Sorry that this may sound stereotypical, but for being Jewish, Alan has very poor financial sense.
Printable View
Sorry that this may sound stereotypical, but for being Jewish, Alan has very poor financial sense.
You have way too big a chip on your shoulder to be a winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Take your cookie and go to bed, child.
I'll say this about that, and you'll see why you are so extraordinarily wrong....as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbThe day is irrelevant. Only your LIFETIME results are what matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonIf I play 8/5 Bonus poker at $5 a hand and I hit quad aces on the first hand for $400 and quit for the day, have I a profit for the day?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Yes or no?
What is wrong with that?
I'll answer: nothing is wrong with that.
So why do you challenge it with long term gobbledygook?
Please tell?
"Only LIFETIME results matter". By definition, that statement does not come into play until the moment you die. At that point however, your final tally is meaningless. And you spent your WHOLE LIFE worrying about what casino play could've gone better, what didn't go well, and how you could have done things differently in order to have had more profitable results overall....none of which matter as you take your last breath. Thus, your claim is of no value whatsoever.
Now let's review the former "the day (gambling results) is irrelevant". This is as dumb and ignorant as "it's better to have made a good bet and lose than to have made a bad bet and win".
The reason is obvious. People place bets hoping to win, not lose. If a bet....ANY bet....wins, it is a very good thing. Nobody cares at that point if it was placed in a +EV or -EV situation, and nobody cares about what happened yesterday or how it happened, nor what might happen tomorrow, or why.
Similarly, winning TODAY gives every casino player a GOOD feeling. This is what's called ENHANCING one's life, which is what waking up everyday is all about. Anybody who claims they don't care if they win or lose today as they head out to casinos (or if they foolishly claim that their #1 goal that day is to, eh-em, "bank EV" :) ) then they can't even lie to themselves with a straight face.
You have a lot to learn....as if no one ever noticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerI'll say this about that, and you'll see why you are so extraordinarily wrong....as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbThe day is irrelevant. Only your LIFETIME results are what matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
"Only LIFETIME results matter". By definition, that statement does not come into play until the moment you die. At that point however, your final tally is meaningless. And you spent your WHOLE LIFE worrying about what casino play could've gone better, what didn't go well, and how you could have done things differently in order to have had more profitable results overall....none of which matter as you take your last breath. Thus, your claim is of no value whatsoever.
Now let's review the former "the day (gambling results) is irrelevant". This is as dumb and ignorant as "it's better to have made a good bet and lose than to have made a bad bet and win".
The reason is obvious. People place bets hoping to win, not lose. If a bet....ANY bet....wins, it is a very good thing. Nobody cares at that point if it was placed in a +EV or -EV situation, and nobody cares about what happened yesterday or how it happened, nor what might happen tomorrow, or why.
Similarly, winning TODAY gives every casino player a GOOD feeling. This is what's called ENHANCING one's life, which is what waking up everyday is all about. Anybody who claims they don't care if they win or lose today as they head out to casinos (or if they foolishly claim that their #1 goal that day is to, eh-em, "bank EV" :) ) then they can't even lie to themselves with a straight face.
You have a lot to learn....as if no one ever noticed.
As someone who wagers professionally, I need to correct the post above. Specifically the line, "If a bet...ANY bet...wins, it is a very good thing." This line is fundamentally incorrect. Unless it's the final bet you're making in a season (for sports) or for your lifetime, it's a bad line and bad advice.
The reasons are pretty obvious. So I'll give everyone a few minutes to figure out the whys and comment. Then I'll report back with my very obvious take on it.
Anybody that thinks that betting on something and getting paid LESS THAN true odds when it wins but when it loses they simultaneously pay MORE THAN true odds, is a complete fucking moron!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Well, jbjb, there's certainly that!
The main problem as I see it is that winning bets is a long-term problem if you have early, immediate, or suddenly stunning success employing a non-optimal or mathematically unsound strategy. Can you imagine if you start off sports betting and you hit something like monet's parlay? How long would it take you to shake off the idea that parlay betting is the way to do things?
There are all kinds of examples from all gambling arenas. Imagine being a hold 'em novice and going all in on a river flush draw with just one other player in the hand, and you hit it. You win the tournament, say, and now you did it with a fundamentally unsound decision. How long does it take before your perception that what you did was right bites you in the ass, say in a bigger tournament? Or if you make a sports bet early in the season, and you win, but it turns out you had the wrong team, but you are unable to recognize that? How many games does that cost you down the road? You're trying to create a matrix of relationships between teams, and you misread one of those teams badly, so everything you do immediately going forward is corrupted by your perception, simply because you won. Or you can't win playing video poker, so you invent some Rube Goldberg series of rules and denomination changes, and -- lo and behold -- you make the big score. Now that winning big score puts you on a non-optimal path going forward, maybe for years.
And because people usually don't reduce level of play in the weeks and months after winning, those winning bets can wind up costing you even more.
The problem with the "all wins are good" attitude is that it emphasizes immediate results over pristine displays of skill. Immediate results are transient. Skill and judgement are not transient. It's like Chris "Jesus" Ferguson said -- he can be beaten, but he can't be outplayed. The goal is to not be outplayed.
It's a cliche and another way to say the same thing: the objective is to make every bet a good bet.
And you wonder why you're regularly referred to as "a ditz" and "weird" by so many.....Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerI'll say this about that, and you'll see why you are so extraordinarily wrong....as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
"Only LIFETIME results matter". By definition, that statement does not come into play until the moment you die. At that point however, your final tally is meaningless. And you spent your WHOLE LIFE worrying about what casino play could've gone better, what didn't go well, and how you could have done things differently in order to have had more profitable results overall....none of which matter as you take your last breath. Thus, your claim is of no value whatsoever.
Now let's review the former "the day (gambling results) is irrelevant". This is as dumb and ignorant as "it's better to have made a good bet and lose than to have made a bad bet and win".
The reason is obvious. People place bets hoping to win, not lose. If a bet....ANY bet....wins, it is a very good thing. Nobody cares at that point if it was placed in a +EV or -EV situation, and nobody cares about what happened yesterday or how it happened, nor what might happen tomorrow, or why.
Similarly, winning TODAY gives every casino player a GOOD feeling. This is what's called ENHANCING one's life, which is what waking up everyday is all about. Anybody who claims they don't care if they win or lose today as they head out to casinos (or if they foolishly claim that their #1 goal that day is to, eh-em, "bank EV" :) ) then they can't even lie to themselves with a straight face.
You have a lot to learn....as if no one ever noticed.
As someone who wagers professionally, I need to correct the post above. Specifically the line, "If a bet...ANY bet...wins, it is a very good thing." This line is fundamentally incorrect. Unless it's the final bet you're making in a season (for sports) or for your lifetime, it's a bad line and bad advice.
The reasons are pretty obvious. So I'll give everyone a few minutes to figure out the whys and comment. Then I'll report back with my very obvious take on it.
Winning any bet has nothing to do with "advice". It plain and quite simply is what anyone wants to do....with ANY bet. Every time. Whether or not they made the right bet, the wrong bet, or they made the bet by mistake. Psychobabbling over what the "true odds" were at the time of the bet is completely irrelevant. That's why one glance at your follow-on post here renders it unreadable.
Kepp it simple, stupid. Or maybe you prefer to keep it stupid, simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
You're playing max bet on two $5 (let us know if these stakes are too high for you and I'll adjust to fit your shortcomings) VP machines, side by side.
Machine A is a full-pay DW machine with a progressive royal of $49,365. +EV heaven these days. Machine B is a 7/5 DDBP with a non-progressive royal at $20,000, but you THOUGHT it said 10/6. You end up with a non-winning razgu on Machine A. Machine B deals you a royal.
But you're sitting there crying like a baby...those crocodile tears running down your horrified cheeks. You are mad as hell over the fact that you just won $19,975 because you know it was a so-called "bad bet, while you can't hold back your sheer excitement over losing $25 on the other machine. Why? Because it nonetheless was a "good bet" since it was in a +EV situation. Think of all the EV you just banked! That should help soothe the torment of the big "-EV" win. :)
Waaa....waaa....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerKepp it simple, stupid. Or maybe you prefer to keep it stupid, simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
You're playing max bet on two $5 (let us know if these stakes are too high for you and I'll adjust to fit your shortcomings) VP machines, side by side.
Machine A is a full-pay DW machine with a progressive royal of $49,365. +EV heaven these days. Machine B is a 7/5 DDBP with a non-progressive royal at $20,000, but you THOUGHT it said 10/6. You end up with a non-winning razgu on Machine A. Machine B deals you a royal.
But you're sitting there crying like a baby...those crocodile tears running down your horrified cheeks. You are mad as hell over the fact that you just won $19,975 because you know it was a so-called "bad bet, while you can't hold back your sheer excitement over losing $25 on the other machine. Why? Because it nonetheless was a "good bet" since it was in a +EV situation. Think of all the EV you just banked! That should help soothe the torment of the big "-EV" win. :)
Waaa....waaa....
Lol. Rob's a moron. His dumbass would've bet 50 credits and won $12.50 LESS!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerKepp it simple, stupid. Or maybe you prefer to keep it stupid, simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
You're playing max bet on two $5 (let us know if these stakes are too high for you and I'll adjust to fit your shortcomings) VP machines, side by side.
Machine A is a full-pay DW machine with a progressive royal of $49,365. +EV heaven these days. Machine B is a 7/5 DDBP with a non-progressive royal at $20,000, but you THOUGHT it said 10/6. You end up with a non-winning razgu on Machine A. Machine B deals you a royal.
But you're sitting there crying like a baby...those crocodile tears running down your horrified cheeks. You are mad as hell over the fact that you just won $19,975 because you know it was a so-called "bad bet, while you can't hold back your sheer excitement over losing $25 on the other machine. Why? Because it nonetheless was a "good bet" since it was in a +EV situation. Think of all the EV you just banked! That should help soothe the torment of the big "-EV" win. :)
Waaa....waaa....
I couldn't even tell you optimum 10 coin 5-hand play (or 3 or 10) because I never play it straight up.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbLol. Rob's a moron. His dumbass would've bet 50 credits and won $12.50 LESS!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Nigh Hand
Nigh Hand
Mr. Play
Thanks M8.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
There was a town called Stewpidville, Iowa where people would bet me on coin flips.
If they won the flip I would pay them $800. If I won the flip they would pay me $1,000.
Here is the kicker though: I had to play as long as they wanted but they could quit anytime.
Even though I had big positive EV on the coin flips due to the $200 difference in payouts on a 50/50 proposition it just wasn’t enough to overcome their ability to quit while they were ahead.
One after another they would line up and if they won their first coin flip for $800 they would just lock up their winnings and leave for the day $800 richer at my expense.
If they lost the $1,000 on the first flip often they would stop loss out for the day and not come back again until the next day.
Really no way for me to make money on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
this does not compute at all
why wouldn't you win 50% of the tosses and therefore have a profit_______________??????
.
Gobbledegook!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half SmokeQuote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
this does not compute at all
why wouldn't you win 50% of the tosses and therefore have a profit_______________??????
.
Even with such strong positive EV, it is simply not enough to overcome the dent people who quit while ahead (for the day)
or people who stop loss out (for the day) will put in the positive EV.
Maybe if I could have got them to only quit while ahead or stop loss out for 5 hours and not a whole day it would have been different.
But once the profit is “locked up” it means you can’t get access to it anymore, at least for the day.
What do you think “locked up” means anyway?
DGenBen,
I hear the online Gaming Today is looking for new columnists. You can probably get a nice reference from one of the VCT regulars. If you keep writing with such insight, you'll wind up with your photo on the VCT online front page!
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I forget to mention though that you have to watch out for casino personnel when quitting while you’re ahead otherwise you might get the dreaded tap on the shoulder and the “Sir, we noticed you are quitting while you are ahead. We don’t want your action here anymore.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenGobbledegook!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half SmokeQuote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
this does not compute at all
why wouldn't you win 50% of the tosses and therefore have a profit_______________??????
.
Even with such strong positive EV, it is simply not enough to overcome the dent people who quit while ahead (for the day)
or people who stop loss out (for the day) will put in the positive EV.
Maybe if I could have got them to only quit while ahead or stop loss out for 5 hours and not a whole day it would have been different.
But once the profit is “locked up” it means you can’t get access to it anymore, at least for the day.
What do you think “locked up” means anyway?
okay, to summarize:
you are saying the fact that they used stop losses and that they quit while they were ahead made it impossible for you to win 50% of the tosses which was your true mathematical expectancy
is that correct______________??????
.
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half SmokeQuote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenGobbledegook!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
Even with such strong positive EV, it is simply not enough to overcome the dent people who quit while ahead (for the day)
or people who stop loss out (for the day) will put in the positive EV.
Maybe if I could have got them to only quit while ahead or stop loss out for 5 hours and not a whole day it would have been different.
But once the profit is “locked up” it means you can’t get access to it anymore, at least for the day.
What do you think “locked up” means anyway?
okay, to summarize:
you are saying the fact that they used stop losses and that they quit while they were ahead made it impossible for you to win 50% of the tosses which was your true mathematical expectancy
is that correct______________??????
.
You see, I could never get to the long term because I was still alive when doing these coin flips.
Everyone knows that the long term doesn’t matter until you die.
The optimal strategy on my end should have been to bring cyanide tablets with me and as soon as I had a decent profit, swallow them, because that was the only way to make the long term results match my actual expected value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenThank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I forget to mention though that you have to watch out for casino personnel when quitting while you’re ahead otherwise you might get the dreaded tap on the shoulder and the “Sir, we noticed you are quitting while you are ahead. We don’t want your action here anymore.”
I have a workaround on this, which I will share.
When I get the dreaded tap on the shoulder, I calmly explain that I'm a socialist at heart, and any income above the 35K American average, I seek to lose. Therefore, what the casino personnel need to realize is that I am trying my best to lose, and I am quitting while ahead so I don't accumulate too much wealth that day and I can lose it the next day. That seems to satisfy most of them.
Occasionally, however, I get a snarky casino person who wants to know what the difference is between a strategy for winning and a strategy for losing. I just roll my eyes at them and tell them to wise up.
Note: this palaver may qualify for an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
__________
I overheard this as I was walking past a roulette table_____________I hope I break even today because I really need the money
✔✔✔✔
.
pa·lav·er
/pəˈlavər,pəˈlävər/
Learn to pronounce
INFORMAL
noun
1.
unnecessarily elaborate or complex procedure.
"there's a lot of palaver involved"
2.
HISTORICAL
an improvised conference between two groups, typically those without a shared language or culture.
verb
talk unproductively and at length.
"it's too hot for palavering"
Remember who your audience is here Red-LOL
Regnis, "palaver" was not uncommon in old episodes of Wagon Train and Gunsmoke. Not only do I need to evaluate the audience, I need to be aware of my age!Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
And Paladin---Have gun Will Travel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Always loved Paladin, the man in black.
Richard Boone plays the bad guy really well.
Not in the show Have Gun, Will Travel but in many movies.
Great Character Actor and what you might consider a Man's Man.
Excellent!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenThank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I forget to mention though that you have to watch out for casino personnel when quitting while you’re ahead otherwise you might get the dreaded tap on the shoulder and the “Sir, we noticed you are quitting while you are ahead. We don’t want your action here anymore.”
I have a workaround on this, which I will share.
When I get the dreaded tap on the shoulder, I calmly explain that I'm a socialist at heart, and any income above the 35K American average, I seek to lose. Therefore, what the casino personnel need to realize is that I am trying my best to lose, and I am quitting while ahead so I don't accumulate too much wealth that day and I can lose it the next day. That seems to satisfy most of them.
Occasionally, however, I get a snarky casino person who wants to know what the difference is between a strategy for winning and a strategy for losing. I just roll my eyes at them and tell them to wise up.
Note: this palaver may qualify for an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
Another thing you can do while quitting while your ahead is to camouflage your play by sometimes quitting while you are behind.
This way the casino will have a tougher time figuring out what you are doing.
Now I know some people might say “But aren’t you going to give up some profit doing that?”
Well you have to consider it a cost of doing business. By not always quitting while you are ahead the casino will have a tougher time figuring out what you are doing so you will get more playtime and more overall profit before they throw you for being one of the few people that’s figured out you can gain the upper hand on the casino by quitting while you are ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenExcellent!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
I have a workaround on this, which I will share.
When I get the dreaded tap on the shoulder, I calmly explain that I'm a socialist at heart, and any income above the 35K American average, I seek to lose. Therefore, what the casino personnel need to realize is that I am trying my best to lose, and I am quitting while ahead so I don't accumulate too much wealth that day and I can lose it the next day. That seems to satisfy most of them.
Occasionally, however, I get a snarky casino person who wants to know what the difference is between a strategy for winning and a strategy for losing. I just roll my eyes at them and tell them to wise up.
Note: this palaver may qualify for an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
Another thing you can do while quitting while your ahead is to camouflage your play by sometimes quitting while you are behind.
This way the casino will have a tougher time figuring out what you are doing.
Now I know some people might say “But aren’t you going to give up some profit doing that?”
Well you have to consider it a cost of doing business. By not always quitting while you are ahead the casino will have a tougher time figuring out what you are doing so you will get more playtime and more overall profit before they throw you for being one of the few people that’s figured out you can gain the upper hand on the casino by quitting while you are ahead.
Damn, that's brilliant! Camouflage quitting while ahead by quitting while behind. And if you're trying to lose, quit while behind to camouflage the quitting while ahead. This is what Trump neo-cons call "four-dimensional chess." Man, it's a whole 'nother dimension of thinking. I had a tough time playing that three-dimensional chess on Star Trek. This four-dimensional stuff may be beyond me.
This requires serious cogitatin', as Jed Clampett used to say.
Yes! In fact I think that poker players refer to this sort of thing as “Metagame”Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenExcellent!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Another thing you can do while quitting while your ahead is to camouflage your play by sometimes quitting while you are behind.
This way the casino will have a tougher time figuring out what you are doing.
Now I know some people might say “But aren’t you going to give up some profit doing that?”
Well you have to consider it a cost of doing business. By not always quitting while you are ahead the casino will have a tougher time figuring out what you are doing so you will get more playtime and more overall profit before they throw you for being one of the few people that’s figured out you can gain the upper hand on the casino by quitting while you are ahead.
Damn, that's brilliant! Camouflage quitting while ahead by quitting while behind. And if you're trying to lose, quit while behind to camouflage the quitting while ahead. This is what Trump neo-cons call "four-dimensional chess." Man, it's a whole 'nother dimension of thinking. I had a tough time playing that three-dimensional chess on Star Trek. This four-dimensional stuff may be beyond me.
This requires serious cogitatin', as Jed Clampett used to say.
____________
you could quit while you're ahead $4K at one casino, then leave and walk to another casino and do a stop loss at $2K
can you dig it - you just netted $2K_____________☘ ☘ ☘ ☘ ☘
then rinse and repeat_______ all day, all week, all month, all year, the whole decade____________________you're whole life
you're the casino's worst nightmare - I'm totally on board now
✔✔✔✔✔_______________★★★★★
.
I just keep picturing Alan taking notes on all these secrets you guys are putting out there.
He won't follow the advice anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
No shit. That ego driven cunt darkoz has written a goddamn manifesto on mail and Alan's like "You can't get Freeplay without playing bro"Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbHe won't follow the advice anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Just FYI... Darkoz admitted to spending $60,000 to get the free play.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewooNo shit. That ego driven cunt darkoz has written a goddamn manifesto on mail and Alan's like "You can't get Freeplay without playing bro"Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbHe won't follow the advice anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
How much freeplay did he get for 60K?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonJust FYI... Darkoz admitted to spending $60,000 to get the free play.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewooNo shit. That ego driven cunt darkoz has written a goddamn manifesto on mail and Alan's like "You can't get Freeplay without playing bro"Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Thick as a fucking plank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan's brain would explode trying to comprehend the number.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
He won't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmHow much freeplay did he get for 60K?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonJust FYI... Darkoz admitted to spending $60,000 to get the free play.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
Of course if he did say the rest of us could figure out if he's really making the money he claims. What is it, $20,000 per week... but he won't reveal how many weeks.
What's interesting about some of the AP claims is the number of things left out.
And you want us to believe everything that's left out, don't you?
I get it.
LOL
Jdaewoo let me be blunt: you live in the AP fantasy world.
Until the casinos got hip a lot of money was made setting the casinos up to deliver copious amounts of freeplay. It was a play that was put down in casinos across the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
1. You go in and sign up for the players club. You are a new player. Sit down on a $5 video poker game in the 98% range. You want to make yourself look like a total sucker. Run 50 to 100K in action. Theoretical loss = 2 to 4K.
2. Then it was a matter of waiting on the mail, usually a month or so. The amount of freeplay varied from casino to casino but you'd usually get 1 to 2K a week for up to six months in freeplay.
3.. Do this at multiple casinos that are unaffiliated.
4. Run a route to each casino running off the freeplay then leaving.
I have one friend that was making 150K a year pulling off this play just in California.
If you'll remember, several years ago the casinos severely cut back freeplay offers and amounts. The reason was the casinos got hurt by wiseguys pulling this play on them.
My dad supposedly looks like Festus but I can't speak directly to this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzRegnis, "palaver" was not uncommon in old episodes of Wagon Train and Gunsmoke. Not only do I need to evaluate the audience, I need to be aware of my age!Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Pavaler? lol new one to me.
Until the casinos got hip...Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmUntil the casinos got hip a lot of money was made setting the casinos up to deliver copious amounts of freeplay. It was a play that was put down in casinos across the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
1. You go in and sign up for the players club. You are a new player. Sit down on a $5 video poker game in the 98% range. You want to make yourself look like a total sucker. Run 50 to 100K in action. Theoretical loss = 2 to 4K.
2. Then it was a matter of waiting on the mail, usually a month or so. The amount of freeplay varied from casino to casino but you'd usually get 1 to 2K a week for up to six months in freeplay.
3.. Do this at multiple casinos that are unaffiliated.
4. Run a route to each casino running off the freeplay then leaving.
I have one friend that was making 150K a year pulling off this play just in California.
If you'll remember, several years ago the casinos severely cut back freeplay offers and amounts. The reason was the casinos got hurt by wiseguys pulling this play on them.
Several years ago...
It's the national anthem of today's APs... talking about the past.
Come on Mickey. You're better than this.
Thick as a plankQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonUntil the casinos got hip...Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmUntil the casinos got hip a lot of money was made setting the casinos up to deliver copious amounts of freeplay. It was a play that was put down in casinos across the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
1. You go in and sign up for the players club. You are a new player. Sit down on a $5 video poker game in the 98% range. You want to make yourself look like a total sucker. Run 50 to 100K in action. Theoretical loss = 2 to 4K.
2. Then it was a matter of waiting on the mail, usually a month or so. The amount of freeplay varied from casino to casino but you'd usually get 1 to 2K a week for up to six months in freeplay.
3.. Do this at multiple casinos that are unaffiliated.
4. Run a route to each casino running off the freeplay then leaving.
I have one friend that was making 150K a year pulling off this play just in California.
If you'll remember, several years ago the casinos severely cut back freeplay offers and amounts. The reason was the casinos got hurt by wiseguys pulling this play on them.
Several years ago...
It's the national anthem of today's APs... talking about the past.
Come on Mickey. You're better than this.
Sounds a bit like "aging out," Alan. One would surmise you might have some sympathy.
Meanwhile, for those who consider sports betting a form of AP, it appears to me that for the most part, things are getting much easier, both in actually winning money via betting and in getting thousands in free wagers for signing up with the casino books.
The days of discretionary sports comps died about 20 years ago, but now you have front-loaded bonuses that were heretofore not offered. I have to think mailers and offers calibrated to sports accounts will become the new thing. I'm holding out on formal sign-ups in my name because I think bigger bettors will eventually be able to negotiate better sign up bonuses.
I'll never stop being fascinated by the AP denialism of people like Alan. It's either APs don't exist, or they do exist but don't make any real money, or he feels sorry for them because they don't experience the "fun" of -EV gambling.
I think Alan is one of a particular sort of people that think of themselves as savvy gamblers. Alan knows the rules of craps and some betting system mumbo jumbo and wants to believe that makes him a sharp guy compared to all the sucker regular bettors. Of course he is exactly the same as all the other suckers, he just can't allow himself to believe that.
So when he finds out there are people that actually make money gambling his self-image as a sharp who looks down on the suckers that don't have systems is threatened. And so the endless exchanges where he flails about trying to satisfy himself that he's not just another degenerate.
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
The correct comment would be: Alan isnt falling for any doubletalk or BS.
And insults aren't going to shake me either.
Sorry. You don't make the 6 o'clock news.
No BS for the straight shooter with the craps system and the 18 yos and the sock puppet "paralegal".
I have no craps system. I dont care if you dont believe the 18 yos because I never said I won a dime off of it and neither did anyone else. I dont use sock puppets.
And I dont post under a made up, infantile name.
I've no dog in this particular fight but in the interest of truth, justice and the American way please let me say two words...."Andrew G."Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And again, it's an insult to famous Super Mario Bros speed runner Andrew G.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVI've no dog in this particular fight but in the interest of truth, justice and the American way please let me say two words...."Andrew G."Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm fairly certain that if Alan walked into a casino, made one $5000 bet, won it, then left, he'd still behind and NOT ahead LIFETIME.
You went a long ways out of your way to come up with something negative to say here, Alan. My opinion of you is you are not that bad of a person but you are an addicted gambler with irrational beliefs. YOU are the one in the fantasy world. You are one of the stupidest gamblers that has ever been on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonUntil the casinos got hip...Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmUntil the casinos got hip a lot of money was made setting the casinos up to deliver copious amounts of freeplay. It was a play that was put down in casinos across the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
1. You go in and sign up for the players club. You are a new player. Sit down on a $5 video poker game in the 98% range. You want to make yourself look like a total sucker. Run 50 to 100K in action. Theoretical loss = 2 to 4K.
2. Then it was a matter of waiting on the mail, usually a month or so. The amount of freeplay varied from casino to casino but you'd usually get 1 to 2K a week for up to six months in freeplay.
3.. Do this at multiple casinos that are unaffiliated.
4. Run a route to each casino running off the freeplay then leaving.
I have one friend that was making 150K a year pulling off this play just in California.
If you'll remember, several years ago the casinos severely cut back freeplay offers and amounts. The reason was the casinos got hurt by wiseguys pulling this play on them.
Several years ago...
It's the national anthem of today's APs... talking about the past.
Come on Mickey. You're better than this.
And I think that any one year of my income probably exceeded your total income from from all of your so called AP play and hole carding and vulturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I bet your aces I'm right.
And for the rest of you step back for a moment and answer this one question:
Why do Mdawg and Rob Singer get challenged freely for their reports but I'm expected to accept claims such as:
My team took $25 million from the casinos
My free play system wins $20,000 a week
For only $25 coin in I get $125 per day of free play for 7 days straight.
Tell me why the AP plays should not be questioned and I'll never question an AP play/claim again.
Promise.
I'll even concede that Kewlj can count two tables successfully.
Give me your reason. But make it good.
And micjeycrimm the addicts say they have no reason to quit because they believe they have the ability to beat the casino. When you have a stop loss you quit. You're not an addict when you know when to quit.
You used to be reasonable Mickey. I'm sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonAnd I think that any one year of my income probably exceeded your total income from from all of your so called AP play and hole carding and vulturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I bet your aces I'm right.
And for the rest of you step back for a moment and answer this one question:
Why do Mdawg and Rob Singer get challenged freely for their reports but I'm expected to accept claims such as:
My team took $25 million from the casinos
My free play system wins $20,000 a week
For only $25 coin in I get $125 per day of free play for 7 days straight.
Tell me why the AP plays should not be questioned and I'll never question an AP play/claim again.
Promise.
I'll even concede that Kewlj can count two tables successfully.
Give me your reason. But make it good.
And micjeycrimm the addicts say they have no reason to quit because they believe they have the ability to beat the casino. When you have a stop loss you quit. You're not an addict when you know when to quit.
You used to be reasonable Mickey. I'm sorry.
Alan is a fine writer, so these kinds of posts are interesting. Let's examine the tenses in the first line. "Addicts say they have no reason to quit because they believe they have the ability to beat the casino." This is a fascinating line. Think about the options the writer had at his disposal and his choices for what to write.
First of all, it's present tense with "addicts say." It's also present tense with "they believe they have the ability to beat the casino."
Let's take a breath and figure out why would a writer use present tense here. Well, for one thing, it takes historical results out of the equation. Instead of referencing what occurred in the past by using past tense, which would provide argument for "addicts" having been successful, the past is edited out of the discussion by the use of present tense. Thus, no reference to what has occurred up to this point in time gambling. The very idea that people have won via "ability" is not recognized in these lines.
Second, we have the word "believe," which suggests, and I do not think I am stretching things here, that there is little to no real world evidence to the effect that the "addicts" win. "Believe" is also a word that suggests it's all in someone's head regarding whether they have won in the past or can win in the future. It sidesteps mentions of historical results, which would be a measure of likely effectiveness.
Also, similar to some other posters, there is zero mention of math in any way. Math is absent in the lines, and yet probability and expectation are the crux of the entire gambling milieu.
The writer concludes with a line intended to suggest that people who are capable of stopping because of losses are somehow less addicted than people who (1) have won but don't see reason to stop and (2) are projected to win and don't see reason to stop. This is also very interesting, as it defines addiction as having to do with stopping play after losing stretches as opposed to overall losing of resources to casinos. I submit that this line should be very popular with casino personnel and shareholders.
Redietz you're a fine writer too. You stuff a lot of words into your posts. You also stuff a lot of advertisements and clippings into packages.
You're a stuffer.
Now read this. It has a term I never saw before.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/goodcas...ure-ahead/amp/
I'll admit it, I'm addicted to what I do for a living. I enjoy it. But I do take time off and do other stuff as well.
I haven't joined in over the past few days because I have no desire to continue to pick on Alan, especially rehashing things that everyone knows.
But it should be clear to anyone who is mildly o0bjective that Alan is not mildly objective. ;) Alan has a strong bias against players that play with an advantage and win at casinos.....ie, advantage players. I guess because he is not one. I think he understands some of the concepts behind at least some of the simpler AP plays, but he wants no part of them, nor accepting that others make money from implementing various advantage plays.
Mickeycrimm, just laid out the mailer advantage play, step by step. I played this mailer play for 8-9 years after I moved to Vegas, smaller scale than mickey's example, but otherwise exactly same, for an average of over 20k a year, supplementing my BJ play. I only became aware of it because another AP shared it with me, right after I moved to Vegas, telling me that not playing some VP for the mailers was leaving free money on the table. So if I played it, making decent money, anyone/everyone with half a brain played it. :rolleyes:
I remember once I mentioned it in detail (not as detailed as mickey just did) and Axelwolf got mad at me for saying it on a public message board. Especially the part about using multiple cards.
I have known Alan was and is biased about APs ever since the initial counting two tables discussion, where he ran out and took intentional blurry pictures to make a false point that a player could not see the next table clearly. I mean who does that kind of thing? A guy who claims to be a journalist? ;)
So it is, what it is. Alan is a -EV player, or you can call it a recreational player, or a "losing" player. He says he is happy with that status, but then he continually can't help but show his contempt for players that play with an advantage and win.
Now, I will say, Alan is hell bent on questioning/challenging DarkOz's claim. And that is ok. I always say, I don't challenge people's claims unless the claims defy math. Dark Oz's claims don't defy math (that I have seen), but ever since I read the first time, it hasn't made a lot of sense to me and certainly is nothing I am familiar with. He did that weird thing where he said $20k a week, but it turns out not every week.....not most weeks. Maybe an occasional situation. That seemed dishonest. But mostly I don't read and haven't read enough of DO's stuff. It just becomes another dude, I am not that interested in.
Please Kewlj. You've said this too many times... that I'm biased against APs. That's bullshit.
I'm biased against unsubstantiated claims.
And with that I will add that yes, there are claims that my friend Rob Singer has not substantiated. So he is not without fault.
I cant substantiate my seeing a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row and I'll regret it the rest of my life.
But when I threw dice at Red Rock and twice they landed on top of each other not only did I take photos but I sent to the Wizard the photos, times, dates and the names of the boxmen to confirm. And when it happened a THIRD TIME with another shooter I did the same thing.
Curiously Wizard never followed through. Why? Because I had proof.
But where's the proof about beating casinos for $25 million? For turning $25 of coin in into 7 X $125 of free play? For winning $20,000 per week from free play on 20 cards?
If you came to ANY newsroom with those claims it would not get on TV.
We see claims like that every day.
Years ago I interviewed a California lottery winner who said he used a system. I asked him when he was going to win the lottery again. He didnt.
I wouldn't doubt anyone saying that dice landed on top of each other. Probably saw that happen lots of times as a kid playing yahtzee.
Read the thread at WOV.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Gamblers' Conceit -- that's a good term. It means you don't know, or don't care, about the odds. It means the odds don't dictate your behavior.
For most of the folks here, the odds always dictate their behavior. Take mickey, for example. He's a precisionist. There's not much gamblers' conceit in what he does. If the odds are there, he plays. If the odds aren't there, he walks. He knows the math. Without a math context, you can't tell if you're guilty of gamblers' conceit or not. A civilian can't just blithely assume alleged APs are all lying. KewlJ and all counters play more when the odds are in their favor. They play less when they're not.
Let me suggest another term: Civilians' Conceit. When people who are not professional gamblers assume they know the contextual math better than professional gamblers. And that they know "how it all ends." That kind of thing is projection. Projection of one's knowledge and skills onto others, and then judging the others.
Finally, technically speaking, I think that the only things in the package I sent you that could be construed as advertisements were copies of pages from the nationally sold Playbook newsletter, where a thumbnail game analysis was accompanied by a box designation where one could get my plays. I don't think anything else in there was an advertisement. Newspaper interviews with me weren't ads. Op-eds written by me weren't ads. McCusker Reports weren't ads; I didn't even have any say regarding what was printed about me in the McCusker Reports. He wasn't always nice.
I will never understand why you didn't bother to read the stuff. You were determined to not investigate my credibility. Yet you accepted some single-source articles from a video poker player as evidence of some kind of expertise, even when articles from the same single source argued directly against what he claimed, sometimes in the same issues. Strange, and frankly unfair, behavior from a renowned journalist.
If you were interested in investigating alleged bullshit claims, you would have read the stuff. It was dry, but you really can't do much better than annual reports of records and public results. And there were people available for follow-up to check any and all claims made. It's not as if I was some solo video poker player using "strategies" unlike any other famous video poker players and claiming massively odds against results without documentation.
Alan this isn't a newsroom. And I don't think anyone, other than maybe the Mdog character is trying to get his claims that kind of coverage. I don't even think Singer is or ever did.
What this and other forums are, are gambling forums, where people (AP's and all sorts of gamblers) can come and talk about their play, including claims if they desire and no one is required to prove anything. No one is on trial. And in most cases....sorry to repeat this, "It just isn't that hard to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking".
Unfortunately there are some that are really good talkers (or writers) and can blur that line. And that is why it is important to have real players that can and will speak up and say that is bullshit.
I have never asked Rob to prove anything, or if I did, it was because I got caught up in the escalation. Similarly, I have never asked Mdawg, nor the guy on the blackjack forum years ago that I called out as BS. That is just not the way it works. No one is on trial. If that is the kind of atmosphere you want, where members have to prove everything they say, I can guarantee, you won't have any AP's or if you do they won't share a damn thing.
I never doubted who you were.
Life happens. I never went back to the office. My former partner opened the envelope and told me what was inside.
What did you want, a half-hour TV Infomercial?
Kewlj I have standards for what I believe in.
I'm not saying other people would. I'm saying that I wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonRead the thread at WOV.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Does believe in: stop win systems (it's in his sig).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Does not believe in: the ability to make money from casino mailers.
Alan I'm going to put you on ignore now as per your previous recommendation because you bring out too much of my petty side.
My parting advice to you is to understand that nobody can be knowledgeable in all areas, and AP is one area where you are and always will be completely ignorant because your nature doesn't allow you to understand it.
Someone answer the question I asked.
Of course I believe you can make money from casino maikers. What I question is how much did those mailers cost you to get? How much did you win?Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerDoes believe in: stop win systems (it's in his sig).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Does not believe in: the ability to make money from casino mailers.
Alan I'm going to put you on ignore now as per your previous recommendation because you bring out too much of my petty side.
My parting advice to you is to understand that nobody can be knowledgeable in all areas, and AP is one area where you are and always will be completely ignorant because your nature doesn't allow you to understand it.
Until I pressed, DO did not admit he spent $60,000 to get those mailers. No one else asked that. Why didn't you?
Go ahead... ignore that.
Says Mr Not So Bright himself.....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou went a long ways out of your way to come up with something negative to say here, Alan. My opinion of you is you are not that bad of a person but you are an addicted gambler with irrational beliefs. YOU are the one in the fantasy world. You are one of the stupidest gamblers that has ever been on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonUntil the casinos got hip...Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Several years ago...
It's the national anthem of today's APs... talking about the past.
Come on Mickey. You're better than this.
Dumbass hobo....
C'mon, Alan. You never accepting the answers and claims of AP's is not my problem, nor anyone else's. Thats all your problem. Go ahead and disbelieve. Nobody gives a rats ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Not one of you has made an attempt to explain why claims such as...
Our team won $25-million...
$25 coin in got me 7X $125 free play...
I win $20,000 a week (but not every week)...
Are not challenged by other APs without supporting evidence.
But keep ignoring the question and attacking me. I'm enjoying it because each time I can state my case.
Says the dumass poser pro that likes 9 inch cock up your ass. Then it's back to stepandfetchit for the two bit slot team.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
You easily prove how little you know about gambling. Because you never put up any real gambling theory here. You just talk shit like "Nothing going on in the casinos I don't know about." Bullshit. You're a poser pro. You don't know jackshit.
Says the stepandfetchit poser pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Mickey not once has evidence been offered. It's always a secret.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmC'mon, Alan. You never accepting the answers and claims of AP's is not my problem, nor anyone else's. Thats all your problem. Go ahead and disbelieve. Nobody gives a rats ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well DO kept the $60k secret till it slipped.
Then there was a guy you know who captained video poker progressive teams and wrote a book about it. But then one day while having lunch with me at Caesars he let it slip that HE NEVER PLAYED WITH HIS OWN MONEY and he called ALL casino gambling a losing proposition.
Remember him Mickey?
Good to see 1 of a kind forum legend Alan back full force. Things are not quite the same around here without his LOLS ! Now if we can only be so lucky, as to get his "paralegal" Mr Andrew back. That would be something else !
Some of us aren't as vocal about all the plays. Max is one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmSays the dumass poser pro that likes 9 inch cock up your ass. Then it's back to stepandfetchit for the two bit slot team.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
You easily prove how little you know about gambling. Because you never put up any real gambling theory here. You just talk shit like "Nothing going on in the casinos I don't know about." Bullshit. You're a poser pro. You don't know jackshit.
Another diversion from the question. This is making me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy
Gambler A puts $1,000 in a 12 month FDIC insured CD with a 5% APR.
Gambler B has a $1,000 bankroll. Twice a week he visits his local casino where they offer a fair coin flip bet. Since it’s 50/50 they charge a 5% commission on all bets.
Gambler B has a set win goal and a set stop loss and will always quit for the day when either one is reached.
Gambler B also happens to be the luckiest person to have ever existed on earth.
At the end of 12 months who will have more money?
This is becoming a comedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
Let's call a spade a spade.
Not one of you will explain why it's okay to challenge the claims of Mdawg and Singer, but you wont question claims like winning $25-million or getting $125 x 7 in free play with just $25 of coin in.
I'm done.
If you want to claim victory, go ahead. Because you'll never give a straight answer.