A rarity for me--unfortunately for only 50 cents. Went $100 over my loss limit and got rewarded. The original card that was discarded was also a diamond. So I threw away the 3-way flush (proper play) and got lucky.
Printable View
Singer will be angry you didn't stop at your loss limit. ;)
Congrats on the nice win .... and demonstrating the fallacy of loss limits.
Wish I could claim I was smart---but the strategy was I needed to kill another half hour before a meeting. It was either blow another hundred or eat a bad lunch in the diamond lounge. That's why I went down to 50 cents to make the hundred last. My loss limit was $600 and this would have been $700.
Congratulations regnis. No player's card? You will be accused of shooting a photo of someone else's win. (LOL)
What was the diamond flush card that you discarded to hit the royal?
I don't remember what the discard was, but it was lower like a 7. Not a straight flush.
I actually pulled the card before the attendant came because I wasn't using my card. A friend wants to reach 7 stars so I use his card since I am diamond and not going to be anywhere near 7 stars myself. Yes--I don't get points on my card but he uses his for all the meals so I figure I'm close enough to even in the long run.
Arci--I know you say that partially as a dig to Singer and Alan but isn't my loss limit totally arbitrary anyway?? I had a meeting and wanted to drive between traffic so I had 2 hours to kill and decided $600 was all I would allow myself to lose (my meeting being worth $1,000). So after losing 600 I said--another 100 won't kill me. It's all just a question of hitting the button at the right time--at least for me.
The purpose of a loss limit is so that you don't go thru your entire bankroll... and you have money to enjoy another trip at a future day. The loss limit by itself will not help you win. Loss Limit is just another name for sticking to your budget. Going over your budgeted amount by $100 isn't going to kill you, is it?
Yup, it's really is random, the big wins and losing streaks can happen at any time.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I have no problem with loss limits on negative games. In fact, I use one myself. I stop right before I play the first hand. ;)
I take a fixed amount of money to the casino and will leave if I lose it. So, in a sense I always have a loss limit myself. We all do to a certain degree. However, my problem is when people start to claim that win goals and loss limits will improve their bottom line on positive machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If one elects to play 99% machines rather than 101% machines, doesn't this afford the good old American freedom of opportunity to press the button at a 2.02% better rate than the average person in order to retain the 1% edge?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Actually this is an apples and oranges disagreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Whether or not you have win goals and loss limits has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing a positive expectation or negative expectation machine.
Win goals allow you to give yourself a target when to pick yourself up and leave. I personally use a rising stop loss when I am playing and I am ahead, so I don't have a fixed win goal. I would use a rising stop loss even when playing a positive machine. All you are doing with a rising stop loss (when you have a profit) is saying "I've won and I am going to take this much profit home while using the excess profit to try to win more." How can you argue with that? You are locking in a profit to take home, while using some additional profit when things might be going your way and you could win more.
Loss limits only prevent you from losing it all too quickly, and maybe going overboard, or ruining plans for a future visit. Having loss limits even makes sense on a positive machine because playing a positive machine does not guarantee a win. If you have a fixed amount of money that you take to the casino you indeed do have a loss limit. What you take is your loss limit.
I think the confusion about having win goals and loss limits to improve your bottom line comes from the claim or belief that you will always be ahead at some point in every session you play and if you cash out at that point you will always be a winner. This is what Rob says and why he uses a system of moving up in denomination and why he uses special plays.
I think you can get lucky in this way, and my experience has been that I have been up by at least one bet in about 9 out of 10 sessions I've played. But I can't imagine quitting with only a one bet profit unless I was playing something crazy like a $500/coin video poker machine -- and in that case being up one bet would be a week's salary.
Probably ... real math = apples ... Alan math = orangesQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Only using Alan math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You could also have won more right after you reach your loss limit and decided to quit. Your decision to quit doesn't change your long term expectation and may actually cost you money. No one is arguing with a person who decides to quit for any reason. The only objection is if you claim that decision will lead to winning more money than if you hadn't quit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If you are worried about losing too much money too quickly you are probably playing at too high a denomination for your bankroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I take enough money to get me through 95% of the time for my planned play.
That is about what I showed you previously with my simulations. You could win 95% of the sessions with a one bet win goal and a large loss limit. However, it doesn't change the bottom line. Over time you still approach the mathematical expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Do you realize what's wrong with this thinking? I don't want to "approach" the mathematical expectation. I want to do BETTER than the expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Why would I ever want to pump thru thousands of dollars into a VP game for an edge of one-tenth of one percent over time -- what a waste of time and resources.
If a win goal allows you to leave the game with more than a 1% gain YOU HAVE BEATEN THE MATH ON ANY VIDEO POKER GAME because there is no video poker game that pays more than 101%.
It appears that Alan and Rob are two masters at the game. Congrats boys! It's nice when the cards fall your way. Royals, Straight Flushes, Quads and the Full House. Life is good when you're able to throw $10-$25 dollars a bet. Keep up the great image! I know I'm enjoying the show!
It's not about me and Rob. It's about normal people and what they do.
People go into casinos all the time and hit a winner and push the cash out button and leave. What is wrong with that?
The math guys seem to think there is something wrong with that, especially when they are playing a positive expectation game. They seem to think that sitting at a positive expectation game is a license to print money. Has anyone been printing money from a video poker machine lately?
How many times do we have to keep repeating this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, quitting means NOTHING unless you are quitting for good.
If you are a regular player and keep coming back to play more, it's all one long session. The fact that a week or two passes between hands means nothing. You haven't beaten the odds when you cash out ahead, unless you cash out permanently ahead and quit forever. Otherwise your results are a mixture of below expectation (big losses), expectation (slight losses), and above expectations (wins).
You and Rob are obsessing over this "session" nonsense, when in reality it means nothing.
Dan I am not talking about QUITTING. I am talking about cashing out with a profit.
As I've said here: I am probably ahead at some point in 9 out of 10 sessions. And I don't measure sessions by minutes. I mean a day or a trip.
Walking away with a small profit after multiple sessions is not only very possible but it is done all the time. Sure, you might miss the next hand which could be a royal, but the next hand might also be a loser as might the hand after that, and the next hand after that as well.
What is absurd is saying don't quit with a profit because you are playing a positive expectation game. That is not rational behavior.
Telling me that you quit playing at a positive expectation game only because youre too tired or have to eat or need to piss is insane.
Allow me to borrow some attitude and terminology from our dear friend, Rob, in an effort to help Alan grasp his mathematical shortcomings. Playing positive expectation video poker is a lot like marriage, which is theoretically a positive expectation behavior. But when the road gets rocky and Divorce #1 happens, you can walk away knowing that only half of your shared property TO THAT POINT goes to your inferior half. By stop loss-ing your relationship, you seem to be protecting your future income and happiness, not to mention the occasional house or RV. But this only works IF YOU DO NOT REMARRY! As soon as you do that, you start another session, and it becomes evident -- after two or three marriages bite the dust -- that you've actually been playing a negative expectation game and IT'S ALL ONE UNENDING SESSION.
At least that's how my one friend (also a Californian, formerly) described his series of marriages.
I hope this has been helpful....
So a question for Dan, and for Arc and for redietz: how much profit do you mathematical devotees have this year playing video poker?
Is there anyone on this forum with a profit playing video poker so far for the year 2014 ??
Yes, because I've only run freeplay this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
But nobody is arguing that the "math plays" result in a profit. They don't, because every since CET machine is -EV.
I'm saying that the math plays result in a lesser loss.
I'm saying that your session-dependent results are meaningless.
I will at least praise you for sticking primarily to Aces and Faces, which is the right move at Rincon. It's just amazing how you are not seeing how important the math is here.
How can you prove this? How do you know this? Is it based on your personal experience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Meaningless? Is walking out with a profit meaningless?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The math is all important. I always play the best available pay tables for the games I am playing and leaving with a profit sure beats leaving with a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yes, I can prove that the "math plays" result in a lesser overall loss with the same sorts of mathematical equations that are used in everyday life.
Mathematical calculations are the basis of the technology that is running this forum.
Mathematical calculations are what separate our lives in 2014 from the way people lived in the year 1014.
Asking me to prove that the "math" plays are optimal is like asking me to prove that 1+1 equals 2. These have been worked out and simulated by many people, all coming up with the identical optimal plays and expected returns.
Video poker differs from regular poker, which is more of an abstract game because some of the strategy involves exploiting human mistakes -- something difficult to calculate by computer. Video poker is a solitary game, as there is no opponent. It can easily be solved by mathematics, though the payouts are kept just low enough to where it cannot be beaten in the long term or even the short-long term.
Las Vegas has built its glittering city based upon people believing they have invented betting systems, win goals, session limits, etc to where they believe they have an edge. The casinos all laugh at this, because they have it all down to a simple mathematical formula.
That formula is: Money in * (Over 100% expected return) = More money out
Period.
There is no way to beat that with creative start-stop strategies.
100 hands today and 100 tomorrow is the same as 200 hands today.
The variance in your results is just luck, and the longer you play, the longer you will end up just like the expected return.
You do go home with wins sometimes when you get lucky, but you also go home with losses WAY past expectation, which more than cancel out those wins.
Even if you have been lucky (I think you said you won despite 1,000,000 tier credits in last year), it will catch up the luck will disappear. It does for everyone.
Now, if you have fun playing VP and don't mind the fact that you will lose over time, then that's fine. I just hope Rob hasn't influenced you into believing you can beat the game just by stopping after hitting a bit hand, or whatever nonsense he's peddling for the moment.
Think of it this way: If you play 400,000 hands, you will hit an average of 10 royals. If you stopped and went home after each of those royals, would it make a difference? No. You would still have hit an average number of royals, and you would still likely end up very close to the expected loss.
This is absolutely wrong and now you are being ridiculous. The math only gives you "expected" results with expert play. You have no control over the RNG. You might make the correct play every single hand yet still lose every single hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Now, Dan, try just one time to go into a bank and tell them you will make your next mortgage payment with your "expected return" from your next session on a video poker machine with a positive pay table.
For someone who says they haven't hit a royal flush (in how long?) you give the math too much credit. I'm sure you've played more than 42,000 hands, so where's the royal? The math tells you to expect one in that many hands, doesn't it?
I've had 8 royals so far this year. I made 7 Stars this year with a profit. Is it because I have a loss limit and a win goal? No. It's because I got lucky. The math tells you the best way to play but it's still up to the RNG. And because the math does not control the RNG you have to do something else. And that something else is taking the wins when they come and realize that the wins come about because of your lucky draws.
Let me give you one example to sum this up: When you have a straight with 4 to the royal and you hold the 4 to the royal and you draw the royal card, was it the math that made the RNG give you that royal card? Or was it that you got lucky? The math does tell you the best plays, but it's the luck that determines whether the best play will pay off.
And because you can't control luck, you do the next best thing: you take the wins that you can get and you limit your losses when the wins don't come. And that is ALL that I've been saying and it's pretty much all that Rob has been saying. And yes, Rob does play according to the math, by his own admission, 95% of the time. And I play by the math 100% of the time -- except I know when it's time to get up from the machine and take my profits and when to cut my losses.
OK, I see Dan might need a little more encouragement to comprehend just what the heck is going on with video poker....and me!
First, there's the rare dealt royal I hit 2 nights ago at the Grand Sierra in Reno. It's my 4th dealt royal since I began playing in 1990--and all of them have been in hearts. That has me wondering, but just a little bit. And notice if you will, that I played such a BAD pay table on BP at 7/5! Horror of horrors!--how in the world can ANYONE expect to "beat the math" like this?? And just before this win I got four Aces. No pic, since who wants to see such a piddly little winner.:) But the credits are there, and I started out with 500 of my own on this.
Anyway, you might remember when I mentioned I was on a $7000 losing streak playing up to $5 after all the big hits I had on up to $25. Well, I've been chipping away at that, and it's now down to $1100 after this royal. Oh Spock, I just got a new HTC One M8 and I used it for this picture. I also tossed the old workhorse digital camera out so you won't need to do all that conjecture and assertion-filled fantasizing any more, and it'll help Dan cope a little better too!
And what's this other picture? Why, it's my wife of 36 years this Oct., after we came out from a 3 hour hike at Tioga Lake prior to going for a picnic in Yosemite earlier in the day Wed. I must say Dan, this one's for you. In your world there's no way we have a happy marriage because of whatever, but....once again you guessed WRONG!! I mean, who's gonna go on a hike with me if we live like you do? BTW, before disparaging her because she's 62 and you're filled with all my big hits' & ROYAL sour grapes, we were once young and part of the beautiful people like most everyone, only unlike most everyone these days, it's much more satisfying knowing our marriage is as happy & strong as the very first day.
Note: We're leaving the Tahoe area a month earlier than originally planned so we can do some more travel and get to Minnesota before the snow hits, and we're not coming back until May. So there shouldn't be many more dealt royals to post, at least for a while:)
I am surprised by the number of dealt royals that I've seen. At Rincon about two weeks ago a lady at the 25-cent progressive was dealt a royal. About six months ago on the same bank of machines I saw another dealt royal. About two months ago, at Rincon, the machine to the right of 3116 dealt a royal to a young lady. I've had two dealt royals in my life including the $5 progressive at Rincon and on the 50-play at Mandalay Bay playing 5-cents per coin. For an event that happens once in 629,740 hands (or something like that) I seem to see a lot of them.
I think it's wild that Alan reminds us that you can make the proper play in vp and the RNG can have you lose every hand. True enough -- and true enough that if you walk out of your house, lightning could strike you. And after you recover, the next time you walk out of your house, lightning could strike you again. That big bad RNG-in-the-sky could really muck with your mind.
But you can't base decisions in life (or vp) based on what could possibly happen. You base decisions on what --to the best of your knowledge -- is the likelihood of things happening. That's where Alan and math part ways; Alan likes to think that because he can make the argument that anything COULD happen, one should pattern one's behavior to somehow put this on an equal footing with what IS LIKELY to happen.
I have no qualms if people want to conduct their lives this way. It makes the rest of us look smarter.
redietz let me remind you of what I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
1. I play proper strategy 100% of the time
2. I use win goals and loss limits
3. In the case of really good look, I adjust my win goals higher and use what's known as a "rising stop loss"
Question: what exactly are you saying is wrong with that? It has nothing to do with lightning strikes. Where does it violate any principles of mathematics? Why is it so wrong to use win goals and loss limits even at a game with a positive pay table?
It's the book argument on theory Alan. It's how all the math guys think things occur in reality. But they cannot accept that it is not that way in vp because whenever you sit at a machine it could be "catching itself up" to expected value, it could be in the streak from hell, or it could be all over the map.....as well, of course, as being "right on" for the period of time anyone is playing it. That's why using special plays is the superior play to optimal play at the times an opportunity for a session-ending win presents itself. You never know where in its shelf life the machine's RNG is when YOU are playing it.
This is all so simple. BTW, good thing I didn't use a "special play" to get that royal above. It was all skill, really....you know, the type I picked up at a Dancer class way back when.
Rob you're not going to claim that you knew the precise moment when to push the button for the dealt royal? Are you not feeling well?
Just to add to the dealt royal conversation:
Over a dozen years of playing VP off and on I've had six dealt royals and I've thrown away five junk cards to redraw a royal twice.
Had two dealt royals one week apart in September 2006.
Rob, I am not going to insult your wife for being 62. I knew she was around your age, because you repeatedly brag about how long your marriage has been.
However, I do wonder why she looks so unhappy in that picture. Is she still pissed at her husband of 36 years for losing $10,000 in order to get a $4,000 royal?
Shhh... don't tell Dan Druff that certain VP machines have the "dealt royal flush" feature enabled. If he starts looking for them, it will impact how he looks for loopholes in comps and cruises. ;););););)Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Room
I think you have a point there, Dan. If we were asked to caption the photo, my suggestion might be: "Okay, Rob, I'll stand here, but what is this photo supposed to prove?" Or how about this caption: "Last Seen In October."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I thought she hit that royal on an outdoor machine by that lake. She's pissed cause an attendant still hasn't come by.
Well, I think she looks beautiful. How many 62 year old women look that good? Even her skin looks awesome!
You can be married 10 times to 10 different women, You're going to have the same problems. How refreshing in this day and time that Rob has been married for 36 years. I know how most of you feel."Haters gunna hate". But, you do have to respect the man for honoring his commitment to his wife.
Thank you vpnewbie and I believe you understand the point I'm making with the picture. Over the years I've trained hundreds of gamblers on vp, and if any of them were married once it was indeed very rare. These guys are making their expected dumb comments because their gambling habits and losing has cost them multiple marriages, and it doesn't sit right with them that not everyone fits that mold. And just imagine living with a guy like Dan. If he gripes and bellyaches so much here about something so insignificant as slot club "freebies" and non-comped Gatorade, it isn't difficult to picture what a joy he would be when it comes to family issues. You get what you deserve, as they say....
Rob, many women put up with a lifetime of abuse and depressing marriages, simply because they are either afraid to go out on their own or they have convinced themselves they won't do any better. Or they just don't want to uproot their life, having to move out of their longtime house, split up assets, tec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I don't know what the story is with your marriage, but if you act with her the same way that you act out here, I can't imagine that the last 36 years have been very happy for her.
She won't even smile for your pictures!
My "gambling habit" has allowed me not to work for the past 11 years. I'm not talking about VP, but all other forms of gambling I am a winner (primarily poker).
I have never been divorced, by the way. I have one child and I am currently with his mom.
I agree. I think she is very attractive. And having met Rob, I think he should remain committed and keep honoring his wife... because no one else would want him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
I agree Alan. What loser would want to start up with an aging man in his mid 60's? :)
Dan's living in sin? And calling the shacker's 3-year old his "son"? Well, seems to go right along with his propensity here for constant conflict, anger, BS, and mistrust. And get a job! No woman wants an unemployed vp loser who relies on "freebies" and who'll have zilch in retirement. Plus....you need to feed my SS account!!
Nice picQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Edited By Alan Mendelson to correct the quote feature.
You guys wouldn't bag on each other if you didn't love each other would you? Aaaah. )P
Don't we all, however, what you want and what you get are not under your control. If you believe it is you are delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Why do you feel the need to lie? No one cares if you leave for any reason. All the math guys tell you is that decision won't lead to any more profits in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
But, if you return, you really didn't cash out. You put your money right back into the machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You might also miss them when you return. Same machine same odds. There is no difference between playing another hand today or playing that hand next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What is not rational is your continued blather that is in direct contradiction to known mathematics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'll clarify the arci agenda for you Alan. Let's look at this from a clean angle and remove ourselves from the pressure video poker's put his life under first.
Everyone knows walking with a profit of any kind is far better than losing and is the smartest and best way to control what you do, rather than let the casino coerce you into doing anything other than that. How often do we see RF's? Seldom of course. But what after hitting mine the other night for instance, if I stayed playing until my body wouldn't let me any more? Overwhelmingly, I would lose some of it, lose a good portion of it, or lose all of the $4376 I was ahead (I naturally left no floor tip)--or even more! So I did the only smart thing and stopped for the remainder of our stay.
Arci (and other severely misguided self-proclaimed "AP's") almost always not only play right thru those big hits--they even start pounding away on the machine next to their locked up winner because their confidence and sweaty palms direct them to....to the gratifying delight of the casino staff, of course. So what's their excuse for not walking with such a big profit? (And this is the funny AND sad part). They expect they'll lose it anyway especially if they're far ahead of theoretical expectation at that point because the math is the math is the math, and in their blocked minds it's just not possible or even probable to come out ahead of it. And this is why they feel the burning need to get to the casinos and play as many hands as fast as possible for as long as possible. They KNOW in their minds they'll never stay that far "ahead of the curve", and if they're in "catch up" mode they figure the more hands they play the faster they'll arrive at "expectation" since the math, again, to them, promises this.
Case in point: Why did arci make that fateful move to LV? Because he was so overwhelmed by the promise of the math that he erroneously believed that if he and his wife sat at machines for 6, 8....10 hours a day or even more, he'd not only be at expectation sooner, he'd have the missus' HELP in getting there! Plus, the more money run through, the higher the "income" because of that mythical tiny percentage in phantom bucks awaiting them at the end of the rainbow (year). Typical gamblers fallacy.... or more like FOLLY to the educated mind, which also concludes that all they're really doing is creating justification for playing far more than they should-something none of them will ever admit to.
This thing I do and you and sling and others do--walking away with a profit as often as possible? They think it's irrelevant and even stupid because of their belief in how they think long term theory applies to what they do. Short term play bursts do not compute to them, because they cannot fathom or comprehend ANY player not wanting to sit at machines for ungodly amounts of time just to play the "approach expectation" game. And not only will they never see this as viable, they'll totally reject that anyone could ever win "over time" doing so. It is a mental block that's there because they need it to be there. Arci, Dancer, Wizard etc. etc. etc.....they're all the same. They don't want something to be, so it just isn't. Nothing measures up to their beliefs, which is why whenever I've challenged any of these "geniuses" on air, in the paper, on my site or on their own forums, they run as fast as they can. No one wants their belief system challenged, let alone destroyed. And in front of others? OMG!!!
Rob, get real. I play what would be considered "by AP rules," and I have no issue with stopping tomorrow permanently if there isn't any value to it. I can play 15 hours a day for a week if called for. I can never play again if called for. I don't find vp much of a recreational thrill, as some do. I'm sure there are plenty of people just like me. Unlike some folks with extraordinary claims and alleged abilities, I don't think I'm one of a kind. Your attempt to bundle playing "by AP rules" with various and sundry psychological interpretations is strange. It suggests you are the grand inquisitor or something, and know thousands of AP's upon which to draw your conclusions. I mean, at least when people label you as having "narcissistic personality disorder," they're basing it on thousands of posts over years in various forums. Your conclusions regarding the mental makeup of all AP's are way, way out there.
I wonder if Alan would allow you to demean a segment of the population as you do if the niche population in question were bowlers, softball players, or people who pay for infomercials.
Then you are not the typical vp-playing "AP", because if you were then you'd SAY you wouldn't play again if the "positive opportunities" went away, but you'd do what the vast majority has done and reinvent the rules just so you could keep on keeping on. AP's have always been the #1 group of gamblers casinos count on for their vp profits. Yes anyone can claim to being a vp AP. It helps with their gambling sanity. But no AP ever won without luck being the #1 factor. That's why casinos continually have fair to very lucrative promotions as they've ALWAYS had. They count on roping in as many self described AP's as possible because they know these people will first bring in whatever money possible from whatever source possible, then they know exactly how these people create greater than 100% plays in order to play in the promo.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
That's why AP's are the world's best fools gold prospectors. Theory is their most important product. They have more phantom bucks in the banks than even they think they do.
Oh look, another comment by the all seeing, all knowing psychic, Madam Roberta. LOL
One can only chuckle at anyone who would spew such obvious lies while demonstrating his unending envy of successful VP players.
And now, an arcimede$ quote fest:
Absolutely correct arc, we are dealing with a random number generator and all of the correct strategy holds in the world won't alter what the RNG does.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
You don't know that, unless you can predict the future and can predict how the RNG will perform. As mentioned above, you can follow the correct strategy 100% of the time but that doesn't mean the RNG will cooperate with you. Even at a positive expectation game there is now way to guarantee a profit -- and you know that, arc.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Let's continue with the arc fest:
Yes, you cashed out and yes you came back to play again. So what? Does the fact that you come back to play again nullify the profit you cashed out the day before?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
This next quote is in reply to my comment that when you walk away you might miss the next winner or loser:
That's correct, so what's your point? I don't know about you, but I like to go home with a profit. Nothing forces me to keep putting profits back into the machine to risk losing them. Are you compelled to keep playing after a profit? Does the math compel you to keep playing? I don't think so. If you keep playing it is not because of the math. You might keep playing out of boredom or because of greed, or fear that someone else will hit the next royal. But there is no math that tells you to push the button again.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
But wait, there's more!
What mathematics tells you that it is wrong for me to leave with a profit? What mathematics tells you that when playing a game of chance (which what video poker with a positive expectation pay table is) that you should keep playing?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
It seems to me that a positive paytable has become an excuse to justify the continued play at a game of chance.
Now, I might be wrong. There might be some mathematical law or principle which says you must continue to play a game with a positive expectation and video poker with a positive paytable. If there is, what is it? Where will I find it?
Also show me the mathematical law or principle which says it is wrong to leave a casino with more money than you came to the casino with?
I think the only people who believe it is wrong for a player to leave with more money than they came with are the casino owners, managers and employees. When they wish you "good luck" I am sure they sincerely mean it.
You beat me to the punch Alan--I was going to offer a similar reply. I don't understand how anyone can question leaving with a profit. Even if you look at it mathematically, if you have hit a royal or some big quads and are substantially ahead, you have gotten ahead of the "MATH", and will most likely begin to lose back some of that profit. Even on a positive expectation game(which I for one don't have access to), you will reduce your return on investment, even if you somehow achieve the expected return thereafter.
So you can continue to play simply because you enjoy doing so, you can take the profit and run, or, as Alan seems to do, you can raise your stop and play a little more. But the most likely event if you keep playing is going to be a reduction on your return on investment. So again, what's wrong with taking the profit.
And no, if I come back next week it is not a continuous game. I have $$$ in my pocket. I have another loss limit. I cannot give it back next time. I am not forced to keep playing in the manner in which an AP must keep playing.
The Bears won a game yesterday. They are credited with a win. Next Sunday is another game. It is not one continuous lifetime game. That's how some of us approach it.
Red--you bet sports. You are good (I assume-and so you say). The games you won this weekend you got paid for and have $$ in your pocket. You weren't compelled to stay up late and bet Hawaii (I do miss the days of calling sport phone at 3 in the morning to get the Hawaii score), even though your skill gives you an advantage. No--you pick your spots and every weekend you hope to profit. Why do we insist on making VP different?
Regnis, you are quite wrong here.
If I think the Hawaii game has a 55% chance of covering, I play it. It's a perceived advantage. I don't stop because I was 8-0 that day. I don't stop if I was 0-8 that day.
That's what positive expectation video poker is about. If you have an advantage, then it makes no sense to stop because you have a "win" in the books. If you've lost, similarly, it makes no sense.
I don't really care if I've lost eight in a row or won eight in a row. If I know what I'm doing, it's irrelevant. My bankroll is sufficient that those kinds of streaks don't matter. As my former girlfriend said, I'm equally miserable win or lose, because there's something I could have done better.
In fact, sports gambling is actually a great way to highlight what's wrong with Alan's argument. You don't examine a schedule of games and choose how many to play based on whether you won the first one or two or three. You examine the schedule and play the appropriate number all at once before they begin. Screwing around with stop losses and betting more if you win early -- that stuff is for amateurs.
By the way, regnis, I have to tell you. The Hawaii reference made me think you have my phone tapped. I lost a horrendous game in Hawaii last week. I had Oregon State -9 -- they were up 38-7 heading into the fourth. Well, a bunch of defensive substitutes, a blocked punt, a fumbled kickoff return, two roughing the passer calls, and a fourth and one bomb later, Oregon State wins 38-30. I stayed up until 2:45 AM watching that mess. Would have been worse, but they had an early start. Had a headache for two days. So I chuckled at the Hawaii reference -- that was a bad one.
I would concede that sports betting, like stock market investing, and even like playing live poker, is not the same as video poker. Your knowledge can improve your chances of winning and give you an advantage in sports betting, and stock market investing and playing live poker (tells, ability to read other players, knowledge of chances of a draw, etc.).
But the great equalizer in video poker is the Random Number Generator which can cancel out the knowledge of any player who believes he plays perfect strategy.
Somehow the idea of advantage play which does exist in blackjack because you can count cards in a game with a finite number of decks transferred over to video poker.
I would liken someone who claims to be an advantage player in video poker to someone who claims to be an advantage player in craps but has no ability to control the dice. When you can control the RNG in video poker, then you have an advantage. Otherwise, all of your strategy is just operating with a hope and a prayer that the RNG will come through for you.
In short, there is no advantage play in video poker.
Red seems to be buying into the myth that the Wizard ropes in his customers with--that a positive EV bet is a good bet, win or LOSE! And have you ever heard more explicit nonsense in your life? In other words, all those AP's out there who've gone broke gambling over the years....these people all have something to be proud of.....while poor little 'ol me--I just can't seem to lose playing games that come in at .6% under, so I should be beating my head against the wall!
Taking a profit after playing is the only sure way to win. Continued playing almost always leads to a reduction or worse when you remain at the same denomination and/or do not use my play strategy. And there actually IS a difference if you keep playing today on this machine or return in a few days to continue. You'll get a completely difference set of deals & draws. No one knows where in the shelf life of the RNG it'll be at. One thing is for sure--it won't deal the same hands both times.
Wise up people.
I'm glad we cleared that up, Alan, about they're not being any advantage play in video poker. Why exactly do you play it? Do you enjoy losing? Be honest. Some gambling personality theorists used to suggest gambling was a way for wayward souls to punish themselves. See, what you're suggesting -- the "it's all just luck" perspective -- has been discussed for decades. Another name for it is -- "it's all just God" perspective. The two are just different names for the same attitude. "If the RNG wants you to win, you'll win." That's the same as "if God wants you to win, you'll win."
What's fascinating here is that Rob does suggest quite blatantly that he's "blessed by God."
Anyway, the old theories had to do with people perceiving themselves as sinners or just behaving badly, as in messing around on significant others and so on. Gambling was a way for these people to evaluate what God thought of them. If they won, it was interpreted as momentary salvation despite their sins. If they lost, it was fate/God/the RNG punishing them for their behaviors. So the "action," the quickening of the nerves, the little churns in the stomach, that people would experience while gambling, were at least in part caused by the nervousness of being evaluated by God or gods as they gambled.
It's good to know old theories may have current relevance.
It's like how I say that tournament poker is for people who enjoy losing. Everyone except for the 1st place finisher walks away disappointed.
That's why I only play it once in awhile.
It's way too depressing.
BTW Rob, the 3-year-old is my natural child, not a stepchild.
In the last year I've actually won playing VP because of a combination of luck and leaving with a profit. I only wish I could do the same at craps.
In previous years I kept playing VP only until I hit a big payoff or lost my daily imit. But this year by accepting smaller win goals I have had much better results.
Simply I am not as greedy. A small win makes me smile.
Obviously, you do not understand the concept of randomness nor statistical probabilities. Why do you continue to make silly assertions about things you know nothing about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Complete nonsense. Alan, you've been asked before to consult with PhD's in mathematics. Why haven't you taken the time to educate yourself? Why do you continue to spew absolute nonsense? The only reason the computer in front of you works is due to statistical probabilities. Yet, with the evidence starting you in the face, you still deny statistics applies to VP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No Alan, you did better because you had a higher frequency of good paying hands. That had nothing to do with when you quit playing on any given day. If you understood what random means then you would understand what I am saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
arc, I will never put my money in your hands.
When I put $200 of free play in my girlfriend's hands she knew exactly what to do (and it was carried to a fault which is what's funny):
She played 5 coins in and with every winner she hit the cash out button. Thanks to a couple of quads, and her cash out total was a bit north of $600. (She won about $80 more at craps.) Would you have told her that she should have kept playing?
Yes it did. And by quitting when ahead the money came home with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
No, you are playing negative return games. I stop when the freeplay is exhausted. I've mentioned this before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Or, you didn't win as much as you could have ... you'll never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The Nash's went Vegas over the weekend and I got lucky at Planet Hollywood on Saturday and Sunday.
Here's what we know: I gave her $200 of free play and she went home with $681 cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I had $800 of free play and I went home with about $1200.
That money can buy a lot of math theory books.
Congrats, Nash. That is killer.
But, it cannot change those theories which is what you seem to think you can do with your magic win/loss limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That's an uneducated, dumb argument. Every AP knows at least 70% of their play sessions lose. So why go against the math you live by? Selective, hypocritical points expose debate weaknesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Nash I'll comment since arci doesn't know what to do with real wins. Two royals in one weekend is an infrequent event. Congratulations. I hope you came home with at least most of it. However, you DO know those were -EV games you were playing, so each hand you played cost you. Don't you just hate it when the math snatches real money right out of your hand like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash
Try to understand this: I can't use your theory to place bets or to buy things or to pay bills. You need real money to do that. It's very nice to understand theory but what counts is the money on the credit meter and in your pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I will ask you one more time: where does it say it is wrong to hit the cash out button when you have a profit? And please... no more crap about video poker being one long session because Caesars bills for its rooms on a nightly basis, my rent is by the month, my prescriptions are filled in three month intervals and Viagra shouldn't work longer than four hours.
Ian't that why some sportsbettors moved to LV--they got tired of the late night Hawaii games?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
That made me smile--not because you lost for which I'm sorry--horrible beat. But there were two reasons I gave up sports betting:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
1. Tired of the late night Hawaii games; and
2. The day the vice squad kicked my door down because they had busted my bookie and were running all his incoming phone numbers. They wanted me to testify against the bookie which I refused to do. Luckily, he died before his trial and I was off the hook. I would never have testified however, but I didn't want the bookie's employers to make sure that I wouldn't testify.
In theory....isn't it also just one really life-long session when he wipes his butt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nope, it depends on the game. Some games provide wins over 40% of the time. You're so lost when it comes to understanding VP that it is hilarious. A nobody jumping up and down crying "look at me". Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Straw man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
More straw man nonsense. You can cash out and leave whenever you want to, Alan. No one cares. It just makes no difference to your long term expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Wow. Games do not "provide wins."Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Correct, Arc, it makes no difference to "long term expectation." It does, however, make a difference to reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
You seem to be captured by "expectation." I, and I would suggest most people who play in casinos, are more concerned with reality.
Reality approaches expectation over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Isn't this why Rob has said he expects to win every time he plays?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Really, Arc? And while you say reality "approaches expectation over time" does it always get there?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Tell me, do you play video poker with real money?
Yes Alan, it really does get there within well known statistical bounds. It is very, very simple statistics. Your continued denial of mathematics is just plain silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The every day things you experience that only work because of statistics are innumerable. Simple gravity for example. Let me know when you fly off the floor and hit the ceiling.