"Let me tell you about the very rich,"
wrote F Scott Fitzgerald in the short story, The Rich Boy.
"They are different from you and me." Ernest Hemingway, in The
Snows of Kilimanjaro, responded, "Yes, they have more money."
Ponder this when next you read or hear
a punting pundit pontificating that you should always play the
maximum number of coins in a slot machine. There's a valid
reason to do so. But there are also legitimate arguments for
doing otherwise.
The incentive is that many, but not
all, slots pay a big bonus for jackpots with the maximum
number of coins bet. For instance, royals at jacks-or-better
video poker may pay 250-for-1 with one to four coins, and
800-for-1 with five coins. The five-coin prize is then over
triple that for lesser wagers, dollar for dollar. Further,
this extra return raises the payback percentage or cuts the
house edge on the game, which are two ways of looking at the
same thing. Only the jackpot is affected, though. And it's no
more likely to appear, but pays at a higher rate when it does.
So, say all else is equal. Maybe you
have a choice between five coins in a $1 and one in a $5 game
with identical payout charts for corresponding hands. In this
situation, you'd be wise to pick the former. The trouble is,
all else may not be equal.
For instance, a bit of scrutiny may
show that the $1 machine pays 8-for-1 on a full house and
5-for-1 on a flush, whereas the corresponding returns on the
$5 game are 9-for-1 and 6-for-1, all other payout ratios being
the same. A five-coin royal in the 8/5 $1 machine gets you
$4,000 at 800-for-1; one coin in the 9/6 $5 game brings $1,250
at 250-for-1. But, what if you go for a while with no jackpot?
The effective theoretical returns for proficient players are
95.3 and 97.5 percent at the $1 and $5 machines, respectively
?? the difference caused by the 8/5 and 9/6 payoffs.
The phenomenon may be easier to
visualize by assuming 100 solid citizens with $500 stakes, who
average 10 hands per minute. If none hit royals, 50 should
still be in action at the end of four hours betting one coin
on the $5 9/6 machine, as opposed to 30 playing five coins in
the $1 8/5 game. In such a case, wagering the same $5 per
spin, gamblers have the opportunity to rough-hew their
destinies. Do they try for a $4,000 as opposed to a $1,250
jackpot they've only a slim chance of winning, or opt for a
much greater probability of participating in an extended
session?
That's not all. And this is where
Fitzgerald and Hemingway are relevant. Playing the maximum
number of coins may be overbetting the bankrolls most folks
can afford. It's tempting to make believe you're as rich as
the players on either side of you. But remember, those people
may just be pretending to be as affluent as they imagine you
are. Say that the budget the 100 hypotheticals considered
sensible before they left home is $100. On $0.25 8/5 machines,
playing one coin at a time and not hitting any royals, nearly
all can expect to enjoy four hours of action; betting five
coins at once, $1.25, again not hitting royals, only an
average of 21 will have four hours of thrills and chills.
The polarization increases on the newer
multi-hand games. Picture those 100 hopefuls each bringing
$100 to $0.25 8/5 machines with three one- to five-coin hands.
The maximum bet is 15 quarters, $3.75 per spin. With no
jackpots, statistics predict that only four will survive for
four hours at this level. From the opposite perspective, for
50 to last the full four hours at the maximum, the 100 bettors
would need over $500 in their fanny packs.
Do people who can really
justify big casino bets differ from you and me? Yes. Are they,
by some measure, finer human beings (notwithstanding what the
smoothies who pander for the casinos try to convince the
public)? Fitzgerald thought they were. Hemingway knew they
weren't, recognizing that the distinction was merely one of
bank balances. The beloved bard, Sumner A Ingmark, wealthier
in words than wallet, put it plainly:
Protect your money,
don't abuse it,
Unless you can afford to lose it.
