I noticed Alan didn't come up with all the facts on the Reno team. Evidently he agrees that he does not know all the facts.
Only a dufus would believe something based on limited information ... oh wait, that's exactly what Singer did.
Printable View
I noticed Alan didn't come up with all the facts on the Reno team. Evidently he agrees that he does not know all the facts.
Only a dufus would believe something based on limited information ... oh wait, that's exactly what Singer did.
Arc, I ignored your silly statements. I am sure that the "Reno Team" is still playing 25-cent video poker somewhere. Are you this argumentative all the time? Geesh. Argue over the Reno Team and what they are doing?? Why not stick to the real issue, which if I recall, is about how even those who follow the math can and do lose, and why cashing out and leaving with profits can help your long term bottom line.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
But wait -- I can answer this whole thing for you.
It doesn't matter. You will play your way, and the rest of us will play our way. And some will play your way too. Good luck with it. I guess it's unfortunate for me that I have to wait 170,000 hands between royals and I can't find the games with a greater than 2% edge.
You're a lucky man. Enjoy the fresh air on Mt. Olympus.
And that is what this is all about Arc... the time it takes to all average out. I don't have that much time in casinos. I don't want to spend that much time in casinos. If I had all that time I guess I would live and die by the 2% edge (if I could find it!). Instead, I will take the profits when they come and be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Be happy Arc. You are the king of video poker. And you are the master of time.
Alan, remember, arci's been living in a virtual vp world ever since....well, ever since he and his AP wife team lost their shirts trying to pretend they could use the LV casinos as their own personal ATM's. So while he keeps on getting bitterly reminded of his mistakes of the past every time he cooks a meal, today he is never wrong and has all the answers because he HAS to.
I'd humor him if you want to read his entire theoretical outlook as told from Father Time's chair of regret. Just keep in mind that what are obvious lies and misrepresentations by him to you & I are nothing but residual fact to anyone residing in a virtual world of penance.
You're sure the Reno team is playing ".25-cent video poker". Ok, show me your evidence. I'm willing to listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Obviously, you don't have a clue what they are doing. You are starting to make things up just like the dufus. Maybe you should wonder why you need to make up stories when you don't know all the facts. It makes you look desperate.
Once again you start trying to relate individual events to long term results. You just want to believe that one bad electron will make all TVs fail forever. Sorry to tell it like it is, Alan. You are in denial of basic facts. You WANT to believe a certain way so you manufacture stories like the Reno team being long term losers when you have no idea if they've won or lost. Look, I have no problem with you playing however you like. I've told you that many times. Just quit trying to imply that math doesn't apply to you or anyone who happens to decide to cash out when they get ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
He's irked---and getting irkier'd!
OK, so now arci wants proof that the former Reno team of geniuses is in fact playing 25c vp! Alan could post interview notes with actual initials, he could name real names, he could put up pictures....and arci still wouldnt't accept the reality of it all because it just doesn't fit into his world of theory. Hmmm....I wonder how pertinent all his "theory" really is as he can't help but look around at all the hopelessness he's created trying to believe in all that theory.
Arcimedes wrote: "You're sure the Reno team is playing ".25-cent video poker". Ok, show me your evidence. I'm willing to listen."
Gosh Arc. Add to the list of things I am lousy at and under "video poker" add "sarcastic writing." I'm just a bad writer of sarcasm. You're right, I have no idea what the Reno team is doing now. But what I do know is that for the last three jackpots that they were at Rincon trying to get the team lost out to another player and since then the team has not been back for any of the other big royal progressives there. Since I'm a bad writer of sarcasm I will be point blunt: even teams with all their money and organization and smart "advantaged play" can't be assured of winning. And as we all know Arc, going by your math, playing a 9/5 DDB progressive game without hitting the big royal they ended up losing on those three advertures trying to hit those big royals. Thanks for pointing out my failure in writing sarcasm... I won't try it again.
Arc, you also wrote: "Once again you start trying to relate individual events to long term results." Aha!! You caught me again. Yes, Arc, I was talking about individual events -- my events. And this is because I am an individual player. So, I guess the thing for me to do is something like this: the next time I am playing VP and the player on the same bank of games hits a royal I will ask them to share their royal with me because we are all playing the same long term game and the royals all come to all players over time. I'm sure that the player who hit the royal will understand this concept that their royal didn't belong to them but really belonged to all players playing over all time. In case the player doesn't want to share their royal with me, would you please explain to them that their individual results were really part of the long term results of all players and they should share?
Oh, and can I ask all of the other players in the casino to share in my losses as well because we are all part of the same long term equation that you live by?
Yep, that's the solution: all casino play should now be "community play." Since we are all playing our share of the long term, we should all pool our individual play and share our individual wins with the community. Yep, you got it Arc!!!
(Darn, I'm trying to be sarcastic again.)
Alan, I've lost 3 times in a row many times. I bet you have too. But, you're going to make a big deal out of seeing a group of only 4 players lose 3 times. You really are desperate, aren't you.
Alan, I could see through your attempt to hide behind sarcasm. I wasn't going to let you get away with it. You try that all the time when you're backed into a corner. Rather than make any attempt to improve your knowledge, you just close your eyes. That's a big reason you still believe in fantasies.
The result of yet another hard day at the homestead, perhaps? :)
Arc, do the math for me: there are five seats for the progressive, with four of the 5 seats occupied by the team. Three times in a row they lost to the fifth seat. Unlikely? Yes. But my only point in bringing it up is to show that you can't always depend on the math. Therefore, WHEN YOU HAVE A PROFIT YOU TAKE IT.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Now, what is the fantasy that you are talking about? I think I am more anchored to reality than you are. LOL
Arc, why can't you say "yes, take the profit. no one ever went broke taking a profit"??
Why can't you say that? Is it because "taking a profit" violates all that you live by, which is that every play you make on a positive expectation game gives you an edge? Arc, can you take an edge to the bank? Can you buy a gallon of gas with an edge? Can you pay your rent in edges? Is there a country with an exchange rate for edges? How many edges in a dollar? Can you divide an edge into quarters?
Let's turn the discussion around for a minute and let me ask you this question:
Give me one reason why quitting with a profit will HURT your bottom line either in the short run or the long run?
Alan, remember when Bob Dancer won that $40k jeep at the M that cost him $80k in losing, yet he blabbed how great a play it still was and how he'd be right back at it if the promo continued? Well, that's what these people claim to live by. To them, the theory is their god. They put far more value in all those phantom bucks "earned" on every hand over actual money in the bank. Dancer may have ended up $40k short, but the play was a theoretical $6k overall winner and that's what he chose to crow about. It's all part of his and others like arci's claiming that they win so many years. Like Frank, who even when he loses he ends up ahead because of his little salary, the AP's simply account for their theoretical win--aka "phantom bucks"--in their summarization of results.
Gee Rob, do you think they pay taxes on their phantom bucks that they win?
Sorry, what does the fact they lost have to do with "taking a profit". They never had a profit in these cases. You do realize that if they would have won the progressive they would have left, right? When playing progressives that are only positive due to the RF an APer always leaves when they win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nope, you seem to think your fairy godmother changes the return of the games you play if you leave with a profit and then magically you can do the same thing every time even though you are playing a negative game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've already told you many times there is nothing wrong with leaving when you are ahead. However, my point was and still is you will not change the return of the games. Over time you will still approach the return of the games no matter when you choose to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I never said it would. Clearly, you never read my responses or you would already know that. As I said above, it has nothing to do with "hurting" you. It is about believing that it will help you. For example, yesterday I played for about an hour before I finally went ahead about $200 (first time in my last 3 trips where I was ever ahead). I could have left, but I stayed on and about an hour later I was $1000 ahead. I kept playing and by the time I left I had won over $2800. Had I followed the quit while ahead strategy I would have lost out on the additional $2600.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You see it works both ways. That's how randomness works out. There is no "special" time to quit that will change the long term expectation of the game. That is what I've been telling you that you seem to be completely incapable of understanding.
Finally, if you are playing negative games then quitting at any time is preferable to continued play. In fact, not playing at all is the best monetary strategy.
Arc, here is the essence of our disagreement... again.
You wrote: I've already told you many times there is nothing wrong with leaving when you are ahead. However, my point was and still is you will not change the return of the games. Over time you will still approach the return of the games no matter when you choose to leave.
Let's take this point by point, because there are several here:
1. "I've already told you many times there is nothing wrong with leaving when you are ahead." Very good, we agree on something.
2. "my point was and still is you will not change the return of the games." Here is where you are either wrong, or you misspoke. You misspoke if what you meant was the "expected return" of the game. Indeed, cashing out never changes the "expected return" of the game. But when you cash out always changes the return of the game. Example: On the very first hand you play of jacks or better you hit two pair, which returns 10 coins for the 5 you bet. You cash out, and your return on this game is now in excess of the expected return of 99.5% -- and if your starting bankroll was, for example, only 5 coins you have had a 200% return on the game. This is because you just doubled your money.
3. Over time you will still approach the return of the games no matter when you choose to leave. Here again is the same misspeak or error. Over time you will approach the expected return of the game, but when you choose to leave will effect the actual return on your bankroll.
So consider Mr. Average player who goes into a casino with approximately $400 -- which is what the average player goes into a casino with, says the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. If Mr. Average player hits a "winner" and is now up $100 his actual return on his visit is 125%.
Of course there is no guarantee that you will always hit a winner that puts you "up" on your trip. But, my experience has been that more times than not, and with my starting bankroll, there is a time when I am showing a 20% gain on my bankroll.
Now, let's go to Rob's strategy of increasing the denominations being played during a session. As you increase the denominations played, Rob believes you will eventually (in many cases) hit a big winner that will offset your previous losses and allow you to reach the win goal you have set. I have never changed denominations according to Rob's strategy, but Rob says his system of increasing denominations and setting and keeping to win goals has worked a larger percentage of the time. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't -- I don't know.
But I do know that had I used his strategy I would have had more winning sessions than losing sessions. Sure there were times when I had a big win followed by another big or bigger win. There was one session a few years ago when I turned $800 of free play into $11,000 because of successive big wins. But had I cashed out each time I had met a $500 win goal I think I would have avoided many sessions when I not only gave back the $500 I won, but also would have not lost several thousand dollars more.
There is our difference. It's a matter of "return" versus "expected return." Expected return will never change no matter what -- I agree. Your actual return will change depending on when you do cash out. Keep cashing out with a profit and you will never have the expected return of any negative expectation video poker game.
I hope I did a decent job of explaining and interpreting what Rob's win goal system is all about.
You did a good job explaining Alan, but you know arci will never accept anything that might contradict what he wants and needs to believe about how the books say the math will work out. For instance, John Grochowski wrote an article years ago when I started playing professionally about how something like 96% of all gamblers in a casino at any given time have been ahead on their visit, yet 95% of those will go home losers. Now that's pretty close to my having been ahead in over 95% of my sessions, but I only went home a loser 15% of the time. I also know you have experienced similar results regarding having been ahead in your casino visits.
Do you think arci would ever understand how reality enters the issue and trumps useless theory?
Sorry Alan, you simply are wrong. there's no simple way to put it. When I state that when you quit won't change change the expected return. I mean it anyway you want to interpret it. The math is quite simple and there's no way around it.
You simply don't understand. Not only that, you refuse to accept that the math works out that way. I suspect there's a little selective memory coming into play as well. Now, you can certainly go ahead and try whatever method you like. In fact, as I said earlier, if you are playing a negative game then anything that gets you to quit is better than continuing to play. However, that is simply because the games are not positive.
As for any one of the dufus systems. Any progressive system exchanges more sessions wins for a few bigger losses. So, you will win more often but you won't win any more or less over time. Eventually things even out.
You really need to think about your assertion that people always get ahead at some time. If that was true then people would never lose. If you believe in random machines then there's no difference between when you first start and the moment you are deciding whether to quit. If you think you always get ahead then you should always get ahead after that winning point too. Otherwise, the machines are not random.
The math itself has nothing to do with theory. It IS a statement of reality. When you hand someone two oranges, one at a time, you are doing math. 1+1=2. When you play VP you are also doing math. And, like it or not, the math is the reality. Only a dufus thinks otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
No, Arc, you don't understand the difference between "expected return" and "actual return" or what you put into your pocket.
Alan, see my addition to the above post. I understand what you are claiming. It is simply false.
The fascinating aspect of these posts is this: what would it take to convince any of the three people (Arci, Alan, Rob) that he was wrong?
Arci, what would convince you that you were wrong?
Alan, same question.
Rob, same question.
Now, there are at least 10,000 people teaching college stat mathematics in this country. If all of them agreed that one of your interpretations was correct, what would your responses be?
I already know they would agree with me so the answer is easy. I'm using simple, standard statistics. The same statistics used all over the world in science and business.
I don't disagree with the math. I don't disagree with the idea of "expected return." All I am saying is that if you control when you stop playing, and manage to put away profit after profit, you will always have a profit.
Actual return is what you actually put into your pocket or actually lose. If I play a machine with an expected return of 99.7% but I lose 100% of my money, then my actual return was zero on a game with an expected return of 99.7%.
That's my position. If you find fault with what I am saying, Redietz or Arc, go to it.
I suggested before that we are arguing over terminology. I do not disagree with your math or statistics. And for that matter -- NEITHER WILL ROB.
Alan, you are claiming that you will always be ahead at some time in a session. That is not true. You could go to a casino many times and never, ever be ahead. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Or, as I stated before. If it was true, then the machines would not be random.
It's a simple question to all of you:
What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
Can you be convinced that you are wrong?
Of course I could be convinced. Just show me the math. I've made math mistakes before and I will again. I'd have no problem with anyone showing me I had made a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It's one thing to accept the math and make a mistake. It's quite another to deny math works. That is what Alan and Rob are doing.
If you can convince me that "expected return" is the same as "actual return" then I would be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Arc wrote: "Alan, you are claiming that you will always be ahead at some time in a session. That is not true. You could go to a casino many times and never, ever be ahead."
You are taking my statements to the extreme, and perhaps I am at fault. So let me restate things and see if this makes a difference in your argument:
A. I think it is possible for many gamblers to quit when they are showing a profit. I think that many gamblers are ahead at some point. Rob quoted John Grochowski that something like 96% of gamblers are ahead at some point during their casino visit. I personally have been ahead at some point during many casino visits.
B. Yes, I agree there are probably gamblers who have never been ahead during a casino visit.
Now, a question Arc: Do you agree that if a player managed to limit his losses to small losses, but also managed to cash out with a profit, that the combined profits can outweigh the small combined losses?
EDITED TO ADD: Please see the difference in the definition of "expected return" and "actual return" here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/...#axzz1s4RIrvpr
I also ask that you research your own definition of the terms.
Arc I have a rude awakening for you, and Rob will also say this: Neither one of us deny the math. What we are suggesting is that you play a certain way, and manage your money so that the long term play (the math) does not eat away at your bankroll which is what the math says will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Are we understanding each other yet?
During my six plus years as an advantage player, just like arci here and neurotically on every vp forum that's ever existed, NO ONE &NOTHING COULD HAVE CONVINCED ME THAT I WAS WRONG because I looked at the game being 100% of and by the math. So following it by the book would simply not allow any other opinion, suggestion, or type of knowledge to seep in and corrupt that which I held sacred.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Since I woke up from that nonsense, I have since found that I indeed WAS wrong with that type of narrow-minded/casino-induced thinking. But what would convince me that I am wrong today (talking about my play strategy here)? Well, because I've already been on the AP side of the fence, and because I've spent over ten years winning over $980,000 playing my new strategy, and because a large part of my success is owed to understanding how very important it is to do exactly the opposite as the casinos want and expect all players to do, and because I have as much as or more formal math & business education than all of my critics-which played an integral part in the development of SPS, I cannot think of anything that could convince me that I have been wrong. You see, where people like arci live and die by the theory of it all, I am the only person who has ever actually lived the REALITY of both sides of the fence. That's the difference between merely sitting at home behind a computer screen wildly throwing up unsupported accusations based on what theory says might occur given certain fixed circumstances and knowledge....and having the resources to see what ACTUALLY by actually doing it. You know, like I did by going out and getting a new IGT vp machine and all the test equipment, while Frank wastes his time on some sort of silly utility when I already did all the real work and have real results.
More insupportable theory talking again. You need to watch more of Bill O'Reilly, that is, if you're allowed to, and see how often he mocks people like you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Alan, yesterday I decided to walk over to Terribles to test out that which you & I already know to be true, but that which arci believes his theory trumpet reality without ever taking the time to understand the mathematics behind the nonsense he regurgitates.
At their bar they have a bunch of 5c/10c/25c/50c/$1/$2 machines with BP on them. So my test was to sit there as long as I could stand it and play ARTT thru those six levels, quit whenever I got ahead by 5c minimum, then I'd start again. I did that to simulate each session being a separate casino visit and record the actual percentage I was actually ahead based on a total number of "visits". Now if you remember correctly, Groch said around 95%, I said around 95%, and you agreed that it's high. But alas, arci has no knowledge of what it.might be because he wants everyone to be wrong about it, and is likely at this moment trying to manufacture some type of contradicting theory that in his mind, puts reality out of business!
Well, here's the actual results: I lasted long enough to play 114 sessions. I got ahead at least 5c 110 times. Now we all know that it's never gonna be reasonable for any player to walk in and leave with five cents in profit, but that wasn't the point of my exercise. Arci claims "statistics theory" doesn't allow for our numbers to be correct. What this shows--and anyone can do it--is, BIG SURPRISE--he's once again wrong about something having to do with using actual numbers.
Yawn.....
Although not important, some may want to know my overall won/lost results. I won $480. I lost four $800 sessions, and the wins totalled $3680. I got one $1600 W2G.
Rob, I think you will agree that this is not a dispute over whether or not your system works, or whether or not you walked into Terrible's and walked out with a nice profit, or even that you recorded "x number" of simulated sessions with a profit.
The issue really comes down to a definition of terms here: and they are "expected return" versus "actual return."
I'm afraid our friend Arc fails to realize that we are discussing "actual return" and he fails to realize that we are not disputing the "expected return" of any game or pay table.
The difference is that the "actual return" will vary based on other variables such as when you decide to cash out. It is generally accepted that the "expected return" or "expected value" of all games is based on the long term. When you deviate from the theoretical long term your actual return can vary. And, in fact, even over the long term your actual return can vary from the expected value. One individual player will never know if their "actual return" will deviate from the "expected return" or will match the "expected return" until they're dead.
it is also important to note that the "expected return" is based on "perfect play" so if an advocate of "expected return" makes just one error in their play they blew a lifetime of "expected return." That is a heavy burden for a follower of "expected return" to carry.
Rob, please join me in making this point clear to Arc:
ARC, WE ARE NOT DISPUTING THE MATH, OR THE EXPECTED RETURN OF ANY GAME. WE ARE SIMPLY SAYING THAT YOUR ACTUAL RETURN CAN BE IMPROVED DEPENDING ON HOW YOU PLAY AND MANAGE YOUR MONEY. AND YES, YOUR ACTUAL RETURN COULD ALSO BE WORSE THAN THE EXPECTED RETURN, OR IT CAN BE THE SAME AS THE EXPECTED RETURN DEPENDING ON HOW YOU PLAY AND MANAGE YOUR MONEY.
Of course ACTUAL RETURN will almost always be different from the theoretically EXPECTED RETURN, and that IS because of the math. But as you've seen, actual return has no meaning to AP's, because they only go by theory....or in other words, how many phantom bucks they can accumulate within each casino visit. Why else do you think arci wastes away so many hours at the machines during each "sneak out the back door" casino visit, when he has much more important things to take care of at home?
As a former AP, theory is what keeps them going Alan. It gives them justification for accepting their losses and moving on, it gives them confidence that "it'll all be OK in the end", and it allows them to manufacturer a mathematically-created amount of "phantom bucks" in their minds that keeps them going on a day-by-day basis. These same biases and misguided set of beliefs are the very same properties that will not only never allow them to see that most players are ahead at some point in time on most casino visits--these people won't even TRY to find it out for themselves, simply because theory tells AP's they will lose around 70% of the time.
It all boils down once again, and sadly, to either believing in theory or actually living the experience and seeing actual results that can never be disputed. Alan, why else do you think arci is such an angry, conflicted man who needs to always follow me around on Internet forums?
Rob,
Is there a big difference in the results from advancing 4 denominations instead of 6? Thanks.
There's a difference in being able to win more sessions because of the two additional levels, but the bigger difference is because of the higher denominations you'll be playing.
You guys are so confused it is quite hilarious. Ever heard of a bell curve? No one claims that any player will precisely see the expected return of a game. Actual returns will vary considerably at low sampling rates (hands) but eventually converge on the expected return. And, there is no betting system that can change the return of a random/fair game. That's not theory, it has been proven. All you are doing with your win goals and loss limits is working a betting system.
Don't confuse markets with random VP games. Markets are not random.
? So whenever I was playing at 5 credits and the machine showed signs of being in a hot cycle and I bumped it to 25 credits and hit a Royal, what happened to the bell curve?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
From what I understand the RNG is reseeded whenever you change denominations or games. Hence, if there was such a thing as a warm/cold cycle you would have changed the mode as a result of your action.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
I wonder how many times you changed to .25 denomination and did not hit a RF or any good hands. Would you admit it?
Poor arci, all alone here too :)
I haven't seen or heard anyone here say a "betting system" can change the return of any game. In fact, Alan has said multiple times that he knows of no one around here who questions the math. Your problem (aside from the very obvious, which I have absolutely no issue at all with laughing at) is you assume so much theory that you never take the time to actually read written words. Try doing better at it, and you won't have to feel so alone here too!
Here's the point Alan, that people who see every real life situation and issue as a conflict of some sort, will never get. Let's say we take two simple numbers like 3 and 4, and add them together. The sum equals 7, now and forever, and there is nothing that can or ever will change that. Everyone has to agree: what we have here is a known finite solution, aka an actual result.
Now let's look at video poker, a game grounded in the math. But because its results are not known, absolute, or finite due to requiring a RNG spit out numbers along with human choices being a big part of that process, the results that actually occur can be a million miles away from what probability theory expects them to be, and it is entirely possible that the more opportunities that occur, the further from expectation the results will be--even if not only for those human selections. Anything can actually happen when the answer is only theoretical and is not finite, and when human choice becomes a part of the overall equation, it is not a stretch to expect to see the unexpected.
People blinded by what the math books say will forever take issue with human ability being capable of producing results that do not line up with or even follow expectation. They simply see every issue as being explained by hard numbers, and they would sooner become robotic loners, conflicted & argumentative misrepresenters, or just die off than face the fact that something can be more than they've always envisioned it to be. Thus, the crazy and continued unsupportable positions we see by the self-proclaimed AP's all over the forums, and as we've seen from arci here, the additional frustration of building a swiss cheese argument without even reading that which he's responding to.
Sorry dufus, your long diatribe is nothing but nonsense. I already stated that results were defined by a bell curve. That is not "hard numbers" as you tried to assert in your usual ridiculous manner. The difference is I realize a person has no control over where they will appear within the bell curve while you try to claim a person can control their results through a silly betting system.
Your claims have been mathematically PROVEN to be false. My claims are a simple application of standard statistics.
It's always interesting to see you scramble around and try to assert your own vision of reality. And yes, there will always be a few suckers who fall for it. As usual I just provide the facts. The people who aren't smart enough to understand these facts will simply have to learn the hard way.
Arci, are we to understand, then, that if we took Rob's arguments to world-class mathematicians that they would uniformly disagree with him? I mean, there is an entire universe of math experts out there who don't give a rat's behind about video poker or AP's and who do not have a dog in the hunt. Surely they could break down and analyze the mathematical logic of all this. Rob may be a video poker expert par excellence, but he doesn't have a monopoly on math.
Okay, Arc, let's say there's a bell curve. (Really? First time I ever heard of a bell curve in video poker.) So, suppose you have the savvy to get out at the higher levels of the bell curve, and and not ride it all the way down? That's really what this whole strategy about "quitting when ahead" is all about. It's quitting when you're ahead on "your bell curve." (Really? A bell curve?)
Arc you keep throwing in math when math is not the issue. For the umpteenth time, no one disputes the math. Unless you are now saying that the math of video poker says you cannot stop playing... ever. Are you saying that, Arc? Are you saying it is wrong to bank your wins and your profits?
The issue here is having the sense, the good judgment, and making the decision to stop playing and go home... so you have some profits to play again another day.
I just got back from playing poker all night. I bought in to a $100-$300 game. I started with $300. When I had $950 I said to myself I would leave when I had either $1,000 or $900. Well, I lost about eight hands ($3 big blind), and fortunately I didn't lose much before I folded my cards... so I cashed out with $908... a $608 profit. Parking was $5 at The Bike, I tipped the valet a buck going in, and $1 going out.
That gives me a net profit of $601 to play poker with next time. (That was my net win, after I tipped for the food service which was free for the $100 and up games.)
Arc, are you saying that cashing out a win/profit of $608 is wrong at video poker? If you tell me it was wrong cashing out at live poker, I'd say: okay... and I hope to be wrong like that many, many more times in the future. And if it's wrong to cash out with a win at video poker, I hope to be wrong many more times in the future.
You are raising silly arguments. Bell curves, now. LOL There is only one issue here: can you limit losses, and cash out with gains with a win goal, and improve your bottom line at video poker?
What is hilarious is that no one disagrees with this concept in live poker, in craps, or in any casino game that I know of. ONLY IN VIDEO POKER with the APs is it an issue. It is NOT an issue with Joe Public Gambler. ONLY with the APs. Hmmmm.
Alas, poor arci....alone and bewildered.
He says my strategy has been mathematically PROVEN (I think that's how he put it :)) to be a loser. I wonder....where IS that proof? Could it be that he's saying he's followed me around and recorded negative results for almost a dozen years....or might he be once again using THEORY to counteract actuals? Hmmm....imagine the boredom of just sitting there waiting for who knows what to happen, and coming up with things everyone else laughs at!
Poor arci---and I mean that with all the deepest sincerity.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
BTW, I never said it has been proven to be a loser (we all know it's just Singer who is the loser). What I've stated many times is it provides no advantage. In fact, I think I said that on Alan's forum a couple of times. All it does is exchange more session wins for fewer, but bigger losses. The overall results of players will still be a bell curve surrounding the expected return of the games played and the strategy used.
You need to read up on what a bell curve is. You don't "ride" one. Try wiki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Maybe you should go back and read my responses to these same questions you've asked over and over. In fact, I think it was only a day ago when I stated there is nothing wrong with quitting. However, when you quit makes no difference if you are going to return and play in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Poker is not a random game in and off itself. While the cards dealt are random your winnings are also based on how others play. Hence, the expected return can be different at every table. If you are the best player at the table then you should probably have kept playing. On average you limit your winnings by quitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There is no way to improve your bottom line by deciding when to quit at any particular time over and above the base fact that quitting a negative game is always a good idea.
Been done. Many math guys have pointed out that Singer is just spouting nonsense. See my proof above.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Not a single math person has ever supported the dufus.
So, in essence, what we'd get if we canvassed a large number of people with math doctorates is Rob and Alan on one side of the debate and the doctorates on the other?
Well, if that's the case, in terms of who's likely to be correct, I'd have to bet on the geeks. Unless Rob has invented a new calculus of some kind.
What the dufus has done is as old as the hills. It's called a con. You sell a bunch of nonsense but add in just enough self-evident truths to pull in the suckers.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Arc, this is the point of discussion here: "I stated there is nothing wrong with quitting. However, when you quit makes no difference if you are going to return and play in the future." Can we concentrate on this instead of whether or not Rob's special plays, progressive denominations, soft profits, changing games, work?
Just to keep on the subject: You claim to have a profit from playing video poker. So two questions for you:
1. How much more profit would you have if you were able to cash out at the peak of your profit in each session?
2. What percentage of sessions have you played when at some point in the session you were showing a profit?
And here's a bonus question, Arc: If you keep playing in the same session after a big win (I am going to define "big win" as having more than 120% of your starting bankroll for that session -- that's a 20% increase on your starting bankroll) why did you continue playing? What was the reason for continuing?
Redietz, specifically what are we asking the math experts to figure out? Because I think Rob has already answered in such a way that you would notlonger find fault with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Rob has made it clear that his strategy for which cards he holds, and how he plays hands, returns less than optimum payback. He admits it. He spells it out. But he is not trying for the "optimum payback." He is trying to BEAT the optimum payback/strategy. If he played the conventional strategy he would just have "conventional results." He doesn't want conventional results -- and he says his system gives him better than conventional results.
Now, you cannot judge Rob's system with a conventional strategy -- because it is not conventional. You can only judge Rob's system by watching Rob play and keeping track of his play. In other words, you can't find out the meaning of French words using an English dictionary. To find out the meaning of French words, you need a French dictionary and unless you speak French, the meaning in the dictionary will have to be translated into English.
Now, Rob says he won nearly a million dollars playing his "way." Unless you are saying he lied, there is no way that Rob's system can be analyzed using what we call conventional video poker strategy.
But what we can discuss is if quitting while ahead will help you win more money over time. I think it does. I think that when you couple your quit while ahead strategy along with tight loss limits, you will come out ahead over time.
I would have done much better. So, when does a player know they are at that peak? Obviously, no one knows when they are at the peak of the day. In fact, many times my peak was right before I pressed deal the first time. In other words, if I were psychic I would never have even gone to the casino.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Depends on what you consider a profit. If you mean I was up $1 then the number is quite high. Except, it would have been a real loss since it cost more than that to go to the casinos. And, as I indicated a couple of days ago. I had a profit quite early of about $200. If I had left I would never have seen the $2600 more than I won that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
An advantage player always has the advantage. It occurs on every hand. The reason I continue to play is I still have the advantage and, over time, will make more money by continuing to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Let's make this simpler. Let's say you get to call a coin toss. You bet $5 to make the call and you win $12 if you get it right. A very nice edge of 20%. You start playing and after 10 tosses you are ahead $10. Should you quit? Obviously, the answer is no. You should make about $1 on every toss. The more tosses the more you are going to make. What about when you are up $100 or $1000? Should you quit? Same logic applies.
The math is exactly the same with VP. The edge is normally much smaller but the idea is the same.
When playing a game like BP the difference is you win more like $9.99 on every flip. It's a negative game. You could get ahead but what would change by quitting one day and returning to play the same game another day? Absolutely nothing. Over time you are going to average a once cent loss for every toss. When you decide to quit makes no difference at all.
Arc, you wrote: "An advantage player always has the advantage. It occurs on every hand. The reason I continue to play is I still have the advantage and, over time, will make more money by continuing to play."
This is where you and I have the "great disconnect." You can have all the advantage in the world, but if you lose the hand, you lost. Advantage or no advantage. This is where your "theory" doesn't meet reality. I know plenty of gamblers who say to themselves -- I should have won. I had the advantage. But they lost.
You can't take theoretical advantage to the bank. Period.
And yes, no one knows when they are at the "peak" of their session. And sometimes you just have to say to yourself that you won "enough" and you don't want to risk giving it back. Arc, as an AP who is stuck on the math, you lack the human emotions to make that decision. Really. You think like a machine. And as I said before, it seems that only AP video poker players think like machines. Everyone else can look at their winnings and say "it's time to quit for the day, or the night, ot the trip." They do it in craps and live poker and in slots and in the carnival games... but you APers can't stop. You must have convinced yourselves that "the big one is coming."
It amazes me that "advantage video poker players" can't think with emotion. Maybe that's good, because maybe you are also immune to fear and greed. On the other hand your math and devotion to it could drive you into oblivion because you believe that during a cold run the math will even out and you will hit a winner.
I don't think Rob lied, and I think it's certainly possible he won the million dollars playing the way he did. But that doesn't make his methodology un-analyzable (not a word, but what the heck). A lottery player wins a million dollars -- it's undeniable. Should someone else follow that lottery player's strategy? Well, that question can, mathematically, be analyzed. Now maybe the lottery has a cold cycle, or a hot cycle, or something out of the ordinary -- in which case one would have to recognize it.
Alan, why don't you just get a simulator and copy the "get ahead, then quit" strategy a thousand times or so? We should all do that and report back here as to the results. That should answer the question.
Tell me where these VP machines are located. I'd like to play and play and play and play and make about a zilly dollars too.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
What else does arci have if he doesn't create the belief to himself, while thinking he's impressing some with his silly advantage play talk, that he plays with a theoretical advantage--which can only means he WINS :) of course. Can anything happen outside the boundaries of his math books? BLASPHEMY!! Just like that nonsense theory he put up that no one bothered looking at claiming it's proof I haven't & couldnt't be successful with SPS, he would not know what to do with a clean set of actuals. Or without his ding-don't bell curve....
I believe if arci ever accepted something so basic such as how real his personal challenges are these days, rather than making believe it just isn't true because it's so far from his expectation of years ago, it'll take the ding--which he himself created and asked for/deserves btw--right out of his dong. Then regular people may be able to get through the massive amount of denial he protects himself with.
There is no reason to analye Rob's system, especially his "special plays" because if you use "conventional strategy" as your yardstick, Rob's system will fall short. So, don't even bother. Rob will tell you the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I don't need a simulator. I can tell you that over the past year I have been ahead at some point in my video poker play at least 95% of time (if not EVERY time, if only by 5 credits), but only on a small percentage of sessions have I finished with a net profit. Obviously, if I had cashed out showing even a small profit on each session, I would be a net, bottom line, winner. Because I kept playing -- I am not.
A lot of it is all my own fault. I was trying too damn hard to hit a royal. And it took me more than 140-thosuand hands to hit my last royal back in early January. I am no longer on "the royal chase" so now I am more willing to settle with a smaller, realistic win, each and every time I play.
Hi Alan:
I have a question for you on quitting while ahead: Didn't you have a good thread some months ago where pressing the DEAL and DRAW buttons at the exact millisecond is what you need to find a good winning hand at VP? (ie. the continuous shuffling method used by modern machines)
If this is true then does it imply that we, as gamblers, are more proficient in pressing the button at the right millisecond early on in short casino trips rather than hanging around for hours and ending up losing? Do we gradually lose the ability to press the DEAL/DRAW buttons at the right moment the longer we stay in a casino?
Thank you for joining the Forum and for posting the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Room
Yes, the modern VP machines have what is called "continuous shuffle" and that is meant to prevent any hacker or computer geek from working up some kind of formula for predicting which cards will come up next. However, it makes no difference when you push the button, because you have no idea where the cards are in the "continuous shuffle" process. All the continuous shuffle process does is insure that the shuffle is random. It does not effect your chances of drawing cards, the odds of the game, the paytables or anything else. It only keeps the game "honest."
Does it add to the worry about drawing that single card when you have a four to the royal draw? To me it does. Each time I get ready to press the draw button for that single card I visualize the computer shuffling that virtual deck. LOL It's enough to drive you crazy.
Thanks for responding to my question so quickly, Alan. It's fun to read these forums.
You mentioned that it makes no difference when we push the button, because we have no idea where the cards are in the "continuous shuffle" process. I partially agree and disagree with this. To me, it actually makes all the difference in the world when to press the button...for that is what ultimately determines the final outcome. It's only the lack of knowing when to do it that stops us.
I agree with you on the 4-to-the-royal draws being the exciting and perhaps nerve-racking events that they are. I've been reasonably lucky with those.
On a related note, this is for Rob Singer: Hello. I wanted to ask: I once heard a rumor a while back that you undergo a special physical ritual of some sort when you are dealt three-of-a-kind before you draw for the quad. Is this rumor true? If so, is it used to press the DRAW button at a good time for the quad?
Count Room wrote: "To me, it actually makes all the difference in the world when to press the button...for that is what ultimately determines the final outcome." Actually you are correct. The exact moment you press the deal or draw button will determine which card/cards you are given by the continuous shuffle. But since we can't possibly "time" when to push the button, or see what cards would be dealt, it makes no difference when we push it.
My wife has a ritual where if she is drawing one card she will press and depress the hold button for that position several times over. I have seen other players move their hands over the screen as if sending a message to the machine. I have closed my eyes and prayed. And as I have frequently said -- people pray in churches and synagogues and casinos -- but when they pray in casinos they really mean it.
Wouldn't it be interesting if we could actually view the cards in the continuous shuffle device when it was a one-card draw for the royal so that when we had one card to draw the machine could offer a "skill element" to the game? To make this "skill element" realistic, the speed of the cards would have to be at some level where the cards could actually be viewed -- and not just a blur. I wonder if that kind of "skill option" would make the game more popular? And in case a game maker or game designer is reading this, it would only be for one card draws to the royal and a special picture-in-picture of the virtual shuffling would appear on the display screen.
And-- you saw the idea here. So if you want it, please cut me in on the deal. LOL
thanks, Alan
So does this mean that people who lose a lot at VP don't have a "gambling problem"? Rather, it's just a "timing problem", strictly speaking? I must say, though, if everyone could solve their "timing problems" the casinos would be out of business LOL!
I asked my friend who goes to casinos a lot: "Do you have a gambling problem?"
He said to me: "Only when I lose."
Yeah, that was something odd I used to do as an AP but it was just for fun. As you know, AP's have little to no fun playing, and I was willing to try anything short of making believe my freebies, cash back and comps could turn each losing year into a winning year--like you see them all do even today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Room
One point of clarification, and I've said this before: I had an IGT machine that I ran thru vigorous test procedures for nearly three full months of non-stop operation. I wasn't specifically testing for it, but I discovered the "continuous shuffle theory" which I always thought was true because that's what I've always read about being the case, does not occur. The machine does not "shuffle" numbers while it is not being played, and it does not shuffle them while it is waiting for the player to hit the draw button. It only shuffled when the Bet One Credit, Max Bet, or Draw buttons are activated--or pushed. During that relatively lengthy amount of time it takes that analog/mechanical function to process, the digital shuffle occurs. This isn't a big deal because it does nothing to change the "randomness" of your hand. But where the rumor about a continuous shuffle came from I have no idea. Some things you can't even get a good handle on by reading or asking--you have to find out for yourself I guess.
That's why I NEVER even think aobut it. Especially after watching everyone WAIT at the slots for a few minutes or pull their slot card in and out of the reader, or whatever any other habit they have to "make" the machine hit. My idea of timing is being at the right MACHINE at the right time. Same with picking the right cards-and yesterday was the prime example. I was playing a 3-play nickel machine with max credits (45) and the machine started out like gangbusters and I was doing fine=about $20 ahead when it suddenly quit-all high cards starting giving NOTHING-not even a pair. So whenever I realized my money was disappearing I set a win goal of just $10, since it was already down to $15. So, whenever a K with a suited 5 and a J with a suited 6 popped up I just swept the whole thing and on the top line was 4 2's w/kicker and a $120 hit and I was outa there. Sorry to say this again-but I'm glad I read Rob's articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Room
Rob:
Thanks for taking my question. Your answer was an intriguing one and I won't necessarily disagree with it for I can only go by what I've read on the RNG topic through the Internet. I realize you don't have much respect for the inhabitants of LVA, but they covered a lot of ground on this issue too with many different sources chipping in:
http://lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/mes...E=&STARTPAGE=1
I have to remain neutral since I'm not planning on buying and hauling a VP machine to my house anytime soon (it would be nice to be certain, though, especially for those 3 Aces draws and 4-to-the-royal draws).
I can only go by the news reports and statements that I read. It was on the record from the company that the modern machines have continuous shuffle. If they don't it doesn't matter, as long as they don't use "shadow cards." Because with shadow cards, if a card you need is in the shadow of a card you hold, you will never be able to complete the hand you want.
At least with sequential shuffle and deal, and continuous shuffle and deal you have a fair shot at all the remaining cards in the deck.
Alan, go back and study my coin toss example. It is exactly the same as playing VP with an edge only with a much lower variance. It allows you to think about each hand/toss individually. In fact, try it for a while marking down your wins and losses. If you really want to understand what I'm telling you this is one way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
One of the reasons a good APer likes a big edge is because it removes much of the problem associated with cold spells. The coin toss example I provided has a 20% edge. It's easy to see why you get ahead quickly and even if you have a cold spell it can quickly be made up. The smaller the edge the greater the risk and the bigger the bankroll required to survive the cold spells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I think it's kind of humorous that you go on and on about not being able to have a guaranteed win, yet you fall back on a strategy to quit when you are ahead. How did you ever get ahead? Doesn't it take a few winners to get ahead?
No, it means means I win more than I lose. The coin toss example I gave is a great way to visualize the process. Only half the time does a person win the toss, but since they win more than they lose on the failed tosses, the net result is winning. This is precisely what happens with VP too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
No, it is possible you could be successful. Any player that plays like you has a .03% chance of winning what you claim to have won. And, the math books only apply to math problems. It just happens that VP is a math problem. Like it or not, that is reality and all your silly assertions will never change that fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
More lies from the dufus. Once again asserting things he couldn't possibly know. So, since the dufus is so interested ... I gambled today. I got ahead by about $400 but lost it and was down about $1300 when I hit a royal. I put $100 in the next machine and, while waiting to be payed, I turned that into $500. I left ahead $3000. So, I went against what the dufus claims to be smart play and look what happened. That's how it is with random games. However, since I'm playing with an edge I win more than I lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Arc you write nonsense, but you don't even realize it. You wrote: The coin toss example I provided has a 20% edge.
Now, is there a video poker game with a 20% edge? Is there any game in a casino with a 20% edge? Why do you math guys come up with preposterous examples to prove that you are right?
Stop giving me 50-50 coin tosses with two results (heads or tails) to explain video poker which has either 52 or 53 cards. Stop giving me coin tosses to explain craps which has two dice with 36 combinations. (Not you Arc, but other "math guys" also use coin tosses to explain their craps strategies.)
And instead address the real issue here: quitting when you're ahead.
You know Arc, if I polled a thousand gamblers in Las Vegas and asked them if it is OK to quit when they have a profit I'd bet ya that only the AP video poker players would question my question.
And if I refined the question to this: Is it okay to quit after you have a 20% gain on your bankroll? I think a large majority would say yes. The new stats from the LVCVA says that the average gambler has a $480 gambling budget. I concede that there are some players who would be willing to risk it all to win big, but those of us who are in a casino more than twice a year would welcome the chance to increase our bankroll by 20% each visit.
Alan, the coin toss example lets you follow what is happening in a random series of events. It just makes it simpler but is based on exactly the same math as VP. If you don't like the 20% edge, make it smaller. Instead of winning $12 change it to $10.20. It won't change anything but the speed at which you make money.
I can see why you don't want to follow that exercise. It would blow your entire argument which is based on nothing but poor reasoning skills.
BTW, you can poll as many people as you want, it won't change the facts. All it might demonstrate is how many gamblers don't understand simple math. However, make sure to ask the question correctly. No math person would claim it's bad to quit when a person is ahead. All they would say is it won't change a person's expectation vs. quitting any other time. I keep explaining this to you and yet you keep going back to claiming math people say it is bad to quit when a person is ahead. At least try to follow what's been said. You are stuck in a loop. It's making you look like a idiot.
Arc, the coin toss is a 50-50 example. It has nothing to do with video poker. Give it up. The emperor has no clothes.
Arc, why are you so stubborn. You only read what you want to read. Here it is again, you wrote: No math person would claim it's bad to quit when a person is ahead. All they would say is it won't change a person's expectation vs. quitting any other time.
What you are forgetting is the second part which is the concept of money management. Every time you quit when you are ahead, using money management, you are increasing your profits and your bankroll. You are locking up profits, rather than risking the profits to keep playing. You set a win goal which triggers your decision to quit playing, to lock up what you have.
At the same time, your money management defines your loss limit.
Do you get it now?
Again, simple questions for everyone: what would prove the quitting-while-ahead theory wrong? And what is wrong with running simulations to test it?
What simulation?? You simply go into a casino and determine what percentage increase in your bankroll will make you happy -- and cash out when you hit that mark. On the other hand, you set a firm loss limit for each session so that your future wins can be big enough to offset previous losses.
Curiously, when you look at Rob's system and the way he plays, his win goal is about 5% but he is also starting with a huge bankroll and will play up to $100 machines.
If I use a bankroll of $2500 per visit, 5% for me would be $125... which isn't exactly a bad pay day. And if a bank account paid 5% per day, we'd all be millionaires PDQ.
This weekend I have an offer at Caesars for $2500 free play. I am going to keep track of the free play and let you know how many hands it takes for me to show a $125 profit playing 8/5 Bonus. On a $5 per coin machine, two pair would give me a $25 profit, three of a kind would give me a $50 profit. One full house pays $200. Meanwhile jacks or better is a push. Of course I am well aware of the possibility that I could lose 100 hands in a row and never be ahead.
Have I sat down at a machine and lost 10 hands in a row? Sure I have. But I have also sat down at machines and been dealt a full house. And the very first time I sat down at an 8/5 Bonus game at the $5 level my third hand was quad aces.
(By the way, my strategy for this weekend is like the last time... to play the $2500 through once to see what I end up with. However, the longer I keep playing may mean either more profit than $125 or some loss of the $2500 starting bankroll. So the real "test" is when I reach the $125 profit level... if I do, of course. Yes, there is a risk that I won't reach a $125 profit, but on the flip side I am sure to bank some of the starting free play bankroll.)
You can run all the simulations you like. I'm going to do it with real money this weekend.
Good news for you, Alan:
You would have been 1.3 quintillion times more likely to have hit the big Mega Millions jackpot last month than to lose 100 hands of 8/5 BP in a row on your trip. You'll get something out of it.
I'll sneak this little tidbit in: Did you notice how FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME arci tried to appear as a normal human being by telling a forum that he was losing....only to minutes later, as he's done ever since Al Gore invented the Internet, to THEN say he didn't lose at all--because he hit yet another royal! Phew! Man oh man, I'm sure glad he put any rumor of our having to worry about more hard & challenging times up in the arci household, to rest again!
And people wonder why I have so much fun with this guy.....!
Rob I was going to put it a different way.... had he not hit that button at the precise instant he did, he would have still been down $1300 and probably a lot more too. LOL
Had he not hit the royal, he would have felt sick not cashing out a $400 profit earlier.
I have no delusions about hitting royals. So I'd take the $400 profit any day... and any time. Heck, that's $2,000 after a five day work week in a casino... $104,000 a year. Is there something wrong with making an extra $104,000 a year as a side job pushing buttons for an hour?
I understand and agree. It's just hilarious though how big AP winners like he, Jean Scott, that fedomally over on LVA, etc. find it totally impossible to ever say they have lost or are involved in a losing streak without their famous caveat of telling everyone not to worry because they have already hit that big winner that got them back on track. It's like they just can't take the terrible, devastating thought of what others will be thinking if these superstars didn't reassure everyone that not only will it all be OK in the end, but that it IS OK right now! I have never seen any of these heroes, including Bob Dancer, ever say they are currently in the grasp of a losing streak without the ensuing feel-good caveats.
Alan, a coin toss is a random event with a set of possible results. Each toss is independent. It is simpler than VP but the math is the same. That's why it is a good way to understand how the math works out in a real situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Once more I see you don't want to know the truth. You would rather keep spewing nonsense.
Once again we see the dufus making assertions that he can't possibly know are true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
BTW, Dancer did discuss his losing the car promotion. So, in fact, we know the dufus is lying yet again. There's a reason the dufus is laughed at everywhere he posts.
As for me, I've had many losing streaks which I've mentioned many times. However, they do end as do winning streaks. That's what happens in random games. Anyone who plays the game and claims they do not have losing streaks is a liar .... oh wait, the only one I know who does that is the dufus.
I hit that nerve once again :) You can always tell whenever arci gets right to the justifications. Problem is, he never gets them right. We already know his own excuses are a simple product of the misery he chose for his declining years, but as for Dancer, I guess he missed the part about how after blabbing about once again winning another $40.000 car that cost him double, he told us all that it was nothing because "he expects swings like that, and he's ahead for the year six figures anyway"!
Absolutely HILARIOUS! Please arci, do your homework next time. Whatever happened to the anal you? Oh I know....you've created household pressures that only an AP's mother could love. I guess that's why we didn't see you guys at the Paris for dinner last evening.