Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

Yes, I can prove that the "math plays" result in a lesser overall loss with the same sorts of mathematical equations that are used in everyday life.

Mathematical calculations are the basis of the technology that is running this forum.

Mathematical calculations are what separate our lives in 2014 from the way people lived in the year 1014.

Asking me to prove that the "math" plays are optimal is like asking me to prove that 1+1 equals 2. These have been worked out and simulated by many people, all coming up with the identical optimal plays and expected returns.

Video poker differs from regular poker, which is more of an abstract game because some of the strategy involves exploiting human mistakes -- something difficult to calculate by computer. Video poker is a solitary game, as there is no opponent. It can easily be solved by mathematics, though the payouts are kept just low enough to where it cannot be beaten in the long term or even the short-long term.

Las Vegas has built its glittering city based upon people believing they have invented betting systems, win goals, session limits, etc to where they believe they have an edge. The casinos all laugh at this, because they have it all down to a simple mathematical formula.

That formula is: Money in * (Over 100% expected return) = More money out

Period.

There is no way to beat that with creative start-stop strategies.

100 hands today and 100 tomorrow is the same as 200 hands today.

The variance in your results is just luck, and the longer you play, the longer you will end up just like the expected return.

You do go home with wins sometimes when you get lucky, but you also go home with losses WAY past expectation, which more than cancel out those wins.

Even if you have been lucky (I think you said you won despite 1,000,000 tier credits in last year), it will catch up the luck will disappear. It does for everyone.

Now, if you have fun playing VP and don't mind the fact that you will lose over time, then that's fine. I just hope Rob hasn't influenced you into believing you can beat the game just by stopping after hitting a bit hand, or whatever nonsense he's peddling for the moment.

Think of it this way: If you play 400,000 hands, you will hit an average of 10 royals. If you stopped and went home after each of those royals, would it make a difference? No. You would still have hit an average number of royals, and you would still likely end up very close to the expected loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Yes, I can prove that the "math plays" result in a lesser overall loss with the same sorts of mathematical equations that are used in everyday life.

Mathematical calculations are the basis of the technology that is running this forum.

---

This is absolutely wrong and now you are being ridiculous. The math only gives you "expected" results with expert play. You have no control over the RNG. You might make the correct play every single hand yet still lose every single hand.

Now, Dan, try just one time to go into a bank and tell them you will make your next mortgage payment with your "expected return" from your next session on a video poker machine with a positive pay table.

For someone who says they haven't hit a royal flush (in how long?) you give the math too much credit. I'm sure you've played more than 42,000 hands, so where's the royal? The math tells you to expect one in that many hands, doesn't it?

I've had 8 royals so far this year. I made 7 Stars this year with a profit. Is it because I have a loss limit and a win goal? No. It's because I got lucky. The math tells you the best way to play but it's still up to the RNG. And because the math does not control the RNG you have to do something else. And that something else is taking the wins when they come and realize that the wins come about because of your lucky draws.

Let me give you one example to sum this up: When you have a straight with 4 to the royal and you hold the 4 to the royal and you draw the royal card, was it the math that made the RNG give you that royal card? Or was it that you got lucky? The math does tell you the best plays, but it's the luck that determines whether the best play will pay off.

And because you can't control luck, you do the next best thing: you take the wins that you can get and you limit your losses when the wins don't come. And that is ALL that I've been saying and it's pretty much all that Rob has been saying. And yes, Rob does play according to the math, by his own admission, 95% of the time. And I play by the math 100% of the time -- except I know when it's time to get up from the machine and take my profits and when to cut my losses.

OK, I see Dan might need a little more encouragement to comprehend just what the heck is going on with video poker....and me!

First, there's the rare dealt royal I hit 2 nights ago at the Grand Sierra in Reno. It's my 4th dealt royal since I began playing in 1990--and all of them have been in hearts. That has me wondering, but just a little bit. And notice if you will, that I played such a BAD pay table on BP at 7/5! Horror of horrors!--how in the world can ANYONE expect to "beat the math" like this?? And just before this win I got four Aces. No pic, since who wants to see such a piddly little winner.:) But the credits are there, and I started out with 500 of my own on this.

Anyway, you might remember when I mentioned I was on a $7000 losing streak playing up to $5 after all the big hits I had on up to $25. Well, I've been chipping away at that, and it's now down to $1100 after this royal. Oh Spock, I just got a new HTC One M8 and I used it for this picture. I also tossed the old workhorse digital camera out so you won't need to do all that conjecture and assertion-filled fantasizing any more, and it'll help Dan cope a little better too!

And what's this other picture? Why, it's my wife of 36 years this Oct., after we came out from a 3 hour hike at Tioga Lake prior to going for a picnic in Yosemite earlier in the day Wed. I must say Dan, this one's for you. In your world there's no way we have a happy marriage because of whatever, but....once again you guessed WRONG!! I mean, who's gonna go on a hike with me if we live like you do? BTW, before disparaging her because she's 62 and you're filled with all my big hits' & ROYAL sour grapes, we were once young and part of the beautiful people like most everyone, only unlike most everyone these days, it's much more satisfying knowing our marriage is as happy & strong as the very first day.

Note: We're leaving the Tahoe area a month earlier than originally planned so we can do some more travel and get to Minnesota before the snow hits, and we're not coming back until May. So there shouldn't be many more dealt royals to post, at least for a while:)

I am surprised by the number of dealt royals that I've seen. At Rincon about two weeks ago a lady at the 25-cent progressive was dealt a royal. About six months ago on the same bank of machines I saw another dealt royal. About two months ago, at Rincon, the machine to the right of 3116 dealt a royal to a young lady. I've had two dealt royals in my life including the $5 progressive at Rincon and on the 50-play at Mandalay Bay playing 5-cents per coin. For an event that happens once in 629,740 hands (or something like that) I seem to see a lot of them.

I think it's wild that Alan reminds us that you can make the proper play in vp and the RNG can have you lose every hand. True enough -- and true enough that if you walk out of your house, lightning could strike you. And after you recover, the next time you walk out of your house, lightning could strike you again. That big bad RNG-in-the-sky could really muck with your mind.

But you can't base decisions in life (or vp) based on what could possibly happen. You base decisions on what --to the best of your knowledge -- is the likelihood of things happening. That's where Alan and math part ways; Alan likes to think that because he can make the argument that anything COULD happen, one should pattern one's behavior to somehow put this on an equal footing with what IS LIKELY to happen.

I have no qualms if people want to conduct their lives this way. It makes the rest of us look smarter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

But you can't base decisions in life (or vp) based on what could possibly happen. You base decisions on what --to the best of your knowledge -- is the likelihood of things happening. That's where Alan and math part ways; Alan likes to think that because he can make the argument that anything COULD happen, one should pattern one's behavior to somehow put this on an equal footing with what IS LIKELY to happen.

---

redietz let me remind you of what I said:

1. I play proper strategy 100% of the time
2. I use win goals and loss limits
3. In the case of really good look, I adjust my win goals higher and use what's known as a "rising stop loss"

Question: what exactly are you saying is wrong with that? It has nothing to do with lightning strikes. Where does it violate any principles of mathematics? Why is it so wrong to use win goals and loss limits even at a game with a positive pay table?

It's the book argument on theory Alan. It's how all the math guys think things occur in reality. But they cannot accept that it is not that way in vp because whenever you sit at a machine it could be "catching itself up" to expected value, it could be in the streak from hell, or it could be all over the map.....as well, of course, as being "right on" for the period of time anyone is playing it. That's why using special plays is the superior play to optimal play at the times an opportunity for a session-ending win presents itself. You never know where in its shelf life the machine's RNG is when YOU are playing it.

This is all so simple. BTW, good thing I didn't use a "special play" to get that royal above. It was all skill, really....you know, the type I picked up at a Dancer class way back when.

Rob you're not going to claim that you knew the precise moment when to push the button for the dealt royal? Are you not feeling well?

Just to add to the dealt royal conversation:

Over a dozen years of playing VP off and on I've had six dealt royals and I've thrown away five junk cards to redraw a royal twice.

Had two dealt royals one week apart in September 2006.

Rob, I am not going to insult your wife for being 62. I knew she was around your age, because you repeatedly brag about how long your marriage has been.

However, I do wonder why she looks so unhappy in that picture. Is she still pissed at her husband of 36 years for losing $10,000 in order to get a $4,000 royal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Room

Over a dozen years of playing VP off and on I've had six dealt royals and I've thrown away five junk cards to redraw a royal twice.

Had two dealt royals one week apart in September 2006.

---

Shhh... don't tell Dan Druff that certain VP machines have the "dealt royal flush" feature enabled. If he starts looking for them, it will impact how he looks for loopholes in comps and cruises. ;););););)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

However, I do wonder why she looks so unhappy in that picture. Is she still pissed at her husband of 36 years for losing $10,000 in order to get a $4,000 royal?

---

I think you have a point there, Dan. If we were asked to caption the photo, my suggestion might be: "Okay, Rob, I'll stand here, but what is this photo supposed to prove?" Or how about this caption: "Last Seen In October."

I thought she hit that royal on an outdoor machine by that lake. She's pissed cause an attendant still hasn't come by.

Well, I think she looks beautiful. How many 62 year old women look that good? Even her skin looks awesome!

You can be married 10 times to 10 different women, You're going to have the same problems. How refreshing in this day and time that Rob has been married for 36 years. I know how most of you feel."Haters gunna hate". But, you do have to respect the man for honoring his commitment to his wife.

Thank you vpnewbie and I believe you understand the point I'm making with the picture. Over the years I've trained hundreds of gamblers on vp, and if any of them were married once it was indeed very rare. These guys are making their expected dumb comments because their gambling habits and losing has cost them multiple marriages, and it doesn't sit right with them that not everyone fits that mold. And just imagine living with a guy like Dan. If he gripes and bellyaches so much here about something so insignificant as slot club "freebies" and non-comped Gatorade, it isn't difficult to picture what a joy he would be when it comes to family issues. You get what you deserve, as they say....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Thank you vpnewbie and I believe you understand the point I'm making with the picture. Over the years I've trained hundreds of gamblers on vp, and if any of them were married once it was indeed very rare. These guys are making their expected dumb comments because their gambling habits and losing has cost them multiple marriages, and it doesn't sit right with them that not everyone fits that mold. And just imagine living with a guy like Dan. If he gripes and bellyaches so much here about something so insignificant as slot club "freebies" and non-comped Gatorade, it isn't difficult to picture what a joy he would be when it comes to family issues. You get what you deserve, as they say....

---

Rob, many women put up with a lifetime of abuse and depressing marriages, simply because they are either afraid to go out on their own or they have convinced themselves they won't do any better. Or they just don't want to uproot their life, having to move out of their longtime house, split up assets, tec.

I don't know what the story is with your marriage, but if you act with her the same way that you act out here, I can't imagine that the last 36 years have been very happy for her.

She won't even smile for your pictures!

My "gambling habit" has allowed me not to work for the past 11 years. I'm not talking about VP, but all other forms of gambling I am a winner (primarily poker).

I have never been divorced, by the way. I have one child and I am currently with his mom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vpnewbie

Well, I think she looks beautiful. How many 62 year old women look that good? Even her skin looks awesome!

You can be married 10 times to 10 different women, You're going to have the same problems. How refreshing in this day and time that Rob has been married for 36 years. I know how most of you feel."Haters gunna hate". But, you do have to respect the man for honoring his commitment to his wife.

---

I agree. I think she is very attractive. And having met Rob, I think he should remain committed and keep honoring his wife... because no one else would want him.

I agree Alan. What loser would want to start up with an aging man in his mid 60's? :)

Dan's living in sin? And calling the shacker's 3-year old his "son"? Well, seems to go right along with his propensity here for constant conflict, anger, BS, and mistrust. And get a job! No woman wants an unemployed vp loser who relies on "freebies" and who'll have zilch in retirement. Plus....you need to feed my SS account!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

OK, I see Dan might need a little more encouragement to comprehend just what the heck is going on with video poker....and me!

First, there's the rare dealt royal I hit 2 nights ago at the Grand Sierra in Reno. It's my 4th dealt royal since I began playing in 1990--and all of them have been in hearts. That has me wondering, but just a little bit. And notice if you will, that I played such a BAD pay table on BP at 7/5! Horror of horrors!--how in the world can ANYONE expect to "beat the math" like this?? And just before this win I got four Aces. No pic, since who wants to see such a piddly little winner.:) But the credits are there, and I started out with 500 of my own on this.

Anyway, you might remember when I mentioned I was on a $7000 losing streak playing up to $5 after all the big hits I had on up to $25. Well, I've been chipping away at that, and it's now down to $1100 after this royal. Oh Spock, I just got a new HTC One M8 and I used it for this picture. I also tossed the old workhorse digital camera out so you won't need to do all that conjecture and assertion-filled fantasizing any more, and it'll help Dan cope a little better too!

And what's this other picture? Why, it's my wife of 36 years this Oct., after we came out from a 3 hour hike at Tioga Lake prior to going for a picnic in Yosemite earlier in the day Wed. I must say Dan, this one's for you. In your world there's no way we have a happy marriage because of whatever, but....once again you guessed WRONG!! I mean, who's gonna go on a hike with me if we live like you do? BTW, before disparaging her because she's 62 and you're filled with all my big hits' & ROYAL sour grapes, we were once young and part of the beautiful people like most everyone, only unlike most everyone these days, it's much more satisfying knowing our marriage is as happy & strong as the very first day.

Note: We're leaving the Tahoe area a month earlier than originally planned so we can do some more travel and get to Minnesota before the snow hits, and we're not coming back until May. So there shouldn't be many more dealt royals to post, at least for a while:)

---

Nice pic

Edited By Alan Mendelson to correct the quote feature.

You guys wouldn't bag on each other if you didn't love each other would you? Aaaah. )P