http://youtu.be/mq5_pEO8a8U
Instead of reading Arci's standard liar response, try this. If you look closely, he's the one with the skinny red tie
Printable View
http://youtu.be/mq5_pEO8a8U
Instead of reading Arci's standard liar response, try this. If you look closely, he's the one with the skinny red tie
I only lied about not having sexual relations with that woman. I had sexual relations and am proud of it. And I'd do it again--if given the chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The problem with all of your discussion about probabilities is that the probabilities are determined after the flop or after the original deal of cards to play. Any thought about probabilities based on a pay table in a random game is guess work and wishful thinking at best and fantasy at the extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The probability that this will be refuted is 100%, if not more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If you really believe that rubbish then there is little hope for you. Of course, a person who actually believes win goals will overcome the frequencies of the dealt cards is most obviously math illiterate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There was a time when I gave you the facts to help you understand. You chose to ignore them. So, I no longer will be bothered. If you choose to make idiotic statements, then I can only assume you are an idiot.
Do you feel the Love??
I don't see anyone else calling people bad names or telling them how stupid they are arc. If the pressure of everyday life is really getting to you this much then why not finally do what you said multiple times, and leave? Or spend that time making real smashed potatoes and gravy. I see no need for continued abuse. Your method of videopoker play is known and rejected by some people so live with it. Rob Singer's method is seen as parts of it having merit to several of us and the fact that you label him a liar for that and others just because they see more than you means nothing at all to people who enjoy reading discussions.
What a grouchy person!
Arc, you have blinders on. We are not arguing math, or facts. What we are discussing and what you won't recognize, is "application."
Even you have reported weeks or perhaps months of losing sessions. Have you never been ahead at some point during those sessions? Had you picked an "exit point" with a profit during those sessions would you have walked out of the casino with a profit instead of a loss? Or are you telling us that at each and every losing session you started to lose from the very first play and continued to lose throughout the entire session?
There is no issue about "facts." And I would suggest that who is an idiot in video poker play has no regard to math skills or IQ but whether or not they know when to keep playing and when to quit.
If you ask me, to keep pounding at a machine for a set number of hours each day to earn comps, is quite idiotic... even if you do claim to have an edge.
Alan you put it balls-on. The way arc tells his stories you'd think his losing sessions are as guaranteed as the little win percentage he says he gets in spite of them. I can see it now, he wanders in, sits at his seat, then starts losing and gives up so he ends up losing a lot more than he expected. Puts in the time for the comps and the longterm I guess. Headshakingly odd if you ask me. But is anything he says ever true?
This is a very strange little forum world. Alan, obviously if you wanted to figure anything out, you'd consult professional mathematicians at your local college -- and in sunny southern California, there are quite a few. So your goal isn't to figure anything out. Either that, or you think you have a better grasp of game theory than people with doctorates in math. I wish, on occasion, l that I could believe myself to be smarter than everybody else, but I just can't quite brainwash myself to that extent.
There's a big world outside this forum, and Rob's iconoclastic genius just doesn't seem to get recognized outside these walls. Now you have two options: either the people in this forum world are more brilliant than the people outside these forum walls, or they are not. My bet would be that we have a slightly expanded version of folie et deux in progress (although with Rob's aliases, it may indeed be deux).
Red-this has been argued over and over. No one is questioning the math. The math simply tells us what the expected return will be based upon the paytable of the game. But there still is no guaranty that any player or group of players will have results equal to that expected return, and in the short term, that particular machine will have great deviations from that expected return.
You and Arci both agree that the machine will have ebbs and flows along the way where there are wins and losses--all being random--and that not every deal will result in a 98.4 return (or whatever the paytable is). Maybe--or I'll even say probably, over the life of that machine, it will approximate the expected return, but it will go up and down along the way.
So some of us, who don't want to play for endless hours, are hoping to catch lightening in a bottle and catch a winner. We still play with proper strategy and we may lose---but we may win and take our profit. You and Arci may or may not catch that winner--but you will keep pounding away because you believe you will ultimately achieve the expected result.
I have no problem with you playing for lengthy hours. What I question is Arci saying he doesn't play that much, yet he is still surpassing the expected return ofthe long term play that he swears by. And then he blasts anyone who believes you can win short term or in any other fashion.
I'll save arci the trouble of responding and respond to myself for him---LIAR
.
I'm getting what you say regnis. Arc talks the longterm expected return talk, but walks the shortterm anything-can-go walk, and all the while his story is how he plays such a longterm game that since he's so far down the pike he can and does get that little percentage win he math-talks about.
But you caught him at his lie and now he's angry and unhappy, ha what's new pussycat. Looks like those facts he claims to only deal with came right back to bite him in the ass. He says the longterm is needed to get to expectation yet he plays as little as a Chinese visitor with cataracts.
Redetz, I don't see the need to try and cover for arc. Let him go down in his own ship alone. You keep harping on how Alan won't go out and check with university mathematicians or something, yet you never get it that he or me or regnis or Singer are not and have never questioned the math. I guess you let that pass because arc let's it pass, maybe so you can grumble about the sacred university professors again. Then there's your idea of Rob having aliases. I'm not posting his will now and haven't ever since months ago. He has said he's never used an alias anywhere and I believe him, mostly because arc says he has and I know arc lies about me. So please don't let that stop you from accepting we believe the math.
No, you are just making stuff up. When you say "Any thought about probabilities based on a pay table in a random game is guess work and wishful thinking at best and fantasy at the extreme." then you are stating it makes no difference what machine you play or how you play. It's all just "wishful thinking".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Of course, that is nothing but nonsense and anyone who thinks that way is clueless. When you decide to make an effort to have a reasonable discussion let me know.
It's called variance. I've explained it to you many times. Sessions have all kinds of patterns. Sometimes you do start off losing and keep losing. Sometimes you keep on winning. More often, you go through periods of wins and losses during a session. Since the games are random you never know what is going to happen next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The key thing to understand is randomness means you will see a normal distribution of cards in all positions. It doesn't matter when you quit, the next time you play the distribution just continues. You can't force the RNG to give you a distribution that leads to more winners. If you could that would mean the machines were not random. Anyone who thinks they can control their cards is living on Fantasy Island. However, every time you indicate that win goals can make you a winner you are also claiming you will see a non-random distribution of cards. Yet, you state you believe the machines are random, while you believe they will give you non-random cards. Don't you see the problem?
Yes Alan, all the mathematicians in the world are crazy while you are brilliant. Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yet, my approach has led to winning each and every year. Maybe that should tell you something. Just maybe you are the one who doesn't understand the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc, why do you make things up? You wrote "you are stating it makes no difference what machine you play or how you play" but I never said that. In fact I always play the best possible pay table and I play "correct strategy". The issue is not about pay tables, or strategy. The issue is leaving when you have a profit.
Then you wrote about variance. Of course there is variance but why do you have to be a victim of variance? Why not quit when you are ahead? Why continue to sit there and watch your profit get whittled away by that variance which is destined to come? If you have a chance to leave with a profit why not take advantage of that opportunity?
You are very good at quoting the rules of variance and distribution and randomness... and all of these rules of math and math theory are what keeps the casinos in business. But we as players don't have the deep pockets that a casino has, so we can't wait and wait and keep playing and playing hoping for the variance and the distribution and the math of the game to bail us out. You do make the case for why casinos will win. You do nothing to help the player.
And that is what I am talking about: the players' perspective. I think it is what regnis and jatki and singer and everyone else is talking about too. We do not have the long term that the casino has. We also don't have the bankroll that the casino has. So we can't rely on the long term math the way the casino can. We have to take our profits when we can.
You keep saying that we are arguing with the math. We're not. You are stubborn, and at this point you are being ridiculous.
And if you do win each year, and you are not a long term player, then you got lucky.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ic14/shrug.gif Maybe because it doesn't exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
No argument. This is what the math knowledgeable people have always said.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
So far, so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
No, we don't keep "pounding away". We play until we no longer want to play. Why did you make this statement? If you don't know how we play then you should ask. If you make untrue statements about what we think or do then you are lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
You clearly don't have a clue what "long term play" means. There is no requirement to play a certain number of hands to surpass the expected return. That is just one more nonsense claim that I keep hearing. Why don't spend a little time to understand the facts rather than making these kind of absurd statements?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Look, I know you really don't believe "it's all guesswork", but that is exactly what you said in a sentence I quoted previously. If it's all guesswork then it doesn't make a difference. If it's not guesswork then selecting proper pay tables and playing correctly does make a difference. If you don't mean something then maybe you shouldn't say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've never said you shouldn't quit. In fact I stated clearly that win/lost goals are a good idea when playing a negative game. However, the variance is going to come no matter what you do. All you do with these goals is reduce your play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Sure I do. I explain the facts. You confuse the issue with your silly claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Of course you argue the math. You did it again here. When are you going to quit claiming all the world's mathematicians are wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No, luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. The math gives me about a 95% chance of success. That means I should win about 19 out of every 20 years. So, what you just said is arguing with the math. You just won't quit. And, you refuse to go verify what I've been telling you with any University math PhD. You obviously want to ignore the math for your own reasons. That is pretty strange for someone who runs a forum. You are doing a great disservice to anyone who happens to come to this forum. The continual flow of illogical claims and pure nonsense never stops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Help us out here, Arc, what does "long term play" mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Just how many hands do you need to surpass the expected return? How about ONE hand. Now this is exactly what Rob's strategy is all about. You hit a win goal and you leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If you guys aren't arguing against "the math," then you're arguing against "the logic."
Why do you want to convince people they are better served with win goals and progressions than with mathematically correct plays? What is your motivation?
If people buy into Alan and Rob's theories, they will lose more money per hour played than if they play correctly. So all of this win goal/progression stuff makes Alan two things: a shill for the casinos and a shill for Rob. I don't have an alternative explanation.
Come to think of it, that seems to explain things pretty completely.
First of all, I am not going to comment about "progressions" because we're not talking about progressions. And while Rob might use a progression as part of his play, I certainly don't and I am critical of it. So please be more careful in your attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
But let's talk about this objection you have to win goals and how you say we're arguing against the math. What is the math of the game? It is simply your chance of drawing winning or losing hands based on the selection of cards from a 52 or 53 card deck. THAT is the math of the game. There is nothing else. So where does it say it is against "the math" to have a "win goal"?
redietz, even Arc says there is nothing wrong with a win goal at a negative expectation game. And my question is, since you are not guaranteed to win at a positive expectation game, why can't you have a win goal at positive expectation games also?
If there is anyone acting as a shill for the casinos its the "math guys" who say that playing a positive expectation game will give them a high probability of winning. That is exactly what a shill would say.
People who play with "win goals" are a bit more realistic, because what they are saying is "I may not win so I better cash out while I'm ahead."
And redietz your comment "If people buy into Alan and Rob's theories, they will lose more money per hour played than if they play correctly" is totally off base. I play conventional strategy. And for the most part, SO DOES ROB SINGER. You are blowing up out of proportion Rob's use of "special plays" and if you follow Rob's strategy of "quitting when ahead" you will not "be losing more money per hour" because you won't be losing.
If anything, Rob's advice to quit while you're ahead may be the only way to prevent being a loser. The key of course is knowing when to quit. Perhaps you should quit after the very first play that puts you one coin ahead? Because if that is your measure of success, you have certainly succeeded.
Absolutely nothing. And, more to the point, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with "a certain number of hands to surpass the expected return" as regnis stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There is no "number of hands" to surpass the expected return ... and you know it ... so why are making these kind of statements? Now, you could hit a big winner in one hand although it won't happen very often and any strategy that depends on it will fail the vast majority of time. Is that what you are proposing ... a strategy that fails almost every time? Is this why you created this forum? To promote approaches that almost guarantee failure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Gee Arc, if I didn't know better I would think that Singer somehow got a hold of your computer and posted this using your name. Congratulations. You've finally have seen the light:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
A. "long term play" is nothing but some theoretical idea but means nothing in the real world
B. You can beat the expected return at any time with any number of hands so there is no point to keep pounding at the keys. You might as well cash out when you hit a winner and reached your win goal and go to buffet.
And, no one has ever said any of this has anything to do with any kind of strategy that says you should limit the number of hands you play. This whole discussion has been about quitting when you have reached a win goal.
If anyone has ever introduced the idea of a strategy to limit the number of hands played it is you because you've told us that you play a prescribed amount of time to reach your players' club and comp requirements. No one else has ever suggested any kind of limit on play except for stopping play when reaching an acceptable win.
(Arc... did you start on the holiday egg nog too early?)
Getting up early in the morning sure does yield new and interesting information. Now I see arc, after reading his longterm claims over and again on LV A and other forums for a year or two, suddenly alters his story to how there is no longterm? After always saying that he's operating within it and that's why he's winning six figures a year?
My my my, the pressure is getting to him. Boil some potatoes good buddy, and take deep inhales of the steam being released. It's sure to calm.
As I've always said there is no long term and there is no short term. It is all a continuum where the probability increases, over time, that a person will approach the expected return of their play. Hence, it is not a "theoretical idea". It is a statistical statement of probabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You forgot the other half of this claim. You can fail to reach the expected return at any time with any number of hands. It goes both ways. You keep harping on the chances that you might win while ignoring the higher probability that you will lose playing a negative game. And, to top it all off you then claim that you can somehow overcome the random frequencies of the cards by cashing out one day and playing again on another day. That is utter nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
EDIT: I just noticed that billyjoe on vp.com announced a losing trip. Billyjoe has stated that he uses win goals. So Alan, how did he lose?
http://forum.videopoker.com/forum/fo...?TID=5105&PN=2
So, you're saying you never suggested loss limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Lies, lies and more lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
Nice projection. Poor Robbie must be having more problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
I thought Alan asked Rob to quit posting under the jatki name. I guess Rob doesn't give a hoot what Alan says.
Arc, now you're being argumentative again. But there's nothing to argue. Yes, loss limits are good for those of us who don't have deep pockets. You don't have them, I guess, so you are a rich man who doesn't need them. We po' folk do. Yes, even with win goals you can have losing sessions... but the win goals help us from having even more losing sessions. Oh, those loss limits keep us from losing even more when luck is not on our side. And yeah, we po folk with loss limits and win goals try to play the best paytables too, because we also want to give ourselves the best playing conditions.
Ya see Arc, there's no voodoo.
I'm a big fat liar because arc says so!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
My money's on Rob caring what Alan says. You my good buddy are a known and proven liar, starting but not limited to your false internet claims that Singer makes his students use his card when they have a session. Ever since that gotcha you've not taken to me so well. Oh well. Boil dem spuds!
I will clarify 2 things here--first, it has always seemed that Advantage Players believed that they had to play incredible volumes of play, even employing teams to do so, to achieve their long term advantage. If this does not apply to you then great--you have found a way to do it on less play.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Second--I didn't say that long term play could "surpass" expected return. I stated that you seemed to be surpassing the expected return without the type of long term play associated with Advantage Players.
So the confusion here, which others have subsequently also questioned, is whether you espouse the long term play associated with AP, or some lesser amount. And if it's a lesser amount, how is that different then what the others are saying here.
I wouldn't expect arc to come clean on this one since he's already been caught with his pants down. He espouses, and has espoused voiciferously for at least the past two years on LV A, videopoker.com, and other forums that the reason he claims to be ahead is because he's playing well into the longterm and apparently always has, from day 1 even. I remember this because people have often asked how long that longterm is, and after the big wheels give their opinions he bubbles in with a definition only a one-eyed mother would love. Did I mention how he seems to praise himself as he gives his inpup on this?
So Mr. All the Facts, All the Time, just how are you going to weasel your self out of this one? I know, I'm a liar! Too late.
The reason why many advantage players play long hours is because they make MORE money by playing more. It has nothing to do with something called the "long term". It's like working a job at $50/hour ... the more hours you put in the more money you make.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Once again you state "long term play". Get it out of your head. The whole concept of APers requiring long hours of play to win is an invention of Singer. Yes, it's just another one of Robki's lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Hopefully, you now understand the fallacy behind your thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I see Robki has been hitting the sauce again. Quite humorous to watch him make a fool out of himself yet again.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
Arc, this of course is the "million dollar question." So, how do you justify this claim that by playing more hours they will make more money? Does it have to do with the "math of the game"? And if so, what part of the math of the game says that you will win more money the longer you play? Is it your "probability" theory again?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
You never responded to this statement I made, and perhaps because you didn't see it:
But please explain for me how the "math" of the game translates into more income the longer you play? Unless of course you know something about what cards the RNG will deliver which the rest of us -- the non-APers -- don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Help me out here (if you can without insulting me): doesn't "playing more" get you just that much closer to "over time"? If the math of "over time" gets you to the expected EV (which is most likely a negative expectation), wouldn't players be losing money by playing longer?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If indeed playing more has nothing to do with the math of the game (which says I will inevitably lose), please, please, let me know when the math will kick in so that I will know that I've entered the Over Time Zone and the game at that point is no longer in my favor.
Don't you know, Vic? Arc and the other APers never play negative expectation games....and therefore probability means they will probably come out ahead over the long term, or short term, or mid term...if I've been following the argument, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
That's what I suspected, Alan. I specifically used negative games just to seek clarification. But what I really want to know is this: at what point in the continuum will the positive game make me money because I'm "playing more"? I'm a busy retired dude and need to plan my leisure time accordingly. When I sit down at that positive machine, I don't want to be in the "not playing enough" category. I'm all about the "playing more = making more" gig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Gee, Vic, I can't wait to read Arc's response. But if you look back at a previous comment of his you get an idea of what he might say:
I guess it all comes down to luck probably. Is that what probability says?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
It's just simple math. Of course, you won't make $50 each and every hour. Some hours you win big and other hours you lose. It's just the amount of edge applied to the amount gambled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You can test this for your self with a coin flip. Assume you bet $10 on every flip and you win $11 if you flip heads and nothing if you flip tails. If you can flip the coin 200 times in an hour you should win $100. Since you would wager 200*10 or $2000 that's a 5% edge. So, go ahead and try it for a few hours and see what you get. There is no guarantee you will win $100/hour but if you are willing to try this you may be surprised how close you get.
At times I think I'm the only one that believes the RNG will actually deliver a random frequency of cards. The argument is that in VP you have more outcomes so it's not like a simple coin flip. While that is somewhat correct it doesn't take that many hands to achieve expectation of most results. If you are playing JOB VP the only hands with a cycle of greater than 100 hands is 4oak and the various straight flushes including the royal. And, since a non-royal SF is such a small part of the overall return you can usually just consider the quads and royal. The quads themselves have a cycle time of around 425 hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Hence, in only 10K hands (that's 2 sessions for me) you should see close to expectation of just about everything but these 2 longer cycle result and even quads are pretty likely to be close to the 20-25 range. That means only the RF is really a factor in winning or losing at JOB VP even over relatively short periods of time.
What about 100K hands? 200K? Like I said, I play around 250K every year. Even the royals are starting to become fairly likely to hit in the 4-8 range. So, all the claims about taking millions of hands to "hit the long term" are not based on reality.
Let me repeat that the basic hands, high pairs, two pairs, 3oaks, up to FHs will all be very close to expectation in as little as 20K hands. It's only the few high cycle results that lead to any long term variance. When you look at the portion of the typical games return that is associated with the high cycle results it is usually not all that much. The RF is usually only 2% so a JOB player is likely to be within 2% of the expected return after only 20K hands and get closer as the number of hands increases. Not only that, but almost half of those 2% away from the ER are players who will be ABOVE the expected return.
Alan, since you typically play more than 100K hands in a year you are even more likely to be above these results.
If it is a negative expectation then most players will be losing money no matter how long they play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
The math "kicks in" on your first hand. If you are playing a negative game the math is never in your favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
Have we ever seen such a long and on and on response on anything from arc? I think that generally means he's trying to make it up as he goes while having trouble convincing even himself of the validity of his array of longterm lies. Being caught as contradictory on this issue does that you know. But dang, look what this obsession's done did to him today, and on Thanksgiving Day of all dates, now he's gotta rush out to the Colonel's and beat the huge
crowds to their supply of Thanksgiving potatoes and gravy. Yummy.
Yes arc, call me Robiki! Just shows how my skill at busting your chops is improving!
One of the easiest ways to understand probability distribution is through visualizing the bell curve. A bell curve describes a range of possible results graphically. The vertical axis is the number of players and the horizontal axis is return (like 99.54% for example). The center of the bell curve is usually right around the expected return. The more hands one plays the tighter the bell curve becomes. That is, the difference between actual results and expected results is reduced (as a percentage).
This is easier to understand if you go through some logical thinking. What does a bell curve look like at one hand for JOB? Let's assume a million players. You would have the vast majority of players at 0% having hit a loser on that hand. You would also see a few bumps. Players that hit a high pair would be at 100% return. Those that hit 2 pair would be at 200%, those lucky few who hit a royal would be way to the right, and so on.
Now, lets go to 100 hands. It's now unlikely you would have any folks at 0%. You'd now start to see a lumpy bell starting to form with a few folks way to the right and the majority under 100%. A recognizable bell might start forming at 1000 or 10000 hands. The center of the bell would now be getting closer to the ER. Now, as each player increases the hands they play the bell grows taller around the ER and the edges of the bell (both right and left) start to move closer and closer to the center.
If we could play an infinite number of hands the bell would eventually tighten up to a straight vertical line with all million players exactly at the ER. Of course, that never happens but it is useful to understand that the keeps getting tighter as the number of hands increase.
Now, this is the important part of this discussion. There are always two tails away from the center of the bell. The left one for those doing worse than the ER and the one to the right for those doing better than the ER. People like robki want you to only consider the left tail when talking about APers and the right tail when talking about people who would use his system. They claim it takes time to reach the ER. And while that statement may be true for many players (not all), it's just as likely for a person to do better than the ER over less than infinite hands as it is for them to do worse ... no matter what approach they use. It makes no difference how many hands are played or what betting system is employed. There will be people on both sides.
Since we can't control our luck (whether our play happens to fall on the left or right side). The only thing we can do is set up our play so the center of the bell curve is further to the right. This is what I do by only playing positive games and playing them correctly. The worse the ER of the game the further left the bell is centered. The worse the strategy used (for example, using less than optimal special plays), the the further left the bell is centered.
No one can force a machine to give them better cards. There is no betting scheme (including win/loss goals) that can make a person end up on the right side of the bell. The only thing we can do is play in a way that moves the entire bell to the right.
Now, consider a case where almost the entire bell is located right of line that went through the 100% return position. This is the goal of APers. They have a very small probability of losing because of the games they select and the fact they use optimal strategy.
Arc, Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for taking the time for the lengthy explanation. Of course it makes sense until you have to apply it to the bankroll of the individual player. It still makes sense for an individual to think of video poker that way -- but their own bankroll may not allow them to play that way.
You could make the argument that gamblers should not play VP above their bankroll, and that would be valid.
But truly we are back to the question of "who can live by the math, the player or the casino?"
Certainly, the casino can afford to live "by the math." The players unless they have a lot of disposable income (relative to the denomination they play) can not.
Remember in 2011... I had a royal flush drought of more than 180,000 hands. The "math guys" called that normal. Normal? Are you kidding me? That was horrendous. Maybe on a "math basis" it was normal but it was horrific on my bank account which is why much of my play this year is at lower denominations, and even though I have had 8 royals so far this year (or is it 9?), only 2 were at $5 games and the rest at $1 and $2 games.
I think the point is this: the "math" makes sense on a theoretical level. But players want something more "reliable" than just "what should happen." So the challenge is to come up with a way of playing the game to maximize wins and limit losses. That might fly in the face of your "math theory" but we're talking dollars and cents here.
I hate to start a new argument, but what "win goals" and "loss limits" do is try to smooth out the fluctuations that the "math theory" says you must accept. And players would use win goals and loss limits because they don't want to be forced to accept the fluctuations that the math would say are inevitable.
Yes it would. You, as forum owner should harp on that very point instead of making excuses for people to play poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Wrong. There is no way to avoid the math. It is what it is. To imply that players can avoid the implications of the math is down right immoral. You need to be very careful here. You worry about me using words like scam and fraud but you are very thin ice here if you tell players they are not subject to mathematical principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I doubt anyone claimed it was "normal". It was a low probability result but possible (as you love to discuss).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No, you are talking nonsense. THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID THE MATH. Got it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Do you think win goals would have led you hit a RF in less that 180K hands? You might have played less hands but there's nothing that can guarantee you will hit a RF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now, let's look at your last 2 years results. Sounds like you've had 8-9 RFs over around 300+K hands. Slightly above average but now you fit into what might be called "normal". You happen to have a fairly large fluctuation that isn't that likely, but overall you are quite close the center of the bell curve. And, it didn't take you millions of hands.
While I stated your ups and downs weren't that likely it turns out that if you play enough the chances for having that kind of variation increases. In 20 years of play there's probably better than a 50% chance you would see exactly what you have seen the last 2 years.
You may wonder how an unlikely event actually becomes likely. Let's say there's only a 3% chance for you to have experienced your results the last two years. Pretty unlikely, right? However, over 20 years there are 19 such periods and 3*19 = 57%. So, over 20 years the chances of having exactly what you experienced are better than 50%, in other words, likely.
You misunderstood Arc when you wrote: "Wrong. There is no way to avoid the math. It is what it is. To imply that players can avoid the implications of the math is down right immoral."
No one is saying that you should avoid the math, including me. What I am saying is that the math has wide variance that individual players may not be able to withstand. When we as individuals play a game with a 99.5% return (a casino edge of one-half of one percent) we might quickly lose our entire bankroll, or we might get lucky and win big. As you put it -- we as individuals could be any place on your bell curve.
But what individuals want is a way to limit that bell curve experience. Many players would rather be in a narrow range of profit and loss than subject themselves to big swings of wins and losses. And that, Arc, is just human nature. It is not challenging the math. It is not trying to avoid the math. It is trying to make playing video poker and all casino games more enjoyable.
In other words, we humans want to make playing video poker more of an enjoyment than a mathematical discipline or exercise. So how do we make it more enjoyable?
Well, we could have win goals. And we could set loss limits. No one is trying to avoid the math. They just want to do better when they gamble or play. After all, for the most part we are recreational players -- and we don't put our noses or fingers to the grindstone (or buttons) the way the APs might.
It is both "challenging" and "avoiding" the math if you think you have any degree of control over your results. It's quite amazing to see you play words games. You can limit your play (by win/loss goals or by just getting off your butt and leaving at any time) ... but what does that really mean? If you were on the edge of "playing within your bankroll", it now means you ARE playing within that bankroll. You didn't change anything about the math of the game. You are still subject to whatever swings exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
As you now should realize all this is nothing but silly nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, if you spent any time reading what I said about the bell curve, you should realize that win/loss goals will actually lead to wider swings than you might see otherwise. The logic is pretty simple, since a player converges on their ER over time the less they play the wider the bell curve will be. That means they have a higher probability of being further left or right of the center of the bell curve. In other words, they will have experienced wider swings.
Now, you could say they will experience it over a longer time period. That is true, but that is not the same as saying they will "be in a narrow range of profit and loss" and they will not "subject themselves to big swings of wins and losses". It's just those ranges occur over multiple sessions.
Interesting concept here. Let me suggest this:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
You are looking at the bell curve as a "life long" application. Professional gamblers might do this, but recreational players don't. Recreational players look at each session, each trip, each casino visit as a unique experience. That's why they can say "I won this time in Vegas," or "I lost in Vegas." They might never say "I won this time, but over my life I'm down." That is the difference between a recreational player and a professional player, or one who lives by a "long term code," which is what you do Arc whether you admit to it or not.
So let's get back to your bell curve: that recreational player who only measures casino trips as unique experiences (one at a time) cares more about smaller swings for that one visit than what you care about, which is accepting wider swings that will even out in the long run.
So what's the bottom line? it is simply this. People who follow the concept of win goals and even those who follow Singer's special plays and even his "strategies" have a different mind set than you do. And anyone looking at each trip or visit or session as a unique experience will never accept any of your long term applications, just as you can't accept their short term view.
To put it in simple terms: You, Arc, are watching a movie in an IMAX theater, while those who disagree with you are watching the same movie on a living room wall in 8-milimeter. To enjoy the movie in IMAX you need different things than what you would need to enjoy the same movie on a living room wall in 8mm. The IMAX viewer will scoff at those watching at home in 8mm, but the family watching on the living room wall from an 8mm projector can also be happy and have a good time.
It's not a concept. It's the application of basic math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, I provided you with a view of how a bell curve evolves "over time". It has nothing to do with how you divide play into sessions. It is a description of how random events play out. I don't care how you want to divide the play. That doesn't change the reality of what happens. I'm simply providing you with the basics. You appear to want to create some kind of alternate reality. Sorry, there is none.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So what, the swings occur NO MATTER WHAT he cares about. That's why I don't want you misleading people with claims that aren't true. I don't care how you play (or anyone else), so I don't recommend any betting system. I don't think claiming setting win/loss goals will change someone's results is a good idea. Do you really want someone to go off and adopt a method of play based on your statements? What if they lose over and over again? Do you want them to blame you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The application is not long term or short term, it just evolves over time. All I am telling you is your manufactured end points don't change anything. The play evolves no matter what you do as long as you return to play again. I have nothing against anyone stopping for any reason, I just don't want you (or them) to think that provides them with the ability to change their expected results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You keep confusing the issue with how I play. Since I don't play negative games how I play has nothing to do with this discussion. Time for you to quit making up stuff. I'm simply pointing out the reality of VP play. You appear to want to obfuscate it. It's not all that difficult to understand so why don't you start trying to educate yourself? You are being dishonest and creating an environment where people could go wrong. If you were doing that without the access to the facts you could be forgiven. But you have all the facts and you choose to ignore them, or worse, argue against them ... that is immoral.
To put it in simple terms: You, Arc, are watching a movie in an IMAX theater, while those who disagree with you are watching the same movie on a living room wall in 8-milimeter. To enjoy the movie in IMAX you need different things than what you would need to enjoy the same movie on a living room wall in 8mm. The IMAX viewer will scoff at those watching at home in 8mm, but the family watching on the living room wall from an 8mm projector can also be happy and have a good time.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=arcimede$;8660]It's not a concept. It's the application of basic math.
Alan, I provided you with a view of how a bell curve evolves "over time". It has nothing to do with how you divide play into sessions. It is a description of how random events play out. I don't care how you want to divide the play. That doesn't change the reality of what happens. I'm simply providing you with the basics. You appear to want to create some kind of alternate reality. Sorry, there is none.
So what, the swings occur NO MATTER WHAT he cares about. That's why I don't want you misleading people with claims that aren't true. I don't care how you play (or anyone else), so I don't recommend any betting system. I don't think claiming setting win/loss goals will change someone's results is a good idea. Do you really want someone to go off and adopt a method of play based on your statements? What if they lose over and over again? Do you want them to blame you?
The application is not long term or short term, it just evolves over time. All I am telling you is your manufactured end points don't change anything. The play evolves no matter what you do as long as you return to play again. I have nothing against anyone stopping for any reason, I just don't want you (or them) to think that provides them with the ability to change their expected results.
You keep confusing the issue with how I play. Since I don't play negative games how I play has nothing to do with this discussion. Time for you to quit making up stuff. I'm simply pointing out the reality of VP play. You appear to want to obfuscate it. It's not all that difficult to understand so why don't you start trying to educate yourself? You are being dishonest and creating an environment where people could go wrong. If you were doing that without the access to the facts you could be forgiven. But you have all the facts and you choose to ignore them, or worse, argue against them ... that is immoral.
Silly nonsense. Your analogy is as flawed as the rest of your thinking. That you think this somehow applies to the discussion is almost beyond belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc wrote: It's not a concept. It's the application of basic math.
No, this is you in a dream world. The math that you tout is nothing more than the odds of drawing winning hands. It has nothing to do with the decisions made about playing, when you play, how much you play, when you stop with a win, or when you call it a day with a loss. You might use your paytable expectations to help you, but all of those decisions are based on one's personal tastes and desires and bankroll and interests in playing.
You can justify playing anyway you want. You can just come out and say you are addicted and it would make more sense than to say there is some mathematical justification for playing video poker. Because there is no mathematical justification. Your much touted paytables are not the paytables on bonds or interest bearing certificates of deposit. Your video poker paytables are only guides for what happens if you make the correct holds and the RNG cooperates and fulfills your dreams.
Stop trying to use math to justify your personal tastes, or your personal luck, or your personal success and to say that anyone else's plan for play is wrong.
As long as random number generators are random, your math strategy is nothing more than a hope, a prayer and wishful thinking. And as an individual you have less chance of having those hopes, prayers and wishful thinking come true than a casino does which has more video poker games going to help your much touted probability help its cause.
Arc if you really did score a profit of a hundred thousand dollars playing no higher than one dollar video poker over eight years, you are one lucky sonofabitch. Go write a book about the "Arcrimede$ method." Because if you do, you will face more criticism and attacks than Rob Singer ever did or ever will.
Because your claims of winning that much money on quarter to one dollar games is preposterous compared to Rob's verified win of $100,000 royal on a $25/coin 8/5 Bonus game at Bellagio holding three to the royal while breaking up dealt trip queens.
Enjoy your turkey, Im off to dinner.
Once again I can only say ... so what. It doesn't change the reality of how play evolves. As I keep trying to get through your thick skull, those decisions only manifest as a temporary impression. They have nothing to do with a person's expectation over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Pure nonsense. Once again you keep trying to make this about me. First of all I would never tell anyone to use my approach when playing negative games. It does not apply. So quit with the BS. I've said nothing about my play here. I'm simply pointing out the reality of VP play and you obviously don't like reality. Tough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I haven't said anything about my play, you're going off the deep end now. I've been discussing how randomness applies to VP. You keep trying to turn it into you vs. me. I don't care how you play, I only care when you make claims that are incorrect and you keep right on doing it. In fact, it's obvious you didn't read my last comment. You are so caught up in your own little world you refuse to even consider anything else. And, to top it off your thoughts are directly opposite the beliefs of every mathematician in the world. Yes, that makes you an idiot. If you don't want to be called an idiot then I suggest you quit acting like one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The ravings of someone trying to ignore reality. You've been provided with enough information that you are now to the point of being completely dishonest. You would rather lie about me or almost anything then accept reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your like the proverbial horse. You can drag them to water ... or, in this case knowledge, but you can't make them drink. Your comments are utter nonsense and you might as well be saying casinos instead of me. It applies just as much. If the math didn't work the casinos would go broke. And here you are saying the math is worthless "hopes, prayers and wishful thinking".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So, maybe we need to get psychological. Why does Alan go off into these rants? Why does he want to argue with well established mathematical facts? That could be an interesting discussion.
Arc, you still don't understand this, do you? You as an individual player have to get lucky, but the casino with all of its hundreds of games and operating 24/7/365 can depend on the math.
You wrote: ...you might as well be saying casinos instead of me. It applies just as much. If the math didn't work the casinos would go broke. And here you are saying the math is worthless "hopes, prayers and wishful thinking".
The math does work and because the casinos can play by the math 24/7 and because the casinos have deep pockets they can sit back and wait for the bell curve to work its magic smoothing out the spurts and runs and cycles and variance. No player can do that on one trip. And as I wrote earlier, which you ignored, as recreational gamblers we have to look at our play one trip or one session at a time. And so we adjust our strategies, our plays, and we accept concepts such as cutting losses and quitting when we hit win goals.
Only casinos, professional gamblers, and addicts look at it differently. Casinos bank on the math as well they should. Professional gamblers can bank on the math because they have the resources and time to wait out the variance on their chosen games. Addicts will bank on the math because that provides them justification to keep pouring good money after bad because they know it will all "even out in the end" and that big win is coming. Which of the three are you?
I've literally been piling down the chow since my last post this morning. I now have a bloated gut, heartburn, and an overabundance of gas. I can't sleep. But still, it sure looks like my day was 1000% more enjoyable than arc's, because watching such a self-described intellect try to squirm and doodle his way out of the pickle he talked himself into shows a very bad day in spades. Yes it does.
I sure hope he didn't disappoint his family and had the time to cook that meal and get that delicious fast food potatoes and gravy, or did he? Could be he spent all his time on a forum! What a great life he must have, and the fun must be breathtaking. Gobble Gobble.
Alan since he was undoubtedly lying about winning or playing or nickel and diming or outsmarting the casinos or whatever his story is as it evolves, my label for all that is a misanthrope. Hold it, where'd that come from? Arc seems like the most likeable, most adorable, most fun loving, and least embattled poster here. Psst., I must be mistaken, hehaw.
Gobble Gobble, I think I'll pour myself a drink. Happy Black Friday.
Even if that were true it's just another big SO WHAT. You can't control your luck so why do you keep bringing it up? What do you not understand about randomness that makes you think you can do a single thing about the cards that are dealt to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The problem with you statement (other than your lack of understanding the when the math applies) is your "adjust"ments don't do squat. Sorry, that is what I keep trying to tell you and you refuse to accept. No one cares if YOU use win/loss goals. However, when you claim they make a difference in a person's expectation then you are lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Have you quit beating your wife? Same kind of logic went into your statement. It is nothing but silly nonsense based on your own massive ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I provided you with enough information about the cycle time of 99% of the results you see in VP. It doesn't take millions of hands and you don't have to be a casino for the math to apply to your play. It applies whether you accept it or not. When are you going to quit with these dishonest claims?
Alan, here's an example to prove my point.
What's the difference between these two scenarios. Player 1 goes to a casino and plays 10,000 hands. He wins or loses X amount of money. He's one of those folks you claim is an addict or whatever. Now we have Player 2. He goes to the casino with win and loss goals and ends up averaging around 1000 hands before hitting one of those goals. He goes to a casino 10 times. He wins or loses Y amount of money.
Is there any reason to believe that X is not equal to Y?
With a random distribution of cards why would you expect them to be different?
If you are honest you will say that there is no reason for them to be different. They have exactly the same odds of winning or losing over those 10,000 hands. All the win/loss goals did was stretch out the time that it took.
So, is this good or bad. Well, on negative machines this is probably good because Player 2 will likely gamble less than Player 1 and therefore lose less money. However, the return of both players (as a %) is exactly the same. On positive machines Player 2 will generally win less money for the exact same reasons. I'm not saying these players will always lose on negative machines or always win on positive machines. However, the chances are much greater for this to occur, and the more negative or more positive the machines, the greater the chances.
So, if you are giving advice to players then you MUST take into account the machine return. In addition, if you are honest you need to tell players that the only thing win/loss goals provide on negative machines is a chance to play less which most often means they will lose less (and there are many ways to play less). Also, the way to lose the least is to not play at all.
Absolutely perfect projection. And right on the money, too. One can only wonder about the misery in robki's life. Forced to tell his lies under a another id only adds to the obvious dishonesty in everything he says.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
Bought the gravy yesterday. Always better than anything I could make. It was a great meal and we enjoyed it immensely. Could it be that robki is projecting yet again? Is he a complete disappointment to his family ... sure appears that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
Yes, more projections of his own failures and false claims of winning. This is almost as good as the cherry cheese cake I made for dessert.Quote:
Originally Posted by jatki
I suspect robki had to settle for green jello for dessert to match his obvious envy of successful VP players.
Looks like another mind-bending enjoyable day of pointless arguing and insults at the arc's. And I thought MY life was difficult and challenging with all the family problems we're dealing with and after doing a botched-up, slow kill job chopping the poor turkey's head off.
Arc, accept it. Normal people don't see things your way. Casinos don't either.
Arc, this should end the conversation right here. You wrote:
"No one cares if YOU use win/loss goals. However, when you claim they make a difference in a person's expectation then you are lying."
Well, Arc, NO ONE ever said win goals or loss limits make a difference in a person's expectation. I never said it, Singer never said it. I don't think ANYONE ever said it. The only thing loss limits and win goals do is allow the player to have more control over what happens to them in the casino instead of just allowing the RNG to decide it for them. And that's the truth Arc, because even if you know perfect strategy and apply it each and every time, it still all depends on the RNG.
What I can't understand is why you think, for some reason, that the "math of the game" tells you not to employ loss limits or win goals and you somehow think that loss limits and win goals don't apply to you or anyone playing a positive expectation game? You have said for yourself that there is no guarantee that you will win on a positive expectation game yet you preach your "high probability" of winning? Well, just how high is it on a RANDOM game?
Arc, instead of Xs and Ys let's talk about it this way:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Player A goes to the casino and plays 10,000 hands and finishes the day down 0.5% on his 9/6 Jacks game.
Player B goes to the casino and on the fifth hand hits a royal for $4,000 and runs out the door instead of playing 9995 more hands.
Do that math for me, whatever it is.
Silly nonsense. How about Player A goes to the casino and plays until he hits his loss limit of $1000 and leaves. He plays 2000 hands. Player B has the same result as player A through 2000 hands but continues to play and hits a $4,000 RF on his 2005th hand and then another one on his 3321st hand. Overall, player B comes home with $7,400 after 5,000 hands while player A loses $1,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You see how silly it is to make up scenarios when they are just one possible result. There's always an innumerable number of other scenarios that refute your one.
Now, why didn't you answer the questions? Are you hiding something?
Oh my god, arc believes fast food gravy is delicious, hehaw. Could it be that running it through the blender along with the turkey, stuffing, and potatoes made it edible?
alan you know arc isn't capable of realizing a scenario where it is looked at as a single visit, or more probably because he doesn't want to because it doesn't fit his everchanging story. I get your analogies and scenarios because its easy peasy. Arc wants you to be a liar and me to be Rob, only way he can handle the criticism and hardball questions. Please keep eliciting more from him. He doesn't accept the six-feet-under rule either.
You've both said there's no reason a person can't keep hitting win goals and winning session after session have you not? What did you mean by this? Are you saying that you accidentally omitted mentioning all the losing sessions required to bring a game to a negative expectation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You just contradicted yourself. First you said "allow the player to have more control" and then you said "it still all depends on the RNG". If it all depends on the RNG what control have you provided with win/loss goals? The answer is none but I don't think you will ever accept reality. You don't want it to be true so you ignore the facts and end up contradicting yourself like some bumbling idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What I've told is the math of the game tells you IT DOESN'T MATTER. Pay attention. If you want to employ them that's fine, just don't think it will make a difference over any other method.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The probability of winning (making any kind of profit) is based on the amount of the edge and increases as the number of hands increase. This is simple math, Alan. Since the probability of winning increases with more hands played why would you want to have any limits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It's almost laughable that you thought you were making some kind of point by putting random in all caps. The randomness is key to our ability to compute the probabilities.
Arc wrote: "You just contradicted yourself. First you said "allow the player to have more control" and then you said "it still all depends on the RNG"."
There is no contradiction, Arc. In a random game, run by a random number generator, the only control a player has is to decide when to play and when to not play. That goes for negative expectation games as well as positive expectation games.
You continue to talk about probability of winning and you wrote "the probability of winning (making any kind of profit) is based on the amount of the edge and increases as the number of hands increase. This is simple math, Alan."
So? Does that tell you not to quit when you are ahead? Of course it doesn't. Even you said it's okay to leave with a profit. Does that tell you to keep playing when you are losing because you are destined to hit a big one? Of course it doesn't. You might never hit a big one even at a positive expectation game.
So what the heck are you talking about anyway with all of your "math talk"? It is meaningless when it comes to the question do you want to quit when you are ahead? And that is the only question. There are no side issues. It has nothing to do with the math of the game.
Singer -- and others -- have adopted a strategy, a plan that they want to leave when they have a win, or reached a win goal. The silliness is you trying to say that somehow the "math of video poker" says that is somehow wrong or not advisable or that you are missing out on some probabilities that you will keep winning.
You are preaching what amounts to rationalization of video poker addiction. Now I know why Frank Kneeland wanted to learn about Singer's system. Too bad he never followed up.
Actually, the biggest decisions are what to play and how to play. They determine your ER. After that the "when" is meaningless. You will see a random frequency of cards no matter when you play. These frequencies average out over time. That is what the math tells you. If you think you have some kind of control over those frequencies you are completely deluded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Once again you wallow in possibilities. Since we don't know what is going to happen the best we can do is calculate the probabilities and play accordingly. I've never said a person can't quit at any time, ahead or behind. I'm telling you it doesn't matter over time as your results will tend towards the ER of your play. I realize you don't want this to be true. You want to believe you control your destiny. That is affecting your judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, everyone wants to quit when they are ahead. The problem is we don't get ahead all the time. Sometimes we all lose. That is a fact. Your unwillingness to accept reality is really quite amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've never said any of those things. I've simply pointed out the "math" tells you it doesn't make any difference when you quit ... you will approach the ER of your play over time. It's interesting you keep trying to redefine what I've told you over and over again. One might think you never read any of my comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Frank figured out there was no benefit in Singer's system. Frank kept telling you the same thing I've been telling you. You didn't listen to him either. Since you brought it up, I do think that "addiction" is playing a part in your thinking. You want to believe you can beat negative VP games which allows you to continue to play. What you are doing is rationalizing some magical plan where you can play and win. Now, that is a symptom of addiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc, should I call you a liar for saying this? "Frank figured out there was no benefit in Singer's system. Frank kept telling you the same thing I've been telling you. You didn't listen to him either." Nah. I'm too much of a gentleman.
Frank never said there was no benefit in Rob's system.
Frank never told me anything that you say -- he never even criticized Rob's system.
Frank did tell me both in person over lunch and on the phone and through emails why he didn't comment any more about Rob's system, and he asked me to keep it confidential. But when I tell you that you are way off base I really mean you are way off base.
Now let's get back to the real issue. You wrote above: "I've simply pointed out the "math" tells you it doesn't make any difference when you quit...." Thank you. We're finished now.
So to everyone: It's okay to quit when you are ahead. The money you leave with is your money. Enjoy it until the next time you play.
What Frank told you is exactly what I'm telling you. The facts. The game is random and the only thing you say about the future is related to probabilities. Of course, this is the same thing as telling you there is no benefit to Rob's system. He just said it in a nice way because Frank doesn't like to criticize individuals. However, it means exactly the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Are we finished? Are you willing to admit that when you stop playing provides no benefit over time? That is the issue. I've been saying the same thing over and over. Do you now accept it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That is a lie. Frank never said anything that comes close to what you said. One of the telling things he did say was that for the past 14 years he had never played with his own money and he would not play with his own money today. Telling? Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Arc, I don't really think you worded this statement correctly. When you stop playing does provide a benefit over time, if you stop at the point that you have a net profit. Do you want to restate your comment? I understand the point you are trying to make, but really, you can't see the point that I am trying to make -- and that is "over time" means nothing to someone who doesn't know when or even if they will ever play again. Recreational video poker players or gamblers in general cannot consider anything that is long-term because long-term is a meaningless concept for them. For you, for the casino, and for the "math guys" it is your holy grail. But for me or anyone else who sits down at a machine to play for an hour, or a weekend, long term means little. What matters is hitting the cash out button at the right time to maximize our return -- whether it be a profitable return (hitting the win goal), or minimizing a negative return (reaching your loss limit or stop-loss).Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
We really are in two different worlds. I only hope you can afford to play in yours.
You ignored what Frank said before and you are trying to do it again. But it's not just Frank. It's every single math knowledgeable person. Alan, Frank told you the facts right here on your forum. Go back and read what he told you. Then tell me what he said. The fact is you can't repeat what he said because you didn't want to believe him. Just like now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've always said a win goal only matters if a person is never going to play again. Our discussion is about people who will play again. Otherwise who cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That is a very small minority of people. Those who care enough about VP to read forums and try to improve their play are the ones looking for information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It should be meaningless to everyone ... because it is meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You were doing OK for awhile but now you are once again claiming that you can control your results. Can't be done. And notice how you weren't talking about someone who doesn't plan on playing again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No, we are both in the same world. The world is defined by the mathematics of random distributions. You want to escape that world but you can't. Your ideas are completely and totally flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And, by fostering your ignorance on others that read this forum you're telling people there is a way to improve their results. When you do that you are leading them astray. That is why I have been attempting to educate you. But, you still don't want to learn. You are lost.
Arc, Frank failed to do a few things which surprised me:
1. Meet with Rob to find out how the "system" works so he could evaluate it. He never did.
2. Publish an evaluation (he couldn't, he never learned it).
3. Told me that he never used his own money to play video poker over the last 14 years and only played with OPM (other people's money).
Further, he promised on videopoker.com to publish some sort of program or formula or creation to detect if a VP machine was not truly random. And that never happened either.
To his credit, he told me that the concept of "advantage play" was dead as he didn't know of any advantage plays left in any casino. And for that reason he would not play now and certainly would not use his own money to play. I suspect that the last of the advantage plays was when the M had those special progressives -- but they only lasted a few months -- and Frank wasn't using his own money to play there either.
I've been around a long time. And I've met a lot of talkers. Some deliver, and some find an excuse.
Now, to your credit, Arc, you stand your ground, and good for you. But for heaven sake, put your math theory aside for a minute and use your God-given common sense. As my father used to say about the stock market: "no one ever went broke selling a stock at a profit."
And I can apply that to video poker today when discussing win goals: "no one ever lost cashing out at a profit." And we can add to that when discussing loss limits: "No one ever went broke losing less than they could afford to lose."
That's how I look at things. I know you look at things differently. You look at probabilities. Okay. I think you're probably never going to see it my way.
By the way, where is Frank?
edited to add: You wrote "The world is defined by the mathematics of random distributions." And that is probably true. There probably is a bell curve of players who will leave when they hit a win goal.
This argument, as usual, is getting nowhere. In the world of gambling, the difference between winners and losers is primarily "money management". That includes almost all forms of gambling whether it is sports, horses, craps, poker, or dare I say VP. Many very knowledgeable gamblers, including my mentor, should have won, had all the tools and knowledge to win, but lacked money management skills which resulted in their losing.
The simplest form of money management is loss limits and win goals, exactly what Alan has been talking about. And what loss limits and win goals do is force the gambler from gambling too much (read long term here). Rather, it forces the gambler to be satisfied with a certain win goal, limit his losses on a bad day, and avoid the long destructive periods that define our compulsion to gamble.
Arci will never understand this as it is not based upon mathematical principals. That is why he probably doesn't seek other forms of gambling.
But any successful and knowledgeable gambler, particularly in my primary game--horse racing--will tell you that money management is what separates winners from losers.
This is a total hoot. Arc gets frustrated with facts that he's not only made himself look the stooge for getting caught lying about how much he plays, he's double dribbling around what a fellow named Frank said to Alan. In another way, he says he knows more about what Frank told Alan than Alan says what Frank told him! And wouldn't you know it, it's all about Rob. Isn't everything in arc's life all about Rob? Isn't that what forces him to lie so much (PLEASE arc, say you were also lying about that fast food gravy you fed your family). Let's make a movie about this, only how do you film a guy's dreams?
It has come to my attention, Regnis, that by saying anything about gambling compulsions and chasing longterm EV in the same sentence will turn a grumbler like arc into your everyday Thanksgiving Day fast food gravy buyer. Giggle giggle giggle.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Money management does deserve honorable mention here. I see what you mean about how a math crazed player is prone to criticize the concept because they can't get themselves to understand it. I've found that most of these people tell themselves its better to play all day regardless of results than to have any kind of a plan. Now if that's not the stuff of addicts, call me Pete.
As a converted former loser, I can tell you the most important lesson Singer taught me was how to stay away from getting any more cash than I walked in with if I lose, and to set solid, honest win goals for when to stop playing for my visits. When I think back on the numerous numerous times I was ahead a little or a lot, and still kept playing out of that compulsion you talked about, it makes me sick. I know I could have paid cash for a new dually.
Alan, since Frank understands the math he has no reason to "evaluate" Singer's system to know whether it creates an advantage or not. It can't. It's as simple as that. I think he was trying to determine if it might reduce a person's overall play. As I've told you many times anything that reduces play on a negative machine is a good thing. However, with Singer's system you are essentially chasing losses which is a bad thing. I suspect he ended up viewing the latter problem as too big to overcome but as Frank always does, he won't say anything bad about anyone. So, he decided to say nothing at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
In any event, that has nothing to do with winning or losing. There is no betting system that change the return of a game. That has been proven. Alan, do you understand what "proven" means?
I suspect there's still a few plays out there. Frank is not going to advertise them, he's smarter than that. However, it may not be enough to generate the income that Frank needs to continue his lifestyle. It's a little different for retirees who have other sources of income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
But one heck of a lot of them lost money because they sold and the stock continued to rise. And, not all stocks go up after they are bought. So, did you have a point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I was hoping you'd say that. Both of my points above apply perfectly. There's no guarantee when you sit down at a machine that you will get ahead. In fact, the math guarantees that you won't always get ahead. So, the fact is many times you will find yourself losing money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It isn't a matter of your way or my way. The math is the math. You can't overcome a negative return game with a betting system. That has been proven. Alan, this is not really a debate. It's you being stubborn despite absolute evidence that the math is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And lose when they don't. After all those sessions are added up they end up on the same bell curve as everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Money management is a useful topic. Because of the swings in any random game, and especially high variance games like VP, it is possible to have periods of losing even on positive return games. As such, one needs a bankroll to overcome those swings. If a player plays above their bankroll they can go broke. But, that has nothing to do with the current discussion of whether a betting system like win/loss goals can overcome a negative game.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
It may help delay losses but that is not the same same making sure one has a large enough bankroll to overcome the swings. Two different topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
One simply has to understand that you can't change the hands that you are dealt by hitting a cash-out button once in awhile. Look at it this way. Assume a gambler has an insufficient bankroll and gambled 100,000 hands across a week and loses it all. Now, consider another gambler who is dealt exactly the same hands but uses win/loss goals. He ends up cashing out now and then going home a winner occasionally. However, over many months he ends up at exactly the same place ... losing all his money. You can't make a machine deal you different hands. The probability is exactly the same for both players to see this same sequence of hands.
Actually, it is covered by mathematical principles. Just because you don't understand the math does not mean it doesn't apply to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Most horse players are totally clueless about math? Is that your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Arc wrote this: "I've always said a win goal only matters if a person is never going to play again. Our discussion is about people who will play again. Otherwise who cares."
Sorry buddy, but even those of us who will return to a casino in the future care very much if we leave with a win each and every time we go. Those little wins can add up, just as little losses add up. You have to manage your money -- as others have pointed out. Why can't you accept that?
And about my conversation with Frank. I'm sorry... I forgot you were sitting at the table with us, and I forgot you were listening to the conversations on the extension phone, and I forgot you were copied on the emails.
Actually, I'm going to clue you in on something. Frank and I never discussed Rob's strategy or system or the math behind it. Do you want to know why? Because Frank said he wanted to do his own independent investigation of it, and he didn't want other people to influence how he looked at Rob's system. And guess what? Frank never followed through. Rob extended many invitations to Frank to explain to him in detail what he does and when he does it. He even offered to have Frank watch him play. It never happened.
However, that is not the reason Frank never published anything about Rob's system. The reason for that is confidential per Frank's request. By the way, Arc, the "math" had very little to do with what Frank was looking at.
I've always accepted money management principles. And, we all want to leave the casinos with more money than we came with. I've never argued with any of that. The problem is you jump from there into the la la land of your fantasies. Win goals/losses do not change anyone's expectation. They do not turn losers into winners. They do not change the frequencies of cards dealt to you. Why can't you accept that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And, it appears you forgot I understand the math and I read Frank's comments. I know exactly what he believed because he told both of us in his comments. You kept arguing with him. I already knew he was right. Are you now claiming he said something different about the math in personal conversations? I call BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I don't need to watch someone buying an object for 47 cents to know that the correct change they receive from a dollar is 53 cents. Only an idiot would claim the amount of change was different. But, that is what you are doing if you claim win/loss goals can change your expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Which is what I said. Frank knew the math long before he looked at Singer's system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
From what I read arc about what Frank told Alan which is not theory or any other fairy tale like you're always quoting, Frank said he hasn't played with his own money for was it 15 years? I think that's funny, because here's one of your idol/hero AP's who looks like either he went broke playing your way, or used other people's money to play somehow because he knew your method is for the dogs and losers.
It is all very funny, and the more you post the bigger the hole you're digging gets.
Edit: I also have enjoyed watching you make believe you were at that meeting between Alan and Frank. What is it, that fastfood gravy and instant smashed potatoes not settling in right?
If anyone has noticed, I pretty much have stopped posting. It's pointless and embarrassing. Alan, I have a hard time believing that you believe the stuff you're writing. You're committed to being a shill for either Rob or the casinos or both. Arci, your patience is so off-the-charts --- why do you waste your time with these dudes?
Alan's a guy who's been playing at Harrah's his whole life, for God's sakes -- that should be the big red flag that, gamblingwise, he doesn't know what he's doing or talking about. I'll do the footwork to find out how/why Rob left Gaming Today next month, but c'mon, Gaming Today is a promotional shill mag for tourists. Getting published in GT is not the best resume for gambling expertise.
The best service one can render to anyone reading these forums is to not respond to these dudes so they don't do any further damage to the public. I think that was Frank's angle.
redietz, just what is it that you can't accept? the value of quitting when ahead?? is that it?? because that's what this is all about. No one is arguing math, except for Arc and perhaps you, who think there is some magic in the math that negates the wisdom of quitting when ahead.
Frankly what is the problem that you and Arc are having about these long winded explanations when all the rest of us are saying is that when you quit when ahead you quit with money in your pocket?
In other words redetz, you believe Alan is a dummy. Have you seen his resume or history? On the other hand, you say you're a gambling consultant to high rollers and you play 25c videopoker. That says it all. And what's wrong with having been a Harrahs player over the years? Your hero Bob Dancer says he's been 7stars there his whole career. Care to explain?
Why did Singer leave Gambling Today? Wasn't that years ago, and who cares now? I think he said he replaced Bob Dancer. Find out why he left while you're at it and report back.
Arc has patience alright. That's why he loses it with insults and calling anyone who disagrees with him names, and why he's so disrespectful of the forum's host. I wonder if that fastfood Thanksgiving Yummy gravy has anything to do with it. Could be, but I more suspect it's what Singer tells us about him, with his boredom requiring neverending controversial discussions just to fill in all the time. That's also the definition of a troll.