I regularly read “how to win” discussions from a variety of disciplines. I was recently re-reading David Sklansky’s The Theory of Poker and came across the following:
“Any time you make a bet with the BEST OF IT, where the odds are in your favor, you have earned something on that bet, whether you actually win or lose on the bet. By the same token, when you make a bet with the WORST OF IT, where the odds are not in your favor, you have lost something, whether you actually win or lose the bet.”
Not that Sklansky needs my approval, but I agree completely. This is a basic tenet of successful investing in all areas, including video poker. But basic or not, relatively few people subscribe to the theory.
Let’s say you’re a dollar 9/6 Jacks or Better player. This is a 99.54% game when played perfectly, which for the sake of argument we’ll assume that you do. For whatever reason, today your favorite casino is offering a one-day-only promotion where the cash back is a full 1%. This is much juicier than usual, and you’re chomping at the bit to get started.
You put in a solid twelve hours of fast video poker and play a full 10,000 hands. On this much play, namely $50,000 of coin-in, you “should” lose $230 (i.e. 99.54% of $50,000 is $49,770) which is nicely offset by $500 in cash back.
Except that this isn’t your day. You lose $1,800 instead of $230, and the $500 you receive doesn’t put much of a dent into your loss. Which of the following more describes your feelings now?
a. This is AWFUL! I lost my shirt! I should have stayed home today.
b. Sometimes you lose. Them’s the breaks. This was a WONDERFUL promotion! I hope another one like this comes around soon!
My opinion is that the second reaction is more in keeping with Sklansky’s argument. What Sklansky doesn’t cover, however, is how you go home and explain this to your spouse. The bottom line is that you got your clock cleaned during this promotion. To many people (but neither Sklansky nor me), this is the far more important fact than whether or not you had the best of it going in.
As a successful gambler, I’m far more interested in the PROCESS OF WINNING than I am in WHETHER OR NOT I WON THIS TIME. Consider the following chart, which I modified from J. Edward Russo and Paul J. H. Schoemaker’s Winning Decisions: Getting it Right the First Time.
(a) Good Technique + Good Results = Well Deserved Success
(b) Good Technique + Bad Results = Bad Break
(c) Bad Technique + Good Results = Dumb Luck
(d) Bad Technique + Bad Results = Poetic Justice
As a successful gambler, I’m interested in the first two lines, (a) and (b), only. I want to develop good technique (learning the games well, understanding the slot clubs, playing when there’s a lucrative promotion going on, playing for low enough stakes that my bankroll isn’t threatened), and I’m willing to let the chips fall where they may.
Many “bottom line” gamblers are interested in lines (a) and (c). They want the good results. It doesn’t much matter to them where they came from. The phrase “I’d rather be lucky than good” seems to sum up this philosophy very well.
I participate in a couple of different online video poker forums. Among other things, these groups exchange emails back and forth about video poker. If a member wants to take a picture of a good hit (royal flush, four aces, etc.) and send it in, there’s a place for these pictures to be posted.
To be sure, a high percentage of the pictures sent in are on good games and represent “Well Deserved Success.” Some of the pictures sent in to these forums, however, are for AWFUL games — such as 6-5 Bonus Poker, 9-6 Double Bonus, 9-5 Double Double Bonus, or 9-5 Triple Double Bonus Poker. These games are so much in the house’s favor that the slot club and promotions can’t come close to making them anywhere near winning games.
And yet these pictures are proudly displayed. The members are happier for their royals than they are embarrassed at being found out to be a player of such lousy pay schedules that they cannot possibly be a net winner at video poker. (It’s not my intention to be too righteous about this. Many members of these forums are recreational players only and making money at this endeavor is not their primary concern. But even recreational players should prefer to have good rather than bad results.)
Let’s revisit the Russo/Schoemaker diagram. The diagram shows the possibilities. It does NOT indicate causality, although I believe that there IS a large degree of causality over time.
That is, good technique CREATES good results. Bad technique CREATES bad results. Not every time, of course, but over time. I can’t tell you how long it takes to be in the long run, but I CAN tell you that improving your technique will improve your results. Can I PROVE this to you? Probably not. But I believe it and I “put my money where my mouth is” on a daily basis.
I’d much rather be good than lucky. When you are good, sometimes you are over-royaled and sometimes you are under-royaled, but these things eventually average out and when they do, you’re going to be ahead of the game. If your skill level is such that you depend on luck for good results, when your luck averages out over time (and it will), you’re going to be behind.
Never miss another post