2 deck 30,000 BJ Tournament! Need Help!

Questions for Ken Smith or any other VP experts

Is Wong wrong?
None other than respected gaming expert Stanford Wong says the payback for 9-6 VP is 100.07% when perfect playing strategy is used, in his book titled "Professional Video Poker". Others put that figure at 99.54%. Which figure is correct (if either)?
Question 2-How many people do you know can play VP "perfectly" at a rate of 800+ hands per hour consistently?
Please don't tell me Wong is wrong. He's my hero!

Billy C
 
Well, I'm not Ken, but I'll take a whack at this one....

I'd never, ever say that Wong was wrong about anything. However, the return for 9/6 Jacks-or-Better (JoB) is 99.54% with perfect play. There's a couple of possibilities here:

1. It might not have been JoB that Wong was referencing. There's so many variations of VP out there that it is easy to make the innocent error of thinking that 9/6 is top-drawer pay schedule for another game. For example, if you were to sit down at a Double Double Bonus game at 9/6, that EV is a pinch under 99%.

2. There was something else in the pay schedule Wong referenced that would boost the return. "9/6" only refers to the full house and flush. For example, if you raised the 9/6 JoB full-coin Royal payoff to 5,000 coins from the normal flattop 4,000, the EV comes very close to that 100.07%.

Billy, I'm not trying to rub your nose in anything. It sounds to me like you might be playing with some incomplete information. And since you're playing $5 per hand (I think you said 600 HPH), that 1/2% misconception is costing you about $15 per hour. If I can help you save that amount, then I'm quite happy to help.

P.S. Who can do 800 HPH? Plenty of my VP friends, most of whom would be unhappy if I posted names here. Two friends that wouldn't care are Jean Scott and Bob Dancer. As far as ""perfect play" - even those two will admit to an occasional error because playing computer-perfect 100% of the time is a human impossibility. Among other things, sticky machine buttons or playing too long and losing concentration can cause mistakes.

Billy C said:
Is Wong wrong?
None other than respected gaming expert Stanford Wong says the payback for 9-6 VP is 100.07% when perfect playing strategy is used, in his book titled "Professional Video Poker". Others put that figure at 99.54%. Which figure is correct (if either)?
Question 2-How many people do you know can play VP "perfectly" at a rate of 800+ hands per hour consistently?
Please don't tell me Wong is wrong. He's my hero!

Billy C
Click to expand...
 
Are you a politician?

LeftNut,

First I'll say I don't consider this a pissing match, just friendly banter. I truly look forward to meeting you at St. Ignace. There's a good chance your 40 years younger than me, bigger than me and you might hit me with one of your books so I'm hoping you're a nice guy!
Having said that I must ask if you are involved in politics? The reason I ask is you say you would never say Wong is wrong and immediately do exactly that! Please reference the aforementioned book. His table on page 16 says 9-6-1000:Payoffs & Freqencies, which of course is for quarter machines and we both know that is the same as 9-6-4000 for dollar machines and if you read the book you'll see he's obviously talking JOB game.
Did you have a dream last night? If you check my previous posts again you'll notice that I've never mentioned my own rate of play per hour, yet you somehow have me at 600HPH. Where did that come from?
I can play over 800HPH but seldom do because like everbody, I'm more mistake prone if I go too fast and the mistakes made are a blow to any EV
So, are you a politician, a dreamer, or both?
Ken Smith, is Wong wrong? Say it ain't so!

Billy C
 
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. - English Idiom of unknown origin.

I apologize for attributing the 6oo HPH to you, my mistake. Use it as an example instead.

I do not apologize for the erroneous 100.07% payback figure. With no actual copy of Wong's book handy, I cannot look in it and figure out where the problem lies. 99.54% is accurate (to a hundreth, anyway) and has been proven in countless computerized simulations.

There's damn little chance that I'm 40 years younger than you, and damn little chance that I'm bigger than you. Not that it matters either to me or for this discussion. But your idea of friendly banter is absolutely nowhere near mine. If you don't want the help because I don't meet your definition of an expert, fine. The next time Dancer asks me to help beta-test his software, or Scott asks me to help her with a book manuscript, I'll tell them that I can't do that any more because Billy C thinks I don't know squat.

I'm outta this discussion unless it reverts back to the St. Ignace BJ tournament.
 
Last edited:
I went to check my copy of Wong's Professional Video Poker, until I realized that I had sold that book a year or two ago. It's pretty out of date for today's games, though I suspect the information it provided was accurate.

BillyC, in your last message, you solved the mystery. 6-9-1000 is not the same as the common 4000 coins for the royal game. 6-9-1000 would be a 5000 coin royal, a game which may have existed when Wong wrote the book, but I've never seen. If you did find such a game, and use a strategy appropriate for it, the return would indeed be 100.0670% which rounds to Wong's quoted 100.07%.

The normal "full-pay" paytable for 9-6 Jacks these days is 6-9-800. With 5 coins that's 30 for a flush and 45 for a full house, and 4000 for the royal. That game, with perfect play, yields LeftNut's quoted 99.54%.

As for speed of play, 9/6 Jacks is definitely a game where many players play 800 hph or more. I prefer to play it pretty quickly, averaging about 1000 hands per hour. Yes, I make physical errors when buttons don't "stick", and I occasionally see a missed pair or something like that. If I'm playing a $5 game, I'll slow down to eliminate those kinds of mistakes. At the $1 level, I'm usually playing in situations where lots of hands per hour is a good thing, even if it means I make one or two mistakes an hour. I'm fairly confident that my error rate is that or less.
 
You're my Hero #2

Ken Smith,
Thanks for your response. Much appreciated! Your sagaciousness never fails to amaze me. Your post answered my questions in full.
I don't know if you remember me or not. It's been a long time since I've seen you (I think one of the last BJ tournaments at the Frontier?) and I don't think they've hosted one for 2 or 3 years now. We also bumped heads at Stardust tourns. a few times before a lot of us were 86'd, ExCaliber, Riviera,LV Hilton, etc.
Anyway, I've enjoyed a little cyber contact with you and hope to see you on some tourn. trails in the future.
Thanks again.

Billy C
 
I Apologize!

LeftNut,
Even tho you are under your self-imposed moratorium, I'm betting you still read the posts here.
I need to apologize to you for saying that you disputed Wong's numbers, because you didn't! Also, going on the assumption that you've read the posts since your last one, I'm sure that you can see what happened. I clearly misinterpreted Wong's 9-6-1000 table and took it as $1000 jackpot rather than the 1000 coin pay per coin that it is.
Please note that I have never said that you don't know squat and I never said your 99.54% figure was wrong. I only questioned why your figure differed from Wong's and now because of Ken Smith's astuteness, I know.
Nobody has ever accused me of being smart!

Billy C
 
BillyC - Apology gratefully accepted. Hopefully we will meet up in St. Ignace (if I can get away for it)
and drink a toast to new friends. :)

Also, a big thanks to Ken for figuring out where the problem was with the information from Wong's book,
and laying this matter to rest!
 
You're On

LeftNut,
Thanks for the acknowledgement. I appreciate that a lot. Please do try to make it to St. Ignace. I'll be disappointed if I don't get to meet you and I do insist on buying the first drink!
Have a good weekend.

Billy C
 
VP History

I don't have Wong's VP book, but I bet it is about twenty years old. There were standard issue IGT 9/6 Jacks with 4,700 and 5,000 coin royals out there. The last 5,000 coin one I saw disappered from the River Palms in Laughlin when they took out their non-smoking room about a year ago.

There still are 4,700 coin royals on older IGT models. Kings or Better Joker Wild can have this top jackpot. The monikered "Downtown Deuces" last seen at Las Vegas Club and the El Cortez also has 4,700 as a top prize.

But I bet Wong goes into Jacks or Better games with progressive royal meters. That was the main play 20 years ago. A logical break in taking a look at strategy changes would be in 1,000 coin increments.

At this 9/6-5000 royal Jacks correct strategy has you saving three to a royal over high pairs most of the time. If you allow flush penalties in your strategy suited A-10 is the play over Ace, without penalty.

Yep, my 9/6-5000 cheat sheet got retired along with several others lately.

OBTW, I am now Elite...when do I get my hat?
 
Last edited:
Strategy Card

oneeyedjacks said:
I don't have Wong's VP book, but I bet it is about twenty years old. There were standard issue IGT 9/6 Jacks with 4,700 and 5,000 coin royals out there. The last 5,000 coin one I saw disapperaed from the River Palms in Laughlin when they took out their non-smoking room about a year ago.

There still are 4,700 coin royals on older IGT models. Kings or Better Joker Wild can have this top jackpot. The monikered "Downtown Deuces" last seen at Las Vegas Club and the El Cortez also has 4,700 as a top prize.

But I bet Wong goes into Jacks or Better games with progressive royal meters. That was the main play 20 years ago. A logical break in taking a look at strategy changes would be in 1,000 coin increments.

At this 9/6-5000 royal Jacks correct strategy has you saving three to a royal over high pairs most of the time. If you allow flush penalties in your strategy A-10 is the play over Ace, without penalty.

Yep, my 9/6-5000 cheat sheet got retired along with several others lately.
Click to expand...

Is there a strategy table with penalty plays for 4700 credit royals? I'd like to see it, just out of curiosity.
 
Here are the main differences in strategy between 4000 and 4700 coin royals:

Hold KQJ, QJTs over high pair
Hold ATs instead of A alone, as long as no fp
Hold KTs over K even with fp and 9p
Hold KTs over AK if no fp and no 9p
Hold QTs over AQ even with fp
Hold QTs over KQ if no fp
Hold JTs over KJ with fp but no sp
Hold JTs over QJ with no fp

These are excerpts from a recent project of mine for progressive play.

---------------
And, Billy C, yes I recall seeing you at many events, especially Stardust.
 
I don't have Jean Scott's "Frugal" software, but I believe it will print out a strategy chart for any variation that you may choose. It's in Ken's VP package, maybe you can con him into selling the program alone. I think that Dancer's new "Video Poker for Winners" will do the same thing (that's the program I helped beta-test). Anyone who plays any reasonable amount of video poker should acquire a training program. It's the best investment you'll ever make on the game.

My knowledge of strategy chart printing capabilities is woefully inadequate because I don't use them. Personal preference. If I'm playing a VP game, there's a damn good chance that the lost time checking a chart for microscopically different holds is going to cost me more than the incorrect play. As an example, a couple of years ago I wandered into MGM Detroit on a scouting expedition, looking for any changes to their inventory. They've got bank of quarter 9/7 Double Bonus progressives. The base game is only 99.1%. BUT - on this night, the Royal had climbed to nearly $3,400. It had never occurred to me to practice changes for a pot that high, but I wasn't about to walk away even though I was fully aware that my strategy was going to be somewhat sub-optimal. Guessing that the return was probably pushing 104% (found out later it was really 104.75%), I sat down and didn't leave until some stumbling drunk fool shoved a Jackson in a nearby machine and picked it off on about his fifth hand. Stuff happens! :D

Monkeysystem said:
Is there a strategy table with penalty plays for 4700 credit royals? I'd like to see it, just out of curiosity.
Click to expand...
 
Frugal Doesn't Have It

Frugal doesn't have a payoff table for jacks with a 4700 royal. You can specify a new machine with such a payoff table but it won't calculate a BS chart for it.
 
Monkeysystem said:
Frugal doesn't have a payoff table for jacks with a 4700 royal. You can specify a new machine with such a payoff table but it won't calculate a BS chart for it.
Click to expand...
Sure it will. Frugal will generate a strategy for any paytable you plug in. Poke around and see if you can figure it out. If not, let me know and I'll help.

And, yes, Frugal Video Poker software is available by itself at the BlackjackInfo store, or as part of the package deal at my Video Poker Victory site.
 
Swog:

Nothing more! Nothing less! Darn. Don't check marks on posts or ratings count for anything? How about averaging views per members or replies per posts. Or number of posts in different categories then factored by views and replies. Then we subtract negative responses from postive and factor a square root by the number of times a poster has been blasted. That will give us a potential EV of a posters message. Those with the highest EV's can be listened to. Those with low or negative EV's can be ignored. Or we all can just get an A and a Star and a shinney new button from the Crackerjax box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top