VP Progression

[MikeA]

The progression is getting interesting now!  I think it is the third post in this thread if you are interested.  My progression so far has been $.25, $.50, $1, $2, $5, $10, $25, $50.  Obviously, I have not met any of my goals (break even or current +40-coin win).  At this point, I am down $9,375.00.  My next progression denomination is $100.00. 
 
My coin-in at this point is $69,935.00.  Hands played is 809.  My closest to break even has been on the 222 hand $50 denomination.  I got up to 170 coins and needed 188 to break even.
 
Damn!  I'm glad that I'm not playing this for real.  I might be able to handle it up to $50, but this next denomination is a $10,000 buyin!
 
I still say that there is a virtual impossibility of losing at this progression PROVIDED that there is unlimited funds to risk and that machines are available to let me play the denominations that are required to double the previous losing denomination.
 
You high-rollers will have to help me on the denominations available above $100.00 per credit.
 

[pokeherguy]

{Then he will mount you}
 
That was all that needed to be said!

[MikeA]

The "session from Hell" is finally over!  I'll paste the session in at the bottom of this post.  Wow, 1,042 hands culminating in $400 per coin or $2,000 per hand bets!  A buy-in of $40,000 and a net win of $298,625.00.
 
However, I had $79,375.00 at risk!  This was not one of the worst sessions I've played, either in simulation or in a casino.  It was a bad one though not one that you might consider "exceptional" for Double Double Bonus.
 
The question is, "For the AVERAGE player, is this a reasonable betting strategy?"  For me, it definitely is NOT.  Even guaranteed a win such as ultimately you WILL GET with this progression, there is a matter of Bankroll to fund this type strategy that must be considered.  It's WAY over my head.  The term "Chasing your money" comes to mind.
 
I could continue this type session and most of the time, I think we would see Quads or a winning session on the average around once every 6 sessions.  That would put the maximum denomination at $10.  However, I think the point has been made. 
 
You CAN WIN with it but can you afford to Win with it?
 
I'm sure I could play games with it.  For instance, Rob suggests that the volatility either increase or decrease with the denomination.  Mayby play one session at low volitality and the next at the same denomination but a higher volitality (DB up to DDB).  Maybe work down in volitality instead up up.  Maybe that would take some of the sting out of it.  But any way you cut it, the NEGATIVE PROGRESSION is a very costly pursuit.  At least the way I set this one up.
 
For those new to gambling (the rest of you ignore this) there are basically two types of Progressions: Negative and Positive.  In both progressions, you increase your bets.  The difference is WHEN you increase them. 
 
In a Positive Progression, you increase your bets when you WIN.  Some see that as playing on the Casino's money since you are increasing your bet using your winnings from a previous hand or session.  I've never understood that viewpoint.  Once I win money from the Casino, it's MINE, not THEIRS!  Dangerous attitude.
 
In a Negative Progression, you increase your bets when you lose.  This leads to the enevitable feeling of "chasing your money."  Each time you win, you go back to your minimum bet.  If you lose, you raise your bet to recover what you lost.
 
If you elect to go with progressions, especially negative ones, make sure that you have deep pockets.  Positive progressions will likely place less money at risk in a game like Blackjack and possibly VP, but you are less likely to win much because you are continually placing at risk whatever you've won.
 
Negative Progressions, well, just read the results of my sessions.  You can win, but it will very likely cost you an arm and a leg to win.  Note that my progression is a very extreme example.  There are certainly "bail-outs" that you could temper it with but in the end, it would still be a negative progression.
 
Consider playing that $300,975.00 all at the quarter level.  If you did that it would take a very long time to achieve that coin-in total and in the end, you may or may not have won $298,625.00...probably not.  By the math based on playing 9/6 DDB, you would probably have lost $3,611.17 (98.8% ER).  But in playing in that quarter level, you would not have had $79,375.00 on the line.
 
So, if you have unlimited funds, then you can make a Progression work.  At least a Negative Progression.
 
Here are the session details:
 


















VP DDB 9/6 Negative Progression

Session
Coin Value
Buy-in
Goal Coins
Goal Dollars
Stop Goal
Stop Dollars
Hands Played
Coin IN
Significant Hands
Coin Result
Dollar Result
Running Total















3a
$0.25
$25.00
140
$35.00
140
$35.00
32
$40.00
 2-Pr
100
$25.00
$25.00

3b
$0.50
$50.00
150
$75.00
190
$95.00
116
$290.00
 1-FH 2-FL
100
$50.00
$75.00

3c
$1.00
$100.00
175
$175.00
215
$215.00
168
$840.00
 4-FH 1-FL
100
$100.00
$175.00

3d
$2.00
$200.00
188
$375.00
228
$455.00
78
$780.00
 1-ST
100
$200.00
$375.00

3e
$5.00
$500.00
175
$875.00
215
$1,075.00
89
$2,225.00
 1-FL
100
$500.00
$875.00

3d
$10.00
$1,000.00
188
$1,875.00
228
$2,275.00
36
$1,800.00
 3oK
100
$1,000.00
$1,875.00

3e
$25.00
$2,500.00
175
$4,375.00
215
$5,375.00
68
$8,500.00
 2-FL 2-ST
100
$2,500.00
$4,375.00

3f
$50.00
$5,000.00
188
$9,375.00
228
$11,375.00
222
$55,500.00
 6-FH 3-FL 
100
$5,000.00
$9,375.00

3g
$100.00
$10,000.00
194
$19,375.00
234
$23,375.00
110
$55,000.00
 1-FH 
100
$10,000.00
$19,375.00

3h
$200.00
$20,000.00
197
$39,375.00
237
$47,375.00
70
$70,000.00
 1-FH 
100
$20,000.00
$39,375.00

3i
$400.00
$40,000.00
198
$79,375.00
238
$95,375.00
53
$106,000.00
 Q4's 3 
845
$338,000.00
$298,625.00











 





$79,375.00




1042
$300,975.00

[denflo60]

Mike:  I don't play a negative progression, but I have played DDB at $25, $125 per hand and went about 2000 hands without a 4oak.  That trip I lost $100K.  Even with this loss,  I did win in total for the year.  While I wouldn't play your way, I believe with an infinite bankroll and balls of steel except in very rare instances you can end up being ahead.  Remember though that old black swan can strike because, while rare, it is a negative game and as advantage players say, it will catch up to you. 
I play at Wynns and the $100 is the highest denomination I have seen ($500 per hand).  Of course on the 50 way machine you can bet more than that .    Denny  

[MikeA]

I play at Wynns and the $100 is the highest denomination I have seen ($500 per hand).  Of course on the 50 way machine you can bet more than that .    Denny  
 
Hi Denny.  Yes, that was a concern of mine.  In BJ, you can hardly play a Martingale because of the table maximum bets.  In Blackjack on a $5 table, you had better win by the 9th hand.  The tenth hand is a $2,560 bet and most $5 tables have a $2,000 max.  These losing streaks in BJ can be expected about once in every 8 or 9 hours of play.
 
In my simulated play, I've seen about the same thing.  Having 10, 12 or 14 losing sessions with DDB with 100 coin buys is not what I'd call rare.  Same thing in Casinos except I'm not playing anything at all like my simulated session.  Same playing strategy but WAY down on the denominations from what I did in the simulation.
 
If $100.00 is the maximum denomination on VP, then in that not so rare session I played, I'd have lost $19,375.00.  There would have been no progressive way to recoupe it since I couldn't double the $100.00 bet.  It's academic anyway.  I don't have that kind of money on tap to gamble with even if it IS a sure thing! 
 
It does go to show that Video Poker has the same limitations as Blackjack though. 
 
 

[shadowman]

"So, if you have unlimited funds, then you can make a Progression work.  At least a Negative Progression."
 
This is not quite true. Only an infinite negative progression can work. Increasing the number of levels increases the number of session wins. In your example you went to 11 levels to finally win. I mentioned previously that 8 levels gets you 90% wins. In this example you experienced one of the 10% losses you would see at 8 levels. At 11 levels you might get 95% wins but the losses on that 1 losing session out of 20 would eat of all the wins. You could also increase the amount bet/level to increase the session win rate although this would require a larger bankroll.
 
Unless you start at the penny level I don't think there is anyway to find 11 machines that progress upward. I've never seen $50, $200 and $400 machines. This is why the casinos don't fear progressive strategies. Just as BJ table limits prevent Martingale strategies from working, the limited number of denominations prevents a VP progressive strategy from working. In addition, anyone who would be comfortable playing at $100 machines would never be happy playing penny machines (and vice versa).
 
Personally, I can see playing a 3 or 4 level progression with comfort. You might want to try increasing your coin-in per level and limit the levels. For example, try .05, .10, .25 and .50 with 1000 coins per level.

[MikeA]

This is not quite true. Only an infinite negative progression can work.
 
Yes, infinite.  Infinite bankroll and Infinite ability to double your denomination.  Same thing in Blackjack.  Infinite Bankroll and Infinite table maximums.  Has to be that way to emulate the Martingale Progression.
 
There may be a way to minimize the impact of the loss using this particular type of Negative Progression, but it pretty much comes down to WHY?  In Blackjack, progressions will simply kill you.  You gain no advantage in altering your bets at all UNLESS you know the condition of the deck and know you have an advantage over the dealer on the next hand.  This is possible via Card Counting, but APs at BJ are NOT using a negative progression.  They "ramp" bets according to the advantage they have.
 
With Utopian conditions, the progression will work with either BJ or VP unless you hit that point in life (eternity) at which you will never win again.  Not a practical approach to the game.  Not with "My" progression anyway.
 
I considered increasing the buy-in.  I only PRAY that I can increase the "coin-in" since that means that I'm  playing more hands on what I buy-in for and with more hands, I'm more likely to hit the quads to get out of the progression!  I think I know what you meant though.
 
Increasing to 400 or 1000 coins instead of 100.  That would give more chance for hitting quads but if you lost one of those sessions, you would have a much deeper hole to dig out of when you doubled to the next denomination.  It would seem that there would be some happy medium that would optimize one's chances.
 
I'm still not sure I'd play a progression other than as a diversion.  I really don't see any way to gain an advantage with them unless your bankroll is a lot heftier than is mine, and I know yours and probably everyone elses on this forum is better than Mine!

[oej719]

MikeA,
You did not use any of the 1708 SPECIAL PLAYS in your progression. Which is why you lasted so long. Just my professional take on it.

[oej719]

The guy goes to work in the afternoon and he's a local vp addict who's already fat at a young age. $572 is a LOT to him too.

Time to take your toys and go home and play. This game is a bit to rough for you. Send me your resume. I can always use another good back office guy like you to troubleshot EE problems in the mailroom. I am an equal opprotunity employer. We are always hiring according to the ACLU requirements. Good pay and 2 weeks vacation after 1 year of probation of course. You would have to relocate to Wyoming or Texas but I am looking at locations in AZ. and possibly could find you something there. Warning though we do inital drug screening and random after that and anytime after an accident or when suspect.
Peace,
OEJ or as you say 1ijack

[MikeA]

It is sort of ironic OEJ.  Not that I did or didn't use the 1700 special plays (I used straight basic strategy), but that the more you lose, the more you win!
 
If I'd hit the quads at the $100 level instead of at the $400 level, I'd have won $65,125 instead of $298,625.00.  However, I would have lost a lot more had I been playing at the $400 level from the start.  I would have bought in for $440,000 ($40,000*11 sessions) and won $338,000 for a net loss of $102,000 and that is with a 800 coin quad win!
 
I see also that except for the first session at $.25, you have to play for considerably MORE than 40 coins at your current level.  That 40 coins is your target profit.  You still have to recover everything you've lost in previous hands.  After the $10 level, your "break even" or "Goal Coins" starts steadily increasing to compensate for the previous loses.
 
What that seems to mean is that at the lower hands, you might accumulate enough wins with Flushes and Full Houses to accomplish that break-even target.  But at the higher levels, you are pretty much shooting for the big win...mainly Quads.  And, since I hit an 800 coin quad instead of a 250 coin one, I won an additional $220,000 since the "normal" quad would have "only" paid $118,000 with the 45 credits left from the original 100 I bought in for.
 
You cannot draw absolute conclusions from this analysis as far as bankroll (as stated already, you simply cannot consider ANY limitation on bankroll and be guaranteed that you will not lose!), but you can sure see some "trends."
 
One other very interesting thing to note:  ER on 9/6 Double Double Bonus is 98.9%.  If you take the Win of $298,625 and the Coin In for the session, you'll see that it comes out to a Return of 99.22%.  That's pretty darn close isn't it!