bob Dancer's new column, new question

nice idea for a challenge, and I would like to know what the "math guys" say about it.

"luck" does wonders in video poker. A few months ago at Rincon I went from $800 of free play to a $16-thousand cash out in about three hours of play. about three years ago, an online casino sent me $777 of free play and a few hours later I cashed out $39-thousand.

But VP is far different from poker. In VP you can bet $5 and get a $4,000 royal, or bet $1.25 and get a $1,000 royal... In poker cash games return is limited by your contribution to the pot; in poker tournaments a small buy in can return a lot of money if you make the final few places.

bottom line: a challenge that works for "poker" is not necessarily appropriate for a challenge in "video poker."

The math of VP has been covered ad nauseum by dozens of writers in thousands of articles. You might as well be questioning the pythagorean theorem. So, questioning something that is completely understood will not get you much sympathy.

Now, if you asked questions instead of questioning known facts, you will get answers.

Arc, just curious: have you ever kept track of how many times you got a royal when holding four to the royal? Is your success rate 1/47 or better or worse?

Arc. Lets play a game called, who did better?

The goal of this game is to identify the person who did better playing a game of video poker.

There are two players, and you have to choose which of the two "did better."

Player A starts with $10,000 and at the end of his session, Player A has $10,300.

Player B starts with $80,000 and at the end of his session, Player B has $79,700.

Question: who did Better?? Others can also participate.

And people wonder why I get an attitude sometimes with folks???

You of course are not reading further than a certain point. As for questioning the Pythagorean theorem, why do you do it when your learning Geometery? Its a theorem because why? Of course there ARE people that DO question theorems, how else might we find the actual answer instead of stuff that just works to solve the equation.

Obviously, the Player A did better on this particular session. Now, let's look at what you said:

"Who's better gambler, the person who wins $300 with the smaller bankroll or the person who loses $300 with the much larger bankroll?"

You chose the person who happened to win the last time he played. The truth is you have no idea who the better gambler is based on a single sessions play.

Now, the question Dancer asked was who was better off bankroll-wise. So, your question here is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

It appears you're trying to change the subject in mid-stream. Makes you look even more foolish.

Arc, I just went through this ENTIRE thread and NO WHERE did I write "Who's better gambler, the person who wins $300 with the smaller bankroll or the person who loses $300 with the much larger bankroll?"

This was not a question of "better gambler" but a question of "better off."

You fabricated the quote from me "Who's better gambler, the person who wins $300 with the smaller bankroll or the person who loses $300 with the much larger bankroll?" I never said it.

Now, let's get back to the original issue. Which player is better off? It seems to me that on any given day a player who wins $300 is better off than a player who loses $300 any day of the week.

Bankroll wise its the same thing: The $10k player has increased his bankroll by $300. The $80K player has seen his bankroll shrink by $300.

But, by Dancer's definition, and I guess by your definitiion also, Arc, the $80K player has more money to keep trying.

Of course, this is what you advantage players live by: it's OK to lose as long as you lost playing the best cards.

So, you are claiming a person who has $10,300 is better off than one who has $79,700. I think you've pretty much lost it now. Not only that, the question from Dancer's article was very specific. It asked who was better off "bankroll-wise". So, even your attempt to redefine the entire article fails miserably.

I can certainly tell why you will never be an advantage player.

Youre right!! I did write that in the first post. And I am sorry.

But my position does not change. A winner, is a winner.

Having more money to lose does not make you a winner.

Is a person who has 10,300 better off than a person who has $79,700?? In this case, yes. Because the person with 10,300 has a profit of 300, while your high roller has a loss of 300.

I dont know about you, Arc, but everytime I go into a casino with my $10k per session bankroll, I get awfully jealous of the person who comes out with a $100 win, when I have a $100 loss (or bigger).

Now, if your definition of bankroll means having more money to chase your losses -- and win if you get lucky -- then sure, the person with 79,700 is ahead.

Let's change the numbers around...

Player-A walks into a casino with $10,000 and wins $100. While Player-B walks into a casino with $80,000 and in the session loses $40,000. Which player was "better off bankroll wise??"

But what am I arguing with here? Im arguing with someone who thinks its a good idea to lose $80K to win a $40K car.

I guess this part of advantage play I will never understand.

Here's a question for you Arci:

Do you think Dancer could, given a realistic bankroll ($1,000) let him build it up from there to a specified amount. ($10,000) by playing VP. Documenting his progress as he goes?

Or, your friend Singer?