Tag: video poker

Posted on by — 22 Comments

Something I Didn’t Expect

In early September, there was an invitational event at the M resort for their Icon guests, which is their highest tier level. Perhaps others were invited as well, but I’m not sure.

Just for showing up, you received your choice of nice brand name gifts — there was a Fitbit Watch, Dooney and Burke handbags, some TUMI accessories and some more choices. About 1/3 of the gifts were geared towards men and 2/3 were geared towards women. Since I’m no dummy, I took Bonnie along and let her pick what she wanted. In addition to the free gift, there were some better-than-average hors d’ oeuvres and an open bar.

While you didn’t need to play to get the gift, they had three separate drawings — 9 p.m., 9:30 p.m., and 10 p.m. — for some Louis Vuitton “packages,” consisting of a handbag, sunglasses, and one additional item. And entry tickets for this drawing was based on play.

Bonnie isn’t much into brand names. She took the attitude of, “Don’t play extra for me. Louis Vuitton accessories are way more expensive than what I normally use. Plus, I already have three handbags in closets won in other promotions that I haven’t used yet.”

It’s nice when Bonnie takes this “sensible” attitude. However, this time it would have been nice had she been a bit greedier. I had already decided that I should probably play at least $100,000 in coin-in to justify the invitation. The casino was putting out quite a bit of money for this promotion, and when they put out that kind of money, they expect players to play. If I took their nice gift without playing at all, perhaps I wouldn’t receive the invitation next time.

There was a combination of promotions going on there, so playing that much was probably a decent play — if I valued the Louis Vuitton package at close to retail. Bonnie’s sensible attitude took some of the value away. If she had a “Boy, that would be so special to win that prize!” attitude, clearly winning the package would be more valuable. Dollars and sense is one way to measure value, but how happy something makes Bonnie is also part of the equation for me.

I didn’t know how good of a chance for the Louis Vuitton package playing $100,000 coin-in would get me. I didn’t see a lot of players “going for it.” One lady who typically plays a lot at this kind of event had concert tickets somewhere else, so wasn’t going to play for a “must be there to win” drawing. She went, ordered her gift, and then went to the concert. Like Bonnie, she had a number of unused handbags from other casino promotions.

As luck would have it, my name was called at the 9 p.m. drawing. (Perhaps I had a competitive number of entries. Perhaps it was simply blind luck. I really don’t know.) There was a choice of three Louis Vuitton packages, so Bonnie decided which one suited her best. In addition to the Louis Vuitton package, she picked out a Dooney and Burke bag for her regular gift. So much for having too many handbags!

I checked to see if you could win more than once and found out the answer was “No.” That was the fair way to do it, but in case they didn’t have that rule, I’d make sure to stick around for the last two drawings as well. Since we couldn’t win again, we didn’t stick around.

Just before I left, one of the promotion managers came over and had me sign a $3,000 Tax Form 1099 for the Louis Vuitton package. Whoa! What’s this? I was not expecting this at all.

“That’s the retail price for the prize, so if you want to keep it, you have to sign for it. If you don’t want to keep it, we’ll call somebody else’s name.”

Bonnie had already fallen in love with her new handbag, so there was no way in the world that I would make her give it back. But the tax implications did surprise me some.

Had I known of the $3,000 1099 would I have still played for it? Probably. I get enough W2Gs and 1099s throughout the year that one more would not be a showstopper. It’s just most of the ones I get come with cash (like winning a $3,000 drawing). Having the tax form come with a gift is a bit unusual for me. And, naïve guy that I am about designer things, I was thinking $600 or so was the appropriate price for the gift.

I’m not complaining. Winning this prize was far more good news than bad. It was simply a surprise I wasn’t expecting.

Posted on by — 11 Comments

What Should I Say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 6 Comments

I’m Glad I Didn’t Hit It — Revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 7 Comments

A Matter of Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by — 10 Comments

Accidental Quadruple Deuces

A version of this article first appeared about 10 years ago.

Regular Deuces Wild, played for quarters, returns $250 for four deuces. Double Deuces returns $500 for the same hand, but takes away elsewhere in the pay schedule. Loose Deuces returns $625 for that hand and Triple Deuces gives you $750. Each of these games can be found in Las Vegas.

How about Quadruple Deuces returning $1,000 for four deuces? Or even more? In 2007, this game existed accidentally for a few months at a large local casino in Las Vegas, but it could have happened anywhere. And while the base Deuces Wild game on which it was found wasn’t all that great, adding 3,000 coins to an every-4,400-hands event adds about 12% to the return. Apparently four players were able to exploit this and keep the information quiet for a couple of months. They certainly didn’t post it on one of the Internet bulletin boards as that would have killed the play in a day or less.

What happened was this (I might have the facts a little off as I am getting this secondhand): There were eight quarter games tied to a progressive. Six of these games had the progressive set normally, which means that it would be collected when the royal was hit. But two of the games had the progressive accidentally attached to the four deuces hand. Apparently, a slot tech got a little bit sloppy one day and nobody who worked for the casino caught it. So, the four deuces hand started at $1,000 and moved up from there.

Since these were ticket-in, ticket-out machines, winning the jackpot merely spit out a ticket and the players could keep playing, so long as the jackpot was below $1,200. And it usually remained at that level because four deuces is a fairly frequent hand with respect to having the progressive rise $200 or more. When the progressive did rise that high, which it did a few times, these players wouldn’t play. They hoped that one of the other machines would hit the royal so everything would look normal. And their luck held. No over-$1,200 set of deuces was hit on either machine.

The way the bubble burst was that someone “not in the know” was playing one of the two juicy machines and happened to hit the royal flush. The nerve of them! When they were only paid $1,000 instead of whatever the meter read, they understandably felt cheated and called it to the attention of the floor people. When it escalated to supervisors, it didn’t take long for the casino to realize what the error was. The two machines were shut down for a while and adjusted. Christmas was over!

I was told about this play after the fact. One of the four players who hit this hard was attending one of my free classes and told me about it. He had just finished reading my Million Dollar Video Poker book in which I write about taking advantage of a similar-yet-different casino mistake.  He wanted to tell me that these errors were still happening out there — if you could find them.  

He asked me if the casino could demand its money back because of the machine overpaying. While first making sure he realized that I wasn’t a lawyer and couldn’t speak authoritatively on the subject, I told him that I didn’t believe the casino could effectively take any civil or criminal action against him. If the casino could not show that he was in cahoots with the slot tech who made the improper settings, then the casino was stuck.

What the casino COULD do, however, was restrict him from the property if it so chose. Assuming these four players used their slot club cards while playing this game, it wouldn’t be difficult for the casino to check their records and determine who was playing these machines heavily over the past few months. Even if the players didn’t use their cards, they were surely caught on surveillance tape.

The casino could well decide that they didn’t want these players around anymore and that would be perfectly legal. Casinos in Nevada can restrict the play of anyone, so long as it’s not based on things such as race, gender, or national origin.

Of course while this was going on, the players couldn’t be sure how it would all turn out. They were regularly winning $2,000 a week or more apiece, week after week, and that’s big money for quarter video poker. Winning like that is EXCITING, especially since you don’t know how long it’s going to last.

I wasn’t there, but there had to be discussions about how to share time on the machines, how to keep it quiet from others, and how much they could play without the casino employees noticing that these same guys were playing the same machines EVERY DAY all day long. There are no unique best answers on how to do this and opinions vary widely.

However they decided to do it, it was impossible to predict when a casino employee would put two and two together, when other players might find out and demand a piece of the action, or when someone accidentally hit the wrong kind of jackpot at the wrong time. There would have been all KINDS of things to worry about.

Mistakes continue to happen in casinos. To exploit them, you first have to FIND them. Players who do a lot of scouting have the best chances to find these kinds of mistakes. Players who don’t scout are left with complaining that other people find these things.

Posted on by — 10 Comments

Interesting Promotion at the M

I received a postcard from the M where they are trying to get new players. The promo was:

  1.         I get $100 in free play right away for bringing in a new player,
  2.         The new player also gets $100 in free play — plus a kiosk spin (usually $5 in free play, I think, but it could be more),
  3.         For every point the new player earns in the first day, I get 10x points, up to a total of 50,000 points,
  4.        Good (if you got the postcard and the new player has NEVER had a card at the M) from June 1 to July 31.

The slot club is 0.3% (slightly more, actually, because they give you $3 for $999 coin-in rather than $3 for $1,000 coin-in). 50,000 points is worth $150 of free play — which is way more than the house’s expected win if you’re playing the best machines.

The loosest game is $2 9/6 Jacks or Better. There are two such machines — newly installed — in the high limit room. There is no choice as to the denomination and no telling how long they’ll last. 10x points (which is worth 3%) on top of a video poker game returning 99.54% seemed possibly like a mistake, except that it was limited to $150 max which might be a reasonable cost for a new player.

I don’t actually know if this was a mistake or not. I hooked up with a player friend, “Kevin,” who lives near Aliante — which makes the M geographically undesirable for him. Which is why he didn’t already have a card. I know some non-players for whom I technically could have played the free play, but that’s strongly against the rules there and I’m well known. No thanks. If I had to use a non-player, I would have let them play and talked them through their $105 in free play — which we would probably have played on 25¢ 8/5 Aces Bonus. If they were a non-player, any possible W2G could have been a problem for them.

As it happened, June 1 was a normal free-play pick-up day for me (they have 6 to 7 such days per month). Kevin and I agreed to go in and play the promotion on the first day it was active.

We were certainly not going to ask for clarification as to whether the 10x points included video poker or not. The booth personnel (who are also the cashiers) would likely have said, “I don’t know. Let me make a phone call.” If they did that, it’s possible that signs would have been posted saying “slots only.” If we could arrange it, we didn’t want such signs posted until after we played.

Our deal was, we would play the promotion and also play an additional 850 points which entitled us to a “free” lunch buffet. Other than the amount of my free play, we split everything based on my $850 worth of play and his $5,850. Whether this split was overly generous or not didn’t concern me. Kevin is a friend. And enjoying lunch together was part of the attraction of the “date.”

I often play for a buffet on my free -play pickup days there. There have been incidents where players who only picked up free-play without any additional play were punished for this. As a known professional player, I am hyper-sensitive about creating situations where it would be easy for them to justify restricting me.

The $205 in free play we got between the two of us more than covered the expected loss of playing $5,850 for him and $850 for me. If we got the additional $150, great, but it was still a decent play if we didn’t. (And yes, we could have lost, but the decision beforehand is made based on EV, because you don’t know what your actual result is going to be.)

I had him play $5,850 rather than just $5,000 because the M usually doesn’t allow you to “double dip.” If there’s a gift of the day you can get for 800 points and you also want the free buffet, it takes 1,650 to earn both. We only had one shot at this and if they decided to give us 10x points on only 4,150 points (which would be 5,000-850), that would cost us $28. No thanks.

We didn’t split the $150 on the day we played because I wasn’t certain whether or not we were going to get it. It could be that they “intended” it to say “slots only,” but they didn’t put that in writing. How it would be enforced down the road was an open question.

I hadn’t decided how aggressively to pursue the 10x points if they denied that it applied to video poker. It was “only” $150 (split between two of us) and you need to pick your battles. In a somewhat similar situation at the Silverton I wrote about a few months ago, we were talking about an $8,000 difference between getting the multiple points or not. I’m willing to fight a lot harder for $8,000 than I am for half of $150.

Eight days after we played, I received an email saying that 50,000 points had been placed on my card, so I sent my friend an email saying that I owed him $75 next time we saw each other.

I never had to decide how hard to argue for this. It’s possible that future players will be told “slots only” when they sign up. I don’t know. But this was a case of taking advantage of the situation before they made changes to it. If they keep the promotion “as is,” then whether we did it early or not doesn’t matter. If they restrict it later to slots only, it matters $150 worth. For me it was a no brainer to do it as early as possible.

Posted on by — 29 Comments

You’re Not a Poker Player

In early June, Bonnie and I were at a square dancing workshop and there was this guy, Scott from Alabama, who showed up. He had played a few days before at the Colossus event in the World Series of Poker, did well enough to get his money back plus $500, and was killing time before his flight back home. He had arranged his stay through the last day of the Colossus in case he made it that far. He hadn’t, but that was why he was still in town. Square dancing events are publicized if you know where to look, so he found us and danced. He was very welcome.

The Colossus is a $565 buy-in tournament with starting flights over several days. Re-entries are allowed. He was very proud of the fact that he cashed in his first WSOP event, which gave him the confidence to come back next year. He had to tell me, of course, about the hand he blew out on and that he was ahead until his opponent paired on the river.

I asked him if he had considered re-entering and he said, “No.  If I’m not a good enough player to win on my first try, I’m not going to throw good money after bad.”

I told him that I didn’t know anything about his personal bankroll, but that didn’t make any sense to me. He probably had $500 in expenses to get to and stay in Vegas for five days. That made his first entry cost $1,065. His re-entry would cost “only” $565, or basically half price since he was already in Vegas. If the first one was a good deal for him to enter, re-entry must be a great deal. Why come back next year and pay another $1,065 and not get the same equity right now for only $565?

In any tournament with several thousand entries (there were 18,000+ entries in this year’s Colossus), there is a considerable amount of luck insofar as how long each player lasts. The hand where he blew out (in 400th place or so) could have easily happened much earlier and he would have gotten nothing at all. No less skill on his part. Just the luck of the draw.

You can’t conclude, I argued, that just because you cashed this time that you are a good player or just because you didn’t cash any particular time that you’re a bad player. No player cashes every event. Your record over a whole lot of tournaments says a lot about your skill. Your result in a single tournament says very little.

He asked if I was a poker player. I told him no, that I was a video poker player, but that I’ve been a successful gambler for several decades and believe I have some knowledge and experience about how it all works.

He informed me that since I wasn’t a poker player, I really didn’t know what I was talking about and he didn’t want to discuss it anymore. Okay. A square dancing event is mostly a social activity and if he didn’t want to “talk shop,” that was fine with me. I went over and spoke to someone else. Whether or not I could get him to agree with me was not something I cared about very much. He had never heard of me and self-professed video poker experts are not people he considers worth listening to.

But you, my reader, I do care whether you agree with me or not. I assume you accept that I am generally knowledgeable about these things or you wouldn’t be reading this blog.

This is another case of paying undue attention to short term results. This example looks a bit different in live poker than it does in video poker, but the principle is the same. Perhaps this example is easier to understand than in the ways I have expressed it previously.

Posted on by — 13 Comments

Who Cares?

I was out walking for exercise and my iPhone rang. Had I looked at the caller ID, I would have seen “UNKNOWN,” usually a tip to avoid answering, but I was busy doing nothing at all important so I hit the green button and heard a recorded voice saying, “Now is the time to refinance your home because . . . ” I never found out what the specifics of the offer were. I hung up after nine words.

I find such calls mildly irritating. They take up a few minutes of my day, but to me they’re not a big deal. However, I’ve been around other people who slam down the phone in anger and loudly curse the machine making the call, “Why don’t you take your &%#!@& offer and shove it up your dial tone?” Or something like that. As though the machine making the phone calls cares.

The machine is dialing numbers according to a list, or perhaps according to a formula. When the last person hangs up, for whatever reason and with whatever emotion, the next one is called. Whether the current person places an order or not, the next call will be made as soon as the current one hangs up or perhaps is transferred to a real person. The machine will keep on calling as long as it has numbers to call and it’s within the hours prescribed for it, which might be something like 10 a.m. through 8 p.m.

A video poker machine is like that. When a new hand is triggered (which might be by hitting the deal button), the machine looks at its internal clock (in nanoseconds), checks one other “seed” (which is required for a random number generator to work, varies by manufacturer, and isn’t important to this discussion), and deals the cards. Sometimes people will say, “The machine is in a cold streak.” Nonsense. The machine is just dealing cards. The fact that you haven’t won in a half hour is totally irrelevant to it. One lady I knew said things like, “Sixes are running today,” and usually when she played accordingly, it didn’t help.

Others will say, “I hit two royal flushes yesterday so it’s making up for it now.” Nonsense. The machine is just dealing cards. Or, “Because I’m (pick one or two: on a winning streak, on a losing streak, fat, Armenian, over-drawn at the bank, using a slot club card, divorced, voted for Trump), the machine is . . . ” Nonsense. The machine is just dealing cards.

I think that people ascribe human emotion or motives to video poker machines because these people are trying to understand their results. They lost today and they won yesterday so it must be because . . .   They’ve lost six times straight, so the reason must be because . . .  Or perhaps they use the machine’s “behavior” as a good reason to change machines, or denomination, or change games within a machine. Or instead of trying to understand their results, perhaps these people are attempting to assign blame. Such as, “It was not really my fault. The machine was colder than a witch’s elbow. Nothing I could do about it.”

Perhaps surprisingly, the last explanation above is one that I might use. AFTER a session is over, it is possible to assign descriptive terms to that particular session. You can say it was “hot” (meaning that you won), “cold” (meaning that you didn’t), “so so” (meaning it was so so), or whatever. MIDWAY though a session, you can describe what the session has been so far, but there’s no way in the world to predict how the rest of the session is going to go. The “best guess” of what the future will bring is the average of what this type of machine under these particular conditions (i.e., dollars, NSU Deuces Wild, at a casino that pays .25% cash back, on a day when double points are being offered, during a month when you get a jacket if you hit a royal flush) typically offers over a million hours of play, given your particular skill level. You ARE PRETTY SURE the “best guess” will be high or low this time. You just don’t know which (i.e., Will it be higher or lower than normal this time?), and by how much, until after you are finished.

To make your next year of play better than your last year of play, you can choose better games (e.g., if one returns 98.9% on average and another returns 99.6% on average, the second is “better” than the first), stick to the good game once you’ve identified which one is best, practice that game on a computer or by studying a Winner’s Guide for the game, play at casinos with good slot clubs, and do most of your play only during good promotions. Doing these things will help you. Believing in such things as “The reason this machine started to pay off is because it was on a dry spell and the dam finally broke,” won’t.

 

Posted on by — 7 Comments

Learning from Munchkin

My co-host on the Gambling With An Edge podcast is Richard Munchkin, a table games player who’s been successful at gambling for several decades.

We often answer listener questions on the show and if anyone asks about a table game, Richard is the go-to guy. Sometimes I’ll have a bit to add, but mostly what Richard says covers the subject very well.

He has used one particular phrase in his answers over and over again. The questions vary, but part of the answer stays the same.

For example, some blackjack player is using one particular count and is considering learning another count because it’s more powerful. Richard will discuss the features of each count, but say, “You’re stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. A slightly better count is NOT where the money is in blackjack. There are far more important things to spend your time learning.”

I’ve heard him say variations on this numerous times and I started to wonder if the way I tackle video poker makes me guilty of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies?

As many of my readers know, I try to learn most video poker games at the 100% level. In NSU Deuces Wild, for example, letting a W stand for a deuce, I play W 4♠ 5♠ 3♥ J♥ differently than I do W 4♠ 5♠ 3♥ J♦.

For the five-coin dollar player, if he holds W 4♠ 5♠ both times he is making a quarter of a penny error half the time. If he holds just the W both times he is also making a quarter of a penny error half the time.

I avoid this small error. I learned the game this well when I was playing $25 games so the error every other time is 6¢ rather than a quarter cent. I still have that play memorized even though the larger games aren’t available, insofar as I know.

Although this particular distinction is one of many many I have memorized, it is safe to say I’ve spent dozens of hours, probably more, learning these exceptions in the first place and reviewing them often enough to keep them memorized.

Have I gained enough to make the difference between learning these things worth more than even an additional $2 per hour over all the hours I’ve spent studying? Probably not.

Without spending this time learning these exceptions, could I have played games worth substantially more than $2 per hour and been better off financially? Definitely yes, insofar as finding games worth more than that.

So, is this a case of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies? Have I been violating Munchkin’s advice (never mind that I spent most of those dozens of hours studying that game before I ever heard Richard give that advice)? Maybe, but if so, as
they say in Traffic Court, I plead guilty with an explanation.

Although in the Dancer/Daily Winner’s Guides for both NSU Deuces Wild and Full Pay Deuces Wild, we distinguish between penalty cards and “power of the pack” considerations, for the sake of simplicity today I’m going to include both of these into the term “penalty cards.”

The underlying assumption behind the question “Is learning penalty cards worth it?” is that without studying the penalty cards you can play the penalty-free strategy perfectly. For me, at least, that assumption wouldn’t track with reality.

Just the study and practice I undergo to learn the penalty cards causes me to be practicing the basic strategy simultaneously. For example, the difference between W J♦ 9♦ 5♣ 6♣ and W J♦ 9♦ 5♣ 7♣, which is a basic strategy play, is probably ignored by all players who have not also made a serious attempt at learning all the exceptions. Even though this play is clearly shown on the Dancer/Daily Strategy Card and Winner’s Guide for this game, I suspect most players simply ignore it or don’t understand why the two hands are played differently.

So, while learning the penalty cards might only return $2 an hour on my study time, I also gain considerably more than that because I learn the basic strategy better during the process.

For me personally, since I’ve chosen a teaching career and a how-to writing career, there are additional income streams available to me for learning this stuff that wouldn’t be available to most others.

Plus, I like being a student. I was good at school and continue to try and learn new things. So even if learning penalty cards doesn’t make great financial sense, it brings me pleasure. Can you really put a price on that?

I’m going to conclude that Richard’s “stepping over dollars to pick up pennies” warning doesn’t apply to me in this particular case. And I make this conclusion knowing full well that others may disagree with my conclusion. That’s okay. I’ve made my own bed here and I’m perfectly happy sleeping in it.

Yes, I know I mentioned that certain hands were played differently than others, but I didn’t explain what the differences were. If you want to know, you’re going to have to look up the information for yourself. If that annoys you, so be it, but the learning process isn’t easy and you need to go through it to become a strong player.

Posted on by — 12 Comments

When 9/5 Was Better than 9/6

One of the very first lessons taught by virtually all video poker teachers, including me, involves the game Jacks or Better. We explain how the game pays 25-for-1 for all 4-of-a-kinds, 2-for-1 for two pair, and the difference between the good version and the bad version depends on how much you get for a full house and a flush.

The best reasonably common version is 9/6, returning 99.54%. The game in second place is 9-5, 98.45% requiring a similar but not identical strategy.

If you don’t know what I mean by 9/6 and 9/5, compare the two pictures at the bottom of this page. The one on the top is 9/6 and the one on the bottom is 9/5. The key numbers used in naming the games are shown in red.

Under normal circumstances, because of the approximately 1.1% difference in the returns, any player who played 9/5 when 9/6 was available is a player without a clue as to the winning process.

And, yet, for a couple of years ending a few years ago, I personally played millions of dollars of coin-in on a 9/5 game when 9/6 was available. As did many other knowledgeable players. What gives?

It had to do with “theoretical.”

Theoretical is the hold the casino expects to make from players as a whole. If a game is rated with a theoretical of 2%, it means that for every $100,000 coin-in the machine gets, on average the casino expects to hold $2,000.

The 9/6 JoB had a theoretical in this casino of approximately a half percent. For that same $100,000 coin-in, the casino expects to make $500. The “perfect” 9/6 JoB player only loses $460 for that play.

This casino had a policy that if you agreed to earn $5,000 in theoretical, they would give you $3,500 in free play as front money. If they figured the theoretical correctly, this would give them an expected profit of $1,500 on this much play to cover their expenses and profit margin. On the 9/6 JoB, this was no bargain for the player. Your expected loss was $4,460, even if you played perfectly, so while getting $3,500 back was certainly better than nothing, you were still in the hole.

For whatever reason, the 9/5 JoB game was assigned a theoretical of 4%. This meant that it took $125,000 coin-in to generate the $5,000 in theoretical. And playing that much on a 98.45% game meant that you expected to lose a little less than $2,000 on average if you played perfectly.

Losing $2,000 is no fun, of course, but the casino was giving $3,500 to ease your pain. That meant that you had a net expected profit of a little more than $1,500 each time you did it, plus your points were worth something, and there were significant other goodies as well, including a couple of free room nights. We could do this at least once a month, and sometimes twice a month. This was an inadvertent mistake by the casino. We hoped it would be several years before the casino fixed it.

Sometimes I’d lose $8,000 or so “earning” this EV, but other months I would win. Looking at individual months, you could sometimes question whether this was a good deal or not, but over time, it became clear that this was a moneymaker for the players who knew about it and exploited it.

I learned about it from someone who swore me to secrecy. I had to promise not to write about it. I honored that while that situation was still in effect. Now that it’s been over for more than a year, I believe it’s okay to shine a little light on it.

Eventually, the casino figured out that a 4% theoretical for this game was inappropriate and changed it to about 1.6%. Now it costs you almost $5,000 to earn $5,000 in theoretical, and if you get “only” $3,500 back, it’s no bargain. So, knowledgeable players don’t play that game anymore.

I used a 4% figure. Actually, it was slightly different than that and it varied slightly from machine to machine. And it could be “fixed” by the casino at any time. So after we played, we went to talk to a host and asked what our theoretical was. If it was under $5,000 we played some more. We wanted to get the theoretical high enough so that we’d keep getting the offers.

The time it came back as a theoretical of $2,000 for the normal amount of play, players knew that this particular party was over. Disappointing, but all good things end eventually. Calls went all over the player grapevine, and within a few days most of the players who played this promotion were notified.

I’m not mentioning the name of the casino where this took place. There will be many readers of this blog who know whereof I speak. Should any of them choose to comment on this article, please leave the casino name unspoken.

 

 

Royal Flush 250 500 750 1000 4000
Straight Flush 50 100 150 200 250
4-of-a-Kind 25 50 75 100 125
Full House 9 18 27 36 45
Flush 6 12 18 24 30
Straight 4 8 12 16 20
3-of-a-Kind 3 6 9 12 15
Two Pair 2 4 6 8 10
Jacks or Better 1 2 3 4 5
Royal Flush 250 500 750 1000 4000
Straight Flush 50 100 150 200 250
4-of-a-Kind 25 50 75 100 125
Full House 9 18 27 36 45
Flush 5 10 15 20 25
Straight 4 8 12 16 20
3-of-a-Kind 3 6 9 12 15
Two Pair 2 4 6 8 10
Jacks or Better 1 2 3 4 5