Category: Advanced Strategy

Posted on by — 14 Comments

Which is More Believable?

I recently read the book Fluke by Joseph Mazur. This book looks at some improbably real “coincidences” and helps us understand the math behind what happened.

Like somebody who writes that she hit a royal flush on the first hand she played two days in a row and wants to know, “What are the odds on that?” Mazur correctly points out that there’s a huge difference between looking at how often that happens to someone anywhere and how likely it was to happen to Mary Smith on December 12 and 13 in 2015? Hugely different problems and Mazur does well to explain that.

If you’ve ever been amazed by that day in 2004 when you ran into somebody you hadn’t seen in 30 years — and you and he both just happened to be in a small café in Turkey at the same time — then this book will help you understand that it wasn’t as flukish as you thought.

One case Mazur covers, however, is Joan Ginther, who won the Texas lottery at least four times over 18 years. Although I accept that Mazur’s mathematical talents in this area are far beyond mine, this is a situation that, in my opinion, Mazur misanalyzes.

Mazur goes through the probability of anybody picking a winning lottery number — and he focuses on the type where you pick six numbers. He goes through the math of winning several times, the number of people playing, the number of lotteries there are in the United States, and concludes that it’s not that unrealistic to expect someone winning four or more times.

He also duly notes that the actual winner, Joan Ginther, has a Ph.D. in mathematics from Stanford University and possibly figured out some way to boost the odds in her favor. He mentions this and then ignores it.

I think Ginther’s background and intelligence are the crux of the matter.

Without precisely ranking Stanford among the elite universities of the world, I’m going to posit without proof that it’s on that list somewhere and that Ph.D.s in mathematics from that university typically have genius-level intelligence with a great facility at numbers.

Further, according to reports in several publications, Ginther’s wins weren’t on lottery tickets where you pick six numbers. Ginther’s wins were on scratchers, which is totally different animal. On a scratcher, some numbers on a grid are already exposed when you buy the ticket. It’s very possible that Ginther used this pre-printed information to decide which lottery tickets to buy. If so, the odds against her were significantly different than what they would be for someone who picked the cards blindly.

This type of advantage was discussed by Mohan Srivastava in https://www.wired.com/2011/01/ff_lottery/.  When Srivastava was a guest on our Gambling with an Edge radio show, he said he didn’t know the details of Ginther’s wins, but based on the analysis by a journalist named Peter Mucha, Srivastava speculated that Ginther used methods related to ticket distribution to win. (Listen here) If you like that podcast, Srivastava was on our show earlier (found here) where he went more into the basics of beating the lottery, but only mentioned the Joan Ginther case in passing.

Mathematicians (and video poker players, for that matter) tend to be better than average at “pattern recognition.” I can’t quantify this, but it does seem to lend more credence to the possibility that perhaps Ginther noticed and exploited certain patterns. Srivastava’s personal success was certainly based on this.

So, who’s right? Ginther isn’t talking, although she is said to live in Las Vegas and we’d love to have her on the show.  Let’s look at some assumptions and do a sort of Occam’s Razor analysis:

Mazur:  Pick 6 lotteries are played in a lot of places and have been for a long time. Getting four big wins could happen once by chance to anyone, and it just happened to be Joan Ginther.

Srivastava:  The lotteries Ginther won were not Pick 6, but had other characteristics. It’s possible to analyze those characteristics to gain an edge — if you’re smart enough and dedicated enough. A Ph.D. in mathematics from Stanford University is likely smart enough and dedicated enough to succeed. Although Ginther’s success had a luck element to it, assuming she was a skilled gambler makes a lot more sense than assuming she just got lucky.

In my opinion, Srivastava’s argument makes more sense. What do you believe?

Posted on by — 23 Comments

The Best Video Poker Player

I’m probably the most famous video poker player of all time — not that there’s any real competition nor is there any prize. This “award” comes from me being a well-known writer and teacher for more than 20 years. That has made me “high profile” — which is a far different criterion than “best.”

So, what attributes would the best video poker player have? Presumably there would be some mix of the following:

  1. Knows several games at the professional level.
  2. Studies and practices enough to stay sharp on all games he is currently playing.
  3. Is successful at bringing home the money over the course of several years.
  4. Maintains sufficient on-hand bankroll so that when the opportunities present themselves, the money is available to exploit those opportunities.
  5. Is able to keep his welcome at casinos — especially in comparison with other players with more or less the same results.
  6. Is able to re-establish relationships with casinos whenever restrictions take place.
  7. Is good at figuring out how any particular promotion may be exploited. This requires some intelligence. I’m sure bright people do better at this than not-so-bright people, but I don’t think being a genius is necessary.
  8. Knows the slot clubs inside and out.
  9. Scouts enough to know the relevant games at all nearby casinos.
  10. Keeps up on the promotions so he knows when to play where.
  11. Maintains physical health and stamina, including maintaining reasonable diet and exercise, so that long hours may be put in when special opportunities come along.
  12. Has a network of players who share information about good plays.
  13. Has the mathematical skills to figure out new games when they come around. This is a key one, but there are actually several mathematical skills — including computer programming — which come into play. It is very possible you’re a better programmer than me and I’m better at other “mathy” kinds of things than you are.
  14. Can use the existing computer software (assuming you haven’t created your own which is better in all respects) to figure out various promotions easily.
  15. Can psychologically deal with inevitable losing streaks.
  16. Can avoid huge spending sprees after big wins.
  17. Likes Country Western music (okay, this probably shouldn’t be on the list. I was just checking to see if you were still paying attention.)
  18. LIKES to play and does so willingly. If it’s just a tedious way to earn money, you’re probably not going to be doing whatever is necessary to get and stay sharp.

There are probably things I’ve missed, but you get the idea. There are a LOT of things that make up being a strong player.

Which one is most important? I don’t have a clear-cut ranking of these attributes and even if I did, there would be room for others to disagree. If you’re not good at several of these things, you’re not a strong player. The “best” would consist of some composite score of all these things.

Whomever the best player is, I’m confident that I’m better than him in some of these categories. Likewise, all strong players are better than me in several of these categories and thousands of players are better than me in at least one category.

Being really strong in one or two of these areas can sometimes make up for a shortcoming elsewhere. There are a LOT of different formulas for success.

Finally, your score on this list is basically a secret. There are no published statistics ranking players in any of these categories.

If I’m leaving out important attributes necessary to be a good video poker player, please comment on this article. Some of these comments may well generate one or more articles in the future — and I’m always looking for more things to write about.

Posted on by — 9 Comments

Learning the Wrong Lesson

Most of us continue to learn as we progress through life. A 70-year-old man has many more life experiences than a 20-year-old. Most 20-year-olds have more recently been a student and have a more flexible mind than their grandparents, but their grandparents have been in many more situations and have learned from them. That learning experience is very valuable.

Unless they’re a football fan.

On a kickoff in the National Football League, a “touchback” — meaning the kick goes into the end zone or beyond and the receiving team makes no attempt to run it out — results in the ball being placed on the 25-yard line.

If the receiving team runs the ball out and gets “only” to the 20-yard line, the typical announcer says that running it out was a “bad decision.” The reason he says this is obvious. Had the kick returner given up and taken a knee, the ball would have been at the 25-yard line. Since he only got to the 20-yard line, any fool can see that it was a bad decision.

Conversely, had the runner gotten to the 30-yard line, this would have been pronounced a “good decision.”

Seventy-year-olds have heard this kind of football-announcer logic hundreds or thousands of times. And they sometimes believe this kind of thinking because it makes sense.

Except it’s dead wrong — at least to my way of thinking.

Whether or not you have made a good decision or a bad decision should be determined at the time you make the decision — NOT sometime down the road. In the case of football, the player needs to consider how deep the ball is kicked, his speed, the score of the game, the placement of the players on both teams, and a variety of other factors. Sometimes another player has the responsibility of determining whether or not the kick should be run out because the guy who is catching the ball needs to concentrate on that and not on where everybody else is.

When the player catches the ball and runs it out, he cannot know exactly where he will be tackled or run out of bounds. He can have a good idea — but he doesn’t know exactly. Over time he learns that on average, if the ball is kicked nine yards deep, he doesn’t get as far as when the kick comes down right on the goal line. This is an important factor in his decision. He learns that balls kicked really high take longer to come down so he’s more likely to be tackled earlier than if it were a low kick. This is also an important factor in his decision. There are many other such factors and eventually he becomes better at this — or is replaced by somebody else.

In gambling, many people use the same type of illogic — namely if they win they were playing well and if they lose they were playing poorly. Again, this is dead wrong to my way of thinking.

A good bet, or a good decision, should be evaluated as good or bad when you make the bet — not afterwards. With the hand Q♠ J♠ T♠ 9♠ 8♦, discarding the 8 and seeing if you connect on a flush or straight flush this time is definitely not the way to evaluate what the correct play is. (Generally speaking, in games without wild cards, when the straight flush pays 250 you keep the straight and when it pays 400 or more you go for the straight flush.)

People who listen to a lot of football games and learn to accept the kind of logic presented there have a tough time accepting this “truth.”

What makes “my” truth better than the truth told by football announcers? (It’s not “my” truth at all, but merely the truth I’m presenting here. It was discovered long before I came along.) The most successful gamblers from a variety of disciplines accept it.

Poker players talk about pot odds. If the pot is offering 3-1 odds and the actual odds are only 2-1 against you, poker teachers tell you that you should make the bet even though you are going to lose it two-thirds of the time.

Michael Shackleford, the head guy at the Wizard of Odds series of websites, who is arguably more of a theoretician than a gambler (although clearly, he is both), phrases it as, “It’s not whether you win or lose; it’s whether you had a good bet.”

The basic strategy in blackjack says you should splits 8s against a ten (as well as all other up cards.) Doing this, you’re frequently going to lose twice as much as if you either stood on the 16 or took another card. This decision is made because on average, you’ll lose less money splitting the 8s than you will making either of the other two plays. And “on average” means over several times, not just this time in particular.

In sports betting, you might see -150 on one side of a bet and +125 on the other — meaning you have to bet $150 to win $100 if you lay the favorite, and you win $125 for your $100 bet if you take the underdog. Either side might be the smart bet — depending on a bunch of factors. Waiting until after the game is over and THEN saying “I should have bet on . . .” is not the way it’s done — but that’s the way football announcers tell it.

Experience is a great teacher. But sometimes it teaches us the wrong lesson.

Posted on by — 10 Comments

It Takes More Than a Book

In addition to where my blogs usually appear, starting a few months ago they also have been found at www.gamblingwithanedge.com. This is a site created by the folks at The Las Vegas Advisor and groups together podcasts from the radio show and blogs from a number of successful gamblers.

One feature of that site is it’s a handy place to post your own comments for or against anything written. Today’s blog was inspired by comment written about one of my recent blogs. It wasn’t an unfriendly comment. It wasn’t a personal attack of any sort. It was likely intended as gentle teasing. But nonetheless I disagree strongly with what was written.

The blog in question was dated October 25, 2016 and part of it referred to an incident where I “instructed” my ex-wife Shirley on my way of gambling. More than one reader responded with how they have taught spouses how to gamble.

One reader posed the following:  My wife and I have been married for 44 years. She has just started to play VP. Instead of me teaching her I just gave her a copy of Bob’s book on how to win at JoB…….if she loses there is only one person (other than herself) to blame……sorry Bob.

Thanks for plugging my Winner’s Guide (actually co-written with Liam W. Daily). If I personally were trying to learn a game and someone had already created that kind of a book, it would definitely be part of my learning process. I use all sorts of sources to help myself get better at things.

With that said, tossing someone a Winner’s Guide and telling them they’re now on their own is a lousy way to teach them how to play a winning game.

Why? Because people learn in different ways. Some people learn by reading. Some learn by listening. Some learn by doing and being corrected. Some people are A students and very proficient at comprehending what they read, but more people aren’t.

A Winner’s Guide make a lot more sense if you also are using computer software along with it. I personally use Video Poker for Winners, WinPoker, and Wolf Video Poker to assist me. For learning a new game they all work, and each has small  advantages the others don’t.

Even with a computer and a book, most players can’t tell you when Q♠ T♠ 8♠ is more valuable than a 4-card inside straight with three high cards in the same hand. Studying at that level by themselves is beyond what most players can or will do. A personal tutor (assuming that’s what you call an accomplished player who has already learned the game well) can explain this easily enough, but it will often take several repetitions before the new student has it mastered. And then a few weeks or months later, a review will often be required. And then later, another review.This kind of information doesn’t stick firmly in the minds of many.

Perhaps more fundamentally, even though the Jacks or Better Winner’s Guide can help teach you how to play each hand correctly, it won’t turn you into a winning player. Although there are some exceptions in a few places, the best common version of the game returns 99.54% before including the slot club and other benefits. That means the house has an edge of 0.46% if you can play perfectly — and it takes a while to learn how to play perfectly.

The concepts of free play, mailers, promotions, comps, and other goodies won’t be learned from the Winner’s Guides. These concepts are every bit as important as how to play the hands correctly, and are arguably more difficult to learn.

Plus, they keep changing. Very few slot clubs are the same today as they were three years ago. Similar, yes. Identical, no. And knowing where those differences lie can make or break you.

Although my blogs sometimes address these subjects, I may be talking about casinos and/or stakes which you don’t play. For “local” (to the student) information, that student is going to need local tutoring.

Does every reader of my blog need to be a tutor? No, of course not. But thinking that you’ve done a good job teaching by giving the student a book, even a good book, is fooling yourself. It takes a lot more than a book.

And if you become a teacher to help somebody else, you will become a better player in the process.

Posted on by — 16 Comments

Legal Musings: “Making a Bet After the Outcome is Known”

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”

Posted on by — 7 Comments

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.

Posted on by — 14 Comments

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.

Posted on by — 7 Comments

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.

Posted on by — 14 Comments

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

Posted on by — 10 Comments

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