I am a video poker player.
So, apparently, was Stephen Paddock the man who you now know, unless you've been living under a rock, carried-out the worst mass-shooting event in modern American history last Sunday evening. His choice of gaming, and lifestyle, of course has the media in a tizzy....
Las Vegas Gunman Chased Las Vegas' Payouts and Perks. New York Times
Las Vegas Shooter Lived High-Stakes Lifestyle. Chicago Tribune
Vegas Shooter's Gambling Draws New Attention to Video Poker. Yahoo! News.
Paddock's Game of Choice Allowed Him to Blend In. Las Vegas Review-Journal
It's not surprising that a person good at maths chose video poker as his game of choice. The 'house edge' or expected value of the game is among the best in the casino for the player, IF proper strategy is used. It's also a game, like blackjack, where correct decisions by the player can reduce the house edge even further.
At Paddock's playing level the expected return was probably somewhere around 99.20%. That means for every $100 you play you can expect, over time, to lose $.80. Factor in comps for high-end players (free rooms, free meals, shows, alcohol etc.) and you could easily realize a return of greater than 100% over time.
And the goal of any casino patron is to beat the casino right?
We have a propensity in this country to try and find evil in everything an evil person does. And that's what I think is happening here with video poker. As we struggle to rationalize how a person could be so callous as to kill 58 people and injure 489, we start to look at the things they did in life and make them more sinister than they really are in an attempt to assuage society's blame for his sins.
We tend to find "things" that might have sparked him, and there are a ton of low-rent, headline-chasing social scientists, and so-called "experts" that will tell us whatever we want to know about these "things" to make us feel better.
"Video Poker is the crack-cocaine of gambling!" (From the New York Times Piece)
Except that it's not. Instead, video poker is a happy-medium between playing slots, and playing on the tables.
A lot of people don't like to play table games for one reason or another. Maybe they don't like the crowds or are uncomfortable having others judge their play. If you've ever sat at "third base" (the last seat next to the dealer's right hand) at a blackjack table and made the "wrong play" and been hollered at for it you might understand why, then you could see why video poker, a game where strategy still counts but is more solitary, has an appeal.
But the main appeal, and the reason for it's popularity, is the relatively high expected value from the game and the very real chance at making some real money on an smallish sized bet. For example, I am not a high-roller, gambling is entertainment for me but, I frequently win $500 on a $1.25 bet playing at the 25-cent level. I've won $1683 on a Royal Flush playing the same. My biggest slot win is $2080 on a $5 bet. Which game do you think has the better expected value?
As a regular Vegas visitor I was distraught when I first heard the news, and was even more sad when the scope of the event became fully known. Now it's coming out that this evil man was an accountant, a frequent Vegas visitor and a video poker player, just like me.
This makes it difficult because I cannot envision a situation where playing video poker, or anything in life for that matter, would make me act in such a way. Which is kind of my point.
Stephen Paddock did what he did not because he played video poker or because he was chasing the high-end Vegas lifestyle. He did what he did because he was an evil prick. Full stop.
Video poker had nothing to do with it. Ask the Millions of people who do "fly into Vegas to play it" despite what the so-called "experts" tell you. It's a great, fun game and a good way to control your losses if played correctly, much less volatile than slots. Yes, it's less social than a table game, but so are slots.
Neither should be demonized in this.
