Video Poker Trucks Run Over Everybody

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Let's not get into a pissing match over the use of the word "theory." We are not discussing math as a theory, Arc. What Rob refers to is the theoretical belief that a player will have the return as stated in the paytable for a game.

Rob's position is that since no player is at the game for the long term that their own individual return will differ.

---

Alan, that is what the math tells you. It has nothing to do with Singer. What Singer tries to push is that everyone will lose who follows the math. As I've explained over and over again, and as Frank stated many times, results form a bell curve. While some people may do worse than their expectation, other will do much better.

In addition, this math applies no matter what strategy one uses. If 100 people use Singer's approach, guess what, their results will also form a bell curve around their expectation. This is what the math promises. The difference with Singer is he tells people playing games with poor returns is just fine. Hence, the expectation of those players will be worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Actually, Arc, you don't disagree with that idea either -- and no one does.

So, this is just another war of words over words that we've all heard before.

This is getting boring....

---

I agree. And yet, after being told the facts numerous times Singer continues to spout this nonsense. It is this kind of dishonesty that needs to be illustrated. I assume you have new people joining this forum regularly. They also need to understand the facts.

Well, Arc, since most video poker games have negative pay tables, you are destined to lose when you follow conventional strategy, aren't you? That Singerism is hard to disagree with. So when it comes to playing those negative pay tables, perhaps the way to be at the profitable end of the bell curve is to do something different... or just get lucky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well, Arc, since most video poker games have negative pay tables, you are destined to lose when you follow conventional strategy, aren't you? That Singerism is hard to disagree with.

---

If you choose to play those games then you can expect to lose. I've never done that, so, sorry, I can't relate to people saying they are "destined to lose". But, you still ignore the fact that Singer claims people can win playing those "negative pay tables". That is the lie that needs to be highlighted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

So when it comes to playing those negative pay tables, perhaps the way to be at the profitable end of the bell curve is to do something different... or just get lucky?

---

When the claim is made that you can be profitable by lowering your expectation then one can only laugh. Only fools fall for that kind of nonsense.

First, let's dispense with the pretty words. Let's stop using the phrase "recreational player" and call it what it is -- "loser." You are allowed to be comfortable with losing because you are a recreational player.

Yes, beating casinos is a heavy burden. I'd rather the "heavy burden" than the "charitable contribution" of the "recreational player." I mean, really, calling casino gambling "entertainment" is something Steve Wynn popularized a loooooong time ago. It was a slick use of language, and he's to be commended for helping people define donations to large corporations as entertainment.

I used to have a key question I'd ask people who wanted to be clients, "How do you feel about losing 10 sports bets in a row?" Since I'm supposed to be a self-promoting tout, the question usually left people dumbfounded. If they gagged, or stuttered, I didn't take them on as clients. The proper response is, "Fine."

The whole criticism of Rob's bankroll smashing may or may not be valid. Did any of you take a beating with the value of your house? If so, you were as irresponsible and foolish as anything Rob did. And, as you suggest, you therefore "have a problem." The problem is in your ability to handle your living bankroll, so to speak. Investing in real estate -- a heavy burden.

I'm just pointing these things out, because conveniently categorizing gambling into "recreational" and "professional" is self-serving. Similarly, categorizing real estate investing and video poker investing as completely different is also self-serving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

But, you still ignore the fact that Singer claims people can win playing those "negative pay tables". That is the lie that needs to be highlighted.

---

Arc, you still can't come to grips with the fact that people can win playing negative expectation games? It happens every day. And you continue to deny that people can lose playing positive expectation games. This amazes me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

First, let's dispense with the pretty words. Let's stop using the phrase "recreational player" and call it what it is -- "loser." You are allowed to be comfortable with losing because you are a recreational player.

---

I would like to see a survey of "recreational players" with this question: did you expect to win coming to Las Vegas? I think that would end a lot of the debate between you expert players and the rest of the world. Would it really rip your insides out if someone said they didn't expect to win?

S ee how much fun it is watching arci scramble around in circles trying to "set the record straight"! He uses everything in his declining years arsenal....lies, a night of tossing and turning while worrying about what expose'I'll be writing about him and her while he gets all that "sleep", line-item-vetoeing of everything in a post that bothers him...how can one NOT enjoy watching the show of P-A-I-N the poor guy puts on?!

Alan, you're a study in disbelief as well as pathological gambling. I am not a pro any longer and you know it. However, I still follow thru on doing what I say I'm going to do when I play, even if it's just sitting at a machine for 30-45 minutes every two weeks or so (which I almost always do that way) and see what happens.

Your saying you have no gambling bankroll along with your helter-skelter style of play can only mean one of two things: you have too much money and you don't know what to do with it, or you are on a one-way path to destruction and relish the challenges losing presents you with as you try to hold things together. I really wasn't aware that you find it entertaining to lose money at the vp machines. I thought you took it more seriously than that. But when I saw how confusingly giddy you were about coming home with $2000 instead of ten grand like you SAID you were going to do by quitting after once thru with the freeplay, that could only be because of one of the two possibilities I mentioned above.

And you're still fascinated with my $35000 loss. Maybe you missed this part of what I told you also, but my "money management" policy said I could lose up to $57200 in a session. That would have left me with a mere $114500 in bankroll, because wins were not added to it ever. But you'll never see beyond the $35k, because you can't fathom how someone can just stop playing in a losing situation without either reaching back into his wallet--or in your case, running to the cashier with sweaty palms anticipating the ability to cash a big check, dig into your marker line of credit, or hitting up the ATM cash advance machine for as much as you can get your hands on.

That's why we're different animals in this game: I do what I say I am going to do at all times, win or lose, and the money is nothing more than units of play for me because I'm not compromising my family expense money in a casino. You have no plan (even when you say you do in writing) and the needed action is rationalized as entertainment so you can justify all that losing. My opinion is that you have too much money and no way to spend it, which makes you a danger on a gambling forum. I still wonder why you made such a big deal over the need to incorporate more discipline into your play, and then had no problem whatsoever chirping about how you "changed your mind" and successfully came home with a whole $2000. Only a rich man or a man with a problem would do that.

I keep missing this. How many sessions did it take me to recover the $35k? I'm not sure because I was ahead at the time and the loss was just another session. But the proper answer may be 6-8. I know I had a $10 royal earlier that year and several more at $2 or $5 afterwards. But if you understood the strategy as well as the extreme significance of having a gambling-only bankroll when playing at such high stakes (and I consider $5 games to be included in that) then you would not be so fixated on a single big loss. As I've said before, where's the fixation on the $25 &$10 royals, or on any of the over $30k hits I had? Any money management criticisms on those?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

How many sessions did it take me to recover the $35k? I'm not sure because I was ahead at the time and the loss was just another session. But the proper answer may be 6-8. I know I had a $10 royal earlier that year and several more at $2 or $5 afterwards. But if you understood the strategy as well as the extreme significance of having a gambling-only bankroll when playing at such high stakes (and I consider $5 games to be included in that) then you would not be so fixated on a single big loss. As I've said before, where's the fixation on the $25 &$10 royals, or on any of the over $30k hits I had? Any money management criticisms on those?

---

Rob, I'm not in your class of gambler. I don't have a $117-thousand dollar "bankroll" set aside for gambling. (Or is it $153,000 ??) Gee, all I did was go to a casino with $2500 of free play and I started hitting winners, so I kept on playing and still came back with a profit.

Other times I've gone to a casino with a budget of $2500 and played and had a good time. You seem to think that people who decide to have a good time must have a gambling problem? I think someone who sets aside $153,000 only for gambling and thinks that losing $35,000 as "just another session" has a problem.

You are very fortunate, you know, because you can sit there now and say that even after you lost your $35k in one trip that you were able to come back and win again. That sounds a lot like the APs you are so critical of. They also say they come back from their losses and win. The APs also report on their multiple royals -- and so do you. So Rob, what makes you different from the APs you so disdain?

Why are you so critical of others? And why are you so judgmental? I don't really think the rest of the world cares that you won money playing video poker. I know people who lose in a weekend the money that you won in the course of a year -- and they are far better off than you are in your dream RV.

After the Detroit Tiger game last Friday night (another Justin Verlander gem, thank you), I spent some time @ Greektown Casino and with all due deliberation, applied all the "special play thinking" I recalled from Rob's YouTube tutorials with Alan. Not surprisingly, I struggled to force myself into making the moves he so espouses, but I digress. I must report that I lost my a$$ more quickly and more painfully than I do when playing my usual way. Actually, it was a blessing because now that I no longer have my a$$, I haven't anywhere to pull those special plays from now. I can go back to playing the way Mr. Dancer and his software taught me.

It doesn't rip my insides out if someone says they aren't out to win or trying to win. They (and you) are, after all, subsidizing me. I just think it's funny when I point out ways to not subsidize me, and people prefer to keep doing so.

Redietz I play using the best strategy -- the same strategy taught by Dancer and Grochowski. So I don't understand how you say I am subsidizing your play? I thought I was being criticized by Rob for not quitting when ahead?

Alan, I don't think you'd have had a problem if he was playing aart at 25-50-$1-$2 and lost an $800 session. It's part of the strategy. And he would've QUIT in your case with HIS strategy. As a problem gambler myself, I can only see him trying to help. In any case, I've enjoyed this as it helped me see the steps I need to take. Peace, brethren.

If you're playing negative games, you are trying to lose. I don't know how else to put it. Either you have some delusional belief that you're blessed by God and laws of probability are for other folks, or you are trying to lose. If Dancer is teaching you how to play a negative expectation game, then he is training you to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If you're playing negative games, you are trying to lose. I don't know how else to put it. Either you have some delusional belief that you're blessed by God and laws of probability are for other folks, or you are trying to lose. If Dancer is teaching you how to play a negative expectation game, then he is training you to lose.

---

Oh, I get it now. You're saying that anyone who plays a negative expectation game is destined to lose and has no chance to win and is wasting their money. OK. That's a fair enough assessment coming from you.

It's a choice each of us must make.

Alan, I appreciate your patience and evenhandedness with each of us on these forums, all of whom get shrill on occasion. But please don't put words in my mouth. I meant exactly what I said. Your paraphrasing was quite inaccurate. I said nothing about "destined." Bell curves preclude use of the word "destined." Some people playing negative expectation games will win. That's a fact. That fact is not in contradiction to the statement that people who know they are playing negative expectaion games are trying to lose, and people who train them to play those games are training them to lose.

Well, now I am confused again. You said I'm putting words in your mouth:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Alan, I appreciate your patience and evenhandedness with each of us on these forums, all of whom get shrill on occasion. But please don't put words in my mouth. I meant exactly what I said. Your paraphrasing was quite inaccurate. I said nothing about "destined." Bell curves preclude use of the word "destined." Some people playing negative expectation games will win. That's a fact. That fact is not in contradiction to the statement that people who know they are playing negative expectaion games are trying to lose, and people who train them to play those games are training them to lose.

---

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth redietz. This is the post I responded too. If this doesn't mean you are destined to lose, then what does it mean? Kindly explain how I should interpret and apply this phrase of yours:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If you're playing negative games, you are trying to lose. I don't know how else to put it. Either you have some delusional belief that you're blessed by God and laws of probability are for other folks, or you are trying to lose. If Dancer is teaching you how to play a negative expectation game, then he is training you to lose.

---

"Destined" means "Bound for a particular destination. Foreordained. Predetermined." Unless you're playing millions of hands, probability says it's unlikely that you have absolutely no possibility of winning. You have a chance, at least until you get into the millions of hands. But playing a game you know is odds-against, without a gun to your head, is trying to lose. Training someone to play a game that is odds-against is training them to lose. Just because one has a chance to win, however small, doesn't mean that one is trying to win.

If there's a minefield, and 1 in 100 people make it across without being blown to bits, then if person #101 decides to try to traverse the minefield, is he really trying to live?

I mean, what other way of looking at this is there? If Dancer is training people to play games that are negative expectation, then he's not doing them any fiscal favors. "Entertainment" favors, maybe, but not fiscal ones.

I attended Bob Dancer's seminars, used the training software; I review Grochowski's book religiously before each casino visit.. and no where do I see a warning to NOT play 8/5 bonus. In fact, there are strategies for playing 8/5 bonus and even 7/5 bonus. What's going on here, redietz??

And one more time, would you mind restating the original comment so I have a better understanding of your position? I admit that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to understanding certain concepts or even some complex sentences. Keep it simple for me. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, you still can't come to grips with the fact that people can win playing negative expectation games? It happens every day. And you continue to deny that people can lose playing positive expectation games. This amazes me.

---

Strange, I've stated many times exactly those two claims so I'm not sure what amazes you. What part of a bell curve don't you understand? Obviously I was referring to winning over time as I have also stated many times.

Why do you make such ridiculous comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I attended Bob Dancer's seminars, used the training software; I review Grochowski's book religiously before each casino visit.. and no where do I see a warning to NOT play 8/5 bonus. In fact, there are strategies for playing 8/5 bonus and even 7/5 bonus. What's going on here, redietz??

And one more time, would you mind restating the original comment so I have a better understanding of your position? I admit that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to understanding certain concepts or even some complex sentences. Keep it simple for me. Thanks.

---

Just because a strategy is available does not mean the game itself is a good play. You have to think about progressives and slot club benefits that could make a game like 8/5 playable. However, without these items the game is obviously a negative play. This is one of the skills it takes to play VP that Alan doesn't appear to understand.