Poker Poker Poker!: Re: [vpFREE] The VP MENSA MYTH LIVES ON

I'm no genius but I don't think it is that difficult
of a question.

The basic premise is correct, but you have to
determine a few things first.

It is true that the less you bet on a negative game
the better off you are BUT it all depends on the
circumstances and the players objectives.

points to ponder

1. Why is the person gambling in the first place.
If you are just killing time, Play a penny machine one
coin at a time slowly.

2. Person likes to gamble small stakes and is looking
for best bang for the buck. If the casino has 9/6
jacks at quarters then that would be a better play,
but if the best quarter play is 8/5 jb then you are
certainly better off playing a buck at a time on the
9/6 $ machines.

3. For myself if the only option was 9/6 jb for
dollars or a much inferior play for quarters, and I am
a quarter player, then I would play the dollar game
less frequently. Instead of going once a week with
$500 to play I would go once a month with $2000 and
play the $ machines.

4. If the casino has good cash back and/or benefits it
should be easy to convince the person that the play
taken as a whole is actually positive not negative.

Regards
A.P.

--- BANDSTAND54@AOL.COM wrote:

> Howdy
>
> Today I started a conversation with an intelligent
> rather impressive
> gentleman at The Borgata in AC. I found it rather
> disappointing and was somewhat
> taken aback he was playing a 1.00 9/6 JoB...ONE
> DOLLAR AT A TIME.
>
> Why I asked was he only playing one at a time. He
> explained he had read a
> book by a mensan that determined any VP game that
> was not a positive game was
> not worth playing full coin because you are going to
> lose anyhow. By playing
> one coin your money will lasts longer and somehow it
> works out better for you
> in the long run..... or something like that!
>
> Although I had not read this hypothesis a red flag
> went way up. I remember
> this being discussed on a VP forum before but I only
> gave it a cursory look. I
> told him that I was not prepared to go into precise
> mathematical detail but
> take my word this is a false premise. He seemed to
> get my drift by my
> certainty and rationalization how playing the same
> game with different odds( not
> full pay) will hurt you in the long run.
>
> How anyone can prove otherwise in a convincing
> matter is some sort of genius
> I guess.
>
>
> Grumpy
>