Posted on 12 Comments

Playing 9/6 Jacks or Better Multi Strike

Except for the last few weeks, I haven’t recently played any version of Multi Strike. In the past, I played 9/6 Jacks or Better, 8/5 Bonus Poker, and 9-4-4 Deuces Wild Bonus in the Multi Strike variation, but it’s been so long that I felt I needed a tune-up. Now in my seventies, my memory isn’t what it used to be.

I’ll be teaching the 9/6 Jacks or Better Multi Strike class on January 29 at the South Point. Although my notes for the class are prepared, I teach better when I have recent experience. This gives me “depth” and a better ability to deal with some questions that I would have otherwise forgotten. Teaching classes well is one of my goals.

Plus, since the game returns 99.79% and the South Point’s everyday slot club is 0.30%, it’s not as though it’s a financial burden to play. The only version offered at the South Point is the 25¢ Five Play variation, which requires a bet of $25 per play. Even though the player has a slight edge, Multi Strike has a higher variance than many other video poker games. I did lose $1,500 on my first foray back into the game. But that loss was recovered in later sessions.

As most of you know, Multi Strike is a four-line game where you pay for all four lines up front — namely 20 coins. (I’m referring to the game in most of this article as a single-hand game, rather than the Five Play version you find at the South Point. This is done to make the explanations easier.) If you earn nothing on the bottom line, your 20 coins are gone. And this can sometimes happen several hands in a row.

If you at least get your money back on the first line, you get to play the second line (called the Level 2x line) “for free” and at double the payoffs. Earn something there, and you play the third line (called the Level 4x line), again for free, at quadruple the stakes. The same pattern holds for the fourth line (called the Level 8x line). Periodically you get a “Free Ride” after the draw but before you decide on which cards to hold; this moves you up to the next higher line whether you score anything on the current line or not.

What isn’t so obvious to all players is that you use four different strategies for the four different lines. The logic behind this is that in regular video poker the pay schedule falls into the “what you see is what you get” category. When the hand is over, it is completely over.

That’s not the case in Multi Strike. If you score on the bottom line, you now get to play the second line for free, and sometimes the third line, and sometimes the fourth line. Those are very valuable “plusses.”

The second line can give you two extra plusses. The third line can give you one extra plus. The top line, and any Free Ride you get, gives you nothing extra. The strategies depend on how many additional plusses you stand to get when you succeed.

If you know regular 9/6 JoB (which may well be the easiest video poker game to learn), you’re well on your way to learning the Multi Strike version of the same game because the strategies you use for most of the hands are considerably easier than the regular strategy. Why? Because for the bottom two lines you avoid ALL 3-card straight flush draws, which are the most complicated hands to play for most players.

This is not to say you can forget part of the 9/6 JoB strategy when you play Multi Strike. You still need the entire strategy because whenever you either reach the top line or receive a Free Ride, the regular strategy is appropriate.

For me, there were two different times where I found I could be making a mistake. First was remembering where I was in the game. Did I need the Level 1x strategy or the Level 2x strategy? From K Q♠ 9 7 3, on Level 1x, I should hold the KQ and on Level 2x I should hold the hearts. For A Q♠ 9 7 3, I hold the hearts on both of these levels. It’s easy to get these confused. Each of the strategies by themselves aren’t so difficult, but holding them all in my mind at once and using the right one each time is not trivial.

I made another mistake, which may well be the biggest mistake I’ve ever made in video poker. Perhaps you’ll make it someday too.

This mistake came from the different way Multi Strike deals cards. When Multi Strike finishes a level where the player advances, it deals the next level immediately. That is, let’s say you’re dealt A♣ J T 9♣ 8 on Level 1x and correctly hold AJ. (You only hold JT98 on Level 8x or with a Free Ride.) If you are playing the Five Play version, let’s say you end up with a pair of aces on one of the hands and two pair on another. The 15 credits will add up, and immediately the Level 2x hand will be dealt.

The problem came when I had three hands live on Level 4x and held trip 5s. On two of the three hands, the trips converted into quads. This is an unusually good result. Each of the quads paid 500 coins ($125), which is four times the normal $31.25 you regularly get for these hands in quarter 9/6 JoB, and the trips registered $15 instead of the usual $3.75.

Certainly, I’ve had many thousands of jackpots higher than $265 in my life, but I took a few seconds to admire my good fortune. When I was finished “admiring,” I hit the button to play the next hand — which is my normal practice in every other video poker game I play.

Except in Multi Strike, the next hand was already dealt. When I hit the button intending to play the next hand, what I actually did was throw away all the cards on the hand that had already been dealt! With three live hands on Level 8x, this was equivalent to throwing all the cards away sight unseen on $2 Triple Play!

What were the cards I threw away? I have no idea! By the time I realized what I had done, the original cards were long gone. I know I wasn’t dealt a royal flush or that would have locked up, but other than that, I just don’t know. Very likely throwing all the cards away was the wrong play — potentially a very big error.

Oh well. Spilt milk. The reason I bring it up is that it strikes me as a relatively common mistake others might make as well, at least on occasion. So, I tell you in the spirit of “forewarned is forearmed.”

Posted on 6 Comments

An Early Christmas Present

In my email inbox, I regularly receive pictures of royal flushes and other video poker jackpots. Frequently, I get thanks in the email saying that if my writing and classes hadn’t taught the emailer how to play, they’d never have a chance. And then the picture of the royal is from an 8/5 Double Double Bonus game. I don’t recall ever saying anything about such a game other than to not even think about playing it if you want a chance at winning.

Recently, I received an email with a picture of a royal on a quarter 8/5 Jacks or Better game. While this game returns almost a half percent more than 8/5 Double Double Bonus, it’s still in the “no play zone” from my point of view. The subject line of the email said: “You’re Going To Want to Read This.” I would have read the email anyway, and the subject line made me think this was going to be junk mail, but it turns out it was from a reader of mine.

This player was playing quarter 8/5 Bonus Poker at a casino in a southern state. This 99.17% game is the highest paying game at that casino and, along with the slot club and other benefits, he felt it “wasn’t too bad” for a recreational player. Okay. I certainly don’t insist that others use my “if it doesn’t return more than 100% it should never be played” philosophy. It sounds like this guy, “Mark,” made a considered, intelligent, choice.

While Mark was playing, a cleaning lady named Sophia came running up to him. Sophia was regularly stationed in the area that included the machines he played, and he recognized her. About half of his visits he slipped her $2. Cleaning machines and picking up after sloppy players wasn’t a fun job or one that paid well. Plus, Sophia had come from somewhere in Central America and her grasp of English was rudimentary at best.

When Sophia reached Mark, she frantically signaled him to follow her. He asked her what was going on and she just kept saying, “Please come. Hurry! Hurry!”

Thinking there might be some type of emergency, Mark cashed out and followed Sophia upstairs. She took him to a bank of quarter 8/5 Jacks or Better progressives. Mark occasionally played these machines if the progressive was more than $2,000 which rarely happened because the meter was quite slow. Still, he didn’t expect Sophia to be cognizant of video poker pay schedules, although it didn’t surprise him greatly that she knew when it was relatively high.

When he looked at the meter, he saw it was at $9,400! Later he figured out that this was a 119% game, but all he knew now was that the game was much better than any other gambling opportunity he’d ever seen. He surmised that the casino shut down a progressive and they had to put the accumulated progressive somewhere — and this is where they dumped it! There was a bank of four machines and so far, all of them were vacant. Clearly that wouldn’t last long.

He thanked Sophia profusely, sat down, and started banging away. It didn’t have to happen this way, but he hit the royal before any other players even noticed how high it was. After the employees came and took his ID, he hunted Sophia down and gave her a $300 tip. Tears came to her eyes. Nobody had ever given her that much money before.

Karma doesn’t always work this way. It could easily have happened that he got a seat and somebody else ended up hitting the royal. But just getting a seat on a 119% game is pretty sweet. And if Sophia hadn’t come and found him, he would have never known.

If you treat people well, often they’ll be only too happy to help you back. That jackpot more than reimbursed Mark for all the tips he’d ever given to casino employees. And if he didn’t hit it? Well, that’s okay. If Mark can afford to gamble recreationally, his life is likely better off financially than Sophia’s. And helping others, whether it’s the holidays or not, is one of the things that makes the world go ‘round.

Posted on 9 Comments

Counting the Same Thing Twice

I received some emails from a player, call him “Sam,” who was trying to talk himself into playing 8/5 Double Double Bonus Poker Multi Strike, a game that returns 97.07% when played well. It returns far less than that for most players because the game requires four separate strategies to play correctly.

As most of you know, Multi Strike is a game where you pay 20 coins for four lines before you start. If you get no score on the bottom line, the hand is over. You’re out 20 coins.

Should you at least get your money back on the bottom line, you get to play the second line at double stakes “for free.” It’s not actually free. It’s simply that you’ve already paid for it.  Five of the coins you initially paid go for playing the second line, which happens about half the time, at double payoffs.

Score on this line and you get to play the third line at 4x. Score on the bottom three lines and you get to play the top line at 8x. Each of these two lines were pre-paid, five coins at a time. Periodically, to make the math work, you get a free ride on one or more of the lines which allows you to move up to the next higher line whether you score on the current line or not.

Sam had read enough of my writings to know that I would not be a fan of a game that paid so little. You can play it if you want, but for me, the game plus the slot club, plus the various promotions must exceed 100% to be playable.

However, Sam argued, if he hit a royal on the second line, he’d get $2,000. On the third line this was worth $4,000. And on the top line, the royal was worth $8,000. Surely, he argued, those big numbers would boost the 97.07% payout. Couldn’t that boost be enough to make the game worthwhile?

The answer is ‘no.’ Those rare hits are already included in the 97.07% figure. One or more of those jackpots could make you a winner today, but when you don’t hit them (which is far more likely), you’re going to be losing at a much faster rate than you’re used to. It’s not 97.07% PLUS the royals. It’s 97.07% INCLUDING the royals.

Another factor is taxes. The tax law is different today than it was a few years ago. W2Gs are the same now as they used to be, but for many recreational players who used to itemize, the standard deduction is now high enough so that itemization doesn’t make financial sense. And if you are in that category, W2Gs are taxable.

The only time you can “write them off” is if you itemize, and there are so many things that are no longer deductible. The math behind itemization has totally changed. The first $20,000 or so worth of W2Gs each year are far more taxable than they were a few years ago.

Therefore, playing a game that generates extra W2Gs is a game to be avoided unless you play enough that you’re going to get a lot those jackpots. So, a quarter Multi Strike game should be less desirable this year than last. The same conclusion applies to Ultimate X and other games involving multipliers.

Keep in mind that I’m not a tax expert and my explanations here are simplified. See your tax professional for guidance.

Posted on 6 Comments

Learning a Second Game — Part I of II  

A few weeks ago, I wrote some articles about making adjustments to a strategy based on the pay schedule. The purpose of those articles was for the situation when you were attempting to “fake it” reasonably well. You already knew the strategy for one game and were attempting to play another similar game.

Today’s article, which will continue next week, is somewhat related, but with a different emphasis. Today’s article assumes you already know one game and are trying to learn an unrelated game — and you don’t want to keep getting the two games mixed up.

The first thing to know is that some of my readers will not be able to do this very well. It takes a certain amount of the right kind of intelligence to do this. Many people are plenty smart enough in other areas, not nearly smart enough in this one.

That’s not necessarily a showstopper to playing video poker successfully, because we are starting with the assumption that you play one game well. So long as you can find that game for the stakes with which you are comfortable, everything is all right in your world.

Today’s article, however, is for players who are capable of learning at least two games well. Perhaps they play at two different casinos and the casinos differ on their best games. Perhaps they are ready to move up in denomination and the casino doesn’t offer the same games in both denominations.

Hopefully, it’s not because they are bored playing the game they already know how to play. Video poker is basically a boring game. There are occasional exciting hands (like drawing to three aces or perhaps four to the royal), but most are rather mundane. Unless you can concentrate on playing these mundane hands correctly, you will probably end up earning much less than the expected value. Unless you can deal with this boredom (or, perhaps, even not be bored!), you will never be successful at this game.

So, to flesh out the example, let’s assume you already play 9/6 JoB and are trying to learn NSU Deuces Wild — which is the version where the pay schedule at the lower end is 16-10-4-4-3-2-1. The methodology I’m going to explain works on all games, but I’m just mentioning these for convenience.

The first step is to have good strategies for both. I recommend the Dancer/Daily strategies, but there are several other sources as well. Some are free (such as the ones on wizardofodds.com) and some are “free” if you already own software that computes it for you (e.g. Video Poker for Winners).

The next step is to learn how to read the strategies. In NSU, for example, you’ll see WW45, which you’ll never find on a JoB strategy. Looking at the notes that come with the strategy, you’ll see that the W refers to a deuce of any suit and the 45 refers to a 4 and 5 that are suited with each other. You’ll also see that hand referred to as a 4-card straight flush, with certain attributes.

You’ll see that WW45 is less valuable than WW57 and more valuable than WW46. The reasons behind this are all explained in the Dancer/Daily Winner’s Guide or in my classes, but if this is the first time you’ve tried to play NSU competently, the first sentence of this paragraph just might contain rather surprising information.

The next thing to notice about an NSU strategy is that it’s divided by the number of deuces dealt. That is, the rules for the 3-deuce section are different than the rules for the 1-deuce section. I think of these five sections as making the strategy easier — because you can instantly find the right section of the strategy simply by looking at the number of deuces. And each section is relatively small.

Probably the part of the strategy that will be the most difficult for you is the no-deuce section — because this is the part that compares directly to JoB and the basic concepts of the games are different. In JoB, K♠ K♥ 9♥ 7♥ 3♥ is played differently than T♠ T♥ 9♥ 7♥ 3♥. In Deuces Wild, they are always played the same, depending on how much you get for the flush. In NSU, you hold the hearts both times, but in certain other versions of Deuces Wild you hold the pair each time. It’s going to take a while before you get the concept that there are no high cards in Deuces Wild because you don’t get your money back unless you get 3-of-a-kind.

A related place where the games have different concepts has to do with the value of Q♣ J♣ versus Q♦ T♦.  In JoB, the clubs are more valuable because both the Q and the J are high cards, meaning you get your money back if you get of pair of either of them. In NSU, the two hands have identical values.

You’ll also need to learn the difference between the way straight flush draws are evaluated. In JoB, 4♥ 5♥ 6♥ is equivalent in value to 5♣ 6♣ 7♣ and A♦ 3♦ 4♦ is worth about the same as 5♣ 6♣ 8♣ and more than 3♠ 4♠ 7♠. In NSU, none of these relationships are the same as they are in JoB. You need to be able to change the way you evaluate combinations of cards while still retaining the old evaluation methodology for when you are playing the original game! It’s not a trivial task!

I’ve gone over a few of the things you need to know. There are many more — but this is not supposed to be a “how to play NSU” article. It supposed to be a “how do you learn to keep both games in your head at the same time” article.

We’ll continue this discussion next week.

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 1 Comment

But Wouldn’t I Get My Money Back More Often?

I was teaching beginner 9/6 Bonus Poker Deluxe in my Tuesday noon class at the South Point. (The semester will continue every Tuesday until September 4.) The hand we were discussing was 3♦4♦5♦Q♣J♣.

The class is taught using a top-down strategy where you select the rule that comes first. Holding 3♦4♦5♦ (along with certain other 3-card straight flushes) was covered by Rule 8. Holding Q♣J♣ (along with the other two suited high card combinations) was covered by Rule 9. Since Rule 8 comes before Rule 9, the correct play is to hold the 3♦4♦5♦.

One student asked the question: “But wouldn’t I at least get my money back more often if I held the clubs?”

My answer was: “Absolutely. But the system we use to determine the correct play maximizes Expected Value. With Expected Value, it is the frequency of the win multiplied by the value of the win – not just the frequency.”

The following chart shows this. To make the numbers big enough to read easily, I had to split the chart in half.

The Expected Value of 3♦4♦5♦ is shown to be 3.025. Since you are drawing two cards, there are 1,081 different combinations you could draw. About 87% of the time (actually 937 out of 1,081) you end up with no win at all.
But of the times you do score, most of them are straights and flushes, paying four and six times the value of high pairs respectively.

All the numbers in the preceding paragraph came from either the pay schedule or the chart below — which was copied directly from the Video Poker for Winners software. If you wish to be able to understand simple video poker mathematics, this is a good chance for you to practice.

 

Holding EV Total No Win High Pair 2 Pair 3K ST
3♦4♦5♦ 3.025 1,081 937 18 27 9 45
Q♣J♣ 2.9374 16,215 9,827 5,022 711 281 189

 

Holding EV Total FL FH 4K SF RF
3♦4♦5♦ 3.025 1,081 42 0 0 3 0
Q♣J♣ 2.9374 16,215 162 18 2 2 1

When you start from Q♣J♣ and draw three cards, there are 16,215 possible draws. This number is exactly 15 times as large as the 1,081 possible draws when you only draw two cards.

You get a high pair or two pair 5,733 times out of the 16,215 (which is about 35% of the time), but these are only 5-coin wins. You score something about 40% of the time, but most of the wins are small.

Other players use the logic that holding clubs gives them a chance at a royal flush and holding the diamonds doesn’t. But a 1-in-16,215 chance at 4,000 coins is only worth about 0.24 coins. The 3-in-1,081 chance of getting a straight flush holding 3♦4♦5♦ is worth 0.69 coins and that is something usually omitted by seat-of-the-pants players thinking, “It seems to me.”

A lot of players try to reason correct plays out in their heads. While this is certainly an appropriate avenue to address the problem if you don’t have a strategy handy, correct strategies are fairly easy to come by and figuring out how many times in 1,081 or 16,215 (or even bigger numbers when you draw four or five cards) is a tedious, error-prone process and basically impossible for most people to do by themselves.

A computer program, however, can figure this out almost instantaneously and very accurately. It’s one of the tools of the trade that makes it possible to play well.

Posted on 9 Comments

A Look at The Confidence Game – Part 1 of 2

For our May 31 Gambling with an Edge podcast, we interviewed Maria Konnikova, a journalist with a Ph.D. in psychology who worked with Eric Seidel to become more knowledgeable about poker and ended up winning several tournaments. Maria impressed both Richard Munchkin and me.

Preparing for the interview, I learned that one of Konnikova’s books, The Confidence Game, is a study of the men and women who are con artists.  She also created a podcast called “The Grift” where she has 10 half-hour episodes of extended studies discussing the con artists she wrote about in the book.

I started to l listen to the first podcast episode, and five hours later I had listened to them all. I was hooked. I ordered The Confidence Game to read what else she said on the subject.

Today’s blog is primarily about why I decided to study what Konnikova wrote. Next week’s blog is about the book itself.

It is arguably self-centered to describe my thought process on why I chose to read a particular book. Still, when I’ve studied other professional gamblers, it was always important to me to know the “why” of their actions rather than just the “what.” So that’s where I’m going to start.

I’ve been conned more than once. I was never suckered in a three-card Monte game or sent money to help a Nigerian prince, but I’ve been conned just the same.

I started playing backgammon for real money in 1994. I was 27 years old at the time. At least twice I was successfully conned — but didn’t know it at the time. Months later I was reading Danny Kleinman and read about the very hustles I fell for. I would have possibly never known had I not read about it.

I’m “older and wiser” now, but a few years ago I still found myself trusting a player not deserving that trust. At that time, it felt appropriate. Afterwards, there were plenty of signs I missed. I wrote here about me being conned, but in exchange for being paid most of what I was owed, I took down the articles and promised never to re-post them.

In reading The Confidence Game, I hoped to learn about many schemes that have already been pulled on others — so hopefully I can recognize them when someone tries to pull them on me. As we will see in next week’s blog, the book is chock full of examples.

I have no idea what con is coming my way next. Even though I am smarter than many and not completely naïve in this area, I do not presume I am immune from being victimized. It’s happened before and possibly could happen again. I’m hoping that the more I know about the methodology of how it is done, I’ll be able to safely dodge the bullet next time.

The second, totally unrelated, reason I wanted to study this book is as a “how to” primer. I do not consider myself a grifter or con artist at all. At the same time, sometimes a bit of subterfuge is critical to being an AP — and even to success in everyday life. It’s nice to learn some of the principles of how it’s done.

If you listen to the Kelly Sun interview on GWAE, you’ll see she and Phil Ivey incorporated many elements of the con in what they did. Both Richard and I believe that what they did was completely legal and they should prevail in court. So far, the courts have disagreed with these beliefs.

In my Million Dollar Video Poker autobiography, I described how the MGM Grand was giving away the store because their slot management department was arithmetically challenged. I gave them all sorts of plausible reasons why I was playing so many hours and never once explained that they were idiots for offering such a lucrative $500/hour game for players with a bankroll who could play 9/6 Jacks or Better well. Was this conning them? Maybe. Maybe not. As I said, a bit of subterfuge is critical to being a successful AP.

I’ve used “seat of the pants” methodology in this regard, with moderate success. According to the book, some of the things I’ve been doing are well executed, and some are not. Learning how to be more successful is always part of my agenda.

We asked Maria Konnikova on the air whether her book was meant to be an instructional manual on how to be a con artist. She said that certainly wasn’t her intention, but she might have accomplished that nonetheless.

I found many of her pointers quite useful. I’ll tell you more about them next week.

Posted on 3 Comments

Lessons from Backgammon, Part 2 of 2

(Editor’s Note) We’ve just discovered that, due to a technical glitch, last-week’s Bob Dancer blog wasn’t posted. We’re putting it up now and will resume the usual schedule this week.

Last week, I began a two-part article where I described important gambling lessons that I learned years ago while playing backgammon and that are still applicable today playing video poker. I suspect those same lessons would be applicable at most gambling games, as well as with other endeavors.

Continuing those lessons I learned at the Cavendish West:

6. Many players played too fast.
In backgammon, many rolls have one obvious play. Many other rolls offer several “reasonable” plays, each with pluses and minuses. It takes time to correctly evaluate which one is better. Often, you have a choice between two or more ways to play an ace (one). They might be equally safe on this particular play, but they differ in their effectiveness on the next roll or two.

You frequently must make a “pay me now or pay me later” kind of decision about when to take a chance. Sometimes you have to decide whether it is better to make a play that helps your offense or another one that helps your defense.

Sometimes, of course, players just plain don’t understand why one play is superior to another. But often they can figure it out if they spend some time. But spending a lot of time studying moves is hard work, and even harder if you’re tired.

A lot of players, including myself, played faster than was appropriate and paid the consequences.

7. Mind-altering substances didn’t help play. Whether we’re talking about legal or illegal substances, when you played someone a lot you could tell the difference in their moves when they were high compared to when they weren’t.

8. People could and did go broke.

It’s not some theoretical possibility that is pretty rare. If you don’t have a safety net (i.e. parents who will bail you out, a couple of million dollars in the bank, someone who is willing and able to support your gambling losses, etc.), you need to take bankroll considerations into account. Bankroll calculations are easier to make in video poker because the value of a game and the value of slot club are more easily figured out than they are in backgammon.

9. It was easy to forget when gambling that we were dealing with real money. In backgammon, we would deal with “points,” where each point was worth $1, $5, $20, etc. Psychologically being down 60 points wasn’t that much better than being down 90. You tried very hard to “get even,” even though how much you started with that day was a pretty meaningless number.

10. Losing streaks brought out the worst of people’s personality. If someone had any tendency to lie, cheat, steal, or a number of other negative habits, you’d likely see them do it more when they were losing. They might have been 100% trustworthy during normal times, but put them on a losing streak and they were different people.

11. People were crazy (and still are)!

In backgammon, the game is played against live opponents, many of whom have strong personalities that may or may not mesh with mine. I have my own personality quirks that don’t appeal to everybody.

Consequently, I concluded that to be a contented player, I needed a gambling game with less human interaction than backgammon. For that reason, I shunned live poker. I would NOT enjoy being across the table from a Mike Matusow or a Phil Hellmuth. It’s possible I could develop the technical skills to compete with them. (Possible — not certain. They both are VERY good.) But I don’t have the temperament to deal with yelling and screaming they bring to the table.

Compared to backgammon, the human interaction in video poker, although sometimes important, is minor.

This is one observation that fits into the “your mileage may vary” category. Other players do just fine in poker and backgammon and can deal with the personalities involved. This is not my strength, and a key part of success is figuring out what your strengths are and going with them.

12. Finally, a good memory and keeping records was very important. You needed to know whether a particular player was better or worse than you. If you had good records of his or her results when you played together, you had a pretty strong indicator.

There are players whose leaks are exploitable. Some passed doubles more than they should, so you doubled them early compared to the theoretically optimal point. Others took doubles much later than was advised. Against those players, it was never a good idea to double early.

Over time you played a lot of different players and you needed to have notes about all of them. A good memory is good — but written notes last longer and are better.

Keeping records for tax purposes is done in video poker but is largely not done in backgammon. There are no official records or W-2Gs in backgammon — save for the occasional tournament — and the majority of successful players “forget” to declare any gambling income.

Posted on Leave a comment

Lessons from Backgammon, Part 1 of 2

From 1974 through 1980, I averaged 80-100 hours per week playing or studying backgammon. For the next 12 years, I had a job (because I lost my bankroll playing backgammon) and reduced my backgammon time to an average of about 15 hours per week. In 1994, I began playing video poker and haven’t played significant backgammon since that time.

The success I’ve experienced at video poker is at least partly due to what I learned as a backgammon player.

I addressed this subject in my autobiography, Million Dollar Video Poker, in the chapter called “Lessons from the Cavendish West.” The Cavendish West was a bridge/gin/backgammon club in the West Hollywood part of Los Angeles. That was where most of my play took place.

That book was written more than 10 years ago, and I haven’t reread it recently. I won’t reread the chapter I mentioned until after these two articles are completed. I’m sure there will be a lot of overlap, but my perspective has changed over the last decade.

Video poker and backgammon are played quite differently. But in such things as preparation, looking for an advantage, and dealing with winning and losing, I was able to apply my backgammon skills to video poker.  The following are some of the things I learned from backgammon that continue to serve me well today:

     1.  Everybody won some of the time. Everybody lost some of the time. But one group of players won most of the time and another group of players lost most of the time. The losing players would explain to whomever listened that it was their bad luck that caused them to be losers. The winning players would pretend to agree with them. After all, without losing players there could be no winning players.

 

     2.  The strong players regularly played “propositions.” A proposition is when you place the checkers in an agreed upon position and play it out over and over again. Sometimes odds were offered. Sometimes not. Although there were some who did this because they were hustling, usually it was done in order to better understand the position.

Backgammon, at the time, had no computer programs that could tell you that this play was the best from this particular position. So, players had to figure it out, and playing propositions repeatedly was one way to do that. This was one way they studied, and if you put a gambling element into it, it was more interesting.

Today they have a number of computerized backgammon programs primarily developed by artificial intelligence. From a particular position, the program will tell you that this move gives you an EV of 51.2% and this other move gives you an EV of 48.1%. The program “knows” this because it plays each position over and over again until it comes up with an estimate. If you accept this particular program as being best, clearly the first move is superior to the second. Usually a play this close could not be determined with certainty by players at the table, but good players would often sense that the first play was better.

Players who play a lot against computer programs today get much better much faster than we did back when I played. Even though I had thousands of hours of experience and was a pretty fair player back in the early 90s, I would not stand a chance against today’s players. The computer programs have increased knowledge about the game considerably.

     3.  The biggest enemy of many players was their emotions. Backgammon has frequent situations where you can be way ahead and then a few rolls later you are hopelessly behind. Some players were devastated when this happened against them — and it happened several times every day.

Going “on tilt,” or “steaming,” were frequent results of that lack of emotional control. In backgammon there is a doubling cube, where stakes can be doubled mid-game, and then doubled again, and again, at later times. At each of these doubling occurrences, emotional control is necessary to correctly evaluate whether or not the doubling should be offered by one player and accepted or rejected by the other.

When players were steaming, frequently they doubled too early and/or accepted too late. It was a very expensive way to play.

     4.  It was important to evaluate your “opponent.” In video poker this is relatively easy, as your opponent is a game, such as 9/6 Jacks or Better or perhaps 7/5 Bonus Poker, which has a well-known return for perfect play. Perfect play is relatively simple given today’s software products.

In backgammon, your opponents are human beings — who have different skill sets and different emotional strengths and weaknesses. In addition, these opponents, like all humans, have good days and bad days.

Evaluating one person is difficult enough, but often backgammon is played in a version called a “chouette,” which means a game with three or more players in it. To properly evaluate a chouette, you need to know the strengths of each player — which is often an impossible task to do precisely.

Equally important was accurately evaluating your own skill level relative to others.

     5.  Hand in hand with opponent evaluation was game selection. To be a winning player you had to play in games where you had the advantage. In video poker it’s fairly easy to figure that out. In backgammon, it’s much more difficult.

If you were playing another player heads up, and you were better than him, it would have been fairly unusual for him to continue to want to play you. Social skills were important here. I observed charming players who could always find excellent games because they were so much fun to play around. I observed crabby people where the opposite was true.

I will continue this discussion next week.