Tag: Bob Dancer

Posted on by — 14 Comments

Is This Correct?

I get lots of emails from players asking about this or that. If the questions aren’t too frequent from the same player, I usually answer them. I recently got a question which I very much disliked from a player named Gary.

“Bob, I’ve been trying to figure something out that Linda Boyd said on YouTube. She said that when you were dealt the 4♠ 9♣ J♥ Q♥ K♠ that you would hold the J♥ Q♥. Is that true, because to me the 9♣ is a penalty card, not really sure what to think of all this, would you help me out?”

Here are my problems with this question:

  1. It is so easy to look up how to play a hand using software. Any player trying to learn should have one or more video poker software products. This level of information is also available for free online. Emailing me to ask how to play a hand is equivalent to asking me to add 432 to 743. Yes, I know how to do it, but I’m not interested in being a calculator for you. If you are unable or unwilling to look up how to play a hand, playing video poker well is beyond your capabilities.

 

  1. Gary didn’t tell me what game he was talking about. For some games, 9/6 Jacks or Better among them (which is the game most authors write about), J♥ Q♥ is the correct play. For other games, such as the versions of Double Bonus where you receive 5-for-1 for a straight, you play 9♣ J♥ Q♥ K♠. Somehow, I’m supposed to figure out the game that Gary is interested in.

 

  1. Gary mentioned a penalty card, although not in a way that indicates he knows what he’s talking about. Penalty cards are a consideration for advanced players — and many such players think they are more trouble than they’re worth. At the minimum, however, you need to know basic strategy cold before you start messing with penalty cards. And if Gary is asking about this particular hand, he clearly doesn’t have basic strategy mastered.

The fact that Gary is at the intermediate level is neither here nor there. Everybody starts at the beginning and each one of us is at a different point along the learning curve. I’ve had raw beginners in my classes as well as students who are professional video poker players. If Gary were to attend class or discuss private lessons, that would be fine.

But asking me questions that he could answer easily himself is abusing my generosity. I do answer questions via email for free, but not questions like this.

Posted on by — 22 Comments

Something I Didn’t Expect

In early September, there was an invitational event at the M resort for their Icon guests, which is their highest tier level. Perhaps others were invited as well, but I’m not sure.

Just for showing up, you received your choice of nice brand name gifts — there was a Fitbit Watch, Dooney and Burke handbags, some TUMI accessories and some more choices. About 1/3 of the gifts were geared towards men and 2/3 were geared towards women. Since I’m no dummy, I took Bonnie along and let her pick what she wanted. In addition to the free gift, there were some better-than-average hors d’ oeuvres and an open bar.

While you didn’t need to play to get the gift, they had three separate drawings — 9 p.m., 9:30 p.m., and 10 p.m. — for some Louis Vuitton “packages,” consisting of a handbag, sunglasses, and one additional item. And entry tickets for this drawing was based on play.

Bonnie isn’t much into brand names. She took the attitude of, “Don’t play extra for me. Louis Vuitton accessories are way more expensive than what I normally use. Plus, I already have three handbags in closets won in other promotions that I haven’t used yet.”

It’s nice when Bonnie takes this “sensible” attitude. However, this time it would have been nice had she been a bit greedier. I had already decided that I should probably play at least $100,000 in coin-in to justify the invitation. The casino was putting out quite a bit of money for this promotion, and when they put out that kind of money, they expect players to play. If I took their nice gift without playing at all, perhaps I wouldn’t receive the invitation next time.

There was a combination of promotions going on there, so playing that much was probably a decent play — if I valued the Louis Vuitton package at close to retail. Bonnie’s sensible attitude took some of the value away. If she had a “Boy, that would be so special to win that prize!” attitude, clearly winning the package would be more valuable. Dollars and sense is one way to measure value, but how happy something makes Bonnie is also part of the equation for me.

I didn’t know how good of a chance for the Louis Vuitton package playing $100,000 coin-in would get me. I didn’t see a lot of players “going for it.” One lady who typically plays a lot at this kind of event had concert tickets somewhere else, so wasn’t going to play for a “must be there to win” drawing. She went, ordered her gift, and then went to the concert. Like Bonnie, she had a number of unused handbags from other casino promotions.

As luck would have it, my name was called at the 9 p.m. drawing. (Perhaps I had a competitive number of entries. Perhaps it was simply blind luck. I really don’t know.) There was a choice of three Louis Vuitton packages, so Bonnie decided which one suited her best. In addition to the Louis Vuitton package, she picked out a Dooney and Burke bag for her regular gift. So much for having too many handbags!

I checked to see if you could win more than once and found out the answer was “No.” That was the fair way to do it, but in case they didn’t have that rule, I’d make sure to stick around for the last two drawings as well. Since we couldn’t win again, we didn’t stick around.

Just before I left, one of the promotion managers came over and had me sign a $3,000 Tax Form 1099 for the Louis Vuitton package. Whoa! What’s this? I was not expecting this at all.

“That’s the retail price for the prize, so if you want to keep it, you have to sign for it. If you don’t want to keep it, we’ll call somebody else’s name.”

Bonnie had already fallen in love with her new handbag, so there was no way in the world that I would make her give it back. But the tax implications did surprise me some.

Had I known of the $3,000 1099 would I have still played for it? Probably. I get enough W2Gs and 1099s throughout the year that one more would not be a showstopper. It’s just most of the ones I get come with cash (like winning a $3,000 drawing). Having the tax form come with a gift is a bit unusual for me. And, naïve guy that I am about designer things, I was thinking $600 or so was the appropriate price for the gift.

I’m not complaining. Winning this prize was far more good news than bad. It was simply a surprise I wasn’t expecting.

Posted on by — 17 Comments

You’re Not Ready Yet

Immediately after one of my classes at the South Point, a man, “Joe,” came up to me and asked if I would mentor him in becoming a professional video poker player. He told me he had plenty of bankroll and wanted to turbocharge his learning process. He had heard that I would do private consulting for $250 an hour with a two-hour minimum and that did not present a problem for him.

I had another engagement after class, so we scheduled a lunch date for the near future. Although I have food comps at casinos, I preferred having the conversation at a local Applebee’s where the chances of being overheard by other players was far less. I don’t pay retail for food in Vegas very often, but this was one of those times.

In the time before I met with Joe, I tried to figure out what kind of person I would be willing to mentor. Assuming he had the bankroll, I figured the main criteria were:

a. His personality was acceptable to me. This isn’t a particularly high bar to cross, but there are a few people I just don’t enjoy hanging out with. I didn’t want a long-term relationship with somebody like that.

b. He was smart enough. Video poker is applied math. Not everybody is capable of learning it at a high level.

c. He had some history of success at the game and could study on his own. When I’m consulting with somebody two hours at a time, I don’t really care how good they are when they come to me. I’ll spend the two hours doing my best to improve their skill and knowledge level. But a mentoring relationship is a longer-term affair and spending dozens of hours while moving somebody from beginner to intermediate isn’t how I want to spend my time.

Okay. After Joe and I ordered lunch, I asked him where he lived and how he got his bankroll. I had spoken to Joe a few times previously and he passed the personality test, such as it is. He had sent me a number of emails over the past few years with questions and/or suggestions for the Gambling with an Edge radio show. These emails led me to believe he was smart enough to succeed at this.

Joe told me he was 49 years old, lived on the East Coast, and had recently inherited more than $2 million. He planned to retire from the Air Force Reserve in a few months and was looking at how he wanted to spend the rest of his life.

Joe had listened to a number of the radio shows and it really sounded like I enjoyed my life more than he enjoyed his. Plus, he had read my Million Dollar Video Poker autobiography and was fascinated with the life of a gambler. He decided he wanted to invest a portion of his inheritance, maybe $200,000, to see if he had the aptitude to maybe be the next Bob Dancer.

I asked him how many of the Winner’s Guides he had closely studied. He told me he had purchased a set but had yet to open them up. I asked him how much time he had spent with a computer program such as Video Poker for Winners. He told me he hadn’t purchased a copy of that yet but it was next on his list.

I told him he wasn’t ready for mentoring yet. In the next six months, I suggested he learn two games at the professional level — perhaps Jacks or Better and NSU Deuces Wild. Using the Winner’s Guides and the software, this wasn’t such a formidable task. But neither was it a trivial one.

Then, I wanted him to spend at least two weeks straight in Las Vegas or another casino city gambling 30 hours a week. At the end of that, if he still wanted me to mentor him, he knew how to get in touch with me. I would give him a test on the two games, and if he knew the games at a high level, we could revisit the mentoring idea.

Joe was in love with the idea of being a gambler, but he hadn’t had any actual experience. It’s hard work to get to the professional level at one game — let alone two. Playing 60 hours will turn out to be a boring experience for many people.

Video poker is a grind-it-out affair. It’s one thing to be fascinated by what appears to be a glamorous life. It’s another thing entirely to go through the process of getting good at some games and then successfully playing those games for 60 hours without going totally bonkers.

Can Joe do this?

I don’t know. If he can’t, he was never going to be a success at gambling anyway. If he can master two games and still be interested in being mentored after some real-life experience, then at least he will be going into this with his eyes wide open rather than looking through the rose-colored glasses he seems to be wearing today.

On one of our radio shows, Richard Munchkin told us that he periodically gets these kinds of requests from people wishing to learn blackjack. Richard tells them to learn basic strategy completely for four different games — i.e. with or without standing on soft 17 and with or without the ability to double after splitting. Once they know all four of these basic strategies, come back and see him again.

Richard tells me he’s never had somebody come back to him with these four strategies memorized.

I guess Richard’s experience influenced how I dealt with Joe. The task I gave Joe is more difficult than learning four basic strategies — each of which is more than 90% identical with the others. Jacks or Better and Deuces Wild are games very different from each other.

Still, if Joe passes this test, he’ll be a worthy student and I won’t mind at all working with him.

Posted on by — 12 Comments

Why Did You Print the Wrong Information?

I received an email from a player who told me that he found an error in Dream Card. I was definitely interested. If I verified that it was an error, I would send the information along to the folks at IGT (who manufacture the game), videopoker.com (who invented the game), and the player community. Whether IGT and videopoker.com chose to “fix” the problem in their next release would be up to them, but even if they did, older versions might still be out there and players should be warned about it.

Please note that this falls into the realm of “hearsay.” I didn’t see the error, and the man who told me about it said it happened to his son. There’s plenty of room in there for some misunderstanding to have taken place. Still, the situation is interesting on a couple of different levels which makes it worth talking about.

Curiously, I came away concluding that yes, there may have been an error with Dream Card in this situation, but it wasn’t the error I got the email about!

Here’s the situation. The player was playing 9/6 Jacks or Better Dream Card. Dream Card moves a 99.54% game to 99.56% — with a much bigger variance.

The dealt hand was A♠ K♠ Q♠ Q♦ DC, where DC indicates a Dream Card which is supposed to be the best possible card given the first four. The machine chose the T♠, giving the player a 4-card royal flush. The player wanted the Dream Card to be another queen, giving him 3-of-a-kind.

I told him that a 4-card royal was much superior to a 3-of-a-kind. I suggested he enter the hand A♠ K♠ Q♠ Q♦ T♠ on Video Poker for Winners and see that the 4-card royal is worth 92.34 coins. Then if he entered the hand A♠ K♠ Q♠ Q♦ Q♣, he would see the value of the trip queens is 21.51. If the reader hasn’t gone through the exercise of checking the value of combinations using VPW or other quality software, it’s an educational process to go through. It’s not difficult and it is eye-opening.

“So,” I asked, “why on earth would you prefer 3-of-a-kind to a 4-card royal flush? It’s not close!”

“Well, my son uses the Dancer-Daily strategy card and that card says 3-of-a-kind is better. If it isn’t better, why did you print the wrong information?”

Hmm, this could be embarrassing. I do have a good explanation for that but I can see where the confusion arose. The first two lines in both the Basic Strategy and the Advanced Strategy for that game are as follows:

 

RF5; SF5; 4-OF-A-KIND; FULL HOUSE; 3-OF-A-KIND; TWO PAIR

RF4 > FL5 and ST5 > any SF4

 

The top line of the strategy lists all hands in that game that are always held when dealt — with no exceptions. This list of hands is not the same for all games. There are games where from AAA44 or AA339 you just hold the aces, but Jacks or Better isn’t one of those games.

The second line lists those cases where a 4-card royal flush or a 4-card straight flush is in the same five cards as a dealt flush or a dealt straight. That is, from A♦ K♦ Q♦ J♦ T♣ you hold just the diamonds, but from Q♦ J♦ T♦ 9♦ 8♣ you hold all five cards.

A key underlying assumption for the strategy cards is that the combinations listed on the first line of the card are mutually exclusive with the combinations listed on the second line of the card. That is, you can’t have 3-of-a-kind and a 4-card royal in the same five cards. It takes at least seven cards to have both combinations.

I suppose technically you could argue the hand A♥ K♥ Q♥ J♥ T♥ is on the first line of the card, and any four cards from that combination are also on the second line of the card — hence the lines are not completely mutually exclusive.  But anyone who has trouble figuring how to play a dealt royal has no chance to understand my writings anyway.

If combinations are mutually exclusive, it doesn’t matter which order you list them in. Liam W. Daily and I recognized that using this underlying assumption allowed us to give completely accurate strategies with fewer rules. And we saw that as a good thing.

When you introduce the concept of Dream Card and you’re considering among alternative fifth cards, we can no longer hold with the assumption of mutual exclusivity while playing that version.

Simply put, the Dancer-Daily strategy card was designed for the “regular” version of Jacks or Better, not the Dream Card version. Since the machine almost always selects the correct Dream Card, you can continue to use the strategy card for the hands where Dream Card is not in effect.

With all that said, while the T♠ would be a much better choice than the Q♣ given the first four cards, the J♠ would be better still, simply because a jack presents three extra chances to end up with a high pair (namely the other three jacks) and a ten gives you no such chances.

Possibly the machine actually gave the correct card and there was a mix-up in the way the situation was presented to me. I assume IGT and videopoker.com can check on that easily enough. But whether there was or wasn’t an error, a discussion on an underlying assumption of the strategy card made this a conversation worth having.

Posted on by — 7 Comments

I Was a BMX Voyeur

This likely will be a one-off column. It’s not about video poker. For me it’s not even about gambling, although I did make a few bucks betting on it. For me it’s about some kid I’ve known about for 20 years, who lives only a few miles from me, competing in the Rio Olympics in an obscure sport I knew nothing about until recently. It was a damn exciting experience for me and I want to tell you about it. If you want to read about video poker, come back next week.

Mike Fields is vice president at videopoker.com, also known as Action Gaming. Before that he was head of video poker for IGT. I met Mike more than 20 years ago. I was just coming up as a video poker expert. Mike was already established working for a gaming manufacturer. We met at a gaming show — enjoyed talking to each other — and have stayed friends. Mostly business friends, but with a good dose of personal relationship as well. There were fewer than 40 people invited to Bonnie’s and my wedding. Mike Fields was one of them.

I heard about his son, Connor, many times through the years. I met Connor once — with his dad — at a mall shortly before Christmas. A charity my wife was helping asked for donations to give gifts for underprivileged kids and Connor decided that since biking was his passion, he’d like to donate a bicycle. And he did.

connorfields

For the past several years, Connor Fields has been competing in BMX racing — with BMX standing for bicycle moto-cross. It’s an event for really crazy people. Up to eight cyclists start at the top of a steep eight-meter (26.25-feet) ramp. When the gate drops, they go speeding downhill and are up to about 40 miles per hour in two and a half seconds. Just to make it a little more exciting and dangerous, it’s legal to throw elbows and punches to the head as you jockey for position. Although the cyclists are pedaling throughout the race, the vast majority of their speed is gained in this initial eight-meter descent.

Once they reach the bottom of the ramp, they still have a long way to go even though it is definitely a sprint race. The BMX course has bunches of hills to navigate. The early ones come back-to-back and the cyclists become airborne as they go up one small hill — fly over the next one — and land going downhill. Although they could be going slower and actually go up and down each hill — that’s not a strategy for winning.

The corners of the track are called berms and they are banked so the bikers can take them at speed. Whether you take them high or low depends on how fast you are going and where you are compared to the other riders. Giving a “friendly elbow” to help a competitor go “over the top” of the berm to an off-course grassy landing is part of the game. Before the finish line, there are several low hills, called the rhythm section, which are far enough apart that you need to go up and down each one and jumping from one to the other isn’t a strategy any of the cyclists used at the Olympics.

Tracks are all similar — and all a bit different. Many are dirt. The one at the Olympics had a synthetic surface much like you see on a running track. I’m sure Connor can tell you how the texture of the BMX track is different from the texture of a running track and why, but I can’t.

The entire race takes 35 seconds or so for the winners. A bit longer if you crashed along the way. When one cyclist goes down, often one or more others get tangled up in the mess. The track isn’t all that wide and all the racers are trying to get to the front. Interestingly, if you go down in a BMX race and you can still walk, you pick up your bike and carry it to the finish line.

In most preliminary races, the top four go on to ride in the next round and the slowest four are eliminated. Whether you’re first or fourth in one round affects your position on the track in the next round, but your score doesn’t carry over. For example, even if the fourth place cyclist was a quarter of a second slower than the winner in the quarter-finals, they start off even in the semi-finals time-wise.

There were LOTS of stories about Connor Fields before the Olympics (Google him if you don’t believe this). He was injured earlier in 2016 and couldn’t compete in the Olympic time trials, but because of his skill, he was given a coaches’ exemption and was selected as a member of the five-person U.S. Olympic team (three men, two women). Since he’s a local boy here in Las Vegas, local TV and newspapers mentioned him all the time.

I didn’t get to see any of the races in real time, but I’d read the results every night. On Wednesday, August 17, I checked the results and saw Connor came in fourth place. I was very disappointed. He was really hoping for a medal, which only go three deep, and to go all that way and come up just short was awful.

As I read further, I realized that yes he was in fourth place, but these were individual time trials used for seeding purposes. The top 32 racers moved on to the quarter-finals the next day — and Connor was doing just fine.

On Thursday, August 18, there was blood on the track. Several of the riders went down hard, including one of the pre-race favorites — Joris Daudet from France. http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/bmxers-took-some-hard-hits-quarterfinals

Fields and the other two Americans, Nic Long and Corben Sharrah, survived and would race again Friday. Sixteen riders were left.

On Friday, August 19, the semi-finals got it down to eight riders, and shortly thereafter the finals ended it all. In the finals, which included two Americans — Connor Fields and Nic Long. Both Americans got off to fast starts and about 20 seconds in were in first and second position with Long holding a slight advantage. Connor passed Long, as did one Dutch rider and one Colombian, who passed him in a photo finish, so the Americans ended up with the Gold and near miss for the bronze. http://www.nbcolympics.com/news/team-usas-connor-fields-led-bmx-finals-start-finish-takes-home-gold

On the woman’s side, American Alise Post took home a silver, so it was an excellent showing for Team USA. I’m sure Alise has her own story and it’s every bit as exciting as Connor’s, but I’ve never met her and didn’t follow the women’s races at all.

We’re going to try to get Connor Fields as a guest on the radio show. It isn’t really about gambling, but his dad is a sponsor of the show, and hey, how many Olympic champions have you met? I want to ask him about the final race.

When he and Nic Young were neck and neck with 10 seconds to go, it’s possible Connor knew he was going to win. You know your teammates pretty well and Fields is a better finisher than Young is. But what if it was neck and neck with 3 seconds to go? You and your teammate are both going for the gold — and you felt that a well-timed elbow would push you by your teammate.

If it was for the Olympic gold, would you elbow your teammate?

(I mentioned earlier that I made some money gambling on this. With a friend, I took Connor Fields against the field at 5-1. I risked $10 (which I would have paid if Connor lost) and collected $50 when he won. It probably wasn’t a good bet, odds-wise, but sports are more exciting when you have a little wager on it, and this was pocket-change money between friends. The $50 win is nice, but I’m REALLY happy for Connor and Mike Fields!)

Posted on by — 14 Comments

Does it Matter?

You’re at your favorite casino. You’ve played a lot all month and are now there for the big drawing. Here’s the way it works:

Ten winners get called — they have a minute and a half to show up and identify themselves. If one or more spots are unclaimed after 90 seconds, more names are called. Eventually there are 10 contestants to “play the game.” Good news! You’re one of the chosen few — but I’m not going to tell you now whether you were first or last.

The way the game works is that 10 unmarked envelopes, in numbered spaces, are on a big board. Prizes total $25,000. The distribution of the prizes in the envelopes is:

First                        $10,000

Second                    $4,000

Third – Fifth                $2,000 each

Sixth – Tenth                 $1,000 each

 

Any of the players may end up with any of the envelopes. The first player drawn has the biggest choice. The last player drawn has no choice at all, but clearly it’s better to have this “no choice” rather than not to have been called at all.

Here are the questions: What’s your EV (expected value) if you get the first choice? What’s your EV if you barely make it in and you end up taking the last envelope? (We’re assuming the envelopes are indistinguishable from one another. I’ve been at drawings where actual cash was in the envelopes and the envelope with 100 C-notes inside was quite a bit fatter than the ones with “only” 10 Benjamins. In that drawing, you definitely wanted to be first to pick because visual inspection of the envelopes contained valuable information.)

The answer, of course, is “it depends.” (I like questions where this is the answer. That gives me something to write about!)

For the first player to select, the EV is clearly $2,500. A total of $25,000 is being given away to 10 players, and $25,000 divided by 10 is $2,500. This is as simple as an EV calculation gets.

For the second player, his actual EV depends on what the first player chose. If the first player selected a $1,000 envelope, then the second player’s EV is $24,000 divided by nine, which is $2,667. If the first player selected the $10,000 envelope, then the second players EV drops to $15,000 divided by nine, which is $1,667.

By the time we get down to the last player, there will be one envelope left and the EV is whatever prize hasn’t been claimed — meaning $10,000; $4,000; $2,000; or $1,000.

How do you take a weighted average of that?

Before I answer that question, let’s change this discussion a little. Assume each of the players selected an envelope but didn’t open them until the very end when they opened them together. In that case, each of the players has an EV of $2,500. There is still $25,000 in the prize pool, so far as they know, and they each have one in 10 chances to get any of the prizes.

Now, change it again. Assume you are the last person in line but you put earphones and blinders on until it’s your turn. Based on the information you have, you now have the same $2,500 EV as you would if everybody opened the envelopes at the same time!

If you are watching what happens and you’re still last, and you do this many times, on average your EV will be $2,500 — with variance!

Mathematically, on average it doesn’t matter whether you pick first or last. It can matter psychologically however. You see the $10,000 and $4,000 envelopes opened by somebody else and it’s a real downer if you’re somebody who sweats your daily scores! But sometimes getting called last will mean you see all of the smaller envelopes being opened and you’re left with the big one! On average it doesn’t matter, but if you want to feel bad about it, knock yourself out.

Since there are five $1,000 envelopes out of 10 total, half the time the last guy will end up with $1,000. (Of course, half the time the first guy — with complete freedom to choose any of the envelopes — also gets $1,000.)

When the first guy picks $10,000 (which will happen 10% of the time), it LOOKS like having the first choice was a big advantage. But it really wasn’t. He just made a lucky pick.

Posted on by — 14 Comments

D T B

Bonnie’s family accepts that I’m a successful gambler. They also believe that the methods and discipline I use to succeed involve far more study than they want to invest — especially since it will never be more than an occasional hobby for any of them. Continue reading D T B

Posted on by — 10 Comments

You Have to Work it Out Yourself

I get dozens of video poker emails a month from people I’ve never met. Often the emails are similar to the following:

“I play Double Double Bonus. From a hand like KK773, I hold the kings and a friend tells me to hold two pair. Which is right?”

I typically answer that it’s correct to hold two pair — and the answer would be easy to obtain using video poker software or by consulting a strategy card or Winner’s Guide. If they wish to get better at video poker, they need to be able to check these things out themselves. Continue reading You Have to Work it Out Yourself

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Identifying a Pattern

I planned on playing for six hours at the Palms from shortly after midnight until about 6:00 a.m. on the early morning of Wednesday, April 27. It was a double point day— I also earned points for gift cards, a small amount of value for the weekly drawing, plus my play kept the mailers and other benefits coming. There were only two machines that I wanted to play, both containing $1 Ten Play Deuces Wild Ultimate X, and I expected other players to want the same machines on that day. So I went at hours when other players preferred to sleep. And this time, at least, one machine was available. Continue reading Identifying a Pattern

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Breakeven Point Analysis Leads to Some Strange Conclusions

A version of this article first appeared in 1999, but I haven’t written about it for a long time and many of my readers are newer to the game than that and didn’t see it the first time.
Continue reading Breakeven Point Analysis Leads to Some Strange Conclusions