VP Royal Flushes

Hey Guys,

Started to play VP. I bought Wiz's VP app and been visiting some other VP sites to practice my game. I think I am going to settle on DDB...a lot more action for me, if that makes sense? Anyways, do you guys notice a trend when a royal is about to hit? For example, do you start receiving more quads or more near dealt royals? Mind you, I have only played about 1,000 hands thus far so I am still new to VP culture; every casino game has its own culture and it's tough for newbies like myself to join a convo without feeling dumb. Take care guys.

Here's some clear advice for a starter in video poker. Study and play as perfectly as possible at least 500,000 hands on your home computer. That'll get one of your feet into the long-term door. Then, if your results running close to or are significantly better than what the game ER that you're playing is, do not go to a real casino. If however you are running significantly BEHIND that ER, run out to as many casinos as you can find and play as high a limit as you possibly can, for surely, the math will begin to catch up for you. Because the AP's all claim the more hands you play the closer to expercted return you will get because that's what math theory states, then use this info to your advantage and DO NOT play in a casino unless and until you begin to run sour at home. What's the difference if you play all those long-term-worthy hands in a casino, on your computer, or out in space? Become a REAL advantage player.

The machines are random. There are no patterns that occur before a royal. That doesn't mean you won't see patterns. The mind is a pattern matching machine. We see faces in clouds and Jesus in pieces of toast. You will see patterns, they will come and they will go and they will change over time. Ignore them, they are meaningless.

There is also no regression to the mean as robki was claiming. That is just more nonsense from people who don't understand the math. If you're on a bad streak it just might continue, same with win streaks. Your expectation never changes in the future. It is always to approach the expected return over time. There is no memory in the machines so it doesn't know what hands you gotten. It's just a dumb program.

I would also suggest you check out the games at the casino you will be playing at. It may turn out there are better games than DDB. You can check vpfree2 to get a good idea. A small difference in ER can make a big difference over time.

That doesn't make sense for you to say arci, because it goes against what you've been perpetuating in the past.

You spend hours claiming how, as an AP, you can absolutely count on the math working out its kinks, and that's the reason you just don't stop playing when you get behind by five or so royal cycles. In other words--and whether or not this has really happened is anyone's guess--those multiple times you've said on all the forums thru the years that you WERE in a bad losing streak, but thanks to the magic of the math, you are now back from doomsday. Of course, just as Jean Scott has always done, you've always identified your losing ways only AFTER you either really caught up or decided to make the story up in order not to shock other AP's. Now you throw out something different.

You can't have it both ways. Time to come clean.

JamieV: yes you should get practice software and you should practice so you get the strategy down pat.

DDB is a tough game to play. I hit my big progressive royals on DDB but I also am a net loser playing the game. In fact, over my entire life playing all video poker I am a net loser. But I play for the fun and thrill of it and entertainment. And if fun and thrills and entertainment is your goal then it doesn't matter what game you play -- but play it well to give yourself a fighting chance.

Please ignore Rob's comments about playing at home so that you have a run of losses that will set you up to be a winner in the casinos. Please.

All machines are random. But I have interesting stories about my royals: I got one progressive for $35K shortly after hitting quad aces with a kicker for $10k. And I got one progressive for $36K after putting 6-thou into the machine over the previous four hours. Now there's a range for you on DDB. And then there was the weekend when I hit one progressive for $24K and then went to play craps, and after eight hours of playing craps with just $200 in a machine I hit another progressive for $21K. And then I went 180-thousand hands between royals -- and that was over a year of playing without a royal.

Once again robki demonstrates his amazing lack of any mathematical knowledge whatsoever. It's actually laughable to anyone with a mathematical background.

Streaks happen. Get used to it. That doesn't mean the future expectation changes. There is no regression to the mean in VP. That is a simple, easily explained fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

There is no regression to the mean in VP. That is a simple, easily explained fact.

---

This is what needs some explanation. If there is no "regression to the mean" how do you justify the concept of "99.54% return over the long term with expert play" and similar statements?

Jamie, you MUST pay attention to what I said. Imagine going on a losing streak at casinos that puts you four or five royals behind expectation, and thousands of dollars in the hole. Would you rather that happen at home or in those casinos? Then, just as all the AP's promise and seem to tell us AFTER the fact--you WILL experience the math working for you as you head into the casinos for your next 500,000 hands. Why? Because the more you play, the closer to expectation you will come. It's all right there in the math books!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

This is what needs some explanation. If there is no "regression to the mean" how do you justify the concept of "99.54% return over the long term with expert play" and similar statements?

---

The E in ER stands for "expected". It is referring to future play. Anything that you've done in the past is over, kaput, past. Those hands don't participate in the future events.

Think about throwing dice or flipping a coin. How can any past event have any impact on your result? This is true for all random events.

Now, the reality of play is you will vary both over and below the ER as you play. They will tend to average out but that is not something that the math promises when any of those events are in the past. Over time your play will converge on the ER just like flipping heads will approach 50% of total flips.

It is obvious that past independent events can't affect what you're doing in the present or what you do in the future. However, most people do have trouble understanding this concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

The E in ER stands for "expected". It is referring to future play.

---

This is all very confusing. Isn't expected return a combination of past and present and future? I mean without a combination of past and present and future, wouldn't paytables just be "fortune telling"?

In fact, I recall a very wild discussion about "expected return" vs "actual return" and you seem to be devoted to the "rightness" of expected return. Now you seem to be backing off of it?

You're of course correct about what ER actually means. ER was identified yesterday, it is there today, and it is about the future as well. The problem here is arci knows that but now you're cornering him, and the only thing he can do is try to make it appear he knows more than you about this. So what else is new :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

This is all very confusing. Isn't expected return a combination of past and present and future? I mean without a combination of past and present and future, wouldn't paytables just be "fortune telling"?

In fact, I recall a very wild discussion about "expected return" vs "actual return" and you seem to be devoted to the "rightness" of expected return. Now you seem to be backing off of it?

---

Not in the least. Remember, the actual return is determined by a bell curve centered close to the ER. You can be either above or below the ER.

Look, I'm not saying your past events combined with your future events won't also be very close to the ER. It's just that there is nothing that forces that to happen. All we can say about future events is they will converge in the ER over time.

As I said before there's nothing that gives "heads" a higher chance of occurring if you just flipped 4 "tails" in a row. The odds are still 50-50 on the next flip. That is all I am saying about VP. No matter what you've done in the past the future odds are not changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Remember, the actual return is determined by a bell curve centered close to the ER. You can be either above or below the ER.

---

Stop!! I am not going to let you get away with this one, Arc. :-)

Bell curves do not determine anything. Actual results determine bell curves. These actual results can come from surveys, tests, experience but it is not one of God's Commandments that video poker will follow bell curves. I've often asked you to show me the research that shows video poker results follow a bell curve and while random distributions of numbers might follow a bell curve, you continue to overlook that video poker is not a random game as players choose which cards to hold and play. That is the difference. Is there a bell curve for the distribution of the rolls of dice in craps? Of course there is.

Now let's get back to the issue at hand. What is the "expected return" in video poker? The expected return is not determined by the play of any one hand of video poker though the "actual return" is what happens on any one hand of video poker.

The "expected return" is what happens over an infinite number of hands, or the "long term" based on "expert play" is how the experts put it. In fact, if you played video poker holding only aces your expected return would be way off from the expected returns published for any and all video poker games. I don't have to tell you this, arc. You know this.

So, drop this particular line of discussion and go on to something else. I can find a million other things to criticize the Singer system about.

Singer's suggestion while mathematically wrong does make a lot of sense. If I have flipped a coin 100 times, and got 80 heads and 20 tails, the odds of the next flip being heads is still 50-50. But Arci will tell you that eventually, the results will approach 50-50 over the long run. Therefore, tho the odds are 50-50, I'm betting tails for the next 100 flips to ride back up that hill towards expected return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Singer's suggestion while mathematically wrong does make a lot of sense. If I have flipped a coin 100 times, and got 80 heads and 20 tails, the odds of the next flip being heads is still 50-50. But Arci will tell you that eventually, the results will approach 50-50 over the long run. Therefore, tho the odds are 50-50, I'm betting tails for the next 100 flips to ride back up that hill towards expected return.

---

If you just got "80 heads and 20 tails" you would be wiser to get a new coin. The odds on that distribution are astronomically low. Betting on tails is likely to be a disaster as the most logical situation is a biased coin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Stop!! I am not going to let you get away with this one, Arc. :-)

Bell curves do not determine anything. Actual results determine bell curves. These actual results can come from surveys, tests, experience but it is not one of God's Commandments that video poker will follow bell curves.

---

Yes, my wording was probably a little wrong. It is the mathematics of random events that predicts actual results will follow a bell curve. The bell curve is a graphical representation of the mathematics. I should have used predicts instead of determines to be more precise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I've often asked you to show me the research that shows video poker results follow a bell curve and while random distributions of numbers might follow a bell curve, you continue to overlook that video poker is not a random game as players choose which cards to hold and play. That is the difference. Is there a bell curve for the distribution of the rolls of dice in craps? Of course there is.

---

As I've often stated everyone has a personal ER. That ER includes the player's choices you mentioned. Given this problem it is hard to lump people together and get a true picture. That doesn't mean the math is wrong, it just means the real world is a little messy. I tend to ignore this problem as it really isn't apropos to making good future decisions (and isn't that all that matters?). The variations aren't that large and the arguments based on the mathematics are still 100% valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Now let's get back to the issue at hand. What is the "expected return" in video poker? The expected return is not determined by the play of any one hand of video poker though the "actual return" is what happens on any one hand of video poker.

The "expected return" is what happens over an infinite number of hands, or the "long term" based on "expert play" is how the experts put it. In fact, if you played video poker holding only aces your expected return would be way off from the expected returns published for any and all video poker games. I don't have to tell you this, arc. You know this.

So, drop this particular line of discussion and go on to something else. I can find a million other things to criticize the Singer system about.

---

There's nothing to drop. Everything I said is accurate at the important level ... what can we expect in the future by our gambling choices.

Very good arc. I accept that you used the wrong words to describe the principles you were commenting on.

Regarding Rob Singer's suggestion about having miserable video poker results on your home computer and then going to a casino to catch the royals-- wouldn't it be wonderful if that was true: We could sit at home and have 100 losing "practice sessions" at home and then be assured of a winning session with real money in a casino?

I certainly would like to see that demonstrated!! It would set the world on fire!!

This is beginning to sound like voodoo. Play a bunch of hands on a home computer and then expect it to influence the outcome on a very real casino computer?

As I've often noted the human mind tends to see patterns in all kinds of areas. There was a time when I was in Vegas that my morning practice on the computer tended to be a good predictor of my results that day. However, it was just the opposite. If I did well on the computer I did well gambling. Naturally, this only lasted for awhile (about 3 weeks I believe) before it went away (like all patterns based on randomness).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

This is beginning to sound like voodoo. Play a bunch of hands on a home computer and then expect it to influence the outcome on a very real casino computer?

---

About the same as thinking a progression can change one's results ... or a rabbit's foot, or rubbing the screen, or covering the screen, or special plays, ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

This is beginning to sound like voodoo. Play a bunch of hands on a home computer and then expect it to influence the outcome on a very real casino computer?

---

Thanks for posting that slingshot.

Now Rob, are you serious or just joking with us??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

About the same as thinking a progression can change one's results ... or a rabbit's foot, or rubbing the screen, or covering the screen, or special plays, ...

---

Are you a politician? Just wondering-when they want their laws passed, they always mix in truths with their reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Are you a politician? Just wondering-when they want their laws passed, they always mix in truths with their reasoning.

---

All truths, nothing but the truth. Some people just can't handle the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

About the same as thinking a progression can change one's results ... or a rabbit's foot, or rubbing the screen, or covering the screen, or special plays, ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Are you a politician? Just wondering-when they want their laws passed, they always mix in truths with their reasoning.

---

Arc, here's where your diction (choice of words) causes trouble again. I am not disagreeing with you because I think I know what you really mean. But unfortunately you substituted the word "results" for "odds" in the phrase "a progression can change one's results...."

If someone is playing $1 video poker then suddenly switches to $100 video poker and hits any kind of a payoff, it is likely that they just changed their results for their trip. However, switching from $1 VP to $100 VP does not change the odds of their play. And by this, I mean it doesn't change the hold or payback on the machine. The hold or payback on the machine is what is stated on the screen and it is no more and no less regardless of what denomination you play at.

A progression will not change the hold or payback but a progression can change one's results if they get lucky and hit at the higher denomination. Of course they could also lose at the higher denomination and lose more of their money faster.

In order for Rob Singer's progression to work, he has to get lucky at the higher denominations. Sometimes it works and he hits a $100,000 royal at the $25 level. Sometimes it doesn't and he chases his losses to the tune of $50,000+.

The same is true for "special plays." If they hit you win. If they don't hit you lose. And the same can be said for conventional strategy. If you make the conventional holds and they hit then you have a winner. And if you make the conventional holds and they don't hit, then you have a loser.

About your other statements:

Everyone knows that rabbit's feet when dipped in gold and sprinkled with platinum talc work wonders, but few of us can afford them, so I am not going to discuss them here since I think it involves cruelty to animals. And I can't fathom the idea of having Peter's foot in my pocket.

Rubbing the screen worked very well for a player at Rincon the other night. He hit a royal for $20k after rubbing the screen. However, he rubbed the screen in a particularly special way that time. I know he rubbed the screen in a particularly special way that time because he rubs the screen before every play but he never hit a royal after those other rubs. His experience the other night proves that only a special rub can work.

Covering the screen also works when royals are dealt which is about 1 out of 629,740 hands. Never has a covered screen prevented an RNG from dealing a royal.

Alan, where can I get some of that egg nog?;)

I tried rubbing the lady next to me-----we are now married 3 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Thanks for posting that slingshot.

Now Rob, are you serious or just joking with us??

---

If it's a joke to you please define the joke. You think there's a difference between playing a random vp machine at home vs. at a casino? I wrote an article about this in Gaming Today, and the result was a stunned AP community. They blab all the time about getting into that "theoretical long-term" then when I brought up how you could actually do it for free at home they were completely stupified and bombarded the GT phones with incomprehensible comments.

Rob, when the odds say you have a one in 40,000 chance of drawing a royal, you have that one in 40,000 chance on each and every hand you play. It does not mean that your chance of drawing the royal increases after 39,999 hands. If it did, I would not have gone through a 180-thousand hand drought without drawing a royal. And, if you had to go through 40-thou hands to hit a royal, I would not have hit five royals over the last six weeks or so.

Ha!

1 just caught on-long term and ap players!:D:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, when the odds say you have a one in 40,000 chance of drawing a royal, you have that one in 40,000 chance on each and every hand you play. It does not mean that your chance of drawing the royal increases after 39,999 hands. If it did, I would not have gone through a 180-thousand hand drought without drawing a royal. And, if you had to go through 40-thou hands to hit a royal, I would not have hit five royals over the last six weeks or so.

---

I know that Alan, but by explaining it as you have you actually PROVED my point. Just think if a new player began by playing 500,000 hands that included a royal-starved time like yours. Then think about what it would be like if this new player, at some point late in your low royal flush streak, then chose to play his hands inside casinos rather than at home. How great would THAT be?

The point is, since you never know when you'll get hot or cold, IF you do well at home, just stay out of the casinos until it seems hopeless or it seems like it's starting to turn around. But if you do poorly at home, pick a day to start playing at the casinos. It's like an automatic advantage, simply because, as the AP's always say, EVENTUALLY THE MATH WILL CATCH UP. I wrote how I wish I understood this better prior to beginning my disastrous 6-1/2 year career as an AP. Any new player would benefit from understanding this. Current players typically would not, because current players for the most part, find themselves hooked on the action provided by the real machines when playing for real money, and at-home play is only limited to filling in slow days or getting a kick out of silly tournaments etc. like you see on videopoker.com.

Rob, I know people who have never had a royal flush. When are they due?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, I know people who have never had a royal flush. When are they due?

---

Due? Why'd you ask that? First, if they're using my strategy, which does not require a royal to win any session or to be ahead overall, then a royal-less life is of no consequence. But chances are they're either strict AP's or normal Joe players like you. So too bad they spent their lives playing inside casinos. If they had read about and followed my play-at-home-first advice, imagine how much they'd have saved by now.

We're not talking about your strategy, Rob. I think we are talking about the chances of getting a royal. Am I mistaken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

We're not talking about your strategy, Rob. I think we are talking about the chances of getting a royal. Am I mistaken?

---

In a way we are, because without them most everyone loses each year. I think if you step back and look at the overall concept it might help. You're starting out; you go to casinos like everyone else; you most probably lose (unless you have magic fingers like arci, magic machines, and casino execs who don't care and simply look the other way if you take them for tens of thousands every year on grandfathered-in machines that they otherwise keep a keen eye on because of their controversial paytables) and you just are beside yourself.

OR....you could do what I recommend, and learn the game at home while playing a whole lot of hands. If you do well or close to it, stay home and play, because the math is being kind to you. But if not--and here's where you're big advantage comes into play--you simply head out to the casino, which is exactly where you want to be as you witness first hand the math working it's "magic" as it corrects all that losing that's been going on. Just as the AP's say it will.

It's that simple.

Rob-1 of the flaws with this is that I believe it is the machine, not the player, who achieves the long term results. My play is just 1 little blip on that machine, regardless of my play at home.

If you believe it is the player, not the machine, there may be some small degree of merit as illustrated in my heads or tails example earlier in this thread. However, the odds on each spin, roll, throw, etc. never change. But again, if you believe the math will even out, it has some merit.

I should add that I havent had a royal in years, and then only 2 in my lifetime. I played only for brief periods if craps was dead--until about 5 years ago when I began playing a lot of VP when I was barred from throwing the dice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

you could do what I recommend, and learn the game at home while playing a whole lot of hands. If you do well or close to it, stay home and play, because the math is being kind to you. But if not--and here's where you're big advantage comes into play--you simply head out to the casino, which is exactly where you want to be as you witness first hand the math working it's "magic" as it corrects all that losing that's been going on. Just as the AP's say it will.

It's that simple.

---

Hold on a second Rob. On the one hand you disagree with the whole concept of advantage play and the "long term" but here you are saying to adapt the concept of the long term by losing at home in practice sessions so that you will win at the casinos with real money when the long term moves all of those averages into proper place. Is that right?

No Rob, you're just poking fun at the whole idea of the math by proposing something that is just a fantasy.

The danger, Rob, is that someone might take this talk of yours as being serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I know that Alan, but by explaining it as you have you actually PROVED my point. Just think if a new player began by playing 500,000 hands that included a royal-starved time like yours. Then think about what it would be like if this new player, at some point late in your low royal flush streak, then chose to play his hands inside casinos rather than at home. How great would THAT be?

The point is, since you never know when you'll get hot or cold, IF you do well at home, just stay out of the casinos until it seems hopeless or it seems like it's starting to turn around. But if you do poorly at home, pick a day to start playing at the casinos. It's like an automatic advantage, simply because, as the AP's always say, EVENTUALLY THE MATH WILL CATCH UP. I wrote how I wish I understood this better prior to beginning my disastrous 6-1/2 year career as an AP. Any new player would benefit from understanding this. Current players typically would not, because current players for the most part, find themselves hooked on the action provided by the real machines when playing for real money, and at-home play is only limited to filling in slow days or getting a kick out of silly tournaments etc. like you see on videopoker.com.

---

The ups & downs in a casino have absolutely no correlation to playing VP at home and it's irresponsible of you to suggest this (among the many other things that you are irresponsible for saying).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The ups & downs in a casino have absolutely no correlation to playing VP at home and it's irresponsible of you to suggest this (among the many other things that you are irresponsible for saying).

---

Every time Rob is about to present himself as someone reasonable with a valid approach to video poker, he decides to take another dip in a cesspool of ridiculousness just for old times' sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Every time Rob is about to present himself as someone reasonable with a valid approach to video poker, he decides to take another dip in a cesspool of ridiculousness just for old times' sake.

---

And every time he presents his short-term, goal-oriented strategy he's mocked in another cesspool of ridiculousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I know that Alan, but by explaining it as you have you actually PROVED my point. Just think if a new player began by playing 500,000 hands that included a royal-starved time like yours. Then think about what it would be like if this new player, at some point late in your low royal flush streak, then chose to play his hands inside casinos rather than at home. How great would THAT be?

---

It would make absolutely no difference. The odds don't change based on past events. You don't really believe they do, do you? That is beyond stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

The point is, since you never know when you'll get hot or cold, IF you do well at home, just stay out of the casinos until it seems hopeless or it seems like it's starting to turn around. But if you do poorly at home, pick a day to start playing at the casinos. It's like an automatic advantage, simply because, as the AP's always say, EVENTUALLY THE MATH WILL CATCH UP.

---

No one says this who understand the math, especially APers. This is an example of a typical Singer lie. Make up some kind of nonsense and then make some idiotic claims that only the totally ignorant might believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I wrote how I wish I understood this better prior to beginning my disastrous 6-1/2 year career as an AP. Any new player would benefit from understanding this. Current players typically would not, because current players for the most part, find themselves hooked on the action provided by the real machines when playing for real money, and at-home play is only limited to filling in slow days or getting a kick out of silly tournaments etc. like you see on videopoker.com.

---

Your ignorance is massive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

In a way we are, because without them most everyone loses each year. I think if you step back and look at the overall concept it might help. You're starting out; you go to casinos like everyone else; you most probably lose (unless you have magic fingers like arci, magic machines, and casino execs who don't care and simply look the other way if you take them for tens of thousands every year on grandfathered-in machines that they otherwise keep a keen eye on because of their controversial paytables) and you just are beside yourself.

OR....you could do what I recommend, and learn the game at home while playing a whole lot of hands. If you do well or close to it, stay home and play, because the math is being kind to you. But if not--and here's where you're big advantage comes into play--you simply head out to the casino, which is exactly where you want to be as you witness first hand the math working it's "magic" as it corrects all that losing that's been going on. Just as the AP's say it will.

It's that simple.

---

It doesn't get any more ridiculous than this. ROTFLMAO. How can anyone be this stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

And every time he presents his short-term, goal-oriented strategy he's mocked in another cesspool of ridiculousness.

---

He's mocked for good reasons. His claims are nonsense and those who believe them are foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

And every time he presents his short-term, goal-oriented strategy he's mocked in another cesspool of ridiculousness.

---

No, slingshot. In this case there is no mention of a short-term, goal-oriented strategy which, by the way, I happen to agree with. At issue is this fantastic belief that if you play enough hands at your home computer with losses, that somehow you will be able to sit down at a real machine in a casino and win. I would like to see this proved. Can anyone run a simulation? Or keep logs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

No, slingshot. In this case there is no mention of a short-term, goal-oriented strategy which, by the way, I happen to agree with. At issue is this fantastic belief that if you play enough hands at your home computer with losses, that somehow you will be able to sit down at a real machine in a casino and win. I would like to see this proved. Can anyone run a simulation? Or keep logs?

---

No one needs to do a simulation to point out this is idiotic. He's essentially saying that if you flip a coin then the results are affected by coins you have flipped in the past. And you wonder why I called him a dufus.

Here are two inconsistencies I see in this theory of Rob's:

1. If true, why when I went through a 180,000 hand royal flush drought in casino play did I also fail to have a royal in "fun play" at home?
2. Rob wrote in one of his books how he got back-to-back royals, and the other day he posted about two royals in one day. How many hands did he lose at home playing "fun games" did he have to lose in order to score those casino wins?

The more I think about it, Rob isn't serious at all about this. He is just trying to mock the "math guys" with twisting around their own "math". Fess up Rob... it's all a joke, right? You really don't believe this, right?

Rob, That tongue in cheek is pretty funny. You are absolutly right!

There's nothing inconsistent about it Alan. You're just trying to take it to a level that need not exist. It's really very simple and has nothing to do with what-ifs or how-abouts. New players simply do what I said. Should the hands at home run great, stay away from the casinos until your luck changes. Should you do lousy, hit the casinos. It's all about the math. It's all about the math eventually catching up. Sure I'm mocking the math guys because they'd NEVER stay away from a casino if their lives (or someone else's, as we see from arci) depended on it. They just GOTS to have them points! But, when you think about it, it's all that math theory that validated my recommendation.

Okay Rob, let's just leave it at this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Sure I'm mocking the math guys

---

I'll have to admit I've had more laughs from Singer's comments in this thread than I've had in a long time. It's like saying a baseball player hitting every ball on the button at batting practice should not be played since he is sure to go out in the game. How many managers do you think would pull a guy for having a good batting practice? Absolute proof Singer is a completely idiot. All I can say is anyone who still believes a one word from this idiot deserves whatever they get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

I'll have to admit I've had more laughs from Singer's comments in this thread than I've had in a long time. It's like saying a baseball player hitting every ball on the button at batting practice should not be played since he is sure to go out in the game. How many managers do you think would pull a guy for having a good batting practice? Absolute proof Singer is a completely idiot. All I can say is anyone who still believes a one word from this idiot deserves whatever they get.

---

Bad analogy, arc, but I understand your point. Baseball is a game of skill so you can't use it here.

I think the best way to address Rob's ridiculous claim (and I think it is more satire than a claim) is that one hand of video poker has no bearing on the next hand. The RNG you play on has no memory (like dice, like the spin of a roulette wheel, like an automatic card shuffler) so your odds of a winning or losing hand are not affected by the previous hand or the previous one million hands. And even if you did have the misguided belief that an RNG at one machine was not truly random from one hand to the next, how would a practice computer at home have any bearing on the results of a computerized video poker machine at a casino?

Yet, many of us do use the same thought process Rob has discussed here.

At craps we say the last ten shooters were bad so the next one has to be good.
At roulette we say the last ten spins were black so red is due.
At blackjack we say I lost the last ten hands I have to win the next one.

And come to think of it, Arc, you're guilty of the same thing. You've talked about how it's okay to have losing sessions because you'll win something like 7 out of 10. Really? Do you really go to a casino and say "it's okay if I lose today because I'll be a winner 7 out of ten times?" If you knew that why would you go to the casinos on the "losing days"? Why not just show up on the winning days? LOL

I think you're getting it Alan. Think of all the foolishness Bob Dancer writes about being an "AP" and then look at the similarities of what arci scribbles down. They both claim a big loss today "ain't nothin'" and was actually something that was "expected" because they "know" the math will "all work out in the end".

The stupidity of such claims is astonishing. Exposing such nonsense is what made me the most popular video poker writer ever at Gaming Today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Bad analogy, arc, but I understand your point. Baseball is a game of skill so you can't use it here.

---

Yes, it's a game of skill with a slight randomizing factor. No one controls their swing perfectly. Essentially, every player has a range within which their swing operates. This range can make a big difference in results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think the best way to address Rob's ridiculous claim (and I think it is more satire than a claim) is that one hand of video poker has no bearing on the next hand. The RNG you play on has no memory (like dice, like the spin of a roulette wheel, like an automatic card shuffler) so your odds of a winning or losing hand are not affected by the previous hand or the previous one million hands. And even if you did have the misguided belief that an RNG at one machine was not truly random from one hand to the next, how would a practice computer at home have any bearing on the results of a computerized video poker machine at a casino?

Yet, many of us do use the same thought process Rob has discussed here.

At craps we say the last ten shooters were bad so the next one has to be good.
At roulette we say the last ten spins were black so red is due.
At blackjack we say I lost the last ten hands I have to win the next one.

And come to think of it, Arc, you're guilty of the same thing. You've talked about how it's okay to have losing sessions because you'll win something like 7 out of 10. Really?

---

Nope, never said that. What I've stated is that there's a high probability we will all see good and bad swings over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Do you really go to a casino and say "it's okay if I lose today because I'll be a winner 7 out of ten times?" If you knew that why would you go to the casinos on the "losing days"? Why not just show up on the winning days? LOL

---

That's what's silly about Singer's overall approach and win goals in general. You never know when you will win or lose. So, leaving with a win goal could actually limit your win. And, when you return you could lose big time. It's all random so we can't assign a higher probability to any particular time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I think you're getting it Alan. Think of all the foolishness Bob Dancer writes about being an "AP" and then look at the similarities of what arci scribbles down. They both claim a big loss today "ain't nothin'" and was actually something that was "expected" because they "know" the math will "all work out in the end".

---

The point is that the math dictates there will be BOTH winning and losing sessions due to variance. In addition, the math predicts the future winning sessions will outperform the losing sessions on positive games leading to overall profitability. So, Dancer's claims are completely supported by the math. Your claims, however, are nothing but silly nonsense from someone who thinks the odds change on a game based on past results. That is so absolutely idiotic it is hard to even write this without bellowing out in laughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

The stupidity of such claims is astonishing. Exposing such nonsense is what made me the most popular video poker writer ever at Gaming Today.

---

Do you have anything to back up that claim? Didn't think so. I will agree that your claim was "astonishing"ly stupid.

Couple of comments. First, anyone who thinks or expects it will be more likely or even just as likely to see a second huge jackpot hit in the same session, over losing what was already won because you just couldn't get up and leave with the win, is astonishingly delusional. Overwhelmingly, big losses will almost always occur before hitting another big win.

And, the super-expert combo of Bob Dancer and Skippie Hughes were simultaneously fired from Gaming Today by publisher Chuck DiRocco after just under a year of writing the video poker columns for him, and he immediately replaced both of them with guess who :) I quit after he died and after nearly 8 years of continuous writing. Fact: Dancer & Hughes were paid $100/week for their advantage play babble. I refused to ever accept a penny from GT for my Undeniable Truth column--the most popular column ever in the nearly 40 year history of the paper. Fact: losers need to be paid in order to have an income; winners do not. Hughes died penniless after being forced to move out of Nevada in order to stay away from the "+EV" machines and to find work. Dancer can never retire, and will eventually follow in Skippie's footsteps after his huge inheritance from his land-mogul father, has been systematically distributed to the casinos.

Chuck DiRocco was a true visionary. When his wife Eileen was forced to take over after his death, for over a year she wanted me to change my style and I wouldn't. I quit. The paper was 30-some odd pages when I wrote for it, and it was double the area in print per page than its 12-14 pages are today. I attribute some of that to having such a weak writer as Elliot Fromm re-writing his father's vp articles over and over again. I just wish he'd write how Lenny was quoted--and is on tape at my book publisher's office--saying how nobody, including him, can beat the positive EV machines with advantage play.

While I believe in playing with win goals, I think my "win goal" method differs significantly from Rob's. My win goal is not a fixed amount and if I reach a win goal I will keep playing with a rising stop loss. I used it today, playing poker at The Bike.

I bought into a $300 table and my goal was to win $100. In the early going it was tough, and I was down to slightly less than $100 and then started to come back, slowly. Finally I won a couple of bigger pots that gave me about $450 in my stack, or a profit of $150. Instead of quitting because I had reached my $100 win goal, I kept playing but now said I would leave if my profit shrank to $125. In fact, I decided to leave with a profit of $136 because two new players came to the table and not knowing how they played I didn't want to expose myself to unnecessary risk.

In video poker you can do the same thing.

And how you perceive and use win goals is just as I recommend to everyone. There's no need to do it exactly as I do, but base-lining your thoughts from how I do it is really the best way for all the different gambling personalities there are. Without ANY goals, a player just keeps playing until mostly bad things occur. AP's are very knowledgeable about what those are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Couple of comments. First, anyone who thinks or expects it will be more likely or even just as likely to see a second huge jackpot hit in the same session, over losing what was already won because you just couldn't get up and leave with the win, is astonishingly delusional. Overwhelmingly, big losses will almost always occur before hitting another big win.

---

Hilarious. What part of random don't you understand? This is typical of the nonsense we hear from people like Singer. They are completely clueless and spew this idiotic crap. Anyone that believes them is a fool. And, it turns out today was a nice example. I hit 7 (yes 7) $1000 jackpots in my session.

The rest of his claims are the typical lies we hear from Singer all the time.

Funny :) Last week I hit 1 ( yes 1) $8000 jackpot and I quit my session. Then at a second casino I hit 1 (yes 1) $4000 jackpot so I quit THAT session. Like I said, funny....:)

Is there a thousand dollar payoff on $1 One Eyed Jacks, or were you playing a multi line machine??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Is there a thousand dollar payoff on $1 One Eyed Jacks, or were you playing a multi line machine??

---

The wild royal flush pays 1000 credits. I was a little below average for the year on wild royals until yesterday. Made up for it big time. The frequency is 3700 hands so hitting 7 in 5200 hands was quite nice. The first one was a one card royal draw when I need the jack of clubs. I drew the jack of spades which was still pretty good. 5 out of the 7 were one card draws. I also had a 2 card draw and a 3 card draw. Now, if only I could hit a real RF. I've been way down on those this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Funny :) Last week I hit 1 ( yes 1) $8000 jackpot and I quit my session. Then at a second casino I hit 1 (yes 1) $4000 jackpot so I quit THAT session. Like I said, funny....:)

---

So, you are admitting you continued to play and hit another jackpot. Sounds more like what I've been saying. A person, after reaching a win goal, has the same probability of hitting a big winner as leaving and returning another day. Now, aren't you sorry you quit and took that long ride home to AZ so many times. Just think how much money you lost.

Chuckle, chuckle.



PS. I really don't believe this claim any more than I believe anything else robki says.

Arc, in defense of Rob, you are confusing the points of discussion involving win goals.

No one denies that you can keep playing after reaching a win goal and win some more. Yes, that happens. In fact, I keep playing after reaching a win goal by adjusting to a rising loss-limit, which in effect, is setting a new win goal.

Rob hits an $8,000 royal early which surpasses even his $2,500 when he was playing with his mega bankroll. He certainly has enough money to play again. But I am sure Rob would tell you that if things were going bad he would not give back the entire $8,000 on that next session. I don't know what his loss limit was for the next session, but if it were me I would allow for half of that $4,000. I'm probably not as "disciplined" as Rob who might just allow for a loss of $500 of $1,000 on that $8000 win.

You wrote, Arc: "Now, aren't you sorry you quit and took that long ride home to AZ so many times. Just think how much money you lost." And of course the response was that money in your pocket is money that isn't lost and can't be lost.

Let me just look at win goals with a different scenario. Suppose I don't hit a big winner and I just eke out a small win? Then the modest win goal becomes essential from keeping a small win trip into becoming a small loss trip or a big loss trip.

The bottom line is that use and application of win goals will vary according to the needs and comfort level of the player. Rob wasn't the first to adopt win goals and loss limits. Many people will say they make sense.

And frankly, loss limits are even more important than win goals.

Alan, Rob has stated many times that it is wrong to continue to play after reaching a win goal. He has stated that anyone who does not go home immediately is an addict. Now, those are his words stated multiple times over 8 years. It is what it is. What he did goes against what he has stated over and over again and against his claims of discipline. I realize it's always been more of his lies but now he slipped up and demonstrated yet again that he is a complete phony.

Well you're right that is what Singer said about leaving when reaching a win goal. As I said, I don't play his way. If I reach a lower win goal I will adjust it to a higher win goal with a rising loss limit.

Yes, I remember Rob calling you an addict just a few months ago. Now, he's gone and done exactly the same thing.

Of course, he probably made it all up and just forgot what he had said to you. Like many times in the past his lies have put him between the proverbial rock and hard place.

I am sure that if an insult or a personal attack will help Rob makes his point, he will use the insult or the personal attack.

He reminds me very much of the concept of "the big lie." And that is this: if you tell a lie that is so big, with so much fabricated evidence, it becomes almost impossible to not believe the lie.

By the way, I know two ladies named Melody. One was my neighbor when I lived in Miami, and one was from West Hollywood that I dated. I don't think either of them played video poker.