Of Math and Men

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

After not reading for a few days, I'm seeing nothing helpful in this thread. The people playing positive ev videopoker either claim they win or give the impression they do but have nothing to support it, Alan says he plays negative games and loses, an there's the never-ending talk about Singer winning on those awful negative games he plays. Add me into the mix too. I've already said I lose on the positive games and win on the negative ones.

The only one I believe here is Alan, even over me if that's possible. The rest of you are so caught up in this + vs. - play must yield equivalent results, that you think nothing else is possible except for the one guy who admits to losing. Makes for lively discussion I guess, but don't think for one minute that anyone's learning anything from it.

---

Well, I don't believe a word you wrote.

Arc, it doesn't really matter if you believe a word that jatki wrote. He's giving us, I believe, an honest appraisal of the discussion. And I think he is applying his own experience to what is being discussed.

He said he won for the most part playing a negative expectation game, and lost playing a positive game. That is a perfectly reasonable statement to make and I believe it too. First, I believe you can win playing negative game. It all depends how you play, when you "cash out" and if you get lucky playing.

The "math" gives us a road map for "casino action" but it doesn't always define a player's actual results. Again, we are getting back to "expected return" vs "actual return." And that is something you will not acknowledge.

Well, maybe you do acknowledge it because even you admit to having losing sessions. And I think that's the point. If your losing sessions on your positive expectation game add up to more than the winning sessions you will lose over time regardless of what the math says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, it doesn't really matter if you believe a word that jatki wrote. He's giving us, I believe, an honest appraisal of the discussion. And I think he is applying his own experience to what is being discussed.

He said he won for the most part playing a negative expectation game, and lost playing a positive game. That is a perfectly reasonable statement to make and I believe it too. First, I believe you can win playing negative game. It all depends how you play, when you "cash out" and if you get lucky playing.

---

He may be relating his own experience. I have no problem with that. But, inferring that someone else is lying because they don't share the same experience is not called for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

The "math" gives us a road map for "casino action" but it doesn't always define a player's actual results. Again, we are getting back to "expected return" vs "actual return." And that is something you will not acknowledge.

---

No, I've acknowledged results vary many times. How many times will I have to repeat it before you quit with this nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well, maybe you do acknowledge it because even you admit to having losing sessions. And I think that's the point. If your losing sessions on your positive expectation game add up to more than the winning sessions you will lose over time regardless of what the math says.

---

That's true, but if a person playing with a good edge has a 95% of winnings adding up over time while a person playing a negative game has a 5% chance, which do you think is a better approach?

Arc, what does this mean? That's true, but if a person playing with a good edge has a 95% of winnings adding up over time while a person playing a negative game has a 5% chance, which do you think is a better approach?

I don't follow at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, what does this mean? That's true, but if a person playing with a good edge has a 95% of winnings adding up over time while a person playing a negative game has a 5% chance, which do you think is a better approach?

I don't follow at all.

---

That's because you haven't been trying to understand. You get caught up in possibilities without understanding probabilities.

When you claim a person can win playing a negative game or lose playing a positive game that is true. In other words, that is a true possibility. The problem is it does not actually happen enough to matter. The probability is that the person playing the positive game will win more often and lose less than a person playing a negative game.

Over time we all approach the expected return based on the machines we play and strategy we use. If that ER is 99% then over time your chances of being ahead fall to a very low number (like 5% or less). If the ER is strongly positive then the chances of being ahead grow until it is very high (95% or more).

Win/loss goals only change the amount you play (which is good if you are playing a negative game). They do not change the ER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

That's because you haven't been trying to understand. You get caught up in possibilities without understanding probabilities.

When you claim a person can win playing a negative game or lose playing a positive game that is true. In other words, that is a true possibility. The problem is it does not actually happen enough to matter. The probability is that the person playing the positive game will win more often and lose less than a person playing a negative game.

Over time we all approach the expected return based on the machines we play and strategy we use. If that ER is 99% then over time your chances of being ahead fall to a very low number (like 5% or less). If the ER is strongly positive then the chances of being ahead grow until it is very high (95% or more).

Win/loss goals only change the amount you play (which is good if you are playing a negative game). They do not change the ER.

---

Here we go again. You're right -- no strategy will ever change the EXPECTED RETURN. But what you do as an individual will affect your ACTUAL RETURN.

If you play a negative expectation game and decide to cash out when you win -- and if you do it enough times over enough sessions -- your ACTUAL RETURN can beat the EXPECTED RETURN. You don't acknowledge that, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Here we go again. You're right -- no strategy will ever change the EXPECTED RETURN. But what you do as an individual will affect your ACTUAL RETURN.

If you play a negative expectation game and decide to cash out when you win -- and if you do it enough times over enough sessions -- your ACTUAL RETURN can beat the EXPECTED RETURN. You don't acknowledge that, do you?

---

Over the short term it can, but it probably won't. Once again the probability is you will lose over time even though there is a possibility you might win. It's that old 95/5% thing.

Short term, long term. Isn't the long term made up of a bunch of short terms ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Short term, long term. Isn't the long term made up of a bunch of short terms ??

---

Yup, and you can't win every one of those "short term" sessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Yup, and you can't win every one of those "short term" sessions.

---

You don't have to win every one of the sessions just as you win only 45% of your sessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You don't have to win every one of the sessions just as you win only 45% of your sessions.

---

I somehow expect that won't sit too well with him. But let me see if I have this right. Arcimedes says that, because you're playing a 99.5% game instead of a 100.5% game, you only have a 5% chance of winning after some term. But play a game that's only 1% higher, and you will have a 95% chance of being a winner over that timeframe. Wow, that's some math he's using there. 1% = 90%. Now what about a visit by visit basis, what happens then? I still don't see why I should lose on my next visit because I'm playing a game that's 1% lower than another. Then how the heck am I ahead on bonuspoker and behind on fpdw? I attribute it to understanding that I should quit playing for the visit if and when I get ahead at whatever amount I select before I play. I do that on fpdw too, only I rarely seem to get anything ahead on that damn game.

I can only summize that some people firmly believe this will happen and others believe that will happen. But the only thing that's important is what DOES happen, and no one can say anything about that other than guess by the numbers on a visit by visit basis. The notion that this long term defines all the short terms or that positive games will return more than negative games, today, are nothing but opinions based on what's expected because of the math. In other words, it means nothing because the math cannot account for human decisions. Arcimedes seems to think that, just because I won today, yesterday and the day before on a negative game that I HAVE TO lose tomorrow on it, and that loss I guess is supposed to be more than all three winning visits, just so I can stay in tune with the math somehow. That's total hogwash for sure. How does he know how our rabbit's feet will react?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I somehow expect that won't sit too well with him. But let me see if I have this right. Arcimedes says that, because you're playing a 99.5% game instead of a 100.5% game, you only have a 5% chance of winning after some term. But play a game that's only 1% higher, and you will have a 95% chance of being a winner over that timeframe. Wow, that's some math he's using there. 1% = 90%. Now what about a visit by visit basis, what happens then? I still don't see why I should lose on my next visit because I'm playing a game that's 1% lower than another. Then how the heck am I ahead on bonuspoker and behind on fpdw? I attribute it to understanding that I should quit playing for the visit if and when I get ahead at whatever amount I select before I play. I do that on fpdw too, only I rarely seem to get anything ahead on that damn game.

---

Well, first of all we were referring to a 99% game, not 99.5% when the 5% number was computed. Yes, it will also eventually apply to the 99.5% game as it must based on the math. The probability increases over time. Eventually it will get to 99.9% and then even higher. It's called math. You should learn something about it before making statements about it.

As for your own results, they are simply short term variation. And yes, short term could be quite a bit of play. However, your FPDW results are interesting in that it demonstrates that Alan's supposed quit while you're ahead strategy doesn't work if you don't get ahead. Over time a player will see times they start losing immediately and continue losing. It turns out that for short sessions it's more likely to lose at FPDW than many other games. However, the losses are usually quite low compared to other games. And, when you hit the quad deuces it makes up for those small losses. I'd guess you've had lower than average luck at hitting the ducks. That would account for your losing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

I can only summize that some people firmly believe this will happen and others believe that will happen. But the only thing that's important is what DOES happen, and no one can say anything about that other than guess by the numbers on a visit by visit basis. The notion that this long term defines all the short terms or that positive games will return more than negative games, today, are nothing but opinions based on what's expected because of the math. In other words, it means nothing because the math cannot account for human decisions. Arcimedes seems to think that, just because I won today, yesterday and the day before on a negative game that I HAVE TO lose tomorrow on it, and that loss I guess is supposed to be more than all three winning visits, just so I can stay in tune with the math somehow. That's total hogwash for sure. How does he know how our rabbit's feet will react?

---

Will you eventually lose? The probability is near 100% that you will.

BTW, the math does not care about human decisions. It is simply telling us that random events average out over time. Kind of like the drought hitting the US this year. Eventually, these things occur. They have in the past and they will again in the future. It's simply one of the possible situations. Same holds for VP. Over time the possible events do occur. That works out well when those events lead to good paying hands and not so well when they don't.

And, your beliefs don't matter.

You say it's called math, yet I didn't I didn't see any of it in support of your claim that 1% = 90%. Is that the new math or something? I know I'm old but I remember the basics.

When I play fpdw I don't play with any goals like I do on bonuspoker. I just play and play until my eyes shut. When you're calling it short term variation then I have to say it is now YOU who are making silly claims because you have no knowledge yet of how much I've played it. The answer would be about 15 years, and maybe 10 million or more hands. So in the face of more facts, are you now going to say that I make too many errors? I'd say no more than you do on whatever you play. So you see, the math you place all of your marbles in does not work in EITHER game I play, and can you finally accept that it is that way for others also even if you aren't happy about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

You say it's called math, yet I didn't I didn't see any of it in support of your claim that 1% = 90%. Is that the new math or something? I know I'm old but I remember the basics.

---

No, it is simple statistics. probably freshman college level stuff. If you aren't willing to spend any time understanding even the simple stuff why do you make comments about it? Do you often brag about your ignorance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

When I play fpdw I don't play with any goals like I do on bonuspoker. I just play and play until my eyes shut. When you're calling it short term variation then I have to say it is now YOU who are making silly claims because you have no knowledge yet of how much I've played it. The answer would be about 15 years, and maybe 10 million or more hands. So in the face of more facts, are you now going to say that I make too many errors? I'd say no more than you do on whatever you play. So you see, the math you place all of your marbles in does not work in EITHER game I play, and can you finally accept that it is that way for others also even if you aren't happy about it?

---

If you play "until my eyes shut", then you are likely making many errors. I suspect we now know why you haven't been successful. Most people don't understand their error costs and, yes, that includes many APers. That is why I have always said gamblers need to find the biggest edge they can.

Wonderful, you finally said it, Arc, even if you didn't mean to and even if you don't believe it. You wrote:

"the math does not care about human decisions. It is simply telling us that random events average out over time."

You see Arc, people do not make random choices when they play video poker, or even when they play in a casino. They choose everything -- when to play, when to stop, what game, what cards, what denomination. Hence the choices of the human being can be used to beat the math.

I know, you'll just say it's either random or fits a bell curve or you'll come up with some coin flip analogy. We've heard it all before.

Alan:

I read your thread on craps and it was very interesting, but why would you say there is no way to win at craps long term while video poker would be winnable at -EV? I ask this as a friendly Devil's Advocate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

I read your thread on craps and it was very interesting, but why would you say there is no way to win at craps long term while video poker would be winnable at -EV? I ask this as a friendly Devil's Advocate.

---

Well, you can win at craps if you get lucky and you hit the big jackpots, which is what the article was about on this page: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id139.html . The fire bet pays $10,000 for a $10 bet. Even video poker doesn't have a return like that. Also in craps it is very common for players to "quit when ahead" which somehow is a strategy that doesn't hold any value in the video poker world (why?).

Otherwise, the math will bust you at craps just as it will at video poker.

Well, Arc is saying simply that quitting while ahead is a misnomer when the game is +EV...but I'm sure you already understand this argument.

Ironically, I am about $2,000 ahead lifetime for casino craps ...wish I could say the same for VP.

I am so far behind playing craps... I don't want to even think about it. And I am a conservative craps player and always was meaning I was not a "crazy crapper" betting the long shots. I even shun hardway bets.

But one thing I was told a long time ago that was my downfall: I did not walk away from the table after a monster roll and I kept playing, and eventually gave it back.

I'm not even going to discuss the subject of "dice influencing" because while I believe in the theory behind it and the science behind it, it's one thing to say it is possible and it's another thing to actually do it. And that is much like the theory behind winning at video poker. The theory says one thing but doing it is something else.

I haven't played craps for many years, but used to 'roll the bones' at LV Golden Nugget and Binions along with a couple of Midwestern casinos. I played it just like Phil Ivey does: Keep putting odds on the Pass and Come bets until it all sevens out. Yes...I do see the disadvantage of having to make a point twice compared to place bets but it is slightly better EV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Wonderful, you finally said it, Arc, even if you didn't mean to and even if you don't believe it. You wrote:

"the math does not care about human decisions. It is simply telling us that random events average out over time."

You see Arc, people do not make random choices when they play video poker, or even when they play in a casino. They choose everything -- when to play, when to stop, what game, what cards, what denomination. Hence the choices of the human being can be used to beat the math.

I know, you'll just say it's either random or fits a bell curve or you'll come up with some coin flip analogy. We've heard it all before.

---

Alan, if the math I was describing was for some average return then it might be possible to "beat the math". However, that's not what the ER of a game refers to. It refers to the optimal return. You do understand what optimal means, don't you? That means it's the upper limit. You can't do better than the best by making decisions. It is already part of the assumption that all the best decisions have been made.

Here's a task for you. Take 5 one hundred dollar bills, 5 fifty dollar bills, 5 twenty dollar bills, 5 ten dollar bills, 5 five dollar bills and 5 one dollar bills. Now, try counting those bills in any way you can and see if you can get over $930. You can leave out as many bills as you want. You can even quit one day and start up the next if you want. Let me know when you get above $930.

Now, why is it you can't get above $930? Does it have something to do with math? Is it because $930 is the maximum value?

Arc, are you some kind of a troll? You are the most ridiculous person I've ever come across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, are you some kind of a troll? You are the most ridiculous person I've ever come across.

---

If a honest belief in simple mathematical principles is your definition of a troll, then I am guilty. Maybe you should start reading what I have been telling you. You might learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

If a honest belief in simple mathematical principles is your definition of a troll, then I am guilty. Maybe you should start reading what I have been telling you. You might learn something.

---

Arc I don't challenge your math. I challenge your reasoning and ability to understand things that have nothing to do with math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, are you some kind of a troll? You are the most ridiculous person I've ever come across.

---

Alan, you might not like what Arci is saying and you might not agree with him. But, if you want the bickering to end as well as the personal insults, you're giving a bad example here as the webmaster and moderator of this website. Think about it....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc I don't challenge your math. I challenge your reasoning and ability to understand things that have nothing to do with math.

---

Yes, the person who clearly knows very little math is now telling a math major what topics mathematics relates to and which ones don't. Do you ever consider how silly that is?

Alan, I think you truly believe you are avoiding the math with your "human decisions". All I can do is keep telling you that you are wrong. Every hand you play in VP comes under the auspices of applied mathematics.

When all is said and done your results will be average of those very same hands. The math tells us what we can expect from those results. The reason we can trust the math is because every one of those hands is random and independent. Now, what part does independent play? It means that it makes no difference WHEN any one of those hands is played. Think about your "human decisions" and what 'when" means.

OK...I'm going to chime in on this whole math bit just for a second...

Many positive EV video poker plays (if not almost all of them) are rapidly disappearing and I think sometimes people want to have a sort of hope they can still win over the long term against negative machines that have now almost completely infested the casinos. If we paid attention to nothing but the math and followed the strict logic to stay away from casinos as a result, it would be a big disappointment for those who still want action and harbor some hope of still being able to win! I'm not necessarily pointing fingers at anyone on this because I fall prey to such a trap myself!

Okay, last time: people can win at negative expectation games. And everyone agrees.

If you can win once, why can't you win twice? If you win twice, why can't you win a third time?

A "win" can represent any profit, even one credit.

Is there some rule of mathematics that says this cannot happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

OK...I'm going to chime in on this whole math bit just for a second...

Many positive EV video poker plays (if not almost all of them) are rapidly disappearing and I think sometimes people want to have a sort of hope they can still win over the long term against negative machines that have now almost completely infested the casinos. If we paid attention to nothing but the math and followed the strict logic to stay away from casinos as a result, it would be a big disappointment for those who still want action and harbor some hope of still being able to win! I'm not necessarily pointing fingers at anyone on this because I fall prey to such a trap myself!

---

THAT was one of the topics discussed on and on at LV A sports some years ago. Singer in his glory wrote a column identifying just that, how Bob Dancer was constantly reinventing his method of calculating the value of a videopoker game as casinos put the squeeze on us players. But he wasn't as kind in his depiction of what Dancer was doing. He called it a guru's hypocrisy or something like that, and he gave examples of where Dancer swore he'd quit playing way back when, if the games plus the cash back ever made it to under 100%. I among others argued with him on it but over these years I see he was right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Okay, last time: people can win at negative expectation games. And everyone agrees.

If you can win once, why can't you win twice? If you win twice, why can't you win a third time?

A "win" can represent any profit, even one credit.

Is there some rule of mathematics that says this cannot happen?

---

Nope, it's all perfectly valid ... but, it doesn't consider true odds. I could win power ball next week and be $200 million dollars richer. Absolutely nothing "says this cannot happen". However, it isn't very likely to happen. Neither are those continual wins you think you can "decide" into existence. Like I told you before. It's the difference between "possibilities" and "probabilities". Just because there's a remote chance something might happen does not equate with it actually happening with any regularity.

Arc. I would suggest to you that when you play video poker on a negative expectation game such as 8/5 bonus or 9/6 jacks there will be a time when you are ahead.

I will also remind everyone that gaming author Victor Royer has a survey that shows that 86% of casinogoers are ahead at some point but 95% leave with a loss.

Somewhere between the 86% and the 95% is the "human factor" which says to stop playing and pocket the profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

THAT was one of the topics discussed on and on at LV A sports some years ago. Singer in his glory wrote a column identifying just that, how Bob Dancer was constantly reinventing his method of calculating the value of a videopoker game as casinos put the squeeze on us players. But he wasn't as kind in his depiction of what Dancer was doing. He called it a guru's hypocrisy or something like that, and he gave examples of where Dancer swore he'd quit playing way back when, if the games plus the cash back ever made it to under 100%. I among others argued with him on it but over these years I see he was right.

---

Don't believe anything Singer says ... ever. He claimed he knew Dancer and yet Dancer just indicated on vp.com that he'd never seen Singer before. Now, Dancer might be lying but given Signer's track record I think he's the much more likely suspect.

Given that information the chances that Dancer really swore he wouldn't play a machine under 100% is likely another lie. In fact, it's not unusual for machines under 100% return to provide a better overall return that certain positive games like 10/7 DB or 10/6 DDB. I played a 99.8% (DB+) game at Tuscany that provided about 1.7% added cash (FP/CB) not counting comps/gift/promotions. Far better than FPDW and available in dollar denomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc. I would suggest to you that when you play video poker on a negative expectation game such as 8/5 bonus or 9/6 jacks there will be a time when you are ahead.

I will also remind everyone that gaming author Victor Royer has a survey that shows that 86% of casinogoers are ahead at some point but 95% leave with a loss.

Somewhere between the 86% and the 95% is the "human factor" which says to stop playing and pocket the profit.

---

Alan, I wrote a simulation a few months ago and gave you the results. Yes, you can win that often but it will not change your actual return over time. Your win % is dependent on two things.

1) How high your loss limit is and
2) How low your win goals are.

You may very well be 5 credits ahead at some early point in your play. If you stop then you will win that session. However, how long does it take to lose ten of your 5 credit wins? Well, one loss of only 50 credits and they vanish. You've just won over 90% of your sessions and you haven't won a cent. Now, you may say you'll set your win goal higher ... ok, your win percentage will now drop. Alan, there's no way around the math. I'm not saying this to be mean. It simply is reality.

Arc, did you simulation include a decision about when to quit? Or was it a run of a defined number of hands?

And how do your 45% of wins overcome your 55% of losses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, did you simulation include a decision about when to quit? Or was it a run of a defined number of hands?

---

I built both simulators. I can test either approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

And how do your 45% of wins overcome your 55% of losses?

---

By averaging larger wins. Do the math. If I lose $1000/session 55% of the time and win $2000/session 45% of the time, what is my overall result after 100 session? Clue ... what does 90K - 55K come out to?

Excellent, you have a simulator that can test the "human factor." So when does your simulator "cash out" using the human factor? How did you decide to cash out or did you program in a particular win goal?

I know you have an answer for everything Arc, but the reality is you do not have an answer for everything because some things are not governed by the math. The math governs what the math governs and it can't govern what it can't govern. Deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

By averaging larger wins. Do the math. If I lose $1000/session 55% of the time and win $2000/session 45% of the time, what is my overall result after 100 session? Clue ... what does 90K - 55K come out to?

---

Haven't you caught on yet? Your numbers mean nothing because any number you invent I can invent another number to prove my point.

Why can't you just say -- gee, I guess someone could win playing a negative expectation game because actual results can differ from expected results.

You can't do that, can you? If you did, would the Earth swallow you up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Excellent, you have a simulator that can test the "human factor." So when does your simulator "cash out" using the human factor? How did you decide to cash out or did you program in a particular win goal?

---

The win goal is input to the program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I know you have an answer for everything Arc, but the reality is you do not have an answer for everything because some things are not governed by the math. The math governs what the math governs and it can't govern what it can't govern. Deal with it.

---

I do deal with it. It's you who won't deal with the fact that the math governs the frequency of the cards you are dealt. With that math determined frequency, the hands you see will be the statistically the same no matter when you choose to play. Hence, you will see the same number of winning hands and losing hands as anyone else. This is all what the math tells you.

So, what do you do with that information? You claim that by deciding when to stop playing on a given day that those frequencies will be altered and you will get more winning hands than another person. The only thing that you can do by deciding to quit is lower the total number of hands played. Good idea on negative machines but it can not and will not change the mathematical frequencies of the hands that are dealt to you. Deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Don't believe anything Singer says ... ever. He claimed he knew Dancer and yet Dancer just indicated on vp.com that he'd never seen Singer before. Now, Dancer might be lying but given Signer's track record I think he's the much more likely suspect.

Given that information the chances that Dancer really swore he wouldn't play a machine under 100% is likely another lie. In fact, it's not unusual for machines under 100% return to provide a better overall return that certain positive games like 10/7 DB or 10/6 DDB. I played a 99.8% (DB+) game at Tuscany that provided about 1.7% added cash (FP/CB) not counting comps/gift/promotions. Far better than FPDW and available in dollar denomination.

---

I've never seen where Singer said he knew Dancer, where is that at? I know he was interviewed by Dancer's boothmate, Shack, some time ago that's probably still up on a site. I did read about some bet Dancer offered him and when he accepted Dancer backed off. Don't know the validity of that either. But I wouldn't go calling Singer a liar, you're sounding a lot like Harry Reid. Singer provided Dancer's column info that we looked at and he was right on about what he said. It only had to do with game ev and cb. Nothing else. If it came in under 100% then Dancer said he'd quit playing. His words, not Singers. Now, from what I've seen, Dancer adds in whatever he can in order to get to more than a hundred percent. To him he calls that "playable" I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Singer provided Dancer's column info that we looked at and he was right on about what he said. It only had to do with game ev and cb. Nothing else. If it came in under 100% then Dancer said he'd quit playing. His words, not Singers. Now, from what I've seen, Dancer adds in whatever he can in order to get to more than a hundred percent. To him he calls that "playable" I think.

---

Could be true. Dancer will add in things that I wouldn't. The biggest one is promotional wins. However, there's nothing inherently wrong with what Dancer is doing. It is still based on math. However, it does increase the variance which will lead to a higher number of losing (or very small winning) years while also creating some more profitable years.

Also, a lot of the promotional stuff has been built up over time to try and attract more players. I see nothing wrong with adapting to that change.

Arc I too say there's nothing wrong with adapting. That's what life's about. The only point I was making is that Dancer, and I hate to sound like singer after reading that go-around with Alan, but Dancer didn't do what he preached. For a person who's basically selling videopoker to fans and wannabees, I'm saying what Singer said, that they deserved better, that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Arc I too say there's nothing wrong with adapting. That's what life's about. The only point I was making is that Dancer, and I hate to sound like singer after reading that go-around with Alan, but Dancer didn't do what he preached. For a person who's basically selling videopoker to fans and wannabees, I'm saying what Singer said, that they deserved better, that's all.

---

If changes occur that cannot be foreseen then I don't see why any Dancer fans would hold him to statements he made before those changes occurred.

I can remember professional golfers that laughed at the big headed clubs and graphite shafts when they first appeared. many of them said they wouldn't be caught dead using them. Of course, once they actually saw what kind of difference those clubs provided they all jumped on board. Did they disappoint their fans? I doubt it very much. They made an intelligent adaptation based on new information.

Singer just hates Dancer and will do anything to criticize him. I'm anything but a Dancer fan but I certainly understand making intelligent changes when conditions change.

If changes can occur that cannot be foreseen, you would think a professional would know that's possible in advance and not make such a statement. I don't see the link between the golf clubs and the specific fact that Dancer provided. If cb plus ev don't go over 100%, he will no longer play. That's pretty cut and dry. He knew at the time, being the experienced player he's been, that he could always add in other things to bolster his %. But he still made the statement, and Singer dinged him for it. I don't see any hate involved. In fact, good for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

If changes can occur that cannot be foreseen, you would think a professional would know that's possible in advance and not make such a statement. I don't see the link between the golf clubs and the specific fact that Dancer provided. If cb plus ev don't go over 100%, he will no longer play. That's pretty cut and dry. He knew at the time, being the experienced player he's been, that he could always add in other things to bolster his %. But he still made the statement, and Singer dinged him for it. I don't see any hate involved. In fact, good for him.

---

What Dancer was likely saying is he wouldn't play a game that was under 100% as a total return. He used the items that were available at that time in the discussion. When additional items became available that would take a play over 100% he simply included those in his decision making process. This is not rocket science.

Trying to infer he changed his way of thinking is beyond silly. And, anyone doing that is motivated by something other than logic and common sense.

You see arc, it's statements like these that give me the impression that you are really a troll at heart, and I did look it up. Back when Dancer made that statement and much before it, comps were available, gifts were available, tournaments were available. Even free trips were much more available. But I do see your strategy here. You will keep developing scenarios through your spin factory that make you think you've convinced me that Singer was wrong, only the history is already written on that and he was right.

I see you got up very early for this today. Get some rest.

It doesn't matter if these things were available, only if they were available where reasonable plays existed. When 2% plays were all around town there was no need to look into any of those things. Good grief.

You really are quite logic impaired, aren't yo.

Yo, arc! How about listening. BD knew what was available and didn't need anything but cb to claim a 100%+ play, especially with all the +games available back then. That's why he proclaimed he wouldn't play any longer if that cb + ev = >100% scenario ever ceased to exist. Simple, right? Then, because his sacred games and or cb went south, he went back on his word and started adding in all those other things to develop a + play, just so he didn't have to stop playing. As Singer put it, he just couldn't stop by then, because he got bit by the vp bug. Get it?

Now get some rest.

So, the dude that can't read with any comprehension skills at all knew exactly what Dancer was thinking when he made that statement. You are really a ball of laughs. Sorry, but there's plenty of room for interpretation and I suspect I'm a lot closer than you. But hey, why don't you ask Bob, then neither one of us will have to guess.

You didn't get your rest.

Dancer said what he would do, and he was already aware that he could have added in all the other items but he chose to say he wouldn't. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I expect when you get your rest you might finally understand this.

So, you're afraid to ask Bob himself. Why am I not surprised. You would rather spread rumor and innuendo than get the facts. It does fit with everything else you've said since you got here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

So, you're afraid to ask Bob himself. Why am I not surprised. You would rather spread rumor and innuendo than get the facts. It does fit with everything else you've said since you got here.

---

That doesn't follow your so called logic arc. Singer's the one who wote the article and I happen to agree with him. It this universe, if someone agrees with something they have no need to do anything further unless they want to contact the author and pat him on the back (which isn't a bad idea by the way). Rather, it's the ones who disagree that need to do whatever they want or can so they won't keep waking up in a cold sweat over it.

Get that rest yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

That doesn't follow your so called logic arc. Singer's the one who wote the article and I happen to agree with him. It this universe, if someone agrees with something they have no need to do anything further unless they want to contact the author and pat him on the back (which isn't a bad idea by the way). Rather, it's the ones who disagree that need to do whatever they want or can so they won't keep waking up in a cold sweat over it.

Get that rest yet?

---

Singer may have originated it but now you are the one who is doing the analysis and making claims. Your unwillingness to get the facts means you are letting your own desires cloud the picture. It really says a lot about how you approach information.

I never saw the articles and I don't know what, if anything, Dancer said he would or would not do. But I would just llike to add this: Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, so no one in this country can be a slave to another person and no one should be shackled to an idea or thought. In my book it's okay to change your mind.

If Rob Singer is saying that Dancer cannot change his mind then Rob is wrong, just as wrong as when he said I couldn't change my mind. Conditions change, games change, people change, their finances change, their goals change, their motivations change, their lives change.

Heck, you want an example of change: Rob Singer himself has admitted going in and out of being on one trip a recreational player and then on another trip a practitioner of his own professional strategy. If Rob Singer can change his mind, the rest of us humble folks can change our minds.

It appears even when I leave, the "more than chatter" continues about me. Imagine what'll happen after I die :). But this time, I wasn't looking until one of the active posters here contacted me and said the reading would be interesting.

First off Alan, there is no problem with us. I simply came apart as your told your story of weakness and of how you got so controlled by what I've always said was an enemy of the players: the casino....specifically, VP this time. I'd say we should forget about it. You know my position and I think I know yours. I can only help those who recognize a problem and want my help. You don't think you have one. So be it.

As for the Dancer thing I've been reading about: jatki's got it pretty well defined from my end--he told it straight on. But that thing you said about how it's OK that he changed his mind--presumably in a changing world. Well, I agree, but that was never the point and I'm surprised you missed it. What I outed him on was how he said he would NEVER incorporate anything BUT cashback into the EV formula, and he even listed all the other available "freebies" at the time that he vowed he'd never use, and cash gifts/bounceback cash were part of that...or else he would stop playing. Although jatki didn't have it explained perfectly, as he said, it is pretty cut & dry.

I saw the part about Frank. Alan, you met with him once or twice and I met with him twice. You probably know I BEGGED HIM to sit with me at machines so he could learn everything about my play strategy (BTW, SPS is actually Singer Play Strategy in the context of how we've been identifying it here - but it is originally Single Play Strategy, noted as such as my four other play strategies came out of the development mill). You of course are correct about how he either got caught up in something else or just didn't have the time to do it. On a side note, I have to thank arci for once again showing how much I influence his life on the Internet, as he radiated his eventual fizzled-out hope that there was a spec of truth to his "Frank canned it" theory. That wasn't even a good try for a student on the Mr. Wizard show, let alone a "tested genius" :)

Then there's the discussion about my average bet during my SPS. Jatki has some good points, Alan remembers what I told him well, and alas, arci just can't get even the simplest of things right--even in the face of reading where someone else actually saw my W2G's in Gaming Today. What else can be said.

Alan, I hope I can clear this up for you here. My professional career had a start and a stop date. It was a job to me just like anyone else's. During that time, I ONLY played either SPS, RTT (romp-thru-town), ARTT (advanced romp-thru-town), Five-Play, or Multi-Strike strategies. Those are what I developed to play when I played for profit professionally. Nothing else. Just like these days, when I no longer play ANY of those and only teach them, because I now play like any other recreational player. I no longer keep the required bankroll around to play those strategies. The comparatively few trips I wrote about for my book or when my wife and I drove from Phoenix to the Oregon coast for vacation (which we did every year) and the three 10,000 mile around-the-country & Canada drives we did where I always hit every Harrahs property in the country for the free rooms and food, when I chose to play, even though I was in the middle of my professional career, I never played long and I sat at bars to watch games or just to relax and play a little. Pros do take breaks mid-season, and this pro chose not to bore my wife with what could have been long hours of me sitting at machines during my and HER vacation. Now does that make sense finally?

Oh yes, while we're on that subject, why discuss videopoker.com here? That's always been the leading site for video poker hacks, arci has always put on the same show there as he does here, and whatever his claims are about me being the poster initialed BS instead of the revered RS over there, he's only doing it because that fellow must have embarrassed poor arci about something. And what does he do whenever he gets agitated with someone else? Yup, he claims it's me in disguise, he waits for his little clique of broken down old vp losers to come on in support, then he piles up the lies just as he does here. I haven't read anything there for many months, and I won't go there anytime in the foreseeable future. I saw here where Dancer says arci's lying about it, and Thor doesn't believe him either (that's the admin., who BTW is less than half his age and displays far more intelligence--perhaps because he's not a stay-at-home lover out of the punch card era?). But arci does have lots of time on his hand to build conspiracy theories....Oops, I won't bring that up!



Finally folks, I see interest is alive and well about understanding my SPS. That's encouraging, but even though I AM retired with what a lot of people might think is a ton of down time on my hands, it's not gonna be like that by any stretch until I return to Nv. for the Gaming Expo in early Oct. Shortly after that, I MAY find time to write up a very specifically detailed definition, but remember, to truly comprehend all of it you MUST sit with me at the machines for multiple lessons.

I wanted to relate this when I first came on, but I quickly found out that whenever arc gets challenged he takes it as a personal attack against his credibility, then calls people names you'd only hear in a computer sciences classroom. But now, after seeing how much he has Singer on the brain, it doesn't matter, I'll go through it anyway. He won't like it and too bad, but it might be informative to others here.

I did meet with Singer, about 4 to 5 years ago. How could anybody not want to meet with him after some of the stuff he put up on LV A sports? Anybody here remember thase golden days? It was classic. He did pretty damn good on the sportsbetting too. It was for discussions about playing and a lesson. He was decent enough to spend the better part of four hours with me, yes four hours , starting out at Sam's Town where I had to wait for him to get out of the movie theater, and finishing up in the high limit room at the Palms. He said he had earlier finished up playing one of his sessions there, having won something like $4000, and that he generally left for home right after them except for my request was urgent because we tried to hook up once before in Reno and I called to cancel at the last minute because of personal problems. He graciously understood, and although he can be a tough customer, aka dickh*** to some on the forums, he's really not like that at all.

That's why I know a lot about his strategy, but not everything and there's a lot I still have questions on, and Alan's right, those special plays are a study in confusion. Use them here, don't use them there, sometimes, and they change as the game he plays changes. When you leave a training by him you leave with your head going in all directions inside. You also feel kind of stupid because he's a real genius of the game. In my session he set me a win goal of $200 and I left with $310, thanks to some luck on the $2 ddbp game, my denomination limit, at the Palms. And you know what, he also answers questions whether by email or by phone because he gives you his cell! Who else does these things for other players? I'm glad I thought of this too. Our local skeptic has said in various places that Singer cons us student/players in training sessions because he makes us use his players cards. Just another fudge up by arc, because he never even suggested that with me. He even told me up front that he wanted no pay of any kind for his help. The moment he said that I knew I was not with the fraud his critics tried to paint him to be.

Rob, welcome back. I have no dispute with you, and I know you don't have a dispute with me. But you can be wrong. You can also put in a zinger even when you say you are wrong:

"I can only help those who recognize a problem and want my help. You don't think you have one. So be it."


You really can't quit, can you? LOL

And I still think that if Dancer sees a reason to change his rules, it's still okay. After all, the casino industry has changed. Comps and cashback are not what they were. Even paytables are not what they were. So why not adapt to the changes? There are still people who will play video poker with less than "perfect" conditions and Dancer is no different. And if his "lesson" is how to adapt to current conditions then let him teach it and let him practice what he preaches.

But if you want to hold his feet to the fire over this issue, then go ahead. I think it's a "little issue" that doesn't mean anything. And of all the things that are important to casinogoers this is probably the least important thing out there. Heck, your arguments about non-random machines are more important and if you have time and energy pursue that, and not whether or not Dancer changed his formula for playing.

Now regarding you playing as a professional and then playing as a recreational player: okay, I can respect that. But at the same time, and by the same token, you should respect people who never attempted to play professionally. I'm one of those people. Don't hold me to your standard because that is rude and disrespectful and obnoxious. But let's bury the past.

Frank was a disappointment. Has something happened to him? I don't see his name anywhere recently. I would hate to think he ran into some trouble. He was a well meaning guy when I met with him and talked with him over lunch. He meant no harm to anyone. Unfortunately he never gave you a chance to show him what your system was all about -- and everyone lost out. That doesn't mean that Frank would have agreed with you, but the fact is he never gave you or himself a chance to understand your system. So the bottom line has not changed: your system has not been tested and probably can never be tested.

And about videopoker.com: I was actually honored that someone on that site followed the videos we did and the discussion here and brought it over there for discussion. If what was presented here was of no value it wouldn't have been mentioned there. The fact that it was mentioned there and discussed should be viewed as a sign of respect for what you presented and what was presented here.

Well, everything is falling in place. It turns out jatki idolizes Singer. Of course, when I made it obvious Singer is as phoney as a 3 dollar bill this got jatki upset. I mean he must feel like a complete idiot to have fallen for Singer's charm and totally missed all the BS. So, how does he recover his self-esteem? You got it, he comes on here and attacks me with nothing but lies and worthless claims.

Of course, he got his you know what handed to him. So, it now appears he sent Singer an email to come and rescue him. Bwah haha haha haha. Absolutely hilarious. And, Singer simply repeats all his standard lies and hopes everyone has forgot all the evidence already provided. Even funnier.

Don't you just love it when you see a couple of clowns running around and providing so much entertainment. Alan, you could start advertising this forum as a circus. All you need is a couple of trained animals.

At long last, I can now see why Singer enjoys as he put it, chipping away at arc's cool. He plays him, not like a fiddle, but as a pin ball, poking him into whatever pocket he so chooses, when he chooses. Then the best part, watching arc come out of there wiping egg off his reddened face. Yes, that is COOL!

Too late, jatki. You've been completely outed. Turn out the lights, the parties over. The fat lady has packed her bags and is moving to the next gig. Go back and hug your Singer doll ... it's all you have left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

as phoney as a 3 dollar bill

---

As a side note... "three dollar bills" were printed by several banks prior to the U. S. Civil War... which is a period of time when private banks were allowed and did print currency.

http://nationalheritagemuseum.typepa...0b6f970b-400wi

Jatki has been "outed" because he contacted me after 3 years and wrote about meeting me in multiple paragraphs? I think he's gettin' to ya arci.

I knew that if someone actually checked, they'd find yet another assertion from arci as made up. Thanks for the research on the bill Alan!

I'm not really following what's going on with one of your videos on vp.com, but if it's one with me in it over there then you can be sure the lies will be flying. Those morons pay by attrition anyway (in one way or another, as shadowman knows all too well....) so I don't ever have to be concerned about what comes around with them.

I never said I was wrong to criticize what you did at Caesars. To the contrary. And my past professional status had nothing to do with it. All it is was shock & dismay because you did not follow thru. Because I know how much you hope to turn things around, I got too involved in hoping you could make that trip a start in the right direction. That's where I was wrong.

Correct, the Dancer thing is small today and it might have been better if jatki didn't bring it up now. But, it was BIG back when I wrote the article--one of those things that doesn't keep on giving though.

I don't know what Frank's up to, but I did see a post on vpFree saying he was again into something else unexpected. IE, everything's on hold. These are things we have to expect from a personality like Frank. He seems to have an abundance of issues, and in my working career, whenever we had employees who displayed more issues than were normal, it was time for them to go. Arci said one thing correct about Frank in that he's never going to say anything negative about anyone. In this business that's a flaw, and an issue-creator. I expect Frank will be back on the forums in full force soon enough, unless it's he who is ill, and I expect he'll finish that utility project he was working on. With all his strangeness, he's still a very nice person, and I think he'd accept that as a compliment.

Looking forward to Robs SPS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OceanCityMD

Looking forward to Robs SPS

---

Did he say he was going to do it? Lets hope so.

I noticed something, no arc lately. I think too much truth sank his little ship. He's been posting on videopoker.com so he's alive and well. But do you notice how there hasn't been much trouble since he ran away?

I'm just sitting back here chuckling.

I serioulsy doubt if you're chuckling....or have even enjoyed yourself in a long, long time.

But what the hey--you do appreciate the "chipping away" process, am I right? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Did he say he was going to do it? Lets hope so.

---

This thread few days back.

Rob: What's this about you writing something here about your SPS?? I seemed to miss that and what are you going to do? Several times I asked that you describe your various systems. I have no idea what the various systems are.

And about this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I never said I was wrong to criticize what you did at Caesars.

---

That's correct Rob, you never said you were wrong. You just were wrong. But I do accept what you wrote to me in your email.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob: What's this about you writing something here about your SPS?? I seemed to miss that and what are you going to do? Several times I asked that you describe your various systems. I have no idea what the various systems are.

And about this:

That's correct Rob, you never said you were wrong. You just were wrong. But I do accept what you wrote to me in your email.

---

I believe my message was that I was a little rough, albeit absolutely correct, in coming down so hard on you for not doing what you said you would do, and I meant no harm.

I identified all five of my strategies that I used as a professional in an earlier message I believe in this thread. I also explained what I might be able to do--and when, along with a caveat. There is a way to present them in less words than I thought, but not on a forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I believe my message was that I was a little rough, albeit absolutely correct,

---

Rob, you can't argue with a true believer. Especially a true believer who believes only in himself.

And if you explain your systems, I'm afraid you have a lot more work to do before I understand it. And it appears from the post above that OceanCityMD is also waiting. But if you believe you that you have already given us the info, who are we to argue with your beliefs? True Believers cannot be swayed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I identified all five of my strategies that I used as a professional in an earlier message I believe in this thread. I also explained what I might be able to do--and when, along with a caveat. There is a way to present them in less words than I thought, but not on a forum.

---

Nope, in fact he has never done it and never will. Why? Very simple, then it he wouldn't be able to hide behind the "you don't understand it" lie. You know what they call people who sell products like this but always run and hide when pushed to provide details ....

More sour grapes arci. What I didn't say is how most or all of every strategy was already written down in those pesky little details that always bother you, on my site, and I have the entire site on a flash drive.

Sorry....again. :)

So, copy and paste it here. Should be a 10 minute job.

But, Singer won't ... I guarantee it.

Rob, if you want to publish your entire stragegy here on this site, I will make the pages available to you, similar to what we did with the "special plays" section.

I'm looking forward to it. Arc, you make the dumbest comments.

I'll commit to doing this for SPS, starting when I return in Oct., and I'll explain it around BP & SDBP as the games being played. I'll also put up the other four, but they won't include all the nuances of special plays and other details like SPS will. Arci, not a cut&paste job--I'm surprised you're off the mark on that since you were a regular on my site. Maybe you weren't "listening" perhaps because of all the screaming going on around there? :)

I probably was a regular at your site. I think I was there 2 or 3 times. Tells us all we need to know of its popularity.

Arci, I saw the traffic info. You were there more times than the missus has been to the hospital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Arci, I saw the traffic info. You were there more times than the missus has been to the hospital.

---

I hope that is true, Rob. I hope Arc was on your site more than the times his wife was in the hospital. You really lack a sense of decency, don't you? You probably think you're smart and whitty, don't you?

He put her there Alan, and he blames her instead of himself for making him move to LV just to be so foolishly closer to the machines, lose everything including her health, then seeing her end up in a wheelchair while he still shamelessly sneaks off to get his fix in the casino every week. Now all he does is lie about it all, me, and create some fantasy world for himself that he wants to be remembered as. Me? I'll remember him for the uncaring individual he is, who put video poker first before the most sacred of things in his life.

And for the fun of it all! :)