With all the casino cheating going on these days (see my previous two-part post), casinos have stepped up their game. Not only do they cheat you by not paying when you win, but they strengthen the move by enlisting the local district attorney to extort you. The way it works is that the casino doesn’t pay. Simultaneously, they get the DA to intimidate the players by filing charges relating to the game, or threatening to file charges. A law-abiding AP is terrified by criminal charges, so it’s a no-brainer to accept the implicit deal — virtually always available — to have the DA drop the charges, and let the casino keep the money. Continue reading Legal Musings: “Making a Bet After the Outcome is Known”
Category: Advanced Strategy
What Are You Trying to Get?
My niece Jessica, in her late 20s, recently married Blake. They live in Southern California. I asked them beforehand to choose their wedding present from me — either a check or a Vegas weekend. They chose the latter and then asked if it could include some video poker lessons. Sure, no problem.
In mid-August they came to town. I got them a nice hotel room, Penn and Teller tickets, and Bonnie and I took them out to a nice dinner. And, of course, a video poker lesson.
Jessica is NOT a gambler at all, but her new husband has been to Vegas a lot. Jessica wanted a game where she could have fun gambling and not lose more than $5 or $10 an hour. I got them a room at the Palms, where they have three machines that include penny Fifty Play 9/6 Jacks or Better. So long as she played five hands or fewer at a time, it would basically be impossible for her to out-lose her budget.
I used my normal class notes. I was unsure whether they’d be appropriate. Jessica has an engineering degree from an Ivy League school and my beginner Jacks or Better class is geared for people with average IQs. I don’t’ know Blake’s academic background, but I’ve known him for a couple of years and he’s pretty bright.
My classes are typically interactive with me asking questions to all of the students. So I went to their hotel suite, sat between them, and used the PowerPoint presentation on my laptop. I quickly concluded that asking Jessica most of the questions made more sense than switching back and forth, simply because the concepts were foreign to her and Blake was way ahead of her as a player.
One of the problem hands was A♠ K♠ 3♦ 4♦ 5♦ and I asked Jessica whether she should hold the black cards or the red cards? The way the class is set up, the diamonds are included in Rule 8 (3-card straight flush that is either consecutive or contains two high cards) and the spades are included in Rule 9 (two suited high cards). The ground rules of the class say you pick the rule that comes first, so in this case you hold the diamonds. (Note: this was a beginner’s class. Intermediate and Advanced classes have different rules.)
Jessica understood that I wanted her to pick the earlier rule, but then she asked, “What are you trying to get when you hold the diamonds?”
I thought I’d heard every beginner’s question fifty times, but this was a new one — and I’m not sure I gave her an answer that made her happy.
I clicked over to the Video Poker for Winners software and called up this hand by going to ANALYZE àSELECT SPECIFIC CARDS. I entered these five cards and then clicked on ANALYZE THIS HAND. I then clicked on SHOW DETAILS.
On the spreadsheet that showed up, the software said there were 1,081 different combinations of cards you could draw to 3♦ 4♦ 5♦. Of those 1,081 combinations, 941 of them give you no winning score at all, 18 of them give you Jacks or Better (paying 5 coins), 27 of them give you two pair (paying 10), 9 times you get 3-of-a-kind (paying 15), 41 times you get a straight (paying 20), 42 times you get a flush (paying 30), and 3 times you get a straight flush (paying 250). From that starting position, it’s impossible to get a full house, 4-of-a-kind, or royal flush.
To get the Expected Value of holding that combination, you take a weighted average of all those. That is, (5*18 + 10*27 + 15*9 + 20*41 + 42*30 + 3*250)/1081. If it’s been awhile since you studied math, you do all of the multiplication first — and then do the addition — and then the division. If the parentheses weren’t there, it would be a different order. The answer comes out to be 3.0759 (listed in the leftmost column on the spreadsheet), which means on average this hand is worth that many coins. Most players don’t want to do this math at all, which is okay so long as you have the appropriate software available. But you should probably at least know how the numbers are calculated.
I’d LIKE to get a straight flush when I hold 3♦ 4♦ 5♦, simply because that’s the highest-paying end result of what’s possible, but I can’t really say I’m TRYING for it. I’m looking for the combination of cards to hold with the highest EV — which is NOT necessarily the one with the biggest possible prize.
When holding A♠ K♠, there are now 16,215 combinations and the software gives the number of combinations hitting each category — the highest of which is a royal flush for 4,000 coins. But the average is “only” 2.9402 coins. Whether that’s high or low is only relevant in comparison to the EV of other possibilities in the hand. Since 3.0759 is higher than 2.9402, we hold the diamonds. Had the diamonds been 3♦ 4♦ 6♦ instead, with an EV of 2.6688, we would have held the spades.
My answer of “I’m not really trying for anything” didn’t particularly satisfy her the first time she heard it, but if she reads the Winner’s Guide and practices on the software (wedding presents, of course), I’m sure she’ll catch on if she wants to. (I suspect she won’t want to — I couldn’t even talk them into getting and using a player’s card!)
Still, I’m glad she asked the question. I don’t think I’ve heard it before — and now I have a good answer if I hear it again.
Does it Matter?
You’re at your favorite casino. You’ve played a lot all month and are now there for the big drawing. Here’s the way it works:
Ten winners get called — they have a minute and a half to show up and identify themselves. If one or more spots are unclaimed after 90 seconds, more names are called. Eventually there are 10 contestants to “play the game.” Good news! You’re one of the chosen few — but I’m not going to tell you now whether you were first or last.
The way the game works is that 10 unmarked envelopes, in numbered spaces, are on a big board. Prizes total $25,000. The distribution of the prizes in the envelopes is:
First $10,000
Second $4,000
Third – Fifth $2,000 each
Sixth – Tenth $1,000 each
Any of the players may end up with any of the envelopes. The first player drawn has the biggest choice. The last player drawn has no choice at all, but clearly it’s better to have this “no choice” rather than not to have been called at all.
Here are the questions: What’s your EV (expected value) if you get the first choice? What’s your EV if you barely make it in and you end up taking the last envelope? (We’re assuming the envelopes are indistinguishable from one another. I’ve been at drawings where actual cash was in the envelopes and the envelope with 100 C-notes inside was quite a bit fatter than the ones with “only” 10 Benjamins. In that drawing, you definitely wanted to be first to pick because visual inspection of the envelopes contained valuable information.)
The answer, of course, is “it depends.” (I like questions where this is the answer. That gives me something to write about!)
For the first player to select, the EV is clearly $2,500. A total of $25,000 is being given away to 10 players, and $25,000 divided by 10 is $2,500. This is as simple as an EV calculation gets.
For the second player, his actual EV depends on what the first player chose. If the first player selected a $1,000 envelope, then the second player’s EV is $24,000 divided by nine, which is $2,667. If the first player selected the $10,000 envelope, then the second players EV drops to $15,000 divided by nine, which is $1,667.
By the time we get down to the last player, there will be one envelope left and the EV is whatever prize hasn’t been claimed — meaning $10,000; $4,000; $2,000; or $1,000.
How do you take a weighted average of that?
Before I answer that question, let’s change this discussion a little. Assume each of the players selected an envelope but didn’t open them until the very end when they opened them together. In that case, each of the players has an EV of $2,500. There is still $25,000 in the prize pool, so far as they know, and they each have one in 10 chances to get any of the prizes.
Now, change it again. Assume you are the last person in line but you put earphones and blinders on until it’s your turn. Based on the information you have, you now have the same $2,500 EV as you would if everybody opened the envelopes at the same time!
If you are watching what happens and you’re still last, and you do this many times, on average your EV will be $2,500 — with variance!
Mathematically, on average it doesn’t matter whether you pick first or last. It can matter psychologically however. You see the $10,000 and $4,000 envelopes opened by somebody else and it’s a real downer if you’re somebody who sweats your daily scores! But sometimes getting called last will mean you see all of the smaller envelopes being opened and you’re left with the big one! On average it doesn’t matter, but if you want to feel bad about it, knock yourself out.
Since there are five $1,000 envelopes out of 10 total, half the time the last guy will end up with $1,000. (Of course, half the time the first guy — with complete freedom to choose any of the envelopes — also gets $1,000.)
When the first guy picks $10,000 (which will happen 10% of the time), it LOOKS like having the first choice was a big advantage. But it really wasn’t. He just made a lucky pick.
When Experts Say Opposite Things
When I was in graduate school 45 years ago, plus or minus, I heard about an incident many years prior to that at the University of Chicago. It appears that there was an elevator for a campus building with a “Students Only” sign on it. One professor entered and was challenged, presumably in a friendly way, because he wasn’t a student. The professor answered, “We are all students. I study much more today than when I was your age.”
I’m that way too. I study gambling as much or more today as I ever did. One “advantage” of hosting a radio show about gambling is that I am “forced” to read gambling books that I wouldn’t otherwise pick up. I read the book in order to try to ask interesting questions of our guests. This gives me a much broader grasp of gambling than most players have.
I have many gurus — in the sense that I listen to what they have to say and try to apply it to my own situation. Two (of many) are Ed Miller and Richard Munchkin. Recently I realized that they said virtually the opposite thing about a subject — although ironically they both respect each other and would probably agree with the point of view of the other guy.
Sounds strange, right? Let me continue.
Ed Miller writes a lot about No Limit Hold’Em cash games with an emphasis on low stakes games. His recent book, The Course: Serious Hold’Em Strategy for Smart Players, is an excellent treatise on how to make money in $1-$2 and $2-$5 games. We’ve spoken about the book on the air, but we barely scratched the surface of what the book holds.
Near the end of the book is a section entitled “The Pitfalls of Running Good.” Miller says, “Running good out of the gate is one of the worst things that can happen to players. If they rack up big wins early on, a couple of bad things can happen. First, they develop unrealistic expectations. . . . Second, these early wins reinforce bad habits.”
I’m not going to quote his entire argument, but I found it persuasive. You need to guard against the dangers of running good. And Miller discusses several ways to do that.
Richard Munchkin, of course, is my co-host on the Gambling with an Edge radio show. However much I’ve prepared to listen to what our guest has to say on the air, I’m always eager to hear what Richard has to say as well. Although I often prepare a script beforehand and Richard knows where I’m going to go in the discussion, I never know beforehand what he’s going to say and I find that interesting and educational.
On more than one occasion, Munchkin has opined that a disproportionate number of successful gamblers ran good at the beginning. Why? Because a disproportionate number of the players who ran bad quit gambling! Somebody who always seems to lose has a tendency to give up and conclude that gambling is not for him.
So Ed Miller says running good at the beginning is one of the worst things to happen to you and Richard Munchkin says it happened to most successful gamblers. Not exactly contradicting each other — but close.
After mulling this over for a while, I decided they’re both right!
Running good does create some unreasonable expectations and bad habits, but gamblers who end up successful eventually learn to deal with these things. (If they don’t, they’re not successful gamblers. Nobody runs good forever.)
However bad running good is in terms of learning to play the game the right way, I’ll take it every day! While I understand Miller’s argument, I’d rather be $10,000 ahead than $10,000 behind. And so would you.
As to whether Munchkin was right about today’s successful players running good at the start, I started to examine whether it was true for me in particular. A case could be made that it was — but it also doesn’t matter. Anecdotal evidence about any one player (including me) doesn’t come close to proving or disproving any statement starting with “Most players . . .”
But I found Richard’s argument persuasive as well. The early loser tends to quit. The early winners tend to keep going. He’s looking at tendencies — not something that is correct 100% of the time.
I like it better when my gurus disagree with each other. It forces me to think about the arguments and come to my own conclusions. That’s how I improve my craft. And the fact that these two gurus are addressing games other than video poker means I always have to see if what they said applies to my game as well. Again, that’s how I improve my craft.
D T B
Bonnie’s family accepts that I’m a successful gambler. They also believe that the methods and discipline I use to succeed involve far more study than they want to invest — especially since it will never be more than an occasional hobby for any of them. Continue reading D T B
You Have to Work it Out Yourself
I get dozens of video poker emails a month from people I’ve never met. Often the emails are similar to the following:
“I play Double Double Bonus. From a hand like KK773, I hold the kings and a friend tells me to hold two pair. Which is right?”
I typically answer that it’s correct to hold two pair — and the answer would be easy to obtain using video poker software or by consulting a strategy card or Winner’s Guide. If they wish to get better at video poker, they need to be able to check these things out themselves. Continue reading You Have to Work it Out Yourself
Identifying a Pattern
I planned on playing for six hours at the Palms from shortly after midnight until about 6:00 a.m. on the early morning of Wednesday, April 27. It was a double point day— I also earned points for gift cards, a small amount of value for the weekly drawing, plus my play kept the mailers and other benefits coming. There were only two machines that I wanted to play, both containing $1 Ten Play Deuces Wild Ultimate X, and I expected other players to want the same machines on that day. So I went at hours when other players preferred to sleep. And this time, at least, one machine was available. Continue reading Identifying a Pattern
The Boss Just Sat at Our Table with Game On: What Now?
A handful of times in my career, a boss has sat down at our table while my BP and I were playing a target game. Many players have never experienced that scenario, and completely panic when it happens for the first time. They’re not even sure what to make of it, but I’ll tell you. Continue reading The Boss Just Sat at Our Table with Game On: What Now?
Too Good to be True?
Casinos are in the business to make money. They don’t intentionally make mistakes. Still, sometimes mistakes happen that smart players can exploit. You don’t need to be a pro. You just have to be alert and savvy — and find one of these mistakes. It also helps if you have the requisite knowledge and bankroll — but that’s not necessary. If someone brought the following to me and nobody else knew about it, I might well have paid a $1,000 finder’s fee. Continue reading Too Good to be True?
Picking Up Free Play
Richard Munchkin received a note from a Gambling with an Edge listener about a subject to talk about. The note referred to a casino where the formerly 8/5 Bonus machines were recently downgraded to 7/5. Part of the note said: Continue reading Picking Up Free Play