The title of this article is somewhat tongue in cheek. A few years ago, someone called me a master because of something I’ll explain shortly. It occurred to me that many players don’t understand the day-to-day activities of a successful professional player — whether that player deserves to be called a master or not. Striving to be a master of video poker is one of my goals. Actually becoming a master is likely unobtainable. Mastery is about something you do, not something you are.
I was playing 8/5 Bonus Poker MultiStrike at the Silverton. This is a 99.37# game and is the highest returning game at that casino. Although it returns 0.20# more than regular Bonus Poker (a MUCH more popular game at that casino), it requires mastering four different strategies and fading significant variance. Still, with the promotions at that casino I found this an acceptable play.
Sometime after this incident happened, Silverton decided that this 99.37# game was way too loose and so instituted a $4-per-point policy on the machine that makes it no longer interesting. At $4 for each point, the 0.30# slot club becomes 0.075#, While that makes the net return on the two games-Bonus Poker and Bonus Poker MultiStrike–roughly equivalent percentage-wise (both games add up to slightly less than 99.5# before you add in the mailers and other promotions), you now need to give the casino four times the action at a half-percent disadvantage to get the same rewards. So strong players avoid the machine, except for maybe to play off free play.
Since this game wouldn’t be played today by strong players, I suppose this is a “period piece.” But the point of the story is still relevant.
I was playing next to two other “old timers,” “Sam” and “Tom.” I’ve been playing video poker for 22 years and I know Sam was a very competent veteran when I began. I’m not sure how long Tom has been playing, but several conversations over the years tell me he is also competent.
Sam was dealt the following hand on the 4x level: Q♥ J♥ Tâ™ 9â™ 4♦ and he asked the other two of us how to play it. As you probably know, the strategy for MultiStrike varies as you go from the 1x to the 2x to the 4x to the 8x levels. I was positive that it was correct to hold ‘QJ’ at both the 1x and the 2x levels. I was also positive that it was correct to hold QJT9 at the 8x level. At the 4x level I was pretty sure that it was correct to hold four cards rather than two, but I wasn’t positive. I’ve studied and practiced this game for dozens of hours and played it for probably fifty hours, but there are still some hands I don’t know, partly because I also play about 15 other games and the strategies are all similar — and all different.
In games I’m not 100# positive about, I generally carry a home-made strategy sheet with me into the casino. I start with the strategy created by Video Poker for Winners and I adjust it for all of the penalty card situations I can discover. I looked up this hand and told him that holding four cards was correct. Tom consulted his own strategy sheet and confirmed what I said.
“I’ll defer to the masters,” Sam facetiously announced as he held the cards we recommended. (Sam is, by most people’s calculation, every bit as much of a master as I am. Perhaps more so.) Still, no matter who is stronger over all, both Tom and I are competent players and if we both agreed as to the correct play after consulting independently-derived strategy charts, of course Sam would go along with the suggestion.
What made us “masters” was that we both had the humility to bring a strategy sheet with us and not be too proud to use it. Obtaining strategies is not difficult, although refining them to cover every last exception isn’t trivial. Practicing with them takes time. Bringing them with you is acknowledging that you don’t have the game mastered yet and your results will be better if you consult with it occasionally.
I’m not too proud to carry one when I don’t have the strategy memorized. Are you?
ADDENDUM: Some time after the first version of this article was written, I read the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. In that book (which looked at high performers in music, sports, lawyering, business, etc.) he stated that a major prerequisite to becoming a master at anything was studying hard at it for at least 10,000 hours. This would be a necessary condition, although hardly sufficient without some aptitude as well.
I’m well past 20,000 hours. A lot of the study came in the process of writing various books and articles through the years. A lot of it came because I was trying to develop and memorize strategies so I could outfox the casino at a game where the casino set the rules. Beating the casino still gives me pleasure. Even 15,000 hours of backgammon and blackjack study before I ever knew about video poker helped lay the foundation for life as a successful gambler.
To be sure, an additional 30,000 or so hours of actually playing the games provides valuable experience, but insofar as seeking mastery, I’m only counting the hours of reading, practicing, writing, working stuff out on the computer, discussing situations with others, etc.
Even though I believe that mastery is a process rather than an achievement, by Gladwell’s definition I at least pass the minimum requirement for being a master. The only way to stay on top of my game is to continue doing the things that got me here. Generally speaking, the best professors work harder studying than do their students and I intend to maintain my professor status as long as possible.