CasinoGaming.com


	Sundays: Inside Gaming Tuesdays: Video Poker Wednesdays: Off the Shelf Fridays: Richard Eng, Player's Edge Saturdays: Pocket Aces

VIDEO POKER

Columns

• Back to Bob's index

• Back to columnist index

Bob Dancer writes a video poker column for beginners to experts. He also writes a column with Jeffrey Compton, "Player's Edge", featuring information on promotions at various Las Vegas casinos. Player's Edge is published each Friday in the Neon section of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Click here to send Bob Dancer an e-mail.

For more details and a schedule of Bob's free classes, visit www.bobdancer.com.

Oct. 9, 2007

A Matter of Perspective

I have a workout buddy at the gym who I'll call Cody. Cody and I go three times a week and encourage each other to show up on time and do all of the exercises. We're both seniors and our workout goals are mainly to keep fit. We certainly aren't going to impress anybody with the weights we lift.

On the chest press, for example, the bench we use has a 45-pound bar. It's possible that the bar is 20 kilograms (44 pounds), but I've always heard 45. The highest weight I add is 35 pounds to each side of the bar. The highest weight Cody ever adds is 5 pounds to each side of the bar.

I tease him that I'm lifting seven times the weight that he is, because 35 is seven times as much as 5 pounds. We both know that this is just fun with numbers. The total weight I'm lifting is 115 pounds (45 + 35 + 35 = 115) and the total weight he is lifting is 55 pounds (45 + 5 + 5 = 55). I'm actually lifting a little more than twice the weight that he is (I'm also eight inches taller than he is, haven't had a shoulder operation, and we're not really competing with each other anyway), but it's easy to see how the "seven times as much" teasing goes on.

Now let's switch to video poker in the Guaranteed Play version. In this game, you pay up front and are guaranteed a certain number of hands. You cannot lose more than the initial amount you play no matter how badly it goes.

Assume you are playing the Guaranteed Play version of a Jacks or Better game with a good pay schedule for dollars. For the sake of argument, let's assume you pay $100 up front for a guaranteed 200 hands. Assume further that you've played this game several dozen times and are looking at your results, trying to analyze whether it has been a worthwhile experiment or not.

To keep numbers easy, let's assume that your average return for the $100 invested each time was $90. Percentagewise, how much is this return?

It seems easy to say that $90 / $100 = 90%. But hold on. There's another valid way to look at it. The 200 hands you played, costing $5 apiece, were worth a total of $1,000. Losing $10 out of $1,000 means your return is 99%, not 90%.

It's still a $10 loss, no matter what percentage you come up with, so does the percentage return really matter?

I think the answer is "yes." A 99% game is playable for many people, especially when a generous slot club is present. Although better games can be found at some casinos by knowledgeable players, 99% isn't terrible. A 90% game is unplayable for anybody with a clue.

So which is it --- 90% or 99%? I believe the 99% number is the valid one here. A respected analyst, Michael Shackleford, believes that the 90% figure is the appropriate one. On his website, www.wizardofodds.com, he defends this point of view.

I don't know what the typical player will conclude about this. If the game is going to catch on, it is mandatory that the customers conclude they get decent value for the game. 99% is decent value. 90% isn't.

One of the paradoxes about the game is that the smartest players and analysts are going to avoid playing Guaranteed Play other than when lucrative promotions are included with the game. (It is geared primarily for the more casual player.) But it is only the smartest players and analysts who have a shot at figuring out what the game is worth.