Fun vs. Math

[FloridaPhil]

I think we've pretty much worn out this subject, but misconceptions about the Cheap Strategy keep coming up so I thought I would clear some of these up.Professional players dissect each game looking for tiny edges to exploit. Recreational players like myself play strictly for entertainment.  No one disputes the fact that the math says you will lose less money long term when playing a negative game if you play single coin all the time.  There is a problem with the math because it doesn't take into consideration a recreational player's motivation for playing the game in the first place.The "fun" of video poker is winning a jackpot.  Without the jackpot, you might as well play the coin change machine (stole this thought from Bob D.)  This is the reason the Cheap Strategy calls for a max coin bet after every four coin win.  It's not because it's mathematically better to do so, it's better because it's more exciting than playing single coin all the time.Playing this way provides a host of benefits to a recreational player.  Most significantly, you risk less while continuing to have have a chance of hitting a max coin jackpot and you can play more hands with the same bankroll. With a 1000 coin quarter bankroll, I can easily play all day.   By playing 3-4 times as many hands, I see many more quad deuces and royals than the average weekend player.   Every now and then, I hit one at max coins and when I do after switching to $1 play at $25, the payoff is huge compared to what I am risking. This is primarily how I have stayed ahead of the game over the past two years.No one knows if my strategy is better or worse long term than playing traditional max coin strategy because the math can't calculate when a max coin or $1 jackpot will occur on your own machine.  Even if someone could prove that it's not, I think the increased fun factor and the decreased depression factor makes it a better choice for recreational play.  I hope that explains why I chose to play the way I do.  I don't believe there is a universally correct way to play video poker because we are all different in our motivations. 

[Tedlark]

Nice post Phil.

[FAA]

The only tweak I make is in the coin bump timing. I'm much more scattershot and less system dependent. I go for it either at the end of a session or after a random couple consecutive losses. My machines don't have a great track record w consecutive wins, I have found. But it's a preponderance of cheapo spins with a sprinkle of selective splurging. Same language, different dialects.

[alpax]

Most people are judgemental about this approach due to the reduced Royal Flush payout and increased house edge. Some players here may have the bankroll to sustain between jackpot hands. I think a handful of them took offense when it is implied [not directly, implicitly] max coins is not good for recreational players on various posts. I largely think your losses on the traditional strategy approach came from playing 8/5 DDB (though now Hard Rock Tampa now has 9/6 DDB for $1, $2, or $5). Some cases max coins are needed to get free room comps or the meal comp that adds value in return. Then you have your professionals, who are disciplined to a point where losing a single penny is not even acceptable; they do not understand some people want to have fun.

I for one have tried out the system at a live casino before. It is a thrilling experience as Deuces Wild is a streaky game, and when you are riding a good wave at max bets, your credit balance really goes up. The single coin bets mitigate the damage done on a cold streak. If people are on a tight budget and still want to play, they should try it for themselves and not feel cheated over a single coin royal flush.

I know the motto behind this strategy is

"As a recreational player, the only way you can beat the casino when playing a negative expectation video poker game is by hitting jackpots at a significantly higher denomination than the majority of your play."

Most people think it is a guaranteed system to win and question that. In actuality, it turns Deuces Wild from a typically low variance game to a higher variance game (not as much as DDB). If you are not able to get a winning hand on max bets, you will find yourself in a bigger hole faster. The exciting times you are able to get something on the max bet, your bankroll climbs right back up.

I would rephrase it as this

"As a recreational player, the only [possible chance] you can beat the casino when playing a negative expectation video poker game is by hitting jackpots at a significantly higher denomination than the majority of your play."

[Minn. Fatz]

But math is fun...isn't it?  Forgive me if I'm repeating anything I may have missed: the math concept that applies is risk of ruin. Calculating risk of ruin can be tricky; the late Michael Canjar wrote the definitive paper on RoR as it applies to video poker and other games he called "well-behaved," and the math is really hairy... But if all the games you play are negative expectation, your risk of ruin calculation is trivial: unless you get ahead at some point and quit playing forever, you will always lose every nickel you put through a negative expectation machine.Here's an intriguing (dare I say fun?) way to think about this. Say there are multiple busloads of people in a casino lobby whose buses are getting ready to leave. The floor boss slides up to them and offers to place one last bet for each of them on double zero roulette, returning any winnings. The money is collected in large baskets.Instead of actually placing the bets, the floor boss just takes the baskets out of sight and takes one out of every $19 (the house edge in double zero roulette) out of them. He then returns to the lobby, says there's no time to return everyone's individual winnings and tosses the money left in the baskets into the air while the tourists grab for it.Some of them get nothing. A couple get huge handfuls of bills. Most wind up a little ahead or a little behind. But all that has really happened is the casino has redistributed the players' money after extracting its cut. If the tourists with money remaining come to the same casino tomorrow and the same thing happens, a few will go bust, others will get handfuls, etc. but collectively they will wind up with 18/19 of what they walked in with. Repeat often enough and the tourists' original stake will be gone.The collective action of large crowds of players thinking they might have a better than average run of luck playing negative expectation games is what puts up new multimillion dollar casinos on the Strip to replace the ones they implode every few years.I'm off to play the bill changer now.

[FloridaPhil]

I think is this a wonderful explanation of the process and I totally enjoyed reading it.   One thing I would like to add.  Before the players got on the bus at the end of the day, a lot of them played max coin 8/5 DDB all day and most of those lost a bunch of money.   I played Cheap Strategy quarters and could have bought a sandwich with my losses.  Even if they didn't let me into the bus roulette game, I believe I would go home with more money than most of them.   Good stuff...  

[FAA]

I'm off to play the bill changer now.---------------------------------------------------Recycle that twenty! Al Gore is en route to Cherokee as we speak. If you can save yourself two hours of pain and high losses, and subsequent hours depressed or obsessed with playing catch up, this seems to be the way to go. I get upset when I see a quick hit and run nearby. But I tell myself that's not my strategy and they simply lucked out. And when a game is nominally 99%, subtract 40% for a more realistic experience.