I beg to differ. I have seen people $500 ahead-many people-on the slots and sit there and throw it away and then loose another couple of hundred. I watch it every time I go. It's insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Printable View
I beg to differ. I have seen people $500 ahead-many people-on the slots and sit there and throw it away and then loose another couple of hundred. I watch it every time I go. It's insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Let me explain this to Arc first: win goals and loss limits are not a betting system. In fact, they are based on pure mathematics: 2 > 1 and 1 < 2.
redietz, I think there are very few people who use win goals and loss limits in casinos.
And I have read so many books and so many articles preaching win goals and loss limits -- and as I've said many times ONLY "advantage video poker players" call it BS.
'
A "betting system" is any approach where a decision is made between bets. The point is that no decision can make any difference if the game is random and the hands are independent. The decision to leave and return another day fits the definition of a betting system. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is not rocket science. I have no idea how you can possibly believe you will get better hands by coming back and gambling another day. Of course, if it were true then there would have be some mechanism in place to deal out better hands at the beginning of your play (that is, not random). If that were true, then simply changing machines would also work.
It's called logic, Alan. So simple a cave man could understand.
Arc, let me break the news to you slowly: you are illogical.
Win goals and loss limits are not a betting system. It has nothing to do with random decisions. It is totally unrelated to any decision of any hand. It is simply a money management tool.
I am giving you a new name: The Mad Mathematician
So, according to Alan a decision of whether to bet or not is not a betting system. It really doesn't get much funnier than that. Alan, do you also do standup?
Are you really this absurd or are you just pulling my chain?
Okay, I tried to stay away, but I couldn't.
Alan, we've butted heads on win goals/ loss limits before. Please humour me and read this post.
Let's say a VP machine's ER is 99%. That means that the sum total of all hands, all sessions (winning and losing) on this machine will result in a 1% hold over time for the casino, if every play made was optimal. Agreed?
Now let's move that -EV VP machine into your home so that only you will play it from now on. Will it now become your personal ATM? Will win goals and loss limits ensure you will always be cashing money out of this machine or will your winning sessions and losing sessions added all together (your pER) eventually come close to the ER of the machine?
I'm not going to post links or explain the math because arcimede$ does a good job of it. Instead I just have a few questions for you Alan:
1. Has Rob shown you proof of his systems that he's not shared with everyone else? If not, why do you believe him and seem to side with him? Has he ever asked you for money or have you paid him for personal training? Why so hard on redietz and arcimede$ and so easy on him?
2. If win goals / loss limits really worked, wouldn't they work for craps, slot machines, roulette and every other -EV casino game?
3. This question is for arcimede$. Why don't you run a simulation using win goals and loss limits for the game Alan plays? Plug in the win goal he tries to hit and the loss limit he'll stop at. Program it play computer perfect. Then provide him with the results. (You know, I know, and everyone else knows that the sum total of the results will be pretty close to the machines' ER.)
4. Alan, I know you got pretty sensitive and offended when Rob accused you of being a gambling addict. I don't know you beyond what you post here. I will say though that some of the things you write, and some of the things you seem to believe are more indicative of someone with a gambling problem rather than someone with rational thought who thinks logically and accepts mathematical proofs.
Sorry, Eddie, but you don't get it either. Win goals and loss limits have nothing to do with the math of the game. A negative expectation game will stay a negative expectation game. A positive expectation game will stay a positive expectation.
But win goals and loss limits have nothing to do with expectations -- they have to do with money management which is how much money do you have (won) and how much money have you lost.
This is why I keep asking The Mad Mathematician to show me the math that says using win goals and loss limits is wrong. I ask him that because there is no math.
I'd like to respond to a couple of your specific questions:
No, Rob hasn't shown me any proof, and like the rest of you I have asked him to come up with the proof of his various claims including non-random machines, 5th card turnovers, and such. I do not follow his system. Let me repeat that: I do not follow his system. However, I presented his special plays here because no where else -- even on his own website -- were his "special plays" presented. The rest of his "system" including his romps or whatever he calls them, evolved from posts here on the discussion forum. I don't know anything about this but this is a free and open discussion forum so if folks want to discuss them it's okay with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
I have been just as hard on Rob about his claims about non-random machines, and secret deals in Nevada, and collusion between slot makers and casinos and the state government as I have been about redietz and Arc blasting win goals and loss limits.
Win goals and loss limits are used by most if not all of the "smarter craps players." It is very common for craps players to cash out after a hot roll. Win goals and loss limits are also used by live (cash) poker players and most cash game players will cash out when they have doubled up or tripled their initial buy-in. I am not a slot player, nor do I play roulette or other casino games but tell me why players at those games wouldn't want to use win goals and loss limits? I don't think I've read a book on casino gambling for the general public that didn't include advice about budgeting and win goals and loss limits. As we all know, Rob Singer wasn't the first to utilize this.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
Let me save Arc and you the trouble: win goals and loss limits will vary with each individual. Sometimes I have a very tight loss limit, and sometimes I have a big loss limit. It depends on my budget and my mood. If you can simulate that, be my guest.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
Thank you for your concern. I think my thought processes are a lot better than those of the "math guys." I know when I have lost enough. And I have enough sense to quit when I'm ahead. So let me ask, when do the "math guys" quit? When they're hungry and tired? I could lose all of my money well before I get hungry and tired. If you want to discuss logic, what is more logical -- quitting when you have lost enough or quitting when you get hungry?Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
Alan,
Thanks for not banning me. :)
So, back to the paragraph before the questions. If you had a bona fide casino VP machine in your house like Rob claims he had, would it be your own personal ATM just by using win goals and loss limits? Remember only you will play it.
If you are asking if Caesars Palace installed a VP machine in my house for me to play whenever I wanted to play it, I would follow my own win goals and loss limits as if I had to get in the car and drive to Vegas to play it. I have no idea if I will be a winner over time. If I get lucky, I could win. The important thing is that by using win goals and loss limits I will not blow my budget by chasing losses, and I can celebrate my wins when they do come. And this would be the same if the game has a positive expectation pay table or a negative expectation pay table because there is no guarantee that a game with a positive expectation will allow you to win. Even when you play a positive expectation game it is still gambling.
Let me repeat that: Even when you play a positive expectation game it is still gambling. Perhaps this is why Frank Kneeland, the great video poker advantage player, played video poker for 14 years using other people's money and never bet even a quarter of his own on a video poker game.
I've read almost all the posts here Alan, and I don't remember reading anyone posting that the AP player plays until exhaustion or until they run out of money. Only you and Rob, claim that. Don't the AP's restrict their play to positive machines or positive promotions? I don't see anything wrong with that. In terms of "gambling style" I'd say I'm more like you. I don't play +EV VP. I play blackjack, slots, some craps and poker. I am a lifetime loser when it comes to slots, blackjack and craps. I had hoped that Rob would provide proof or an explanation as to why he was successful, but none came.
Yes Alan it is all gambling. But wouldn't your pER eventually come close to the ER of the machine over time? The only time it wouldn't would be if you hit a Royal Flush early on and never played again. We can all have winning sessions, even in horrible games like roulette. But if we continue to play doesn't the house edge eventually grind you down? This goes back to what I stated earlier. What type of person thinks they can win every time? Or win enough times to be an overall winner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I think Arcimedes said he plays for a fixed number of hours. Why play for a fixed number of hours if you won big early in your session? Why play a fixed number of hours if you were losing big from the start?
Yes it could. Which is why using win goals and loss limits allow me to limit my losses and take money home when I win.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
So what makes you think you can repeat this process enough times to make you an overall winner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Can't. But it's better than sitting there and going through all your money when you lose and it keeps you from giving back all of the money as soon as you win it.
Now let me ask you something. Where is the math that says I'm wrong?
Well, set up some parameters for arci to run a simulation on your game of choice. Would that satisfy you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I have to give you credit, a2 -- that thought experiment of stashing the vp machine in Alan's home was more elegant and to-the-point than anything I said. That was a really clear, concise way of highlighting the absurdity.
Alan's not going to bite on the simulation offer. He's committed as in Leon Festinger's "When Prophecy Fails."
So what we have here, thanks to a2, is simple -- Alan and Rob could simply put one of Caesars' video poker machines in their home and demonstrate how win goals and loss limits make you a winner on a negative EV game. I'll just add that if they decide to do that, I suggest they contact the JREF and shoot for that million dollar paranormal challenge while at it. No reason to pass up an extra million.
Good luck.
Odds on Alan agreeing to simulation test as a way of settling this? Better than Blutarsky's grade point average or not?
Unfortunately redietz I didn't say win goals and loss limits will make me a winner. What I said is that they control losses and allow me to maximize wins.
Now why don't you tell me where the math says i'm wrong?
I am still waiting for an answer.
I'll try 1 more time. I'm up a significant amount. On the next hand my ER is 99%. Also my ER is 99% on the next 100 hands, 1000 hands, 10,000 hands. So my ER is a loss. But I'm ahead. So if I have met a win goal I can quit. Or, I can adjust my win goal up a little if i want to keep playing for a while. But I will not lose it all back, because I have a loss limit that was also asjusted.
This is bad how??? And Arci keeps double talking that you could win or lose and it makes no difference. But he's the ER guy and the ER is going to cut into my profit. So again, it is bad to take the profit why???
And I guess I should add that I'm not saying I will always be up and that I can't lose. I can and do lose plenty. But again, I may be limiting my losses and maximizing my wins. So I am avoiding the extremes on arcis bell curve.
I will point out the obvious one final time. I have never said win goals and loss limits are a bad thing for people who play negative expectation games. If they reduce number of hands played, they will save you money. If they lead to playing more hands, they will cost you money. If you play the same number of hands, they have no effect. For people who play positive expectation games and are sufficiently bankrolled, they are irrelevant. I feel stupid using the phrase "sufficiently bankrolled," because that should be a given, but evidently many people get some sort of "thrill" out of having a bankroll too small for their denomination.
Alan's use of language has changed somewhat. He now says win goals and loss limits allow him to "control his losses." That much can be true. If you are unable to control your losses by setting the alarm on your watch or deciding you want to see a show, then loss limits help you.
On the other hand, Alan also is using the curious phrase "maximize my wins." This is, I believe, incorrect, as one never knows what the final outcome of x number of hours of play will be. So shutting down a session because you have won a certain number of dollars does not necessarily "maximize one's wins." In fact, it actually limits one's wins. Just as loss limits set a floor, win goals set a ceiling. They do not "maximize one's wins."
Here's the problem with what you guys are asking. If you ran a simulation at home or whereever, YOU would be having to continually load the machines and would thus lose. In a casino, OTHERS are playing and loading the machines over a period of time and YES it will make a difference at different times and YES, because of this, win goals and loss limits DO work. It's NOT about the math, or level of skill, or whatever-it's all about timing- being at the right place at the right time. For the life of me I can't see why anyone can't comprehend this simple concept. I guess it's like one of my co-workers said to me last night- "You can't teach common sense-you either have it or you don't."Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
Slingshot, I have no idea what you're talking about, but is your problem solved if, say, on Thursday afternoons you let your mother-in-law play the machine on her dime? Then maybe your brother-in-law on Sundays? Do you actually think your win goal/loss limit stuff would then work?
Slingshot... I think you're right. It's all about common sense.
I am still waiting for the math that win goals and loss limits are bad. Still no one has presented it.
Question for redietz and this just might wrap it up for me:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
If win goals and loss limits are OK for negative expectation games why aren't they OK or used for positive expectation games? Please be specific. I would like you to add some explanation to this, and Arc can also contribute:
Question: are win goals and loss limits "irrelevant" because you expect to win? Please be specific: do you expect to win when you play positive expectation games? How much are you willing to lose knowing that you expect to win? What is the sufficient bankroll to give you the confidence that you expect to win?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Have you ever had a losing session on a positive expectation game?
Have you ever had more than one losing session on a positive expectation game?
What was your biggest loss at a session playing a positive expectation game and what was you biggest session win at a positive expectation game?
Can you bank on winning when you play a positive expectation game with 100% assurance?
I don't know of any positive expectation paytables that remains positive without hitting a royal flush. So, how many royals have you hit and what is your hit frequency for royals? Is it 1/40,000 hands. Please be specific. And an additional question for Arc: what is your longest drought between royals? And what was your net profit on your positive expectation games during that royal flush drought?
And I do want to clarify how I play in response to this statement by redietz:
You might have missed my discussion about how I don't have a "fixed" win goal but use a system of increasing stop losses when I have a profit. This allows me to "keep winning" if I am getting lucky. In fact, this strategy of increasing stop losses is what I was using when I hit both of the $20K royals a few months ago. You might not recall but each of those royals were preceded by getting quad aces twice ($2,000 for each quad aces and I had quad aces two times before each of those royals) and with profits that were already well above $3,000 at each session I raised my "stop loss" which kept me playing and then the royals hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So, while a loss limit is fixed (the session budget) the win goal is not fixed but is flexible to allow for additional wins over and above a target amount. Raising stop losses, as you know, is commonly used in various forms of investing because you want to let your profits run while limiting your downside exposure.
So, in that thought experiment where the VP machine is moved into your house or if a simulation is run you think that the win and loss limits would not work because other people are not playing the machines? If I read your statement correctly, you believe that math and skill don't matter in VP and that it's all about timing?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
So how do you solve this question of timing? Do you know when a machine will pay off? Do you restrict your play on a machine to when it's in a "hot cycle" and then get off it so that all the other gamblers will lose their money on it while it's in a cold cycle? When that hot cycle is about to begin again, do you shove these people off the machine and feed your money into it again? If you really have that ability, why are you playing VP? You should become a professional PowerBall lottery player.
So are you agreeing with arci and redietz here? You say win goals and loss limits won't make you a winner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
regnis,Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
So, let's say I bring $50,000 (or $171 000) to the casino like Rob and set a win goal of $2500. I have him sit beside me and according to his instructions, play exactly the way he wants me to. Let's say I do indeed win $2500. But, I don't want to leave. I don't want to have to wait 10 years in order to win $1 million dollars. I want to shorten that up. So I want to reach 500 X $2500 win goals before I stop. I'll go down or up in denomination whenever I'm told to.
Would that work?
It's called "luck" and so I all of a sudden get up by 20 credits and I change machines-where I lose 100 credits-then the next one gets me back to within 40 credits-then the next one all of a sudden, I'm up by 400 credits. I'm getting some mental and physical exercise,resting my eyes between machines, instead of sitting there like a zombie on one machine. No hocus pocus-just giving each machine a chance to send me home a winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
I did. It was many months ago (probably last year). I reported the results to Alan on another thread and he ignored them. You take take a man to knowledge but you can't make him learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
I hear you. Well Alan, do you recall arcimede$ simulation? Is that proof enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The simple answers to your questions, Alan, are no one knows what the future holds. I've lost big at the start and ended up winning big. I've also won at the start and kept winning over the entire session. Sure, I've done the opposite but I could not know which would happen. The one thing I did know was I had an advantage on each and every hand I played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That is not all. It's called using your brain. The freeplay system at the casino I played at was based on "average coin-in". So, if you play a variable amount then you will have less free-play. Every short session reduces your average coin-in. By playing a consistent amount a person maximizes their freeplay. With this approach the freeplay adds .8% to the return of the game. By leaving any time a small win is encountered it would cut the freeplay to maybe .2%. That is a big amount of money to give up for no reason at all. Win/loss goals add nothing to my pER. I'll take the extra .6%.
In addition, the cashback is determined by what tier level you attain. The highest level provides 5x point every time you play. The CB is based at .2% so at the highest level I got 1%. So, playing short sessions reduces the overall play given I only played once a week (to collect freeplay). I may not have been able to attain the highest level if I used win/loss goals. So, the return of my play was 100.28+.8+1. If I used win/loss goals I would have reduced that by up to 1% for absolutely no improvement in return. Now, that doesn't sound very bright, does it?
You've been given the math many times. You just keep denying it applies to you while it clearly does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There is nothing wrong with using win/loss goals. They simply make no difference over time. At some point Alan will hit a losing streak. He will hit his loss limit over and over again. This will lead to short trips or he will cave and play more despite his preaching. That's when reality will hit him in the face. Driving many hours to LV and back to play for an hour can't possibly be very much fun.
Win goals and loss limits are a tool, just as using strategy about which cards to hold is a tool, that is part of a formula to win. Let me give you an example:Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
You are dealt As Ks Qs Js Th what do you hold? Well, I would suggest that all of us would hold the four cards to a royal. But if you lost all of your money on your previous trip you wouldnt have that choice -- because you wouldn't be playing anymore. ;-)
No, you aren't avoiding anything except reality. Since you have idea how you would have done if you didn't quit after reaching a goal you could be costing yourself money. And, when you return you could lose right away over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Think about Singer's claims. For him to have won what he claims he must have hit big at higher denominations. The only way to reach those denoms is to lose at the lower ones. But, if you have small win/loss goals you would never have reached those higher levels. You would have quit and lost money. The only reason Singer could reach those levels is because of an enormous loss limit.
Um, gee, I don't remember if Arc's simulation was done on a day when I had a $2500 loss limit or it was a day when I had a $500 loss limit. I also don't remember if I was playing Aces and Faces or if I was playing Double Double Bonus. I also don't remember if his simulation was for a fixed $500 win goal or if it was for a flexible win goal where I adjusted a rising stop loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
But then it doesn't matter. Arc will present a simulation of a negative expectation game, and every simulation of a negative expectation game if played (simulated) long enough will show that you lose. Just as every simulation of a positive expectation game if played (simulated) long enough will show that you win. What is the point of a simulation? It's more of Arc's 2 + 2 does not equal 5.
(Surprise Arc, I agree 2+2 does not equal 5.)
I think I have had enough of you guys challenging me about using win goals and loss limits. I use them. You don't. You play your way, and I'll play my way. The difference is I know in advance when I have lost enough and if I win a nice amount I know I will be able to go home with it and enjoy it and return another to play again. Once again, I ask you to show me the math that says that is wrong? Where is the math?
Where is the math?
Where is the math?
Where is the math?
However, if you quit having reached a loss limit several trips in a row "you wouldnt have that choice -- because you wouldn't be playing anymore" ... the odds of your scenario and mine are exactly the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm sorry. What math? Would you mind spelling it out one more time? But wait, you don't have to, because you wrote:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Thank you. All done. If it doesn't hurt than why not? If it allows me to enjoy a win and at the same time limit my losses, why not? If it makes me say at the end of a trip, "okay it was fun and I didn't lose too much," than why not? If it allows me to go home with some extra money so I have the money to return with and play again, why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Yes, this happened before, and I went home talking to the windshield of my car, saying "why didn't I quit when I had planned to quit." Or, after hitting a royal flush and instead of quitting for the trip I put it all back in -- then I would drive home saying to my windshield "damn I had a royal flush and now I have nothing to show for it."Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I will concede that to a mathematician "there is nothing wrong with using win/loss goals" and "they simply make no difference over time." But I don't care about "over time" because the time of a mathematician could be millions of hands and years of play. What I care about is that day and that trip.
And finally:
This is what makes me laugh. Do you think I make a trip to Las Vegas with a small bankroll that isn't going to last the trip whether it be for two days or four?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
And thanks for your explanation about how you play for a certain amount of time to manage your comps. Sorry, I don't play for comps. Comps don't keep me at a machine nor do comps motivate me to play. I thought that was the first rule of "advantage play"? You don't play for comps.
Ok, so then you reject VP simulations even though that is exactly what VP manufacturers pitch to casino owners to get them to put their machines into the casinos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What "math" are you looking for then?
Alan, it's okay to admit you are wrong or have been misguided. I personally hold / give more respect to someone who can admit their mistakes.
Why would I reject a simulation? A simulation is a simulation. I look for the best pay table available when I play because the simulations show that you will do better when you play at a better pay table. I play Aces and Faces or Bonus Poker instead of Double Double Bonus because the simulations show that I will play longer and my money will have a better return at Aces and Faces and Bonus Poker (both 8/5 games) instead of Double Double Bonus which at Rincon is also 8/5.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
The math I am looking for is the math that keeps you attacking me for using win/loss goals and limits. Since you follow the math, what is the math that says what I do with win/loss goals and limits is wrong? Come on? Where is the math that says "Alan is wrong." I follow the math. I use correct strategy. I follow Dancer and Grochowski and even the strategy laid out in Scoblete's new book on Casino Poker (which has some very clear and concise strategy tables in it -- well done.) I use the math. I follow the math. Now show me the math that says I shouldn't quit after a big win or adjust my stop loss higher. And show me the math that says I shouldn't quit when I reached my loss limit. I'm waiting to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
What's wrong? To preach to someone not to follow a loss limit strategy? I would never tell you to keep playing if you lost more than you felt comfortable losing -- because that would be wrong to do. And I would never tell you to keep playing if you wanted to pocket a win, because that would be wrong to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
How dare you people criticize anyone for saying that they have a budget for a trip and they have a limit to how much they feel comfortable losing. How dare you people criticize anyone for saying they are happy with the profit they made and they want to put that profit in their pocket. Who the F--- do you think any of you are to say "the math" makes you wrong for having a win goal or a loss limit?
Screw all of you.
I have addressed most of Alan's questions in previous posts. To review, my bankroll for all gambling is sufficiently large that I am not going to go broke playing positive expectation 25-cent video poker. I don't know what my risk of ruin is, but it's gotta be millions to one. I am ahead lifetime.
Alan evidently doesn't find 25-cent video poker very exciting. I personally find it strange that anyone gets excited playing $1 or $5 video poker, but doesn't get excited playing 25-cent video poker. I don't play a lot of video poker, and when I do, it's gotta be positive expectation. Larger denominations are generally not positive unless you play 40 hours a week for rebates and top tier cash back and usually not even then. The idea that I would give money to a casino by playing higher denominations because I need to be excited is completely alien to me. I stopped getting excited about gambling when I was 16 or 17.
To answer the cogent question, I don't use win goals or loss limits on positive expectation machines because I'm playing positive expectation machines. What is the mystery? I stop when I'm tired or have some other reason for stopping. I'm not going to feel better about myself because I won some money; I'm not going to feel worse if I've lost some money. So why would I use win goals or loss limits on positive machines?
Nobody ever said it was wrong to use win goals or loss limits. Yeezzzz you're using your own forum to show you can't stand to be corrected. How come that people have to correct you constantly about the false statements you make resulting in more and more sarcasm an personal attacks??? Weak, weak, weak!!!!
I'll spell it out for you one more time, please read carefully: THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE IS A LOSS LIMIT ON A NEGATIVE GAME. NOBODY CRITICIZES YOU FOR USING WIN GOALS AND LOSS LIMITS, THEY ALL SIMPLY STATE THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LONG RUN. WHO THE F ARE YOU TO CONSTANTLY DENY THAT? LEARN HOW TO READ BEFORE YOU EXPLODE....
Oh and one other thing (as has been pointed out earlier on in this thread), do you honoustly believe you're just as critical towards Singer as to the other contributors on this forum? Serious lack of self reflection my friend.
Which is perfectly fine as far as it goes. You just don't know if you would have done better or worse without the goals. The problem has always been your claims that win/loss goals IMPROVE your bottom line. It is this claim that has been objected to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It has nothing to do with comps. I get all the free food and free rooms I want over and above the numbers I gave. There were also promotions, drawings and gifts. I'm talking about cash. The numbers I gave you makes the play a 2% edge. That is 2% of the base coin-in is my average win. Note that if I played more than once a week, the free play would not increase and that is why I only played once a week. It's called Advantage Play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Silly strawman. No one has said any of that. It's very telling when you misrepresent what is being explained to you so you have something you can argue against. All you do by creating these ridiculous strawmen is make it evident you can't argue against the statements that we have made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
More strawmen. Really, Alan, if you think you can support your claim that win/loss goals will improve your bottom line then provide the evidence. Making up things as you go is seriously dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Of course it improves my bottom line. If I have a budget of $100 and lose it, but don't keep to a loss limit and lose another $100 then my loss increases to $200. In this case, how does a loss limit not help to improve my bottom line?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If I hit quad aces and win $800 on a $2 Bonus machine and quit with a net gain of $700 how does that not improve my bottom line? I just improved my bottom line by the net value of the win.
Because you don't know if you would have lost more money. You might have won $100 or $1000 and now you are even or ahead. Your loss limit might have cost you money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Because the next hand after you quit might have been a RF for $8000 (or any big winner) while the next time you play after quitting this time, you could lose that $800 in less than an hour. Hence, your bottom line is now less than it would have been. For every scenario you can imagine there is one with the opposite effect. That is why win/loss goals cannot improve your bottom line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
this is where theory vs reality come crashing together. I can't operate in a theoretical world and think about what might happen. I can only think about what has happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If you can, then more power to you.
Nonsense, you are the one that offered a couple of "theories". Now, you say you can't operate in that world. Double talk at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Doesn't your first statement contradict the other 2 you made? What are you really trying to say here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm not going to say any more. For some reason I am on trial here. Sorry, I won't play this game. There are too many gaming authors and experts who suggested win goals and loss limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
"He who wins, and runs away, will live to gamble another day."
--VP Pappy
That is because you are making claims that have been mathematically proven false. No one cares what you do personally, Alan. Just quit making invalid statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Which means what precisely? It has been proven win/loss limits have no impact on future expectation. That is all that has been stated. If you'd stop arguing against proven mathematics you wouldn't get any grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Here you go again. How do you prove mathematically that if I buy in with $100 and double my money and cash out that this is somehow "false"?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Show it to me. Show me the math. Show it once and for all.
This is so funny. Redietz has to say he plays 25c video poker every....um....now & then for who know what reason, when he claims to have some humungous bankroll that'll never let him go broke over it. Then he vents about how higher denominations can't possibly be manufactured by the AP crowd so that they're "positive plays", when there's hundreds of these people doing it every day. Methinks red took on more than he can chew by originally proclaiming to be an AP who plays some vp. Now he's stuggling to find the right pegs to fit the right holes.
The best part of what I read here is all the theorizing about what using win and loss goals can or cannot do. Alan seems to know what they ACTUALLY do because he actually USES them. I know what they do because, well, they along with other important parts of my play strategies, have given me more than a million dollars in net profit in the past decade and a half. But the guys who claim they don't mean squat? Ha! One's afraid to or unable to play above quarters, and the other knows he wouldn't be sitting on the wrong end of a happy & healthy retirement if he had used them starting years ago--yes, even prior to losing his little LV duplex to the poker machines and now finding himself in a geriatric park-full of duplex lovers.
As I said, it's funnier than watching Obama trying to make believe he counts towards anything to other world leaders :)
Rob I am still waiting for their "math."
I don't care if they don't use win goals and loss limits. To each his own. But to say " you are making claims that have been mathematically proven false" is a load of BS.
Oh Rob, just to make Vegas_lover happy... stop your personal attacks on Arc.
This is where you contradict yourself every time. You don't know what the next hand would have been, or the next 10 hands, or the next whatever hands. But you do know that the ER is less than what your actual return was after you were up the $800. Therefore, your expected return on the next 1 hand 10 hands or 100 hands is going to cut into your profits. For someone who lives and dies by the ER, how come when Alan is up $800 all of a sudden the ER is out the window and anything can happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Ask Rob---I don't play his system and have never endorsed it (other than to piss off arci when appropriate). But again, if I am up a significant amount, and the ER is less than my actual return, further play can be expectedQuote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
to reduce my profit according to you mathemeticians. Therefore, how can it be bad to not blow it all back.
see above............................................. ..............................................Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I was actually going to publicly apologize to Alan for being so snarky on this thread, but then Rob showed up and I realized why I was snarky in the first place.
I am unaware of any video poker for a dollar and up that yields positive expectation in Las Vegas unless you are a high tier cashback member or have access to rebates, as we suspect Dancer does. Rob now informs us that there are hundreds of players who are playing positive expectation dollar-and-up machines in Las Vegas and, drum roll please, they are all losing. Okay, if Rob says so, it must be correct.
I have no interest in playing enough video poker to be a high tier cashback guy, and I doubt the opportunities are any good, as Frank said, compared to 20 years ago.
The thing to remember about Rob is that he knows a bit about video poker, but he knows very little about any other type of gambling -- not craps, not poker, not blackjack, not sports betting, not horse racing. He was a video poker writer for Gaming Today, a fun read, but not exactly The Mensa Guide to Casino Gambling. So bear that in mind when taking "gambling advice" from a guy who, by his own admission, really doesn't do much gambling. And just to be clear, Rob is not exactly a high roller.
Rob got one other thing correct -- I am absolutely terrified to play dollar and up video poker. The excitement might just kill me.
Red-do you gamble for fun or entertainment at all or strictly for profit? It doesn't seem like you get any enjoyment out of your VP play. I think you are overlooking the thrill that gamblers do get from the risk of loss as well as the win itself. On a Saturday, I can bet over 200 races if I want the thrill of the gamble. I, instead, bet 15-20 races for profit, and throw around 5's and 10's on some other races on which I don't have a strong opinion for the thrill of the race. So I basically have $5,000 to use for profit, and a couple hundred for entertainment. Of course, I still hope to win those smaller bets but they are for the entertainment aspect of betting a horse race.
Not to worry, Red. Now I know this is gonna drive you bonkers, but yes, Rob had an article "Understanding risk of ruin" wherein he stated if you felt comfortable not going above quarters, that little voice is there for a reason.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
No Alan, here YOU go again. Please point out exactly who said that it is somehow "false" if you buy in with $100, double your money and cash out. Nobody ever said it was FALSE! What has been said CONSTANTLY (but which you fail to understand or are unwilling to acknowledge) is that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LONG RUN AND WON'T IMPROVE YOUR BOTTEM LINE IF YOU CONTINUE TO PLAY THE SAME NEGATIVE GAMES.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Oh and Alan, stop pretending you care a rat's behind about Singer's personal attacks. Because most of the time you don't.
No, there is no contradiction at all. All I have stated is the win loss goals make no difference. That is, if you play your next hand in 5 seconds or 5 days your expectation is exactly the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
The only reason I provided those examples is to demonstrate to Alan that his scenarios are not the only ones possible. For everyone where he claims X, I can show Y which is the exact opposite. Just trying to get Alan to quit focusing on silly scenarios and focus on the big picture.
You can be entertained by Singer's attacks if you understand the motivation. Most of his attacks are projections of his own jealousy and self-hatred. Once you understand that fact it easy to get a good laugh. For example, in his last attack on me he mentioned living in a duplex. That would be a step up for him. He now lives in a trailer and before that in a small apartment in Carefree. He often fantasized about living in a big house until I checked with the AZ government data base and found that he had always been living in apartments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
Contrast that to me where I lived in a 3700 sqft home for 30 years before moving into a 3000 sqft "duplex" on a golf course. You can just feel the envy sliding off his back as he tries to attack me. While I wintered in Las Vegas I owned a 1200 sqft small town home which was perfect for our needs ... bought with cash and sold for cash when my wife could no longer handle the effort to maintain two homes. One can only imagine the difficulty Singer has in accepting that my 2nd home was bigger and better than anything he had ever lived in.
So, when you see his attacks just know that he is really giving away his own failures. That makes them hilarious.
I really hate the personal attacks on this forum. They have no place in civil discourse. I don't even like what I posted above about Rob -- it's true, but largely irrelevant. Rob's arguments, Arci's arguments, my points, a2's points -- everything should stand or fall on its own merits.
I'm the biggest free speech advocate I know, but even I wouldn't allow the stupid non relevant personal posturing and rants that get posted here. And yeah, I'm trying to be politically correct, but Rob's clearly the biggest offender.
I agree with Alan on one thing, and that's even though I'm a privacy advocate (Rob and I can both go after Obama on this one). I think one's actual bona fide name should be attached to whatever one posts, and I think you need to stick your name and address on there, too -- just to force people to behave with some decency. I don't know why Rob can display such discipline when sitting at a video poker machine and such lack of empathy and discipline when sitting at a computer. The rest of us are morons for allowing Rob's tone and content to affect a word that we say.
People in academia go fang-and-claw over ideas and theories and debates in journals and at conferences. Their names are attached to everything. Their futures are directly tied to who is right and who turns out to be wrong. But there is very little of this grade school hubris and venom. I'm personally embarrassed at my snarkiness here, but it's -- to a large degree -- merited.
Guys (and gals), have a good Sunday.
You mean people like Mark Twain, Roy Rogers, etc..........."? Oops. Pardon my snarkiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Alan, they're wanting to play in "virtual" reality. You play in an actual casino.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've provided the math proof several times already. What part of it did you not understand? Oh, you mean you didn't understand any of it, therefore it doesn't exist in your mind? Totally hilarious. I bet Santa is real good to you too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
OK, I'll admit the proof didn't use the words win/loss goals. It referred to a progression and uneven bets. However, all one has to do is substitute reaching a win/loss goal in place of increasing one's bet in a progression to see the proof applies equally to those goals. In essence, one can substitute ANY decision made between hands into the proof and it applies just as well. The proof follows and is just as relevant. That is why NO betting system (or decision) made between hands can have any affect on results over time. Essentially, the proof covers a super-set of any and all betting schemes.
But it's really just common sense. If your future results are the sum of the results of all your hands in the future (which I think is pretty obvious), then your future results will simply be your pER times the number of hands played. Given you continue to play the same games and your pER does not change then the only factor in future results is the number of hands played. That's it. Once you maximize your pER the only factor is the number of hands played.
This is basically what the proponents of win/loss goals are trying to get across. This is exactly what John stated at the beginning of this endless thread. If you can use win/loss goals to reduce the number of hands played when pER < 100% then that is good. But, the reason for the goodness is completely based on the number of hands played. Not the goals themselves. And, as Red, Eddie and I have been trying to get across, ANY method of reducing the number of hands played when pER < 100% is just as good if not better.
My own personal strategy for reducing these hands is to not play any where pER < 100%. My system completely beats a system based on win/loss goals because my losses are zero.
And, if we apply the same logic to positive pER situations, it is also easy to see that our future results are primarily based on the number of hands played. The more hands played, the more money made. But, no one can play indefinitely without getting tired and making mistakes. This reduces the pER. That is why smart APers do not play overly long sessions. It could lead to the pER < 100% situation.
Remember, applying win/loss goals could have the same hand reducing impact that is supposed to be their advantage on negative games. Hence, win/loss goals MUST have the opposite affect on positive games.
There's nothing "virtual" about mathematics. It was developed to describe the real world. It is used because it DOES describe the real world. I always find it amusing when someone uses a term that does not apply to the discussion and believes they made a point. All you did was make your ignorance obvious, something Singer does all the time. I can see why he is your hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
I am trying to catch up and sort out everything that has been posted here. It's complicated to say the least.
Vegas_lover wrote:
Well, Vegas_lover here is what I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_lover
And Arcimedes responded with:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And Arcimedes also wrote:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I still don't know what I am saying that has been mathematically proven false? I never disputed anything about paytables or positive and negative expectation games or what they are. My main point has only been this: When you quit with a profit -- you have a profit and when you quit determines what that profit can be. When you quit with a loss -- you quit with a loss, and the only thing you can manage is how much of a loss that will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Quitting with a profit is money in the bank. Sure, the next hand might have been a royal, as Arc suggested as a possibility, but the next hand also might have been a loss. I am not a fortune teller so I deal with the present situation. A bird in the hand is the same as credits on the meter.
Now let me discuss quitting with a loss: the loss represents the amount of money you are willing to lose. If you bet more than your loss limit hoping to find a winner on a subsequent hand you are doing nothing more than chasing losses and run the risk of not winning more and only increasing your losses. You might recall I was very critical of Rob for chasing his losses in a session (or trip) to the tune of $53,000 which to this day has me dumbfounded that "Mr Discipline" would have done this.
When I go to a casino I go with the idea of winning but when I lose I don't want to lose so much that I didn't enjoy the visit or regret going. So I have to ask this, Arc: Does the math say you should keep playing and lose more than you initially set out to do? Is that what the math says? By the way, Arc, does the math guarantee you will win at a positive expectation game? (You don't have to answer that... the answer is the math guarantees nothing, it is only "expected" and not actual.)
Let me again bring up the question of playing on positive expectation games again because no one responded to my original questions. How many of you have had losing sessions on positive expectation games? Arc certainly has had them and I think he says he wins about 30-40 percent of the sessions he plays. Redietz have you had losing sessions on your positive expectation quarter game? And for those of you who have had losses on a session may I ask you this: Were you ever ahead during the session? What if you had cashed out when you had a profit? Have you ever "given back" a huge win in the same session? I have. I know what it's like to feel like an idiot after hitting a royal early in a session and then putting it all back in -- and I've done it more than once.
And I have a question for Arc about his methodology of playing video poker for a certain number of hours: have you ever "played back" your profit in order to meet the time requirement of your methodology? What do you estimate was the biggest "give back" you ever made so that you fulfilled your time requirements?
And Arc I still don't recall any "math" presented here -- in any post -- which invalidates win goals and loss limits. I'm sorry but I am going to ask you to post it again because I missed it. It's not necessary to post anything about negative expectation games and positive expectation games. I understand that. What I want to know is what math says I am wrong to limit my losses and take my profits?
And a note about the sacred positive expectation games:
You know, I've played positive expectation video poker games on many occasions and I never had a positive result. Perhaps it's because I never hit a royal on a positive expectation game? And perhaps that's because I haven't played tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands hands on a positive expectation game?
And one comment to redietz about trying to keep the discussions here civil: First, thank you for showing some support of me here. Quite a while ago I asked both Rob and Arc to take the high road and stop their insults. (Yes, both are guilty.) Neither one would stop. I even pleaded directly to Arc and said if he would stop and take the high road, I would delete Rob's subsequent insults... but Arc couldn't stop. Well, I was not going to be the one to give either one of them the last word... so I let them continue. One day if one of them would stop I would stop the other.
As I have said numerous times, Rob is wrong to mention Arc's wife and medical condition (they are also personally offensive to me) and Rob is wrong to make allegations about VP losses and lost homes, and Arc is wrong about making allegations of Rob lying about where he has lived or what homes he owned and accusations about jealousy. Guys: no one cares. I think everyone here is only interested in information about gaming. As I mentioned I don't care where anyone lives now or lived before, or what their income is, or how they keep themselves healthy or where they take walks or go bowling. Although if you would like to discuss real estate and health and diets and bowling there are other discussion areas on this forum for those subjects.
I have also been asked many times if I believe Rob really had a net profit of nearly a million dollars playing video poker? Yes I do believe him. But even if he only had a net profit of one dollar I would still consider his strategies important and valuable (and I say this even if I don't follow all or even much of his strategies). The fact is I don't care how much money anyone won. I only care if they have advice that improves winning money. The amounts are meaningless. However, we all enjoy a good story and a good picture of a win... but why didn't anyone comment about my singing about my last royal at Caesars? Gosh... not only did no one comment here, but when I was singing at Caesars no one even looked up from their machines.
Another interesting note from John Grochowski about royals and their contribution to the payback of the games: http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...machines-62181
So I guess that "advantage play" isn't sitting in your lap afterall.
Repeating the same nonsense that has been refuted many times will not help you, Alan. Sorry. As I said before, for every one of your "what if"s there are ones that are 180° the opposite. So, please quit boring us.
What in this column was new? This is all old news that every AP understands. Were you trying to make a point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, what point were you making with the Grochowski article? We all know what royals contribute to the bottom line. That's why, when calculating short term, I figure a 3% loss rate. It's also why (a point on which Rob and I agree) we conspiracy theorists will tell you it's a shorting of royals that would be the least detectable way of rigging a machine. Nobody plays enough on a given machine to determine if it's variance or a rigged machine. The player has no way of knowing. And, if I recall correctly, in a rare case of rigging being admitted, it was a royals shorting that was the methodology.
To the other questions-- I win between 36 and 38% of sessions. I lose, obviously, more than I win. Since I don't usually play all that long, I have never come close to giving back a royal in the same session. But I don't jump up in denomination, either, looking for some "big score." I have given back most of some four deuces hits, but that's pretty common, I would say. I have never stepped away from a video poker machine and thought, "My God, I was out of control. How did I lose so much?" It's never happened.
I don't get very happy when I'm winning, and I don't get unhappy when I'm losing, so winning and then losing in the same session doesn't really bother me.
Now back to the Grochowski articles, both the one that kicked off this thread and the latest -- you do realize you're really spinning them grotesquely to make some non-advantage play points of some kind? There was absolutely nothing in the article you just listed that was either a surprise or critical of advantage play. Why are you reading weird things into these articles?
Disagree with Grochowski on the button vs old fashioned pull the arm. The latter is about 34% slower (I forget the exact number but it is in that range). On a negative game, this could add up over time.
Such entertainment! What more can be said about arci and his neurosis about "virtual vp AP"? I nail him right between the eyes with the truth about his fantasy play & foreclosed little duplex in LV that I read about on the Nevada gov't. site 2 years ago....and he can't take it and can only respond with lies about me :) The best part is, my "trailer park" RV cost more than 2X what he paid for both little duplexes TOGETHER!! (PSST....even more important: my wife is healthy because I never dragged her to casinos when she should have eaten a strict healthy diet and went for walks instead :)) nuff said my friend. Yes....1 mistake +1 more mistake absolutely does equal 2. Gotta love that REAL math!
redietz, there was no point specifically in Grochowski's article that I wanted to point out, but I find it interesting that your short term loss rate is 3% when royals contribute 2% to the return (or sometimes less). Are you sure you are playing positive expectation games?
Arc, if you can't show me the "math" I guess it means there is no math that proves it wrong for me to use win goals and loss limits. I don't expect to hear any more from you on this subject until you are going to show me that math.
Rob, you just can't quit with the personal attacks, can you? But let's see if Arc will take the high road now and not respond to you?
Alan, no one ever said it was "wrong" for you use win/loss goals. Just like it is not "wrong" to change machines, rub the screen, and pray before hitting draw. So, you are asking me to prove something I never claimed. This is typical of your dishonesty on this subject. All I have ever said is win/loss goals make no difference in your expectation .... and I provided a proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, it is up to you to stop Singer from posting his lies. His last one is easy to refute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I give the doofus permission to provide a link to whatever source he claims to have used for a "foreclosed little duplex in LV". Let's see it, sparky ... or admit you are once again lying through your teeth. Are you man enough to provide a reference or will you slink back into obscurity like a teenage girl with her panties in a bunch knowing that your lie has been completely refuted?
It's going to be a little difficult for him (or should that be her?) since I paid cash for the place. Let's see, did I foreclose on myself? Bwah haha haha haha
PS. All deeds and changes in ownership are in fact recorded by the government.
Well, then I don't understand what the heck we've been discussing then? I always said nothing changes the expectation. Expectation is expectation and nothing changes that math.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
But then win goals and loss limits are not math driven. They are more psychological. They help you enjoy more.
I certainly want you to have every opportunity to refute all claims and to state your side to any disputes.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
No, Alan, I have no idea if I'm playing positive expectation games. I put a sheet over the pay table and just sit down, you know, kind of like Las Vegas Caesars' customers.
I don't expect four deuces any given session, either.
Boy, that was tough to figure out.
If Rob isn't banned for this nonsense, I'm going to amp it up and dish it out in a similar fashion. I will post every day about some encounters Rob had with male hookers, and let him prove they didn't happen. If we're going to have freedom of speech regarding somebody's wife and property, we may as well extend it to their sex life.