Posted on 8 Comments

My Experience with Gaming — Part II of II

In last week’s blog, I laid out the nature of my beef with the Rainbow Casino. I was basically fighting over whether I could have someone play off $2,400 in free play — or get a check for $1,200. Whether my case had any merits or not, this was too small to involve a lawyer.

I called up the Gaming Control Board and told them I had a complaint. An agent listened and said that if I wished to go forward with the matter I could come down to the office and fill out the paperwork. I told him I’d be down the next day.

The Nevada GCB here in Las Vegas is located off of Las Vegas Boulevard at Washington, which is in the downtown area, immediately north of Cashman Field. It’s in a building housing a number of other governmental agencies.

The night before I went to the office, I spent considerable time writing out exactly what I wanted and why I felt I was entitled to it. I had been led to believe that whatever I wrote down the next day was basically all I got to say before the decision was rendered. So, I wanted to give it my best shot. I suspect they would have written the report for me if I was not capable of doing so, but I believe I can better present my own argument for myself — given it’s too small to justify hiring an attorney.

I saw the same agent I had spoken to on the phone the day before and he brought me a form to fill out. I told him I thought I would need five or six sheets of paper and he provided them.

After I finished writing up my report, the agent read it. He surprisingly advised me to take the $1,200 and not ask to gamble with the $2,400. He told me it was possible I would end up with less than $1,200 and then I’d feel so bad. I didn’t tell him the game was available for quarters and if you play $2,400 coin-in for quarters on NSU, it’s basically impossible to end up with less than $2,000 — let alone $1,200.

I didn’t think it was in my interest to make it obvious that I was an experienced player. I thanked him for his suggestion and told him I’d prefer to take my chances.

The agent asked if I were an advantage player and then added that it really didn’t matter if I was or wasn’t. I didn’t know if I was on the record or not, so I said I wasn’t a beginner and let the matter drop.

I was then told the GCB would investigate the complaint and issue a ruling within 45 days. If both parties accepted the ruling, that would be it. If either side wished to appeal the ruling, the appeal would be held in a hearing room that was within the same complex of offices.

The ruling came back in about 30 days, basically denying all parts of my claim. The casino was ordered to pay me $1,200 by check within two weeks. While I’m writing this before the two-week period has expired and I haven’t received the check yet, I’m not expecting that to be an issue.

The decision listed several findings it had made, including mentioning that I was no longer allowed on the property. Many of those findings were clearly made after talking to casino employees. Several were different than what I remembered happening. I also recognized that I didn’t record the conversations, and it would be a form of “he said-she said” to figure out what actually happened.

I considered appealing — if only to make this into a three-part blog rather than just a two-parter. After all, whatever happens at the GCB is generally interesting to my readers and the listeners to my podcast.

The bottom line in my decision to not appeal was that I didn’t think I had a case. If you focus on the right part of the slot club rules, it’s clear that I only get 50% if I redeem the points in cash and the casino was within its rights to refuse to let me play the points off. Those rules were “hidden in plain sight,” but they were there, nonetheless.

While I could force the system to chug along and rule absolutely that I wasn’t going to get my way, I believed that eventual ruling was essentially a certainty. The idea of going through the appeal just to have more to talk about in this blog or on the podcast strikes me as more selfish than I like to view myself. I basically am doing nothing, which means I accept the ruling.

Still, I find it useful to have gone through this process. Someday I may well need to go through it again and there are advantages to having gone through it previously.

After I wrote this, I did get the check and deposited it. An agent from the GCB, Kevin Smith, called and asked me to call him back on a personal matter. I did, and he just wanted to verify that I had received the check.

I asked him why he had referred to this as a personal matter. After all, this sounds like ordinary GCB work. He told me that he couldn’t know who would listen to that message, and didn’t wish to be broadcasting that I had just received a check that would be considered large by many people. So he called it a personal matter.

Makes sense. I’m the only one who listens to that voicemail — but he couldn’t know that. I appreciate his extra care.

Posted on 5 Comments

My Experience with Gaming — Part I of II

The Nevada Gaming Control Board is charged with, among other things, arbitrating disputes between patrons and casinos. I have known about them for years but have never had any direct dealings with them until recently. This blog is about my recent incident.

In many ways, it’s surprising that I’ve had no previous disputes. I know of video poker pros who have dealt with them dozens of times because they believe that the casinos are always trying to cheat them. Others I know regularly take an “it’s the principle of the thing” approach and seek redress for the smallest slights.

To me, there’s a cost associated with going to the GCB. Winning a decision can lead the casino to decide you’re a trouble maker and no longer welcome your action. And any employee involved in that decision may soon work for another casino causing your “unwelcome” to spread without further incident. So, to me, the GCB is going to be a last resort when I’m essentially “out the door” anyway and am concerned with how much I get to take out the door with me.

If it’s a big enough dispute, I’m probably going to talk with attorney Bob Nersesian for advice on how to proceed — or possibly even representing me. He’s knowledgeable enough and good enough that even after paying his fee I’ll be money ahead by letting him take care of it. While there are other attorneys I could call, he’s been on my podcast about two dozen times and we have a personal relationship.

But the case that led me to contact the GCB fell into the sweet spot in that it was large enough to fight over, I was not going to be able to play in the casino again whether I went to GCB or not, and it was too small to call in Nersesian. So, I did it myself.

Here’s what happened:

Someone told me the Rainbow casino in downtown Henderson had $5 NSU and some players were getting several hundred dollars a week in mailers. Since the game starts out at 99.73%, this was worth checking out. With any kind of a slot club at all, this was likely to be a positive play.

I never found the $5 machines. But I did find dollar five play machines where you could bet up to 20 coins per line. That is, I could bet $100 per play on a game where I probably had the edge.

The slot club remains a mystery to me. They have tier levels. You can redeem points for free play or cash, at different rates depending on your tier level. Therefore, I decided that I’d let my points stay unredeemed for a while because I would rather redeem them at the top rate instead of for only half that much. (It turned out I misunderstood the slot club — more about that later.) For August and September (the two months I played) there were 10x comp dollars on Sundays and Fridays.

The comp rate appeared to be a rather miniscule 0.033%, but 10x comps turns that into 0.33% and you add that to 99.73% and you’re very slightly positive. If you get mailers, this is a play.

Each royal was $16,000 (I never hit one of those), and each time I hit four deuces I earned $4,000. (I received several sets.) You also would get W2Gs for dealt quints ($1,600 — every 4,165 dealt hands) and dealt wild royals ($2,500 — every 5,415 hands).

Some of the $4,000 sets of deuces came with a lot more money. If I were dealt three deuces, for example, and connected on one of them, on each of the other four lines I’d get a quad ($80), straight flush ($200), quint ($320), or wild royal ($500). This happened several times.

The deal breaker was when I was dealt four deuces, a 54,144-to-1 hand that paid $20,000. I hit it shortly before Bonnie and I went on a month-long vacation. I hoped that staying away for a month would save my welcome.

Not to be. When I returned, my card wouldn’t work. No big surprise, really. But I had accumulated a number of points and if they were going to kick me out, I wanted my accumulated money before I left. In round numbers we were talking about $2,400.

I was told to call up Billy Paganetti, who owned the Peppermill in Reno as well as the Rainbow, and I could discuss this with him.

Being trespassed from a casino has been mentioned on at least 30 of our podcasts. I am very familiar with this concept. I was NOT trespassed. I was told I wasn’t welcome to play the machines, but I was not told that I was not welcome on the premises.

After a brief bit of phone tag, Mr. Paganetti cut to the chase and said that the slot club would have let me redeem $2,400 in free play had I actually collected it at the casino.  If I now wanted cash, it was only going to be $1,200 because I was at the Chairman level. Had I been at a lower level, it would only have been $800 in cash. He agreed to cut me a check for $1,200 and said I’d have it in the mail within a week.

I believed that I should get more. The boothlings (who were also cage workers) had not been informative about the slot club and I had just earned Chairman level. I believed (incorrectly, it turned out) that leaving my points in the club until I reached Chairman would allow me to redeem them at a higher rate. That would be true if I wanted cash. For free play, the redemption rate did not vary by tier level.

For a variety of reasons, I decided to take my beef to Gaming. I believed that I should have been able to transfer my points to somebody and let him play them off rather than be forced to accept the 50% rate. Mr. Paganetti said, “That’s your right and we’ll wait until we hear from Gaming before we cut the check.”

Next week I’ll explain more of what happened.

Before you head out to the Rainbow, it is my understanding that they have removed the NSU games. They have also removed two games returning more than NSU that I didn’t find. And I was not the only player booted. If you want to check it out anyway, knock yourself out.

Posted on 5 Comments

What Now?

Las Vegas casinos have become more aggressive at booting video poker players than they used to be. A number of pros and semi-pros, including myself, are down to a small number of places where they can play unrestricted. Or sometimes, play at all. Some players have no places left in town that welcome their action and have taken to regular trips out of town — or even out of state — so that they can still play.

So, what now?

A friend of mine suggested that I form a group and teach others to do what I do in return for a percentage of their action. That way I could capitalize on my knowledge even though I cannot physically play in many places.

I don’t think that would work for several reasons.

First, I have already written about a high percentage of my “tricks of the trade.” People who can learn from me, for the most part, already have. Or even if they haven’t learned yet, hundreds of my articles and podcasts are readily available. In general, you can’t sell what you’ve already given away for free. I still have occasional students come in and buy a few hours of private tutoring, but that isn’t nearly enough to support me.

Another problem with that idea is that most of my discoveries of profitable situations have been found while in the casino searching for the holes. No two casinos are identical. No two slot clubs are the same. And often the techniques that worked in a particular place six months ago are no longer available today. You must be in the casino working the promotions to find out that at this moment, four separate promotions are in affect at one time — and two of them are particularly lucrative. And to notice while in that casino, they don’t enforce this particular thing. And to hear scuttlebutt about what’s coming down the line at a third casino. And to find out that the theoretical on a certain bank of machines has been mis-set in the players’ favor. Or notice that a typo in the rules allows a one-off situation that will expire as soon as the casino realizes someone is exploiting it. If I’m not actively in a casino trying to beat it, I simply will not know enough about the current possibilities.

Another option is to talk the casino into allowing me to play under certain conditions. I’ve had some success with this, but more failures than successes. Every situation is different. Sometimes I can convince the General Manger that there are some extenuating circumstances that warrant reconsideration. Often the GM is simply not at all interested in changing his mind, whatever I say.

Sometimes it might make sense to continue to play, subject to whatever restrictions the casino has instituted. If you’ve been trespassed or told “Don’t play video poker no matter what!” then continuing to play is not an intelligent option. But a lesser restriction, such as “no mailers” and/or “no multipliers,” might still be beatable. It’s hard enough to eke out even a small edge when you get all the benefits, but sometimes it’s still possible with one hand tied behind your back.

Note that in the previous circumstance, the casino will likely be watching you. The first restriction was intended to get you to stop playing there, or maybe only to be able to play and lose. If you demonstrate that you can still play and win, further restrictions may just be around the corner. Getting lucky immediately after a partial restriction may end up being costly. If you take a month or two off and then come back and get lucky, sometimes you are allowed to continue to play.

A totally different option is to go down in stakes. There are very possibly several places where you could play for quarters or dollar single line where you would be welcome to play. The win-per-hour isn’t as good as where you are no longer welcome to play (otherwise it would have been on your list of places to play in the first place), but maybe it’s still enough.

For some folks, playing with an edge is not as important as playing. (This will never be me.) In general, folks like this generally won’t be excluded in the first place. Although these folks can hit some big jackpots and get thrown out by casinos who don’t understand the winning process, generally these players are recognized as profitable assets by the casino and allowed to play and lose.

A more drastic option is to retire from playing video poker. This can entail shifting to a different gambling game or perhaps giving up gambling altogether.  Although I’m personally nowhere near doing this, everyone has to make this choice for him or herself.

Posted on 1 Comment

How Do You Approach It?

I’m always on the lookout for non-video poker situations that I can turn into video poker teaching moments. It’s the only way I can continue to produce a weekly column after all these years.

As I mentioned in a recent column, Bonnie and I were cruising for three weeks and this happened while our ship was docked in Halifax, which is in Nova Scotia, Canada. Although on this evening, we could stay on shore until 6:30, we had enough fun much earlier than that and were sitting down to a dinner at Moderno, a restaurant on the ship. This is a Brazilian all-you-can eat steakhouse, where they keep bringing you about ten different kinds of meats until you’ve had enough.

First-time diners need some instruction about where the salad bar is, which meats are coming, and how you signal whether you want more food or are finished. Or perhaps not exactly finished but need to digest for a while before beginning again. It’s not particularly difficult, but there are some “house rules” so that everybody is on the same page.

Our server was Rita from Indonesia. When she gave us the information, she spoke rapidly with a strong accent and some mispronunciations. Listening intently, I caught about one-third of what she was saying. Bonnie and I were among the earliest diners, and I saw and heard her repeat this performance at two nearby tables over the next half hour. What was interesting to me is that each of the three tables handled it differently. I found it easy to compare the approaches with video poker players I have observed.

At one table, the woman berated her for not speaking better English and said that non-English-speaking immigrants created one of the biggest problems within the US these days and it made her very angry. Never mind that this happened in Canada on a ship with less than 10% of its employees from the United States. In addition, the Norwegian Dawn spent most of its time in International waters.

At the next table, the people just nodded and then rose to go get their salads. It’s unlikely these people understood everything Rita was saying because I saw the husband and wife looking at each other during Rita’s dissertation with expressions that indicated utter confusion. But they weren’t going to let that stop them. Time to eat!

At our table, I asked Rita to slow down and repeat what she just said. After two additional iterations of this, I was pretty sure I understood what she was saying. Bonnie still appeared to be in the dark, but I indicated to her that we should go get salads and I’d explain the rest while we were grazing on the lettuce and other vegetables. Which I did.

Okay. So how does this relate to video poker?

The table where the lady (rudely, in my opinion) berated Rita for not knowing better English reminded me of players who only know one game and when that game is not available any more get very angry about it. These people believe they deserve certain conditions and if the casinos remove those conditions, it’s because the casinos are greedy bastards.

It is definitely true that video poker conditions are less advantageous than they were several years ago. It is also true that opportunities still exist for the ones who can find and exploit them. If you are too busy complaining that things aren’t just how you want them, you’ll miss seeing the good deals that still exist.

At the table where the couple was ready to figure it out as they went, this reminded of players who don’t take the time to learn the ins and outs of the strategy and slot club before they begin. It’s expensive to play that way.

If video poker is a very minor part of your life and the sums you play for are minor to you, this methodology makes sense. It takes time and energy to become competent at this game and for many, it’s just not worth it.

It probably should also be noted that dining optimally at Moderno is much simpler than gambling optimally in a casino. So in this case, the “figure it out as we go” approach might indeed have been perfectly acceptable, although it’s not the approach I personally use. Perhaps this is because I think linearly and I’m not as intuitive as some others are.

It shouldn’t surprise you that I prefer the way of gaining information Bonnie and I used. After all, if I didn’t think it was best, I wouldn’t have done it that way.

Our way was to gently ask questions until at least one of us understood and then help each other if one of us learned faster than the other. As it turned out, Bonnie caught something I missed and so we both learned some things over salad.

The edges available in casinos are very small these days even for the most knowledgeable of players. If playing with an advantage is important to you, you must exploit every opportunity to figure out how to do it.

It can be argued that using the same approach at dinner that I use in a casino is a case of “if your only tool is a hammer then everything looks like a nail,” but we enjoyed the dinner, nonetheless.

Posted on 1 Comment

Learning a Second Game — Part II of II  

Last week I began a discussion of learning NSU Deuces Wild once you already knew 9/6 Jacks or Better. If you missed that article, it’s not hard to find.

If you’re going to or from a game covered by the Dancer/Daily Winners’ Guide series, that’s by far the most efficient place to start. You can learn the games systematically and completely by using those guides. It shortens the learning process considerably as much of the heavy lifting is done for you.

So, however you did it, we’ve reached the stage where you have a decent strategy and you know how to read it. It’s now time to practice, practice, practice on the computer.

How long do you need to practice on the computer? It depends on how good you want to get and how good of a student you are. If you wish to play at the professional level (which will be true for a small percentage of you), you need to practice until your accuracy level is in the 99%+ range — at least. If your goal is to play the game reasonably well, then a lower accuracy level will suffice.

If this is truly the second game you’ve tried to learn (which is what the article presumes, but lots of people reading the article will not be in that exact place), you will need to study considerably more than if this is the 15th game you’ve learned. The more games you know, the more you’ll find cases where “this game now is just like that game.” But if you don’t have that depth, and none of us did when we started, it’s going to take more study.

Different computer products have different learning tools built in. In Video Poker for Winners, you can ask the computer to show you hands at the Beginner level, the Intermediate level, and the Advanced level. It allows you to get better without becoming overwhelmed by being confronted with the most difficult hands at the start.

In WinPoker, there is a “Hard Hands” section. You can set it for whatever difference you wish between the correct play and the second-best play. If you set it for 3¢ while playing NSU, for example, you’ll never see the hand 3♦ 4♦ 7♦ K♣ Q♣ because the diamonds are more valuable than the clubs by considerably more than 3¢, but you will see 3♦ 4♦ A♦ K♣ Q♣ because that’s a much closer play. If you would have played the first hand incorrectly, then you’re not quite ready for this tool yet. But when you get the basics down, it allows you to concentrate on the hands that are likely to give you trouble.

WinPoker has another tool I use where I can plug in two or three cards and the machine will start with those and deal others. For example, in DDB, J♥ T♥ A♠ can go either way depending on the other two cards — and there are LOTS of possibilities with straight, flush, straight flush, and kicker penalties to either the hearts or spades or occasionally both.

If you start with those three cards and just let the computer deal, you can focus on a relatively tough combination and get it down. To be sure, sometimes you’ll be dealt pairs or trips or even a 4-card royal which isn’t a hand that should give you a problem at all. But you’ll get the relevant hands enough of the time that it becomes an efficient way to learn it.

On a personal note, I use both products. They each teach me in different ways and both support my goal of efficiently learning to play accurately.

Now we’re at the stage where you’ve learned to play “well enough” on the computer. It’s time to go to the casino. There is something about playing for real money that focuses your concentration.  You’re going to run into hands while playing that you don’t remember from practice. So, keep note paper handy and write such hands down. Do the best you can in the casino, consulting a strategy card if you have one, but be sure to look up the hands on the computer when you get back home. There will be times where you either mis-read the strategy card or mis-remembered the correct play. Checking when you get home will help correct either or both of those errors.

At this point, you’ve reached the stage where you can play the second game in the casino competently. You now must go back and relearn the first game! Because you’ve learned that J♥ T♥ is more valuable in NSU than Q♠ J♠, you must re-learn that the opposite is true in JoB. There will usually be concepts that got “overlapped” in your brain. It’s going to take some retraining to be able to keep them straight.

By the time you’ve gotten your knowledge of JoB back up to speed, you may find you’ve forgotten your NSU. Like they instruct with shampoo, rinse and repeat.

Finally, once you’ve got both games “mastered,” you still need to periodically review. In my case, I know a variety of games well, but I’m not equally up to speed in all of them. I usually know beforehand what game I’ll be playing on a given day. I’ve been doing this for 24 years and have written about all of these games and have taught classes in all of these games — and I still need to review if it’s a game I haven’t been playing recently. (Part of my experience is offset by the fact that at 71 years of age my memory isn’t what it used to be.)

Probably you will also need to review.

At a university, many professors study harder than the students do. The same in video poker. I will never reach the stage that I no longer need to study — and I already know a lot more than most of my readers ever will. Continual study is part of the price of playing the game well.

Posted on 10 Comments

Ignoring Kenny Rogers

I’ve listened to Kenny Rogers’ song The Gambler a zillion times. Since I’m not a live poker player, the advice he gives seemed to make sense. After all, how bad can “You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em” actually be?

Whether the preceding line of the song is correct or not, I noticed there’s one line of advice in that song that has to be very wrong for many poker players — but largely correct for video poker players. So, I said to myself, “Self, there’s a column there!” So here goes.

The offending line is, “You never count your money when you’re sitting at the table.”

Since I’m not a poker expert, you’re well advised to take everything I say here with a grain of salt. But if the standard is being more accurate than a Kenny Rogers song, I’m confident I can clear that bar.

In no-limit hold ’em, among others, a major goal is to stack your opponents. That means, however many chips he has, that’s how many you’re trying to get.

For any given stakes, say $2-$5, your decisions are made relative to the amount of money in the pot. If there’s $20 in the pot and everybody at the table has $200, you need to play your cards fairly straightforward. The stacks are only 10 times the amount in the pot.

But if everybody has $2,000 in front of them, you can play much more speculatively, because if the right cards come in, you can collect 100 times what’s in the pot rather than only the 10 times in the previous example.

So far, I’ve been talking about how much money your opponents have, but the amount of money you have matters too. If you have $20 in front of you and your opponents all have $2,000 — then from your point of view, all your opponents have is $20 each. They can have side pots amongst themselves, but that doesn’t affect you financially. For you to stack somebody, you need at least as many chips as he has. (Being short-stacked definitely affects your strategy — where you’re basically “fold or all in.” Consult poker experts for more complete advice on this.)

With this in mind, it’s clear that, at least approximately, you need to know how much you have and how much your opponents have. This is counter to Rogers’ “You never count your money when you’re sitting at the table” advice.

In video poker, however, Kenny Rogers’ advice is generally spot on. If you’re trying to decide whether to hold three, four, or five cards from AAA33, there is no line on the strategy card that says, “Check the amount of money in your wallet first!” Players who adjust their strategy based on their bankroll are giving up EV every time they do so.

It definitely is important to consider your bankroll before you sit down to play and choose the particular game and denomination you’re going to play. But once you’ve made that choice you should make the highest EV play at all points.

One exception to this would be if you’re playing Ultimate X and you’re running out of money. If you’re playing the Ten Play version, you should never play a 100-coin hand when you have less than 145 credits (or more money in your pocket or otherwise close at hand.)

Why 145? It starts with knowing that if you play five credits per line (50 credits total), you can play off any existing multipliers without creating any new ones.  

If you play 100 credits and don’t earn any credits (i.e., you drew no paying hands), you left no multipliers on the game.  So, you take your 45 remaining credits and go home. If you play 100 credits and earn at least five credits, you will have at least 50 credits to play off all the multipliers on the game, again leaving no multipliers on the game.

So long as you earn at least five credits, you will have earned multipliers for the next hand — and you want to play those off five-credits per line, meaning 50 coins, before you abandon the machine to others. There are “fleas” who go around checking if you’ve abandoned any multipliers and you don’t want to be the person to feed those fleas.

There are a number of areas where video poker and live poker are played differently. In my just-completed video poker semester, there were several poker players who attended regularly. Comparing a draw to an unsuited KQJT with QJT9, I would explain the first had eight cards to complete the straight and nine cards to give you a high pair. The second hand also had eight cards to complete the straight but only six cards to give you a high pair.

“Aha!” one poker player would translate into a language she understood, “17 outs versus 14.” Sort of, but not really. In poker, an “out” is a card that will beat another player. In video poker, a card to give you a straight (paying 20 coins) is four times as valuable as a card that gives you a pair of queens (paying 5 coins.) All outs are not created equal.

I still enjoy hearing The Gambler occasionally whether it gives good advice or not. Bonnie and I dance the Texas Two Step and this song has a good beat for that. I never look to popular music of any decade to teach me to play games — professionally anyway. There are a number of songs through the years that have provided “words to live by.” But not “words to gamble by.”

Posted on 2 Comments

Using callipygian in a Sentence

I am perfectly content eating meals by myself so long as I have a book with me. I have a goal of reading one book a week for pleasure, along with however many I need to read to prepare for podcast interviews. Most of our interviews do not require reading a book beforehand, but there are five or ten a year that do.

On this particular day, I was reading 500 Words You Should Know by Caroline Taggart — a book I had picked up at the library. I have a decent vocabulary, and I figured I would know the vast majority of these words anyway, but a refresher course is good now and then.

This book was way more complicated than what I was expecting. Many of the words were basically unusable because words that 99% of my audience don’t know aren’t good to use. Occasionally using atavistic or ratiocination or amanuensis is probably okay, but regularly using a bunch of them makes readers turn away. Although I could live with it if people respected and admired me for a fine vocabulary, I know from experience that reactions to me using a lot of complicated typically include such comments as, “That Dancer guy is really an a**hole!”

Unfortunately, the words used as previous examples were some of the easier ones in this book! For example, in the first chapter I came across callipygian, which refers to having nicely shaped buttocks. I’m not sure if it’s better if my audience does or doesn’t know this word. If they do know it, it has an extra degree of un-usability in today’s world of sexual harassment and #metoo. While I did memorize the word, I figured I would never use it.

I was mistaken.

On this particular Saturday, I was playing on the first day of a two-day slot tournament at the M. Although I don’t go to all of their events, this one was lucrative enough to interest me. As is typical for that casino, they give each invited guest one tournament entry per day and you can earn up to two more per day based on your play. In addition, playing $2,000 coin-in on a video poker machine (less required on slots) earns you a free seafood buffet that retails for a nickel less than $45. Since the same coin-in can be used to earn extra tournament entries and qualify for the buffet, you can figure out where I ate that day. And you can also bet that I had a book with me.

Before the tournament, you swipe your player’s card at a kiosk and print out however many tournament entries you have. Some people come in just for the free entry, but if I’m going to take the time and energy to show up, I’m getting the extra ones as well. Getting two good scores out of six is much easier than getting two good scores out of two. So, on this day I had my three entries.

They have some permanent employees in the Special Events department, but they hire part-timers as well. They have different promotions occurring on different days, so having an army of temporary workers allows them to staff their events without having more people on their payroll than they usually need. On this day, the lady checking to verify that the name on my entries, player’s card, and ID were all the same was probably 80 years old and I had never seen her before. She had a nametag that said, “Mary.”

Although I’m hypothesizing, Mary didn’t look like she needed the job. She looked instead like she really liked people and was looking for something interesting to do with her time. She checked what she needed to check efficiently, noticed the title of the book I was carrying, and pleasantly asked, “What new word did you learn today?”

Mary’s tone of voice had me guessing that this lady was a retired elementary schoolteacher. Her question was friendly, and I could just sense her telling generations of school children that if you can’t use a word in a sentence, you don’t know it well enough.

So, I told her. “Callipygian.”

She scrunched up her face and said in an interested voice. “Oh! I don’t know that one. I like learning new words! What does it mean?”

I now had a choice to make. There are lots of ways to say, “nicely shaped buttocks.” Some you could say in elementary school. Some you shouldn’t. Some appropriate to say to a nice lady. Some not so appropriate.

I made a judgment call that Mary was a good sport and had a nice sense of humor, so I told her straight out.

“It means you have a beautiful ass!”

She looked a bit startled, and then smiled with delight. “Nobody has said that to me in decades! You have really made my day!”

Her delight made my day as well. My scores in those tournament rounds were very un-remarkable, but my day was memorable, nonetheless. That was fun! And I’m learning some new words in case I run into that lady again.

And the next word will have nothing to do with the size and shape of her body parts. As a one-off situation, this time was fine. If I only gave her words that had some possible sexual connotation, it would either imply that I’m a really creepy guy or maybe I was hitting on her. I certainly don’t want her making either conclusion.

Posted on 8 Comments

Figuring Out a New Strategy on the Fly

There are a LOT of video poker games out there. Sometimes you come across one that you haven’t studied before. There are some rules of thumb that can get you pretty close. This week we’re going to talk about doing that in games without wild cards where you get your money back for a pair of jacks or better. Next week we’ll talk about doing the same thing for Deuces Wild variations.

The first step of the process is the most critical. If you skip over that, your results down the road won’t be as good as they otherwise could be. And that first step is to know the strategy for at least one game cold.

This game that you know cold could be Jacks or Better, Double Bonus, Double Double Bonus, etc. But you need to know instantly how to play the following hands correctly. None of these are particularly difficult for an intermediate level player, but beginners will miss a goodly percentage of them.

  1. K♥ Q♥ J♥ K♣ 3♦
  2. A♠ K♠ J♠ 5♠ 2♥
  3. A♦ K♦ T♦ 4♦ 3♣
  4. 4♦ 4♠ 5♥ 6♣ 7♦
  5. 9♦ T♠ T♥ J♣ Q♦
  6. J♠ T♠ 9♠ 8♠ 7♦
  7. J♠ T♠ 9♠ 7♠ 8♦
  8. Q♦ J♣ T♦ 8♠ 3♠
  9. K♠ Q♠ T♥ 9♣ 2♦
  10. A♦ 2♠ 3♥ 5♣ 9♦
  11. A♠ Q♥ J♣ 5♠ 2♥
  12. 2♣ 4♠ 5♥ 6♠ 9♥
  13. A♦ K♦ J♣ 4♦ 6♠
  14. K♠ J♠ 3♥ 4♥ 5♥
  15. Q♥ J♥ 2♠ 3♠ 4♠
  16. A♠ A♥ 3♠ 3♥ J♠  
  17. K♠ K♥ 3♠ 3♥ J♠  

Now let’s look at how changes to the pay schedule will affect these plays. Note that my statements are strong tendencies, but exceptions may be found sometimes. I’m using the following notation here:

2P — two pair

3K — three of a kind

ST — straight

FL — flush

FH — full house

4K — four of a kind

SF — straight flush

RF — royal flush.

 

When flushes pay 30 on a 5-coin basis, I’ll say FL pays 6-for-1. I went back and forth about whether to say “pay” or “pays.” I can argue persuasively against either way of doing it, but I had to pick one. So, I did.

 

  1. When FL pays 5-for-1, KK is always correct. When FL pays 6-for-1, KQJ is correct if 2P pays 1-for-1, and KK is correct if 2P pays 2-for-1. If FL pays 7-for-1, KQJ is correct.
  2. When FL pays 6-for-1 or less, hold AKJ. When FL pays 7-for-1, hold AKJ5.
  3. When FL pays 5-for-1, hold AKT. When FL pays 7-for-1, hold AKT4. When FL pays 6-for-1, it depends on how much you get for 2P. When 2P pays 2-for-1, hold AKT. When 2P pays 1-for-1, hold AKT4.
  4. Hold 44 when ST pays 4-for-1 and 3K pays 3-for-1. If either ST pays 5-for-1 or 3K pays 2-for-1, hold 4567.
  5. If 2P pays 2-for-1 and ST pays 4-for-1, hold TT. If 2P pays 2-for-1 and ST pays 5-for-1, hold QJT9. If 2P pays 1-for-1, hold QJT9 unless 4K pays more than 50-for-1.
  6. Hold JT987 if SF pays 50-for-1. If it pays more than that, hold JT98.
  7. I don’t know of any games (other than special cases with progressives on the straight flush) where you don’t hold all five cards.
  8. Hold QJT8 when 2P pays 1-for-1. Hold QJ when 2P pays 2-for-1.
  9. Hold KQ by itself always.
  10. Hold A by itself unless ST pays 5-for-1, in which case hold A235.
  11. Hold QJ in every game except Triple Double Bonus and Super Aces Bonus, in which case you hold the ace by itself.
  12. Hold 2456 when 2P pays 1-for-1. Throw everything away when 2P pays 2-for-1.
  13. Hold AK when FL pays 6-for-1 or less. Hold AK4 when FL pays 7-for-1.
  14. Basically, always hold 345 unless you’re dealing with a progressive. How high the progressive must get to justify holding the KQ depends on the game.
  15. Basically, always hold QJ. Comparing the last two hands, 234 is significantly less valuable than 345 because of its nearness to the ace.
  16. Hold AA33 unless 2P pays 1-for-1 and four aces pay 160-for-1 or more.
  17. Hold KK33 unless 2P pays 1-for-1 and four kings pay 120-for-1 while FH pays 8-for-1 or less.

During my classes, I frequently give out this kind of information when it is relevant to the game I’m teaching that day. One of my students asked me to put it all down in one place, so that’s why I wrote this article.

Posted on 3 Comments

A Certain Kind of Approach

A month or two ago, I mentioned on the Gambling with an Edge podcast that I have a buddy with two kids — “Jack,” 12 years old and “Mary Ann,” 10 years old — who are becoming fascinated with the game of backgammon. I’ve agreed to provide them with some backgammon instructions, and I’m enjoying the process of teaching them. I’ve taught adults for years but have had limited experience with teaching children.

The lesson on this particular day was about the doubling cube.

“Let’s say,” I began, “that from a certain position, your opponent will win 26 times out of 36 and you will win 10 times out of 36.” Backgammon players will have no trouble constructing one or more positions that meet this criterion, but I want today’s column to be understood by those readers who do not understand backgammon as well as those who do.

“Let’s say that you are playing for $1 and your opponent,” I continued, “offers you the doubling cube.  What this means is that you have the choice of accepting the cube and playing out the game for $2 or passing the cube and conceding $1 right now. What would you do?”

Both kids are pretty bright and are in STEM schools, which specialize in science and math, but the boy is two years older.  When it comes to figuring out mathematical problems (which is what I thought this was), those extra two years make a difference.

At this point in time, neither knew how to figure this out (I hoped that this would be different by the end of the lesson), so both went with instinct. Jack could see that he was a big underdog to win, and he’d much prefer to lose $1 rather than $2, so he announced that he would pass the double.

Mary Ann wasn’t interested in the math at all. Her goal was to beat her brother. Since she knew she couldn’t beat him by going with the same answer he gave, she announced she was going to take the double.

Then I went through the math so they would know how to solve these “take-or-pass” backgammon problems in the future.

If they passed the double, like Jack wanted to do, they would lose $1. That much was clear to everybody.

But if they took the double, how do you figure that out?

Well, 10 times out of 36 you win, which would put you ahead $20 on those rolls. Twenty-six times out of 36 you lose, which would put you down $52 on those rolls. Your net loss in 36 rolls is $32, so the average loss is $32/$36 which comes out to 89¢. Since 89¢ is smaller than $1, the correct play is to take the double.

The acronym “QED” comes from the Latin quod erat demonstrandum and means I have shown that which was to be demonstrated — or, basically, this math proves my case. Neither child, however, was impressed by what I had done.

Jack assured me he understood the math, but he would still pass the double. He simply didn’t want to risk losing the extra dollar most of the time.

Mary Ann cared even less for the math. The important thing to her was she got it right and her brother got it wrong! What could possibly be a better result than that? “That was fun! Do you have another puzzle for us, Bob?”

There was nothing more for me to say. In my opinion, playing games successfully depends on understanding and following the math. They both rejected the math. I was out of ammunition.

I spoke to their father, a successful gambler, a few days later about this. I think he took the right approach. He said, “I really don’t care if they become professional gamblers or not. But if they do, I want them to know the math backwards and forwards. They certainly don’t need to know this math when they are pre-teenagers — and who knows what their aptitudes will be in a decade or more? Later, if and when they decide that playing games competently is what they want to do, that’s when it’s important that they learn this stuff.”

Posted on 7 Comments

Getting It Straight

Every now and then I share results with somebody in a drawing or tournament. Sometimes, other people do it to lower the fluctuations in their bankroll. That is, they would much prefer to get half the amount twice as often. Assuming they are playing with an edge, this smooths out the swings. One can think of it as getting to the long run more quickly.

That’s not the primary reason I share results. I share results for social reasons. Simply put, it’s more fun to do things with your friends.  Sometimes the decreased bankroll variance is important to the friend with whom I would share. Sometimes not.

Once you’ve agreed to share, only half the work is done. You need to carefully lay out what is and is not included in the agreement. For example, is this agreement for one drawing only? Is it always in effect unless otherwise specified? Is it never in effect unless explicitly specified?

If the award is in free play, do you share in cash? (That is: Let’s say one of the players earns $1,000 in free play. When it plays it through, he runs salty and only collects $900. Does he owe his partner $500, $450, or some other number?)

If the prize is in cash, are 1099s to be issued? If the prizes are $1,000 or less, the tax implications are fairly minor. If there is a rare $50,000 prize, the tax implications are not minor at all. Issuing a 1099 for $25,000 is the cleanest way to handle it, but if this isn’t agreed upon up front, hard feelings will abound.

Several years ago, Jamie Gold won the World Series of Poker main event for $12 million. He had a partner putting up some fraction of his entry fee, and possibly the partnership wasn’t thought through clearly enough. There was a major disagreement as to how the tax liability would be handled. The poker community generally appeared to be against Gold. Eventually it got settled and Jamie resumed his career — probably because he was wealthy and willing to play in games with significantly stronger players. But there were hard words and angry feelings until it got resolved. I’m not involved in any sharing opportunities where a jackpot anywhere near that large is possible, but that incident offers a lesson nonetheless.

At a recent Big Draw lottery at the M resort, most people earned zero, but you could earn $50, $200, $1,000, $10,000, or (with a less than 1-in-50 million chance) $250,000. The lower amounts were in free play and the largest one was in cash. The deal I had with another player was all prizes would be settled for the full 50% amount in cash, and if lightning struck and one of us got $250,000, a 1099 would be issued for half that amount.

Was that the best way to do it? I don’t know. But it was agreed upon up front and both of us thought it was fair. So that means it was fair.

Sharing isn’t always symmetrical. In a slot tournament where it’s just “hit the button as fast as you can,” everybody has more-or-less an equal chance and you can share with anybody who’s not completely senile.

In a video poker tournament, it’s a different situation. Some players are simply much faster than others, some can make better decisions than others in a split second, and some can correctly adjust their strategy in the middle of a round when it’s appropriate to go for a “royal-or-bust” strategy. You need to be very careful with whom you partner.

I recently shared in a video poker tournament with someone who I later discovered was a slightly faster player than I was. However, I probably made better decisions than he did because I’ve been doing this a couple of decades longer than he has. Neither of us know this for sure. It was close enough to being fair that neither of us were worrying about it.

Sometimes there are drawings where once you’re selected as one of the winners, you have an equal chance at each of the prizes. In these circumstances, if you’re one of the winners and want to make a deal with another of the winners, it’s fair. However many tickets you had going into the drawing no longer matters. At this point, you’re both in there and have equal chances.

If you have unequal numbers of tickets in the drum, it isn’t easy to come up with a fair system for sharing — simply because you usually cannot win more than one prize. For that reason, if I have 1,000 tickets and you have 500, giving me 2/3 of the prize money would be unfair to you unless there is only one prize. I have twice the chances as you to be called first, but then the rest of my tickets are dead while yours are still alive.

Still, if there’s enough goodwill between the players, usually players would go with a 2/3 and 1/3 split in this example. It’s “close enough,” and you’re friends. If there wasn’t sufficient goodwill, normally no split is done.

Finally, some people can be trusted with money and some can’t. Whenever I’ve felt I’ve been intentionally shortchanged by a player, I let others know — sometimes by an article in this blog. Once somebody shows he will steal from or shortchange me, I never will give him a second chance.