VIDEO POKER
 Bob Dancer writes a video poker column for beginners to experts. He also writes a column each week with Jeffrey Compton titled Player's Edge, which features information on promotions at various Las Vegas Hotel. Player's Edge is published each Friday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Click here to send Bob Dancer an e-mail.
July 16, 2002
Responses to the July 9 Article
Somebody posted my July 9 column on a video poker bulletin board and I ending up receiving more than a dozen emails about the column. Let me share some of them with you. Although most of the emails were signed, I am not repeating the names here. There are casinos that restrict knowledgeable players, so naming names has the potential to curtail opportunities. You might wish to re-read the earlier column to refresh your memory.
Comment 1: There is no difference between $25 single play and 25¢ Hundred Play, except in the short run, which is relatively unimportant.
Response 1: Correct about the only difference being in the short run. How important this is depends on how big your bankroll is --- both financial and psychological. You never reach the long run unless you survive every short run test along the way.
Comment 2: Doesn't Jazbo address this on his website?
Response 2: Yes. On www.jazbo.com, there is an article called "An Analysis of N-Play Video Poker." It features a variable called "co-variance" which very well might be the correct variable to discuss these matters. Problem is, I don't have any good understanding of what co-variance means. And I am sure my math knowledge is greater than that of most of my readers. So I believe that discussing this concept in English rather than math is more useful sometimes.
Comment 3: Because 9/6 Jacks or Better has such a low variance, I'd play that on Hundred Play rather than NSU Deuces Wild. Is this a good idea?
Response 3: Not to me. The average return is WAY more important to me than the variance. 9/6 Jacks returns 99.54% and NSU Deuces Wild returns 99.73%. Since I was playing over $30,000 per hour through the machine, playing 9/6 Jacks would cost me about $60 per hour more. We've played about 30 hours lifetime on this machine --- and playing 9/6 Jacks would have cost us an extra $1,800. No thank you!
I NEVER think it is a good idea to play a lesser-paying machine for volatility reasons. If I can't afford the swings, I don't play, but playing a losing game just because I can afford what I will probably lose makes no sense at all to me.
Comment 4: I find that you get low scores when you redraw all five cards at Hundred Play. Therefore I like to play games where you hold cards more often, such as Double Bonus, rather than games where you throw cards away frequently, such as Deuces Wild.
Response 4: I don't think this is a relevant factor. While you get more "hold nothing" hands in Deuces Wild, you get more when you hold three deuces rather than holding three aces in Double Bonus. I suggest the overall return of the game and your ability to play it well be the major factors in determining which game to play.
Comment 5: On the 1¢-5¢-10¢ Hundred Play machines, which are the only ones I can afford, I never see any good pay schedules. So all of the points in your article are irrelevant to me.
Response 5: Good point. You'd think slot directors would recognize that a 1¢ Hundred Play machine takes the same money to fully load as a dollar single-line machine and would offer similar pay schedules. But that doesn't usually happen. Casinos are used to putting 95% and worse games on all penny and nickel machines and they see no reason to change that for Hundred Play. I think this is very shortsighted on the part of the casinos. Players who play these games will lose their money too fast and stop playing them. This isn't good for the players nor is it good for the casinos.
| 
