Tag: Bob Dancer

Posted on by — 3 Comments

A Certain Kind of Approach

A month or two ago, I mentioned on the Gambling with an Edge podcast that I have a buddy with two kids — “Jack,” 12 years old and “Mary Ann,” 10 years old — who are becoming fascinated with the game of backgammon. I’ve agreed to provide them with some backgammon instructions, and I’m enjoying the process of teaching them. I’ve taught adults for years but have had limited experience with teaching children.

The lesson on this particular day was about the doubling cube.

“Let’s say,” I began, “that from a certain position, your opponent will win 26 times out of 36 and you will win 10 times out of 36.” Backgammon players will have no trouble constructing one or more positions that meet this criterion, but I want today’s column to be understood by those readers who do not understand backgammon as well as those who do.

“Let’s say that you are playing for $1 and your opponent,” I continued, “offers you the doubling cube.  What this means is that you have the choice of accepting the cube and playing out the game for $2 or passing the cube and conceding $1 right now. What would you do?”

Both kids are pretty bright and are in STEM schools, which specialize in science and math, but the boy is two years older.  When it comes to figuring out mathematical problems (which is what I thought this was), those extra two years make a difference.

At this point in time, neither knew how to figure this out (I hoped that this would be different by the end of the lesson), so both went with instinct. Jack could see that he was a big underdog to win, and he’d much prefer to lose $1 rather than $2, so he announced that he would pass the double.

Mary Ann wasn’t interested in the math at all. Her goal was to beat her brother. Since she knew she couldn’t beat him by going with the same answer he gave, she announced she was going to take the double.

Then I went through the math so they would know how to solve these “take-or-pass” backgammon problems in the future.

If they passed the double, like Jack wanted to do, they would lose $1. That much was clear to everybody.

But if they took the double, how do you figure that out?

Well, 10 times out of 36 you win, which would put you ahead $20 on those rolls. Twenty-six times out of 36 you lose, which would put you down $52 on those rolls. Your net loss in 36 rolls is $32, so the average loss is $32/$36 which comes out to 89¢. Since 89¢ is smaller than $1, the correct play is to take the double.

The acronym “QED” comes from the Latin quod erat demonstrandum and means I have shown that which was to be demonstrated — or, basically, this math proves my case. Neither child, however, was impressed by what I had done.

Jack assured me he understood the math, but he would still pass the double. He simply didn’t want to risk losing the extra dollar most of the time.

Mary Ann cared even less for the math. The important thing to her was she got it right and her brother got it wrong! What could possibly be a better result than that? “That was fun! Do you have another puzzle for us, Bob?”

There was nothing more for me to say. In my opinion, playing games successfully depends on understanding and following the math. They both rejected the math. I was out of ammunition.

I spoke to their father, a successful gambler, a few days later about this. I think he took the right approach. He said, “I really don’t care if they become professional gamblers or not. But if they do, I want them to know the math backwards and forwards. They certainly don’t need to know this math when they are pre-teenagers — and who knows what their aptitudes will be in a decade or more? Later, if and when they decide that playing games competently is what they want to do, that’s when it’s important that they learn this stuff.”

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Getting It Straight

Every now and then I share results with somebody in a drawing or tournament. Sometimes, other people do it to lower the fluctuations in their bankroll. That is, they would much prefer to get half the amount twice as often. Assuming they are playing with an edge, this smooths out the swings. One can think of it as getting to the long run more quickly.

That’s not the primary reason I share results. I share results for social reasons. Simply put, it’s more fun to do things with your friends.  Sometimes the decreased bankroll variance is important to the friend with whom I would share. Sometimes not.

Once you’ve agreed to share, only half the work is done. You need to carefully lay out what is and is not included in the agreement. For example, is this agreement for one drawing only? Is it always in effect unless otherwise specified? Is it never in effect unless explicitly specified?

If the award is in free play, do you share in cash? (That is: Let’s say one of the players earns $1,000 in free play. When it plays it through, he runs salty and only collects $900. Does he owe his partner $500, $450, or some other number?)

If the prize is in cash, are 1099s to be issued? If the prizes are $1,000 or less, the tax implications are fairly minor. If there is a rare $50,000 prize, the tax implications are not minor at all. Issuing a 1099 for $25,000 is the cleanest way to handle it, but if this isn’t agreed upon up front, hard feelings will abound.

Several years ago, Jamie Gold won the World Series of Poker main event for $12 million. He had a partner putting up some fraction of his entry fee, and possibly the partnership wasn’t thought through clearly enough. There was a major disagreement as to how the tax liability would be handled. The poker community generally appeared to be against Gold. Eventually it got settled and Jamie resumed his career — probably because he was wealthy and willing to play in games with significantly stronger players. But there were hard words and angry feelings until it got resolved. I’m not involved in any sharing opportunities where a jackpot anywhere near that large is possible, but that incident offers a lesson nonetheless.

At a recent Big Draw lottery at the M resort, most people earned zero, but you could earn $50, $200, $1,000, $10,000, or (with a less than 1-in-50 million chance) $250,000. The lower amounts were in free play and the largest one was in cash. The deal I had with another player was all prizes would be settled for the full 50% amount in cash, and if lightning struck and one of us got $250,000, a 1099 would be issued for half that amount.

Was that the best way to do it? I don’t know. But it was agreed upon up front and both of us thought it was fair. So that means it was fair.

Sharing isn’t always symmetrical. In a slot tournament where it’s just “hit the button as fast as you can,” everybody has more-or-less an equal chance and you can share with anybody who’s not completely senile.

In a video poker tournament, it’s a different situation. Some players are simply much faster than others, some can make better decisions than others in a split second, and some can correctly adjust their strategy in the middle of a round when it’s appropriate to go for a “royal-or-bust” strategy. You need to be very careful with whom you partner.

I recently shared in a video poker tournament with someone who I later discovered was a slightly faster player than I was. However, I probably made better decisions than he did because I’ve been doing this a couple of decades longer than he has. Neither of us know this for sure. It was close enough to being fair that neither of us were worrying about it.

Sometimes there are drawings where once you’re selected as one of the winners, you have an equal chance at each of the prizes. In these circumstances, if you’re one of the winners and want to make a deal with another of the winners, it’s fair. However many tickets you had going into the drawing no longer matters. At this point, you’re both in there and have equal chances.

If you have unequal numbers of tickets in the drum, it isn’t easy to come up with a fair system for sharing — simply because you usually cannot win more than one prize. For that reason, if I have 1,000 tickets and you have 500, giving me 2/3 of the prize money would be unfair to you unless there is only one prize. I have twice the chances as you to be called first, but then the rest of my tickets are dead while yours are still alive.

Still, if there’s enough goodwill between the players, usually players would go with a 2/3 and 1/3 split in this example. It’s “close enough,” and you’re friends. If there wasn’t sufficient goodwill, normally no split is done.

Finally, some people can be trusted with money and some can’t. Whenever I’ve felt I’ve been intentionally shortchanged by a player, I let others know — sometimes by an article in this blog. Once somebody shows he will steal from or shortchange me, I never will give him a second chance.  

Posted on by — 1 Comment

But Wouldn’t I Get My Money Back More Often?

I was teaching beginner 9/6 Bonus Poker Deluxe in my Tuesday noon class at the South Point. (The semester will continue every Tuesday until September 4.) The hand we were discussing was 3♦4♦5♦Q♣J♣.

The class is taught using a top-down strategy where you select the rule that comes first. Holding 3♦4♦5♦ (along with certain other 3-card straight flushes) was covered by Rule 8. Holding Q♣J♣ (along with the other two suited high card combinations) was covered by Rule 9. Since Rule 8 comes before Rule 9, the correct play is to hold the 3♦4♦5♦.

One student asked the question: “But wouldn’t I at least get my money back more often if I held the clubs?”

My answer was: “Absolutely. But the system we use to determine the correct play maximizes Expected Value. With Expected Value, it is the frequency of the win multiplied by the value of the win – not just the frequency.”

The following chart shows this. To make the numbers big enough to read easily, I had to split the chart in half.

The Expected Value of 3♦4♦5♦ is shown to be 3.025. Since you are drawing two cards, there are 1,081 different combinations you could draw. About 87% of the time (actually 937 out of 1,081) you end up with no win at all.
But of the times you do score, most of them are straights and flushes, paying four and six times the value of high pairs respectively.

All the numbers in the preceding paragraph came from either the pay schedule or the chart below — which was copied directly from the Video Poker for Winners software. If you wish to be able to understand simple video poker mathematics, this is a good chance for you to practice.

 

Holding EV Total No Win High Pair 2 Pair 3K ST
3♦4♦5♦ 3.025 1,081 937 18 27 9 45
Q♣J♣ 2.9374 16,215 9,827 5,022 711 281 189

 

Holding EV Total FL FH 4K SF RF
3♦4♦5♦ 3.025 1,081 42 0 0 3 0
Q♣J♣ 2.9374 16,215 162 18 2 2 1

When you start from Q♣J♣ and draw three cards, there are 16,215 possible draws. This number is exactly 15 times as large as the 1,081 possible draws when you only draw two cards.

You get a high pair or two pair 5,733 times out of the 16,215 (which is about 35% of the time), but these are only 5-coin wins. You score something about 40% of the time, but most of the wins are small.

Other players use the logic that holding clubs gives them a chance at a royal flush and holding the diamonds doesn’t. But a 1-in-16,215 chance at 4,000 coins is only worth about 0.24 coins. The 3-in-1,081 chance of getting a straight flush holding 3♦4♦5♦ is worth 0.69 coins and that is something usually omitted by seat-of-the-pants players thinking, “It seems to me.”

A lot of players try to reason correct plays out in their heads. While this is certainly an appropriate avenue to address the problem if you don’t have a strategy handy, correct strategies are fairly easy to come by and figuring out how many times in 1,081 or 16,215 (or even bigger numbers when you draw four or five cards) is a tedious, error-prone process and basically impossible for most people to do by themselves.

A computer program, however, can figure this out almost instantaneously and very accurately. It’s one of the tools of the trade that makes it possible to play well.

Posted on by — 9 Comments

Why Play When It’s Not Worth Very Much?

Sometimes on holidays, the South Point offers 2x points — which means 0.6% because the base is 0.3%. This is equivalent to 6x points at the myriad of casinos that offer 0.1% base points.

This past July 4, they offered a Hot Seat promotion instead. This is a promotion where approximately 20 players an hour are randomly awarded $100 in free play from 8 a.m. through midnight. Let’s look at this a bit.

At 8 a.m., there might be 200 players in the casino — so each active player has about a 1-in-10 chance to win $100 in an hour — which means $10 per hour. At 8 p.m., there might be 1,000 players in the casino, so the promotion is worth $2 per hour at that point. Both my 200 and 1,000 numbers are wild-ass guesses. Still, they are the best estimates I have, and I need some basis to figure out how much a promotion is worth.

Is this better or worse than 2x points? This part is simple math, but many of my readers aren’t comfortable with doing this calculation. Let’s say you’re playing 800 hands per hour. If you play quarter single line, 800 hph comes to $1,000 coin-in, and 2x points is worth an extra $3 per hour. If you play $2 single line, 800 hph comes to $8,000 coin-in and 2x points is worth an extra $24 per hour.

Neither of these numbers mean you are necessarily a favorite when you play. It depends on which game you are playing. If you’re playing NSU Deuces Wild, which returns 99.728% when played perfectly, the numbers above pretty much represent expected dollars per hour if you play the game well. If you’re playing a lesser game, the casino may well still be a favorite no matter which promotion you are playing. If you’re playing a game that returns more than NSU, the numbers above are additional expected profit over and above what you’re already earning.

Using the information in the preceding paragraph, you can extrapolate to figure out what your game is worth. If you play smaller stakes, then the Hot Seat promotion, where every player who plays at least $1 per minute has the same chance, is the more valuable promotion. If you play for higher stakes, then the 2x points promotion would be worth a lot more.

I play for higher stakes, so clearly the Hot Seat promotion isn’t worth too much to me in terms of dollars per hour. And, yet, I hammered the promotion — playing more than ten hours. Playing ten hours straight used to be a walk in the park for me. I’m 71 years old now. It’s a struggle to play that long and still be alert. And yet I did.

The question becomes:  If the promotion wasn’t worth very much, why did I play it so hard? At first glance, this doesn’t seem to make much sense.

The answer is that I already committed to play $83,340 on both my card and Bonnie’s sometime during the month because we liked another promotion going on — namely play and redeem $8,334 worth of points and get a $50 Chevron gas card or $50 Walmart gift card — maximum ten per player. This is already similar to 2x points, because usually that much play earns you $25 in cash or free play and in July you get a $50 gift card.

So, it now becomes a matter of: If I’m already planning to play that much during the month and playing during the Hot Seat promotion gives me “something extra” which I wouldn’t receive playing at other times during the month, getting something extra is obviously better than getting nothing extra.

This still doesn’t address the alternative costs. Other casinos might be having good promotions as well on July 4. If my expected earnings were “a lot” at other casinos, this could easily surpass the perceived value of the opportunity at South Point. If it were important to Bonnie to go somewhere that day, that could easily be more important as well. Each person needs to make his own decision based on his own life.

As it turned out, I played ten hours at South Point and two hours somewhere else where they offered a little something that I felt was worth going for.

My results? To me, this is the least important matter in the whole affair. The critical part of the situation is the analysis that goes into the decision. Many people, however, want to judge the decision after the fact by the results. This does not give you useful information, because you don’t have this information before you make the decision. If I don’t include my results, you can bet someone will ask, “How did you do?”

So, on July 4 I was called once for the Hot Seat promotion for $100, and I lost considerably more than the value of the gift cards I earned. Oh well. That’s gambling. I care much more about expected value than I do about actual results.

If the circumstances are the same at some future time, I will likely play the promotion the same way — possibly modified because I’ll be older then and maybe won’t be able to play so long.

Posted on by — 7 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 7 Comments

If It Looks Too Good to be True . . .  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It turns out that the game is worth 98.6%.

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 4 Comments

A Look at The Confidence Game – Part 2 of 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 7 Comments

What Are Reasonable Expectations from Attending Video Poker Classes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 9 Comments

A Look at The Confidence Game – Part 1 of 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Lessons from Backgammon, Part 2 of 2

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

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

Continuing those lessons I learned at the Cavendish West:

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

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

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

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

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

8. People could and did go broke.

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

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

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

11. People were crazy (and still are)!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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