Let me give you, Arc, a principle of mathematics that I live by:
When I win money from the casino it is no longer the casino's money -- it is my money. There is no reason to risk giving it back.
Now, how's that for a mathematical principle?
Printable View
Let me give you, Arc, a principle of mathematics that I live by:
When I win money from the casino it is no longer the casino's money -- it is my money. There is no reason to risk giving it back.
Now, how's that for a mathematical principle?
As usual when you are losing the debate to jump off into la la land with something irrelevant. As I've already mentioned many times you can stop whenever you want. No one telling you to keep playing. What you are being told is in the long run those decisions have no influence on your long term results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You lost the debate. It's not about your math. It's about coming home with more money. That's all it is and that's all it ever was. YOU keep bringing up math and let the math get in the way of simple economics. We go to casinos to enjoy ourselves and hopefully to win. So when you win, why should you keep playing and give it back?
Exactly! So you should be fine as long as you don't go back to the casino. For once, we agree on something.
Economics is based on math. How can math get in the way? Your claims are getting more and more irrational as you try and defend nonsense. Even your last sentence is just plain silly. If you keep playing it is no different that when you return the next time. You have exactly the same chance of winning or "giving it back". Essentially, your logic requires that you NEVER return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The long term math proponents disregard the fact that a large portion of gamblers lack the control to follow a sensible plan. If they have a lead, they are likely to stay until they have lost all their earlier profits and then some. That is the benefit of what Alan has been saying about taking a profit. Forget the long term, because there is no long term if you run out of bullets. Look at the realities of gambling. The reality is that most people play until they are out of $$$. If instead they leave with a profit, they are ahead of where they would otherwise likely have wound up, math or not. And again, please remember that most of us are playing a negative game anyway.
If we can't think positive about our negative games, there wouldn't be any compelling reason to go back to the casinos, would there?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
No one is promoting playing until you lose all your money. That is another straw man. The question is whether win/loss goals can change your results over time. Simple mathematics shows that is not possible with a random VP game. Now, if you want to talk about the psychology of players then we can have that discussion, but don't confuse topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Also, many addicted players got that way by hitting big wins. The excitement of winning draws them back to the casino. Hence, it could turn out that leaving for whatever reason after winning money could bring the person back sooner and cause them to gamble more often which over time results in losing more money. Had they gambled away the big win they might not have returned at all.
I like to think negatively about my positive games.
So... you rule out the possibility of winning again? How sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Really? Is it written in stone anywhere that you must lose? Where is it written? I want to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Of course it's not written anywhere but inside his mind Alan. His downfall is easily explained by his warped belief that -EV means you cannot win over time, and +EV means you can. B&W. The human mind and will is irrelevant, and you MUST perform exactly as the math books theoretically calculate. Going to the moon is impossible. 200mph by a stock automobile is impossible. Having a baby at 60 is impossible.
It is all so simple to see thru this poor guy.
What is written in stone is the probability distribution. Since you have no control of the cards that will appear whenever you play a hand (or N hands), you cannot control where you end up in the probability distribution. It means your decision of when to play and when to quit has no bearing on where you end up. It is pure random variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Typical blathering from an uneducated fool. Notice that nowhere did I say that you cannot win on a -EV game or that you will win on a +EV game. The payback of game and the distribution of the payouts determines the probability distribution of the results. Or, more simply said, what your chances are of winning or losing. Over time (the more hands you play) the distribution becomes more densely packed (that is, you approach the expected return of the game). The only things that matter are the game itself and the number of hands. Nowhere is the timing of the hands a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Simple, basic statistics. Anyone who claims they can control your return by changing the timing of the hands is lying.
Would you please read what you are writing and realize that this mumbo jumbo means nothing is written in stone. I asked you where it is written that I must lose? All you give are probabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
So here is a probability for you: if I cash out with a profit I probably never will lose.
That's right. Alan has the ability, by stopping his play at various points, to outperform probability. He's blessed by God.
And Rob, your will allows you to outperform what the math predicts -- over and over again. You are also blessed by God.
So the only question is, should we join The Church of Alan or The Church of Rob? I humbly suggest that Alan gets more women, but Rob has more schlong. So it's a tough call. Personally, I'd like more women, but I'd really like a bigger schlong. And as I get older, I'm leaning more to schlong. Plus, if I ever decide to can the heterosexual bit, schlong would be more valuable.
"It is difference of opinion that makes horse races." - Mark Twain
Alan, if you win Powerball you will be rich. The world is full of broke fools who didn't understand the meaning of the word "if". The probability of you achieving any particular result playing VP (or Powerball) is a simple math calculation that is written in stone. Nothing you do can move you into the better results part of that distribution. It is all random. Why do you insist on claiming that you know more than all the PhD mathematicians in the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I would ask why you think that probability or odds are a definitive predictor of ones results. No one has claimed that the math is wrong. But as said 100 times in this forum, if you are lucky enough to be ahead of the math, it is good to take your winnings.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If the math is written in stone then you believe the math will catch up with you so you really better quit and run.
Definitive predictor of a range of results with higher probability of being in the center of the range. And, the more you play the higher the probability that you move towards the center.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
It is not "good" or "bad" to take your winnings. When you claim "it is good to take your winnings you are claiming the "math is wrong". You contradicted yourself in your very next sentence. That is the key point. It makes no difference over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
This is an excellent post. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
This appears to be the problem point.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I will argue that if you manage to cash out more wins than losses it will make a difference over time.
Regnis is correct in that if the math will catch up with you, you "really better quit and run." The salient point is that this is effective only if you quit permanently.
STOPPING PLAY AFTER SOME TIME POINT OF YOUR CHOOSING, BUT THEN PLAYING AGAIN LATER, ISN'T REALLY QUITTING. Why is this so difficult to grasp (for some)?
This idea that a person can somehow control random events by stopping and starting again at points and time of one's choosing is fascinating. It's curiously Western, in a way, in that it emphasizes some kind of work shifts. The people doing this are perceiving events as subject to manipulation based on an obsessive tracking of current financial status and by breaking days/weeks/months into allegedly discrete segments based on personal preference. It's a kind of magical thinking.
This is faux control, which in a way could be considered fodder for the DSM-IV. People are trying to say that by measuring the current resource amount they have at their disposal, they can control outcomes of random events. It has obsessive elements, in that one is focused on short-term fluctuations in those resource amounts. It has megalomaniac elements in that one actually believes one can control outcomes over time by monitoring these things. It has narcissistic elements in that one is "one of the few" who has figured this out and can execute it.
I have asked this before, but -- really -- is Alan saying that if everyone did as he suggests, it would make a difference over time? Really? Is that what's being suggested here? And if the world were filled with a billion Alans playing video poker, all playing as he prescribes, would the casinos suddenly be in trouble? When framed that way, the argument he's making seems sillier.
Rob has already said on these pages that if everyone played as he does, the casinos would have to stop offering video poker. Alan seems to be saying the same thing. So Alan, if we were all playing as you do, do you really think it will make a difference over time to the casinos? To the players?
It would make a difference if all players were as lucky as Rob and to some extent Alan claim to be.
Of course, the problem is you can't force the machines to produce that scenario. The machines are random.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
For your fantasy to occur you need to play a game at a higher return. That is, you will have a higher frequency of winning hands than a random distribution. How do you make that happen? Why will machines decide to provide you with better hands than someone else? Do you even understand the concept of a random distribution?
BTW, this discussion can only go one way. Eventually Alan will claim the machines are not really random since that is the only possible situation where his strategy works. What is required are programmed hot and cold cycles. You then milk the hot cycles and quickly quit during a cold cycle. Of course, there is no need to go home at all. All you would need to do is move to a different machine.
Unless. of course, it is not the machines that have the hot/cold cycles, but the person themselves. LOL.
I realize what the problem is now, and why the "math guys" object so vehemently to the idea of being able to walk away with a profit, and why they maintain you must quit permanently to be able to quit when ahead. For example, this statement from our friend redietz:
So I think we need a different phrase here to explain the strategy of cashing out profits. Let me put it a different way and see if you "math guys" will agree with this statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Even if you don't quit permanently, you can have a profit each time you play OR you can have a profit in enough sessions to offset the times you play when you lose.
Can you accept that statement? Because really that is what we are talking about. We are talking about money management and based on our experience (and I am sure Arc and redietz have also experienced this) we know that there are many times when we play that we have a profit and had we cashed out at that particular point we could have built up a bankroll of profits. What makes it possible, of course, is luck. The same luck that makes people who play positive expectation machines also win.
So... Arc and redietz and Dan Druff and anyone who wants to comment, can you accept this:
Even if you don't quit permanently, you can have a profit each time you play OR you can have a profit in enough sessions to offset the times you play when you lose.
Of course it all comes down to luck and to money management. It comes down to knowing when to "hit and run."Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
When I did my overnighter in Vegas I chose to leave when I had combined profits from VP and craps of about $4500. I could have chosen to stay and kept playing and might have lost it all. Yes, I might have won more but why risk it is what I figured. And John sitting next to me at the VP machine (who by the way is a math guy -- and he will tell you) urged me to take the profits and run. I raised my stop loss after hitting the quad aces and got up from the machine.
That was simply a combination of luck and money management: I got lucky with quad aces and my money management said take the money and leave. And that was the same thing I did two weeks earlier when I was at Caesars for a weekend, but that time my profit was only about $1200.
Now Arc asks if I believe the machines are random:
Arc, of course I believe the machines are random. And because they are random you will have winners. And you have to know that wins are random events and you have to know that they will not continue -- so you cash out when those random wins come. That's what money management is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Alan, that is fine but over time that will not make you a winner. Over time random means a specific distribution of hands. That distribution on negative games results in a net loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Sorry. You are convinced that playing a negative expectation game means you cannot have a profit. You can have a profit even on negative expectation games and you can have more profitable sessions than losing sessions, and you can have fewer profitable sessions but with profits that will surpass the losses on the losing sessions. It all comes down to luck and money management.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Because a game has a negative expectation does not mean you cannot walk away with a profit. And you can do it multiple times if you manage your money wisely.
It also doesn't mean you will walk away with a profit nor that the times you do will lead to more profits than the times you end up with losses. Yes, anyone can get lucky and it has NOTHING to do with when you cash out unless you never play again. There is no difference, none, zero, nada, zippo, zilch between playing another hand today and coming back another day to play it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I notice you didn't respond to the hot/cold cycles thought. What you are saying is you will play machines that are hot more often than you play them when they are cold. I suspect you don't want to admit this because you realize that puts you into the same silly group as Singer. Part of you realizes your claims are silly.
I think our positions are well stated. At least mine is.
But a different question Arc: do you believe a positive pay table guarantees you will win?
You guys seem to have ignored my post. I'll ask again, Alan. If everyone played as you suggest, what effect would that have on the machines? On the casinos? On the people playing?
And arci has answered the question above a half dozen times in clear and careful language. Of course it doesn't guarantee you'll win, because "guarantee" suggests 100%. But if you play enough hands on a positive expectation machine, the "working man's" definition of "guarantee" would come into play. You'd have a 99.99% chance of winning. That's good enough for most people native to this reality. Now the flip side, the question of "Does playing a negative machine guarantee you'll lose?" No, it doesn't. But if your chances of losing are also 99.99%, most people would say it's not a good idea to proceed as if you think you'll win. All the stop losses and win goals in the world don't affect the probability of winning or losing given a certain number of hands played.
Regarding your question: does everyone get lucky? I went about 180,000 hands without a royal in one year. But this year I've had eight royals. The flip side is managing and controlling your losses. I have no idea what would happen if everyone got lucky or if everyone controlled their losses.
Of course a positive game doesn't mean you'll win and playing a negative game doesn't mean you'll lose.
You kill me Red. Too funny!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I missed the original post by redietz who was quoted as saying:
"That's right. Alan has the ability, by stopping his play at various points, to outperform probability. He's blessed by God. And Rob, your will allows you to outperform what the math predicts -- over and over again. You are also blessed by God."
Unfortunately you also confused the math with money management. We aren't dismissing math or the probability over the long term. We are managing our money/play more wisely by limiting losses and cashing out winners. Don't you get it yet? Obviously, you don't because you say it outperforms probability and such.
No. If we kept playing the probability would catch up with us. But we don't keep playing when we hit winners.
As I said before: if I walk up to a 7/5 Bonus machine and hit two pair on the first play and cash out I have a return of 200%. Do you call that outperforming probability or do you call that money management? I call it money management.
You guys are too wrapped up in applying everything to your math probabilities. Open up your mind and consider a different way to look at casino gambling. I know you can do it if you try.
And where is that original quote???
"Money management" is not a special tool, a magic wand, a yellow brick road (pick one) that allows one to fix, make disappear, or travel safely around probability. Where did anyone ever get that idea?
I mean, think about what you're saying. You have a strategy, called "money management," that you are claiming somehow neutralizes or circumvents probability. Your strategy varies from day to day, from session to session, from situation to situation, yet somehow you have discovered a fluid, changing way to prevent negative return machines from gobbling your money.
I find it really, really hard to buy into the idea that anyone truly believes this. If you do, just say so clearly and distinctly. "I have discovered a strategy that circumvents probability. It's called money management."
Redietz after reading what you wrote above all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.
This money management is not a strategy. It is not any kind of new math or any way to challenge any probabilities.
I give up trying to explain it. All I am doing, I guess, is taking profits when they come and avoid losses. If you don't like it, tough noogies.
I give up trying to explain it. All I am doing, I guess, is taking profits when they come and avoid losses. If you don't like it, tough noogies.
Now that is funny! Tough noogies? Plain and simply put if you have a sizable profit why not keep it? In the long run you will lose whatever amount you have won. You cannot sustain the bank roll by playing against a machine. Whatever strategies you make up..........the machine always wins unless you hit and run with a profit margin. Winners walk away and losers continue to play. I believe this applies to the game of video poker and I feel the same about the game of craps. Good luck to all of you people who have created nothing more than a problem of thought. Why tax your brains? I'm with Alan. "After all.....money won is better than money earned."
I like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quad AAAA's
Of course, what is very frustrating is that the math guys can't guarantee a profit playing a positive expectation game, so how could they possibly criticize anyone using a win goal, or stop loss way of playing? It makes no sense. If they could guarantee a profit by playing a positive pay table -- with all of their "probabilities talk" -- then I could understand their criticism of walking away "prematurely." As Arc says -- when you walk away with a small profit you might have missed walking away with a bigger profit. But you can't guarantee a bigger profit, can you? You can't guarantee any profit -- and isn't that the truth?
As I've said many times (in one way or another) you can't take math theory, probabilities, or a positive pay table to the bank or use it to pay for your groceries, rent, car payment, etc.
"As I've said many times (in one way or another) you can't take math theory, probabilities, or a positive pay table to the bank or use it to pay for your groceries, rent, car payment, etc." If you think this way then why do you play any strategy at all? Why don't you just discard any non winning dealt hand and leave it up to the rng?
Quahaug I don't follow. Would you mind explaining?
Not really as you avoid answering inconvenient questions. You are just like the "Dumb and Dumber" character,Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
You equate any chance, no matter how slim, as being equal to high probability situations. That is clearly a fantasy delusion.
As I've told you many times there are no "guarantees". But that doesn't mean there aren't high probabilities. You want to equate a one in a million shot with a 999,999 in a million probability. That is delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan continues to duck the tough questions.
How is playing your next hand today different than playing it tomorrow or next week?
How did the probability of hitting winning hands change? (which would be required to continually be able to walk home a winner)
You aren't following this advice "Winners walk away and losers continue to play." if you play again, so how does that even factor into the discussion?
Now, watch Alan refuse to really address these questions.
BTW, QuadAAAA said ... "In the long run you will lose whatever amount you have won. You cannot sustain the bank roll by playing against a machine. Whatever strategies you make up..........the machine always wins unless you hit and run with a profit margin. Winners walk away and losers continue to play. I believe this applies to the game of video poker and I feel the same about the game of craps. "
He's actually disagreeing with Alan.
OK, so let's make arci look more foolish--which is a whole lotta fun! Thinking of him sitting there trying to cope by creating false arguments based on wishful thinking is very precious indeed :)
I suppose I hit this royal Thursday for the benefit of Dan most of all, so he can see that because they actually do appear every now & then, it has to be that he might not really know what cards to hold in vp. Oh BTW Spock, that little black spot on the right side of the pay table is my slot card, and is almost exactly where the slot attendant laid it. I thought the flash would come on but the screen must have been too light. Let's hear your conspiracy theory on this one.
Two days ago I chose to do a farewell-to-Reno RTT (Romp Thru Town on BP only, for those of you who never had the opportunity to read my GT articles over the years). This strategy increases the # of credits in addition to denomination. I went to 9 casinos, and I chose not to play any higher than the $2 machines. My win goals varied--in some cases where they had 25c thru $2 machines my win goal was $50 for each casino. When there were only 3 level machines at 25c/50c/$1, I set a $10 win goal. Pretty simple, non-greedy, and straightforward. And lots of fun.
Like I said, $2 was my highest limit machine. But before I went in to Tamarack Junction on S. Virginia St., I had no idea the machines at the bar all took up to 10 credits. So I re-set my win limit to $100 here since I told myself this was STILL a $2 machine--5 OR 10 credits. It's a bit loose of an interpretation for sure, but this was my last day of play until next May so it really didn't matter.
Tamarack J was my final stop. I played at Eldorado, Harrahs, Silver Legacy, Siena, Atlantis, Peppermill, Grand Sierra, The Nugget, and finished up at TJ. Before this beauty I had won my goal at all 8 prior, and was ahead $570 overall. It took just 8 hands on the $2/10-credit limit to hit this. I left TJ up just under $15,900.
Nine for nine on ALL -EV machines. More profiting on those nasty, impossible to win on awful machines that no one can consistently do this on. And the strategy of walking with at least a minimum pre-set profit? Gee, I guess "over time" I'll be expected to give all this and more back also :)
Hilarious ... I don't remember exactly who made the connection but almost invariably when reality is making Singer look like an idiot he magically has a picture of some big winning hand. Sure enough, as it becomes obvious that no betting strategy can create winners out of thin air, here comes bozo the clown doing exactly what he has always done. LOL.
arci....is everything all right at home??
Another Singer tactic is to try and claim other people are having problems. Right on cue, Singer is caught yet again. LOL. It might have been CDDenver that caught on to all of Singer's habits. That is why Singer hated him so much and celebrated his death. Of course, all that proved was CDDenver had been right all along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
If I may make a comment. Where is all of this anger coming from. Gee wiz..... If you're on your best behavior in public. What is the personal life like? My goodness. And so much disrespect and name calling. Alan, I total respect you and love the advice and encouragement on this forum from MOST. Why do you let people disrespect you so? I'm sure a lot of people are wondering.
Aren't most people on here to uplift and encourage one another? Everyone's point is vividly clear. We get it.
Have a drink, take your medication. Get some happy pills for heaven sake!!!!
Whenever Singer participates on a forum you will have problems. That's why he has been banned from many forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
I wasn't referring to Rob. :)
I know it doesn't take a lot to spot an arci anger streak when he makes it so obvious coming on in spurts to argue with Alan and show his envy every time I get a big winner that he never has. But we all take it with a grain of salt along with a smidgen of pity, since he has caused himself quite the problem at home with his vp addiction. And oh--you know that picture of my very happy & healthy wife at Yosemite a few weeks ago? Ask him to explain about his. It gets him every time :)
Unfortunately even Arc seems to have lost his ability to have calm, rational, and intelligent discussion and now has resorted to name calling -- against me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
I have been very tolerant of personal attacks. Rob also had his period of personal attacks against me. But I can take it. Ya know... sticks and stones...
I've been shot at, held at knife point, beat up, faced death... what's a few insults over video poker and talking about when to cash out and take the money home?
It's all arci has Alan, so it's really a Sister Theresa-type of an act of mercy.
Which ex beat you up?:)
Financially... all three exes beat me up. But that's not what I was talking about. :D
See now that kind of insulting is fun and lighthearted. And entertaining I might add. :)
Yeah... but it's true.
Alan, your demeanor is admirable. Kudos.
It's only name calling if it isn't accurate. Every thing I have said is 100% accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Whimper whimper whimper.....
I told you this tortured guy was fun!
More obvious projection of your pain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Now THERE'S the arci of days past. Stuck on how to reply, so say anything even if it makes no sense :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
So.....how's everything at home??? You know why I'm asking (wink wink). C'mon, you can say it!
This part's really funny. Medication......pills? Them's fightin' words to arci. The only thing worse is mentioning KFC for Thanksgiving!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
The real narcissism comes out when Singer gets frustrated. LOL.
This place is getting worse than a daycare room overrun with snot nosed preschoolers fighting over their toys.
Amen. They just can't let it go can they???? I guess they're trying to figure out who has the biggest penis. :)
That would be meQuote:
Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
Could you just imagine it being a nerd who 's best memories of high school were the times when the cool guys pulled his pants down and threw him into*the girl's gym!? :)
Rob's schlong is never wrong.
One of the problems here is that something called "money management" is brought into play as a magic wand to circumvent probabilities. The problem is that "money management" is also part of "the math." There is no way to extract money management from mathematical formulas and have it stand alone as a strategy. It can always be inserted via simulations into every possible situation. When this is done, it does not affect the probabilities or the returns. We have a semantic issue here of attempting to call something that is -- at its core and in its entirety -- subsumed by "the math," and present it as somehow outside of "the math."
Hey lets get a VPSO going on. Kind of like a chili cook off! Lets see the likes of all these guys and their strategies in action. Hey I'm down! I might even bring the chili! Photographs are allowed so bring your camera as well. All we need now is a time and place. Wow this is like the who's who of Video Poker. I'm thinking a reality TV program might be a possibility. Who' down? Lets do this! Choose a casino in Vegas or California. Maybe a CET property because all you players probably sport a 7 Stars card and well, the rooms are free! VPSO = Video Poker Stand Off.
Singer will hit quad A's with a kicker and be gone in an hour. The rest have to play to infinity. I'll Tivo it and fast forward if I happen to still be here at infinity.
Make it a slightly positive game so that after 100 years or so they can catch Singer and prove he should have kept playing.
I just don't understand-- how does money management circumvent probablilities? When I have a profit of 100 credits showing what is so wrong about hitting the cash out button? All I am saying is "I am happy with this profit -- I don't want to risk losing it -- I am going home." How the heck does that circumvent probabilities?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Let me ask the question a different way: What the fuck are you talking about?
I believe the argument has gotten down to: "well I can't convince these guys that cashing out with profits will never equate to making money over time, so I'll just muddle it up with money management having something to do with the probabilities and/or the math"...or whatever that was. One glaring problem: Red and all the others who claim that when they play apvp, the only quit when the sandman taps them on the shoulder--none of these guys have ever tried or experienced anything other than sitting for hours like foolish zombies who play right thru winners and jackpots. That's why taking profits escapes them, and why they believe if you have a big winner like my $16k and even larger profit a few days ago, all it means is the math MUST return to snatch it all back from me. It's as dumb an argument as there ever was, they know it, but it's all they have.
Regnis, that was a great post.
Hey Rob was just wondering your strategy used for this. Was it 100-200-300-400 credits at each denomination on BP or did you use something else? And if you used it for a 3 level 25c to 1.00 what credits did you use there? Just found it interesting and may be something I may want to try. Oh and Congrats on your nice hit.
I too would be interested in Rob's approach.
I understand the more you play the more the game should align with the EV, so for someone like myself who only goes to Vegas maybe once a year if that, would be interested if I should adjust my play to go for big wins rather than the smaller ones.
What I'm talking about is that one can insert any money management rules one likes into playing strategy simulations and they do not affect the returns. Money management is math. It's not something outside of math. It's not an alien kind of math. It can be plugged into any situation and analyzed.
Rob, do the readers a favor and leave me out of your psycho-analysis of vp players. I hate to call you a liar in public, but none of the attributions you assign to vp players in the above paragraph apply to me, so I guess (since I'm an "AP") I have no choice but to baldly call you a liar. I don't think I ever played video poker for more than six hours in a stretch in my life.
I guess I need to state this clearly, then: Rob Argentino lied in the above post. I guess that makes him a liar. Rob has a nasty habit of assuming he knows more than he does about people and then lying to an audience about those people. It's irresponsible, and it makes the forum irresponsible.
Redietz you must differentiate between expected return and actual return. The expected return is never impacted by money management. The actual return is.
Do you agree and if not what is wrong with you? LOL
I'm not sure what you mean here, other than possibly you feel that quitting while ahead DURING A SESSION has somehow affected your return. That's speculative regarding the session in question because, as arci has explained on numerous occasions, you don't know what would have happened next. Since you are playing a negative game, however, the quitting while ahead -- provided it reduces your number of hands -- is a good thing. That's pretty clear-cut. Anything that reduces your number of hands played in a negative game is a good thing.
But, in the grand scheme of things, if quitting while ahead during a session just leads to more sessions and an equal or greater number of hands overall, no, the "money management," -- which is largely an illusion of control -- does not aid your return. That is pretty clear cut, also.
Allow me to state it simply:
When playing 8/5 Bonus no matter what you do the "expected return" will always be 99.2%.
If you sit down at an 8/5 Bonus machine and on the first play you hit two pair and cash out immediately your actual return on your 5 coin bet was 200%.
No one ever disputed the expected return. Your actual return will vary with how you play and luck and when you decide to cash out.
Again you say money management does not aid your return. You have to differentiate between expected or actual. Money management ALWAYS can aid your actual return.
Nonsense. You cannot know what your actual return would have been when you quit. Hence, there is no way that cashing out can "aid" your actual return. It might have reduced your actual return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Once again, your statements are in direct contradiction to known mathematics. Every single PhD mathematician in the world will back this up. You've been presented with these facts over and over again and yet continue to spew this utter garbage. There is a word for people who deny known facts in order to maintain a specific belief system ... delusional.
Let me clue you in to reality:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If I insert a $100 bill into an 8/5 Bonus Game my expected return is approximately 99.2% for each and every time I push the button for a play.
But if after five plays I cash out $125 I will have an actual return of 125%.
I can't predict what my actual return will be before I start to play -- and that is true. But when I hit the cash out button I decide what my actual return is.
In this example, the actual return is 125%. I could also hit the cash out button when the credit meter reads $90 in which case the actual return was 90% which was less than the expected return.
Now -- where is my mathematics wrong?
The problem is you will twist and turn everything I say -- and everything Rob Singer says -- to try to discredit a very simple and smart way to play which is simply to quit when you're ahead. Yet, you yourself say there is nothing wrong with quitting when you are ahead. So what's your problem making a big fucking deal over such a simple plan when playing?
You amaze me.