Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

I would have no problem laying someone 100 to 1 that they won't be ahead on a 98% game after 1 million hands.

---

There is absolutely nothing in this statement that says I would be willing to travel to New Jersey or Nevada or anywhere else to make such a bet. It would make absolutely stupid economic sense for me to shell out for travel, meals and lodging to win $100.

But I will tell you what is really stupid, a guy trying to get 100 to 1 on a bet he doesn't even have a thousand in one chance of winning. The expected loss on 400,000 hands is $10,000. The expected loss on a million hands is $25,000. And here Belly thinks he has a some kind of chance to make the $10,000 last for one million hands. This is so incredibly stupid that it's actually stoooooooooopid. Take stupid, multiply it by 129, and you get stooooooooooopid. Inspector Cluseau, er, Belly has absolutely no clue of the compound effects of negative expectation gambling.

Belly, you are the one pushing the bet. So if you really want to be that stooooooooopid then get your ass on up here and we will go through with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

There is absolutely nothing in this statement that says I would be willing to travel to New Jersey or Nevada or anywhere else to make such a bet.

---

This was addressed earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

It seems to me that the Montana stipulation was an add-on. Frankly Coach could play one million hands with a witness anywhere to complete the original bet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

The expected loss on 400,000 hands is $10,000. The expected loss on a million hands is $25,000.

---

Where in the original offer does it specify a bet denomination?

Singer is right...you are squirming like the earthworm that you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

For those of us deficient in math, what is Dancer's expected return on the million hand challenge? And what is the expected number of hands to be up or down $500,000. I assume the latter is astronomical.

---

I don't know how to do the math on Dancer losing $500,000 on the play. I just know it is somewhere between slim and none. $25 denom 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback is a 100.54% play. In a million hand challenge his expectation would be a $675,000 earn (1,000,000 X 125 X .54%). In the $500,000 challenge his expectation would be to play about 740,000 hands to get to a $500,000 win.

For years Singer has been saying that a player has zero chance of winning on plays like this. It would be nice if a casino exec would accept a challenge such as this, maybe for publicity reasons. Because it would absolutely prove Singer wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

This was addressed earlier. Where in the original offer does it specify a bet denomination?
Singer is right...you are squirming like the earthworm that you are.

---

Belly, if you are stooooooooooopid enough to want to play a higher denomination than quarters I'm all for it. Let's see if you can figure out why, dumass.

P.S. I see you still have your nose planted firmly in Singer's ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Belly, if you are stooooooooooopid enough to want to play a higher denomination than quarters I'm all for it.

---

Hey ickey wormm...who said anything about a higher denomination?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

I don't know how to do the math on Dancer losing $500,000 on the play. I just know it is somewhere between slim and none. $25 denom 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback is a 100.54% play. In a million hand challenge his expectation would be a $675,000 earn (1,000,000 X 125 X .54%). In the $500,000 challenge his expectation would be to play about 740,000 hands to get to a $500,000 win.For years Singer has been saying that a player has zero chance of winning on plays like this. It would be nice if a casino exec would accept a challenge such as this, maybe for publicity reasons. Because it would absolutely prove Singer wrong.

---

Why does a play like this work? 9/6 Jacks is a 99.54% game. The royal frequency with optimal strategy is 40,391.
The royal represents 1.99% of the payback (800/40,391).
99.54% minus 1.99% equals a loss rate between royals of 2.45%.
40,391 X 125 X 2.45% means the average cost to produce the royal is $123,697

But the royal only pays $100,000. So it's a losing play like this. But what if we are getting 1% cashback? Now the loss rate between royals is only 1.45%

40,391 X 125 X 1.45% means the average cost of producing the royal is just $74,209.

On a play like this if Dancer ran below expectation and only averaged a royal every 55,000 games he would break about even. That's what makes this play strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Hey ickey wormm...who said anything about a higher denomination?

---

You lose, yellow belly. Now get your nose back in Singer's butt.

It's obvious belly is just trolling.

If there's a penny VP machine available with a 98% return...

.05 X 1,000,000 = $50,000 coin in.
$50,000 X 98% = $49,000
Coach is risking $1,100 to win $10,000.

$100 is what he bets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

If there's a penny VP machine available with a 98% return...

.05 X 1,000,000 = $50,000 coin in.
$50,000 X 98% = $49,000
Coach is risking $1,100 to win $10,000.

$100 is what he bets.

---

If you remember, this whole thing started over dannyj playing a 94% single line five-coin quarter game. I was referring to a single line five-coin quarter game at 98% when I said I would have no problem laying 100 to 1 that a person would easily lose $10,000 trying to play 1 million hands. A penny game was never part of the equation. But leave it to the manipulators to try and say differrent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

A penny game was never part of the equation.

---

That's wormm-speak...this was the equation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

I would have no problem laying someone 100 to 1 that they won't be ahead on a 98% game after 1 million hands.

---

Spin us a yarn ickey wormm...that caterpillar living under your nose can provide the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quahaug

It's obvious belly is just trolling.

---

I'll be in LV soon enough...you want to cover the wormm's action?

It's rather obvious what Mickey was saying -- you are extremely unlikely to be ahead after 1M hands on a 98% return VP game.

Mickey didn't first explicitly write a single line game, nor a VP game, nor that it's a 98% return (you could say 98% advantage or a 198% return). Unless you're completely retarded, you'd know he meant a 98% return VP game and single line. What I think is both hilarious and a bit sad, is there are people who don't even gamble and/or know nothing about it, preaching the best way to play or how using win goals & stop losses would lead a player to winning. I don't take financial advice from my plumber and I don't take plumbing advice from my accountant.


Coach & co were never serious about this or anything else really. Coach just keeps asking questions without actually trying to have a serious discussion, trying to find a "gotcha" in all of this.

Yellow Belly was planning on making a dishonorable move. That's why he wanted my money deposited with someone else. Then he would create the argument that nothing was said about denomination. It was obvious that I was talking about a five-coin quarter game but Yellow Belly is an underhanded manipulator just like his boyfriend, Rob Singer.

That's a lesson for everyone. Don't ever deposit your bet money with these thieves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

If there's a penny VP machine available with a 98% return...

.05 X 1,000,000 = $50,000 coin in.
$50,000 X 98% = $49,000
Coach is risking $1,100 to win $10,000.

$100 is what he bets.

---

Only one problem with this analysis, Alan. He would have to ahead after one million hands to claim the $10,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

If you remember, this whole thing started over dannyj playing a 94% single line five-coin quarter game. I was referring to a single line five-coin quarter game at 98% when I said I would have no problem laying 100 to 1 that a person would easily lose $10,000 trying to play 1 million hands. A penny game was never part of the equation. But leave it to the manipulators to try and say differrent.

---

But Belly would not be ahead even if he played a penny game. He would have to be ahead after 1 million hands to claim the $10,000. But I'm going to hold him to the five-coin quarter single line game. I want to watch the dumass cry like a baby as his $10,000 disappears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Only one problem with this analysis, Alan. He would have to ahead after one million hands to claim the $10,000.

---

Yes, he would have to be ahead. But he has a pretty good risk/reward opportunity here. It's like betting on the hard-6 or hard-8 at craps.

In fact, a $1,000 bet on either the hard-6 or hard-8 would return $10,000.

With all of mickey's posturing trying to save face by adding and changing terms as soon as the bet starts to look real, I'll give him an easy way out.

I'll guarantee that I will be ahead after one million hands (or 100,000 if he really believes in his theory nonsense and/or can't wait to get back to the middle of nowhere) on 8/5 BP and 8/5 SDBP on a 4-level 25c thru $2 single play machine at Red Rock in Summerlin--a location a slug like mickey would probably feel VERY uncomfortable at. I will play only my ARTT strategy, it will be a straight-up $10,000 bet, and I will pay for the loser's airfare since he would never be able to purchase tickets with his food stamps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

It's rather obvious what Mickey was saying -- you are extremely unlikely to be ahead after 1M hands on a 98% return VP game.

Mickey didn't first explicitly write a single line game, nor a VP game, nor that it's a 98% return (you could say 98% advantage or a 198% return). Unless you're completely retarded, you'd know he meant a 98% return VP game and single line. What I think is both hilarious and a bit sad, is there are people who don't even gamble and/or know nothing about it, preaching the best way to play or how using win goals & stop losses would lead a player to winning. I don't take financial advice from my plumber and I don't take plumbing advice from my accountant.


Coach & co were never serious about this or anything else really. Coach just keeps asking questions without actually trying to have a serious discussion, trying to find a "gotcha" in all of this.

---

You're funny RS__. You neither have an accountant or a plumber, and if you ever have plumbing issues you call your apt. landlord.

Dumb & dumber. You & mickey. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Yes, he would have to be ahead. But he has a pretty good risk/reward opportunity here. It's like betting on the hard-6 or hard-8 at craps. In fact, a $1,000 bet on either the hard-6 or hard-8 would return $10,000.

---

No, he wouldn't have a strong bet. His chance of winning the bet looks about like this 0.000000001%. Give or take a couple of zeros. But for arguments sake let's give him a 1 in 1000 chance. He would be getting 100 to 1 on a 1 in 1000 chance. That's an expected return of 10%. He can get a 75% return in the keno lounge. If he were to actually go through with the bet it would go down as one of the most monumentally stupid bets of all time. You guys just don't understand the compound effects of negative expectation gambling.