Answering assertions, one by one

Jul 17, 2006 11:15 PM

One thing associated with being a successful video poker player is dealing a healthy serving of crow for those who like to make unsupported assertions about my winning play strategies and/or the cumulative results I’ve chronicled on my website

For instance, critics often agree that it’s possible to win the majority of sessions using my play strategy, but that you couldn’t win "in the end" unless you’re playing positive expectation machines, that is, games with a 100-plus percent payback.

First, note that talk is cheap, and that not one critic stepped up to the plate in 2005 when I put out my offer in the form of a very large wager, to absolutely and factually prove my lifetime winning from this method — which now stands at slightly over $715,000 in 271 sessions.

Admittedly, it’s not really a huge amount given the 9+ years it spans. But it is consistent winning, and moreover does not require long, mindless play or being led around by the hand by slick slot club marketing departments.

It is easy to criticize from afar and from the comfortable position in the chair at the home computer — with all the math models and theories at one’s fingertips. It is, however, a much more telling issue whenever someone either passes on a bet about their claims, declines to debate me publicly, or both.

Many times I’ve criticized the alternate, expert-play approach as being not only tedious in requiring an enormous number of hours banging away at a video poker machine flawlessly — it is a hopeless way of winning and easily leads to an addiction to the game.

Of course, the diehards continue to apply whatever value they choose to all the freebies associated with slot club benefits in order to produce a winning formula, but that simply won’t pay the rent.

Saying you won $400 today because you put through $40,000 on a machine with a creatively produced 101% theoretical pay table (i.e., a 9/6 Jacks or Better game at 99.54% with 1.46% cash back/comps/freebies) when you actually lost $650 playing, won’t cut it with reasonable people. You simply cannot find a bank willing to accept phantom bucks, and no grocery clerk will take your word for it.

The incorrect notion that "losing sessions will be of a much greater magnitude than winning sessions" seems to be of comfort to my critics — especially those who rush to their slide rules and computers when they try to figure out exactly what it is I am doing.

While my average win/session (271 total) = $2640, my average loss per LOSING session (34) is at $3975. So the losses ARE larger on average than the wins, but I also include my average win per ALL sessions played.

But where critics continue to misguide themselves is in saying that my losses will out-total my overall winnings.

Oh really? My largest single session loss has been about $34,000. My largest session win has been $94,000. What these folks just don’t want to realize is that because of my strategy’s increase in game volatility/denomination as goals are missed, the larger wins easily outscore the larger losses.

Combined with the many smaller wins included in the 87% rate as pointed out earlier, what really results is that the WINS are of a much higher magnitude than the LOSSES — exactly as planned when my strategy was developed almost 10 years ago.

Okay, so what do my critics say now that they see the no-way-out facts? Far and away, the biggest face-saving effort revolves around saying things like "It is possible, though unlikely, that your efforts and luck have placed you on the right side of the Bell curve."

They always go on to say that most people playing as I do will lose, yet the vast majority of the many players who tell me they do play some variation of my strategy say they have never been happier or have had such great results. Sorry again Charlie.