Printable View
Arc, you still don't get it:
Expected value, the EV, or the expected return, the ER, never changes. It is the actual return that changes. And yes, "the way you play each hand" will impact the actual return of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Oh, the EV on Aces and Faces and the EV on Jacks, and on DDB are all different because the pays and paytables are different. You are so silly.
Once again I think much of this is due to the use of words which have different meanings to us individually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your getting into what I said above. We are using different words, but you are still confused. Alan, the actual return is the result of playing a hand. It is a historical computation. It has nothing to do with expected value (game return) or your personal expected return (game return modified by strategy decisions and errors). Both of these words use "expected" because they are future based using mathematical averages and can only be viewed as results over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I never said anything contrary to your statement. However, your personal ER is not equal to any of those values. Your personal ER is based on the mathematical average of playing those games a certain number of hands using the strategy you choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Think about a person having 3 jobs. One (A) pays $10/hour another (B) pays $20/hour and (C) pays $50/hour. The person spends 20 hours a week at (A), 20 hours a week at (B) and 10 hours a week at (C). His personal ER would be 10*20 + 20+20 + 50*10 = $1100/50 or $22/hour. Notice that his personal ER is not equal to any of the job ERs. The job ERs are fixed and unchanging. However, his own personal rate of return for each hour spent working is different.
Hopefully, this will help clean up some of the terminology confusion.
Now, a slight adjustment to this analogy brings us a little closer to VP. Instead of a fixed $/hour rate assume all the jobs were based on tips. The numbers I gave were the average of amount earned over time. The $22/hour ER might not be achieved week to week. The amount brought home would be analogous to your actual return and related to the expected return only in general terms.
Arc, can we simplify the definitions? Try these:
"Expected Return" -- what the paytable and the math of the games theoretically say will happen.
"Actual Return" -- the actual money you win or lose with each play.
Alan, the "actual return" is of no use. Let's say you make $50K one year. What does that tell you about your chances for the next year? Nothing.
BTW, I see you ignored my questions yet again. I must be getting through. I can always tell. You're denial gene kicks in and you immediately try to change the discussion.
Quite honestly Arc, if you think "actual return" is of no use, there is no reason for us to continue the discussion. "Actual return" is the only thing I care about. I don't give a damn about any theoretical expected value. I only care how much money I put into the slot and how much I cash out.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
But then... I'm not as rich as you. I have to care about my money. We "recreational players" do have to care what our "actual returns" are.
I'm sorry... were you asking me a question that needed a response?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
:) This is so funny. Only arci has the time to put up post after post after post--and all the while saying absolutely nothing of substance. And that's just on THIS forum. That tells volumes about what a fantastic life he's "fallen" into. What a kick!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Anyway, I'm sure we've all seen Bill O'reilly's show. One of his favorite taunts is when he quotes actuals and facts, and his "opponent" guests try to slip theory as fact by him. Doesn't matter if the subject is about cooking, acting, math, politics, or whatever. In his no-spin/common sense world, those who can only relate in theory present as useless an argument as there can possibly be, simply because they neither understand or belong in the real world. Bill also exposes why these people have so much trouble dealing with actual events. Similarly, arci's obsession with theory stems from him having to deal with a reality today that he never saw--or wanted to see--coming. Thus, with all that angry time he finds himself having on his hands, he NEVER, EVER wants to see any video poker discussion end. His life depends on it.
Well, Rob... if you can put your Arc-attacks aside for a moment, would you mind making a meaningful contribution to the discussion??
Well, try this. Nothing in this world operates on "theory". It's all one big learning curve based on actual occurrences or history. When a company is asked to bid on something....say for instance a bridge to cross a river, they don't do so by looking into their crystal ball of what-ifs or possibilities. They do it by looking back at other similar successful projects, and they incorporate those tolerances & parameters, I.e., ACTUAL HISTORY--whether it flies in the face of known logic - or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
In other words Alan, we don't live in a world of theory unless your actual world of reality just isn't what you mathematically predicted it would probably be. Theory equals comfort for some. It's the same for everything, especially something like video poker. I discovered this first hand, it was a rude awakening, and my mind was resourceful enough to find a way for a casino visit to actually work out in my favor, so I repeated it over and over again.
There's no reason for anyone other than the most anal neurotics to remain confined by--and tortured--by numbers theory. We were given something called a brain for a reason. And anyone who does not believe or who does not want to believe that human ingenuity can overcome any type of adversity--perceived or real--has no idea what a truly ingenious gift we've all been given. For some, it's simple to understand; for some it's not quite as easy; and still for others, it's forever impossible. That's what this whole vp argument is about. A few just cannot come to grips with the real fact that I developed a way around the long-term math, it performs an has performed exactly as it should, and it is 100% repeatable for anyone, given the same set of rules and circumstances.
I thought the reason for fora like this was to share information with others. If all you care about is your own personal results then I can't see why anyone would join. It does nothing to help them understand the best approach to VP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Ah yes, you answered by saying you didn't care. No one should be surprised I guess. We now know it's all about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No one claimed it's about "theory". It's about provable math. The fact you constantly lie about it shows that you have an agenda of your own. This is what con men do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
However, the history is based on the approach they took to build previous bridges. That approach is based on engineering principles which are almost always based on mathematics. I don't know of any bridge building companies that "wing it" and then see what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You've never provided any evidence to support that claim. Why would anyone believe you when you've been caught in so many lies? A company that build bridges proudly points potential companies to their successes. Why don't you provide any evidence to support your claims .... probably because you can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Now, any person who understands reality understand that there is no way around proven mathematics. That's why it's called a proof. So, what does that say about an individual who claims he can do the impossible? What does that say about a person who never backs up his claims of doing the impossible? What does that say about a person who feels he has to attack anyone who has been successful while claiming to do the impossible yet never backing up those claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Are you sure you're not from Nigeria?
Just the fact that arci knows he's stuck in a virtual world for the rest of his days by posting lie after lie after misleading bits of information, is proof of one important fact: he goes on and on saying the same unprovable "theories" because he wants to believe math probabilities drives his very disappointing life. And I don't believe he'd be very excited, ever, about giving his life's history here. It just didn't live up to the way "theory" said it would be. So all he is left with are the lies. Very fitting indeed:)
We had a "meeting" and the gist was that the work area could be set up with all merchandise unloaded and areas filled with stock by 10:00 a.m. The "math" and "theory" said it was possible. Well, instead of the three people normally on the shift there were SEVEN with one of them being the manager herself and it STILL took to after I came on-4:00 pm. They were living a fantasy-in a dream world. If you want proof-you have to get off your arse and actually do the real-world things-then you can argue all you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I think everyone who comes to a discussion about casinos is looking for information that will help them personally. The theory is all well and good, but it's the practical advice and information that is what each of us really cares about. I don't care about the "long term macro economics of casino gambling." I care whether or not I am going to win -- or get wiped out. What you are talking about is the long term macro economics of casino play. Rob's advice actually relates more to me, and I think this is why he has his followers.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The reality is that even on a positive expectation game you can't win all the time. And that's really the #1 practical tip people should get along with take the money and run when you are ahead. However, your long term macro economics says that's wrong.
Do you see and appreciate the conflict here? Im not a long term macro piece of the puzzle. Nor can I think or behave like one.
Math would not come into play. Your comment is delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
So, why do you avoid discussing the factors that are important? Recent success or failure is meaningless to anyone unless you can demonstrate that success is built on a solid foundation. As you've said many times ... anyone can get lucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
His only followers are people who can't do simple arithmetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No it doesn't. It says it makes no difference. Why are you being dishonest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Total nonsense. You're results will approach your personal ER over time. There's nothing you can do to stop it whether you believe it or not. So, why do you deny proven facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
"X" amount of employess with a "normal" rate of work speed should have been able to "easily" finish the job in the allotted time frame according to their study of the average times completed by other people in the company. Math and theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
And in fact, that is what it all comes down to. Even you know that when you play a positive expectation game you can't win all the time. And what is it that makes you win? It's luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Now, I concede that the better pay tables will help you "get lucky." Much like the phrase: "the harder I work the luckier I get."
But because you still need luck, and playing a positive expectation game does not guarantee a winning session or even a winning hand, it just makes sense to take the money and run when you have it. Hence, the win goals.
Even John Grochowski recognizes that. Do you, Arc?
It is well known that when you look at individual rates of work with no interactions you will see higher productivity. You cannot apply that to an environment where a large degree of interaction is bound to occur. The math doesn't apply and anyone who thinks it should is delusional. That was the problem of those who made the decisions in your example. For you claim that somehow invalidates math is so silly that I can only shake my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Only in the very short term. Over time the ER acts much like a magnet and pulls the player toward it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No, John clearly stated that if a person has sufficient bankroll then win goals provide no benefit. You don't get to rewrite what he told you. However, this shows just how much you want to defend your silly fantasies. You are becoming more dishonest over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The only thing that "makes sense" is the mathematically proven fact that win goals will make no difference. You can try and push your BS to someone else, Alan, but it will never work on me or anyone who understands math. I can only wonder why any rational person would claim a mathematically proven fact is wrong. It is beyond ridiculous. I guess it comes down to lack of intelligence ... that is the only possible explanation.
Well, here we go again? the "magical ER" which knows we are playing a 99.54% game and after we hit a couple of royals it is sure to make us lose so that over the long term our actual results are only 99.54% return. What's really funny is that what you say doesn't work for me in reverse... when I go to a casino the magical ER doesn't make sure that at the end of the year I have 99.2% of my original bankroll from playing Aces and Faces or Bonus poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Again, Arc, there is no magnet that pulls a player to the ER of a game.
Arc, did you forget this? Grochowski's second email to me -- originally in post #66. I emphasized the point about the benefits of win goals even for those on positive games. How deep are your pockets, Arc?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Hi Alan,
Sorry this took so long.
Yes, I think there's value in a casual player, even one who has an advantage over the casino, in locking up a percentage of profits.
It's a matter of bankroll. A pro who is sufficiently bankrolled, with tens of thousands of dollars in reserve, probably is just going to play on when he draws a $1,000 royal flush. He has an edge, and continuing to play is pursuit of profit.
But if I go into the casino with $500 and win a $1,000 royal, leaving me with a bankroll of $1,500 minus whatever I'd already invested, I have to be aware that a long losing streak --- which happens to everyone --- can wipe me out. In that situation, I'm probably going to lock up my original $500 plus $500 more.
One advantage casinos have even over players who have an edge on the game is that the casino has more money than you do. They can withstand longer losing streaks than you can. So yes, unless players have very deep pockets, locking up some winnings is a smart way to go.
Best,
John