Can't lose VP Games?

[billryan]

Phil's strategy is simply to bet less most of the time but be sure to max out when a jackpot is due.
Evidently, he is the only one who doesn't see the flaw in that.
If you bet single coin 90% of the time, then 90% of your jackpots will be at single coin.
If you bet max coins 10% of the time, then 10% of your jackpots will be mad coins.
Phil likes to talk about betting small all day but magically upping his bet just in time to take advantage of an upcoming jackpot.
Rational people realize it simply doesn't work like that.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=billryan]Phil's strategy is simply to bet less most of the time but be sure to max out when a jackpot is due.
[/quote]That is not Phil's strategy.  CS does not depend on a whim or a hunch to up your bet.  It lets the game decide when to make the change.   If you think making a profit is the only reason to play VP, you already know what to do.   If you just crawled out of your egg and don't know, I have a pile of Dancer books you can have.  If you must play negative VP games and you want to play longer with your money and enjoy an exciting game with no downside, try CS.  What can happen, you cut your losses?  I can think of worse things that can happen like using Dancer's strategy on a 96% game.  There is a reason he tells you not to play those games.There is no secret strategy of the week or year that can turn a negative game positive.  Fortunately, the RNG doesn't always follow the math.   If you are going to play seriously negative VP games, the best you can hope for is to cut the house edge to as small as possible and put yourself in position to get lucky.  That is what CS does.

[FAA]

Even 99.5% games are not nirvana, as they too are negative. Ask Olds about his losses on those. I prefer to cut the losses and avoid busting within an hour of arrival. Mega day killer. It whittles down my odds of the bonus RF payout, which I'm okay with, and the other premium wins are proportional to my bet. That sounds fair enough.  

[billryan]

He tells you not to play those games because you don't have a chance in hell of beating them. You,for some bizarre reason, encourage people to play those games.
Misery loves company.

[FAA]

you don't have a chance in hell of beating them.--------------------------------------------------------------------Agreed. It's the Non Vegas Predicament. And we're mostly co-NVPs of that league. He was, and I am, sheltering bankroll from negative games galore. If I hit a RF when betting big, maybe I actually break even on the year. 

[billryan]

   Gambling Addicts Prayer.
Dear Lord, Let me break even today. I really need the money.
I don't respond to you or Phil in the hopes of changing your minds. Nothing but you realizing you have a problem will fix that.
I post to point out to others that following advice from addicts ,in any venture, is dumb.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=billryan]He tells you not to play those games because you don't have a chance
in hell of beating them. You,for some bizarre reason, encourage people
to play those games.[/quote]This is where this post goes off the rails.  As anyone here can see, I do not encourage players to play bad games.  What I am suggesting is a way to pay less if you do.  Here are some questions for you.  How many successful professional VP players are there?  One?  Five? Fifty?  Maybe 500?How many people play VP?Over the years on this forum we have had dozens of surveys asking if any
member claims a significant long term profit playing VP.  I can only remember one
person who ever said they did and no one ever provided anything to back it up.It seems to me like the edge Bob talks about is pretty thin.  In other words, the odds of you making money long term playing VP are pretty low.  As I recall, Bob has said this many times himself.If you are one of the rare long term winners, you don't need me or anyone to tell you how to play.   If you are going to play the game and you are going to lose, why do you want to pay more than you need to?If someone wants to pay extra when playing a negative VP game so they are guaranteed to always hit a max coin royal, that's their choice.  I do when the comps have value to me and the combined return is high enough.  If they don't, I'm back to single coin.   I could do what Bill says and boycott the casino, but I enjoy playing the game no matter how many coins I play.  I don't enjoy being robbed, so if the return isn't high enough I play as cheap as possible.I play VP for recreation and entertainment.  I control how much it costs.  I'm not playing with anyone's money but mine, so I make the rules.  Pretty simple.

[lmb11]

Thank you Phil for your input! I believe you are right. You can play so much longer if you forget playing max coin when none of the machines are any good! I do like your Deuces Wild method very much. I can play it expertly and have had some nice hits, but never a Royal Flush on quarters in 5 years of playing so don’t worry too much about missing it!

[FloridaPhil]

Want to hit a lot of jackpots?  Play a lot of hands.  Pretty simple.  The problem comes when you play negative games more, you lose more.  Playing 90% of your hands at single coin and 10% at max coins does not guarantee to turn a negative game positive.  Neither does playing max coins all the time.  Playing VP with an edge doesn't guarantee you will be a long term winner either.  The fact is you may not be here tomorrow.   Most of what happens in VP is chance.  Let's hope we're here to see it.

[lmb11]

Phil, why aren’t you playing that way still? What have I missed?