Hopefully when the LID gets done with his stint in the Ukraine he will provide some details to Barney who has an account here at VCT.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Printable View
Hopefully when the LID gets done with his stint in the Ukraine he will provide some details to Barney who has an account here at VCT.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Let me clarify. I'm not calling you a liar Alan, I'm calling bullshit on the 99% nonsense. Sorry for any confusion.Quote:
Statistics vary with every study you find. I know that. I did studies back in the 1970s and 80s that forced the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change how the Unemployment report and how the Consumer Price Index were tallied. I was responsible. My studies weren't exact but they were good enough for an economist from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University.
I had more hours in economics than TV and Radio which was my degree.
This came up on the WOV forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Even though the authors of the original study did not give any measurements or statistics, would you agree that they said dice throwing is not random?
Having the tiniest of influence appears to me like being a little bit pregnant.
Either you're pregnant or not. Either the dice throw is random or it isn't.
Your thoughts?
Just saying…
Sorry about the situation with the ex wife and glad you came back to let everyone know.
But….
You bitched about this place and asked that no one even brings your name up here. And you clearly know how things are here and complained about it many times.
So if (when) you get into arguments here that get personal and bring up the past, who is to blame?
Nothing personal Alan, but you know what you are getting into by coming back. I don’t see the benefit for you, but that’s certainly not my decision to make.
Just saying.
If your goal is dice control you need not only non-random distributions but the ability to predict in which way these distributions are skewed for a given set+throw in a given environment.
The author in the link says that's not practically possible. For all you know you're setting your dice in a way that will skew the distribution of outcomes away from whatever you're hoping for.
I don't recall any proponent of DI claiming to be able to throw numbers on demand. I always was led to believe that the goal of DI was either to increase the appearance of the 7 or decrease the appearance of the 7.
Only critics of DI have mentioned rolling numbers on demand.
I'd be very happy just avoiding 7s.
The article is pretty clear: if I want a hard six I should set my dice with a hard six on top.
The big problem with this is that the influence is so slight that it could take billions of throws for the advantage to show up if the article is true - that is the reason it is not practical according to the article (as Smurgerburger already pointed out). So if you are using the article as proof then you have none. Now, if the article is wrong and there are tables (for example the short mini craps tables) and dice settings that give a statistically significant advantage (i.e. over thousands of throws rather than billions) then that is another matter. So basically to make an argument for +EV DI you would have to believe the article is wrong - the article actually proves the opposite of what you hope for and/or believe.
Tableplay, the key question is what "numbers" did the researchers find? I don't know.
Certainly it makes a practical difference if the player's edge is changed by 1% or one-thousandth of one percent.
But I think any indication that a dice throw can be influenced is significant. As I said before it's like being a little bit pregnant -- you're still pregnant.
I was going to comment on this the other day, but didn't want to hijack the discussion, but it is very much related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Few blackjack players, even serious players know that the players odds are slighly better after a round that the dealer has won. There is math behind this, but I don't even know what it is. But that slightest difference is like 1 or 2, 100th of a percent. Not enough to make any difference at all. Certainly no where near enough to base any kind of "system" on.
I think that is exactly the kind of think you are talking about with this crap's study. No where near enough of a difference to matter.
Mildly interesting, so far as they went, but much more work is needed before it can be useful for a craps player.
Also, wasn't there evidence that the bottom, not the top, face showed up more frequently than expected?
The key: what is the amount of difference?
Alan says that one-thousandth of one percent matters, but I scoff at that...in the real world.
Hopefully scientists who understand dice setting and who want to go down this rabbit hole correctly will follow up, otherwise "Nothing to see here."
Since this is the WoV thread, I will discuss something I can't at WoV because I am restricted from certain discussions (the only member ever restricted from certain threads and discussions).
In the great adventure thread, Alan and a few others have been talking about the "quitting while ahead" strategy. The other name for that is stop limits. Stop limits change nothing, absolutely NOTHING regarding advantage, unless a player wins and is stopping play forever.
Also that statement that 99% of players are ahead at some point in their session is total voodoo nonsense. I don't mean to pick on you Alan, because there are many players like you, but you are a long-time player. You have to know from your own experience that these voodoo concepts are not true don't you?
And if you a long-time gambler still believe these voodoo gambling myths, can I ask you, how much are you ahead lifetime using them? :rolleyes:
If you think it's anywhere near 1% you're dreaming. That would be easily documented by anyone patient enough to record thousands of rolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Also I no longer have the article up but I'm not sure the source meant that the dice are skewed toward returning the top total. I thought he said something like the top face was the best predictor, but not how it correlates with outcomes.
Alan,I enjoyed watching your interview.
Royer came across very well.
Welcome back to the board, if you plan to stay: as a pre-pubescent Judy Garland once declaimed: "There's no place like home."
I've always enjoyed civil, interesting discussions, MrV. And I do have a lot of time to read forums while staying with Janet. She's being released from the hospital today but we'll remain close by for her daily outpatient treatments.
If he knew, do you really think he'd still be riding the rail at Red Rock every opportunity he gets?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I never said quitting when ahead or stop limits or stop losses change anything including the house edge or any advantage.
Quitting when ahead allows you to register a profit, whether it's for the hour, the day, the month, or whatever.
Is there anything wrong with saying "I made a profit today"?
The statistics aren't mine. I didn't do the surveys. What are your surveys about the percentages of winners, losers and how often people are ahead?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You ask if I am ahead using "voodoo gambling myths." Here's my answer:
Unfortunately too many times I didnt quit when I was ahead.
Funny how these "quit while ahead" advocates are habitual losing gamblers.
Ah, but John Patrick is a believer in stop limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
He says: “70% of people at the casino will make money and get ahead. 90% of those 70% will stay too long and lose it all back”.
This guy pretends that he saw 18 yos in a row and can't wrap his brain around the concept that some people exploit mail profitably. Why wouldn't be believe he'd be up lifetime if he "just knew when to stop".
John Patrick is a nutcase.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVAh, but John Patrick is a believer in stop limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
He says: “70% of people at the casino will make money and get ahead. 90% of those 70% will stay too long and lose it all back”.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...f-mdawg-ii/95/
lol @ the Wizard.
He outed himself.
Math Wiz My Ass... RIP.
No Fucking Way in Heaven, Earth or Hell that 97% or 70% of players are ahead before losing.
That's the Fucking biggest bunch of BullShit I ever read.
Fuck Wiz and Fuck UNLV and anyone else who is lying.
In hindsight, they publish this bullshit to generate more ploppies.
Fucking Wiz is in on the scam but we all knew that long ago.
97% lol lol lol... Fucking Casino would be broke in a heartbeat if that shit was the case.
That's like that article MendleBread wrote years ago about how 100% VP isn't 100% payback lol lol lol.
Imagine the bean counters allowing everyone to be ahead 97% or 70% off the jump but don't worry they will give it all back... that's our mathematical strategy lol!?
We went to University for 6 years to figure this out lol lol lol.
Of course I don't have context.
Wiz could of been being sarcastic.
But we do know that MendleBread constantly pushes shit like this.
The other day I was getting my ass handed to me on Video Poker.
Some guy behind me was talking to his friend about how he beats roulette.
He was saying after black comes up two times in a row you have an 80% chance for black to come up again lol.
Fucking Retards!
Wiz guessed "higher than 70%."Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/ques.../2/#post100868
The bean counters are not allowing everyone to be ahead 97% or 70%. They're allowing 70% to be ahead by any amount >0.
Question for longtime forum regulars on this topic. Has anyone with a strongly held view ever changed their opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
I doubt it. Their opinion is logical to them, and in the real world nearly everyone else agrees.
So what's your point? Only APs are ever ahead? No one except ten people get ahead? Everyone is ahead? AP club members only are ahead? Only long term players are ahead? Only counters are ahead? Only hole carders are ahead?
Someone give the correct numbers please? All I see here are insults thrown at estimates and surveys?
Really, boys. Tsk tsk.
And Monet what article about 100% VP?? I've had a lot on my mind the last 70 years and I don't remember that one.
And please guys... what's the correct figure that everyone else is wrong about? It must be earth shattering to get you all riled up.
Assuming I qualify as a longtime forum regular, I would say that I changed my opinion from the following strongly held view:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
I used to think that strongly held views could be changed.
Some of the numbers quoted, 97% and 90% are just crazy. That is a case of selective memory. 70%? I don't know maybe? It depends on what you are defining as ahead? If a 25 cent video poker player is $2.50 a head after a couple rounds and goes on to lose $200 for the day, would that count as being ahead? If so, yeah, maybe 70%. But if you are talking about something substantial, no.
It's funny, only non-AP's say that stupid line like "I was up $160 and should have quit". AP's playing with an advantage, any advantage, any game, just don't think like that. If you are playing at an advantage, you play. Your session or day ending should not be determined by any kind of stop limit. This is one of the major differences between AP's and non-APs.
My point was that there's no point in discussing it again. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
My personal opinion is that you can't quit your way to an advantage because mathematically the losing sessions will outweigh the winners.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Regarding Monet's statements on Wizard: Shackleford just no longer cares! Sadly it is THAT simple. :( He got his money and just no longer cares that the forum that bears his name has become a total joke as far as gambling and mathematics. The forum is now a ploppy gambling forums discussing and embracing long held voodoo, long ago disproven gambling nonsense.
Dont discuss it again? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Don PerignomMy point was that there's no point in discussing it again. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
My personal opinion is that you can't quit your way to an advantage because mathematically the losing sessions will outweigh the winners.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
It wasn't discussed here again till Kewlj brought it up.
He imported the discussion from another forum.
In fact this entire thread imports discussions from another forum.
LOL
This has been explained to Alan and others that hold this belief a million times. Stop limits change nothing! The exception being if a player manages to get ahead short-term (positive variance) and then stops.....FOREVER! That is the only way a stop limit does anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
Another voodoo belief that these people hang on to is that progression wagering changes anything. If you are playing at a disadvantage, the more you bet means the more you will lose. How any one could think differently is way beyond me. :confused:
I asked Alan a question a couple days ago which he didn't answer. And while it was directed at Alan, because he is a long time gambler now with these voodoo gambling beliefs, I would ask anyone holding these beliefs that has played many years. How is that working for you? Are you ahead lifetime, using stop limits and other long ago disproven nonsense?
Most ploppie type players, including my grandfather answer that question with "I am about even." So the next question should be, well then what happened to all your money. :D
Stop limits (quitting while ahead) are not stop limits unless the player stops playing forever! Otherwise, it is really a pause limit and changes nothing except that the next round played will be tomorrow or next week instead of 2 minutes from now.
The forum has drifted, but in my limited observation the Wizard has maintained impressive standards for mathematical accuracy of anything with his name on it. His WOO site is incredible, and he continues updating regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Let's try for two million. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
And I think he already knew your answer before he asked the question. But we're not playing for real money here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You need to check your definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
A stop limit is a point where you decide to stop betting or investing for whatever time period you choose.
It has nothing to do with altering any odds or disadvantage or advantage.
It doesnt alter the math of any game.
It's a personal decision based on your own parameters.
Why are you trying to create issues that don't exist? Why do you have to turn everything into an argument?
Think about this: you can set a stop limit when your bladder bag is full or when your catheter starts leaking.
And for anyone who wonders why Chrissy Mitchell continues to find suckers to give him money, I present Example 1, Mr Alan.
Basically he is saying use Chrissy Martingale system and you will be up at one point and then just quit.
Chrissy even sells a coloring book showing how you can start with less than $100 and within a year you will be a millionaire within a year by doing exactly what Alan believes.
Here is the link Alan if you want to buy it.
https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-B...s=books&sr=1-1
All you have to do is quit when ahead each day and increase the bets each day. Easy peasy.
Dude must love being a punching bag more than the drunk guy who fucked with Mike Tyson on the plane yesterday.
Yeah, like I said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Thanks Mr Bozo for more of your fabricated shit.
I see that I made a mistake coming back.
Janet was discharged from the hospital last night. We're back to daily outpatient visits.
Go back to your fictional sandbox antics.
No, no Alan, I don't want to discuss your or anyone else's bladder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonYou need to check your definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
A stop limit is a point where you decide to stop betting or investing for whatever time period you choose.
It has nothing to do with altering any odds or disadvantage or advantage.
It doesnt alter the math of any game.
It's a personal decision based on your own parameters.
Why are you trying to create issues that don't exist? Why do you have to turn everything into an argument?
Think about this: you can set a stop limit when your bladder bag is full or when your catheter starts leaking.
It is good that you acknowledge that the stop limit doesn't effect the odds. But then why are you stopping?
If you drive to the casinos and set a limit that if I get ahead $200 I will stop and after 2 minutes you hit that, why are you stopping? To preserve what? Are you going to play again, in a few days? Next week?
It really is one big session Alan. And the best example I can give continues to be the roulette example I use frequently. Can a player walk into a casino, bet black and win 3 out of 4 and quit for the day? Absolutely! Can he do that every day for a year? Absolutely not. And his stopping after winning 3 of 4 spins for that day, change nothing about what the long-term results will be. He has preserved nothing...unless of course he never plays again after that first day.
One problem with stop limits is that it defies human nature viz. gambling.
For disciplined players the following method might be a viable way to play and to avoid getting whacked badly:
Have win and loss limits in place, e.g. $50 each; if you lose $50 the session ends, walk, take a break.
If you win $50 then rat hole it and keep plugging away, using Patrick's "up and pull."
The key is discipline: I suspect most long term gamblers lack it and "go on tilt" occasionally, hastening their financial loss.
Of course it does not change the odds, it is a form of money management.
Isn't this similar to what players do when they redeem freeplay and leave without further play?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I don't have a problem with players playing stop limits. Players playing negative expectation games should have a stop limit, otherwise they will sit there and lose all their money. The problem I have is with -EV players thinking thinks like stop limits and progression wagering, and other voodoo concepts can somehow make for a winning strategy. And there are a lot out there (and on these forums) that do. And some thing stacking several voodoo, long disproven strategies on top of one another is the key. :D
I guess we are just into "you can lead a horse to water...." territory here. :rolleyes:
Kewlj you stop because you want to. You either lost as much as you can tolerate or you won enough to make you happy and satisfied for the day.
Can you overcome the factors of fear and greed? Fear of losing or fear that the next player sitting at your machine will hit the jackpot or fear of missing the next monster roll or monster shoe?
And greed? Can you overcome the belief that you're destined to keep winning because you just had a good run?
Absolutely NOT! The free play IS the mechanism that makes the play +EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyIsn't this similar to what players do when they redeem freeplay and leave?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Why would you want to overcome your fear that you will lose in the long run if you play -EV games?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
For blackjack, I have "exit triggers". That may sound similar to stop limits but it really is not. I have situation like a pre-determined negative count where conditions are no longer advantageous for me to continue. It has nothing to do with how much I have won or lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There also is a set of exit triggers that are based on preserving longevity, which again, really has nothing to do with whether I have won or lost.
Oh boy!! :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Coach is correct that using free play and then quitting is a type of stop loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAbsolutely NOT! The free play IS the mechanism that makes the play +EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyIsn't this similar to what players do when they redeem freeplay and leave?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Kewlj is correct that this method is +EV.
And there's nothing to argue about here.
Doesn't the expected value depend on the initial play that generated the offer?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It seems like you are disconnecting the freeplay redemption from previous play, as if it's not all one big session.
I'm not the one who keeps playing. I can tell myself when to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerWhy would you want to overcome your fear that you will lose in the long run if you play -EV games?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You're asking the wrong person.
Absolutely the free play is part of the play that generated it. It is the whole amount of play and free play that must be +EV and that is getting harder and harder for me with reduced mailers amounts. This is a very, very slim advantage AND, it is like part of your return is always out there to be collected.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyDoesn't the expected value depend on the initial play that generated the offer?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It seems like you are disconnecting the freeplay redemption from previous play, as if it's not all one big session.
In past years, with good mailers this used to account for 20% of my income regularly. Some years when I won a big drawing in which entries were from the play to generate the free play, it was even more. I hit several 5 figure drawings including a truck and a years mortgage payments.
This year, almost 1/3 through the year this mailer free play stuff has generated $1400 in profit. Of course I have some future mailers yet. It just is no longer much of a play for me, since casinos here in Vegas began cutting back, about 4 years ago (even before covid).
I would say the biggest benefit for me now a days is all the points earned provide free meals for my brother and I.
Will you stipulate that the majority of freeplay offered does not result in a +EV play, when considering the previous play that generated the offer?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Let me take a stab at this.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWill you stipulate that the majority of freeplay offered does not result in a +EV play, when considering the previous play that generated the offer?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
All free play that you run thru once is +EV.
But if it cost you more than the value of the free play to get the free play your bottom line could be negative.
I say "could be negative" because you could hit a big winner on free play. I've hit royals on free play, but I lost money earning the free play.
You still don't understand. Why are you playing at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI'm not the one who keeps playing. I can tell myself when to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerWhy would you want to overcome your fear that you will lose in the long run if you play -EV games?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You're asking the wrong person.
This makes sense too including the last sentence. Well written MrV.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Why don't you just put me on ignore?Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerYou still don't understand. Why are you playing at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonI'm not the one who keeps playing. I can tell myself when to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
You're asking the wrong person.
I can't speak for others, but for me, the entirety of the play, the expected loss from -EV play needed to generate the free play offers and the free play amounts must be positive expectations or I won't do them.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
There's nothing wrong with this. You only want to play +EV games to earn free play. Very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI can't speak for others, but for me, the entirety of the play, the expected loss from -EV play needed to generate the free play offers and the free play amounts must be positive expectations or I won't do them.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
No that is not correct. I mostly play bonus poker which is -EV. But the amount of free play earned must overcome the expected loss, which for years it very easily did. key words: The entirety of the play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThere's nothing wrong with this. You only want to play +EV games to earn free play. Very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI can't speak for others, but for me, the entirety of the play, the expected loss from -EV play needed to generate the free play offers and the free play amounts must be positive expectations or I won't do them.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I dont disagree with this either because I play 8/5 bonus. Unfortunately my play isnt big enuf to generate anything more than $15 to $20 about five times per month.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJNo that is not correct. I mostly play bonus poker which is -EV. But the amount of free play earned must overcome the expected loss, which for years it very easily did. key words: The entirety of the play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThere's nothing wrong with this. You only want to play +EV games to earn free play. Very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Also in my case the amount of the free play doesnt fill the gap of the 8/5 Bonus expected return.
If your casino's free play award fills the gap (gives you 100% or better return) then good for you!
I haven't asked you to speak for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Based on your knowledge of "how things work", will you stipulate that the majority of freeplay offered does not result in a +EV play, when considering the previous play that generated the offer?
No. That is 100% incorrect for me and my play.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI haven't asked you to speak for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Based on your knowledge of "how things work", will you stipulate that the majority of freeplay offered does not result in a +EV play, when considering the previous play that generated the offer?
Let me ask the question differently. 8/5 Bonus has an expected return of 99.17%Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI haven't asked you to speak for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Based on your knowledge of "how things work", will you stipulate that the majority of freeplay offered does not result in a +EV play, when considering the previous play that generated the offer?
Does your free play along with the 99.17% give you a positive return?
I'm curious about this because I wonder what the rate of awarding free play is?
I've often thought it was 0.1% and then combined with the actual play of the free play dollars what's the total expected return?
I'm not arguing Kewlj. I'm just asking.
My question was not specific to you and your play. But if ydk, then ydk.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
In any case, the player who wins $200 in 2 minutes on a -EV machine and leaves, is similar to a player who cashes $10 out of $15 in freeplay in 2 minutes and leaves.
Neither required a positive expectation play, their criteria for stopping/quitting/pausing was winning for that visit, and all the consideration necessary to trigger their exit.
And, if you don't think that exercise can be repeated, then you are 100% incorrect.
I think we are talking about 2 different things here regarding free play Alan. I am not talking about free play from points earned from the initial free play. I am talking about the mailer free play offers. I know you are familiar with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonLet me ask the question differently. 8/5 Bonus has an expected return of 99.17%Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI haven't asked you to speak for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Based on your knowledge of "how things work", will you stipulate that the majority of freeplay offered does not result in a +EV play, when considering the previous play that generated the offer?
Does your free play along with the 99.17% give you a positive return?
I'm curious about this because I wonder what the rate of awarding free play is?
I've often thought it was 0.1% and then combined with the actual play of the free play dollars what's the total expected return?
I'm not arguing Kewlj. I'm just asking.
Here is how it worked for me. When I moved to Vegas, it was to pursue blackjack card counting, which I have done. But an AP on another forum convinced me that not playing a limited amount of video poker which generated very disproportional mailer free play offers was in his words "leaving money on the table". Just a relatively small amount of play through say $5000 (which was my starting point would generate mailers that contained $150-$200 in free play amounts (usually broken up into weekly or other segments, from the local type casinos, which were at the time vying for the local players. So the 1% expected loss ($50) was more than offset by the free play generated. And that was just for the first month. That one time play through would generate mailer offers, for several months, although they would decline if no other big play through occurred. So after 3 or 4 months, I would hit another big play through and start the cycle all over again.
Now that was 2010, 2011, when these local mailer offers were so strong. Like I said the Boyds, and stations, and Palms, and Hard Rock, Terribles (now Silver7), LVH (now Westgate), South Point were all aggressively competing for local players. Some of the best mailers were from some real unlikely sources like Club Fortune, and Arizona Charlies, Eastside Cannery, Jerry's nugget and a couple other smaller places. WAY WAY disproportional to the initial amount of play through that generated them.
So those good times lasted 5 or 6 years or so, until first Boyd, followed by Stations and others began to cut back. It is now a fraction of what it used to be.
Stations was actually the best because you could get 4 different mailers from them, broken up into groups of properties. I would get a mailer from the basic Stations, another mailer from fiestas, a third mailer from Wild west, Barley's and Wilfire and a fourth mailer from table play at Green Valley and Red Rock combined.
So THAT is what I am talking about and did for years which accounted for over 20% of my income for many years. It is barely profitable for me now.
And you would learn exactly what amounts generated what mail free play amounts. It would be different at different places. You would want to play only that amount that generated the return you were after. No sense in playing more if it didn't change the amount. Add in multiple accounts at some of the better places (my partner was alive then) and was a pretty good money maker.
Well I said, I can't speak for others and you replied you weren't asking me to speak for others. Now you seem to be again asking me to speak to other player's experiences. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyMy question was not specific to you and your play. But if ydk, then ydk.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I was asking what you know to be an industry standard, not about your anecdotal experiences or anyone else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You've always been willing to offer your knowledge on "how things work" regarding high limit players, how did you come by that information if not speaking for yourself or others?
Yes. Mailers can vary dramatically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonYeah, like I said that?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Thanks Mr Bozo for more of your fabricated shit.
I see that I made a mistake coming back.
Janet was discharged from the hospital last night. We're back to daily outpatient visits.
Go back to your fictional sandbox antics.
You knew in advance it would be a mistake to come back. Just look at the stuff you called this place, it’s posters and it’s owner. What did you think changed?
But you still came back and you won’t leave.
I would say much more but you have a history of threatening to sue others over online comments.
One thing is for sure, until your last day and after, you’ll always be Alan, the guy who still believes he saw 18 Yo’s in a row.
Why would I put you on ignore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhy don't you just put me on ignore?Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerYou still don't understand. Why are you playing at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I asked why you are playing (gambling) at all, not why are you posting.
The numbers are obviously reversed and anyone who believes that 70% or 97% of players are up from jump street don't understand what the drop is.
I'd ask tableplay to confirm and show us all the math but why bother?
Tards are gonna Tard... RIP.
Why would Vegas Tic make that up?Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
And then why follow up by claiming that 99% of visitors leave as losers?
What's his angle?
I am a recreational player.
I saw a random shooter throw 18 yos in a row.
Does that answer your questions?
Here we go again, LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Is it your feeling that even less than 70% ever have a profit during their visits?Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Bbbbbwwaaahhhhhhhhhhh, some cat claim to see 18 y-o in a row at the dices table, hey hey????
Though I don't know the exact math it is a very large hill to climb to be ahead in a session where it's an even money bet and the likelyhood of winning a decision is less than 50%. You have to have some very good luck.
On a 47.5% success rate you have just a 22.25% chance of winning two in a row. Three in a row , 10.7%.
The thing about the Royer claim is that no math has been put up to prove it though it's been quite awhile since he made the claim. The reason why is no one, not even the Wizard can develop an equation that will prove it. That's because it's impossible to write an equation proving at least 70% winners at some point in a gambling session. The reason it's impossible is because it's impossible for 70% of Las Vegas gamblers to be ahead at some point during their gambling session. Hence, there is no possible equation proving it possible.
Mickeycrimm I would venture that 90+% of Vegas gamblers are not making even money bets. My guess is 90+% of Vegas gamblers are at slot machines. Because of the pays on slots there's no need to win multiple bets or successive bets to be ahead.
18 yo’s in a row: yes
Counting two tables: no.
I know you are trying to goad me into something here. But the fact is that some very real players that you know or know of, have stated that they have done some variation of tracking or counting a second table at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
Unfortunately, this technique is getting harder as the right conditions are less and less frequent. Much less opportunity in what I will call post-covid than pre-covid. Although the real problem started before covid ever came along with fewer "pure" blackjack games and more and more " bj variation" type games taking up space on the floor.
KewlJ, could you comment on something a friend passed along regarding his Golden Nugget stay a week or so ago. He said just one table was 3/2 and that was $50 minimum, I think, and opened after 7Pm or 8 PM each night. So the rest of the tables were 6/5 and had mandatory junk bets of a dollar minimum on top of them. What are these longshot junk bets at the BJ table, how can casinos make them mandatory and still call it "blackjack," and is this a growing trend around Las Vegas?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI know you are trying to goad me into something here. But the fact is that some very real players that you know or know of, have stated that they have done some variation of tracking or counting a second table at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
Unfortunately, this technique is getting harder as the right conditions are less and less frequent. Much less opportunity in what I will call post-covid than pre-covid. Although the real problem started before covid ever came along with fewer "pure" blackjack games and more and more " bj variation" type games taking up space on the floor.
He used to really like the GN, but the number of playable tables has gotten ridiculous. The place is treating people as if they're addicts who'll play anything. And this is a guy who pounded a million dollars through at Pechanga in 48 hours or thereabouts to get a black card back in the day. If they're alienating players like him, what is their game plan?
How can they still call it blackjack? I have no idea. I have felt that way about 6:5 also. :rolleyes:
GN started that I guess 4-5 years ago. They had decent games and were in my rotation my first 5-6 years in Vegas, but then went to that crap.
I wasn't aware they had 3:2 $50 min at night. I'll have to check that out. Generally I avoid downtown at night...probably why I wasn't aware.