I can’t wait to see a bunch of comments about this, with players who are critical of successful pros like yourself. My experience is they will swear up and down they are winning, but ALWAYS fall short of providing verification. I call it the loser’s “prize”–a right to complain and seek commiseration. It seems to substitute for better skills and vocabulary.

Congratulations again, and hit a royal or two. I wish the Horseshoe in Iowa had some of the games they have in Hammond!

Really enjoy your blog even though I seldom play VP.

George

Certainly, you’ve been attentive over the years to bankroll considerations and built up your playing stake slowly but surely. I should emphasize that this alone is NOT ENOUGH. You also have to be lucky, or if you prefer, not unlucky. I was busted out twice in the late 90s, each time with a bankroll of 20 royals, sufficient to give me a risk of ruin well below 0.5%. And I was playing 101% games or better consistently, with perfect strategy (I tested myself constantly). In the most recent three years, my results are 2 1/2 standard deviations low. Variance can kill you, and those who have survived to amass a huge bankroll and write video poker books are those who did NOT have “royal droughts” like the one you’ve recently experienced until their bankrolls were inflated enough to absorb them.
Perhaps you’re assuming I don’t understand how all this +EV stuff works. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I DO understand is the “law of large numbers,” which means the EXACT OPPOSITE of what most people think it does. Over time, your results will DIVERGE, in greater and greater magnitude, from expectation–in other words, things do NOT “average out.” You’ve played well over your career, and been assiduous in chasing promos, etc., but understand–none of that would have mattered had you been unlucky. I know a dozen (at least) aspiring VP “pros” who studied the game and played in expertly but ultimately, couldn’t survive extended “royal droughts.” Kudos to you for having survived yours.