When you are in a long losing streak, there is the strong tendency to look for a reason. Some have mentioned that the casinos have “tightened up the machines.” If you are playing in some Indian casinos or some states where they have a different type of video poker that is not random, this might be the case. However, if you are playing in a highly regulated state, like Nevada, Mississippi, New Jersey, or Louisiana, you would know whether this is true by looking at the paytables – since to lower the return, they must downgrade the paytables.
The truth is that many of you used to always play, for example, 9/6 Jacks of Better. Then when those machines were downgraded, you started playing 8/5 Bonus. The difference between the EV of 9/6 JoB – 99.54% – and the EV of 8/5 Bonus – 99.17% – may not seem like much, but consider this: If you play 500 hands an hour ($625 coin-in) on a quarter 8/5 Bonus Game, you will, on average long term, lose $2.31 more per hour than on 9/6 JoB. If you play faster, you lose even more. If you don’t play correct strategy, the losses increase. If you play dollars, you will lose 4 times as much, $9.24 more per hour even you play good strategy. At $5 machines, you are looking at a whopping $46.20 bigger loss per hour.
And remember, even when you were playing 9/6 JoB you were not playing a 100% game, so you have to add the numbers I gave you above, to the average loss you were already carrying on 9/6: $2.88 an hour on quarters; $11.52 on dollars; $57.60 on $5 machines.
Now we are talking about a total loss playing 8/5 Bonus, average long term per hour, on quarters $5.18, on dollars $20.72; on $5 machines $103.60. And that is the minimum. Add more losses for faster play and/or strategy errors.
You all know I am not heavy on math talk, but sometimes you need to knuckle down and look at the numbers. If you are trying to play at least even or even with a tiny advantage, you can see how many “extras” you need to scrounge up to make up for a negative game. We find it very difficult to make an 8/5 Bonus play positive, much less any game with a lower EV. It takes huge point multipliers and/or super promotions.
Stay tuned. I may talk on this subject “forever” if I get wound up!
It is very easy to overstate the value of comps especially if you happen to be on a long loosing streak.I live 85 miles from the strip so to me a room comp is worth only $30 which is what gas costs for the round trip. If gambling is the only reason for going to Vegas as opposed to shows,dancing,shopping, dinner etc. then I will make a special trip if there is at least $100 available for the taking in the form of free play.Recently South Point, Gold Coast,Palms ,Terrible’s and some others have made it possible to reach the $100 mark quite often.
George
Let’s say you are playing a mildly negative game like NSUD or JOB. Let’s also say that you average 8K coin-in/day, and you play about 30 total days/year. This equates to 240K coin-in/year, which is substantial. Figure on playing NSUD, for example, at a casino which gives 0.1% cashback or comps. The inherent -EV of the game is (-0.27), which equates to an expected loss of about $660. However, you will get that 0.1% back, which means that you now have to make up a net loss of $420. Many casinos send quarterly offers; if you receive 4 offers of, say, a room for two nights+$X food comps, and often, free play, and you are able to take advantage of all four of those offers, then as long as each offer gives you $105 or more in value, then you have indeed broken even. A similar scenario could be constructed with .25 FPJOB but 0.3% comps/cashback.
You can work from the other end of the equation, as well. Figure out what a room for two or three nights (in the future) is worth to you, then calculate the maximum amount of coin-in at the -EV of the game(s) you intend to play will be, to stay under that threshold. Of course, you will not know for certain whether your play did in fact generate enough benefits until you get a subsequent mailer from that casino.
I agree that direct comps/cashback rarely make a -EV game positive any more, but if you assign a fair value to mailed offers, the games can still be over 100%.
Kevin- I agree with your suggestions, they work well. However, We push 5-10k thru per day for a week at a time, 4-5x per year, 25¢ single line. If the game is not over 100%, there are not enough freebies to make up the negative EV. (“We have met the enemy and he is short pay”)
Hey, Jean, get wound up. While you’re at it, how about favoring your loyal readers with your thoughts on the EV of Double Bonus and Double Double Bonus poker.
Thanks.
Jim: since I was a long-time local but am now a visitor, I know what you’re talking about, and share your frustration. However, visitors can often use perks that are worth little or nothing to locals. If I get a free room, that’s worth $40 or $50 a night, minimum. Example: I have an offer from South Point for $50 free play, $50 resort credit (which I can use for meals), and two free nights. I also have an offer from El Cortez for three free nights, $75 free play, and $50 food credits. Given that I’m a .25 single-line player, I doubt if I would have generated enough bounceback if I were a local to even come close to the $200+ value of each of these offers. So quite often, the visitor gets more in real terms. The casinos with the best VP, that usually have a locals player base, realize that they can’t afford to be too generous with players that are already skilled and knowledgeable; as far as they know, though, a visitor will be likely to play longer, play worse games, and play with less skill than the local. Therefore, the visitor is more valuable to them on a per-day basis than the skilled local.
Of course, you can confound that equation by playing with as small a -EV as possible, in essence, acting like a local. The one thing they can’t do (yet) is gauge your VP skill level, so they’ll assume you are a member of The Clueless.
Another factor operating here is that you need to keep your ear to the ground and find out which casinos are best for offers for out-of-towners. Main Street Station, for example, gives out room+food offers for relatively little play, and it doesn’t seem to matter whether you play good or bad machines (unlike, say, Palms, which sends you ZIPPO if you only play the +EV games–or even NSUD). They have .25 FPDB, and though their comp rate is paltry, the subsequent mailed offers make up for it.
Jean, I agree with you. Until I put together a spreadsheet that allowed my to figure the hourly loss/gain on various games with varying levels of cashback/bounceback and hands per hour, I was not able to see the real impact of the fractions of percentage difference between the games. And you are right, while the difference between 99.54% return and 99.17% return might not seem like much, trying to bridge the increased gap with promotions and multipliers is just about impossible. It’s hard enough to get even or slightly positive just with 9/6 JOB. I think this is why you don’t see much full pay Pick’em anymore. Low volitility and an easy strategy, combined with only a .05% theoretical loss to recover made it an easy game for an underbankrolled player to make positive.
Another advantage of having a spreadsheet calculate net hourly loss (if you have a negative expectation play) is to help you understand what you are “paying” for all those comps that look so attractive. They often end up coming at an above market cost.
My dear Mrs Scott,
The key to your mathematical treatise is the “long term” results. I believe that means playing over 40,000 hands. At 500 hands per hour that would be a minimum of 80 hours to get the long term results. I know that when I play I’m more likely playing 300 hands per hour so I would need over 133 hours of play to achieve those theoretical “long term” results. And, of course, there is no guarantee that the +/- EV will be approached. If I play 8 to 10 hours a day I feel pretty beat up and probably only play 6 to 8 hours a day. I would need to play 13 to 19 days to play the number of hands needed for the “Long Term” results. In our 7 to 8 trips to Las Vegas every year we never stay and play for more than 3 nights (usually we stay 2 nights). We have a limited gambling budget and play the least volatile games we can find. I’ve only gone through my entire gambling budget once in the 25 years we’ve been going to Las Vegas (we only went twice a year for the first 23 years)! I only ask that I get too many beers and decent play time for my money. The comps and mailers offset our losses enough to keep us returning as often as we do. I, for whatever reason, do much better when I’m drinking beer. I never drink two nights in a row so my track record has become pretty obvious. My wife can’t understand it either.
We hope that you and Brad have good fortune in all that you do…..Rich
I agree with Daniel. I can’t complain about the royals…I had six of them last year out of ten trips to Nevada. But even so, the quads don’t seem to appear.
The absence of positive payoff machines makes it more imperative that a player stay within the comfort level of loss. The long term loss does not accurately reflect the probably session loss (or win). Because of that bugaboo volatility, session loss varies widely from long term expectation.
Level of play is about the only way to keep from getting wiped out. Particularly when you have to add in comps to make a game positive.
Don
As a visitor I am unable to make up the loss on
a negative game with promotions that
are always geared to locals. Free rooms
help but it is not enough of an edge.
Bottom line-If the game is not over 100%
I will not play.
Jean, I agree intellectually with your comments. I’ve read the regulations of the Gaming Control Board relating to this matter and believed that the risk of license forfeiture prevented the casino affecting the randomness of the deal in VP.
The severity of the great recession on the strip and local casinos , however, causes me to wonder if casino management might feel that survival is at stake and any measure justifiable. What audit tests of machines exist to verify the integrity of the deal? My VP results the past year and a half, and those of my friends, have all declined. The royals and quads do not seem to appear within their statistical variation on our machines.
Negative EV doesn’t produce long losing streaks per se. What produces them is, oddly enough, LACK of volatility. Someone playing 9/6 JOB is more likely to have long losing streaks than someone who is playing 9/6 DDB, even though the -EV of the latter game is more than twice as large. This is because that volatility is caused by the payoffs being “crowded” into the upper part of the paytable. Someone who is down $300 on .25 JOB is almost a certainty to go minus for the session; only a royal can put him back in the black. If that person was playing DDB, however, AAAA2, or two hands like 2222A, put him back ahead.
The above is not to say that it’s a superior strategy to play more volatile games, even at the risk of added loss of EV. It’s just pointing out that volatility has more effect than anything else on short-term results. It’s no accident that the few positive paytables still available for VP are all high-volatility; that increases the bankroll necessary to achieve a positive long-term expectation. There are dead bodies of VP players everywhere who jumped on high +EV, high-volatility games. The casinos love this because it kills off many skilled but underfunded potentially winning players.
The only examples of +EV low-volatility games I can think of were the Strat super-JOB games, on which it was quite possible to eke out a long-term win without a gigantic bankroll. A more recent example is 20/7 Joker, which the El Cortez recently completely removed, because too many .25 players were skilled enough to eke out wins, and the relatively low volatility of 20/7 Joker (in part, because of the high frequency of four of a kind) expanded the number of players who were able to take advantage of the opportunity, because the bankroll requirements for survival at that game were relatively low compared to other +EV games.