I discuss gambling subjects with many people. There is a small group whom I consider “equals or better” and who know as much or more than I do about various gambling games. (My radio co-host Richard Munchkin is in the “or better” part of this group. Although he knows relatively little about video poker, there are numerous table games and “gambling situations” where he is extremely knowledgeable. The gambling public is very fortunate that he shares some of what he knows weekly on our program.) There is a much larger group of people who don’t know as much as I — they are in various states of ignorance.
It’s always true that some people will be just starting out. (If that’s the case for you, quite possibly video poker should not be your gambling game of choice. It’s very difficult to grind out an edge these days and the competition is fierce.) Others will have been studying more or less seriously for some period of time. As Malcolm Gladwell argues in his book Outliers, it takes at least 10,000 hours of hard work to become good at something. This is definitely true for video poker — and obviously “hard work” has different meanings for different people.
For my July 10, 2014 Gambling with an Edge radio show, I was preparing for a discussion of how to make sure you get your share of time on a good machine where many other players want the same machine. I was talking with a gambling friend of mine, “Al,” and posed the following question: “Let’s assume that there are four good machines for a promotion. These machines have an EV of -$10 per hour until midnight and +$150 per hour after midnight, due to some promotion starting at that time. Assume dozens of players know about this coming promotion. What strategy should you use in order to get a machine?”
My discussion of this is in the radio show archives on here. But today’s article isn’t primarily about what I feel is the best way to deal with this “problem.” Today’s article is about Al’s response to my question.
Al’s first comment was that my $150 per hour estimate is simply my “theory” and he has seen too many exceptions to my predictions to trust them. So he might play the game a little bit, but if things run bad, he’ll quit.
At this point, there wasn’t much use in continuing the conversation. Al didn’t accept the basic premise I was posing, so he certainly wouldn’t be able to concentrate on the strategy for getting and keeping a seat.
Part of my strategy involves forming a temporary team to trade off the machine once you get it. I need somebody who is willing to commit to being there from, say, 4 a.m. to 9 a.m. and then trading off to me or someone else. Anyone who is taking a silly attitude such as, “I’ll see how things go and I’ll stay only if I’m winning,” would be useless as a team member for this kind of situation. I would need someone who could make and keep a commitment. If he wanted to play “really slowly,” that’s fine. But if he left before he handed off the machine, that would be disastrous. The machines in this case are few and far between and it would be unlikely that we’d get a machine back if we gave one up.
It’s not that difficult to make a “best estimate” of what a promotion is worth — recognizing that there will always be variance and sometimes you’ll do better and sometimes you’ll do worse. Al’s mind seems to most readily remember those times when he has done worse than the prediction while clueless players playing awful games next to him regularly hit aces with a kicker while he’s playing the better game and getting his clock cleaned. He’s just getting caught up in the variance and not looking at the big picture.
I’m not faulting Al for his beliefs. He’s an experienced, albeit superstitious, seat-of-the-pants gambler and discusses gambling theory with other superstitious people. That’s no way to learn how to gamble intelligently. What I’m suggesting is that he hasn’t progressed far enough beyond the superstition phase to be able to have a meaningful conversation. (He, however, doesn’t see this as a problem. He is confident that his beliefs make sense and if others disagree, he really doesn’t care. He acknowledges that I’m considered an expert, but he defines an expert as someone who comes up with theories that may or may not be valid for him.)
Al has played far more than 10,000 hours of video poker, but he rarely studies. He’s able to read a strategy chart and he will practice that strategy until he’s pretty good at it (which puts him WAY ahead of most other gamblers). He’s also done some scouting, but that’s about the limit of his study. He’s probably practiced 1,000 hours, but unfortunately he keeps doing the same thing over and over again. While that’s not worthless (experience DOES teach you things — although sometimes it teaches you the wrong lesson!) it’s hardly the most profitable approach.
I want to have gambling conversations with people who can teach me something. Sometimes even an off-the-cuff remark by a smart, knowledgeable player can give me insight into how I can apply an idea to the games I’m playing.
Just being smart isn’t enough — otherwise just knowing someone’s IQ would predict how successful they will be in life. IQ is definitely correlated with success, but there are a lot of under- and over-achievers out there. I want to talk with people who are smart and have paid their dues, grappling with the tough problems. While I may disagree with them or their conclusions, just formulating a response to their “erroneous” theory causes me to examine my own ideas. Sometimes I’m wrong and I certainly want constructive criticism from knowledgeable people.
I want to learn from those who have paid their dues. And I still need to correctly evaluate someone else’s knowledge while ignoring a lot of what the non-knowledgeable say.