your dealt royal, the theoretical return was 95.2%.

To reach 100%, a 94% base game would need an RF above $3500. If the quad and straight flush progressives are elevated, you could reach 100% with a somewhat lower RF progressive.

The usual rule of thumb is that a base $1000 royal is worth 2% of a game's return, and each $500 increase adds 1%.

Congratulations on your wins. A dealt royal is a rare and spectacular sight.

Thanks bocce ball,

That's very interesting and a lot worse than I thought.

[bocce ball]

That's very interesting and a lot worse than I thought.

I guess the problem is you can only expect to hit a royal every 44,000 hands on average. It's such a rare event that by the time it happens, you're usually down a few thousand dollars because of the poor payouts in the lower portion of the schedule. On that game in particular, the even-money payout for two-pair is brutal. It just grinds you down.