Author: Bob Dancer

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Looking at 9-5 Double Double Bonus Poker with Multiple Progressives

The Vegas Stats & Information Network radio studio is located in the middle of the South Point casino floor, and periodically I’ve been a guest of the early morning show hosted by Paul “Paulie” Howard and Mitch Moss. Paulie mentioned that he found the DDB progressives interesting and wanted me to talk on the show about when you should get on the machine.

Such numbers do not make for good radio, especially since some of the listeners are probably driving to work and can’t take the time to write down anything. When I was last on the program on June 29, I gave some numbers and said that I’d be going into greater detail in my July 17 blog. And here we go!

If you’re serious about progressives, you should get Frank Kneeland’s “The Secret Guide to Video Poker Progressives.” That has by far more useful information on progressives than you’ll find anywhere else.

For today, I’ll assume you’re just going to be playing the game occasionally — and basically want to know how to figure the return on the game.

The game in question at the South Point contains a number of progressives, but does NOT have a progressive on the straight flush. Today I’m going to assign a number to the straight flush progressive because this same progressive is found in numerous casinos — sometimes with a progressive and sometimes without.

In addition to telling you how to evaluate the game, I also want to explain how I came up with the numbers. That way readers who are interested can apply the same technique to other progressives.

You’re going to need computer software to analyze progressives. I’m going to use Video Poker for Winners and WinPoker as those are the ones I use regularly and know well. If you have Wolf Video Poker, that can work as well. While it’s not quite as user-friendly, the wizardofodds.com has a free calculator you can use online. For many, it’s hard to beat free.

To start with, we need the base return of this dollar game, which is 97.87%. We’re going to be coming back to this base game over and over again.

To see how the progressive on the royal increases the return, I’ll set the royal on the game to 8000 coins. When I do this, I see the return is close to 100.13%. Assuming the return increases linearly (not completely accurate, but close enough for the analysis we’re going to be doing today), this means that when the royal increases $4,000, the value of the game increases 2.26%. Dividing by 4, when the royal increases by $1,000, the return on the game increases 0.56%. Once we have this multiplier, we can figure it out for any royal. Say the royal is at $7,356. That is 3.35 “$1,000 increments” more than the base game, and 3.35 * 0.55% adds 1.84% to the game.

Those who have actually followed along with the math will have noticed that I have rounded downward. The reason for this is that there are strategic changes to be made as each of the progressives change in value and it’s virtually impossible to get them all correct. By lowering the estimates of what the return will be, we somewhat take this into account.

Now we look at aces with a kicker. This jackpot starts at $2,000. So, we return to the base game and enter $3,000 for aces with a kicker. This gives up a return of 99.23%, which is an increase of 1.36% over 10 $100 increments, or 0.13% for every $100 (again rounding downward)

For aces without a kicker, this starts out at $800. Increasing that to $1,800 from the base game gives us 101.37% — an increase of 3.50% over ten $100 increments. So, whenever this progressive increases by $100, I add 0.35%.

For four 2s, 3s, and 4s with a kicker, this starts out at $800. Increasing that to $1,800 gives us 101.11% — an increase of 3.24% over ten $100 increments. So, whenever this progressive increases by $100, I add 0.32%.

I’m looking now at the straight flush, even though it does not have a progressive on the South Point machines. Sometimes, it does elsewhere. I’ll set the straight flush to $1,250 to get a return of 100.61% — an increase of 2.74% over ten $100 increments. So, whenever this progressive increase by $100, I add 0.27%.

The other two progressives, 2s-4s without a kicker along with 5s-Ks with or without a kicker, turn over fairly rapidly. These add some value, as you might collect $403 or $256 instead of $400 or $250 respectively, but these never get high enough to make that much of a “sit down and play or not” decision.

I assign 0.13% as the sum of these no matter how high they are. Why? Because that makes the base game an even 98% instead of 97.87%. This is a much easier number to work with, especially if I’m doing this in my head rather than with a calculator or some other means.

The final question you need to address is, “How high does it need to be before it’s worth playing?”

This depends on you. Since they have a number of 9/6 DDB games in the casino, which return 99.0%, the minimum sum of the progressives that you need is this figure. For players who wish to play a winning game, however, this isn’t nearly high enough.

You need 99.7% to make it an even game with the 0.3% slot club. Actually, that makes it slightly positive because you will also receive mailers and be able to participate in promotions while playing this game.

I can tell you I’ve seen it above the 99.7% level frequently. This is a decent game for dollar players to add to their repertoire at a casino with a number of good choices.

Posted on by — 7 Comments

If It Looks Too Good to be True . . .  

I just finished a two-part analysis of Maria Konnikova’s The Confidence Game where one of her warnings was (paraphrased) “If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. Very likely there’s something fishy going on.” Soon thereafter, a friend, “Sam,” who’s a knowledgeable video poker player, sent me the following pay schedule on a Bonus Poker game in the Palms High Limit Room:

(The numbers on the left represent the “new” pay table. The numbers on the right represent “standard” good Bonus Poker which is worth almost 99.2% if you play it appropriately. Compare the two sets of numbers and you’ll see why Sam was excited about the new game).

Royal Flush 800    800
Straight Flush 50    50
Four Aces 80 80
Four 2s-4s 40 40
Four 5s-Ks 25 25
Full House 9 8
Flush 7 5
Straight 5 4
Three of a Kind 4    3
Two Pair 2 2
Jacks or Better 1 1

The new game returns 111.2% and it can apparently be played from 25¢ through $5, Triple Play through Ten Play. My my!

Except, this was not a standalone pay schedule. It was on Dream Card.

Dream Card is a 10-coins-per-line game where you periodically get a Dream Card on the draw and that card turns into the best available card to go with the other four cards in the hand.

On Bonus Poker games, the occurrence of Dream Card has historically been 46.7%. If that same frequency is in effect on this game, that would turn this game into a 112% monster, or thereabouts.

Sam generously said that in exchange for my analysis of the game, I could play it, but I should please try not to kill it. After all, games this good don’t come around very often.

I told Sam that I wouldn’t play it at all. Although I’m allowed to play at the Palms now that Station Casinos owns it (and made it worse, in my opinion), I am severely restricted in the benefits I receive. The net effect is that I voluntarily stay away.

Still, on a 112% game where I could play up to $500 per deal, it wouldn’t matter much if I got benefits from the slot club or not. I would have major paydays as long as the machine and my welcome lasted.

The problem is that many of the slot department employees who now work there are the same employees who worked there back in the “good old days” and would instantly recognize me on sight. If I started hammering a machine, word would get to management within a few minutes.  If the game were really a mistake, either the machine would be pulled off the floor or I would be pushed out the door. So, it wouldn’t do any player any good if I tried the game at all. If it was a mistake, all my presence would do is help the Palms identify a problem. No thanks.

But I suggested to Sam that he play 100 hands on the game for the lowest possible stakes (which is 25¢ Triple Play costing $7.50 per deal) and keep track of the occurrences of the Dream Card. If it’s close to 46, which would be standard for Bonus Poker Dream Card, then he should go ahead and play it for the largest stakes he could afford. But if it’s a lot lower, we should do further research.

He did this. He actually played 200 hands and got 40 Dream Cards — which is less than half of the 93 or so he would get under the “normal” Bonus Poker Dream Card frequency. Whether playing 200 hands was statistically significant or not, he became convinced that it was and didn’t want to continue.

I told him I could contact a source I had at IGT — who is the guy both Michael Shackleford (the “Wizard of Odds”) and I use to get accurate information we can publish about games. But, I told Sam, if the game really was a mistake, likely my friend at IGT would notify the casino and that would be the end of it.

Sam said he wanted to know. He was likely done playing it and he didn’t see anybody else knowledgeable playing it, so almost certainly it wasn’t a mistake. Just “misleading,” because it would mean the frequency of Dream Cards wasn’t fixed for a game type.

It turns out that the game is worth 98.6%.

One of the unusual things about the game is that when you play five coins, the game is 7-5-4-3 Bonus Poker (returning 98.0%), but when you play 10-coins, it is 9-7-5-4. In the past, the Dream Card pay schedule was the same on the 5-coin and 10-coin versions, at least in my experience. Many of us would see the 7-5 Bonus pay schedule and not look any further.

Keep in mind that if the Dream Card frequency were zero, the return on this 111.2% game would be 55.6% (illegal in Nevada and many other places) because you’re betting 10-coins per line. I do not know the actual dream card frequency here, but it’s clearly lower than the normal Bonus Poker frequency, and higher than zero. Once I found out that the game is worth 98.6%, that’s all I needed to know.

It could well be that this is the best game in some casino someday where they have suitable-enough slot club and/or promotions to make this playable. Which is why the 98.6% number is important to me and may be useful information at that time. But until that time, it’s just a curiosity.

This again was a case of it looked to good to be true, and indeed, it wasn’t nearly as good as it looked. But we couldn’t know for sure until we did some further research.

Posted on by — 4 Comments

A Look at The Confidence Game – Part 2 of 2

 Two weeks ago, I explained why I found Maria Konnikova’s book, The Confidence Game: Why We Fall for It . . . Every Time, worthy of study. Today I’m going to pick and choose among some of the parts of the book.

Konnikova has a Ph.D. in psychology and is a writer for The New Yorker and other publications. While this is not an academic treatise with numerous footnotes, there are a LOT of references to publications by academicians who have studied con artists and related subjects. I say this to note that this does not read like a novel. It’s a pleasant read. It’s a charming read. But it’s not easy going. I felt the struggle was worth it. If you don’t want to take the time to read it, a good hour-long interview may be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARUntx62Lqk

Most people know who the typical mark is: “You can’t cheat an honest man” or “To be conned you need to be greedy.” According to Konnikova, these descriptions are totally false. The biggest predictor to who can be conned is: “Were you conned before?”

That makes me a good candidate to be conned again — a statistic that doesn’t set well with me at all. Many people, it seems, can readily pick out the foolishness that makes other people good marks, but if the con is chosen perfectly can be victimized themselves.

There are lists of people who have been conned that circulate, for high prices, among the con artists. (Creating such a list out of whole cloth sounds like it would make for a perfect con — but I digress.)

Apparently emotional, vulnerable people are among those easily conned — those who have lost a loved one or a job or are in some sort of transition in their lives. The actual cons described in the book largely came before the era of social media — but now it’s a lot easier.

People regularly post on Facebook and elsewhere everything that would make them a good mark. Many con artists befriend their marks on Facebook under a different name and learn a lot of interesting things that make their job easier and more successful.

I’ve been off Facebook for some time now over the reported risks. This book makes me even more wary of going back. It’s hard for me to know if that makes we wisely sensible or just an old fuddy-duddy. I suspect there would be votes on both sides of this.

The book goes through the anatomy of a con. How you identify a mark — or a grifter. The set up. The play. The disappearance. Now I know how to pull off a con, but I’m not sure I’m any more prepared to do it. A con artist is indeed an “artist.” Someone who is polished at what he does.

One thing that really hit me is that many victims really think they are special. Yes, they know that others have been conned — but this time it’s the real deal. Yes, they know that most psychics are fake — but believe they can tell the difference and this remarkable person is special.

Apparently, most of us think we are better looking than average. Smarter than average. Drive better than average. You know — special. It’s statistically impossible, of course, for most of us to be smarter than average. I certainly feel I’m extraordinary in a number of ways. Don’t you feel that way about yourself?

If you feel that way about yourself, then it’s not too far a reach for you to believe that you deserve good things. And if something is too good to be true for most people, well, if I’m special, then it might not be too good for me. Someone with that mindset is ripe to be conned.

Several interviewers of Konnikova can’t resist asking her if Donald Trump is a con artist? Whether you like that kind of question probably depends on whether you’re a Trump hater or a Trump supporter. I never heard Konnikova give a definite “yes or no” answer to the question, but she clearly agrees that much of what he says and does is very similar to what con artists say and do.

Posted on by — 7 Comments

What Are Reasonable Expectations from Attending Video Poker Classes?

Author’s note:  Last week I began a “Part 1 of 2” series about Maria Konnikova’s book The Confidence Game. It is a reasonable expectation on your part that Part 2 would appear today.

It’s better for today’s article to appear one week before the classes begin rather than the day of. The review of the book is not so sensitive — so the review was pushed back.

Beginning Tuesday, July 3, at noon at the South Point, I’m starting another 10-week semester of free video poker classes (http://bobdancer.com/seminars). I’ve taught several dozens of these semesters. Many of you have attended one or more of them. Still, some people have never attended and want to know if it is worth their while.

The first thing you will learn is how to find a game where you have a reasonable chance of success. In modern casinos, there are several hundred varieties of video poker games available. Some are decent. Most are not.

In the first class, Jacks or Better, you’ll learn how to find the 99.54% version, and leave the 98.45% and 97.30% (and worse!) versions alone. To be sure, the house still has an advantage when the game pays “only” 99.54% — but with the slot club (0.30% at the South Point), mailers, promotions, etc., it’s very close to even. Even if the house has a slight advantage, it is MUCH better to play this version than one of the others.

Learning how to find a good Jacks or Better game gives you hints on how to find a good game of another type — such as Bonus Poker, Double Bonus, Double Double Bonus, etc., but each game has its own “magic numbers” with respect to how much you get paid for the full house and flush. And Deuces Wild games use an entirely different method of figuring out which one is best. Each week the classes start with “How do you find the best type?” of whatever game we are teaching that week.

The second thing you will learn is how to play these games once you’ve found them. Each game is played differently. If you attend several of the classes, you will learn how changes in the value of each of the pay schedule categories affect the strategy. For example, games with flushes returning 7-for-1 are played differently from those returning 6-for-1 which are played differently from those returning 5-for-1. You’ll have examples of all three this semester. The value of the straights, two pair, and even certain four of a kinds require systematic strategic changes as well.

You will learn things that are almost always true — such as, a suited QJ is more valuable than a suited KQ, and a KQ and KJ have exactly the same value. These things apparently are not common sense for many players. The explanation for “why” these things are true is very simple and most adults can understand once they hear.

Nobody expects you to master all the games after attending one of my classes. Many players attend a semester or two of classes to get a feel for what’s out there, and then they specialize in one or two of them. Different games appeal to different players and different games are available for different stakes. Figuring out which ones meet your preferences and bankroll requires gathering some information — but through these classes, that information is available.

You are introduced to two different “novelty” games — namely Ultimate X and Quick Quads. Many semesters we also teach Multi Strike — but the games are rotated, and that game didn’t make the cut this time. These games are popular — yet a bit more complicated than other games. I personally enjoy them and play them.

One week every semester covers one game at the advanced level — and this time that game is Bonus Poker. At the advanced level you learn why K♠ J♥ T♥ 8♣ 4♦ is played differently than K♠ J♥ T♥ 7♣ 4♦, and numerous other close plays. It’s not for beginners and some players believe life is too short to learn the game at this level. But I’m somebody who believes it’s important for my success that I attempt to master all games at this level.

In the last class, “Secrets of a Video Poker Winner” which will be taught on September 4, we will cover for the first time how the 2017 tax bill changes your liability for W2Gs. Nobody likes taxes — but at a minimum you need to be aware of how the changes in the law affect you.

The last thing to discuss is what the class will not do. You will not be able to sit in class for a few hours and suddenly become a video poker expert. It doesn’t work that way. To get good requires a lot of study and it takes time. You will be provided with a roadmap that you can follow, but how closely you adhere to that roadmap is totally up to you.

Still, even if it’s not your goal to become an expert, learning a little will allow you to get a lot more bang for your gambling dollar. Video poker is a game where players with average intelligence can become good enough to gamble fairly even with the house. That’s simply not true for most other gambling games. But it does require study to get good enough to be at this level and for many, these classes are a good place to start.

Posted on by — 9 Comments

A Look at The Confidence Game – Part 1 of 2

For our May 31 Gambling with an Edge podcast, we interviewed Maria Konnikova, a journalist with a Ph.D. in psychology who worked with Eric Seidel to become more knowledgeable about poker and ended up winning several tournaments. Maria impressed both Richard Munchkin and me.

Preparing for the interview, I learned that one of Konnikova’s books, The Confidence Game, is a study of the men and women who are con artists.  She also created a podcast called “The Grift” where she has 10 half-hour episodes of extended studies discussing the con artists she wrote about in the book.

I started to l listen to the first podcast episode, and five hours later I had listened to them all. I was hooked. I ordered The Confidence Game to read what else she said on the subject.

Today’s blog is primarily about why I decided to study what Konnikova wrote. Next week’s blog is about the book itself.

It is arguably self-centered to describe my thought process on why I chose to read a particular book. Still, when I’ve studied other professional gamblers, it was always important to me to know the “why” of their actions rather than just the “what.” So that’s where I’m going to start.

I’ve been conned more than once. I was never suckered in a three-card Monte game or sent money to help a Nigerian prince, but I’ve been conned just the same.

I started playing backgammon for real money in 1994. I was 27 years old at the time. At least twice I was successfully conned — but didn’t know it at the time. Months later I was reading Danny Kleinman and read about the very hustles I fell for. I would have possibly never known had I not read about it.

I’m “older and wiser” now, but a few years ago I still found myself trusting a player not deserving that trust. At that time, it felt appropriate. Afterwards, there were plenty of signs I missed. I wrote here about me being conned, but in exchange for being paid most of what I was owed, I took down the articles and promised never to re-post them.

In reading The Confidence Game, I hoped to learn about many schemes that have already been pulled on others — so hopefully I can recognize them when someone tries to pull them on me. As we will see in next week’s blog, the book is chock full of examples.

I have no idea what con is coming my way next. Even though I am smarter than many and not completely naïve in this area, I do not presume I am immune from being victimized. It’s happened before and possibly could happen again. I’m hoping that the more I know about the methodology of how it is done, I’ll be able to safely dodge the bullet next time.

The second, totally unrelated, reason I wanted to study this book is as a “how to” primer. I do not consider myself a grifter or con artist at all. At the same time, sometimes a bit of subterfuge is critical to being an AP — and even to success in everyday life. It’s nice to learn some of the principles of how it’s done.

If you listen to the Kelly Sun interview on GWAE, you’ll see she and Phil Ivey incorporated many elements of the con in what they did. Both Richard and I believe that what they did was completely legal and they should prevail in court. So far, the courts have disagreed with these beliefs.

In my Million Dollar Video Poker autobiography, I described how the MGM Grand was giving away the store because their slot management department was arithmetically challenged. I gave them all sorts of plausible reasons why I was playing so many hours and never once explained that they were idiots for offering such a lucrative $500/hour game for players with a bankroll who could play 9/6 Jacks or Better well. Was this conning them? Maybe. Maybe not. As I said, a bit of subterfuge is critical to being a successful AP.

I’ve used “seat of the pants” methodology in this regard, with moderate success. According to the book, some of the things I’ve been doing are well executed, and some are not. Learning how to be more successful is always part of my agenda.

We asked Maria Konnikova on the air whether her book was meant to be an instructional manual on how to be a con artist. She said that certainly wasn’t her intention, but she might have accomplished that nonetheless.

I found many of her pointers quite useful. I’ll tell you more about them next week.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Lessons from Backgammon, Part 2 of 2

(Editor’s Note) We’ve just discovered that, due to a technical glitch, last-week’s Bob Dancer blog wasn’t posted. We’re putting it up now and will resume the usual schedule this week.

Last week, I began a two-part article where I described important gambling lessons that I learned years ago while playing backgammon and that are still applicable today playing video poker. I suspect those same lessons would be applicable at most gambling games, as well as with other endeavors.

Continuing those lessons I learned at the Cavendish West:

6. Many players played too fast.
In backgammon, many rolls have one obvious play. Many other rolls offer several “reasonable” plays, each with pluses and minuses. It takes time to correctly evaluate which one is better. Often, you have a choice between two or more ways to play an ace (one). They might be equally safe on this particular play, but they differ in their effectiveness on the next roll or two.

You frequently must make a “pay me now or pay me later” kind of decision about when to take a chance. Sometimes you have to decide whether it is better to make a play that helps your offense or another one that helps your defense.

Sometimes, of course, players just plain don’t understand why one play is superior to another. But often they can figure it out if they spend some time. But spending a lot of time studying moves is hard work, and even harder if you’re tired.

A lot of players, including myself, played faster than was appropriate and paid the consequences.

7. Mind-altering substances didn’t help play. Whether we’re talking about legal or illegal substances, when you played someone a lot you could tell the difference in their moves when they were high compared to when they weren’t.

8. People could and did go broke.

It’s not some theoretical possibility that is pretty rare. If you don’t have a safety net (i.e. parents who will bail you out, a couple of million dollars in the bank, someone who is willing and able to support your gambling losses, etc.), you need to take bankroll considerations into account. Bankroll calculations are easier to make in video poker because the value of a game and the value of slot club are more easily figured out than they are in backgammon.

9. It was easy to forget when gambling that we were dealing with real money. In backgammon, we would deal with “points,” where each point was worth $1, $5, $20, etc. Psychologically being down 60 points wasn’t that much better than being down 90. You tried very hard to “get even,” even though how much you started with that day was a pretty meaningless number.

10. Losing streaks brought out the worst of people’s personality. If someone had any tendency to lie, cheat, steal, or a number of other negative habits, you’d likely see them do it more when they were losing. They might have been 100% trustworthy during normal times, but put them on a losing streak and they were different people.

11. People were crazy (and still are)!

In backgammon, the game is played against live opponents, many of whom have strong personalities that may or may not mesh with mine. I have my own personality quirks that don’t appeal to everybody.

Consequently, I concluded that to be a contented player, I needed a gambling game with less human interaction than backgammon. For that reason, I shunned live poker. I would NOT enjoy being across the table from a Mike Matusow or a Phil Hellmuth. It’s possible I could develop the technical skills to compete with them. (Possible — not certain. They both are VERY good.) But I don’t have the temperament to deal with yelling and screaming they bring to the table.

Compared to backgammon, the human interaction in video poker, although sometimes important, is minor.

This is one observation that fits into the “your mileage may vary” category. Other players do just fine in poker and backgammon and can deal with the personalities involved. This is not my strength, and a key part of success is figuring out what your strengths are and going with them.

12. Finally, a good memory and keeping records was very important. You needed to know whether a particular player was better or worse than you. If you had good records of his or her results when you played together, you had a pretty strong indicator.

There are players whose leaks are exploitable. Some passed doubles more than they should, so you doubled them early compared to the theoretically optimal point. Others took doubles much later than was advised. Against those players, it was never a good idea to double early.

Over time you played a lot of different players and you needed to have notes about all of them. A good memory is good — but written notes last longer and are better.

Keeping records for tax purposes is done in video poker but is largely not done in backgammon. There are no official records or W-2Gs in backgammon — save for the occasional tournament — and the majority of successful players “forget” to declare any gambling income.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Lessons from Backgammon, Part 1 of 2

From 1974 through 1980, I averaged 80-100 hours per week playing or studying backgammon. For the next 12 years, I had a job (because I lost my bankroll playing backgammon) and reduced my backgammon time to an average of about 15 hours per week. In 1994, I began playing video poker and haven’t played significant backgammon since that time.

The success I’ve experienced at video poker is at least partly due to what I learned as a backgammon player.

I addressed this subject in my autobiography, Million Dollar Video Poker, in the chapter called “Lessons from the Cavendish West.” The Cavendish West was a bridge/gin/backgammon club in the West Hollywood part of Los Angeles. That was where most of my play took place.

That book was written more than 10 years ago, and I haven’t reread it recently. I won’t reread the chapter I mentioned until after these two articles are completed. I’m sure there will be a lot of overlap, but my perspective has changed over the last decade.

Video poker and backgammon are played quite differently. But in such things as preparation, looking for an advantage, and dealing with winning and losing, I was able to apply my backgammon skills to video poker.  The following are some of the things I learned from backgammon that continue to serve me well today:

     1.  Everybody won some of the time. Everybody lost some of the time. But one group of players won most of the time and another group of players lost most of the time. The losing players would explain to whomever listened that it was their bad luck that caused them to be losers. The winning players would pretend to agree with them. After all, without losing players there could be no winning players.

 

     2.  The strong players regularly played “propositions.” A proposition is when you place the checkers in an agreed upon position and play it out over and over again. Sometimes odds were offered. Sometimes not. Although there were some who did this because they were hustling, usually it was done in order to better understand the position.

Backgammon, at the time, had no computer programs that could tell you that this play was the best from this particular position. So, players had to figure it out, and playing propositions repeatedly was one way to do that. This was one way they studied, and if you put a gambling element into it, it was more interesting.

Today they have a number of computerized backgammon programs primarily developed by artificial intelligence. From a particular position, the program will tell you that this move gives you an EV of 51.2% and this other move gives you an EV of 48.1%. The program “knows” this because it plays each position over and over again until it comes up with an estimate. If you accept this particular program as being best, clearly the first move is superior to the second. Usually a play this close could not be determined with certainty by players at the table, but good players would often sense that the first play was better.

Players who play a lot against computer programs today get much better much faster than we did back when I played. Even though I had thousands of hours of experience and was a pretty fair player back in the early 90s, I would not stand a chance against today’s players. The computer programs have increased knowledge about the game considerably.

     3.  The biggest enemy of many players was their emotions. Backgammon has frequent situations where you can be way ahead and then a few rolls later you are hopelessly behind. Some players were devastated when this happened against them — and it happened several times every day.

Going “on tilt,” or “steaming,” were frequent results of that lack of emotional control. In backgammon there is a doubling cube, where stakes can be doubled mid-game, and then doubled again, and again, at later times. At each of these doubling occurrences, emotional control is necessary to correctly evaluate whether or not the doubling should be offered by one player and accepted or rejected by the other.

When players were steaming, frequently they doubled too early and/or accepted too late. It was a very expensive way to play.

     4.  It was important to evaluate your “opponent.” In video poker this is relatively easy, as your opponent is a game, such as 9/6 Jacks or Better or perhaps 7/5 Bonus Poker, which has a well-known return for perfect play. Perfect play is relatively simple given today’s software products.

In backgammon, your opponents are human beings — who have different skill sets and different emotional strengths and weaknesses. In addition, these opponents, like all humans, have good days and bad days.

Evaluating one person is difficult enough, but often backgammon is played in a version called a “chouette,” which means a game with three or more players in it. To properly evaluate a chouette, you need to know the strengths of each player — which is often an impossible task to do precisely.

Equally important was accurately evaluating your own skill level relative to others.

     5.  Hand in hand with opponent evaluation was game selection. To be a winning player you had to play in games where you had the advantage. In video poker it’s fairly easy to figure that out. In backgammon, it’s much more difficult.

If you were playing another player heads up, and you were better than him, it would have been fairly unusual for him to continue to want to play you. Social skills were important here. I observed charming players who could always find excellent games because they were so much fun to play around. I observed crabby people where the opposite was true.

I will continue this discussion next week.

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Which is Better?

Back when I was in graduate school studying economics, professors would often compare Model A versus Model B, where the two models were identical except for one specific difference. The professor then addressed a situation where the two models would yield different results, and so we learned what feature of the models led to what kind of results.

The real world isn’t like that, of course. Virtually any two things you could want to compare would differ in far more than one area. Still, it’s a useful type of exercise. Sometimes you can extrapolate the results of this kind of exercise and get real world conclusion, and today we’re going to try to do just that.

Assume there are two must-be-there-to-win drawings at different casinos at 7 p.m. next Friday. The casinos are similar in size with equivalent games and slot clubs, 10 winners sharing $xxxxx, the prize structure is identical, and it requires $500 coin-in to earn each drawing ticket. You know from experience that you can play enough so that you have a reasonable chance at being called.

The only relevant difference is that at Casino A, the first person called (and is present within 90 seconds) gets the top prize, the second person gets the second prize, etc. At Casino B, all ten winners pick an envelope so the order you were called is of no importance. Which structure do you prefer?

Before we can answer that, assume the actual number of drawing tickets from the players drawn this particular night, sorted from highest to lowest rather than in the actual order selected, is as follows:

1,003
127
83
60
51
47
31
28
19
2

If you’re the guy with 1,003 tickets, meaning you played more than $500,000 for this drawing and nobody else played as much as $70,000, it’s much better for you to compete in Casino A. You’re not guaranteed to be called first. In fact, before the drawing, you aren’t a lock to be called at all. But most of the time that you play this much you’re going to be picked early on and your prizes will be bigger on average at Casino A.

For similar reasons, if you are the guy with two tickets, you were extremely fortunate to be called at all. There were likely a few hundred entrants with fewer than ten tickets and you were the lucky one who was chosen this time. On those rare occasions when you do get chosen, you’re more likely to be one of the last ones drawn than one of the first ones. For you, Casino B represents your better option.

We can extrapolate from this. If you tend to play more than average, the better the Casino A structure benefits you. Conversely, if you tend to play less than average, the better Casino B structure benefits you.

Anyone who has paid attention to lots of drawings knows that occasionally the guy with one or two tickets wins the big prize and the guy with the most tickets more than occasionally gets completely shut out. There is a large random element to drawings.

While the preceding paragraph is undoubtedly true, don’t make the mistake of concluding that how many tickets you have in the drum is irrelevant. The more tickets you have, the better your chances are to win. You just need to recognize that having a better chance doesn’t mean you’re 100% certain to win, and having a slim chance doesn’t mean no chance at all.

Also, for those in the Casino B drawing:  The first guy gets his choice of all ten envelopes, the second guy gets to pick from the remaining nine, all the way down to the tenth guy getting whatever is left. Usually by the time the last guy gets his remaining envelope, the best prize is already gone. It can seem at that point like it would have been far better to be chosen first and have all ten envelopes to choose among.

And that is an illusion. Assuming the envelopes are indistinguishable from each other (a typical condition, but not one that’s guaranteed to be true every time), there is no advantage to going first. The last-drawn guy has the same 1-in-10 chance of getting the biggest prize as the first-drawn guy does.

As a final factor to consider I want to look at how well you’ve done at one of these casinos recently. If you’ve won first prize twice in the past three months at one of the casinos, then the other casino is a better option for the next few months. Do not fall into the trap of believing “Casino A is my lucky casino because I win more there.” A far bigger concern is casinos can and do remove your welcome when you win frequently.

Players can argue until they’re blue in the face that these kinds of things shouldn’t matter. But in the real world they do. So, act accordingly.

Posted on by — 10 Comments

Can You Do Everything Correctly in Video Poker and Still Go Broke?

The “system” I promote for winning at video poker has two main steps to it:

  1. Only play when you have the advantage over the house. This includes the base return on the game, the slot club, promotions, mailers, drawing entries, and possibly other things.
  2. Play for small enough stakes that your bankroll isn’t overly endangered. (Some simplify this to only play for what you can afford to lose.)

Do this, I tell gamblers, and in the long run you’ll very likely prosper.

Calling this an actual “system,” or suggesting that I invented it, is ludicrous. It is, however, the methodology I suggest is the best way to win at the game.

In last week’s column, I wrote that it’s conceivable that even when I think I have the advantage over the house, I’m actually the underdog. I don’t believe that happens very often, perhaps never, but it’s conceivable.

If you’re playing a game for stakes where your bankroll is going to be safe 99.99% of the time, one in 10,000 people who does this is going to end up broke. That’s what 99.99% means. It’s like when certain polls said Donald Trump had a 25% chance of winning the presidency at a certain point a few years ago, the polls weren’t wrong. A 25% chance means that there’s a 1-in-4 chance for it to happen, and in that election, the 1-in-4 “longshot” came in.

In truth, calculating exact bankroll requirements is essentially impossible. The two best programs for this, Video Poker for Winners and Dunbar’s Risk Analyzer for Video Poker, will tell you that if you play a particular game with a particular slot club forever and ever, your required bankroll for a 1% (or 0.1% or 0.001% or whatever) is such-and-such.

The thing is, available video poker games change over time. Slot clubs change over time. Many of us play a variety of different games at a variety of different casinos — and next year will have a new set of games to play as things evolve. Calculating exact bankroll calculations in this environment is essentially impossible — partly because we don’t know what games and slot club conditions will be available next year.

To work with this, many competent players (including me) take this approach: “Play with an advantage, with what seems like an appropriate bankroll, and hope for the best.” We all know that “hope for the best” isn’t a strategy, but in the face of such an insolvable mathematical problem, sometimes that’s the best we have. Under-betting your bankroll is safer than over-betting.

There are those who talk about Kelly betting, which is a system of bet-sizing that will grow your bankroll at the maximum rate while essentially reducing to zero your chances of going broke. I’m not going to go there because bet-sizing in video poker is often very limited (as in such-and-such a pay schedule is only available for quarters and this other pay schedule is only available for $5 Triple Play, Five Play, and Ten Play) and your actual edge has some guesswork in there since you’re never positive what your mailer is going to be next month. You can make an educated guess — but sometimes you get surprised.

So, occasionally, somebody can do everything right and still go broke. It’s fairly rare, but it does happen. And if it does happen, they can correctly call it bad luck. A 1-in-10,000 (or whatever it was) case of bad luck.

Those people who do go broke playing video poker, however, usually aren’t victims of this kind of very unusual bad luck. It’s far more likely that some or all of their play was on games where they didn’t have the advantage. Or when they had an advantage if they played every hand perfectly, but they made too many playing errors.  Or sometimes they played while under the influence of one thing or another and they didn’t actually have the advantage during those times. It’s far more likely that even if they did have an edge, the edge was too small relative to their bankroll and the stakes they were playing.

Let’s say we have heard that “Joe,” a guy we thought was a pretty good player, actually went broke while playing video poker. What we will almost certainly never know for sure is:

  1. Exactly what games was he playing?
  2. With exactly what slot club?
  3. With exactly what other promotions going on at the time?
  4. Under what state of sobriety, alertness, and psychological readiness?
  5. What was his starting bankroll?
  6. Did he make any major withdrawals from his gambling bankroll for anything else (perhaps a car, house, vacation, medical bills, helping out relatives, a mistress, drugs, etc.)?
  7. How close to perfectly did he play?

Not knowing this kind of information (in addition to the fact that this particular Joe is hypothetical, so the information is even more unknowable), my personal conclusion would be that it is far more likely Joe violated one of the two numbered conditions at the start of this article than it would be he just got unlucky.

Knowing about a few such people doesn’t shake me from my belief that the “system” works. Call it a Bayesian probability approach, if you will.

I know others who take the approach that “If it could happen to Joe, it could happen to anybody. There’s no guarantee. It’s all random luck.” To those who believe that, I say I believe the math is on my side, but I understand that you are inconvincible.

Some people are more comfortable investing in the stock market rather than gambling. That’s a good bet. A considerable portion of my bankroll is in the stock market. But there’s risk there too. Ten years ago, the market took a 50% dump. For people who owned stocks on margin, it could have been a 100% or 200% dump or even bigger. If you’ve held on since then, the market has recovered and then some. But many people didn’t have the nerve or the wherewithal to hang on.

This column is not about politics, but with the chances of a trade war and/or nuclear war are arguably higher than they were two years ago.  Who knows what the prognosis of the stock market is over the next few years? With video poker, you can know before you make each bet.

(One anecdote isn’t proof of anything, but this one is close to home for me. My father, born in 1915, was 92 years old when the 2007 stock market crash happened. He had about $60 million invested in the market in 2007 — a considerable lifetime achievement — much of it on margin — because he was obsessed with making $100 million before he died. Everyone told him that what he was doing wasn’t prudent at all — but he wouldn’t listen. He felt that he had built up all that money, we hadn’t, and that proved he was smarter than us. He ended up losing everything — and the shock of going from a multi-millionaire to penniless and depending on his children for support was devasting. He ended up losing his mind and dying a few years later.)

Owning your own home has traditionally been a good investment. Many parts of the country, including Las Vegas, had a huge real estate recession 15 or so years ago. Some home owners are still upside down. Long term, if they can hold on, the prices will probably come back. But there will always be people who couldn’t hold on and lost everything with this “good” investment.

Any other investment vehicle you can name has had some ups and downs. I’m somebody who believes the ups and downs of video poker are lower than those of other investments — IF you follow the two rules set out at the beginning. Most people who fail at video poker broke one or both of those rules.  

I’ve been told that I’m responsible when somebody goes broke playing video poker because I encouraged them to play. To that I say I’ve been issuing the same caveats for years. I strongly recommend that if you don’t have the edge, don’t play. If you choose to play anyway, I don’t see how that is my responsibility at all.

On my father’s bookshelf when he died were numerous publications on making money in the stock market. The authors of those publications didn’t suggest he invest the way he did at all. Was it their fault that he went broke? Not in my opinion.

Posted on by — 6 Comments

Is It Even Possible to Play Perfectly?

In a recent comment posted on www.gamblingwithanedge.com about my March 27 “He Screwed Me!” column, Liz wrote, in part,

“And, mathematically speaking, we can never be 100% sure that even Dancer always has the edge. I’m willing to believe he knows all the maxEV strategies cold including penalty cards, but that’s not the same thing as playing in a casino environment and never making a mistake.”

To that I respond: “Apples and oranges!”

If Liz wants to suggest that sometimes I don’t know strategies perfectly or sometimes mis-key or not carefully examine all the options before I make a play, I’ll plead guilty. I still play at a 99.9% accuracy level, probably higher, but that number is gradually lowering as I advance more into my senior years.

But not playing with the maximum possible edge is not the same as not playing with an edge. Let’s say I calculate a play is worth 100.4% but I only play at the 99.9% accuracy level. That lowers the return to 100.3% — but it’s still an edge.

A far more likely source of possibly playing without an edge is making the wrong assumptions. If I assume a drawing is worth 0.5% and it’s actually worth only 0.05%, that could turn what I think is a play-with-an-edge into one where the house has the advantage.

Usually, I won’t ever know for sure what a drawing is worth. Estimating how many actual tickets are in a drum is tough. Estimating how many virtual tickets are in a virtual drum is tougher. All I will know is whether or not I got called THIS TIME. That’s not really useful information insofar as what the drawing is worth.

Over time, if I learn that when I’ve played $100,000 coin-in at this casino I’ve been called 40% of the time, then it’s easier to make a reasonable estimate. But you need a lot of data points. Having friends who play at about the same level as you and who share information with you is useful.

But since it takes time to gather this information, for some period you’re “flying blind.” You can make a “best guess” without a whole lot of confidence in that number. This can lead to you playing a game where you think you have the edge, but after you collect more data, you’ll find out you don’t.

How much is a slot tournament worth? You can get some idea based on the number of entrants and the total prize pool — but you frequently don’t know until you’re already there. A video poker tournament is different. I’ll triple or quadruple the average prize simply because I can play faster and make better decisions than many of the other entrants. I’m still going to need to hit some hands to win, but I have a better chance of doing that than many other players.

Inherent in most plays is the assumption that you’re going to be getting so much cash or free play in the mail. If you play the same amount every month and get the same mailer each month, it’s easy to put that into percentages. If your play varies and your mailers do too, it’s tougher. You usually don’t know if your mailer is based on three months, six months, or who-knows-what.

Sometimes there’s a “win too much and you get cut off” factor in the mailers. If you think you might be approaching that limit you basically have too choices — play like hell until it’s over or stop playing for three months or so which will dilute your wins-per-month.

When the SLS opened, they had way-too-loose high limit video poker. I played $25 10-6-40 Double Double Bonus, which is a 99.96% game, plus slot club, plus comps, plus mailers, and I got $3,500 show-up money because I had an offer that size from Caesars Entertainment and SLS was matching offers. My score went up and down, of course. When I was behind $30,000, I felt as though I should keep playing because I was likely to get great mailers. Then I hit two $20,000 jackpots and two $10,000 jackpots in short order and I was now up. Still, the score was close enough to even, given I was playing a volatile game at $125 per hand. When the royal came, putting me ahead $120,000, I knew it was time to quit. I figured I wasn’t going to get any mailer — so why continue to play? Even with a 0.2% slot club, the edge was pretty small for such a volatile game. I still had an edge in this game, but the edge was too small to interest me.

Sometimes you just plain have no way to guestimate how much each item is worth.  But if you’re close enough to 100%, have a couple of drawings, some mailers, and maybe reach a higher tier level, you can make a reasonable assumption that you have the edge. Will you always be correct? No. But usually. There’s a lot to be said for the feel that experienced players obtain over time.

So, when Liz says sometimes I’m not positive I’m playing with an edge, I’d have to agree that could occasionally happen when one of my guesstimates is way off. But it’s extremely unlikely that I’m playing at a disadvantage because I’m making significant playing errors. If my total edge were small enough so that a 0.01% playing error could take me from positive to negative, I would have considered that unplayable to begin with. There are quarter Deuces Wild players in Las Vegas who play long hours for a game that is worth less than $10 per hour to them. Good for them. But I need a bigger hourly potential to jump in.