When 7/5 Bonus Poker is BETTER than 8/5 Bonus Poker.

[Dan Druff]

Then our ideas of "fast" are different. I say 700-800 HPH is average. Less than 700 is slow. 800-1000 is fast. Above 1K HPH is super fast.

I don't see how playing 1 hand every ~13-14 seconds is at all "fast"

It's the same reason you can probably sprint 1/10th of a mile in 30 seconds, but can't run a full mile in 5 minutes. Doing anything for a sustained period of time is a lot harder than doing it short term.

BTW, you need to work on your math. 1 hand per 13.5 seconds would only be about 267 hands per hour.

You will get 500 hands per hour done if you play a hand every 7.2 seconds.

Can you really play a hand every 3.6 seconds at a sustained rate for several hours? I have my doubts, but I know that the vast majority can't.

[Alan Mendelson]

I probably play a hand every four to five seconds. But when I hit a winner I will pause to enjoy it. The bigger the win the longer the pause. And hand pays can take five minutes or longer.

If someone tells me they're playing faster than 500 hands per hour they're either not getting any winners or they're playing a very low denomination.

[jbjb]

Speed is going to depend on a lot of factors. Are you playing on turbo, is your eye/hand coordination great, are you making mistakes, the type of game being played, etc. If playing the FPDW at Sam's Town, you're getting maybe 200 HPH as the game is purposely set on super slow motion. Personally when DG'ing, I play and average speed but have never clocked my HPH. Only when I'm scavenging multipliers off various vulturable games do I play on turbo speed because that's the only time I'm playing with an advantage.

[Rob.Singer]

The very concept of super speedy play is irrelevant. When the Reserve opened with all and only full pay or greater than 100% games on every vp machine, most had speed controls and were also set to accumulate credits instantaneously with a double hit on the draw button. So I tested them out for an article and had a local friend help.

I played for 1 hour and had just under 1400 hands booked. The problem? So many mistakes were made that it was a session that any AP would brag about for the speed aspect but wouldn't dare mention a lack of accuracy. In fact, every one who has claimed to play that fast or faster whether on one machine or the very foolish two, always claims such a very miniscule error rate that it makes no sense at all. You know our friend Frank "two machines at a time" Kneeland. I watched him play for ten minutes at the M, and I saw at least a half dozen optimal hold errors every couple minutes. (Whether this helped or hurt him is unknown).

So the debate is pointless. Speed creates errors, and so does extended play at regular rates. It also takes away from the enjoyment of what gout doing.

[redietz]

I think the average player does a tad over 500 hands per hour. Sustaining anything over 700 hands per hour for more than a couple of hours would tax most players. Yes, I've seen the 1000 per hour people, and I've seen one gentleman who rolled his head like Stevie Wonder while playing two machines at almost that pace. But I think those folks comprise less than 2% of the players.

[Alan Mendelson]

I prefer the sessions when I hit so many hand pays that I play a dozen hands per hour.

[Count Room]

Didn't Frank Kneeland say somewhere that he could play two deuces wild machines simultaneously at 1,000 hands per hour each? For a total of 2,000 hands per hour or so?

[Rob.Singer]

Didn't Frank Kneeland say somewhere that he could play two deuces wild machines simultaneously at 1,000 hands per hour each? For a total of 2,000 hands per hour or so?

I remember seeing that and he even told me that in person, to which I said it was empty, unprovable bragging or just another made-up AP story by a famous name. That's why I watched him for a bit--playing with someone else's money of course, and only until I got bored out of my mind.

[Alan Mendelson]

I still don't understand the importance of speed? Playing video poker isn't a race, is it?

[Dan Druff]

I still don't understand the importance of speed? Playing video poker isn't a race, is it?

If you are only playing the $1 denomination (single play), then speed can matter if you want to earn bonus tier credits. At 500 hands per hour, this would take you 10 hours just to earn 2500 base tier credits. If you can play faster, you aren't stuck grinding as long.

But personally I would find it miserable to play faster than 500 hands per hour. There's no way that can be even slightly fun or relaxing, especially over several hours.

When I play VP, even if it's to earn tier credits, I also like to have fun while doing it. So yes, I pause when I have a big draw, I pause to admire big hits, and I will take little breaks to look at my phone, text, go to the bathroom, give my arm a rest, etc.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you are only playing the $1 denomination (single play), then speed can matter if you want to earn bonus tier credits.

Stop there. I never play for comps, tier points, bonuses or anything except with the idea of playing the best I can while watching my loss limits and win goals.

[RS__]

I still don't understand the importance of speed? Playing video poker isn't a race, is it?

I'd rather I put my action through in 2.5 hours at a fast rate than taking 4-5 hours. Oftentimes there are time limits and gotta finish by a certain time...but am not able to start whenever I want. Sometimes I only got 3 hours to put through a certain amount of action....I'm not gonna sit there and play 500 HPH.

I may pause for a second or two if I'm dealt 4 to a royal...or if I'm dealt something like 3 aces (or better) on a bonus-type. Although yes, I definitely want to win, that is (usually) not the main objective when putting through big coin in amounts....and it's not like hitting a royal flush, four aces, or any other premium hand is going to stop me from finishing putting through my desired amount of action. I think the only time I'd probably consider quitting early is if I hit some super crazy hand that would multiply my bankroll, like a dealt RF with a multiplier on DSTP [$200K].

[Alan Mendelson]

I'd rather I put my action through in 2.5 hours at a fast rate than taking 4-5 hours.

I think people have different reasons to play and different "personal rules" for playing.

I go to play when I have time to relax and enjoy... like when I go to Vegas for a weekend. Even when I used to go to Rincon for a night I had plenty of time to play and could sit for hours and not have to worry about when I had to get home, etc.

I guess for those of you who consider yourselves advantage players or professionals you have a different set of personal rules for playing including how many hands, what time limits, etc.

So I think how fast you want to play can only be a personal decision and what's best for you might not apply to anyone else. If you want to play fast I wish you fast times. If you want to play slow and order plenty of drinks in between hands, I hope they give you the top brands.

[Rob.Singer]

The most telling aspect of the RS__ post is in how he says he plays more for the action than winning. This will eventually be his downfall. I don't even thinks he knows what he's saying.

I learned long ago--people who play fast or two machines at a time are simply trying to get that insatiable feeling of intermittent satisfaction from winning hands to occur as quickly and as often as humanly possible. And not only do these people defeat their own "AP" purposes by making exponentially more optimal play mistakes the longer they play past the first hour--they do not realize their severe addiction nor do they understand that they are on the path to losing.

The slower one plays, the more they control their enjoyment of the game, and the more likely one is to leave a winner. This is such simple stuff that is almost embarrassing to have to be educating other "regular" players on....

[jbjb]

I've never played two at once and have no reason to. I've seen people play three also.

My AP VP play isn't from games like FPDW, chasing promos, drawings or points or the like either.

[regnis]

It's like women. I like them 2 at a time and I go as fast as I can.

I WISH!!!!!!

[arcimede$]

If you are playing with a small edge then the faster you go the higher the win rate. That is not important at all to recreational players nor is it important to anyone playing a negative game. I could play FPDW at about 1200 HPH but could only maintain it for an hour maybe two. Since the game is boring to me I couldn't play any longer at any speed.

The game I currently play is old, old, old (still coin based machines). Can't really hit 600 HPH unless I'm losing badly. Hence, I don't even try to play fast although I will play 2 machines at once occasionally just to keep in training. When I do that I can get to around 1000 HPH.

Yes, there are people who can play around 1600-2000 HPH playing 2 machines and still maintain high accuracy (not me).

[Alan Mendelson]

If you are playing with a small edge then the faster you go the higher the win rate.

I understand the thinking but this is dangerous. I wonder if that "small edge" in video poker can really survive the variance of the game?

[jbjb]

I understand the thinking but this is dangerous. I wonder if that "small edge" in video poker can really survive the variance of the game?

Why do you think card counters want to play heads up with a fast dealer?

[redietz]

The "Stevie Wonder" guy I saw playing two machines at a combined 1700-1800 hands per hour was on FPDW for quarters at the Palms. Speed would matter on a game like that as long as you weren't making many mistakes. I didn't see many errors from him, but there was one every once in a while.

As for "small edges surviving variance," one would have to ask the casinos that to put reality in perspective, one would think.