New article by noted gaming author John Grochowski about money management including win/loss goals and raising your win/loss stops when you do win.
http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...nagement-62117
Printable View
New article by noted gaming author John Grochowski about money management including win/loss goals and raising your win/loss stops when you do win.
http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...nagement-62117
That kind of logical thinking will never fly here
You're right. After all, it's logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
BUT I wonder what Grochowski would say if we used the AP argument: "I have the advantage on every hand I play, why should I stop?"
From the article:
"Money management systems can’t change the house edges on the games. A slot machine that returns 90 percent of wagers to players is going to keep 10 percent in the long run no matter how disciplined the players’ approach. Your results in any one session can be good, bad or indifferent, but that’s all built into the odds of the game. Your money management approach has nothing to do with it."
Gosh, exactly what I have been saying for how long now ... And then:
"Jeff took it all in, and said, “I’ll pass that all on to Darcy, but I think she was hoping for something a little more magical that would make her win.”
I laughed. Everyone wants that. But not losing too much is a start."
"Magic" is exactly what I see claimed around here all the time. There is no magic.
Why don't you ask him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Of course I'm going to point out the cliched phrase "noted gaming author." Rob's a "noted gaming author." I'm a "noted gaming author." There are a lot of those crawling around. Just because one is a "noted gaming author" doesn't mean anything in terms of the strength of an argument or position. But you guys knew that.
I have to disagree with you, redietz. Grochowski is a noted gaming author. Rob happened to have written two books. I'm not sure what you wrote. And before you say it -- I certainly am not a gaming author, nor have I ever made the claim.
John Grochowski is one of the best gaming authors in the business and he is on the money when it comes to random games. In terms of advantage play he would believe you should...why not write him and ask him?
Okay, Frank. I sent him an email. Since he writes for you, please point out that I sent it to his "casinoanswerman" address.
Here's what I sent:
Hello Mr. Grochowski: I am one of your regular readers and I regularly refer to your book "Video Poker Answer Book" as a refresher before I head off to play.
I have a question about your "money management" column: http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...nagement-62117
If you were at a positive expectation game -- a game with a positive pay table -- and if you also had the benefits of cashback or some other comps from your play -- would the advice in your article still hold? Or, can players who are playing a positive expectation game with additional benefits ignore the need and advice for win/loss goals?
How would you respond to a comment such as this: "I have the advantage on every hand I play, why should I stop?"
Thank you.
Alan-he will get back to you. I have previously corresponded with him at that e-mail on some issues here in Chicago.
Wouldn't it be funny if grochowski's response to Alan was: "Say hi to Arci".
Some of the advice he gave might still be applicable to positive games. For example, if you go on a trip it would still be reasonable to save some of the trip bankroll for multiple days. While it's unlikely a good APer would have insufficient funds to play as much as wanted, it is possible.
Otherwise, it will be interesting to see what John says. One thing I can count on is it will be misinterpreted, just like the content of this article.
Arc, I think the article is very clear. However, he did not mention APs or positive games... hence my question.
Yes it was ... win/loss goals don't change the return of the game or anyone's results over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And there is our difference Arc. While no one ever said win/loss goals don't change the return of any game, if you can manage to quit playing more sessions with profits than with losses you can improve your results over time. And if you are unable to grasp that I am very sorry.
Alan, if the return doesn't change then your overall results will see the effect of that return. Sorry if you are unable to understand simple math. There is no magic.
How many times have we gone over this Arc? The expected return does not have to be your actual return. But you can't understand that. In fact Arc, I have never (repeat: NEVER) had the expected return of any game of video poker I have ever played in my life. I have played 9/6 Jacks or Better and I have NEVER had a session or a year where I finished with 99.54% of my bankroll. I have played 8/5 Aces and Faces and I have NEVER finished with a return of 99.2% of my bankroll. And at the game of craps, I have NEVER finished playing with 98.6% of the money I wagered on the passline. Never, never, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
He'll get back to you. He is a great guy.
Oh, you know, let me answer this. I think as an advantage player you have a total bankroll that you bet against. You do not use "sessions stakes" or "win/loss goals." Fatigue is the key variable here. In blackjack, fatigue can screw up your count. In craps, fatigue can screw up your shooting. So as a general guideline I will play blackjack for maybe 45-60 minutes and then take a break. In craps, three or four times with the dice and if I am not on I take some time off. These are guidelines which I will disobey at times.
In games where I can't get an edge? I rarely play those but then I would use a "loss limit" to guide me.
No one said you'd get the exact return. You'd approach it over time. Win/loss goals cannot change the return of a game nor can they change the effect it has on your results. There is no magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You continue to spew the same garbage. You keep saying youll approach the expected return over time. Well, I don't want to get the expected return over time. I want to pocket more money than what the expected return is... even if the expected return is 100.17% I want more than that. And the only way to do that is to quit when you have a profit that is more than the expected return.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Again you keep whining that win goals don't change the expected return of a game. That's right they don't change the EXPECTED RETURN but they change the ACTUAL RETURN. And each time I cash out a win it does change my results. If I cash out with a $50 profit it has a different result than if I cash out a $25 profit.
And you're right there is no magic. It is just simple bankroll management.
Are you just a "math troll"??
Frank what you write about card counting and "precision throwing" at craps is true. But we are talking about video poker here, for the most part, which I don't think you play. The roots of this discussion go waaaay back to the idea that even when you play a negative expectation game there are swings when you are ahead, and if you cash out at those "high points" in the swing you can be a winner even at a negative expectation game.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankScoblete
It's also true at craps. Craps players seem to know when to color up and cash out after a big run with the dice... they don't stick around at the table to give the wins back. The "advantage video poker players" reject that thinking.
There's a better name for it. What I spew are called facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There is no way to do that. That is why I keep telling you there is no magic. Look, I wanted to win the $590 million powerball jackpot, wanting is not the same as getting. And, now you have John Grochowski also spewing the same story. He specifically told you that you can't get a better return. Why do you reference his article, ignore it and continue to believe in fairy tales?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Except for the problem that you won't always have a profit. You will reach your loss limit many times and cancel out winnings just like happens if you don't have win/loss limits. Over time the actual return approaches the expected return. There is no magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Which doesn't change the return of the game. John just told you that more than once in this article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
More like a "fact" troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, there is only one description for this ... pure nonsense. What you are saying is you can manufacture more winning hands than someone else. What magic informs the RNG (or dice) that you are using win/loss goals so that it will give you those extra winning hands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If Alan can't understand what Grachowski and Scoblete are saying, then there is no point in further discussion, Arci. I mean, Scoblete just said the classic -- loss goals help with negative expectation games. Other than that, when he's playing positive, fatigue dictates when he stops. That's what I've been saying in dozens of posts, but it goes against Alan's magic.
Just let Alan be. Pixie dust is probably addictive.
Good day for a break. I see a little common sense is required to help the AP's cope. Then I'll run over to help the new poster that I was e-mailed who needs expert advice.
Redietz, there's a reason "AP" authors, infrequent vp players like yourself, and an Internet hack who just wants and needs to belong-like arci-find solace in TALKING about "advantage play" video poker instead of actually PLAYING it where they could post numerous winning hits like the rest of us do---and that reason is simply because they love the sound of "probability theory over time" but they know better than to try and make it work. Alan had a good question one day that you ducked. He asked what your purpose was in being here as a die hard AP who does who knows what, but who plays not a heck of a lot of vp....and at not for a heck of a lot of stakes, either. My guess is you came to learn from me. As for arci, I've said numerous times why he hangs around: his life is basically over except for this forum nonsense. It gives him the ability to make up any scenario he likes, then spew it, and then live it in a virtual fantasy. Name another saddled old man who spends endless hours scouring video poker forums of all things, then says as many stupid things about it as he does.
Your comment about playing negative games is just as shallow as any misled AP's comments. Win & loss goals absolutely do make a huge difference in any term's results....if utilized consistently. For the past 15 years that's all I've done, and I know I've netted a much higher overall vp profit during that timeframe than all of the so-called AP's here, and more than any single AP anywhere. Those geniuses play a losing game, they believe "expectation" means more than actual results after the session is over, and they ALL hypocritically claim they "know" they'll "be OK somewhere down the road" because that's how "the math's supposed to work". Yet when anyone else goes in and plays a 99.9% game instead of a 100.1%er and says THEY expect to win, it's "magic"! That's why no one believes in the theory approach, and why most of you hardly play (unless you're like Dancer and have no problem making a public fool out of yourself by exposing how video poker has wrecked your personal life). You guys all want it both ways.
The single largest hole in the AP "theory" about -EV games is in how you toot that "you can't win on them over time, but you can win any session"...then when my play strategy is employed, "you will win a lot of sessions, but the few big losses means you will lose overall--and all because you are playing a game that's 99.99% instead of 100.01%!" Completely absurd. If I can win a session playing a very advantageous method developed to WIN a session, why should that not be the case in the next one, the one after that, and the one after that etc.? And of course, conveniently left out of every AP's story is that the large "wins" actually do occur--and much more often that those large losses you theoretically want to wipe out the many small wins.
Rob, to be honest, one reason that I hung out here is because your systems and spiel are very much of a piece with pseudoscientific presentations and theories of other kinds. In fact, your self-presentation and behaviors are so textbook that they're classic. I have always had a heavy interest in debunking the paranormal -- which, more often than not, involves applying actual math to real-life events.
In Alan, you found the classic opportunity -- a journalist who likes to gamble and who combines some intellectual hubris with a contempt for math. It's the perfect synergy. That's why I asked about copying material from this site -- I could not write a better textbook than what goes on here.
The material by you, Alan, and the occasional suspected sock puppet rivals "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger as a primer for cognitive dissonance theory and psychological commitment.
This site is insular, and I suspect it'll stay that way, because that's how cults survive.
redietz don't put me in the same camp using Rob Singer's strategy. I am not in his "camp" and I don't use his strategy. I do, however, use win goals and loss limits. I do respect the math of the game. But if the meter on the machine is showing a profit, as a man of free will, I have the ability to push the cash out button and leave.
It's a funny thing... but I would estimate that there is a time in 90% of the sessions I play (if not more) that the meter shows a profit. And when I don't have a profit, my losses are limited. There is no challenge to the math here. It's just common sense. You pick up some money and you leave and you return another day to do it again.
Using this "hit and run" approach no one is required to play a certain number of hours. I don't need to play 4 hours a day for comps, or to put thru XXX-number of dollars thru the machine for comps.
What I do is sit down at a machine, decide what my limit is for the day, play and as is very often the case with 8/5 Aces and Faces or Bonus Poker, hit the cash out button. Why do you see that as an impossible dream?
But if you stay at the machine too long, then the edge that the game has will whittle down the credits on your meter. And even on a game with a positive expectation you run the risk of hitting a bad streak that will take away your credits.
But using a win goal allows you to leave with a profit. Sure, you might not hit the royal that was coming up on the next play. But you also might avoid another loss on the next play. As they say on Wall Street: bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.
Only APs can't grasp the concept that the credits on the meter or the chips in the rail are "your money" and you are not obligated to gamble it back.
Now, if Frank Scoblete comes back to this forum and tells me that the strategy of leaving the craps table and taking the profit after a hot roll is not a good strategy I will be very surprised. This is exactly what I did when I made my quickie trip to Caesars over Memorial Weekend. I hit the craps table and cashed out a $600 profit over and above the $1,000 marker I took out and went on to play 8/5 Bonus for an additional $2800 profit, and I paid off my marker and came home with $3,400 profit.
It's a nice "system." Does it work all the time? No. But what did I write in my original trip report: I had a $1,000 loss limit. I came back with a $3,400 profit which gives me three more trips with a $1,000 loss limit. I think over the next three trips I'll have at least one profitable session. Does it start to make sense to you yet?
By the way, I'm not even talking about my two $20K royals, my two $4k royals, or my single 25-cent royal (cost for that royal was $40), all won on negative expectation machines. Go figure your "expected return" and then you can think about my "actual return."
The problem is you do not cash out when you are ahead 5 or 10 credits. You will never come close to being at your win goal 90% of the time. You see, the higher the win goal the less often it will be reached ... and the more often you will end up at your loss limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Here is where you go off the rails. You accept that a machine is random yet you appear to believe it gives out better hands early in a session and then later starts to "eat" at your credits. If that was true the machines would not be random. So, do you or don't you believe in randomness? It appears you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, redietz wants your approach to lose. That's all there is to it. He will never understand how often players get ahead and if they cashed out every time that happened, they'd continue to be ahead forever. Now add in my large bankroll/small profit requirement and increase in denomination & game volatility approach along with the special plays, and even the blind can see there would very easily be a gargantuan number of winning sessions. But even with all that, he wants it to be that playing a 99.99% game WILL NEVER allow you to win over any amount of time because it just isn't right! Get a $10 royal and a $33,000 profit in your first session, and redietz says the math will come by and take it all away--and MORE--in an unknown amount of time. But do that on a 100.01% machine, and you will forever stay ahead!
No wonder he hangs around. He still hasn't figured it out.
Arci and his love of theory.....now you know why he wanted to step out of having to live a REAL life, and into the rut he landed in. Only an idiot would claim math is the only way to beat the casinos, who by the way, thrive on it.
If I started at dollars and went thru the $100 machines playing SPS, and QUIT WHEN $5 MINIMUM AHEAD, I would win at least 99% of my sessions. The AP rap on that would be "but gee Rob, nobody does that, and besides, when you lose you lose BIG!" And of course, they'd be selectively incomplete. For some reason, they just don't want to see any large winners along the way--some that are so large it would make their low-rolling heads spin.
How can you say this without knowing what my win goal is? Or what any player's win goal is?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Never did I say a machine gives out better hands early in a session. What I want you to consider is if you happen to have winners early in the session, why sit there and risk giving it back?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
All this theory is good until you step back and realize that it's your money that you put in the slot and those credits on the meter represent your money that you can cash out. Then suddenly the theory about the "right way to play" doesn't matter as much anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I'm sorry but the thread was inadvertently locked and it is now re-opened.
John Grochowski has responded to my email, and here it is, complete and unedited:
Hi Alan,
The win goals/loss limits advice applies only to negative expectation games, which means it applies to a vast majority of players. I'd put no such restrictions on players who have an edge on the house, provided bankroll is sufficient.
I'd just add a couple of cautions. Advantage players in blackjack need to be wary of surveillance catching onto their edge. The longer you play, the more likely it is that you're going to be spotted. Counting cards is not illegal, but casinos are private clubs and can bar you from playing. One defense is to play short sessions and to move on after an hour or so, win or lose.
And advantage players at any game need to be wary of fatigue. Regardless of whether you're a blackjack card counter, dice controller at craps or a video poker player who sticks to expert strategy at the best games, if you play when weary you're going to start making mistakes. Get some rest, and come back to the games refreshed.
Good luck,
John Grochowski
You've commented on your play. I take you at your word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And, the key point to take home is the percentage of times you will achieve a win goal is inversely related to the size of the win goal. Hence, you could have a win goal of 5 credits and a loss limit of 100 credits. You might hit the win goal 95% of the time but it is wiped out by one loss.
Yes you did say that. It is inherent in believing a win goal will lead to better overall results. You MUST overachieve the frequencies of certain results in order to be ahead. If you continue to overachieve in those results you are not dealing with a random distribution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The idea of not giving back a win is perfectly fine. The problem is you will not see the situation arise enough to cancel out your losses over time. It's all based on a random distribution of cards. If you think you can beat a negative game with win goals you are also claiming the distribution is not random.
Oh no, not another expert saying exactly what I have been saying for years. Obviously he doesn't understand how to apply the right pixie dust.Quote:
Originally Posted by
So, casinos thrive on it to make profits, but the exact same math fails for players. If one can't see the illogical nonsense being spewed by this doofus they should avoid gambling altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
come on Arc, when did I say that machines give out better hands early in a session. Look at what happened to me last night -- look at the Big Wins thread. I started out on a $2 machine, moved up to $5 Aces and Faces and then to $5 DDB where I hit the best win of the night. (Finished up $8,500 Arc... not bad for those negative expectation games. Oh... it was all on free play of $360.)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I sent him a followup question and I hope he responds. Basically I asked him if he saw any need to protect his profits against a run of bad luck even on games a player might have an edge on. Really that is the issue. Do you protect your profits and throw caution to the wins because you have an "edge."Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
What do you do, Arc? Do you protect your profits or would you willingly put them all back in the machine leaving yourself to hit the ATM the next time you play?
You say it every time you claim win goals will make a difference in your results over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Ah yes, winning one night proves that win goals work. It had nothing to do with the higher frequency of good paying hands. The fact is your session demonstrated the problem with win goals. Had you quit after your first $800 win you never would have hit the latter winners that led to more than 10x that amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Over time all the various scenarios will play out. Win early ... win late. Win early ... lose late. Lose early ... win late. Lose early ... lose late. Don't confuse luck with knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Here's A hint to the "tested genius": If the math is working in the casino's favor--which it ALWAYS IS, barring some kind of stupid error--it cannot also work for the player. Is that too hard for a loner to take in....or is the lack of anything interesting to do any more with Olive Oil getting to you?:)
Alan, you will not get arci to respond to your win last evening because first of all, it's too much money for him to comprehend (except on medical bills :)) and next, because he doesn't want to believe it keeps happening to you over and over again, when his books and the Internet claims it's just not the right way.
BTW, all Grocho did was repeat what Paymar wrote years ago, then re-published it a dozen times. I used Paymar as a standard bearer when I discovered the math books only talked theory but in reality, at the casinos, it does not work. Thank God I had the ability to think for myself after that fiasco.
The math that the casinos use is called probability theory and odds. The APer uses exactly the same math. Hence, they are identical. Only a complete doofus would claim the exact same math works differently for casinos than it does for players. Of course, Singer has proven many times he is incompetent in all phases of math. His claims are hilariously funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Yup, I was right! Our "tested genius" ducked the issue again. And I was right on the money AGAIN when expecting to get under his skin with a little more of that greasy "olive oil" :)
Here's the final hint: it's the same math, but it cannot and does not work the same way for both at the same time! Check it out on that slide rule of yours....
It doesn't work at the same time. APers don't play the negative games that the casinos put out there to make there profits. Only a complete doofus would think APers are playing negative games. APers play positive games only. The only reason casinos have put in positive games is the vast number of players still lose money due to poor play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
This poor play the casinos factor in using theo which is based on the average player. APers get around this because they use expert play. Once again we can see that Singer is a complete doofus and doesn't even understand the most simple concepts of casino play.
This is all based on simple arithmetic. The fact Singer is completely unable to do simple math tells us everything we need to know.
Arc, you are the "master twister" of all statements and logic. If you care to look back what you will see is that last night, and on my quickie trip to Vegas over Memorial weekend when I was at Caesars for all of about six hours, I kept raising my stop loss as the winners kept coming, and I also did this when I hit my two $20,000 royals this year.
I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to believe but you should because it is based on all machines being random:
All machines provide winners and losers. The trick for each individual player is to recognize when to stay at the machine to either win more and lose more, which is what win/loss goals accomplish.
Since no one can tell what the next hand will give you from an RNG you have to decide about playing that next hand based on the money you have won or lost and what your tolerance is for more losses. It does not challenge any math. It is not pixie dust. It is not magic. It is a decision that each player makes.
If I were playing 25-cent video poker, win and loss goals would be of no consequence to me and like you my only limiting factor would be fatigue or hunger or restroom breaks. But when I'm betting $10 or $25 on a push of the button win/loss goals become mandatory.
Arc, take your gambling budget next time and instead of playing your $1 One Eyed Jacks game, go play a $5 game of your choice and then tell me if your "AP mantra" still applies?
And please don't come back telling me that I am playing "over my budget" at $5 because I could be playing $25 a hand but $5 VP is a level that gives me the most enjoyment as a recreational player.
I sure do wish that Bob Dancer would for once write about winning at one of those positive games and positive promotions. All he has written about, it seems, are how much money he has lost chasing the positive plays for winning cars and for gift cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I would like to believe Arc that when you are playing a positive game its like having your own personal ATM to withdraw the casino's cash from. But it is not like that at all. Even Bob Dancer loses at positive games and positive promotions. Gosh, if the king of video poker knowledge loses, what chance does a poor schmuck like me have? And Arc, when you tell me that you win perhaps one out of three sessions, what chance does a poor schmuck like me have?
Well, I'll tell you my current position: I won enough from the Memorial Day quickie to Caesars to have three losing sessions of $1,000 each (my stop loss at $2), and I won enough last night to have eight more losing sessions of $1,000 each. That's 11 more sessions. Do you think I might turn a profit on at least one of those if I don't go crazy and lose more than I budget for?
Alan, all arci can come back with is "Dancer wins oodles of these, only he sells enough of his vp-wares so he need not mention them at this time". But we all saw and can deduce what has really been going on, now that Dancer was forced to humiliate himself publicly, somehow, into submitting an obfuscation of the facts about his derailed personal life to his readers. Arci can relate.
Rob, I became disillusioned with professional tournament poker players a few years ago when I met so many of them asking others to help them buy in to qualifiers for larger tournaments because they couldn't come up with the $50 for these satellites and they certainly didn't have the $550 and up to buy the actual tournament seat. And then I met the guys who made final tables at the WSOP but live in their cars at the big casinos here in LA and hope to scratch up enough money to get a nearby hotel room... and they need those casino comps to get a meal.
I am also becoming disillusioned with all of the claims of "video poker winners" because it seems their claims are all dependent on 25-cent games at the Palms and frankly I can't live on 6 or 8 or 12 dollars an hour.
I will never quit my day job to be an "advantage play" gambler. I promise you.
Alan, you hang around long enough, and you can eventually get to the bottom of every advantage player claim out there. My book publisher's office manager in LV had always said she was a professional poker player--and maybe she was--yet the Burger King bags inside her collection of junk cars told me even more. And her boyfriend, now there's an AP that beats all odds. He claimed to be a successful mini-baccarat player who said he and his group had an edge at it whenever they played. But of course he went broke, lost his mind, and had a sex change just to complete the job.
In my years of playing and training, I ran into so many "vp AP's" who were disillusioned by the concept, and I still do. My AP story is basically their AP story. You just don't sit at fpdw or any other "+EV" games for 5 hours or more a day with whatever cash back and comps, and not expect to see your bank account dwindle the more you play. The reason we hear so much about these people being "winners" is because that's what theory claims and that's what the authors sell in order to have a gaming bankroll. These other mosquitos like arci who latch on to this mythical adventure, only do so because that's the way they always thought it should be, and there's a virtual life inside there waiting for them, somewhere. Take it from me Alan, a highly educated/highly experienced intelligent vp player who's also always had the most favorable support system in place in the form of a loving family. It doesn't work. It sounds like it does when you read the books and on-line lies about it. But it just doesn't work. Or, you could listen to the plethora of failed and famous "AP's" who either had to leave LV for their own financial good--or stayed and ended up like Dancer or even that character Frank. IT DOESN'T WORK!
So little time, so many lies. The only failed VP advantage player I know is Rob Singer. Of course he fantasizes about all the other players failing because his narcissistic personality has to believe he is superior. That is why he has always hated successful players like Dancer, Scott, myself, etc.
PS. Successful APers don't play quarter FPDW. Only a complete doofus would believe that was the road to success. From this projection we now know this was the road Singer took, No wonder he went bankrupt.
So far Arc, the "advantage players" of the world have some very poor public examples.
There's a joke that makes the rounds at poker tables that goes like this:
"How do you get a professional poker player to leave your house? Pay him for the pizza delivery."
If there are advantage players who have a good living from their AP play at casinos then God bless them and good for them.
Alan, you should correct that to "If there are advantage players who have a good living from their VIDEO POKER play TODAY, then God bless them and good for them." Twenty years ago, people could make a decent living playing video poker. But you know that, having interacted with Frank.
The phrase "Advantage Player," despite Rob's improper usage, does not refer exclusively or even primarily to video poker players. It's the skewed expertise on this forum that makes it seem this way. If all someone knows is video poker, then -- on this forum -- all "advantage play" involves video poker. That is not correct.
So please try to get the definitions right. "Advantage Play" does not refer exclusively to video poker. An "advantage player" does not exclusively play video poker.
And then I met the guys who made final tables at the WSOP but live in their cars at the big casinos here in LA. At least they're not homeless.
redietz, I can't include Frank anymore in the ranks of "advantage players" because he really didn't play. He was an employee and a paid adminstrator who sometimes played on a team. But because in fourteen years of playing that he did not bet his own money and was betting only the money put up by "investors" in teams I can't include him as an "advantage player."
On the other hand, because he played video poker with other people's money, and never risked any of his own, and was paid based on success only and never feared a financial loss when he lost, you might call him the "ultimate advantage player"!!
Even I am an "advantage player" of sorts. I will take advantage of free play, and comps, and cash offers, and bonuses. Everyone who joins a players club at a casino is an advantage player to some degree.
Of course what we'd all like to see is someone who makes a "real living" from advantage play exclusively. Do you know anyone like that today?
Alan, you don't even know most of the VP APers. Their goal is to remain off the radar. I've never worried about it because I was always a low roller. Dancer/Scott and a few others decided to create a name to make money in other forms. Of course, they did not use their real names.
People who win don't want to be king of the frat or make the six o'clock news. They are not going to tell you they win, so you're not going to be able to identify them. The fact Rob shows disdain for how people dress, what they drive, or what they eat (Leno likes In-and-Out Burger) is really quite funny. In this business, the more you think you see, the less you actually know.
Which is why I'd be very suspect of Mr. Dancers claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Very true Red and Qua. When I recently won that Pick 6, I called the manager and arranged to pick up a check in her office without any fanfare etc.. All the mooches at the OTB need to think I am a loser because I am also an easy touch when they are "borrowing" (I use the term loosely cause they never pay me back). So I never cheer for winners or give any public display of the amounts that I am betting or the amounts of wins (or losses).
Not me. When I hit a royal I dance on the display tops of the machines and use the row of machines as a stage and sing Hallelujah and sound as loud as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir which is a pretty good trick inside a casino!
We need video proof!!!
Next time I hit a royal, you will see it here. I'll put on a show with a dance more fantastic than what Gene Kelly did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ZYhVpdXbQ
And with that sound more dramatic than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4BWhvIlFVE
"Singing in the Rain" is a great, great movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well, here it is... about as much proof as I could give you without getting cited for disorderly conduct, or just being called "drunk"....Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNWPlmIqWA
I sent a follow-up question to John about recreational players. Specifically I asked this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Is there any fear that even on a game you have an edge at that you might run into a string of bad luck which could offset your "edge" and take away your profits? Do you not protect any of your profits even if you have an edge at the game?
And this is the response I received:
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 $500 more.
One advantage casinos have even over players who have an edge on the game is that the casino has more money than you do. They can withstand longer losing streaks than you can. So yes, unless players have very deep pockets, locking up some winnings is a smart way to go.
Best,
John
And before Arci says again that it doesn't change the expected return, no one is saying that it does. What it does is lock in an actual return, which I value much more than a theoretical return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Is there going to be a Super Bowl prop bet in 2014 with the over/under on the number of times Arc will bring up "expected return" when the rest of us are discussing "actual return"??Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Actual return approaches expected return over time. Sorry that some of you can't understand simple math. The actual return varies each and every session.
BTW, the whole thing about having a sufficient bankroll is to handle losing streaks. John's comment about locking up profits is somewhat mystifying after he already made the point about bankroll. Either you have it or you don't. If you have a sufficient bankroll and are playing with an advantage then worrying about your current sessions result is of little value.
Okay Arc, I am all ears for this one. Please explain in detail how and why actual return approaches expected return over time. I really want to see this.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Alan, it all has to do with randomness. Over time we will all see a random distribution of every card in every position of the dealt/drawn cards. What this means is we will see specific frequencies of one pair, 2-pair, four for a straight, etc. In addition, we will see a certain frequency of hits. That leads to seeing things like RFs every 40,000 (or so) hands, quads every 420 (or so) hands, etc. Finally, the payback on those results determines how well we do relative to amount of money invested.
In order to do better than the expected return one has to get a higher frequency of good paying results (actual return). But there is nothing that makes an RNG produce better than average frequencies of cards. It can do both better or worse than the average frequency over short time spans. This is called variance. However, over time those highs and lows tend to average out and you end up very close to the random values.
There is nothing you can do to make an RNG generate a higher frequency of the card arrangements that produce better results. If there was then the machines would not be random. It's that simple.
And this applies to every game based on randomness. It applies to craps, blackjack, slots, etc. This is the exact math that casinos use to make a profit. Life for a gambler really is one long session.
And don't try to use Singer's silly argument that somehow this all breaks down when playing short sessions. You are just as likely to get results below the expected frequencies in the short term as you are to get better results.
Are the results of randomness changed based on what cards you hold and/or disgard? If you get three aces, for example, would that change how many aces you can get on the next draw? Obviously yes. So would that change the cards or patterns of the cards over time? I think yes. We are still dealing with randomness in the distribution but on the draw the number of certain types of cards would change, meaning fewer of "this card" and more of "those cards." Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
What people have been telling you ad nauseum, Alan, is that if you are sufficiently bankrolled, as I am for what I play, there is no reason to stop if you have an edge. It isn't brain surgery.
You are so hung up on this, and you have put your nose in the air at using a 200K bankroll to play 25-cent video poker (and other things), that I have to ask the simple question, which I guess hasn't been asked, "What exactly is your 'bankroll' for a video poker session?"
See, if you tell us, then we can evaluate if you are playing beyond your means for that session.
Personally, I think playing any game you know is negative is wrong, but at least your risk of ruin can be calculated for your likely session length.
By the way, pocketing money when you don't have enough to play for any length of time kind of sidesteps the issue. If your risk of ruin is really high for a session, then you're not lugging enough money to the table.
Right you are. The distributions of individual cards are always based on the available cards. On the draw the discards are not available which would change the distribution slightly. Of course, each game is different and the changes for games like deuces and bonus games would reflect that difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankScoblete
This is all factored into the expected return of the game. For example, if you always pressed draw without holding any cards the actual distribution of every card would be the same. However, the frequency of the various winning results would drop significantly. Same would hold if you held every card in each hand. In this case we know the RF distribution would be ~650K hands. This is why the expected return of those kind of strategies would be horrible.
However, the main point still stands. You can't make a machine give you non-random distributions (of the available cards).
Arcimedes, this is what I asked you:
And you responded with this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You did not (repeat: did not) answer this: Please explain in detail how and why actual return approaches expected return over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
And to save everyone more of your side-tracking, actual return will approach expected return over time only if a player never makes a conscience decision of when to stop playing. In other words, over the long term your actual return will be the expected return if you sit at a machine and decide never to quit when ahead... or quit when you are way behind.
I think you could not say it because you cannot understand the concept. The math of long term play blinds you to the idea of pocketing wins and leaving.
If like you, redietz, and there was a positive game at 25-cents I would play it also and my bankroll would allow me to sit and play indefinitely without regard for being bankrupted by a cold cycle. But alas, there is no positive paytable available at a 25-cent game where I play.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I am also a recreational player and my time in a casino is limited, so I go for the fun and the thrill of playing. Sitting at a 25-cent machine to win eight dollars an hour is neither fun nor exciting for me... it's not the way I would spend my two or three or even four hours playing video poker.
Generally, my bankroll is $1500 but it has also been as little as $500 and I start on a $2 game.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Perhaps for you "professionals" such calculations are necessary. But for a recreational player such as myself the calculation is quite simple. I decide in advance what percentage of my session bankroll (max is $1500) I am willing to lose, and since I use a system of "rising stop losses" I leave when I am happy with the money I've won.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Lug enough money to the table? When I go to a casino the idea is to bring as little money as possible and to leave with as much money as possible. Since I have a loss limit I have a "zero risk of ruin" (not your term, but "real people" will understand what I am saying).Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
And that is what you got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well, you may not have understood what I said, but that is not the same as me not answering. How much effort did you put into understanding what I told you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Think about what you are saying. You are saying you can fool the machines into giving you a non-random distribution of cards. Really, that is exactly what you just said. I realize you didn't mean to say that, but that is because you don't understand the basics of what randomness means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The math is the math. It isn't "math of long term play". It is the math of random events. It doesn't change when you leave a casino and return another time. It affects each and every hand which is why your results approach the statistical average over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Let's look at some other examples. Say you are driving and encounter 12 traffic lights. Each traffic light holds the same amount in each direction and are not synchronized. When you drive through these lights you would expect to make 6 light and stop for 6 lights. What you are claiming is ... if you made 4 lights out of the first 6 on one trip you could change drivers and somehow you personally will not see an average of making 50% in the future and you can continue to do this forever.
Were you somehow destined to miss 4 of the next 6 lights if you hadn't stopped? How does switching drivers affect your next trip? Couldn't you miss 4 out of the first 6 lights on that trip? Same holds true if you switch drivers after missing 4 lights in a row. How could that affect your next trip? Think about it, Alan.
OMG. I'm fooling the machines? Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
As I expected. You don't want to understand. Why did you ask for an explanation if you don't want to know the answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
We have a communications problem. You're too smart for me. I have no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$