Content Analysis of this Las Vegas Forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

That's not what I said. I'm basing this off of the person already playing the game properly. That should be a given.

---

Good. I am glad you wrote that. So we agree that playing a positive expectation game isn't enough to be a winner. You also need the proper knowledge. Do you also need variance to go your way also? Of course you do.

And now about this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Playing the proper strategy alone is not enough to make someone a winner at a -EV game.

---

You need the same variance to win at -EV games too, don't you?

That brings us full circle to my first point: you have to leave the game with a profit in order to be a winner. And that is a rule for both +EV and -EV games.

Frankly, that's the content that would really be meaningful on this site. A little more basic common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Good. I am glad you wrote that. So we agree that playing a positive expectation game isn't enough to be a winner. You also need the proper knowledge. Do you also need variance to go your way also? Of course you do.

---

You don't need variance to go your way. If your results are on par with your expected results -- no, you do not need "variance to go your way". I don't have the figures on me anymore, but in 2014, I did almost $1M coin in and my results were about 99.2% return, if I remember correctly. I played a variety of 9/6 JOB, 8/5 BP, and a few other games (9/5 JOB, 7/5 BP, etc.). That return is not including free-play, promotions, drawings, etc.

*I don't keep track of coin in and such any more. In 2014 I was on a BJ (and to a smaller extent, VP) team, where the manager kept all the records of coin in and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You need the same variance to win at -EV games too, don't you?

That brings us full circle to my first point: you have to leave the game with a profit in order to be a winner. And that is a rule for both +EV and -EV games.

Frankly, that's the content that would really be meaningful on this site.

---

You do need variance to win at -EV games, yes.

You do not need variance to win at +EV games.



I think you're confusing this "leave with a profit thing". If you're playing a +EV game, it isn't "try to leave with a profit" or "once you get a profit, then leave"...it's that you will be profiting...the only question is -- WHEN do you leave? Playing a -EV game, it's the other way around, you're trying to get a profit and trying to leave once you get a profit. In other words, you're essentially trying to hit a profit quickly so you leave (and play less) in a -EV game. While in a +EV game, you're trying to play as much as you can.


If "playing until you have a profit [then leaving]" was some way to beat VP or any game, well....I think we've gone over this subject many times -- why not just leave and come back 5 seconds later?

What I am talking about RS__ is variance going AGAINST you when you play your +EV games. Then what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What I am talking about RS__ is variance going AGAINST you when you play your +EV games. Then what?

---

Then it depends on how bad the variance is (or how bad it can be) compared to your advantage. If you're playing something with a 0.5%, then yes, you're going to have to hit a royal or else you're gonna lose. (Play enough hands, you'll hit a royal.) Or if you play something with a 5% advantage, you don't need to hit a royal to come out a winner. And with a 15% advantage, you don't have to hit a RF, SF, or any 4oaks to come out a winner.

PS: I rarely play games with a very small advantage (2% or lower). I rarely play full pay deuces or those multiplier days at Boyd/South Point/etc. that push a game from a small loser to a small winner.

This is where you should be leaving the math books at home RS__.

When someone wants to and is able to simply get up from a session and walk after attaining a win they're satisfied with, whether the game is theoretically 98% or 103% or anything in-between is completely irrelevant. And your statement that you don't need certain hands to win based on how high the % "edge" is shows me you're not a winning player because you approach the game exactly how the casinos want you to approach it.

The biggest mistake any player can make is by pretending any single session is a part of some bigger, more encompassing event. That only holds true for the casino--and the machine. All you're doing is entering into the machine's long term journey for a tiny amount of time. And you have no idea if that experience is to be during a phase of the machine's giving or its taking away from whomever plays it.

I think you guys tangle all this play up together in some mish-mash of an event for two reasons: first, convoluting it like that allows excuses for losing. (Ever hear a vp "AP" claim they "know" they'll win tomorrow after taking a big loss today? Think about how stupid that is....) Then, it gives the ap justification for the enormous amounts of time & play they put in--a sort of "justification" for their severe addiction to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

This is where you should be leaving the math books at home RS__.

When someone wants to and is able to simply get up from a session and walk after attaining a win they're satisfied with, whether the game is theoretically 98% or 103% or anything in-between is completely irrelevant. And your statement that you don't need certain hands to win based on how high the % "edge" is shows me you're not a winning player because you approach the game exactly how the casinos want you to approach it.

The biggest mistake any player can make is by pretending any single session is a part of some bigger, more encompassing event. That only holds true for the casino--and the machine. All you're doing is entering into the machine's long term journey for a tiny amount of time. And you have no idea if that experience is to be during a phase of the machine's giving or its taking away from whomever plays it.

I think you guys tangle all this play up together in some mish-mash of an event for two reasons: first, convoluting it like that allows excuses for losing. (Ever hear a vp "AP" claim they "know" they'll win tomorrow after taking a big loss today? Think about how stupid that is....) Then, it gives the ap justification for the enormous amounts of time & play they put in--a sort of "justification" for their severe addiction to the game.

---

I'm pretty sure the casino wants me to approach their games in a different way than how I am approaching them...lol

I think you're mixed up with what "long term" means. It's not some super-infinite number of hands. As far as I'm concerned, it's the number of hands you must play before you are X% chance to be at Y level (Y being breaking even or better....or +$1,000 or better....or +$10,000 or better...etc.). The more you play the more variance there is going to be, but the variance curve gets smaller (tends to flatten out over time) compared to EV. Once the negative side of variance (or -1 standard deviation) hits the $0 mark -- that is 1 long term. 2 long terms is where -2 standard deviations hits the $0 mark. But I'm sure you know all about this, being an ex-AP, right? :)

Never heard an AP claim they know they'll win tomorrow after taking a big loss today, no, I haven't. But, I'm confused -- These AP's who lose so much money to the casinos and putting in so many hours -- how on Earth are they able to afford such an evil addiction?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

...I'm confused -- These AP's who lose so much money to the casinos and putting in so many hours -- how on Earth are they able to afford such an evil addiction?!

---

They sell all of that stolen food from the buffets!! Didn't you know that?? :-)

They're able to afford it just like anyone who puts casino gambling before most other things in life. Some people would rather buy clothes every week or collect antiques whenever they have the money to. Others are deeply into electronics and stereos. Still others are obsessed with travel. It's not that they don't do anything else. It's that they could not live without putting a great majority of their money towards gambling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

They're able to afford it just like anyone who puts casino gambling before most other things in life. Some people would rather buy clothes every week or collect antiques whenever they have the money to. Others are deeply into electronics and stereos. Still others are obsessed with travel. It's not that they don't do anything else. It's that they could not live without putting a great majority of their money towards gambling.

---

I think RS_ is talking about the ones who have no other income EXCEPT for AP plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

I think RS_ is talking about the ones who have no other income EXCEPT for AP plays.

---

I've often wondered just how much these professional AP gamblers earn in a year? Just once I would like to see an unbiased report from some third-party on "gamblers' income" similar to what you might find for teacher salaries or veterinarians or auto workers or service workers in the restaurant business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What I am talking about RS__ is variance going AGAINST you when you play your +EV games. Then what?

---

Glad you're sticking with it, Alan. This a.m. I hit the Royal in diamonds. Thought it was just gonna be another scare w/4 to the Royal. And I'll be the first to admit, with $945 in my pocket, the thought was there- just go hit a small quad and get it an even $1,000. But I walked and my wife even asked if I ever went to play- I was only there 30 minutes or so. I'm hooked on leaving!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

This a.m. I hit the Royal in diamonds.

---

Congratulations and if you have a photo please post in our Big Casino Wins thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I've often wondered just how much these professional AP gamblers earn in a year? Just once I would like to see an unbiased report from some third-party on "gamblers' income" similar to what you might find for teacher salaries or veterinarians or auto workers or service workers in the restaurant business.

---

I don't get the question. People playing dollar video poker probably make about 20k a year. Somebody like Billy Walters probably makes 10 million a year. It's like asking about the income of "television professionals."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I don't get the question. People playing dollar video poker probably make about 20k a year. Somebody like Billy Walters probably makes 10 million a year. It's like asking about the income of "television professionals."

---

He said a report--not a guess.

Jesus, that was my point. There are no such "reports." There's no report out there on "television professionals" income because it's too broad a category. It covers completely different people doing completely different things.

The same with "AP" gambling. It's too broad a phrase, covering completely different people doing completely different things.

That was my (obvious) point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

It's like asking about the income of "television professionals."

---

There are published reports on salaries of TV reporters, news directors, anchors, etc. put out by the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and I am pretty sure the Bureau of Labor Statistics has it's reports. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the major universities such as Syracuse University and Northeastern which have big TV-Journalism-Media schools have their own studies.

Redietz you're a critic of how ESPN reports "winnings" of poker players. I would think you'd also like to see an independent study on what APs actually earn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Jesus, that was my point. There are no such "reports."

---

Edited to add: here's one report on TV salaries you might be interested in redietz. You see, there are such reports. http://www.rtdna.org/uploads/files/Salary_Survey_10.pdf

As you said, if you break down the general term "television personalities" into discreet categories, and a lot of them, then you can get a sense. If you were to break down "AP" gambling into discreet categories, and a lot of them, then maybe you'd also get a sense. But nobody is going to self-identify as an AP if it has a negative impact on income, which it does. It would be like narcs answering public surveys with their real names. Narcs aren't going to do that. Neither are CIA agents. Neither are APs.

Apparently, red graduated from the same "uh-oh....my FACTS and assertions just might make me look kind of foolish!" school as arci did.

Alan, there are 20 different categories listed in that report. That's my point. There are no reports for "television personalities" as a category. It's pointless to think of them as a single category. The same with AP's. It's equally foolish to think of APs or "gamblers" as a single category.

Alan used the phrase "gamblers' income." The word "gamblers" is way too broad, just as the phrase "television personalities" is too broad. There is no report for "television personalities" as a category. Alan's links demonstrate that. The report lists 20 different categories of jobs. If you just add up all of the data for all of those completely different jobs, it tells you nothing.

I think I was pretty clear. Rob is having reading comprehension issues.

Actually, a television personality would not be considered a news person, so you wouldn't find a salary for a television personality from the Radio-Television News Directors Association.

Television Personalities include talk show hosts, game show hosts, entertainment show hosts. And I think AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) would have those reports. In fact, I'm pretty sure SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actors Guild merged with AFTRA a year or so ago) would be able to issue such a report since the salaries are reported to the union. You wouldn't find any names attached, but like the report from the RTNDA you would see ranges based on market size.

When I was a news reporter/anchor my salary was reported to AFTRA, and now that I am an Infomercial host my income is reported to SAG-AFTRA as part of the Infomercial Production Contract. I have been an AFTRA member since 1972.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Glad you're sticking with it, Alan. This a.m. I hit the Royal in diamonds. Thought it was just gonna be another scare w/4 to the Royal. And I'll be the first to admit, with $945 in my pocket, the thought was there- just go hit a small quad and get it an even $1,000. But I walked and my wife even asked if I ever went to play- I was only there 30 minutes or so. I'm hooked on leaving!!

---

Nice hit!! But as said thousands of times, you'll be back trying to get that $55 and more. Makes absolutely ZERO difference whether to try now, next week or next decade.

Alan, ahem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Then it depends on how bad the variance is (or how bad it can be) compared to your advantage. If you're playing something with a 0.5%, then yes, you're going to have to hit a royal or else you're gonna lose. (Play enough hands, you'll hit a royal.) Or if you play something with a 5% advantage, you don't need to hit a royal to come out a winner. And with a 15% advantage, you don't have to hit a RF, SF, or any 4oaks to come out a winner.

PS: I rarely play games with a very small advantage (2% or lower). I rarely play full pay deuces or those multiplier days at Boyd/South Point/etc. that push a game from a small loser to a small winner.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Congratulations and if you have a photo please post in our Big Casino Wins thread.

---

Alan, I have a problem. I have a small tablet and I've tried to send some pics on smaller wins to go along with some of my posts. When I come to manage attachments, my files, which are under a GALLERY ap do not appear and I can't seem to get an acceptable URL #. Also, I never expected to hit a Royal, and left my tablet at home. But what am I doing wrong. I can send pics on yahoo, but not here, if that helps.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Alan, ahem.

---

Did you expect me to say something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Nice hit!! But as said thousands of times, you'll be back trying to get that $55 and more. Makes absolutely ZERO difference whether to try now, next week or next decade.

---

You got it EXACTLY right! I won't be expecting another Royal, hoping for quad 2's,3's or 4's for $100, but satisfied with a small quad for, well, $55!:cool: And if 4 A's w/without kicker comes along- even better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

You got it EXACTLY right! I won't be expecting another Royal, hoping for quad 2's,3's or 4's for $100, but satisfied with a small quad for, well, $55!:cool:

---

The point is, you guys seen to think trying next time is different from this time when it's a fact that it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

The point is, you guys seen to think trying next time is different from this time when it's a fact that it isn't.

---

What???? If I just get 4 J's on bp for say $40(w/free play included), or a straight flush (I've hit 3 the last month) for $70, etc. that IS different!! And if I lose my $100 (one session), I'm done!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Did you expect me to say something?

---

Yeah, I did. I thought we had a good dialogue(?) going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

What???? If I just get 4 J's on bp for say $40(w/free play included), or a straight flush (I've hit 3 the last month) for $70, etc. that IS different!! And if I lose my $100 (one session), I'm done!

---

4 J's on BP pay $30 (125 credits minutes the 5 credit bet) and a straight flush pays $61.50.

:mad:f

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

4 J's on BP pay $30 (125 credits minutes the 5 credit bet) and a straight flush pays $61.50.

---

Did you notice "with free play"? I play Rob's artt strategy at 5, 10, & 25c and many times I have extra credit buildups when I hit quads. I love this strategy and many times a $15 freeplay not only lasts for some time but also increases. I hit 4 4's two weeks ago on bp and the cashout was $85.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

Yeah, I did. I thought we had a good dialogue(?) going.

---

We had an excellent dialogue. You made your points and I made mine and never the twain shall meet. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

:mad:f
Did you notice "with free play"? I play Rob's artt strategy at 5, 10, & 25c and many times I have extra credit buildups when I hit quads. I love this strategy and many times a $15 freeplay not only lasts for some time but also increases. I hit 4 4's two weeks ago on bp and the cashout was $85.

---

That's fine. I run my fp through once, cash out, then leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

That's fine. I run my fp through once, cash out, then leave.

---

Nothing wrong with that except eventually the free play runs out. That's what I used to do at Pechanga.

There was a time when I played at Pechanga a lot -- and I was given a lot of free play. But after I switched to Rincon and just stopped at Pechanga only to run my free play through, I watched my Free Play weekly offers drop from $350 per week to $100 per week to $30 per week and then $5 a month which wasn't worth making the drive into the parking lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

The point is, you guys seen to think trying next time is different from this time when it's a fact that it isn't.

---

Here's what you're not seeing jbjb. When someone plays for a stop-win goal and makes it TODAY, then leaves, it's real profit. It can be spent for real products and services, and for most people who play as I taught them or anything similar to that, they have no need to and usually don't just add it to their gaming bankroll for their next casino visit.

Your point is likely that this $55 will probably be lost the next time or the time after that, probably because they're playing a 98% game instead of a 102% game? Which of course makes little sense, since that small % difference will have little overall effect when playing a short period of time, each time.

The short term/goal oriented player understands that there is no rule, written or otherwise, that states the math MUST snatch back today's profit sometime down the road. And what the long term player completely misses is the fact that if a strategy is capable of yielding a profit from a relatively easy winning hand today, it is very likely to do the same over & over again--and at times with huge resulting profits, which from my 15+ years of experience, come much more often than those huge losing sessions.

And one more point: recreational players who play in this manner simply move past "the last session" immediately, whether they won or lost. It's over and means nothing after it ended. Today the go back to play with a new roll of disposable cash, having nothing to do with the last win because it was already spent on enhancements. If this player happens to lose $40 today, he doesn't subtract it from the $55 win because that win is today non-existent.

But at the same time, when the player plays such a strategy that has an 80% session win rate, he expects many winning sessions, with some being higher and much higher than that $55. The reason you strict AP guys can't understand how overall profitable this method of play is, is simply because you won't see it for what it is (a short term strategy) and instead, force yourselves into for some reason lumping all these sessions into some long term theoretical situation, and then saying it's a loser because the games were slightly under 100%....while rejecting the actuality that the big winning sessions are almost always way larger than the big losing sessions, in addition to the many smaller winning sessions.

This is why I say, if I trained everyone to play in this manner, the people who play 20 or more hours a week would be spared a wasted portion of their lives, and the casinos would no longer be able to stay operating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Here's what you're not seeing jbjb. When someone plays for a stop-win goal and makes it TODAY, then leaves, it's real profit. It can be spent for real products and services, and for most people who play as I taught them or anything similar to that, they have no need to and usually don't just add it to their gaming bankroll for their next casino visit.

Your point is likely that this $55 will probably be lost the next time or the time after that, probably because they're playing a 98% game instead of a 102% game? Which of course makes little sense, since that small % difference will have little overall effect when playing a short period of time, each time.

The short term/goal oriented player understands that there is no rule, written or otherwise, that states the math MUST snatch back today's profit sometime down the road. And what the long term player completely misses is the fact that if a strategy is capable of yielding a profit from a relatively easy winning hand today, it is very likely to do the same over & over again--and at times with huge resulting profits, which from my 15+ years of experience, come much more often than those huge losing sessions.

And one more point: recreational players who play in this manner simply move past "the last session" immediately, whether they won or lost. It's over and means nothing after it ended. Today the go back to play with a new roll of disposable cash, having nothing to do with the last win because it was already spent on enhancements. If this player happens to lose $40 today, he doesn't subtract it from the $55 win because that win is today non-existent. But at the same time, when the player plays such a strategy that has an 80% session win rate, he expects many winning sessions, with some being higher and much higher than that $55. The reason you strict AP guys can't understand how overall profitable this method of play is, is simply because you won't see it for what it is (a short term strategy) and instead, force yourselves into for some reason lumping all these sessions into some long term theoretical situation, and then saying it's a loser because the games were slightly under 100%....while rejecting the actuality that the big winning sessions are almost always way larger than the big losing sessions, in addition to the many smaller winning sessions.

This is why I say, if I trained everyone to play in this manner, the people who play 20 or more hours a week would be spared a wasted portion of their lives, and the casinos would no longer be able to stay operating.

---

No, my point isn't that it will or won't be lost the next time. The point is that it makes no difference. As been said before, just take a walk around the joint then start over from your minimum. Not debating whether it works or not. Just the fact that the time difference doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

No, my point isn't that it will or won't be lost the next time. The point is that it makes no difference. As been said before, just take a walk around the joint then start over from your minimum. Not debating whether it works or not. Just the fact that the time difference doesn't matter.

---

If you could go into (relatively) any Las Vegas casino, make some $1,000+ per hour, do so with ease, no worry about the casino catching you or throwing you out....would you take week-long breaks in between sessions? If I could make $1k+/hour, unmolested, I'd make that my full time job. No need to bitch about the smoke in the casino or the degenerates, and I certainly wouldn't write a book (or 2) about this strategy. You'd have to be stupid NOT to be playing as much as possible.

It's laughable that someone can claim such an awesome winning system, but rarely ever played....and now he's "retired"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

No, my point isn't that it will or won't be lost the next time. The point is that it makes no difference. As been said before, just take a walk around the joint then start over from your minimum. Not debating whether it works or not. Just the fact that the time difference doesn't matter.

---

You're right jbjb. The time difference doesn't matter.

What matters is that you have won money and you are leaving with it.

You may decide to come back in five weeks or you may decide to come back in five minutes. You do what you're comfortable with.

I've been considering what I will call the "AP Strategy" and I think it's very much like a business strategy. Some businesses are willing to accept losses during a certain time of the year because they know they will make up for it at other times of the year. For example: the ski equipment business. Ski Stores don't expect to make money April thru October, but they expect to have big profits November thru March.

The "Recreational Player Strategy" is different from the "AP Strategy." As Recreational Players we don't want and are not prepared for losing sessions. Using the Ski Store analogy -- we don't want to lose money half of the year to see a big winning season during the other half of the year. We Recreational Players would rather take our profits when they come even if they are small; we shun the idea of losing today because we think we will have a "boom time" later.

If I had the personality and mindset of an AP I might have opened a Ski Store. Instead, I like getting a paycheck every week and so I went into a line of work where I do get a check every week and sometimes I get a bonus. It's the same when I go to a casino -- I'm happy getting a small profit and if I happen to get a bonus I'm overjoyed. This is why I can accept and use a quit when ahead strategy.

If you don't want to lose money, you should NEVER enter a casino and make as much as one bet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

If you don't want to lose money, you should NEVER enter a casino and make as much as one bet!

---

But as a recreational player I accept losing money. It's recreation. I could have spent the money on a cruise -- but I get seasick. I could have joined a golf club for $25,000 a year but I don't play golf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

It's laughable that someone can claim such an awesome winning system, but rarely ever played....and now he's "retired"!

---

Perhaps the main ingredient of the winning system is to play rarely? Ya know... quit when ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RS__

If you could go into (relatively) any Las Vegas casino, make some $1,000+ per hour, do so with ease, no worry about the casino catching you or throwing you out....would you take week-long breaks in between sessions? If I could make $1k+/hour, unmolested, I'd make that my full time job. No need to bitch about the smoke in the casino or the degenerates, and I certainly wouldn't write a book (or 2) about this strategy. You'd have to be stupid NOT to be playing as much as possible.

It's laughable that someone can claim such an awesome winning system, but rarely ever played....and now he's "retired"!

---

You're confusing a meaningful life with one that theoretically does not matter.

Obviously I know and knew from the start of my professional playing career that I could begin another session right away if I chose to, and I would have made a lot more money if I did so. Your limited exposure to life and reasoning beyond a casino is what's keeping you coming up with silly responses.

My strategy was played for a LIVING and not for some irrational reason beyond that. I quit my job which had me away from home and overseas over 75% of the time. Doing the Az. to Nv. trip once a week saw me home far more often than I'd ever been, and that was the most important aspect of what I did. I had already saved for retirement and I had saved the gambling bankroll required. So doing the trip and playing the session for an avg. win of over $3k/session (ALL sessions) for 10 years was a satisfying goal for me. And who in their right mind would rather go to casinos at least 300 miles away to sit at the poker machines instead of relaxing comfortably in their retirement? Wise up.

It's not all about "gee, if the strategy is that great, why wouldn't he play it 10 times more than once a week"? That of course is the simpleton view, lacking in the realities of life which include other than being inside casinos. You always think in such narrow, almost illogical terms RS__ when it comes to what constitutes success.

Rob brings up a good point about balancing success and income from work with lifestyle.

I have known several people in the TV news business who gave up big, lucrative, high-paying TV jobs in major markets so they could have a better family life in a small market.

I can also understand how a professional gambler might be happy reaching a certain income level and then shunning additional play because he had enough to fund the life he wanted and didn't want to risk the money or the time required that may or may not have meant higher income.

It's the old "bird in the hand" thing.

You said it correctly. The problem is some people can't come close to comprehending the balance aspect. Someone who makes comments like RS__ has expects gambling to be the end-all as a measure of having a successful life. That will change with maturity, and if he ever gets out of the "casinos rule" rut in which he exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

You said it correctly. The problem is some people can't come close to comprehending the balance aspect. Someone who makes comments like RS__ has expects gambling to be the end-all as a measure of having a successful life. That will change with maturity, and if he ever gets out of the "casinos rule" rut in which he exists.

---

This is why I asked if there was an independent, third-party survey on what "advantage players" actually earn?

While it certainly sounds nice and is very inviting to earn a living playing games, just how much of a living do you earn?

I believe what arci showcased is largely representative of what you'd find from the majority of AP's. IE, when they win they don't win much, when they lose they won't prove how much they actually lost, and they will ALWAYS & FOREVER say that they have great winning that they have not documented.

Redietz does pretty much the same thing, except we really don't know if he even gambles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Redietz does pretty much the same thing, except we really don't know if he even gambles.

---

I wouldn't be too fast to criticize Redietz as he might be doing just what you do, Rob. He might be limiting his play to only the winning situations -- just as you do, Rob, with your "hit and run" and "quit when ahead" strategies. Redietz may have identified where he can play to win -- he makes those plays -- and there is no need for him to play more than that. Hence, in addition to his sports betting he plays only 25-cent video poker. And realistically, if his winning comes from sports betting why should he play more than 25-cent video poker? And if his sports betting wins are limited to only a few sports why should he make other bets?

There is nothing wrong with "specializing" in doing what you have had success in.

Personally, now that I have found that I can have success at the Small, Tall, All bets at craps, I won't play at a table that doesn't have the STA bets available. I think I have enough of an edge to avoid rolling the number 7 enough that I can win with the STA bets, so why bother trying to play a game that requires hitting repeaters. Frankly, I don't do well having to hit repeaters at craps.

I think what gets lost is the idea that EVERY win is not a BIG win. And the longer you play, the tireder you get, the more careless you get, and the more you lose track of where you are in a strategy. I don't consider that "recreational".

Singer has "balanced" his life so well he continues to live in a trailer park. Before that was a small apartment from which he was evicted. All that on a claimed $200,000 a year. LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Singer has "balanced" his life so well he continues to live in a trailer park. Before that was a small apartment from which he was evicted. All that on a claimed $200,000 a year. LOL.

---

I know people who live in mansions who are flat broke and people who live in modest homes who are millionaires. I wouldn't judge anyone by the size of their home.

Has anyone wondered what would have happened to Alan & Linda if they had accepted our Thanksgiving invite and we had sent them to a house address in Az. because arci claims we're in some trailer park somewhere? And goodness, where would they have stayed?:) And those 16 or 35 loan sharks could certainly find me---just like arci!

I'm declaring arci is LSH. The radiated P-A-I-N level sure appears to be near the same.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Singer has "balanced" his life so well he continues to live in a trailer park. Before that was a small apartment from which he was evicted. All that on a claimed $200,000 a year. LOL.

---

What's wrong with $200,000 a year? Even in Los Angeles that's a heck of a good income and in Arizona you must live very well on that considering the cost of real estate.

Most TV news reporters in LA -- and these are union jobs -- are under $100,000 a year. Union cameramen make about $65,000 a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I know people who live in mansions who are flat broke and people who live in modest homes who are millionaires. I wouldn't judge anyone by the size of their home.

---

I don't judge them. However, Singer has repeatedly claimed he lived in a big house. Obviously, that is what he lusts for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I believe what arci showcased is largely representative of what you'd find from the majority of AP's. IE, when they win they don't win much, when they lose they won't prove how much they actually lost, and they will ALWAYS & FOREVER say that they have great winning that they have not documented.

Redietz does pretty much the same thing, except we really don't know if he even gambles.

---

Damn, Rob, I missed you at the WestGate yesterday and today. I had to cash some SB tickets.

I guess now I have no evidence that I gamble. Damn, whatever will I do if Rob wants to bet me?

P.S. Rob, there's another opening for you to make a horse's ass of yourself. You haven't passed on one yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I guess now I have no evidence that I gamble.

---

Ditz...if you wanted to prove that you bet on the Super Bowl, then why didn't you post pictures of the tickets before the game, or before you cashed the tickets?

The obvious answer, coach, is that I guess I didn't want to prove that. Duh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The obvious answer, coach, is that I guess I didn't want to prove that. Duh.

---

OK...keep yourself guessing, whatever gets you through the night.

Maybe someday you'll figure yourself out.

You seem baffled that some people don't want to impress you. That's an odd trait. Kind of narcissistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You seem baffled that some people don't want to impress you. That's an odd trait. Kind of narcissistic.

---

I'm not baffled...I don't need to be impressed, I don't know anybody here.

But I hope you feel better by trying to impress me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I think that I need to have some respect for what I accomplished these past few months

---

The need for respect from a bunch of anonymous strangers...what kind of trait is that?

Since everyone appears to be in agreement that there is no need to impress anonymous posters on an Internet forum, would everyone please stop trying to do that? Thanks.

Rob started posting photos of his home in this thread. I told him that if had any trouble to send them to me if has trouble posting. He didn't have any trouble, so I moved them to a new thread: "Photos of Rob Singer's Home."

I asked Rob if it was okay to move them to a new thread.

Certainly. They seem to be working so far. I'll even get Porsha in on the act!

Just for the record, in case anyone else has reading comprehension issues besides coach, when I say, "I need to have some respect for what I accomplished," I mean exactly what the words say, referring to me having some respect for myself. I'm not saying I need to have some respect from other people. I guess, if you're into hip hop and rap and think I'm 20 years old, a reader could interpret me as saying, while gesticulating wildly, "I need to have some RESPECT for what I accomplished," and actually be referring to other people. I am not, however, a bald white rapper, or Pit Bull.

Sometimes we fail to appreciate things we did that were neat, but that didn't seem like much at the time or in the moment. Then, 20 years later, we realize we should have stopped and smelled the roses at the time. I remember running races and certain workouts in what were, in retrospect, remarkable times, and I did not appreciate in the moment what I had done, which was a shame, because it was not going to be duplicated.

In reality life is just to short to worry about internet buffoons.... My whole outlook on life changed on 9/11 when I lost 4 best friends from High School.....

Whatever words are written about me or anyone in here are just that words.... Can't harm me or anyone.....

Yeah redietz. I should have taken Kathy Kraft to my senior prom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Just for the record, in case anyone else has reading comprehension issues besides coach, when I say, "I need to have some respect for what I accomplished," I mean exactly what the words say, referring to me having some respect for myself.

---

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Thanks for clearing that up...we get it...you lack self respect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X9E9n6GHC8

Coach Belly

Why don't you tell everyone the slots you "play" instead of making false accusations about me and others.... For years now you've been making good forums into your shit storm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Thanks for clearing that up...we get it...you lack self respect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X9E9n6GHC8

---