For a session of 2400 hands played, what is the probability of being ahead at one point during the session?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Printable View
For a session of 2400 hands played, what is the probability of being ahead at one point during the session?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
I personally consider 25 cycles to be the long run. If its five-spot keno progressives then we're talking 40,000 games. If its royal play then I consider 1,000,000 hands to be the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Yes, that's definitely the ideal. I figured maybe Rob tweaked his system to allow for awkward situations such as flying to Vegas for a one-week vacation and hitting your win goal in the first five minutes. In that situation, maybe you'd be allowed to play for fun at the nickel machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
But I guess my main point of confusion involves the intervals between sessions. Alan didn't say I needed to wait a week before playing again. He just said I needed to go home. :D
Thanks for the link...one of the few posts I've read of yours that didn't contain an insult.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
You seem emotionally invested in all this...what's your problem?
A million hands seems like good standard for the long run. That sounds like about a year of full time VP play...right?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Is it possible to be ahead after a million hands of -EV VP?
It would help to know your gaming bankroll. That's the first thing he'll ask.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
All negative expectation games are not created equal. But if one plays a 98% game I would put the probability of being ahead at 0.0000000000001 after 1 million hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
This was also addressed by redietz:Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
That's pretty grim. Can you show your work?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Thanks, but I was asking about a million hands...not multiples of a million.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
I'm actually looking to work backwards from a million, the probability of winning in the short term...not the long run.
It was an estimation on my part. You can add or subtract a couple of zeros. It won't make any difference. Through a million hands the chance of being a winner on a 98% game is somewhere between slim and none.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Oh, well then no, I don't think it's possible to have a million hands. I've heard of millipedes having a lot of feet, but not actually anywhere near a million. AFAIK, that rumor was started by an entomologist suffering from blurred vision.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Your math may be off by more than a couple of zeros.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
You have been so good with the math formulas...do you want to try again?
mickey crimm claims to have played millions of hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
I believe that's what your agenda is, yes. Why else would you be saying or insinuating things that are simply untrue?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
My point was this -- it doesn't matter how frequently you win or lose, what matters is how you end up overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach
I assume Alan plans to continue gambling. He's played for quite a long time, put in many hours at the craps table and hands at the video poker machines. I don't know if he's been on the right side or bad side of variance. However, he has hit two $100K royals on the $25 denom, and unless he gambles much more than he lets on, I don't see him having lost $200k on the $25 machines [excluding the RF's]. If anything, I'd suggest he's been on the good side of variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach
Variance doesn't mean losing (or winning), it's the difference between the expected value or expected outcome versus the actual outcome. A -EV player can have positive variance and still lose, while a +EV player can have negative variance and still win. The -EV player lost less than he was expected to, while the +EV player won less than he was expected to. Of course, both players can have positive or negative variance.
To suggest Alan is in the hole because he's the victim of negative variance would imply he has a winning system. I have yet to see any math whatsoever he has a winning system based on win goals or stop losses.
What's your point? You can't lower that number and definitely cannot make it negative (if it was negative, then the cost to produce the royal would be negative, which would be a positive return for the player) just by playing, using a strategy other than optimal strategy, or pausing & continuing on. For the condition Mickey wrote to not exist, then that would mean the cost would become a luck factor (actual vs theoretical). In that case, winning or losing comes down to luck. Unfortunately, you don't know if you're going to be extremely unlucky, extremely lucky, end up right where you should, or anywhere else in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach
The average RF should cost him X amount. The average ALL/TALL/SMALL should cost him some other amount. The average AAAA (or any other hand) will cost some amount, as well. None of the payouts exceed the average amount it should cost to get that hand.
After 1 million hands of VP, let's say 7/5 BP (~98.01% return). I get the following, betting $1/hand (ie: 20c denom). --
EV:
1,000,000 * -0.019853 = -19,853
SD:
(1,000,000) ^ 0.5 * (20.75) ^ 0.5 = 4,555
To profit, the player would have to be up 19,853/4,555 standard deviations (4.3585 SDs) to break even. I don't know the likelihood of being up 4.35 or more SDs, but it's very low, given that being 3+ SDs is about 0.15% chance.
The long run is infinity, unless you mean the long run to mean something like, "having an X% chance of being at $Y or higher (or lower)".
I would have no problem laying someone 100 to 1 that they won't be ahead on a 98% game after 1 million hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Years ago I had a bread and butter video poker play called Unlinked Flush Attack. I worked it for several years. It was 7/5 Double Bonus where every fourth flush payed 25 for 1, a 100.78% game. But I didn't play the game straight through, unless some promotion prompted me to.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I played this game at Tahoe, Reno, Verdi, Minden, Elko, and the Pioneer in Laughlin. In this game the first three flushes you make pay 5 for 1, then the top of the screen will light up saying "FLUSH ATTACK!!!! Next Flush Pays Bonus." When you made that flush you got payed 25 for 1. Then the game went back to reset. You had to make 3 more flushes paying 5 for 1 before the flush attack light would come on again.
In the late nineties Dan Paymar had a book out called THE BEST OF VIDEO POKER TIMES. There was an article by Doug Reul on Flush Attack. Doug developed a strategy for the game based on the average value of the flush being 50 coins. The first three flushes pay 5 for 1 and the 4th flush pays 25 for one. Thats a total of 40. Divide that by 4 and the average value of the flush is 10 for 1 or 50 coins. He called the strategy FLUSH 50.
Doug also strategized about ploppies making one or two 5-coin flushes then getting up and walking away from the machine. The player that sits down next on that machine would only have to make 1 or 2 flushes to get to the bonus flush that payed 25 for 1. So if a player sat down and played until he made the bonus flush then cashed out, moved to the next machine and did the same thing, then moved to the next machine and did the same thing, the player would be picking up all the 5-coin flushes left by the ploppies. So instead of a player getting the bonus flush every 4 flushes he might get the bonus flush every 3 flushes. That would put the average flush value at 11.66 to 1 or 58 coins.
Here are the stats for the game if you play it straight through. Notice that the %contribution of the flush is 18.2%.....then I will continue in the next post.
http://www.imgur.com/UHbeGkT
My first trip across northern Nevada I ran into the unlinked Flush Attacks at the Red Lion in Elko. There were ten machines. The Red Lion brought novice gamblers in on flights from around the west on 3-day packages. There were no hustlers there except me. It was the perfect set-up. The ploppies gave the Flush Attacks lots of action.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I would come in early in the morning and sweep through the Flush Attacks. I would sit down on the first machine and play until I collected the bonus flush, then move to the next machine and do the same thing until I had been through all ten machines. Then I would come back in early afternoon and sweep through the machines again. Then come back in around 10 PM and sweep them out again.
A sweep generally took a couple of hours. I kept a pocket notebook where I recorded how many flushes I had to make on each play in order to monitor the payback percentage. It was a steady $40 an hour gig. I was playing 5000 hands a day for months at a time. Sometimes better plays would pop up so I would hit them. But when things slowed down I went back to sweeping Flush Attacks. I would do a million hands just playing this game 200 days a year.
This is what the stats look like if you average having to make just 2.6 flushes per play. Notice that the flush now represents 22.65% of the payback, up from 18.2%. And the game has a 104.49% return. Also notice that the royal represents 1.81% of the payback and the straight flushes represents .73% of the payback. I'll continue in the next post.
http://www.imgur.com/zRH1DAw
I averaged having to make 2.9 flushes per play. That put the payback at 104%. I would do about 30 plays a day, or about 5000 hands per day. It was a $250 a day gig. Then there was the cashback, comp, and mailers.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
This was the beauty of sweeping Flush Attacks. The royal represented 1.81% of the payback and was on a 44,000 game cycle. If you discount the royal out of the equation I was at 102.2% just making high pairs up through straight flushes. The straight flush was on just a 6800 game cycle. And if you also discount the straight flush out of the equation I was at 101.5% just up through the 4 Aces which was on a 4600 game cycle.
In other words, I was making money on my way to making the royals and straight flushes. I literally averaged making 4 Aces everyday. My position in the game was so strong that if I were on my case $2000 today I would take it to a bank of unlinked Flush Attacks....and the chances of me going broke on the play would be somewhere between slim and none. In five years and somewhere around 6 million hands the worst losing streak I ever suffered was just $1100. It was a steady $40 an hour gig.
Besides Elko, there were banks of unlinked Flush Attacks in Verdi, Reno, Minden, and the Pioneer in Laughlin. I played all of those banks. And I also swept out the House A Rockin's which was a game that played like Flush Attack except it was based on Full Houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
And there you have it--mickey making it up in his own inimitable babbling way as the beer bottles pile up on the side. More "blast from the past" nonsense about Nv. that can't be verified today....and more reasons why this internet slug continues to live a life laden with gov't handouts in his declining years. Not really surprising that his rambling piques the interest of no one....
Let's all have a six-pack, some smokes, and celebrate this wonderful moment with good 'ol Rosie Palmer!
Who didn't know you would show up trolling again. Your ignorant blather is not going to stop me from posting up what I know about video poker. Rob when are you ever going to put up even a simple little equation on video poker? Oh yeah, that's right, according to you math doesn't apply to video poker....but Rob's voodoo strategy does. Rob, is ignorance bliss?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Some people write about gaining fortune and fame in gambling. How to hit the bigtime. How to win untold riches. I don't know anything about that because I've never been anything like that. I was a down in the trenches working pro. My main gig, Flush Attacks, from the late nineties into the early 2000's was worth about $40 an hour. You don't get rich working for $40 an hour. And I had to put in the time to get the money.
I can write about the nuts and bolts of these kinds of plays all day long because they were my niche. Not get rich quick stuff. Low risk for a decent reward. That was my style and it still is. I'm still a down in the trenches working pro.
Rob, I'm not on the government dole in any kind of way. Your ex son-in-law should be able to tell you that. You are the one that draws government checks, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Did I miss something? How did you know where in the flush cycle you were when you sat down at a machine?
What have I said or insinuated that wasn't true?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
I'm willing to consider the wager, please explain the logistics of how this exercise would take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
What was the total win after 6 million hands?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
For a session of 2400 hands played, what is the probability of being ahead at one point during the session?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Your friend who won almost every session, was he playing at the 30/70 win/lose probability you showed earlier?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
When he had his infrequent losing sessions, was he prevented from quitting before wiping out all of his previous winnings?
That information was unknown, but the worst-case scenario returned 100.78%, so he was guaranteed a positive expected return.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
I think the limited information probably worked to his overall benefit and longevity because it discouraged competition from other hustlers.
Are these figures equivalent for fewer hands?...is the likelihood of profit better or worse or the same if you play fewer hands?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Ask Rob's ex son-in-law.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
That's funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
This post reveals true ignorance with no humility, or you're just trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I don't think 100.78 at quarters translates to forty buckaroos per hour. Maybe it does at dollars but that would mean never starting with even one flush in the bank. That's at one thousand hands per hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
While I have confidence in the math as laid out by mickey, RS, and arci, if I really need to pin something down and understand it, I go and ask someone with a doctorate who teaches or has taught college level probability. Then I ask someone else with a doctorate who teaches or has taught college probability. If they agree, I then ask a couple of people who have done stats for professional papers if my understanding makes sense. If the original two math professors don't agree, I keep asking until I have a sense of consensus.
But that's just me.
It speaks to the concept and strategy of loss limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Also, RS didn't reveal whether the people who win almost every session are playing a -EV game.
I originally asked about a friend, but looking back RS wrote that he knew some people who win frequently.
They apparently all lose infrequently...almost never...but when they do they lose back all their winnings plus some.
They all play this way?...none are able to stop after losing a fraction of their winnings?
I'm curious about that, that's why I ask.
No, 100.78% is the worst-case scenario, occurring only when a machine requires 4 flushes to complete the cycle and receive the flush attack payoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Notice how these self proclaimed "AP's" all yap non-stop theory and never once put up any proof of winning anything--let alone a winning year. It's like they're all extensions of Dancer's marketing arms, where nothing is truly real and the make believe of probability and theory exist in the mind only.
That's the reason behind mickey's constant "gambling lore of years past". He hides out in some squalor existence in Montana of all places because that's the only place a slug of his ilk can afford with government handouts and no future, and he has no choice but to pretend success in the past with unverifiable crazy stories in order to keep his rotten teeth from falling out due to financial stress and the fact that he cannot get a girlfriend....his claim to fame of the past 45 years. Aside from having nothing to offer anyone, he sleeps alone also because of his bad breath and overall stinky, smelly, smoky BO. He is a prize of prizes, that's for sure :)
And yet he has you hooked on every post he makes. Mickey has a stalker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
When I finished sweeping out a bank of Flush Attacks I left all the machines showing a 1 coin bet with no cashout. When I returned a few hours later I first looked for the Motel 6's. Some ploppies would make 3 flushes, turn the Flush Attack light on, play the credits off and leave without hitting the bonus flush. This was the strongest play of all. 8/5 DB with a 125 coin flush comes in at 135%. I called them Motel 6's as a joke. "I'm Tom Bodette for Motel 6 and we'll leave the light on for you." So I played those off first.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
The next thing I looked for was 5-coin action on the machines. I had left the machines showing a 1 coin bet. I knew the prior player didn't make 3 flushes or else the light would be on. So did they make 2, one, or no flushes before they left? I didn't know but I knew there was a chance they made 1 flush, maybe two. As I said I averaged having to make 2.9 flushes per play. Let's just round that to 3.
If you average having to make only 3 flushes per play then the math looks like this. Two flushes pay 5 for 1 and one flush pays 25 for 1.
5 + 5 + 25 = 35
35/3 = 11.66
With the flush 50 strategy the frequency of a flush is 55. If you take the extra 1.66 and divide it by 55 then its a 3% add-on. So you are at 103.78%. In order to average making only 3 flushes per play then one-third of the plays you will have to make all 4 flushes, one-third of the plays you will have to make 3 flushes, one-third of the plays you will have to make only 2 flushes. That's pretty much how it worked out for me as I averaged having to make just 2.9 flushes per play.
You have never done that either, Rob. But you damn sure promised that you would. You are all bluff. You pounded your chest with arci challenging him to put up his tax returns and you would do the same. You brow beat him unmercifully to do it because you thought you knew for sure that arci would never deliver his tax transcripts to Alan. But he called your bluff. And what did you do? You welshed the bet. You've bragged all these years about making $100,000 a year at video poker without putting up any proof. Here was your chance to do that. Everybody knows how you are, Rob. If you truly had returns showing you booking that kind of win every year you would have put it up just so you could gloat at everybody. There is only one reason why you welshed the bet. Your returns would show you to be a liar of unimaginable proportions. You have no proof because it never happened. You are all bluff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Interesting. So unless you saw a blinking light and ran full bore over to that machine there is no strategy for when to play. There's no watching from afar or anything. It's a 103.78 play for any old slob who sits down randomly as long as you play through to the forth flush then give it a rest.
You insinuate you can have a winning system by simply quitting when ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
He could certainly have quit at any time, of course. But continuing to play and increasing his bet size is what caused him to win so many sessions so frequently, while having the occasional gigantic loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Likelihood of profit is higher if you play fewer hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Imagine having to live your life based on the likelihoods, and probabilities this group of AP’s put forward in this thread and others for everyone’s reading pleasure. How did this site end up with this little group of self-proclaimed AP’s who should start the dumb and dumber AP non-profit club?
It just keeps getting dumber and dumber. I have to say the stupidity keeps me coming back for more and more entertainment, never being disappointed.
No, it's not a 103.78 play for anyone. Mickey did not randomly sit down. He watched for, and immediately played any available machine that had already triggered the feature. I'm sure he monitored the action on other visible machines while he himself was playing. And he used techniques (such as the "1-coin no cashout") for detecting when a machine had been played.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Also, the theoretical return assumes optimal play strategy. An ordinary slob will fall a few percentage points short of theoretical due to playing errors. And you're assuming the player will make the strategically correct decision to stop after the fourth flush, whereas most players are oblivious to such considerations.
Overall, the machines were nicely profitable for the casino, and the 7/5 games under discussion were not even considered "full-pay" AFAIK. Some casinos offered 8/5 flush attacks, which were also profitable for the casino.
Yes, and it's been suggested by multiple posters on this and many other forums. But I think the underlying assumption is that all gamblers are incapable of self-control in a casino, so in reality, no one could actually maintain the discipline to always quit when ahead. That's why the system reliably fails, not because the concept is inherently flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Actual AP requires both self-control and strategic decisions in a casino environment, neither of which is humanly possible, therefore anyone claiming success as an AP is lying.
Blackhole, when you're right, you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
The only thing dumber than winning is losing. As Jennifer Garner says, "What's in your wallet?"
This is certainly true if you run a business and continue to run a business so it loses money. I just had this discussion with a friend of mine who is losing money on a start up and asked for advice and some financial support.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
In the course of our discussion I asked: is this a real business or a hobby? (hobby = recreation)
In the case of the start-up that was a money-loser, it was supposed to be a money making business and investors were supposed to be paid back. I advised that after three years I couldn't support the project anymore either with my time or advice (I had invested $2500 in the start-up.)
But what casino gaming? If it is a business for you and you derive most or all of your income from it, and you spend time in casinos that otherwise could have been spent at a real job, then it is dumb to lose money.
But if it's a hobby (recreation) is it really that bad to lose money? Frankly, losing money is not as much fun as winning money, but I question the statement that it's dumb.
I lose money going to the movies, renting a tennis court, and playing golf. Is that dumb?
It's dumb if the movies will pay you to attend or the tennis courts will pay you to play.
Unless you're like Gomez Addams, who tried like hell every day to lose money on the stock market and failed miserably.
What a dumb comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Most people start a business thinking they can make money from day one. I say take you figures after your business plan is complete and multiply you projected costs by 1.15 and your projected profit by .85 and see if the numbers still work. If not move on and save yourself some time aggravation and money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I eked out a small gain in gambling this year (according to the CET year end report), but lost terribly at the ski slopes and at Disneyland. I have to figure out a way to make those turn a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
We have Hawaii coming up later this Spring and will probably lose more there.
You nailed it, under capitalization is the primary reason businesses fail. It's a struggle in the early years, you may have a decent long term business plan, but keeping those doors open while going through the growing pains of starting a business is the key.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
No offense taken, Mickey. Thanks for mentioning the part about being a recreational player, because that is definitely what I consider myself. I will say though, that I am in no way married to that particular game. That bank of machines is in a section of the casino that I rarely frequent. The first royal I hit it in mid January was the first time I had ever played that game. I noticed right away that it was not a full paying two pair bonus game, but since the progressive was over $1100 I sat down and gave it a shot. I literally hit the royal inside of five minutes, maybe 20-30 hands, at which point I took a picture kicked the ticket out and walked away. I didn't even clear the machine. Two weeks later my wife and I are back in that section of the casino again and I noticed the progressive is over $1200. I sat down (same machine as before) and played about 45 minutes before getting lucky and being dealt the second royal. The machine locked up, I got my hand pay, and then I immediately left. Total seat time between the two royals was maybe one hour. Just dumb luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Maybe you can help me out with the math. If the game has a base 94% pay back, what is the return with RF at $1200? How high does the RF have to be to return +100%?
In the photo of your dealt royal, the theoretical return was 95.2%.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyj
To reach 100%, a 94% base game would need an RF above $3500. If the quad and straight flush progressives are elevated, you could reach 100% with a somewhat lower RF progressive.
The usual rule of thumb is that a base $1000 royal is worth 2% of a game's return, and each $500 increase adds 1%.
Congratulations on your wins. A dealt royal is a rare and spectacular sight.
Thanks bocce ball,Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
That's very interesting and a lot worse than I thought.
I guess the problem is you can only expect to hit a royal every 44,000 hands on average. It's such a rare event that by the time it happens, you're usually down a few thousand dollars because of the poor payouts in the lower portion of the schedule. On that game in particular, the even-money payout for two-pair is brutal. It just grinds you down.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyj
BH, your opinion here is based in your hubris. Your ego tells you that since you can't figure out how it's done then it's imposssible to do. Consequently, you believe that anyone who says they consistently make money gambling is lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhole
Not humanly possible, eh? Bocce, I would rather stand in a corner with my finger in my ass than make a negative expectation bet. How's that for self control?Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
I would stand in a corner with my finger in my ass if the casino awarded me slot club points for doing so. But only on a multiplier day. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I also believe that anyone who says they "consistently make money gambling" is lying. I think if someone said that they "win more than they lose" and had "losing sessions" or losing days, weeks or months, it would be very believable. But to say they "consistently" make money? Nope. Don't believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I'm not smart enough to consistently make money gambling, but I'm smart enough to understand that others may be smart enough to consistently make money gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Not even casinos consistently make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
Some of the APs here claim to do what the entire casino industry can't do:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...-year-net-loss
OK, but aggregate results don't tell you a whole lot about individual operators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I presume this has been beaten to death previously, but AP opportunities vary in their degrees of volatility. Mickey is an obvious example of someone who wins consistently, or nearly so. Online poker during the glory days was a consistent winner for many players with lucrative rakeback and bonuses. Sports-betting arbitrage plays are essentially risk-free by design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Are you familiar with Virtu Financial? The high-frequency trading company made headlines for profiting on 1277 of 1278 days. Financial trading is a form of gambling.
Casino table players can achieve very high advantages with sophisticated techniques I've never heard of.
As for the casino operators themselves, I think it would depend on the setup. We know casinos offering high-limit table games are vulnerable to swings, but a slots-only casino could potentially enjoy steady profits, assuming the high-jackpot machines are not directly owned. Casinos that primarily rake the action, such as California card rooms, could be consistent winners.
"Gaming revenue statewide was almost $10.395 billion"Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
All this article shows is that the casinos have more expenses than revenue. They did NOT lose on the gambling portion.
This is mostly correct. There are very very few games where you won't have losing weeks or longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
One more thing about the article. Reading it, you all should now understand why casinos are cutting back on many of the perks of players club status. It's one of the first places where they can save money.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
As the gaming demography "matures" (industry term), which means has spent more hours-on-device, the corporations can rely on the addictive quality of the machines themselves and their "losing while winning" conditioning (penny slots and multi-line vp) to generate repeat business. The stronger the conditioning in that regard, the more they can downgrade the perks and bonus programs, which in essence provide a "losing while winning" experience outside of the actual machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I think there's some confusion regarding the definition of "consistent" -- and it's my fault for not reading your post more carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You seem to be defining it as winning every session, and nearly all my cited examples would fail on that basis. Certainly Mickey has never claimed to win every session.
May I ask who on the forums has claimed to win every session?
I am sure NO ONE has. Even the "big authors" including Dancer, Scoblete and EVERYONE ELSE has talked about losing trips.Quote:
Originally Posted by bocce ball
I don't think ANY CASINO has ever given away in comps more than the expected edge it has on any game. If a casino knows you play a game with a 99% return, the value of your comps will be less than 1%. I think when a casino cuts comps it is done to increase its profit margins -- it's never to turn gaming from a negative to a positive for the casinos.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Now I'm confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm not sure where we disagree, but I find Dancer generally believable when describing his results. He doesn't make outrageous claims, and he backs up his assertions with verifiable facts. I don't know much about Scoblete. I think he's been involved with dice control, which is difficult to assess.
Crimm is very believable, and has provided copious supporting details.
The people I find unbelievable are the ones who claim to win with mathematically inert or counterproductive strategies.
Dancer has talked about his losses. He shrouds his losses in discussions about what a wonderful play he was making but he admits to losses. For example -- when he runs XXX amount of money to win a car... but doesn't win the car. He doesn't report that he won playing so you know he lost the promotional play and the video poker play that time. Fair enough.
Scoblete preaches a conservative approach to playing craps knowing full well it is a negative game.
People can believe whatever they want about whomever they choose. But I find it totally disingenuous to claim that Dancer has ever backed up any claim of winning with any sort of "facts". Further, you actually BELIEVE all the hokey stories of winning at Montana vp & keno that mickey spins? Explain exactly where he backs any of it up. Then prove you're not mickey, whom you seem to have come on to idolize at a time when he was taken out to the woodshed one too many times.
Alan, your depiction of how Dancer shrouds his losses was good. Taking common sense a step further however is what makes his fans nervous. He continually blabs about winning at SP, Gold Coast, Palms, Stations, M, and a few other local casinos, and he's done this for many years. Yet there are countless "AP's" who non-stop complain about getting stopped, barred, banned, or restricted from playing at these places because of the way they play. Whether that's believable is questionable since NONE of them have ever provided or published written proof of being 86'ed as I have.
However, the fact remains, NO ONE who consistently wins at these casinos AND WHO OPENLY WRITES ABOUT IT AS WELL AS HOW HE RAPES THEIR SLOT CLUBS OVER & OVER AGAIN, can possibly be doing anything but losing lots of cash everywhere. It only makes sense. Imagine Sam's Town saying "We know Bill beat the hell out of us for the tenth straight year and he got thousands in slot club benefits to boot....so let's let him do it again!"
Mickey, OTOH, is a harmless storey teller that should be taken with a grain of salt. He has virtually no life past, present, or future, and if Bernie Sanders ever bumped into him in Montana then his plan to help the poor would multiply ten-fold.
People need to wise up as to what's really going on.
I'm satisfied with the phrasing of my comments. I think you and I have different standards of evidence required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
He has provided specific details of the game mechanics, including screen shots. I don't know for sure that he actually plays the games, but it's entirely logical to accept that he does. Alan seems bothered by the rarity of losing sessions, but that's the nature of those particular games. They can be highly advantageous, but only for small to moderate stakes. According to American Casino Guide, Montana's max bet is $2, and max payout is $800.Quote:
Further, you actually BELIEVE all the hokey stories of winning at Montana vp & keno that mickey spins? Explain exactly where he backs any of it up.
Similar opportunities exist in other places such as Las Vegas, but usually the competition is intense. Mickey's competition is limited due to geography and logistics, and he's highly skilled at detecting advantage possibilities that others would overlook.
LOL. I take note of his postings because he's educational and entertaining. Advantage players are often very tight-lipped about their plays.Quote:
Then prove you're not mickey, whom you seem to have come on to idolize at a time when he was taken out to the woodshed one too many times.