A poster, Boris, wrote regarding one of my recent blogs: “You guys always seem to assume nobody makes a single mistake during play. Let’s be honest. Is it really possible to play mistake-free during such sessions?”
Although the question didn’t seem to flow organically from what others were discussing, I’m assuming that Boris is referring to me saying things like NSU is worth 99.73% and 9/6 JoB is worth 99.54% when played well — and other such references that regularly appear in my writings.
As for me personally, I definitely know every possible 9/6 JoB play. Whatever mistakes I make will be due to losing focus, or perhaps mis-keying. It doesn’t happen very often on this game.
With NSU, it’s a different matter. The game returns 99.728% when played perfectly — which I suggest nobody does. There are too many really rare situations. For example, who plays Q♠ T♥ 7♦ 8♦ 3♠ the same as he plays Q♠ T♥ 7♦ 8♦ 3♣? I know I throw all five cards away in both hands, but that is only the correct play on the first one. In the second I should keep 78. There are a lot of such plays listed in the appendices of the Winner’s Guide. Memorizing every last one of them is a difficult, time-intensive process — with limited value. Each of these hands come about very rarely and the difference between the best play and the second-best play is very small.
In my younger days, I studied the appendices regularly and probably played at the 99.725% level out of a possible 99.7285. Today at 79 years of age, it’s probably closer to 99.65%, if that. If I’m playing when I’m tired, I make more errors.
I can’t speak for anybody else, but I doubt that anyone plays 100% perfectly all of the time. So, if nobody plays this game at the full 99.728% level, why do I use 99.73% in my writings?
First, I need to know whether I’m playing above 100% or not when everything is included. If there are a half-percent of benefits, then I know this game qualifies whether I play perfectly or not. If I were considering playing 8/5 Bonus Poker (99.17%) with those same benefits, I would know that I’m below 100%.
Second, I want to know which game to concentrate on. For the games that can be analyzed on WinPoker, I know the “perfect play” returns of most of the higher-paying games. When I come across a game I don’t know, I figure out what the return is. Generally speaking, I’m only playing the loosest game in a casino for the stakes I’m interested in — and I need to know these numbers to know which game that is.
Third, merely being greater than 100% is not enough for me to play. I can’t support myself on break-even games simply because I have expenses (as we all do.) I look at the denomination, an estimate of how fast I play, the various benefits of the slot club, and the base game. Using 99.73% overestimates what I can get by a small bit, but it gives me a good idea of what I’m dealing with.
Fourth, I know that the next session won’t follow the book. I might win or lose, but it’s extremely unlikely to exactly match the expected return. There are positive and negative swings in gambling. I know this and so do my readers.
Fifth, I consider myself a video poker teacher and using these numbers is the best way I know to communicate with my readers. A high percentage of my readers check out my column at least semi-regularly. If every time I wanted to talk about NSU I’d say — “this pays 99.73% factored by your accuracy level” instead of just saying “99.73%”— that would get really old really fast.
I assume my readers know this and for practical purposes, using 99.73% is “close enough.” Even though it is an exaggeration for most of us — some more so than others.
