Printable View
On a 3 way game, my friend was dealt trips 38 times and failed to get one quad. This was in a period of about 2 hours. I thought the amount of trips seemed extremely high, and the number of quads obviously too low.
Curious as to the (afraid to say it) math.
Edit---
He did get one quad holding a pair of tens during that time.
Odds of turning 3 of a kind into quads is 1/24.
Your friend had 38 X 3 = 114 chances and in a perfect world he should have had quads 4.75 times.
Personally, I don't think that's too far off.
That part I get and, while frustrating to a player, doesn't seem that extreme to me either. But what about the number of trips dealt? That seemed like a lot. He had so few straight and flush draws--but lots of house draws and the trips. unfortunately, couldn't fill a house either. One of those days---glad I was just kibitzing and not playing with him.
On the flip side he should be happy he got so many dealt trips on a multi handed machine.
Reports such as this is what got me going on testing the fifth card flipover anomaly. At first, to several e-mailers I kept saying it was only gambler's perception and/or what they were claiming wasn't THAT unusual in the short term. However, after the reports kept rolling in, I did something. Few want to believe the machines are not 100% random, and none of the doubting thomases will ever even do a study for a few thousand hands on a machine. No reason to shake the foundation of their belief system with the stark truth.
Rob this wasn't out of the ordinary. Period.
Trips are dealt about once in every 45 hands including dealt FHs. Hence, 38 trips would take around 1710 hands. This would be 855 hands/hour. Nothing extreme and even at only 600 hands/hour would not be too far from normal.
I did. It's called losing my A**. These 3 card hands are perfectly placed to keep you going, too. And all the signs of a cold cycle usually show up during these kind of sessions and I'm finally comfortable getting up and going to another machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Rob-it is this type of hand that feeds the non-random believers. I wish you could show us some actual proof.
Arci--he plays slow and of course a 3-way takes longer to deal and draw. So I figure him at more like 400 hands per hour and that is a little high on the trips then.
Just the eyeball test you felt like it was a lot more trips than normal.
Just the same as what people thought they were seeing with the fifth card flipover, only since my testing proved to me at least that their suspicions were right, if everything (even those not really out of the normal like this one) players reported were looked into, I have no doubt more people would finally believe and know as I do--that the machines are close to 100% random, but that's as far as it goes.
Huh??? Why does it take longer? You are dealt one hand, and you make your selection which applies to the others. What takes so long?Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
If you told me it was a 100-play game, and you set the speed on the slowest mode, then yes, you'd have to wait a few seconds for each hand to reveal itself. But three hands? How long could three hands take?
Rob, it really comes down to this: how do you know if machines are "close to 100% random" or "random" or "not random"?? How do you tell?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan-I've never timed it. But logically it has to deal 3 hands rather than one, and then you look at 3 rather than one before you spin again. It's only seconds but seconds would be another hand on a 1 way. But again, the eyeball test we knew he was getting more trips than is normal. I'm not saying it's not random, but it is days like that that one wonders. We will never know for sure if they are random or not, but it would be 1 big conspiracy to have lasted this long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You don't look at three hands. What is dealt on the bottom line is the same on all 3, 5, 10 or 50 or 100 hands. You look at one hand.
The only speed control is if you set the machine to slow, medium or fast for revealing the draws after you make your choice.
Or... are you playing a machine I don't play???
I know they are "not random"....but not how FAR from random, because I took the time to test 45000 hands at machines in the South Point, and I made the investment to test and record results from over a billion hands played on a real machine at home for 3 months. It is clear to me. Even if I took time out from a fabulous retirement to go to southern Az. to get the papers printed out from that testing, you still would not want to believe it, probably erroneously saying "but that's only data from ONE actual machine, and that's not good enuf for me because it could be a bad machine in a sea of good machines"....which is laughable at best because you already don't ever want to know the machines you play so compulsively are nothing short of totally random.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've done way more work on this subject than anyone else would ever even think of doing. I've convinced myself, and I leave it to anyone else interested to make their own determinations. There's a discussion going on at vpFree right now about the merits of the Revel promotion. I have a friend "AP" from LV who went there, with my help, to play in it. He returned after we came up with a $7800 stop win goal (he won $8300), but was prepared to pay my sister in Phila. a nominal fee + heating expenses, to stay in their guest house out back from Aug. 1st thru early Dec. so he could take advantage of the 20 week rebate if he lost $100k or less. That discussion relates to what's common sense and what's not, and in a first, Bob Dancer is the only poster who supports what I've said--which is both fact-based and common sense based. Same as the random issue. I have both facts and sensibility on my side. You have "hope nots" and "government says so's". So which makes more "sense"
Tell me Rob: how did you "test 45,000 hands" at the South Point? What method did you use? Did you test the RNGs or was this based only on observation? And I am curious, how many royals did you have within those 45,000 hands? LOL
Singer was proved wrong on the 5th card flip-overs just like everything else. I see he's still claiming he has the papers he promised last year but never provided. Bwah haha haha haha
And now the games are "almost "random. Talk about silly nonsense. There is no such thing. Singer has just outdone his most idiotic claims. Is there no limit to his stupidity?
Arc you were okay until you mentioned "stupidity" and that doesn't help the conversation.
If you had to meet regulations, and pay out your specified percentage, yet collect your specified take-how would you do it other than "simulated randomness"? It's legal and fullfills all requirements. We never question that the mega jackpots have to build up enough to pay out the jackpots.
You still don't understand this yet, slingshot. Payout percentages are not managed by "fixing" the machines. In the case of slots, the payout percentages are based on the number of possible winning combinations on the virtual reels of a slot. And in the case of video poker, the payout percentages are based on the theoretical pay table. In reality (and I am sure Rob will agree) over the life of a machine NO machine might ever hit is theoretical payout.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
To put it another way -- there is no "switch" or "trigger" that says "this machine will pay" or "this machine will not pay" to meet some required payout.
slingshot, you somehow think that machines must meet some payout requirement? Well, in theory they must but they might not. This is why -- and again Rob will agree -- that you can have winning sessions on a negative paytable video poker game.
Let me sum it up another way: the machines are random and they are not rigged. And for Rob's benefit-- you can't be a little bit not random. That's like saying a woman is just a little bit pregnant.
Just the facts. When someone tries to pass themselves off as an expert and then demonstrates this level of incompetence there are really no words sufficient to describe them. I was actually being nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well, it wasn't nice.
I will say this: five years ago when I was playing all the time,they sure felt random. Which makes it all the easier to notice the difference now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So tell me slingshot what does a random feeling feel like? What was that feeling five years ago which is different from the feeling you get now when you play? Is there a particular tingle in your left leg when a machine is random? Or do you get a tingle in your right arm when a machine is not random?
I remember the 1980s as being my best year for news stories. But was it really? I felt like I had the best time reporting news when I was at WTVJ but how do I compare it to working at KCAL?
Saying the machines "felt" random then and not now is based on what?
Let's be scientific: did you actually test an RNG five years ago? Or are you just going by your memory? Memory of what -- lucky draws? Maybe you had more royals five years ago?
I don't want to be overly critical, but personal observations whether they be about machine randomness or fifth card flipovers or converting flushes to royals are all subject to personal biases.
I played nickels and maybe pennies for the sole purpose of tracking the fifth card flipover percentage. No royals, but the flipover % was well above double what the math says in a totally random scenario. This was all explained in one of my most popular articles ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No one ever proved my findings wrong. The hack administrator from videopoker.com sat with me for several hundred hands at the M where the % was right on target, which meant nothing....except to arci, who now wants to claim several hundred hands will give a more reliable result than 45000, or one billion! Just the facts please arci, just the facts. And leave out the lies this time.
Alan, Don't be concerned that arci still hasn't learned how to control his namecalling. We never know if and when those machines in his house start reading bad numbers, or if the chair gets a flat. Such catastrophes actually do produce more irritability than normal living :)
Sorry, Rob, but 45,000 hands proves nothing.
In fact, the only thing that will ever prove your allegations is an examination of the chip and the programming. The rest of this is just "talk." And no one has to prove your findings wrong -- you have to prove your findings "right."
As I've said before -- your biggest mistake was returning that video poker machine that you tested and claimed to prove your fifth card flipover conspiracy. You gave away the proof.
A famous historical scientist took heavy and light objects atop the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped them at exactly the same time. Despite observers SEEING them hit the ground at the exact same time, THEY WOULDN'T BELIEVE. Times haven't changed.
As a follow up to the original post in this thread, my friend returned to the same casino today and tho he didn't count the trips, failed to get any quads on trips again. I was not there with him today. Then he tells me that the guy next to him playing a 5-way complained to him that he was 0 for 83 on trips. Since 83 is not dividible by 5, I assume that is 0 for 415 (5-way game) which I would find to be troublesome.
Really? If I see it I am supposed to believe it? So am I to believe that because I failed to draw the royal card when I have four to the royal that the machine I am on lacks all 52 cards in its virtual deck?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Sling, good buddy, where do you get this stuff?
All I'm saying is the proof's in the playing in an actual casino. Every thing Rob's described I've experienced. I'm not as much of a player anymore-as for as time and visits- because I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced it in my playing. I'm just trying to add my experiences, but I guess you guys weren't as hooked on vp as I was. It stirred up a bit of anger within me that times changed and skill no longer matters as much as luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Absolutely wrong. What anyone sees in a casino from their own personal play means nothing. As Sgt. Schultz would say. "Nothing."Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
I said this to Rob and I'm saying it to you: If you want to prove the machines are not random get the RNG out of the machine and test the RNG. (And Rob, when you have the proof... don't give the machine back.)
Not so true Alan. Get enough hands in any test and you'll have something close to "proof". I happened to do my testing at the SP to prove this out to MYSELF. It was "only" 45000 hands, which is why I pulled out all the stops...legal, financial, & a little bit illegal, to get a machine for 3 months----and it had to go back because I wasn't supposed to have it. I spent a year trying to get my results publicized, but no one including WoV and an inside track at the NGC wanted any part of it. Then I retired. That's why everything went into storage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And now I say let those who wanna listen hear, and those who wanna go on the other way fill the machines. I don't think anything is gonna change on this forum as far as individual "fixed" beliefs. I see the frequent cold cycles and the not so frequent hot cycles and that's all that matters to me. I only persisted because I enjoyed picking up a tidbit from Rob every now and then-that and finding out that vp is so much more than numbers and charts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Rob, you have never presented any proof. Show me your proof and I will publish it on the website for the whole world to see. But make sure it's "proof."
Close to proof? No. We all want to see the proof. This is not like being a little bit pregnant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan / Rob,
What are you referring to when you mention "fifth card flipover %"?
The so-called "5th card" is the 5th dealt card when dealt two pair, four to a flush or straight or Royal or SF. Many many people were bringing to my attention that when they held 4 cards, so often the draw produced the same card/different suit from what was discarded. After exhausting and somewhat expensive and risky research, I concluded that while the normal "flipover" to the same value card was mathematically around 6% of the time, on the machines I've tested for over a billion hands, the rate is double that at a minimum. I've never put in the additional time and expense to truly determine if this is detrimental or even favorable (in the case of royals & SF's) to the player.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
Alan, exactly how can anyone present proof to anyone else of a multi-visit 45000 hand trial at a casino unless they go together? And the reason I said "close to proof" is because that many hands, to me, only gave me direction to do a much more thorough study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You've already said you don't consider a billion hand test on a single machine as proof that anything's out of whack. Are you like Obama--do you need to be smacked upside the head with TRILLIONS of hands before it finally gets thru? So please tell me exactly what will you need to do a story on it?
So is this 5th card flipover "fix" or "gaff" just on the machine you tested, or do you think it applies to all VP machines? If it applies to all (or a majority) of VP machines, how did you manage to overcome this and win $1 million?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I believe it's something that may be encoded into every IGT machine--legally of course. The reason is because of the machine I had for testing of course, and when I played those 45000 hands at the South Point I did so on a variety of machines. As far as me seemingly overcoming this as I consistently won (and as you may see from my posted pictures here, still do) thru the years, remember I said that I have not determined if this programming helps or hurts the player....but why would a manufacturer do anything that helps people win.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
To me this really makes near perfect sense. In my corporate America days I've had numerous software engineers, ie, programmers, work for me and they are a quirky bunch. For the most part they're loners who do amazing work, but spend an overabundance of time doing their own little private things in their own little corners. Once a job was finished they used to tell us to "look for their signature" which even in DoD work showed up in the bowels of the job but only when you looked for it. Like an artist painting in his or her own little secret within their masterpiece. The same seems true with the machine programmers. And I like to think that the few royals I've received over the years by throwing the fifth card out from the dealt straight, was in fact due to the work of one of these silent geeks.
Finally, Rob has said something that is both reasonable and something which would actually permit a test of his theory and allegations that video poker games are not truly random. In his discussion about fifth card flipovers above he wrote:
Well, Rob, if it's encoded then the test and the proof would be in the examination of the RNG and you don't have the RNG. You tested it and then you returned the machine. That was your blunder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Now, if you really believe that this is something that is encoded then why don't you (now that you are a Nevada resident) go to any of the various slot machine stores in Nevada and buy yourself another VP machine and test the RNG. Don't test 45-thousand hands -- but examine the RNG.
I've been telling you this for a couple of years now. Your play in a casino, your records and print outs of hands, mean nothing. The proof would be showing how an RNG is programmed.
Now, I am not an expert on RNGs or video poker electronics. So tell me this: is there a reason why you can't buy a VP machine, remove the RNG and have it tested??
OH-I see a new name already-WHACKERDOODLE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan, it was proven at the time Singer made these claims that he was lying. He was challenged to prove it in person by webman at vp.com. They had a meet and ran a test. The machines did the 5th card flip-over precisely at the value predicted by randomness. In addition, a magazine reporter asked people to try it themselves and send in results to get a bigger sample. Same result.
The fact is we get dealt 4 held cards quite often. You can test it yourself anytime you are playing. Just keep records of the total number and the number of times the 5th card is the same rank on the draw. It should happen 3/47 times. I got a good laugh back when Singer made this silly claim the first time. I have no idea why you don't just mock him for bringing it up again.
I've had other conspiracy theorists tell me that after the failed 5th card, the first card on the next hand is always the card that was needed on the prior hand. Anyone think that is going on? I never really noticed.
Lots of reports on that also, so I checked it out and there was really nothing out of spec. We just remember the mockings more.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Not only does it happen on video poker... but it also happens in "live poker." It's not in the programming of the RNG. It's not a conspiracy. It happens and our minds make a "connection" when it does happen and we create beliefs and superstitions because of these random events.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
In live poker, a player who loses with pocket queens in one hand, will see a queen flop on the next hand and say "my queen came one hand too late."
Regnis, do you also believe a change of the stick man causes a seven out in craps?
Rob Singer: you might have had the discovery of a lifetime... but you gave the machine back and now there is no way to prove it. I told you how to prove it: find another machine and have the chip examined. Otherwise we're just going to hear the same thing about having a "head examined."
First, it was no blunder. I wasn't supposed to have that machine and it was best to return it by the date agreed upon and paid for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Why don't I buy a machine now? While our RV is BIG....it's not THAT big. It took us four or five passes to give away and throw away enough accumulated "stuff" from our house and apartment so as to be able to comfortably live on the road. I'd have to get rid of a person in order to fit a vp machine inside. But I'm no AP--I don't cause sick people to become sicker, and I don't throw them out or cast them off to nursing homes or hospices. I also don't care that much about this subject. I'd rather ride my bicycle all afternoon or go for my daily 3 mile walk.
This....from a tested genius. :) I see now how a few hundred hands of vp illustrates the long term. While I understand there are days in any care facility that can be significantly trying and life-sapping, it's not supposed to make a hypocrite out of a fact-driven nerd.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Care to try again in order to save family-face?:)
I'm not going to comment about your inappropriate comments, but I will say this: you will never be able to prove your allegations about fifth card flipovers or non random machines without an actual examination of the electronics of a machine. Sorry, but all of your logs are meaningless and in a courtroom would not be valid evidence and at best would be hearsay. The proof is in the chips, and you don't have any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I've played craps for 50 years, and it does seem like any of the superstitious things (new dealer, off the table, cocktail waitress, etc.) cause the 7-out, but I assume it's like you said in thread 45. In all those years, I only called my bets off once--when I was heavily loaded up and the dice went off the table. I had a $500 4 and $100 hard 4. Dice went off the table, I called my bets off, and the guy rolled hard 4 hard 4 and I wanted to kill myself. Otherwise, I've never done it except for one thing that I do 100% of the time. Where a guy is having a good roll and the wife or girlfriend comes wandering over to the table to bother him about dinner or needing some $$, I am off every time and it has been a huge positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes, when this happens calling off your bets because you fear a 7 will show will be the right thing to do one out of 7 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Anyone can test this themselves. It's takes very little time and you can get 100s of opportunities in a single session. That's why people mock Singer. They did the work and found the numbers to be perfectly normal. Singer already looked like a complete idiot pushing this lie the first time. I can only laugh at the stupidity of making himself look like a fool yet again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Yeah-the articles on hot and cold cycles are much more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Hot and cold cycles are a normal result of randomness. If they didn't exist the machines would NOT be random. Of course, there is no way to predict any aspect of the cycles. Some will be short, some will be long ... trying to predict them is like searching for unicorns.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Thus the reason for win goalsQuote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Perhaps loss limits are even more important than win goals. I like adjustable win goals that will take advantage of "getting lucky hot streaks" but if you lose too much money at one time you might never be able to return to the casino to hit a hot streak in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
slingshot,Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
You seem to be a big believer in win goals, loss limits, and Rob Singer's various strategies. Have you used them to win $1 million as well?
That's a loaded question. I don't know many VP players with a $173, 000 bankroll for video poker which I think is a prerequisite for winning a million dollars.
OK then, let's rephrase the question. How much money are you (slingshot or Alan) ahead overall by using win goals, loss limits and Rob Singer's strategies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well I don't use Rob's strategies so I will have to pass on responding.
Well, as my highest denom is only 25 cents-only a couple of hundred dollars. I would be ahead a couple of thousand if I had disciplined myself to leave when ahead. That's why I'm so adamant about it-leaving is the hardest lesson to learn and it's been my worst feat to conquer. So all I can relay is that HAD I QUIT when playing, I would be ahead a calculated $5000. There were two times I hit a Royal within 30 minutes and COULDN'T WALK. I have experienced what happens when you don't listen. I am a compulsive gambler trying to turn this thing around and the couple of hundred dollars may not seem like much to anyone-but it's a great feat for where I was headed. A couple of weeks ago, I hit 4 A's w/kicker on tdbp and ended up playing $500 of it back. Sad. So if you won't listen to a winner, listen to a loserQuote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
I don't think that's so bad. You pocketed half of the big win (the equivalent of the royal) and played through half trying to win more. I wouldn't beat myself up over that. I would have done the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
slingshot,Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Putting all of the name calling, sarcasm and bluster aside, I'd like to offer the following advice. If you are indeed a compulsive gambler as you've stated, do yourself and everyone else in your life that you care about a favor- seek help and stop gambling altogether.
Video poker played like Rob Singer. arcimede$ or Alan will not solve your problems. These guys are all sufficiently bankrolled. Everyone here would be millionaires if we all "knew when to quit" or "quit while we were ahead" during our gambling sessions.
A valid point and thanks for the concern. I was a reject on my football team-the players made fun of me and even dragged me by the head between their legs in the gym. I overexerted myself during the buildup programs and the next year I was suddenly a force to be dealt with. I had a smoking problem and by sheer determination took care of that. I could go on, but after trying to DISPROVE Rob's strategy I found out I had a problem. And if it hadn't been for the 30 or more Royals over the past 5 years.....well, let's just say someone's been watching over me. Therein lies the crux of the matter. I never lost enough to say that's it. But Rob brought the inevitable fact to the forefront and when I saw the truth I changed many things. It's not a 3 times a week thing anymore, for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
I disagree. It becomes HABIT after a while. A saner version is to take $100 and try short bursts of play on my favorite games-and with-yes-a win goal. And if you CAN leave after losing that-maybe a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Maybe the better question is how much more they would have lost without those win goals and loss limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
Do you try to make illogical claims or does it just come naturally?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
I'd like to flip this around a bit:
Let me change the question to this: Can you tell me how much you are ahead overall by not using Rob Singer's strategies? I don't think you can quantify it, can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
Personally, I don't use his strategies whether they be special plays or ARTT or SRTT or Super Duper RATTATAT but I do use win goals and loss limits. The play strategy I use is what is called "conventional" or the same as taught by Dancer and Grochowski. Grochowski's book was the first I bought. I've used all sorts of practice software.
I think it would be impossible for me to tell you if I would be better off or worse off had I used Singer's systems. And this is because I can't go back and repeat the play for each individual hand in the same sequence of hands, etc.
So I think the question is argumentative only.
I think Alan may be pulling our legs two ways.
First, he undoubtedly realizes that what he just said is fully applicable to win goals and stop losses. Would he have been better off or worse not using win goals and stop losses? We don't know, so championing win goals and stop losses is simply argumentative.
Second, Alan has been "getting the math" when it comes to stating that the 45,000 hands Rob played are proof of nothing, and perceptions of what's happened in your personal play are just, as courts would say, anecdotal evidence and also proof of nothing. Of course, we all know this same phrasing can be directly applied to win goals and loss limits. Personal histories with them are not much evidence of anything, and personal perceptions of what win goals/loss limits accomplished are not evidence that they work.
Since Arci may be on vacation, I felt obligated as "Arci's 'spamming' 25-cent sock puppet" to state the obvious. Cheers!
Arci on "vacation"? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It makes no sense to claim past results utilizing any particular method consistently is not evidence. First, I agree 45000 hands is too small a sample to be certain of any anomaly or whatever. But it sure beats your "tested genius'" claim that a few hundred hands I played with the vp.com administrator is "proof" that I'm wrong. That's why I didn't give it up and went thru considerable trouble to get and test a billion+ hands on a new machine.
Next, these stop win/loss goals are a player's only chance to win overall & consistently. Just put your thinking cap on. When you win $500 or whatever amount of money from a machine, what does the casino want and/or expect every gambler who wins do? YES. You got it! THEY WANT YOU TO KEEP PLAYING! And why would that be....so you could beat the odds AGAIN when not playing one of my strategies and win even more of their money (which as every vp player knows, overwhelmingly does not happen)? Of course not...and you know why. So please wise up.
Rob,Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
On another post I asked the following question but didn't get a response from you.
I too would like to win $1 million dollars, but I don't want to do it over 10 years. I want to do it within 1 year. I would have the same bankroll as you had and play as you instruct. Since I don't want to fly back to Canada after every $2500 win, I would fly out once a month for 10 months. My goal is to win 40 X $2500 each time I'm out. After each $2500 goal, I'll take a break and start over.
Is this possible?
First, it's not a $2500 win each and every time. That's the all-important stop-win goal that in most of my wins, was surpassed by at least a thousand dollars and at other times, much more than that. There are also losing sessions to consider--around 15% of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie
But now to the question you're asking: yes, of course. If you prepare for, approach, and play my SPS strategy EXACTLY as I've developed & played it, I have very little doubt you would win somewhere around what I did after 40 sessions and there's a good probability you'd win more or even much more. I set my stop-playing goal at either $1million or the day I turned 60, and 60 won by $16,000.
If someone came to me and said & showed me they had the required $171,600 bankroll and desired to go after the machines with the same vigor & passion as I had done, I would spend a month of my time training them--and only for expenses. But as I've always done, I would also let the player know if I felt they just didn't have the playing aptitude to be playing vp for profit. And it's not always clear cut. For example, Frank Kneeland, with all that intellect, would never have been able to be successful with it. He smokes, he drinks, and he's extremely quirky and frankly, I have no idea how he'd play if he were playing with his own money. Neither would Jean Scott. Bob Dancer would. In other words, not many fit the mold. It takes a hugely capable multi-tasking & mathematically inclined mind with a life the player is at peace with to do this right.
Finally, you'd probably ask, why did I play for 10 years and no more than once a week to accomplish this? That's easy. My family always came first, and being that I spent the majority of my work life in other parts of the world away from them, my first goal when playing was to get home after one session ASAP, and since I always drove and am the type who loved to enjoy the win during that drive home & in-between trips, this type of set-up was as good as it gets for me. Others may have different circumstances but those were mine.
Not to mention keeping your mind fresh, clearing the smoke outta your lungs, etc.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer