Category: Advice for Players

Posted on by — 42 Comments

If That’s Random, You Can Bite Me!

This column is inspired by an email I received about 20 years ago, when TITO tickets weren’t found everywhere. I don’t have the email in front of me, but I remember the gist of it and certainly the line that I’m using as a title. For the rest, I’m using some artistic license that I believe is fairly close to the original.

Dear Mr. Dancer:

Life is so unfair!

I was playing quarter 9/6 Jacks or Better at my local casino. With the 0.67% cash slot club, it’s mildly positive. The lady next to me, let’s call her “Lucky Lucy,” was playing 9/5 Double Double Bonus, a game that you say is so bad that it should be avoided.

Anyway, Lucky Lucy was dealt AAAA2 for a $500 hand pay. Three hands later LL got 22223. The 800 quarters started to spill into her tray, but the hopper went dry before she got the whole $200. So, they came and filled up the machine. About 10 hands later, LL nailed a $1,000 royal flush!

I’m playing the so-called good game and losing my ass! In less than 20 hands, which took more than 20 minutes because she needed so much servicing from the casino staff, on a terrible game, she was ahead $1,700. I’m starting to believe that pay schedules mean squat. You’re either lucky or you’re not!

And random – smandom! If you think this was a random result you can bite me!

Frustrated Fred

 

Dear FF:

Yes, I think it was a random result, but I respectfully decline your culinary invitation.

LL had an extremely lucky run that she’ll be talking about for the rest of her life! Thirty years from now, she’ll be saying, “Let me tell you about that time back in 1996 when . . . .“  She was playing a less-than-98% game that normally eats her lunch. There will be ugly stretches where that game pays less than 90% over a few thousand hands — as well as very occasional times where she wins big. Even including the “never-in-my-wildest-dreams” session you just described, she’ll be a big loser on this game over time.

Could it happen that she quits forever and ends up a net winner on that terrible game after such a wonderful run? Theoretically, I suppose, but it usually doesn’t work that way. What is more likely is that she’ll come back as soon as possible to see if she can capture lightning in a bottle one more time. And the most likely result is that she is going to lose — because that’s the nature of that game.

You, on the other hand, are playing a dull little game where, over time, you’re going to lose almost a half percent, which is more than offset by the generous slot club. There will be days you win and more days you lose, but over time it will come pretty close to the half percent it’s supposed to (assuming you play well) and you’ll be a net winner after collecting your slot club benefits.

What “random” means in this case is that the results mimic those of a freshly shuffled fair deck. Sometimes you’re randomly dealt four aces and a kicker (one time in 216,580, if you’re counting). Unusual? Yes. It certainly doesn’t happen every day or even every year to a given player. But it happens. It happened to LL while you were sitting next to her and she got $500. It’ll happen to you just as often, maybe next time will be a year or three down the road, but you’ll only get $31.25. At times like that, it’s hard to see that receiving an extra $1.25 for every time you end up with two pair pays off better in the long run. But it does! If you want to complain about playing the wrong game when such a nice hand is dealt, you won’t be the first one to do so! Many video poker players complain a lot!

“Random” includes lots of results that are surprising because they happened TODAY. It never happens that you play 1,000 hands and get the exactly predicted number of every hand. It can’t happen because some hands have cycles much longer than 1,000 hands. It’s going to take about 40 of those 1,000-hand cycles to receive a royal, and 650 of those cycles to be dealt a royal. But dealt royals happen randomly — once every 649,740 hands on average. Keep playing and you’ll occasionally be dealt a royal. It happens. Randomly!

Good video poker players have come to believe that over time, the results end up where they should. Over millions of hands, you’ll end up with approximately the correct number of royals, straight flushes, 3-of-a-kinds, etc. If you’re playing where you have the advantage, you’re very likely to be ahead after millions of hands. If you’re behind after millions of hands, it most likely is because you were playing games where you did not have the advantage.

Can I guarantee this? No. Of course not. Depending on how big your edge is and how many hands you’ve played, you might be an 80% favorite to be ahead, or a 90% favorite, or a 99.993% favorite, or whatever. You will never be a 100% favorite to be ahead, but we don’t live our lives with 100% guarantees. (You can’t 100% guarantee that you’ll be alive a week from now, for example.)

But you can BET you’ll be ahead, and really that’s what we’re doing when we gamble. It can be a very, very smart bet to make, even if we can’t be positive that we’ll always win.

But even though I can’t guarantee I’ll win over the next however-many years, I 100% believe I’ll do very well and am betting considerable amounts that it’s true.

Posted on by — 18 Comments

Whose Responsibility Is It?

For the November 16 Gambling with an Edge podcast, Richard and I welcomed David Clary, author of the book Gangsters to Governors: The New Bosses of Gambling in America. That podcast speaks for itself and I’m not covering here what we talked about on the podcast.

The last chapter of the book, called “Double or Nothing,” discussed something we didn’t talk about — problem gambling. It’s a real thing. While exact numbers are elusive, millions of Americans suffer from it.

In many jurisdictions, casinos and government agencies chip in to provide some help to these gamblers. There are a number of “self-exclusion” programs in various states that sometimes are more-or-less effective in keeping some of these people out of casinos. A strong case could be made that more needs to be done.

With some players for whom gambling is not a problem, it’s easy to conclude that having a problem is simply a self-control issue. Like, if you have a gambling problem, just stay out of casinos. Like, alcoholics should just stop drinking. And obese people should just show restraint at the dinner table. And tobacco addicts should just plain stop smoking. It’s like, “I don’t have a problem with this and you shouldn’t either!”

I personally don’t believe anything of the sort described in the preceding paragraph. I believe these are real problems with real pain and costs associated with them. What it’s caused by, I don’t know. Bottom line, though, is that I’m not at all certain what to do about it.

I regularly write things like, “If the pay schedule combined with the slot club and promotions isn’t good enough, don’t play.” I know that’s a key part of success at video poker. Players who don’t follow that advice basically have no chance of being a long-term winner. I think this is considerably different from, “If you have a problem with gambling, just stay out of casinos,” but it’s easy to envision disagreement on how different the two phrases are.

My writings assume that people CAN refrain from playing. But I also assume that very few problem gamblers read my scribblings. I have no idea how valid this assumption is, but surely some problem gamblers occasionally read my works.

Every reputable and conscientious how-to-gamble-effectively writer faces this dilemma. How do you provide information to players who can benefit from it without simultaneously giving problem gamblers false hope? If I knew the answer to that, I’d do it. But I just don’t know.

I am NOT planning on stopping my writing. Whatever your opinion on the matter is, I believe I help more people than I harm. I do not believe that the problem would be cured or even lessened if I stopped writing.

I do donate to Gambler’s Anonymous. Is that the best place to give? I don’t know. How much I give is none of your business. I’m not giving out of guilt. I do not feel guilty for being a video poker teacher. But it bothers me that in at least a few cases, my writings have ended up being harmful rather than helpful.

Most people who read my columns are players in the video poker community. While I’m more famous in that community than most of my readers are, the “how-to-deal-with-this-issue” problem is not mine alone.

You may turn a blind eye to this problem or you can try to do something about it. You’re going to have to decide for yourself. The only thing that is certain to me is that the problem isn’t going to magically disappear just by ignoring it.

I know this column is a bit of a downer, but sometimes the real world is like that. Sometimes it’s important to shine a spotlight on problems and, for me, this is the day to do it for this particular problem.

Posted on by — 9 Comments

You’re Upsetting Our Players

In 1999, I started communicating with “Richard,” the marketing director of the Laughlin Flamingo hotel. (Today the same property is called the Aquarius, and it may change names again because the parent company is in the process of changing owners.) Richard knew my name because I wrote columns for Strictly Slots and Casino Player, both of which were distributed for free in that casino.

He wanted to use my “fame,” such as it was, to draw in customers, but he didn’t really want me to teach his players how to beat him. Was there any middle ground?

I suggested he hold a video poker tournament, giving away whatever amount he wanted, and I could teach a class on “How to Succeed in a Video Poker Tournament.” His players would get real value because tournament play definitely has some skill elements to it (in addition to a considerable amount of luck) and most of the lessons for tournament play don’t translate into regular casino play. We reached a deal for me to host two events over the next year.

The only tournament software they had was for Jacks or Better.  An unusual choice for a video poker tournament, but I could adjust my class accordingly.

One of the major points in tournament strategy is that on the last hand, if you aren’t “in the money,” you should go for broke. If a tournament had 250 entrants and paid out 50 places, then being in 51st place was tied with 250th place. Zero is zero. This is very different from casino play, where 51st place might represent a profit of $100 and 250th place might be a loss of $500. These aren’t the same at all.

Players are used to the concept that a higher score is better than a lower score, but this is only true in tournaments if you’re above the “bubble.” If you’re below the bubble, all scores are equal.

Since it was a Jacks or Better tournament, the example hand I used was being dealt AAAAT on the last hand where you weren’t already in the money. Assuming 125 coins (the payout for four aces in this game) wouldn’t be enough to move you into pay dirt, you should throw away three of the aces and just hold the suited AT. Your only chance was to get a royal flush. You didn’t have a big chance — actually 1-in-16,215, but a small chance was better than no chance at all.

If this were the more standard Double Double Bonus tournament, I would have picked a different hand. Four aces pay at least 800 credits, maybe 2,000, and just that score would usually be enough to move you into the money.

The following year I received a call from “Cheryl” who was Richard’s assistant. She said Richard was busy, but she was asked to call and see if they could get me to Laughlin again for two more events. But there would have to be a few changes in the contract.

First, they wanted to lower my fee by $100 each time. Since I had already prepared my notes, it would be easier on me and that should be reflected in the price. I told Cheryl that I wasn’t crazy about this change. At that same time, there was a casino in Las Vegas that was giving away the store (I didn’t tell her this was the MGM Grand).  To induce me to come down to Laughlin for two days at a time would take more money, not less. But what was the other change you were talking about? Maybe that would offset the money.

She told me there were complaints from some of the seniors that I was telling them to throw away four aces! They didn’t get such a good hand very often and they just KNEW this couldn’t be right. Since the complaints went through her, it would be making her life easier if I never told them to throw away four aces.

I asked her if she understood the context behind sometimes throwing away the aces. She didn’t. She didn’t care. She never gambled anyway so she paid no attention to somebody else’s silly ideas about gambling. She really only cared about getting fewer complaints from the players.

I asked her if Richard knew about the changes she was requesting. She said no, but she was sure he would be proud of her for reducing the costs and not making the players angry.

I told her “No thanks,” but if they wished to increase my fee and allow me to teach the class as I saw fit, she knew how to get in touch with me. She never did.

I never taught there again, but as I recall things worked out pretty well for me at the MGM Grand.

 

Author’s Note:  The next semester of classes at the South Point will begin Tuesday January 9. The original schedule of classes on bobdancer.com accidentally said Sunday January 7. The schedule has been repaired, but I want to make sure everybody has gotten the word.

Should anyone be worried about the classes upsetting them, I promise that this semester I will never tell you to throw away four aces!

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Understanding a Flow Chart in Super Double Bonus

Super Double Bonus is a version of Double Bonus where four jacks, queens, and kings earn 600 coins instead of 250 and the straight flush returns 400 instead of 250. The best-paying version, which returns 45 for the full house and 25 for the flush, returns 99.695% when played well. When combined with a decent slot club and/or set of promotions, this can be a profitable game to play when you find it.

One of the trickiest parts of the strategy is when you are dealt an ace of one suit and a “JT” of another. Depending on the other two cards, sometimes you hold the “JT”, sometimes you hold the ace by itself, and sometimes you hold AJ.

For me to learn this, I created a flow chart which I believe is 100% accurate in this area of the strategy chart — although it presumes you know that a 4-card open-ended straight and a 3-card straight flush with one high card and two insides are both more valuable than the options presented in the flow chart. It follows relatively simple logic — but even relatively simple logic requires more concentration and study than some of my readers wish to endure.

What I thought I’d do is to present my flow chart, give you some sample hands to play, and let you see how you do. Afterwards, I’ll go through the flow chart more slowly and maybe it will be easier to understand.

And if you’re not in the mood for the logic of 9-5 SDB, it’s okay with me if you always play “JT” when you come to these hands. You won’t be giving up a whole lot. For some folks, making these kinds of distinctions cause their heads to hurt. If that’s you, take this column off and come back next week.

A versus “JT”:

 

Is there a flush penalty to the “JT”?

If no, play “JT”  — end

If yes, continue

 

Is the flush penalty to the “JT” a 2-6 and the fifth card suited with the A?

If yes, is it an 8 or 9?

If yes, play AJ — end

If no, play “JT” — end

If no, continue

 

Is the flush penalty to the ”JT” a 2-5 and the fifth card an 8 or 9?

If yes, play A — end

If no, play “JT” — end

 

Is the flush penalty to the ”JT” a 6 and the fifth card a 7, 8 or 9?

If yes, play A — end

If no, play “JT” — end

 

Using the above logic, play these hands:

  1. A♠ J♥ T♥ 2♠ 5♠
  2. A♠ J♥ T♥ 9♠ 7♦
  3. A♠ J♥ T♥ 9♠ 8♥
  4. A♠ J♥ T♥ 3♣ 7♥
  5. A♠ J♥ T♥ 9♣ 5♥
  6. A♠ J♥ T♥ 7♣ 6♥
  7. A♠ J♥ T♥ 7♣ 5♥
  8. A♠ J♥ T♥ 8♣ 2♥
  9. A♠ J♥ T♥ 8♠ 2♥
  10. A♠ J♥ T♥ 7♠ 6♥

Here are the answers. If you easily got them all correct, you don’t need to read any further:

  1. A♠ 2♠ 5♠
  2. J♥ T♥
  3. J♥ T♥ 9♠ 8♥
  4. J♥ T♥ 7♥
  5. A♠
  6. A♠
  7. J♥ T♥
  8. A♠
  9. A♠ J♥
  10. J♥ T♥

If you missed one or more of the above problems, the following explanations may help:

 

Is there a flush penalty to the “JT”?

If no, play “JT”  — end

If yes, continue

This rule is the easiest. Just look for a card suited with the “JT”. If you don’t find one, then “JT” is the play — unless, of course, some higher-ranking combination is in the hand.

 

Is the flush penalty to the “JT” a 2-6 and the fifth card suited with the A?

If yes, is it an 8 or 9?

If yes, play AJ — end

If no, play “JT” — end

If no, continue

We only get to this rule if there is a flush penalty to the “JT” and also a flush penalty to the A. Also, this is the only time we can hold AJ.  Notice that the flush penalty to the J cannot be a 7 or higher as that would make it a higher-ranking 3-card straight flush or 3-card royal flush. Also note that this says that if there is a flush penalty to the A, but it is not an 8 or 9, we hold the “JT”.

 

Is the flush penalty to the ”JT” a 2-5 and the fifth card an 8 or 9?

If yes, play A — end

If no, play “JT” — end

By the time we get here, there is no flush penalty to the ace.

 

Is the flush penalty to the ”JT” a 6 and the fifth card a 7, 8 or 9?

If yes, play A — end

If no, play “JT” — end

By the time we get here, there is no flush penalty to the ace. The only difference in the last two rules is when the fifth card is a 7. If the flush penalty to the J is a 6 (meaning it is not a straight penalty to the A), we hold the A by itself. If the flush penalty to the J is a 2-5 (which are all straight penalties to the A), we hold the J.

 

Do the notes in green help you any? If so, welcome to them.

Posted on by — 17 Comments

Be Careful What You Wish For  

Say you’re playing 9/6 Jacks or Better and are dealt a hand like A♦ K♣ J♦ T♦ 3♦. The best play, of course, is AJT3. Many players hold the inferior AJT. As I see it, players make the lesser play for one of two reasons:

  1. They simply do not know that AJT3 is worth 3.7¢ more than AJT for the 5-coin dollar player — given that the fifth card dealt was an off-suit king. Holding the flush kicker is a rather advanced play and many players aren’t students of the game. Or maybe they go back and forth between games without understanding the differences between them and make more-or-less the same plays for all games.

 

  1. They know AJT3 is better and they just don’t care. They really love to get royals and 3.7¢ isn’t that big of a cost for a chance to get such an exciting hand.

 

Today I want to address that second group of players, namely the ones who are willing to pay an extra premium in order to get the royal flush. My position is that for most players, this is a costlier move than they realize.

When I spoke of that 3.7¢ difference in value between the two plays, the math included a 1-in-1,081 chance of getting a $4,000 royal flush. The trouble is that the $4,000 royal flush for most people isn’t worth $4,000.

First of all, there’s tipping. When they bring you your money, they usually provide you with 39 $100 bills and five twenties. You’re not required to tip, but many players give away one or more of their twenties to the casino staff. If you’re generous enough to give away all five twenties, you have increased the difference between holding AJT and AJT3 from 3.7¢ to 12.9¢. If you got the best hand available holding AJT3, namely a $30 flush, no casino employee would be there holding his/her hand out expecting a share of it.

Second, and far more importantly, there’s a W2G that comes along with that $4,000. If you’re playing in Mississippi, the state takes away $120 — with no chance of getting it back. Louisiana takes $240, and you can get some or all of that back by filing a Louisiana state income tax form. If you fill out the form yourself, it takes an hour or more and you may not do it correctly. If you hire a tax professional to do it, it can cost more than the $240 you’re hoping to get back. There are a few other states with similar policies. If you shrug off that extra $240 every 1-in-1081 times it occurs when you draw two cards to AJT, that increases the difference in EV between the two plays by an extra 22.2¢.

Possibly different from the state where you’re playing, the state where you reside has tax rules too. Some states let you deduct your gambling losses from your gambling winnings. Some don’t. Some states have a state income tax on gambling winnings. Some don’t. Professional gamblers have different rules than non-professionals. If you itemize your W2Gs, it reduces other benefits you can claim.

I’m not a tax expert by any means, but I can safely say that there are significant costs to getting a $4,000 royal flush for many players.

The third reason royal flushes can be “bad news” is that casinos get excited if you get too many of them. Not so much for $4,000 royals perhaps, but if you play for larger stakes, $20,000 or higher royal flushes end up with you being discussed by casino management. Although exactly how many royals you hit is largely luck, being lucky can get you kicked out. Nobody has everbbeen kicked out for hitting too many flushes.

If players correctly understood the factors discussed today, even on a hand like A♣ 6♥ J♣ T♣ 3♣, where AJT is superior to AJT3 by 5.1¢, these players would intentionally and intelligently go for the flush — simply because ending up with the royal has so many additional costs.

(I understand that the two hands presented today look virtually the same to many players and they cannot see why the correct play is different. That’s a discussion for another day.)

Playing for quarters or less makes you immune from these considerations at most casinos. Some casinos, however, do make a $1,000 jackpot a hand-pay situation. If that’s the case where you play, some of your immunity disappears.

Taking slightly the worst of it to go for a jackpot that creates a financial burden strikes me as similar to paying money to buy heroin. Heroin ends up destroying an individual and to pay money to do this boggles the mind. Most healthy people are disciplined enough to stay away from heroin. Few gamblers are disciplined enough to be willing to pay a small premium in order to stay away from royal flushes.

Posted on by — 20 Comments

How Important is Having Fun?

I like my life. And my life includes (currently) maybe 40 hours a month playing video poker. In the good old days, there were long periods where I averaged 200+ hours of video poker each month.

That said, while video poker is not unpleasant at all to me, I do not do it because it’s fun. I do not consider it a hobby. I consider it a profession. It’s how I support myself and family.

There are many things I put up with:  sore back after long hours, sometimes smoky environments (although I’ve cut out playing at casinos where this is really bad, no matter how high the EV), distance in time and energy to get there, security issues, needing to be present according to “their schedule” rather than mine in order to get the right play, forced interactions with certain people with whom I’d rather not interact, my wife insisting I pick up the latest “casino crap” even though we have absolutely no use for whatever it is, eating at restaurants because they are “free” rather than because we enjoy them, etc.

I put up with these things because, overall, the profession is lucrative and the lifestyle it provides is pleasant. But my idea of “fun” would not include these things.

I call my writing career interesting. I call my radio career fun. I call the “big fish in a small pond” aspect to my life usually enjoyable (although it does make me a target for many). We enjoy cruising. We enjoy dancing at fancy dinner parties. We take advantage of going to shows. Some casino locations (Lake Tahoe, New Orleans, and Cherokee come to mind) are a lot of fun to visit after I’ve done my playing in the casino. At times, we have access to better restaurants than we would frequent if we had to pay retail. These goodies are a direct benefit from playing video poker.

Hosts and other casino employees are trained to say, “It’s not whether you win or lose but rather whether or not you have fun,” and it makes sense for them to be doing this. Most players are not successful at the game and if the casinos can convince players that gambling is fun and losing is all right, then the casinos will prosper more.

Many people buy the slogan in the preceding paragraph, and it actually makes sense that they do. People need to justify to themselves that what they spend their time and money on is “okay.” So, they convince themselves that playing is fun. And if that’s the way it is for you, that’s fine.

When I lived in a location without machines, I moved to Las Vegas. There are some casino locations where there isn’t anything playable if your choice is between playing and winning or not playing. (There are not nearly as many of these locations as people believe. There are MANY ways to win in a casino if you have the skills and do the scouting.) But if I couldn’t find games to beat, I simply wouldn’t go into a casino.

On cruise ships, I “never” visit the casino. (Well, there have been promotions where I got $100 in cash or $125 in slot machine play if I ran it through once, so I took the slot play and ran it through once on 7-5 Bonus or worse. But after I played the minimum to qualify for the bonus, I was out of there.)

I’m in casinos looking for profit, not fun. I see gambling as a means to support myself. I understand the swings, and I certainly don’t win every time (or even every year), but if the overall result over a period of three or four years is negative, I’ll quit. I’ll do something else. It just makes no sense for me to throw good money after bad.

Even though I don’t go to a casino specifically because it’s fun, while I’m there I try to enjoy myself. I joke or chat with friends and casino employees. I look to find humor and pleasantness in the things I’m doing — whether it is in the casino or not.

Posted on by — 11 Comments

What Should I Say?

There was a news story recently that 11 years ago, a college professor had told Julian Edelman (currently a New England Patriot wide receiver with two Super Bowl rings) that his goal of playing football professional was unrealistic and he should try something else. The teacher recently sent Edelman an apology for doubting his passion — Good for her! — and Edelman tweeted, “Set your goals high. Do whatever it takes to achieve them. #motivation.”

It turns out that Edelman went far beyond what this teacher thought he could do. But it also might be true that if this same teacher discouraged 25 other men from trying out for the NFL, she may well have been correct the other 25 times. Edelman is an exception — an undersized guy who made it through with a lot of grit and determination — and clearly there was some luck involved. (Not having a debilitating injury has to be a mixture of skill and luck.)

The reason I bring this us is that I also am a teacher. During the first session of my most recent semester of free video poker classes, one young man — I’m guessing 30 years old — “Charlie” — wasn’t very impressive in class. My class is interactive and I ask each student a question in turn. It’s pretty obvious to me if somebody has a knack for the game or not. By listening to how they answer the questions, how fast they grasp concepts, and the questions they ask, it’s not that hard for me to make some sort of an evaluation.

Still, it’s just my opinion. It’s at least possible that someone whom I think has no chance of becoming a decent player ends up being a successful one — in whatever way you wish to define that. It is, however, an educated opinion. I’ve been around successful gamblers for more than 40 years and there are recognizable patterns. Every successful gambler is different from all the others, but things such as apparent intelligence, a curiosity about how things work, and the ability to grasp concepts are pretty common.

Anyway, after the class, Charlie came up and told me he had recently received a settlement. He had $40,000 total, supplemented his living driving for Uber, and wanted to become rich playing video poker. What should I say?

It’s always a guess as to how much to encourage somebody. I really don’t want to give anybody false hope. Yes, I would earn a few extra dollars for each of my books and software that he purchased, but truly that’s small change. Telling somebody they have a great chance to succeed when I believe the opposite is true is not what I’m about.

At the same time, telling him flatly, “You have no chance at all,” isn’t what I’m about either. He might have been having an off day and he might be much smarter and more dedicated than I originally surmised. Although I was pretty sure I was correct in my judgment about him, I’ve been wrong before about many things.

So I told him that percentagewise, very few video poker players can support themselves just by gambling. It’s tough to succeed and a lot of players are competing with each other to do this. There is simply not enough room for everybody to make money at this. When this occasionally happens, casinos tighten up and then all the players struggle to find the next great opportunity.

I told him that the successful ones have some aptitude and work very hard perfecting their craft. And luck plays a role as well. You will likely hit “about” the right number of royals over time, but if you’re playing both quarter and dollars, it makes a big difference whether the royals you hit are quarter royals or dollar royals.

I also told him that while $40,000 sounded like a lot of money, money goes pretty fast when you’re paying rent, automobile expenses, whatever. If you’re using that money for both living and gambling, going through that in a year or two is very possible — even with some extra money coming in from driving. And then what?

Finally, I recommended he practice on the computer rather than in the casino. In-casino practice is very expensive. Playing on the nickel machines to save money isn’t usually a good option because those pay schedules are typically very bad. Even I would be a loser on most nickel pay schedules.

Anyway, that’s what I told him. I tried to balance being realistic with being reasonably supportive. What would you have said?

(Author’s note: After the first class and after this blog was written, Julian Edelman suffered a tear in the ACL of his right knee and will out all season. My reference early in this blog to Edelman being lucky to avoid debilitating injury now seems awkward in light of more recent events. I left the reference in unchanged — as the story was about Charlie, not Edelman. Writing blogs a month in advance means I’m not under big deadline pressure, but also sometimes current events change what I have written.)

Posted on by — 6 Comments

I’m Glad I Didn’t Hit It — Revisited

The Undoing Project is a recent book by Michael Lewis (author of Moneyball, Liar’s Poker, and The Blind Side, among others). It follows the careers of two Israeli psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, as they break new ground and basically invent the field of Behavioral Economics. I’ve written about these guys before and one man they greatly inspired — Dan Ariely.

Today I want to talk about the Undoing Project itself and the psychology of regret. Had I understood these concepts better many years ago, I would have never written a particular article that I now intend to revise.

When somebody wants to “undo” something, they usually think about relatively easy ways it could be accomplished. For example, Andy is driving and reaches an intersection just at the point where it’s a very close call whether to speed up and go through the intersection when the signal is orange or slow to a stop and wait for the next green. Andy’s decision may be the same or different from yours, but all drivers have occasionally experienced this sort of thing.

Regardless of whether Andy sped up or slowed down, let’s assume that at the next intersection, his car was sideswiped by another car which caused considerable damage, although thankfully Andy came out okay.

If Andy wanted to think about how this could have been undone, his mind would naturally go back to the speed-up-or-slow-down decision he had just made and conclude that if he had done the opposite, he would never have been sideswiped. He would not, typically, think that if the other driver had been killed the week before in a drive by shooting, then Andy would have avoided the accident. People just don’t think that way — but frankly, either “solution” would have kept Andy’s car from being crumpled.

When I read about this, I thought back to an article I had written perhaps 20 years ago. Seems like I was playing $1 10-7 Double Bonus at the Orleans and a woman sitting nearby commented, “I’m glad I didn’t hit it.” She was playing only four coins and had been dealt A♠ K♠ Q♠ J♠ 7♦. She threw the 7 away and ended up with a worthless 6♥.

I commented that if she had hit the royal, it would have been worth $1,000 rather than the nothing she received. I thought she was basically an idiot for preferring $0 to $1,000.

The thing is, though, that if she had hit the royal, she would have felt terrible that she hadn’t been playing max coins at that time. She would have seen it as a $3,000 loss rather than a $1,000 gain. The pain of losing $3,000 (even though it’s all in her mind) was bigger than the pleasure of actually winning $1,000.

Since I had studied economics before Kahneman and Tversky came along, I “knew” that having $1,000 was better than having $0. There was just no other way to look at it insofar as I was concerned. This woman was being very foolish.

Now, I realize that this woman isn’t alone in her thought processes. When she wished to “undo” the results of a “mere” $1,000 jackpot, she normally would think that, “I should have been playing five coins.” She “knew better” and now was being punished for only playing four coins. The pain she would feel would be very real to her.

I, of course, would have recommended she play one coin or five — depending on bankroll considerations, but never four. Still, that ship had sailed and she bet four coins. Although I still feel betting four coins per hand was foolish, I have more empathy for her “I’m glad I didn’t hit it” statement.

Posted on by — 7 Comments

A Matter of Perspective

If you’re a computer programmer working on a video poker game, the hand A♠ Q♥ T♥ 8♠ 3♥ is equivalent to A♦ Q♣ T♣ 8♦ 3♣, but both of those are different from A♣ Q♥ T♥ 8♠ 3♥. Can you see why?

The ranks of the cards are the same and in all three hands QT3 is suited. In the first two hands, the ace and eight are suited with each other. In the third hand, the ace and eight are unsuited.

To 99% of all players, 99% of the time, that distinction is irrelevant. It could possibly be important, for example, in a Double Bonus game where there is a progressive on four aces. At reset, you hold QT on this hand. If the progressive on four aces is high enough, you just hold the ace. How high the progressive has to be will be different if there are 12 cards still in the pack unsuited with the ace than if there are “only” 11.

With that kind of thinking in mind, assuming you are playing 9/6 Jacks or Better, do you see any difference between A♦ Q♣ T♣ 8♦ 3♣ and A♠ Q♥ T♥ 7♠ 3♥?

For anyone who would hold just the ace on either of these hands, you’re a hopeless Jacks or Better player. Holding the ace can be correct in certain other games, but not Jacks or Better.

The Basic Strategy play on both hands is to hold the QT. It’s the second-best play in both cases, but AQ is better. The fact that AQ is better than QT in these two hands is because the 3 is suited with the QT. This is known as a flush penalty and is generally only of concern to advanced players. Many players have enough trouble just learning the basic plays without dwelling on the fine points. What makes the hands different is that in the first hand, the 5-coin dollar player is making a nickel mistake versus a 2-cent mistake in the second.

The difference in the size of the mistakes is due to the 8 interfering with the straight possibilities of QT and the 7 not doing so. Why is this important? Well, it’s not if you’re playing the game with a 4,000-coin royal.  But if you’re playing a progressive, holding QT is correct in the first hand when the royal is at 4,685 and above, while in the second hand, holding QT is correct at 4,365 and above.

So, for whom is this kind of analysis important? Frankly, only to a pretty small self-selected group. Some pros learn these things — many don’t. A few recreational players become competent in these distinctions — although it may never be cost-effective for them.

Some of us just plain like studying things. This has been one of my “secrets to success.” The more I know about how and why things work the way they do, the easier it is for me to learn and memorize strategies.

If you think my secret is worthless to you, that’s your right. But in general, the more people study these things, the better their results turn out to be. Whether it makes sense dollars-and-cents-wise if you put a value on your time is debatable. But if it gives you pleasure to gain insight into these games, why the heck not do it?

Posted on by — 9 Comments

Dealing with Anguish

I received the following email recently: “I have been playing a few years and consider myself a pretty good player. I consider myself Bob Dancer-trained and try to play accordingly. I have given up at least six royals going for the high pair. My question is how you overcome the mental anguish of missing the royal. It takes me days to get over it. I am retired, play 10 to 20 hours a week of 9/6 Jacks or Better or 8/5 Bonus Poker. Help me, please. Anguished in Ann Arbor.”

I did some calculation and my best guess is that this has happened to me between 600 and 700 times. But it’s a guess, because I have no recollection of it EVER happening. This guess is based on how many million hands I’ve actually played, on which types of games, and how many were on single line compared to Triple Play through Hundred Play.

We’re talking about a hand such as K♦ Q♦ J♦ 5♦ K♠, where the correct play depends on the game and pay schedule. If you’re playing Jacks or Better or Bonus Poker, like Mr. Anguished is prone to do, you hold the kings. If you’re playing Deuces Wild, you hold the suited KQJ. If you’re playing Double Bonus where flushes return 7 for 1, you hold all four diamonds.

If you hold the kings (whether it’s the correct play or not), once in 1,081 times the first two cards out will be A♦ T♦. Also, once in 1,081 times the first two cards out will be the 7♥ 3♣. As far as I am concerned, these two situations are equally relevant.

After I’ve held the kings and pressed the draw button, my “job” is over for this hand, and it’s time for me to start concentrating on the next hand. The best I can do is to play the hands perfectly. Going back and changing the past is not something I know how to do.

Although I prefer that I end up with four kings on this hand, I’m not too invested in that result. I know that I’ll get the 4-of-a-kind one time in 360 (more precisely three times in 1,081), full houses, 3-of-a-kinds, and two pair more frequently than that, but the hand will stay a single high pair more than seven times out of ten.

I have this type of draw numerous times every week. Sometimes I connect on the 4-of-a-kind and usually I don’t. Over the course of a year or two, it’ll average out pretty well, whether tonight is lucky or unlucky.

I suspect I’ve ended up with a 4-of-a-kind from this kind of position more tha 2000 times in my life. What this also means is that I’ve thrown away the royal more than 600 times from this same position. Drawing three cards to a high pair, you get any specific two cards (i.e. the cards that fill in the royal) one time out of 1,081 and you complete the 4-of-a-kind three times out of 1,081. Over the course of years, the numbers come out very close to this.

How many of this estimated 600 missed royals have I noticed? Exactly zero. Checking to see how the cards would play if I made an alternative, inferior, draw is a huge waste of time in my opinion. Doing this consistently would reduce my speed from 800 hands per hour to about 400. Why on earth would I want to waste that much time? Since I’m playing only when I have the advantage, this is slashing my dollars-per-hour win rate in half. It’s not only worthless information, but it’s expensive to gather. If you’re playing Fifty Play or Hundred Play, it could take several minutes at the end of each hand to work through all of this. Why bother?

Mr. Anguish seems to have the core belief that a missed royal is a tragic thing. He ignores the fact that trying for the royal every time (so that he can be assured of getting it when the cards are just right) would have cost him an extra 6,000 coins for every extra 4,000-coin royal received. He berates himself for not being clairvoyant enough to see the unforeseeable future.

The only reason Mr. Anguish takes the time to do this is to check whether he should feel really, really awful this time. One time in 1,081 he discovers that yes, indeed, feeling really, really awful this time is appropriate. The relief he feels the other 1,080 times is likely minimal.

To me, ignoring the specifics of a “what if” draw comes naturally. Perhaps Mr. Anguish is compelled to do this and can’t help himself. I don’t know. Offering useful advice on how you should deal with your compulsions is something I’m not good at. If this is something Mr. Anguish can learn NOT TO DO, I believe his life will work better.