"If more people did quit when ahead, they would find they had a profit." Alan Mendelson
"Boys, you have to be ahead at the finish line to win." "Duke" Demko, head coach of the 1973 North Schuylkill cross-country team.
Printable View
"If more people did quit when ahead, they would find they had a profit." Alan Mendelson
"Boys, you have to be ahead at the finish line to win." "Duke" Demko, head coach of the 1973 North Schuylkill cross-country team.
And that finish line appears after every single session....just as a runner runs in many races, a swimmer swims in many meets, and a boxer fights in many matches. Each event is an effort for each individual session, just as it is for any particular session in video poker. These "finish lines" are the only thing that matters to anyone who plays. AP's may say they don't care if they lose today because theory says--and they want to KNOW--that they will be ahead tomorrow. But no one ever wants to lose, and absolutely NOTHING is guaranteed to happen in the future. That's why every fighter, swimmer, runner, and vp player who really knows what they're doing does anything and everything to win TODAY's event.
And, as we all know, even those who claim to quit when they are ahead go back and play more thus making them no different than anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
I think others have coined the phrase, "Pausing when ahead." As long as you return to play, you haven't actually quit.
Bingo!!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
"Quitting when ahead" = takes longer (time) to lose.
And less time to make more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
You guys do what you want but this morning at about 4am at Bellagio forum member John said to me "stop playing, go home a winner."
I couldn't argue with that or the $6100 in my pockets. Before getting on the freeway we went to a BofA ATM to deposit my cash.
Yeah, and it's a great feeling of accomplishment. I get my freeplay Mondays and Thursdays, and Thursday I had just used half of my $25 on bp and decided to use the rest of it on ddbp when I hit 4 A's/kicker for $500. It was a total surprise as I was staring in disbelief. I was expecting my usual $50-$100. Believe me, it took a lot to walk out after only 15 minutes play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I understand the feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
And what if you were playing a "positive expectation" game? Imagine how the "math" would be tugging at your pants to keep you in that seat?
Nobody is suggesting you sit there forever. Otherwise I'd sleep at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
People who claim quitting while ahead is only some type of "pause" are probably the ones who haven't the ability to actually do it.
I also like how Alan put it to the math-crazed "AP's". How many times have we seen them claim that "it's better to quit at any point sooner than later when playing those terrible -EV games because you'll lose less" yet they have no idea how to respond to his point about "what if" he'd been playing a +EV machine" but chose to take over $6k with him instead. People here are so brainwashed into believing "the more you play +EV the more you win....and vice-versa" yet there are very few of us who know not only how to quit playing--but when.
This is really the essence of the entire argument. Yet, at the same time the APs will say there is no guarantee. Well, they're going to have to make up their minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Make up their minds about what? It's very simple as you've been told many, many times. Your results will approach the expected results of what you are playing over time. It does not matter how often you pause or when you pause. With high variance there will be some fairly long stretches where you play above or below the expected results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is not rocket science.
Unfortunately Arc my return at 8/5 Bonus Poker is not 99.17% and I sure wish it was.
We've gone over this so many times. If Alan really wanted to know the truth, he's perfectly capable of ringing up any number of professional mathematicians. He never does, going back years, so that tells you the subject is of no real interest to him, and reporting accurately about it is of no real interest to him. Ten minutes on the phone with half a dozen different professional mathematicians would take an hour. Posting this stuff hundreds of times for years takes a lot more time.
So we can speculate why Alan doesn't want to blow the hour, but it comes down to (1) he doesn't care enough or (2) he doesn't really want to hear it or (3) he thinks he knows math better than professional mathematicians. Pick one.
No one has said your return will be the same as the games optimal return. Your return includes all strategy choices as well. While you claim to play according to optimal play strategy, you may not even realize the many of the errors you are making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Are you saying that whenever I return next week, I will STILL be in the same continuum cycle where I left off this week? That the casino SAVED all the missed play so I could now have to play thru it? That's the only sense I made out of what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I see an issue here, slingshot. You've adopted some strange phrases. "Continuum cycle" doesn't show up in too many Funk and Wagnalls.
Did Rob teach you that phrase, or where exactly did you get it?
In case anyone is wondering, it's a bike shop, based in New York, I think.
Strange- my dictionary defines it as a continuous series of events. And why do you assume I can't reason without Rob's assistance? I even have my own variation of his strategies which gives me the freedom of making a play that even he would not make. Translation: I get it! Study your cues, above all, sharpen up on your math, play the odds EXACTLY by the math and push that button at EXACTLY the right time and the poor, clueless machines HAVE to give you a win. C'mon, I actually play all the time and SEE the math flushed down the toilet! I watch people playing near me and hear their comments. I won't even go into the "simulated" randomness that I observe- your dictionary might not even have that. You actually think I would believe something at just face value?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz