The Sisyphean Gambler

On another website, someone who is very respected in gaming has a signature line that goes something like this:

it doesnt matter if you win or lose, it matters if you had a good bet.

Well, Arc, that sounds a lot like you. And to be honest, I think that kind of thinking can send you to the poor house real fast. The bottom line and the only bottom line is DID YOU WIN. Sorry, but I just had to say it.

So, sticking around and losing at a positive edge game is absolutely absurd if your goal is to play your hours and you shrug off the loss as being "expected." With thinking like that I "expect" you to go broke.

Alan, I'm not reading all the go-between because you forget, I've watched him post make believe scenarios on forums for years that he uses as his "experiences" in order to talk not only others--but himself into believing that the math works for vp players on the machines. He has been caught so many times in his own lies it stopped being funny long ago. He has no other life but on the Internet and you know it, yet he found some new gullibles here who allow him to play pretend so he made up stories of sneaking out to play golf & bowling to extraordinairy levels even, for the impression and the praise.

But please, keep his fantasies alive while we live the real life of retirement and I occasionally look at how you're being played. That's what he detested as you know....the fact that as a retired very successful vp player, I'm able first to not plan trips around how much I can play machines, and secondly because his past actions will never allow him to enjoy what,we are now enjoying.

And I'll drink to that! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

On another website, someone who is very respected in gaming has a signature line that goes something like this:

it doesnt matter if you win or lose, it matters if you had a good bet.

Well, Arc, that sounds a lot like you. And to be honest, I think that kind of thinking can send you to the poor house real fast. The bottom line and the only bottom line is DID YOU WIN. Sorry, but I just had to say it.

So, sticking around and losing at a positive edge game is absolutely absurd if your goal is to play your hours and you shrug off the loss as being "expected." With thinking like that I "expect" you to go broke.

---

This is what I call "simple" thinking. You could make the exact same statement about a player on a 95% return game vs. a 105% return game. It ignores the reality of the games themselves. If you want to truly understand why your view is wrong you have to quit ignoring the facts I present you. You have to allow yourself to understand what's going on at a deeper level. Until then, you will continue to fall back on your "simple" view. And, you will probably continue to lose money every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, I'm not reading all the go-between because you forget, I've watched him post make believe scenarios on forums for years that he uses as his "experiences" in order to talk not only others--but himself into believing that the math works for vp players on the machines. He has been caught so many times in his own lies it stopped being funny long ago. He has no other life but on the Internet and you know it, yet he found some new gullibles here who allow him to play pretend so he made up stories of sneaking out to play golf & bowling to extraordinairy levels even, for the impression and the praise.

---

More projection. Keep it up dufus, your self-descriptive words say it all.

Now for some reality, click on this link and put in my last name:

http://www.semnusbc.com/search_achiev/find.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

If you want to truly understand why your view is wrong you have to quit ignoring the facts I present you. You have to allow yourself to understand what's going on at a deeper level. Until then, you will continue to fall back on your "simple" view. And, you will probably continue to lose money every year.

---

Arc, when that oddity game of yours with the super pay table disappears, will you still be a winner? It appears that your entire strategy, experience of winning, and ability to win comes from that OEJs game with a pay table that was grandfathered in and cannot be removed?

What would you do in Vegas? Sit by the pool because there isn't a positive game like it?

I think for a moment you should step away from your OEJ machine and consider a strategy for the "other games" that the rest of us are playing. Perhaps if you were playing mere mortal 9/6 Jacks or 8/5 Bonus or 9/6 DDB you would start to recognize the value of what Rob is preaching -- and it's a darn good sermon, too.

I guess that comment is the crux of it. Personally, if I do not have an edge, I don't play. If I'm stuck with 9/6 JOB, and comps/cashback push that into positive territory, or damn close, I'll play enough to maintain some small rating for discounts on food/rooms and such, but that's it. It's a small thing, but sometimes having a minimal rating will get you the 25-30% off buffets and an occasional offer for vp or slot tournaments. Banging away on games that suck more than half a percent from you each go-round, however, is not my idea of a good time.

If all football went to -120, I'd stop playing. If all blackjack were 6/5, I wouldn't play. It's not my job to pay for light bulbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, when that oddity game of yours with the super pay table disappears, will you still be a winner? It appears that your entire strategy, experience of winning, and ability to win comes from that OEJs game with a pay table that was grandfathered in and cannot be removed?

What would you do in Vegas? Sit by the pool because there isn't a positive game like it?

I think for a moment you should step away from your OEJ machine and consider a strategy for the "other games" that the rest of us are playing. Perhaps if you were playing mere mortal 9/6 Jacks or 8/5 Bonus or 9/6 DDB you would start to recognize the value of what Rob is preaching -- and it's a darn good sermon, too.

---

I've heard they are taking the machines out sometime this year. They are quite old. At that time I will quit playing.

As I've mentioned previously the best time to quit when playing negative games is right before your first hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

I've heard they are taking the machines out sometime this year. They are quite old. At that time I will quit playing.

As I've mentioned previously the best time to quit when playing negative games is right before your first hand.

---

Very good Arc, welcome to the real world, where the rest of us play... and for fun. And when you play for fun, and you're not married to any silly math demons that say cashing out makes no sense, Rob's strategy for setting win goals makes a whole lot of sense, and maybe some dollars too.

His progressive betting structure with a modest win goal can also make sense if you stopped to realize it is not an assault on your holy math.

Years ago, before I met Rob, I valued the advice that it is wise to quit when you're ahead. Unfortunately I played too long trying to overcome a drought of royal flushes. Had I listened to that wise advice I would be much better off today.

Rob was not the first to say quit when you're ahead. But why he is the brunt of all the attacks for this sound advice puzzles me.

Just remember this, Arc: our good friend Frank is on the record as saying he has NEVER played VP with his own money in 14 years. And this comes from the AP of APs. If he had so much faith in the math why wouldn't he play with his own money? And the answer is-- because you can't bank on a theory. You can only hope the theory works for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Very good Arc, welcome to the real world, where the rest of us play... and for fun. And when you play for fun, and you're not married to any silly math demons that say cashing out makes no sense, Rob's strategy for setting win goals makes a whole lot of sense, and maybe some dollars too.

---

Nope, with negative games the only thing that affects your results is the amount you play. Nothing else is relevant. Now, if setting a win goal reduces your play then it is a good thing, but it's not the win goal itself that is important, it's the fact you play fewer hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Just remember this, Arc: our good friend Frank is on the record as saying he has NEVER played VP with his own money in 14 years. And this comes from the AP of APs. If he had so much faith in the math why wouldn't he play with his own money? And the answer is-- because you can't bank on a theory. You can only hope the theory works for you.

---

Sorry Alan, once again you are wrong. Frank's choice was only logical. He has a sure thing so he had no reason to gamble. Even though the odds of his losing were low, there was still a small chance. So, why not eliminate it. That doesn't change the fact that with a large edge a player still has a high probability of winning.

Negative games take your money -- that's what they're designed to do.

All the strategizing in the world won't turn negative games positive. If you want to save money, don't play.

As to Frank's not playing -- maybe Frank has issues. He evidently stopped playing as soon as easy pickings disappeared. If I had the edge he claimed to have, I would have played until recently. Frank espouses that everything is indeed random in randomland, but he stopped putting his money into play. That doesn't indicate negative games can be beaten. It indicates he witnessed allegedly positive games that couldn't be beaten. Think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

As to Frank's not playing...He evidently stopped playing as soon as easy pickings disappeared.

---

That is indeed what he told me. But he said those "easy pickings" disappeared a long time ago. He also told me he wouldn't risk even one quarter of his own money in a machine today.

No one ever said that negative games can be beaten. By definition you can't beat a negative game. But you can walk away from a game with a profit, and you can do that over and over again.

You math guys are stuck on your definitions, and terminology, and theory -- and fail to overlook the obvious. People can win money from negative games without beating a negative game. Can you grab on to that concept? You'll have to do some creative thinking here, and I understand that math guys can't fathom creative thinking because... well, because it's creative. LOL

Even Rob will tell you that the longer you play at a negative expectation game the more you will lose. You will never beat it. That's why he is so critical of the APers who talk about long term. And Rob would say-- "long term what?"

You can't beat the game of craps -- which is a negative expectation game. But you can win when playing craps.

You can't beat 8/5 Bonus poker -- which is a negative expectation game. But you can win when playing 8/5 Bonus.

Are we starting to understand yet? Now, how do people win at craps, and how do they win at video poker? They pick an exit point. "Winners" do it every day.

Alan, you're making yourself look silly by spewing half-truths and thinking that is somehow meaningful. Of course people can win playing negative expectation games. It's done everywhere gambling is done. If people never won they would never go back to the casinos. So, having the ability to win has NEVER been the issue.

So, the real issue is what are a person's chances of winning more money than they lose when they gamble regularly? Now, the answer to that question is quite easy as is the math that demonstrates it. It is defined by a bell curve of possible results based on the ER of the game and the skill of the individual.

That is not theory. That is mathematical FACT.

Yeah, and they have their best chance of not losing at a negative game if the "exit point" they choose is their own birth canal.

Sorry, Alan, you set me up for that one.

Here's the formula for determining your chances of winning at a negative game like Bonus Poker. Let's use 50K hands, 50000*0.009/(50000^1/2*4.57) = .44

This value yields about a 17% chance of winning (see any Z table).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Here's the formula for determining your chances of winning at a negative game like Bonus Poker. Let's use 50K hands, 50000*0.009/(50000^1/2*4.57) = .44

This value yields about a 17% chance of winning (see any Z table).

---

Win what? How do you define "winning"??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Win what? How do you define "winning"??

---

Winning means the odds that you are ahead after playing a total of 50K hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Winning means the odds that you are ahead after playing a total of 50K hands.

---

But I can be ahead after playing ONE hand. Unless you tell me that I am going to be X-dollars ahead playing 50K hands why should I?? Why not play a fewer number of hands, take the win and go to the pool?

The proper question, given the game, is "Why not just go to the pool?" Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

But I can be ahead after playing ONE hand. Unless you tell me that I am going to be X-dollars ahead playing 50K hands why should I?? Why not play a fewer number of hands, take the win and go to the pool?

---

I didn't say anything about a single session where you might go to the pool instead of continuing to play. In fact, I'm assuming you actually quit when you reach your win goal every time and hit the pool whenever you want. All I'm saying is after you take many trips to the casino, apply your technique (and hit the pool if you win) and eventually reach a total of 50K hands, you have only a 17% chance of being ahead for the entire time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

I didn't say anything about a single session where you might go to the pool instead of continuing to play. In fact, I'm assuming you actually quit when you reach your win goal every time and hit the pool whenever you want. All I'm saying is after you take many trips to the casino, apply your technique (and hit the pool if you win) and eventually reach a total of 50K hands, you have only a 17% chance of being ahead for the entire time.

---

That's a wonderful piece of math Arc. I'll keep it in mind. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

That's a wonderful piece of math Arc. I'll keep it in mind. ;-)

---

Nothing special about the math. Elementary statistics that all science/engineering/math/business majors should have been taught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Nothing special about the math. Elementary statistics that all science/engineering/math/business majors should have been taught.

---

Yes, but totally irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Yes, but totally irrelevant.

---

Da plane, da plane .....

I've always wanted to be blessed by God, but worshipping satan all these decades has, I suppose, forced me to live a life of merely mortal probabilities.

You know, there's a character in Marvel Comics called The Scarlet Witch. She generates a field wherein probabilities are distorted according to her will. Reminds me of some folks.

No one denies probabilities, but probabilities do not decide if someone will win or lose. As I've mentioned before -- my former neighbor who won the California lottery twice. Tough enough hitting it once, he did it twice in less than a year if I recall.

You can play any game and win. Perhaps your own betting and discipline can help you win where the probabilities say you won't. Skill can also overcome probabilities -- for example someone who can influence dice. (Stop -- Don't start that debate.)

You live by the math redietz and Arc and I am aware of the math. Which is why I realize that leaving after scoring a big win is the smart thing to do rather than play "six hours a day to score points" and to let the probabilities eat away at you.

The more you guys argue that math defines all, the more that Rob's way of playing looks better and better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No one denies probabilities, but probabilities do not decide if someone will win or lose. As I've mentioned before -- my former neighbor who won the California lottery twice. Tough enough hitting it once, he did it twice in less than a year if I recall.

---

Probabilities predict there will be a few duplicate winners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You can play any game and win. Perhaps your own betting and discipline can help you win where the probabilities say you won't. Skill can also overcome probabilities -- for example someone who can influence dice. (Stop -- Don't start that debate.)

---

Or someone who utilizes math knowledge to give them an edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You live by the math redietz and Arc and I am aware of the math. Which is why I realize that leaving after scoring a big win is the smart thing to do rather than play "six hours a day to score points" and to let the probabilities eat away at you.

---

The probabilities only "eat away at you" if you are playing a negative game. And then, they eat away at you every hand you play no matter when you choose to quit on any given day. If you are playing a positive game then the probabilities work for you on every hand. That's what randomness brings to the picture.

Arc, for heaven's sake.. people lose playing positive games also. No matter what the probabilities say. Give it a rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, for heaven's sake.. people lose playing positive games also. No matter what the probabilities say. Give it a rest.

---

The probabilities predict that some will lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

The probabilities predict that some will lose.

---

I thought that all of this time you were talking about how you are playing a positive expectation game and because you are at a positive expectation game you win?

In a positive expectation game you expect to win. Because in a positive expectation game the math says you will win over time.

But now you are say that:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

The probabilities predict that some will lose.

---

Well, that means you're talking about something other than a positive expectation game.

So what are you talking about?

Perhaps you are talking about some bell curve of results for video poker players? Because you are not talking about the definition of a positive expectation game.

Please see: http://www.vpfree2.com/definitions/show/204

So since you are not justifying your ability to win at video poker because you have a positive expectation paytable, just what are you, and have you, been talking about all these months?

Yes, I'm talking about the bell curve. While it would be nice to claim that anyone playing a positive expectation will always win, it's simply not the case. That is why I talk about the "edge". The larger the edge the further to the right (winning side) is the bell curve. A person playing 10/6 DDB with a .06% edge has less than a 50% of winning even considering millions of hands.

However, a person with a 2% edge has well over a 95% edge if they play those same millions of hands.

So, it's all about choices. I just showed you that a person playing 8/5 BP at only 50K hands has a 83% chance of losing. Expand that to a few million hands and the number also goes up to over 95%. You might claim you're only playing a 100K hands a year, but over 20 years that will come out to 2 million hands.

So, which would you rather have ... 20 years with a 95+% chance of winning or 20 years with a 95+% chance of losing? Like I said, it's all about choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Yes, I'm talking about the bell curve. While it would be nice to claim that anyone playing a positive expectation will always win, it's simply not the case.

---

I hope Rob Singer reads this because it supports his entire, basic argument about long term "advantage play" being bogus.

Now, Arc, you have brought us back to reality that some players will do well, and some won't. Thank you. I'm not going to argue whether the distribution of winners and losers matches that of the standard bell curve because I don't know. All I've read are things like 97% of gamblers go home as losers because they didn't quit when they were showing wins.

Again I refer you to the interview I did with gaming author Victor Royer. The video is below and it starts out about the percentage of Vegas players who win and then lose. Royer says 86% are winners at some point, but less than 1% leave as winners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6U822iVY-s

What you fail to grasp is that a high percentage of those "winners at some point" occurs in the first few hands they play. It's not like 85% are winners after playing the first 4 hours. And, most of those winners are no more than a few dollars.

In addition, I'm not saying anything I haven't said before. Frank told you the same thing. And, none of this supports "his entire, basic argument about long term "advantage play" being bogus." I just showed you where you could have a 95% chance of winning vs. a 95% chance of losing and you want to claim long term play is bogus? I guess you must interpret those number in some strange way because it actually shows you the dufus is completely wrong about everything he's told you.

This is where I usually get horrified by what I slowly begin to grasp. Alan is an intelligent, successful human being functioning quite well in our American culture. And yet, and yet, he is either faking naivete, or he has absolutely no familiarity with probability. I cannot imagine a worldview without bell curves or probabilistic thinking. And I'm not a math guy, as I've said before.

Alan, what arci's saying doesn't make advantage play bogus -- it supports it and describes it. This is like creation/evolution "debates."

Probability is called "probability" due to the nature of what arci's described. Otherwise it would be called something else.

And I have to say this. I have no idea who Victor Royer is, but I know plenty of people who are "gaming authors," myself included. I can wax eloquent without data, without references, and be quite a charming "gaming author." My point -- quoting a "gaming author" isn't much of a piece of evidence. But you know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

This is where I usually get horrified by what I slowly begin to grasp. Alan is an intelligent, successful human being functioning quite well in our American culture. And yet, and yet, he is either faking naivete, or he has absolutely no familiarity with probability. I cannot imagine a worldview without bell curves or probabilistic thinking. And I'm not a math guy, as I've said before.

---

I've often suspected Alan is faking it just to keep the conversation going. Hard to imagine anyone is that naive. But then, we went round and round on LVA as well, so ......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Alan, what arci's saying doesn't make advantage play bogus

---

First of all, redietz, please reread what I wrote above: "I hope Rob Singer reads this because it supports his entire, basic argument about long term "advantage play" being bogus."

I hope you understand that I was making reference to Rob Singer's belief.

I do believe in the concept of "advantage play" but I also believe that the money management tool of "quitting when ahead" and banking those wins is a vital part of advantage play. It seems however, that APers reject the concept of quitting while ahead and say it has no bearing on the "long term."

Well, it's my belief that quitting while ahead in individual sessions does make a difference on your long term, because the long term is made up of individual sessions.

You can easily find out who Victor Royer is. A simple search will show he has authored 14 different books. And I have to admit the content is more substantial than Rob's two books (Sorry Rob).

Again, you seem to be challenging this data about players being "ahead" at some point during their casino visits. Well, just add Royer's statement to the list. It seems there is a long line of experts who support the idea that a large percentage of casino gamblers are "ahead" at some point.

And regarding your comment about probability: of course I am aware and use probability when I play video poker or when I play craps or live poker. I have to. But we are not arguing or even discussing probability here. (At least I'm not.) I thought this entire discussion is about Rob's concept of quitting when ahead.

And quitting when ahead fits very nicely into all your considerations of probability this way: its not very probable that you are going to keep winning forever and that cold streaks are going to come along. Didn't Arc say games wouldnt be random without cold streaks? So, when you have a win take advantage of the probability that winning won't continue indefintely and leave and enjoy your win while you have it -- which is all Rob has said.

Honestly, I think both you and Arc and Frank too, if he were here, would have absolutely no criticism of a player who hit a royal flush and decided to quit playing, go to dinner, and go home and end the trip on a high note. Your criticism of the idea is that ROB SAID IT.

And my friend Arc... Arc wrote above "What you fail to grasp is that a high percentage of those "winners at some point" occurs in the first few hands they play. It's not like 85% are winners after playing the first 4 hours. And, most of those winners are no more than a few dollars."

Well, Arc, let me respond. Perhaps the win was in the first few hands. Frankly, I once hit quad aces in 8/5 Bonus for $2,000 on the third hand I played. I wish I had quit then because I went on to lose that $2,000 plus a couple thousand more. This was in a session late last year. And for many people going to Vegas their lives do not revolve around sitting at a machine, and they might value a win of "no more than a few dollars" more than you do. And me? Well there are many times I wish that I had gone home with only a win of a few dollars instead of a loss of thousands.

I'm gong to say this again for the umpteenth time: no one is arguing about math or probability here when we support Rob's concept of "quitting when ahead." We are talking about what makes someone feel better about playing in a casino. Most of us are not professionals and we are looking for a way to help us enjoy our entertainment gaming more and "quitting when ahead" can do that because the probability is that the longer we play the more risk of losing we face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'm gong to say this again for the umpteenth time: no one is arguing about math or probability here when we support Rob's concept of "quitting when ahead." We are talking about what makes someone feel better about playing in a casino. Most of us are not professionals and we are looking for a way to help us enjoy our entertainment gaming more and "quitting when ahead" can do that because the probability is that the longer we play the more risk of losing we face.

---

Alan, that is not what you have been previously saying. You've been claiming that you can beat the probabilities by quitting when you reach some kind of win goal. I've been telling you that is not true. For example, here's some statistics you might want to consider.

After 2 million hands of FPDW (100.75) you have a 98% chance of being ahead.
After 2 million hands of Bonus Poker (99.17) you have <1% chance of being ahead.
After 2 million hands of DDB (100.06) you have a 55% chance of being ahead.

You can easily see how much difference the edge provides.

Arc, please don't twist things too much. You wrote: "Alan, that is not what you have been previously saying. You've been claiming that you can beat the probabilities by quitting when you reach some kind of win goal."

What I've been saying is that over the years I know that I have been ahead at some point in my sessions and had I quit when I was ahead I would be showing a profit today. And now, I have adopted this new strategy -- which means ending my lengthy (and costly) sessions trying to hit royals and being happy leaving with a win of several hundred dollars instead of before when I wouldnt leave a casino unless I was ahead $5k or more. (Yes, that was really the way I thought.) There were those few times when I did come home with a royal, or after hitting quad aces with a kicker in DDB -- but there were too many sessions when I didn't.

Now I am accepting the concept that small wins that add up over time can create a big winning account.

We do this playing live poker. You go into a $100 game, double up, and leave. Do that five days a week and you make $25,000 a year. That's smart in live poker, but why is it rejected in video poker? I've asked this over and over again and never seem to get a straight answer. Want to try now?

What's wrong with winning $100 a day in VP and leaving? As I've said here before, most times Im up $300 -- sometimes $500 -- at some point playing $5 8/5 bonus, but have lost it in pursuit of a royal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, please don't twist things too much. You wrote: "Alan, that is not what you have been previously saying. You've been claiming that you can beat the probabilities by quitting when you reach some kind of win goal."

What I've been saying is that over the years I know that I have been ahead at some point in my sessions and had I quit when I was ahead I would be showing a profit today. And now, I have adopted this new strategy -- which means ending my lengthy (and costly) sessions trying to hit royals and being happy leaving with a win of several hundred dollars instead of before when I wouldnt leave a casino unless I was ahead $5k or more. (Yes, that was really the way I thought.) There were those few times when I did come home with a royal, or after hitting quad aces with a kicker in DDB -- but there were too many sessions when I didn't.

Now I am accepting the concept that small wins that add up over time can create a big winning account.

We do this playing live poker. You go into a $100 game, double up, and leave. Do that five days a week and you make $25,000 a year. That's smart in live poker, but why is it rejected in video poker? I've asked this over and over again and never seem to get a straight answer. Want to try now?

---

See, you just said it again. You are trying to claim you can win every session. The problem is you can't make even $100 every time you play. So, I did not twist anything as you claimed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What's wrong with winning $100 a day in VP and leaving? As I've said here before, most times Im up $300 -- sometimes $500 -- at some point playing $5 8/5 bonus, but have lost it in pursuit of a royal.

---

Because you are talking nonsense. You do not get ahead $300 or $500 every day. You need to get your butt off fantasy island and get back to the real world. You can win more often than you lose with a small win goal. But that is not winning every time and eventually you hit some bigger losses and all your wins are gone.