The WoV Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

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.

---

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.. Besides, given the wide variety of type of games played,length of play, house edges, and variance of games played by casino patrons, generalizing would likely be inaccurate and would require an answer given as a confidence interval. For a single game, like Baccarat, with known house edge and variance, folks have come up with distributions of the likelihood of being ahead or being ahead by X amount, but not for the entire universe of games on the floor - felt or machine.

The point of the message is still valid, to wit: cool your jets while gambling; be disciplined; have a plan and stick to it and never even come close to going on tilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The point of the message is still valid, to wit: cool your jets while gambling; be disciplined; have a plan and stick to it and never even come close to going on tilt.

---

Actually, MrV, you sound like a casino exec. That's pretty much what casinos would suggest as a strategy to shear the sheep rather than boil it in acid. If going on tilt results in a major loss, the only meaningful calculation is whether that large loss might result in ceasing the activity and thereby keeping lifetime losses below what the shearing cumulative total might be. It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

---

I disagree.

What people get from gambling in a recreational sense can not easily be replaced by another form of recreation.

Since casinos opened up across this fair land people have flocked to them by the millions.

Why?

Because gambling offers a unique experience for the recreational gambler, one pretty much unavailable elsewhere to the average guy.

It's an emotional roller coaster that is addictive, the simultaneous feelings of hope and fear every time you bet.

I suppose some other activities can give this as well, for example if you hunt bear in Alaska and a bear charges you then you'll hope you shoot him but fear you won't.

It is the feelings experienced while gambling that lead to it being addictive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The point of the message is still valid, to wit: cool your jets while gambling; be disciplined; have a plan and stick to it and never even come close to going on tilt.

---

Actually, MrV, you sound like a casino exec. That's pretty much what casinos would suggest as a strategy to shear the sheep rather than boil it in acid. If going on tilt results in a major loss, the only meaningful calculation is whether that large loss might result in ceasing the activity and thereby keeping lifetime losses below what the shearing cumulative total might be. It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

---

Tell me... do you think people might continue to play because they're having fun? Or is everyone having fun a problem gambler?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The point of the message is still valid, to wit: cool your jets while gambling; be disciplined; have a plan and stick to it and never even come close to going on tilt.

---

Actually, MrV, you sound like a casino exec. That's pretty much what casinos would suggest as a strategy to shear the sheep rather than boil it in acid. If going on tilt results in a major loss, the only meaningful calculation is whether that large loss might result in ceasing the activity and thereby keeping lifetime losses below what the shearing cumulative total might be. It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

---

Tell me... do you think people might continue to play because they're having fun? Or is everyone having fun a problem gambler?

---

I think people should have the right to spend whatever they want on whatever they choose. Not my business. Not my job to psychoanalyze people to try to understand if their "fun" is a behavioral addiction or -- LOL -- a behavioral addiction. Isn't that, after all, what "fun" is? If people spend 30, 40, 50% of their income at a casino, more power to them. Who am I to judge? If people want to spend 30, 40, 50% on hookers, not my job to judge. Also probably fun, by the way. If people want to tithe, not my job to judge. Might be less fun, though.

All I said is that casinos would prefer to get to whatever the largest bottom line donation lifetime they can extract from someone. That goes without saying. I suspect getting that biggest bottom line extraction involves shearing as opposed to slicing throats. The older the clients get, however, the better case can be made for slicing throats as the way to go -- from the casinos' perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

---

I disagree.

What people get from gambling in a recreational sense can not easily be replaced by another form of recreation.

Since casinos opened up across this fair land people have flocked to them by the millions.

Why?

Because gambling offers a unique experience for the recreational gambler, one pretty much unavailable elsewhere to the average guy.

It's an emotional roller coaster that is addictive, the simultaneous feelings of hope and fear every time you bet.

I suppose some other activities can give this as well, for example if you hunt bear in Alaska and a bear charges you then you'll hope you shoot him but fear you won't.

It is the feelings experienced while gambling that lead to it being addictive.

---

https://www.amazon.com/Addiction-Des...s%2C142&sr=8-1



I would recommend a deeper dive with "Addiction By Design" by anthropologist Natasha Dow Schull. Great book.

A problem with the "slicing throats" metaphor is that in reality the casinos do nothing one way or another to encourage or discourage compulsive gambling more for one age group or gambler category (i.e. casual gambler vs. very frequent gambler) than another.

They make games available and give out free play, comps and gifts to any and all players if play so warrants: it is the folks who cannot control themselves who get in trouble.

If retirees seem to get flensed and deboned more often than the young'uns that may be because they spend more time in the casinos. ah, those golden years...

But regardless, you bet the casinos want players to become gambling addicts: ka-ching!

My question is do you think they're having fun?

I ask that because you APs make it sound like it's all business. If you're not calculating an edge you're avoiding management and surveillance and outwitting other players.

Redietz, you wrote:

" If people spend 30, 40, 50% of their income at a casino, more power to them."

What if they're not spending a big percentage of their money? What if they have the money to bet and to lose? What if they're not watching every penny and have to be on the lookout for abandoned credits and dealers who expose hole cards? What if they don't care about free play mailers?

What if they have real jobs and going to a casino is am escape? And blowing money is okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

My question is do you think they're having fun?

I ask that because you APs make it sound like it's all business. If you're not calculating an edge you're avoiding management and surveillance and outwitting other players.

---

I ask myself at least once a week, "how the hell do people play this shit straight and think it is fun?". My only two answers are they like abuse or they're retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Tards are gonna Tard... RIP.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.

---

Let me remind you of the thesis:

"70 percent of people at a casino visit are ahead at one point"

Baccarat was mentioned. Assuming I bet banker or player, I'll win decision 1 about 45% of the time which puts me ahead for the visit. If I don't win decision 1, I'll have additional opportunities to pull ahead and increase the 45% cumulative total.

Where am I wrong so far?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.

---

Let me remind you of the thesis:

"70 percent of people at a casino visit are ahead at one point"

Baccarat was mentioned. Assuming I bet banker or player, I'll win decision 1 about 45% of the time which puts me ahead for the visit. If I don't win decision 1, I'll have additional opportunities to pull ahead and increase the 45% cumulative total.

Where am I wrong so far?

---

The problem is you now have to define a session. Once you define a session you can calculate ranges of results with confidence intervals, which Table play mentioned, like par sheets do for slots at certain amounts of spins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

My question is do you think they're having fun?

I ask that because you APs make it sound like it's all business. If you're not calculating an edge you're avoiding management and surveillance and outwitting other players.

---

I ask myself at least once a week, "how the hell do people play this shit straight and think it is fun?". My only two answers are they like abuse or they're retarded.

---

I'm not surprised by your answer nor why you would refer to people having fun as "ploppies."

Just as you look down on these folks they look down on gamblers such as yourself who play with the purpose of winning money. I believe there are people who actually dont care about winning money -- they just enjoy the thrill of it.

Personally, I think 9 out of ten of the gals I've dated HATE casinos and NEVER would set foot in one. They are more concerned with spending $500 on a pair of shoes and THAT'S what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

The problem is you now have to define a session.

---

Sure, but the contribution to cumulative will diminish as you go along. Making up numbers here:

45% chance of pulling ahead on decision 1, cumulative 45%
15% chance on decision 2, cumulative 60%
5% on decision 3, cumulative 65%
2% on decision 4, cumulative 67%

The first few decisions are the best opportunities imo.

I'm not trying to pinpoint the number. I'm trying to understand why the 70% estimate is so ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

The problem is you now have to define a session.

---

Sure, but the contribution to cumulative will diminish as you go along. Making up numbers here:

45% chance of pulling ahead on decision 1, cumulative 45%
15% chance on decision 2, cumulative 60%
5% on decision 3, cumulative 65%
2% on decision 4, cumulative 67%

The first few decisions are the best opportunities imo.

I'm not trying to pinpoint the number. I'm trying to understand why the 70% estimate is so ridiculous.

---

So we are down to 70%... right?
I mean the 90% or 97% number is completely ridiculous and we can throw that bullshit out the window... right???
First thing is first with you people... Baby Steps...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

So we are down to 70%... right?
I mean the 90% or 97% number is completely ridiculous and we can throw that bullshit out the window... right???
First thing is first with you people... Baby Steps...

---

Show me on the doll where I endorsed the 97%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

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.

---

Best Post in this thread about this retarded subject.
Nicely Done!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Show me on the doll where I endorsed the 97%.

---

I'm not directly spewing my venom at you.
I'm trying to establish a Fucking Number here!
And tell me, How do we come up with the exact number of 70%?
Why not 67% or 72%?
That Fucking 70%... perfect round number, pisses me right the Fuck off lol?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

I'm not directly spewing my venom at you.

---

No offense taken. Every day I receive insults worse than anything on this forum.

I'm married. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

I ask myself at least once a week, "how the hell do people play this shit straight and think it is fun?". My only two answers are they like abuse or they're retarded.

---

98% of the slots I play I'm on a straight trajectory down until something happens and I stop playing. I have no fucking clue how people keep smashing their heads into the 85-90% RTP brick wall and keep coming back for more.

I get table play. Way fewer decisions. Lower edge. It's super possible for ploppies like the dog, Rob or 18yo man to have lots of winning sessions in a row and convince themselves they're smarter than the average loser when in fact they are the prototypical average loser.

But slots man. No fucking clue how people play those on the regular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdaewoo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

I ask myself at least once a week, "how the hell do people play this shit straight and think it is fun?". My only two answers are they like abuse or they're retarded.

---

98% of the slots I play I'm on a straight trajectory down until something happens and I stop playing. I have no fucking clue how people keep smashing their heads into the 85-90% RTP brick wall and keep coming back for more.

I get table play. Way fewer decisions. Lower edge. It's super possible for ploppies like the dog, Rob or 18yo man to have lots of winning sessions in a row and convince themselves they're smarter than the average loser when in fact they are the prototypical average loser.

But slots man. No fucking clue how people play those on the regular.

---

Exactly.
Anyone who plays reels understands that its a Fucking Swirly Machine in a direct spiral downward from the jump.
Does anyone know how much of the Casino Floor is dedicated to machines?
70% or 90% or 97%??

Well jdaewoo, I dont play slots. And while I know you won't take any advice from 18 yo man I suggest that you'll find some relief from your bitterness in another job, hobby, or pastime than being an AP in a casino. (You are a profit making AP, right?)

I think its unfortunate for people who dont have jobs they enjoy. In TV it's not uncommon for people to say "I can't believe they pay us for this."

If you can't enjoy your job find another. But you should know there are people who would love doing what you do, even if you can't enjoy it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdaewoo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

I ask myself at least once a week, "how the hell do people play this shit straight and think it is fun?". My only two answers are they like abuse or they're retarded.

---

98% of the slots I play I'm on a straight trajectory down until something happens and I stop playing. I have no fucking clue how people keep smashing their heads into the 85-90% RTP brick wall and keep coming back for more.

I get table play. Way fewer decisions. Lower edge. It's super possible for ploppies like the dog, Rob or 18yo man to have lots of winning sessions in a row and convince themselves they're smarter than the average loser when in fact they are the prototypical average loser.

But slots man. No fucking clue how people play those on the regular.

---

Exactly.
Anyone who plays reels understands that its a Fucking Swirly Machine in a direct spiral downward from the jump.
Does anyone know how much of the Casino Floor is dedicated to machines?
70% or 90% or 97%??

---

The Indian casino tribe that bought the Palms has a California casino that is 99% slots... with maybe ten video poker machines. The rest is all slots. Real slots that people with attention deficit disorder need.

I suspect they'll do the same thing to Palms.

Slots dont need many people... meaning employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Redietz, you wrote:

" If people spend 30, 40, 50% of their income at a casino, more power to them."

What if they're not spending a big percentage of their money? What if they have the money to bet and to lose? What if they're not watching every penny and have to be on the lookout for abandoned credits and dealers who expose hole cards? What if they don't care about free play mailers?

What if they have real jobs and going to a casino is am escape? And blowing money is okay?

---

I wasn't being facetious or sarcastic. I really believe that. It's your money. If you want so spend it on casinos or hookers, who am I to say that's inferior to spending it on a home in the burbs or gas-burning vehicles or sex robots?

I laid this out in various blog entries. If a surgeon needs to blow 10K a weekend at the tables to unwind and give some neural pathways a rest, so be it. If a guy making 100K a year blows 50K of it at casinos so as to get laid, good for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well jdaewoo, I dont play slots. And while I know you won't take any advice from 18 yo man I suggest that you'll find some relief from your bitterness in another job, hobby, or pastime than being an AP in a casino. (You are a profit making AP, right?)

I think its unfortunate for people who dont have jobs they enjoy. In TV it's not uncommon for people to say "I can't believe they pay us for this."

If you can't enjoy your job find another. But you should know there are people who would love doing what you do, even if you can't enjoy it yourself.

---

Nobody said they hate AP. Personally, I love sticking it to the casinos. There isn't anything else I would rather do. But I don't play by the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well jdaewoo, I dont play slots. And while I know you won't take any advice from 18 yo man I suggest that you'll find some relief from your bitterness in another job, hobby, or pastime than being an AP in a casino. (You are a profit making AP, right?)

I think its unfortunate for people who dont have jobs they enjoy. In TV it's not uncommon for people to say "I can't believe they pay us for this."

If you can't enjoy your job find another. But you should know there are people who would love doing what you do, even if you can't enjoy it yourself.

---

Nobody said they hate AP. Personally, I love sticking it to the casinos. There isn't anything else I would rather do. But I don't play by the rules.

---

Good. You get pleasure at your job.

Just be considerate of the ones who aren't there for employment. I think jbjb pointed out that those "ploppies" create work opportunities for you. They're actually your partners, in a way.

I gamble for fun, for excitement, not for a living.

I previously worked at a lucrative profession and invested wisely; this now allows me to throw fists full of Franklins down the maw of tribal casinos' three reel slots or on their craps table without a real care in the world about my losses.

AM I a fool?

I get a kick out of gambling.

Maybe I should have spent it on crack or meth instead: at least then I'd be thinner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

I gamble for fun, for excitement, not for a living.

I previously worked at a lucrative profession and invested wisely; this now allows me to now throw fists full of Franklins down the maw of tribal casinos' three reel slots without a real care in the world about my losses.

A pittance.

Am I a fool?

I get a kick out of gambling.

Maybe I should have spent it on crack or meth instead: at least then I'd be thinner.

---

You're no fool. You're not only honest but you're enjoying your successes in life. Be proud. Be happy youre not walking around a casino looking for abandoned credits and multipliers or you can't eat.

I dont say that flippantly either. When I was a regular poker player in LA I knew a WSOP bracelet winner who lived in his car, washed in the public restroom, and hustled to get buyins for daily $60 tournaments.

Yeah, I gave him a "chip for luck" at the cage and took him to dinner many times.

A real bracelet winner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

I gamble for fun, for excitement, not for a living

---

Some of your fellow members cannot understand that.

They are the retards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well jdaewoo, I dont play slots. And while I know you won't take any advice from 18 yo man I suggest that you'll find some relief from your bitterness in another job, hobby, or pastime than being an AP in a casino. (You are a profit making AP, right?)

I think its unfortunate for people who dont have jobs they enjoy. In TV it's not uncommon for people to say "I can't believe they pay us for this."

If you can't enjoy your job find another. But you should know there are people who would love doing what you do, even if you can't enjoy it yourself.

---

Nobody said they hate AP. Personally, I love sticking it to the casinos. There isn't anything else I would rather do. But I don't play by the rules.

---

Good. You get pleasure at your job.

Just be considerate of the ones who aren't there for employment. I think jbjb pointed out that those "ploppies" create work opportunities for you. They're actually your partners, in a way.

---

When have I been inconsiderate.to the "ploppies"?

Just following up on jbjb's good advice.

I love what I do for a living, but I can't say that I have fun at the casinos, if that makes sense. It is a job and I treat it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.

---

Let me remind you of the thesis:

"70 percent of people at a casino visit are ahead at one point"

Baccarat was mentioned. Assuming I bet banker or player, I'll win decision 1 about 45% of the time which puts me ahead for the visit. If I don't win decision 1, I'll have additional opportunities to pull ahead and increase the 45% cumulative total.

Where am I wrong so far?

---

Let n=the number of games of Baccarat played by the casino patron for the "session" (whatever the fuck that even means - like Max wrote)
Let X be the following step function:
X=(n/2)+1 if N is even
X=(n/2)+0.5 if N is odd
Also ( using Don's win probability)
p=.45
q=1-p
The probability of being ahead by one game during the Session is (this calculation needs to also be done for the probability of being ahead by 2 games and so on up to n and then these N-x+1 probabilities need to be summed to get the total probability):


Now we just need to do this for every game on the floor (if you're well connected like Advantage Play you can get the par sheets for all the slot games) including live poker and sports book bets which should be fun. Following by weighting each probability by its n before summing them all up and dividing that total by the sum of all the Ns to get the final probability (weighted average).
What is that final weighted average ? And is it equal to or greater than 0.7 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

I gamble for fun, for excitement, not for a living

---

Some of your fellow members cannot understand that.

They are the retards.

---

Name one.

Cunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Let n=the number of games of Baccarat played by the casino patron for the "session" (whatever the fuck that even means - like Max wrote)
Let X be the following step function:
X=(n/2)+1 if N is even
X=(n/2)+0.5 if N is odd
Also ( using Don's win probability)
p=.45
q=1-p
The probability of being ahead by one game during the Session is (this calculation needs to also be done for the probability of being ahead by 2 games and so on up to n and then these N-x+1 probabilities need to be summed to get the total probability):


Now we just need to do this for every game on the floor (if you're well connected like Advantage Play you can get the par sheets for all the slot games) including live poker and sports book bets which should be fun. Following by weighting each probability by its n before summing them all up and dividing that total by the sum of all the Ns to get the final probability (weighted average).
What is that final weighted average ? And is it equal to or greater than 0.7 ?

---

Great Post here filled with sarcasm, humor, math and seriousness.
Probably the best post you ever had on this site, since I joined.
Keep up the good work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Let n=the number of games of Baccarat played by the casino patron for the "session" (whatever the fuck that even means - like Max wrote)
Let X be the following step function:
X=(n/2)+1 if N is even
X=(n/2)+0.5 if N is odd
Also ( using Don's win probability)
p=.45
q=1-p
The probability of being ahead by one game during the Session is (this calculation needs to also be done for the probability of being ahead by 2 games and so on up to n and then these N-x+1 probabilities need to be summed to get the total probability):


Now we just need to do this for every game on the floor (if you're well connected like Advantage Play you can get the par sheets for all the slot games) including live poker and sports book bets which should be fun. Following by weighting each probability by its n before summing them all up and dividing that total by the sum of all the Ns to get the final probability (weighted average).
What is that final weighted average ? And is it equal to or greater than 0.7 ?

---

Great Post here filled with sarcasm, humor, math and seriousness.
Probably the best post you ever had on this site, since I joined.
Keep up the good work!

---

Thanx M8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Great Post here filled with sarcasm, humor, math and seriousness.
Probably the best post you ever had on this site, since I joined.
Keep up the good work!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Thanx M8.

---

The 2022 Abel Prize was awarded to Dennis Sullivan. The citation praised "his groundbreaking contributions to topology in its broadest sense, and in particular its algebraic, geometric and dynamical aspects.

"Also, he is one sarcastic son of a bitch."

I tried plugging in the formula, but Google Sheets gave me multiple "WTF are you trying to do" errors.

Instead I did simmys. Series of 10-hand sessions, watching the balance for any break above the starting value.

JoB 9/6: ahead at any point, 19 of 30 (63%)
DDB 7/5: 13 of 30 (43%)
TDB 6/5: 11 of 30 (37%)

Obviously 10 hands is a short session, and any increase of session length would push up the percentages. I'm guessing the volatile games would benefit more from a longer session. If I changed to 10,000 hand sessions, I think the TDB 37% would increase more than the JoB 63%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

The 2022 Abel Prize was awarded to Dennis Sullivan. The citation praised "his groundbreaking contributions to topology in its broadest sense, and in particular its algebraic, geometric and dynamical aspects.

"Also, he is one sarcastic son of a bitch."

I tried plugging in the formula, but Google Sheets gave me multiple "WTF are you trying to do" errors.

Instead I did simmys. Series of 10-hand sessions, watching the balance for any break above the starting value.

JoB 9/6: ahead at any point, 19 of 30 (63%)
DDB 7/5: 13 of 30 (43%)
TDB 6/5: 11 of 30 (37%)

Obviously 10 hands is a short session, and any increase of session length would push up the percentages. I'm guessing the volatile games would benefit more from a longer session. If I changed to 10,000 hand sessions, I think the TDB 37% would increase more than the JoB 63%.

---

Thanks!
Now run the numbers for the Flaming Sevens Reel Machines at the Golden Nugget.
And compare them to the Red Hot Sevens at the Fremont.
I can't wait because I know for a fact that the best Reel Machines at the Nugget are an 8% hold.

Congratulations to you Monet on the big win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Congratulations to you Monet on the big win.

---

Nice of you and kewlJ to say.
Let's be honest.
These picks were posted the night beforehand at 10pm.
Everyone on this site who read my post could of made some money.
Everyone that has access to a Sportsbook that is.
Virtual or Brick and Mortar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

I gamble for fun, for excitement, not for a living.

I previously worked at a lucrative profession and invested wisely; this now allows me to now throw fists full of Franklins down the maw of tribal casinos' three reel slots without a real care in the world about my losses.

A pittance.

Am I a fool?

I get a kick out of gambling.

Maybe I should have spent it on crack or meth instead: at least then I'd be thinner.

---

You're no fool. You're not only honest but you're enjoying your successes in life. Be proud. Be happy youre not walking around a casino looking for abandoned credits and multipliers or you can't eat.

I dont say that flippantly either. When I was a regular poker player in LA I knew a WSOP bracelet winner who lived in his car, washed in the public restroom, and hustled to get buyins for daily $60 tournaments.

Yeah, I gave him a "chip for luck" at the cage and took him to dinner many times.

A real bracelet winner.

---

Alan you are dishing out (by saying this stuff) the opposite but maybe worse bias from what some people give to you here. A person won a bracelet. That's a demonstration of skill, although there are arguments about how high a level of skill. Anyway, winning the bracelet is a demonstration of skill. You can't take that away from him. And some people respect skill more than cash in the bank. For example, when Billy Walter recruited handicappers, he wasn't looking for the guys with cash in the bank. He was looking for people with verifiable track records in handicapping.

Stu Ungar blew boatloads on sports betting. He would have been perpetually broke without people propping him up. None of that really matters. He died badly, but he died as one of the greatest poker players ever, and a better gin rummy player.

What the bracelet winner does with his money is really none of your business, by my way of thinking. It means nothing. You are an award-winning journalist with many accomplishments to your credit. Your cash in the bank doesn't add or detract one iota from your accomplishments or having that reputation. What you do with your money is none of my business, unless you borrowed from me. Nothing you do with your money affects what you've accomplished in life, unless you run out of funds to put yourself on billboards or self sell a biography so people know about what you accomplished in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Now run the numbers for the Flaming Sevens Reel Machines at the Golden Nugget.
And compare them to the Red Hot Sevens at the Fremont.
I can't wait because I know for a fact that the best Reel Machines at the Nugget are an 8% hold.

---

Hang on. I'm hitting myself in the head with frying pans to see which causes the most brain da

So what's your point Redietz?
Did you congratulate Monet on his wins -- all of them on one ticket? That's a parlay, isn't it?

I'm not a sports bettor but I read a post on this forum about how difficult that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

So what's your point Redietz?
Did you congratulate Monet on his wins -- all of them on one ticket? That's a parlay, isn't it?

I'm not a sports bettor but I read a post on this forum about how difficult that is.

---

Winning and Posting a Sports Ticket is easy.
It really doesn't matter and the dollar amount doesn't matter.
What is special is posting the picks beforehand and cashing those picks.
I've done this plenty of times in the last 15 months or so with 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 teamers.
That's the Fucking Hard part... posting before post time!
And it isn't just the NHL that I follow.
I've posted NFL, NHL and MLB picks.
I don't follow the NBA anymore since they Fucked up the game years ago.
And I hate all collegiate sports as they constantly shave.
The monster problem with the book is you have to constantly be in action and they don't give you anything for your total coin in.
I HATE the book.
Fuck them and their Nazi Drink Ticket Regime!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

I tried plugging in the formula, but Google Sheets gave me multiple "WTF are you trying to do" errors.

---

Don, I am just using the binomial probability density function for each instance where the player is ahead. This is followed by adding the probabilities up for each scenario where the player is ahead. Obviously my simple baccarat example assumes flat betting. Video poker is but one game a person might play and with all the variants and paytable differences, changes in bet sizes, and so on, it would require LaPlace's demon to get an accurate "being ahead" percentage. Is the player playing perfect discarding strategy for the theme and pay table ? Also if the player exits the casino and comes back five minutes later is that two "sessions" or one ? Well you know this all already, so having fun with simulations to see what's what is cool. The video poker app Playperfect Pro for the android operating system (I run it on Bluestacks for the PC or a blank android phone with no cell service) let's you calculate the probability of being ahead by a particular amount before ruin in a related concept to what you're doing. I am not affiliated with this product in any way shape or form.


edit:I think we have illustrated the bunk probability of being ahead enough to where it qualifies as beating a dead horse. It is subjective garbage anyway you look at it. Monet pointed this out from the get go of course. I may make a few comments about fun math stuff as it relates to this, but I have nothing else to add regarding this subjective media junk stat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Hang on. I'm hitting myself in the head with frying pans to see which causes the most brain da

---

No worries.
I suspect you want this 70% figure to be true.
Unfortunately, it's a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

I suspect you want this 70% figure to be true.
Unfortunately, it's a lie.

---

I suspected you suspected it.

When I joined the forum, I got a prompt to install the monet translator plugin, but I clicked "remind me later" and can't figure out how to get back to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

It is subjective garbage anyway you look at it. Monet pointed this out from the get go of course.

---

It wasn't "of course" to me. I had less than 70% comprehension of his comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdaewoo

Name one.

---

You, you fucking retard.

You admitted to not having a clue just 10 hours ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdaewoo

But slots man. No fucking clue how people play those on the regular.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

The video poker app Playperfect Pro for the android operating system (I run it on Bluestacks for the PC or a blank android phone with no cell service) let's you calculate the probability of being ahead by a particular amount before ruin in a related concept to what you're doing.

---

Thanks! I've contemplated the purchase. I wouldn't buy it specifically for quit-when-ahead research, but it has useful features also.

I have a quantity-not-quality computer setup, so I don't have any one good system to run something like Bluestacks. When I was trying your formula in Google Sheets, it was doing stuff like displaying 0 when the actual was a very small decimal value, and for some of the other extreme numbers, #NUM! which I took to be an error. It's probably not the ideal tool for the task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

The video poker app Playperfect Pro for the android operating system (I run it on Bluestacks for the PC or a blank android phone with no cell service) let's you calculate the probability of being ahead by a particular amount before ruin in a related concept to what you're doing.

---

Thanks! I've contemplated the purchase. I wouldn't buy it specifically for quit-when-ahead research, but it has useful features also.

I have a quantity-not-quality computer setup, so I don't have any one good system to run something like Bluestacks. When I was trying your formula in Google Sheets, it was doing stuff like displaying 0 when the actual was a very small decimal value, and for some of the other extreme numbers, #NUM! which I took to be an error. It's probably not the ideal tool for the task.

---

I'm sure google sheets has this stat function, but I just use the Excel binomdist function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

It is subjective garbage anyway you look at it. Monet pointed this out from the get go of course.

---

It wasn't "of course" to me. I had less than 70% comprehension of his comments.

---

The post linked to below makes it quite clear to me what Monet's disposition is on this subject (YMMV):
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post141123

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

The post linked to below makes it quite clear to me what Monet's disposition is on this subject (YMMV):
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post141123

---

Here's the word salad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

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.

---

Which numbers are reversed?

Then comes the slang.

I think I understand from all comments that the discussion annoys him, but he's also (apparently) staking out the territory that 70% is an impossibly high number for the measurement of players ahead at any point in a session. I haven't been persuaded of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

A person won a bracelet. That's a demonstration of skill, although there are arguments about how high a level of skill. Anyway, winning the bracelet is a demonstration of skill. You can't take that away from him. And some people respect skill more than cash in the bank.

---

There is no question that Stu Unger had great skill ... at poker.

But poker isn't the game we all play here now, is it?

I'm talking about the biggest game of all: life.

We are a capitalist society, and the objective measure of someone's success is how much money they've earned ... and managed to hang on to.

The sad thing is that degenerate gamblers like Unger seems to have been are boom and bust, which is a far from satisfactory way to live; how can you provide a good, stable life for your family that way, let alone a good life for yourself, when your income / assets have such wide swings?

There are other measures of success, the key one being how your family and acquaintances think of you, or what "good things" you've done for the community, but at the end of the day "Money talks; bullshit walks."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

We are a capitalist society, and the objective measure of someone's success is how much money they've earned ... and managed to hang on to.

---

I couldn't disagree with you more, MrV. The ultimate measure of success is happiness, both to yourself and those around you that you care about. Some of the wealthiest people in the world seem to be some of the most unhappy people. I try to avoid politics, but the former president, a very wealthy man, is without a doubt one of the unhappiest people I have ever seen. I would say the same for this Mdog character. I don't know how much money he and his family have but it clearly isn't enough for him to achieve happiness. What some of these people seek, the admiration of others, money simply can't buy. And that goes for many Hollywood and sports world type very wealthy people as well.

On the flip side, I have encountered some of the happiest, well-adjusted people that have very little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

A person won a bracelet. That's a demonstration of skill, although there are arguments about how high a level of skill. Anyway, winning the bracelet is a demonstration of skill. You can't take that away from him. And some people respect skill more than cash in the bank.

---

There is no question that Stu Unger had great skill ... at poker.

But poker isn't the game we all play here now, is it?

I'm talking about the biggest game of all: life.

We are a capitalist society, and the objective measure of someone's success is how much money they've earned ... and managed to hang on to.

The sad thing is that degenerate gamblers like Unger seems to have been are boom and bust, which is a far from satisfactory way to live; how can you provide a good, stable life for your family that way, let alone a good life for yourself, when your income / assets have such wide swings?

There are other measures of success, the key one being how your family and acquaintances think of you, or what "good things" you've done for the community, but at the end of the day "Money talks; bullshit walks."

---

Capitalists, like Christians, tend to overestimate their ubiquitousness. Do the math.

I don't really disagree with you KJ.

Note I said "objective measure of success."

The criteria you bring up are inapplicable as they are not objective, they are subjective.

Question: do you think Stu Unger was happy when he was broke as a joke and didn't know where his next meal would come from?

In this country people need to have enough money to maintain a home / lifestyle and all that goes with it: food, clothing, transportation, health care: or else the lack of same will likely cause misery, woe, and worry.

I'm not saying money causes happiness, I am saying the lack of money causes misery when you cannot even meet your basic needs, and that is failure 101.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

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.

---

A slot machine is either in a static state or a variable state of payback. The variable states are the ones we AP's work. So excluding AP'able slots he expectation of a bet on a slot machine is less than the size of the bet. If it's a 90% machine then the bet is worth 90% of itself.

A static state slot machine with a -10% EV cannot be programmed for 70% of players to be ahead at some point in a session.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.

---

Let me remind you of the thesis:

"70 percent of people at a casino visit are ahead at one point"

Baccarat was mentioned. Assuming I bet banker or player, I'll win decision 1 about 45% of the time which puts me ahead for the visit. If I don't win decision 1, I'll have additional opportunities to pull ahead and increase the 45% cumulative total.

Where am I wrong so far?

---

Your chance to pull ahead diminishes with each trial/decision. Your best chance to be ahead is to make just 1 bet and then quit. You have a 45% chance. The reason is because winning two decisions, 45% X 45% is just 20.25%. You have to win both bets to be ahead. Win one and lose one....you are just even.

Your chance to be ahead after 2 decisions is much less than if you make just one decision.

Your chance to be ahead after 3 decisions is much less than if you made just two decisions.

More decisions does not give you a better chance to be ahead. It gives you less of a chance because of the compound effects of negative expectation gambling.

I asked before, what constitutes being ahead? If a player sits down at a VP machine and within a couple hands his say a straight or flush and is a couple bucks a head, is that being ahead? Technically of course it is, but is he going to get up and leave at that point? Probably cost 5 times that much in Gas just to get to the casinos.

I think this whole discussion comes from ploppies that at some points were ahead $100 bucks or $200 bucks or some somewhat significant amount and end the day down $200. They always say "I should have quit when I was up $180" or something like that.

And these numbers, 90%, even 70%, that is just selective memory, from the example I gave above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

The post linked to below makes it quite clear to me what Monet's disposition is on this subject (YMMV):
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post141123

---

Here's the word salad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

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.

---

Which numbers are reversed?

Then comes the slang.

I think I understand from all comments that the discussion annoys him, but he's also (apparently) staking out the territory that 70% is an impossibly high number for the measurement of players ahead at any point in a session. I haven't been persuaded of that.

---

And you are certainly entitled not to be persuaded of that (and you are also certainly entitled not to be clear on what his phrase means), but as far as the meaning of Monet's phrase goes, for me it is clear. The reverse of 70% is 7% which of course is figurative but I get the gist. Again that's just my opinion which amounts to a hill of beans. There are things that are perfectly clear to you and others that I will not find clear obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Your chance to pull ahead diminishes with each trial/decision. Your best chance to be ahead is to make just 1 bet and then quit. You have a 45% chance.

---

Thanks for the response, but you're arguing the odds of finishing a session ahead. Yes?

This discussion is about being ahead at any fleeting moment within the entire course of a session, hence the cumulative probabilities. If you don't achieve success on trial 1, you get another chance on trial 2, trial 3, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I asked before, what constitutes being ahead?

---

"Ahead at one point."

I linked to the thread:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/ques...-john-patrick/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I think this whole discussion comes from ploppies that at some points were ahead $100 bucks or $200 bucks or some somewhat significant amount and end the day down $200. They always say "I should have quit when I was up $180" or something like that.

---

Yes, that's exactly where it comes from. It's why you only need to be ahead once anywhere along the way, because people assume if they were more disciplined they could have picked the magically correct moment to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Your chance to pull ahead diminishes with each trial/decision. Your best chance to be ahead is to make just 1 bet and then quit. You have a 45% chance.

---

Thanks for the response, but you're arguing the odds of finishing a session ahead. Yes?

This discussion is about being ahead at any fleeting moment within the entire course of a session, hence the cumulative probabilities. If you don't achieve success on trial 1, you get another chance on trial 2, trial 3, etc.

---

No, I'm talking about being ahead at any point in a session. With even money bets in games like BJ, craps, baccarat, roulette your best chance to be ahead is if you win your first decision and quit. The compound effects of negative expectation gambling take over.

You can't take a sample space of negative expectation bets, no matter how large or small, and expect to have a 70% chance of being a winner sometime in the session. If it was possible the Wizard or many others would be able to write an equation to prove it. So far no one has been able to prove it and no one will ever be able to prove it.

Cumulative probabilities is just another way to say "compound effects of negative expectation gambling." The compound effects means its impossible for 70% of gamblers to be ahead at some point in their gambling sessions. Win the first bet and quit is the best chance you have of being ahead in a gambling session.

Perhaps the m-dawg will chime in on this as he seem to have the success at the baccarats ----rv proposition, hey hey????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

No, I'm talking about being ahead at any point in a session.

---

I'm confused.

Does this forum have hazing rituals for new members?

I've found two threads at WOV, where 70%+ is not even mildly controversial. Here's a post from tringlomane claiming 96% (via sim results) at 99.5% vp (9/6 JoB):

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-.../2/#post247350

I figured out I can use Frugal VP software to simulate. Don't know how to auto-run multiple sims, but I can do them one at a time and they complete almost instantly. Then there's a VOLATILITY button that displays the high and low points. I'm replicating tringlomane's setup, 10k hands of 9/6 JoB.

I'm now up to 20 sims completed, and not one failure so far. Of course the graph usually slopes down, but there's always at least one squiggle above zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

No, I'm talking about being ahead at any point in a session.

---

I'm confused.

Does this forum have hazing rituals for new members?

I've found two threads at WOV, where 70%+ is not even mildly controversial. Here's a post from tringlomane claiming 96% (via sim results) at 99.5% vp (9/6 JoB):

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-.../2/#post247350

I figured out I can use Frugal VP software to simulate. Don't know how to auto-run multiple sims, but I can do them one at a time and they complete almost instantly. Then there's a VOLATILITY button that displays the high and low points. I'm replicating tringlomane's setup, 10k hands of 9/6 JoB.

I'm now up to 20 sims completed, and not one failure so far. Of course the graph usually slopes down, but there's always at least one squiggle above zero.

---

Do 70% of casino patrons play 9/6 JoB ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Do 70% of casino patrons play 9/6 JoB ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You can't take a sample space of negative expectation bets, no matter how large or small, and expect to have a 70% chance of being a winner sometime in the session.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Do 70% of casino patrons play 9/6 JoB ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You can't take a sample space of negative expectation bets, no matter how large or small, and expect to have a 70% chance of being a winner sometime in the session.

---

---

I think mine was a yes or no question.

It is a really stupid discussion. What if it is true that 90% of sessions are slightly plus at some point? If a player stops playing at that point, which is the premise of the discussion, results are going to look exactly like progression wagering results. Many small winning sessions but a few big losing sessions that more than offset all those small wins.

You are guaranteeing those small wins because as soon as you get a head, you have st stop. So if you have to quit at +5, +10, +20, you never get to have any decent size wins except a rare big win of quads or bigger.

It's just a silly discussion. I mean in the thread linked above the example was a weekend of play, playing $1. Is that player really going to stop play on Friday when he gets up $10 and spend the next 3 days standing on Fremont Street watching the homeless and bizarre street performers?

The fact is that this entire discussion, started at WoV, and brought here was started by Alan. Alan continues to believe that voodoo things like stop limits can make a player into a winning player.

I don't want to pick on Alan, but yesterday while reading through the archives here (looking for something else), I must have seen 4 or 5 different threads started by Alan with words like quitting while ahead in the title. If you don't believe me, take a look.

I am sorry Alan, but that is voodoo nonsence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

It is a really stupid discussion. What if it is true that 90% of sessions are slightly plus at some point? If a player stops playing at that point, which is the premise of the discussion, results are going to look exactly like progression wagering results. Many small winning sessions but a few big losing sessions that more than offset all those small wins.

You are guaranteeing those small wins because as soon as you get a head, you have st stop. So if you have to quit at +5, +10, +20, you never get to have any decent size wins except a rare big win of quads or bigger.

It's just a silly discussion. I mean in the thread linked above the example was a weekend of play, playing $1. Is that player really going to stop play on Friday when he gets up $10 and spend the next 3 days standing on Fremont Street watching the homeless and bizarre street performers?

---

It's not a silly discussion. The point in all the surveys whether they're from Vic Royer or UNLV is that Vegas gaming isnt a vacuum cleaner on your wallet. Players have a chance.

But what happens?

You mention that anyone has a chance even at -EV games and instantly the math guys say "bbbbbut it's a negative EV game, it's impossible."

No. It's not impossible to win.

Right Monet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

The fact is that this entire discussion, started at WoV, and brought here was started by Alan. Alan continues to believe that voodoo things like stop limits can make a player into a winning player.

I don't want to pick on Alan, but yesterday while reading through the archives here (looking for something else), I must have seen 4 or 5 different threads started by Alan with words like quitting while ahead in the title. If you don't believe me, take a look.

I am sorry Alan, but that is voodoo nonsence.

---

That's his signature, "it's all about quitting when ahead"....lol

Kewlj, what's voodoo nonsense is you being unable to accept that players like Mdawg and Singer can be thousands of dollars ahead making big bets at -EV games.

Right Monet?

In fact, Monet, why dont you tell Kewlj how many $1200 bets you can make before you wipe out that parlay win? And, how many bets do you think you might win before you could lose ALL of that parlay win?

Seem like this Alan cat subscribe to the even-bob/spike style of lookin to capture just a single units profits thus never encounter the losing session/day, sweet, hey hey!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Kewlj, what's voodoo nonsense is you being unable to accept that players like Mdawg and Singer can be thousands of dollars ahead making big bets at -EV games.

Right Monet?

In fact, Monet, why dont you tell Kewlj how many $1200 bets you can make before you wipe out that parlay win? And, how many bets do you think you might win before you could lose ALL of that parlay win?

---

OMG Alan, why do we have to keep going through this. You are an intelligent man. Act like it.

Short term, yes, a player can win playing -EV. Long term he can not. Now we can argue just what constitutes long-term. There are formulas for that and it is going to be different for games that have the possibility of a big jackpot payoff. Long-term in those games will be more trials than say something like blackjack.

Let me use my own history. I play a game with about a 1% advantage. A little more some games, a little less others, depending on exact rules, decks and penetration. There are no big jackpot type payoffs in traditional blackjack (not counting side bets). So the long-term is less than other games like video poker.

So despite that I play with a 1% advantage, I have many short term periods, a session, a day, a week, sometimes weeks into months that I lose. And I have shared many. That is short-term. But long-term, over 18 years, I have played well over a million rounds and am well over a million dollars ahead. (about 1.3 million from blackjack). That is the way it works. When you get enough trial to qualify for long-term, the math kicks in and you can not defy the long-term math with these voodoo ideas like "quitting while ahead", or any other voodoo, long disproven nonsense.

And it works exactly the same with -EV. Short term, a session, a day, a week, or maybe weeks into months a player can win playing -EV. THAT is called variance. But as you get enough trials to get to the long-term, whatever number that may be for the game you are playing, you can no longer defy the math by winning -EV games. Ya just can't! Casinos are built on you people that think you can.

Now Alan, let me ask you and I am trusting you to be honest here, you have played craps and VP for many years. Enough that I suspect you are well into long-term. Are you ahead lifetime?

End of that discussion.


Now monet is not a good example. As redietz pointed out early today, who is to say that a sports handicapper (or horse handicapper) is -EV? There are some good handicappers that are +EV. I certainly am not one. Redietz says he is. I have no reason not to believe him. Monet? I don't know. I know for 4 or 5 months I have followed him, he is. If he wants to answer for longer than that, he can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soxfan

Seem like this Alan cat subscribe to the even-bob/spike style of lookin to capture just a single units profits thus never encounter the losing session/day, sweet, hey hey!!!!

---

Monet tell this guy how many "units" you're ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soxfan

Seem like this Alan cat subscribe to the even-bob/spike style of lookin to capture just a single units profits thus never encounter the losing session/day, sweet, hey hey!!!!

---

Monet tell this guy how many "units" you're ahead.

---

No Alan, you are well into the long-term life time. You tell us how many units YOU are ahead lifetimes playing these voodoo concepts?