You can have many visits per day.
Printable View
You can have many visits per day.
"No one ever lost money selling stock for a profit."
Well no shit!
Redietz the next time you play count your visits any way you want to. I will count one visit per calendar day. Starting with my next visit in November I will post here if I was ever showing a profit regardless of how the day ended. I will do this for ten calendar days. You do whatever you want.
And no one ever lost money in a casino when they quit while ahead. Remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
"No one's ever lost when they've won."
That is literally what you just said.
This is why this strategy is so simple. Whenever you win money from a bet it becomes your money. It's not the house's money. Leave with your money and it's a 100% advantage play.
It's so simple yet so unbelievable, isn't it?
See how well you do at it, Alan.
But you can only write it down in your log book if you actually leave with the money!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
Don't change the "rules." I said I want everyone to keep track if they were ahead at some point. I'll do that. And I'll go one step further I will report if I had a net win or loss on each daily session starting with my November trip for the Great Gift Wrap Up.
I recorded and reported every one of my over 425 play sessions during my 10-year career on my site at the time, and I wrote about them and my cumulative profiting throughout my 8 years at Gaming Today. In one of my later articles I told of being ahead at some point during my sessions in over 95% of them because I kept track. Of course the theorists never wanted to believe most of it except the losses. It was only when I offered to bet them publicly in the columns that they backed off and most of the time ended up saying what the forum critics are always forced into saying: that with my type of play it's much easier to get ahead at some point. Of course, they always caveat that with a "but because you are playing negative games, you just HAVE to be losing". They need to come over here and take a look at the RV I bought with those losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I have to laugh even more these days at arci and his "simulations". His program will only come out positive if positive games are input, and vice-versa. Just like him, there's no human factors incorporated.
What are these human factors, Rob?
The human factor is knowing when to quit.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
When you run a simulation you define a number of hands. People don't have to play a defined number of hands and they have the option to get up out of the chair and leave. Do your simulations give you that option?
How about doing a simulation that says you will get up and leave as soon as you are ahead by one bet?
Remember I am a graduate of the Maxwell School of Public Policy and the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse. I had 33 hours of Economics (a degree required only 30 hours). I know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. You can run a simulation to prove anything you want to prove.
I am especially humored when someone suggests you run a simulation for 10,000 sessions or visits. Heck, as I pointed out before, if I went to a casino once a week for the next 20 years (until I am 83 years old) I wouldn't be able to play even 1,000 sessions or visits.
You can do just about anything you want to do with a simulation. You can have it quit when/if you're ahead by 1 unit, quit after being down X units, play exactly Y # hands, etc. You can even sim Rob's system(s), assuming they don't rely on human factors, such as emotion.
Sims and statistics are very different. If I run a sim to play 2000 hands, or play until up 1 bet or down 100 bets, or a martingale....or whatever other play style you want to simulate, you can't mess around with the output.
Not sure if you know what a simulation does, Alan, and from reading your post I'm thinking you don't. The purpose of a simulation is to show the bounds of what will/could happen. Running 10,000 trials is not to mean you're going to play 10,000 sessions. It means that by running 10,000 trials, you can get a wide set of what is likely to happen. I'm not sure if 10,000 is a good amount, too little, or overboard. Depends on what the N0 is for the system.
Let's pretend you wanted to simulate a dice roll and didn't know what the outcome frequencies were. Alan, if you wanted to simulate a dice roll.....would you feel more comfortable with the results from the simulation if there were 5 trials, 50 trials, or 1,000,000 trials? Surely you're never going to experience 1M dice rolls in your lifetime.
If I run a sim on $5 9/6 DDB and had it run until you're up X or down Y and showed the results here, would you accept it or refute it (assuming it was programmed properly)?
First, if someone wanted to play until they got X amount ahead (assuming X is a reasonable number) you wouldn't do it on DDBP. You'd use BP. But the problem with simulations are they aren't real. They're a fabrication of the programmer. Nothing beats doing it in a casino. And nothing can be programmed properly unless 100% of the parameters are understood in their entirety. In a casino, you automatically eliminate the imperfect variables. Which is also why the critics won't try it, because they're afraid their gambling-belief system will end up on tilt.
My strategy cannot be simulated. Wizard confirmed that. The special plays are used at varying times in the different games depending on the denomination, and sometimes they're not used at all. And of course, there's that neurotic belief that if the games played are +EV the SIM will show a profit, but on -EV games it'll show a loss.
Simulations are a waste of time.
Then NASA's been wasting a lot of taxpayer money.
I'm not sure why the Wizard would say your strategy cannot be simmed...unless there was some sort of human factor in deciding whether you were going to continue playing or which hold to make (ie: emotional factor). But as far as I know, Rob, if you're in the exact same position 10 times, then each of those 10 times you would make the same decision. Of course, if you had a convoluted strategy that was very confusing, it would just be more difficult to simulate because there would be a lot more programming required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If you could predict with certainty that you would leave ahead money that session, then yes, it would be a 100% advantage play.
But since you can't, it is not.
This is because sometimes you will never be up. You will lose from the start and never recover to even for the session. So those have to be factored in, too, especially when you run BELOW expectation and lose far more than the machine's theoretical loss.
If you want to say that quitting while ahead is "an advantage play", then quitting when behind the theoretical loss for that machine is a DISADVANTAGE play because the house has extra money of yours, right?
Wizard said Robs system can't be simmed because Rob stated that vp machines are not random.
I'm talking about what he told me in person, not what he might have used as an excuse when trying to save face with his crew of mensa geniuses after he banned me. And as far as machines being random or not, I stated that was a non-issue because I always play as if they are random.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
RS__, the strategy can't be simulated properly because there are a great many variable moves depending on the game, the denomination being currently played, what the current profit (or loss) level is during the game as well as YTD, and how many credits are remaining on the advanced BP game currently being played. I was told it is far too difficult to simulate, if even possible.
Not really. AP's claim to always be playing at a perceived "advantage" yet they lose sessions. So someone who says they are always playing at advantage because they quit as soon as they get ahead, but happen to lose a session, is still playing at his/her perceived advantage also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The main question should be focused on, if someone quits the moment they get ahead every time they get into a session at a machine, will all those profits be wiped out by the very few losses that occur? We know there are also loss limits set, the larger the limit the more devastating the loss can be, but it also raises the % of winning sessions. And, there's one more major factor that critics always like to skip over as if they don't exist because it destroys the narrative: those huge winning sessions that will occur.
Essentially, this is how my strategies work. There's many "smaller" winning sessions, a few big losers, and a few even bigger winning sessions. That's how CONSISTENT PROFITTING is spelled. Not "play positive games and you will win, but play negative games and you will lose". That's the easy way out of the discussion.
Why wouldn't he just say it was too complicated to program if that were the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer