I love this article: http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...eo-poker-65895 He points out you'd do better at a minimum wage job.
Printable View
I love this article: http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...eo-poker-65895 He points out you'd do better at a minimum wage job.
The storyline in that piece has been the case for more than the last 10 years. There was a heyday in the 80's and early 90's, back when 100%+ vp was available almost anywhere, often in dollar or more denominations, and video poker comps and cashback were identical to slot play. That heyday has been gone for awhile.
If you're going to play, however, why just give casinos money if you can play something positive? I don't see the point in giving a casino ten bucks an hour when you can take ten bucks an hour.
Frankly, I started playing a little vp because sports comps, which at one point were equivalent to race comps, started getting squeezed. I thought it was a good idea to try to pick off some meals and room offers by playing positive vp. Eventually, sports-wise, we wound up with today's situation, where race betting at Stations, for example, gets you 10 times what the sports betting gets you. Since nobody really wants to have their sports action formally tracked anyway, why bother giving them your card if you're not getting anything?
I have to ask if you read the article all the way through to the end. He says you'll earn sub-minimum wage if you play quarter full-pay deuces with no comps. But then he acknowledges that actual video poker pros play different games with higher monetary value including slot club rewards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yeah. I missed a royal last week because I held a lone A instead of a suited A 10 in ddbp. Something I once never did. The kicker? I've seen about 10 4-Royal since.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
WRONG WRONG WRONG! The time it would've taken you to hold the 10, three DIFFERENT cards would've appeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotYeah. I missed a royal last week because I held a lone A instead of a suited A 10 in ddbp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
My understanding is that the time taken to press the hold button on that 10 would have changed your draw anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
But I suppose it's just as likely that the suited J-Q-K would appear as any other 3 cards left in the deck,
no matter when you hit the deal button.
Sorry, guys. If I believed that nonsense about WHEN to play instead of WHAT to play- I wouldn't play. Reminds me of my first years of playing and a little lady was trying to get me to play a "hot"machine. Of course, everyone was ignoring her but I was new. I put in max coins and started to play but she hollered "Wait! Don't push the button until the lights turn green" (There were constant color changing lights on the carousel). Didn't take but a couple of hands till the green lights left(and me with them!)
Wait...you don't believe in the hot & cold cycles ?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
No, no one does. Absent those server controlled slots there is no way for a machine's "state' to change. And no owner or auditor is going to allow some brash young punk access to some secret switch that will change the machine's "temperature" when all his friends are there. What owner could sleep nights if the machines could be changed when he wasn't there?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWait...you don't believe in the hot & cold cycles ?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Unless you are slingshot's sock puppet, then why are you answering for him?Quote:
Originally Posted by FleaStiffNo, no one does. Absent those server controlled slots there is no way for a machine's "state' to change. And no owner or auditor is going to allow some brash young punk access to some secret switch that will change the machine's "temperature" when all his friends are there. What owner could sleep nights if the machines could be changed when he wasn't there?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
I don't know what you are talking about with secret switches, nor do I know what everyone believes or doesn't believe in.
And guess what?...neither do you.
I can't reason with people who change topics and try to make it relevant to the original topic. Of course, I knew this was gonna happen (I see how Rob has so much fun here), but I have to admit I was caught off guard when it was compared to hot/cold cycles.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWait...you don't believe in the hot & cold cycles ?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
Actually, after rereading it, I see you were comparing WHEN to push the play button to WHEN one should actually play a session. Oh wait! It's Trump's famous "What I meant to say was..." strategy.
I'm replying to what you wrote, that's not changing the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotI can't reason with people who change topics and try to make it relevant to the original topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWait...you don't believe in the hot & cold cycles ?Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
What did you mean by "nonsense about when to play" ? Do you believe that a certain time is better to play than another?
Isn't that what hot & cold cycles mean?
OK - you edited while I was replying.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
You believe that if you had kept the suited A-10, then you would have hit the royal because the suited J-Q-K were drawn.
You don't believe that the time that it would have taken to hold the 10 would have affected your draw, you think that's nonsense.
That's what you meant by "nonsense about when to play".
Not trying to be unreasonable here, just trying to understand, the way you wrote it was not clear to me.
Yes, no, yes, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyOK - you edited while I was replying.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
You believe that if you had kept the suited A-10, then you would have hit the royal because the suited J-Q-K were drawn.
You don't believe that the time that it would have taken to hold the 10 would have affected your draw, you think that's nonsense.
That's what you meant by "nonsense about when to play".
Not trying to be unreasonable here, just trying to understand, the way you wrote it was not clear to me.
As for the article--Gronch refers to these unknown "VP pros" because he's afraid of what the collection of commercialized VP writers would about him say had he not included this message.
His reference to those many 25c FPDW machines was only meant to appease the AP crowd as to not hurt their fluffy feelings. NO ONE makes any money on those things except the casinos, and the +1.5% results for the casino at Wynn from when I had them put in 25c/50c/$1 FPDW machines easily proves the point to me.
These mysterious "pros" who are supposedly "hammering" higher level VP machines into submission along with getting free beanies with propellers that are self-valued, of course are never identified, always canonized, and are left to "lurk on the streets of LV" as if some Divine Authority is protecting them. And it is, as everyone can see, nothing but extreme BS from beginning to end.
Rob, I can't really speak to the Wynn, but I was ahead close to 2K lifetime on the FPDW 25-cent progressives at the Palms. So either I'm "NO ONE" or you should tone down the bombastic rhetoric a bit (kudos to John McCain for my use of the word "bombastic"). There's no reason to make claims ("NO ONE makes any money on those things except the casinos") you have NO WAY of actually knowing or validating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I think I managed to get on the Wynn machines only once because teams were hogging them and had subs in place, and my brief 3-hour stint ended when some less-than-cover-worthy but well-dressed hookers approached me one after the other at about 3 AM. Kind of freaked me out. Expensive clothes but not at all beautiful. Interesting choice of girls to be headquartered at the Wynn. I wound up losing $80 or so, I think. I felt very much under observation while playing, so I left.
For those of you who live by the math: casino comps are always given at an amount less than the house's expected win. This insures the house to win.
Of course you can get lucky. But don't claim that because of comps you are beating the house. If you beat the house it's because you won at the game. It's got nothing to do with your room, show tickets, free play, cash back or even your loss rebate.
Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'll try, but I would have a better chance if you didn't link to articles contradicting your assertions:Quote:
Get over it.
Grochowski: "[Video poker pros] want higher returns, so they play games that pay more than 99 but less than 100 percent but are eligible for rewards programs. Then they zero in on multiple-points days and gain their advantage through cash back, free play, tournaments, contest entries and other perks."
If you believe that comps will make up for what you lose while playing please continue doing what you're doing.
Alan, I live by the math and you are misrepresenting me here. I'm not the one playing a negative game and chasing comp. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DOES THAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Mickey are you losing playing your positive games and then making up the loss with comps? I don't think so. And that was the point being made.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmAlan, I live by the math and you are misrepresenting me here. I'm not the one playing a negative game and chasing comp. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DOES THAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Grochowski writes about APs playing negative expectation games and then scoring on the casino comps.
Mickey, sometimes it's not about you.
And by the way, I know that casino comps are only worth of fraction of the house's edge on various games. I don't pretend that my comps exceed my losses. I also don't think that Seven Stars is actually worth being Seven Stars.
Finally, somebody said it....and I will clarify it.
The biggest HOAX as perpetrated by the self-described "AP" crowd--and fortified by any number of ap groupies--is that these people use tournaments, drawings, giveaways, and even a sunny day or two as props for their supposed crutch to go from 99.5% to 100.1%, thereby creating a "winner" out of thin air. And that's exactly why these imposter AP's from WoV show up here with nothing other than claims of wildly high "edges" while cloaked in anonymity, secrecy....and to the well informed reader--BS.
redietz, my statement that no one makes money off of FPDW stands. Unless and until someone comes forward with proof that they've won on these machines over time without abnormal good luck, I'll believe the numbers I saw on the Wynn machines--and then published them with their permission in GT. And guess who were the exclusive players of every FPDW game there? Yes, every big-ego AP who claims to be of the best players, the fastest players, the most accurate players, and the most feared players ever to come down the pike. Over time, they all lost.
Hold on a second Rob. There can be and there are individual winners. But that doesn't mean the casino isn't the big winner.
I am sure you saw the totals at the Wynn, but you didn't see the results of each and every individual player. I am sure there are individuals who have a profit just as you have profits. But I don't doubt that Wynn and all casinos overall have profits.
Yeah, Rob's guilty of his logical fallacy/non sequitur yet again. He makes a first factual statement. He makes a second statement that is unrelated, then draws a logically fallacious conclusion that he presents as some kind of fact. The conclusion, however, in no way follows and is highly speculative and illogical. I would appreciate it if someone else took up the task of correcting Rob when he does this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I have no doubt the house edge on FPDW is at least 1.5%. Civilians butcher this game every day. Have you ever actually watched people play the game? The Wynn's 1.5% win was smaller than I would have expected.
Rob made the statement (without direct evidence) that because the Wynn profit was 1.5% that the APs all lost. Wow, that's a reach and a half. To me, the 1.5% house profit suggests that a lot of APs won, because I think house profit on this game should probably be around 3%. To reach the conclusion that ALL APs lost, one first has to establish that they lost as a group. That has NOT been established. All that's been established is that the general population lost.
Rob draws the completely illogical conclusion that because he decided without direct evidence that APs lost, therefore NO APs won. That doesn't even follow from the (probably) incorrect speculation that APs lost as a group.
So Rob stands by his statement that NO ONE has won on the FPDW machines unless they provide him direct evidence. He basically calls me a liar based on his illogical contortionist thinking. I'm not a liar. I'm ahead on FPDW lifetime. I'm ahead on the Palms' machines. I'm ahead lifetime on video poker, and probably 70% of what I've played is FPDW or NSUD.
There is a theme in this. Rob once again does not discern between general population stats and AP stats. He just assumes any stats apply to APs as well as civilians. Now the implication of this way of thinking is that there are only two categories -- losers (everybody but Rob) and Rob. No separate category for APs, which would put them in direct competition for expertise with (guess who) Rob. It's either Rob's way or the losers' way.
No surprise that "the world's greatest video poker player" is leaking hubris all over the place. It's ridiculous.
why must APs win? I'm sure there are a lot of casual gamblers who get lucky and win too. "Winning" is not the property of APs.
About five years ago I hit a progressive royal at Rincon when a team of four players were there. There were five machines linked to the progressive at the time (maybe it was six, I really don't remember). They were pounding away but I hit the royal.
I'll tell you the difference. If we both went to a casino today and both lost $100, you'd still be a net losing gambler and I'd still be a net winning gambler. Conversely, if we both won $100, you'd STILL be a net losing gambler and I'd STILL be a net winning one. The ONLY thing that matters is overall results. Not today's win or loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Ask KJ. As a lone card counter, he knows all about having many consecutive losing days. But he's still a winning gambler/AP OVERALL.
Yeah jbjb... you're absolutely correct. I've NEVER had a winning year.
Well, you should try it. You might like it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Thanks but I am very happy.
That's debatable.
Maybe you'll figure it out someday. Others already have. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Rob, I have a few problems with your assertions. First, what meter did you get to look at? Those were multi-game machines. There is a coin-in/coin-out for overall results of the machine that includes all games. If you want to see what each individual game held then you have to go to different coin-in/coin-out meters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Second, what issue of Gaming Today did you publish this in? Can you put up a copy of the article here? Or do you have some excuse like a phantom storage unit in New Mexico? If you published it then it would have been big news in the gambling forums, especially vpFREE. But I don't recall any such news. Or maybe this is just another fairy tale you concocted.
Third, that bank got a lot of action. Almost 24/7 for the short time it lasted. So they were making 1.5% on dollar games? And they pulled it? The first question is why? But you know what happened. When they pulled the game it turned that bank into a ghost town. Now, I understand, maybe when they pulled it they were thinking "we could make more money off these guys if we take that game off and let them play the sucker games." But like I said, the bank went from fulltime action to zero action. Now, after seeing that, don't you think those execs would have thought "Well, that didn't work. Let's put the game back on and just take the 1.5%."
What would you rather have, Rob, 3% of nothing or 1.5% of something?
Wow, casinos suuurrrre are stupid!
APs "think" FPDW is a good game to play. If available for higher denominations, they'll play them practically non-stop.
But casinos know they make money on FPDW games because <insert Rob Stringer's stupid analysis here>.
If casino's were smart, they'd put in FPDW from nickel denom up to $100 denom (or whatever max they're comfortable with).
APs will play them non-stop and casinos will just rake in the money.
Mickey I thought it was funny when you wrote what would a casino rather have, 1.5% of something or 3% of nothing? As you may know I do some advertising and marketing work for some casinos. One night I'm having dinner with a top gun at a big casino company and I asked him: why don't you improve your pay tables on Bonus from 7/5 to 8/5? Your video poker area gets no business. Wouldnt you like people in those seats and it's still a money-making game? He looked at me as if he had no idea what I was talking about. Then the next course came.
Frankly I don't think these casinos really care if there are bodies in seats or not. They have their plans and they stick to them.
Please read what Grochowski wrote about FPDW regarding the need for a royal to be a positive play. Do you APs really get royals on schedule to maintain a positive return. If you do, that's amazing. I'm not going to ask your secret for hitting royals on schedule because I don't have the money to pay for it. You see, my royals don't come on schedule.
I don't play FPDW, but I have hit many royals. I'm not sure what hitting them "on schedule" has to do with anything. Of course there's going to be variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If I hit 3 royals this month, I don't care if all 3 were on the 1st, all on the 31'st, or one each on the 1st, 15th, and 31st. Do you think it matters?
If you are not hitting Royals on schedule then you're not getting the full pay of full pay Deuces Wild.
That's true.....although I think everyone (relative) knows that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Aaaaand your point....?
mickey you're such an idiot when you're drinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmRob, I have a few problems with your assertions. First, what meter did you get to look at? Those were multi-game machines. There is a coin-in/coin-out for overall results of the machine that includes all games. If you want to see what each individual game held then you have to go to different coin-in/coin-out meters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Second, what issue of Gaming Today did you publish this in? Can you put up a copy of the article here? Or do you have some excuse like a phantom storage unit in New Mexico? If you published it then it would have been big news in the gambling forums, especially vpFREE. But I don't recall any such news. Or maybe this is just another fairy tale you concocted.
Third, that bank got a lot of action. Almost 24/7 for the short time it lasted. So they were making 1.5% on dollar games? And they pulled it? The first question is why? But you know what happened. When they pulled the game it turned that bank into a ghost town. Now, I understand, maybe when they pulled it they were thinking "we could make more money off these guys if we take that game off and let them play the sucker games." But like I said, the bank went from fulltime action to zero action. Now, after seeing that, don't you think those execs would have thought "Well, that didn't work. Let's put the game back on and just take the 1.5%."
What would you rather have, Rob, 3% of nothing or 1.5% of something?
First, who keeps copies of old papers unless they live slug lives like you. Maybe you can get the online version direct from GT, but you might have to pay ten bucks for it, which would be a deal killer to somebody like you.
Nobody looked at "meters" you moron. If you knew anything about analyzing a business or accounting methods you'd know the reports generated from the results are what gets analyzed--not a bunch of suits sitting around every machine wetting their pants waiting for some cigarette-smoking lowly paid tech to pull up the "meters". Those are what they showed me, and the reason they did was to let me know the very low house hold on most of the games on these machines compared to the avg. hold on the rest of the vp machines, did not meet Steve Wynn's required profit margin--which is what execs care about more than anything else. They may or may not have made more money for them than some other banks of machines--that info was not allowed to be shared with me for my article. This--and the fact that Wynn was appalled when he saw teams/families of Chinese people slurping noodles and eating fish sandwiches at his machines--were the reasons given to me and what I wrote about why the machines were taken out.
So wise up, and stop feeling bad about the phony fantasies of being an AP. Get your teeth cleaned instead. You'll feel better.
And if you are hitting Royals way before the RF cycle then you are making way more than your EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I have a question for you: Do you think a player who plays 2 million hands using correct strategy on FPDW will have a profit?
Deleted.
The royal is the payday hand for sure. You can't predict when they will come up. But you can determine whether you have a good gamble or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So now you are saying Steve Wynn is a racist? Okay, if Wynn didn't want the action don't you think a dingy local joint that is used to "minorities" would want that business. All they have to do is slap in FPDW to get it. But they don't do that do they? Why is that? Because they don't want to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singermickey you're such an idiot when you're drinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmRob, I have a few problems with your assertions. First, what meter did you get to look at? Those were multi-game machines. There is a coin-in/coin-out for overall results of the machine that includes all games. If you want to see what each individual game held then you have to go to different coin-in/coin-out meters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Second, what issue of Gaming Today did you publish this in? Can you put up a copy of the article here? Or do you have some excuse like a phantom storage unit in New Mexico? If you published it then it would have been big news in the gambling forums, especially vpFREE. But I don't recall any such news. Or maybe this is just another fairy tale you concocted.
Third, that bank got a lot of action. Almost 24/7 for the short time it lasted. So they were making 1.5% on dollar games? And they pulled it? The first question is why? But you know what happened. When they pulled the game it turned that bank into a ghost town. Now, I understand, maybe when they pulled it they were thinking "we could make more money off these guys if we take that game off and let them play the sucker games." But like I said, the bank went from fulltime action to zero action. Now, after seeing that, don't you think those execs would have thought "Well, that didn't work. Let's put the game back on and just take the 1.5%."
What would you rather have, Rob, 3% of nothing or 1.5% of something?
First, who keeps copies of old papers unless they live slug lives like you. Maybe you can get the online version direct from GT, but you might have to pay ten bucks for it, which would be a deal killer to somebody like you.
Nobody looked at "meters" you moron. If you knew anything about analyzing a business or accounting methods you'd know the reports generated from the results are what gets analyzed--not a bunch of suits sitting around every machine wetting their pants waiting for some cigarette-smoking lowly paid tech to pull up the "meters". Those are what they showed me, and the reason they did was to let me know the very low house hold on most of the games on these machines compared to the avg. hold on the rest of the vp machines, did not meet Steve Wynn's required profit margin--which is what execs care about more than anything else. They may or may not have made more money for them than some other banks of machines--that info was not allowed to be shared with me for my article. This--and the fact that Wynn was appalled when he saw teams/families of Chinese people slurping noodles and eating fish sandwiches at his machines--were the reasons given to me and what I wrote about why the machines were taken out.
So wise up, and stop feeling bad about the phony fantasies of being an AP. Get your teeth cleaned instead. You'll feel better.
If they were really holding 1.5% you would have blasted it on the gambling forums. But you didn't do that. This is the first we've heard of it in an incident that occurred ten years ago. And that means your story is phony as a whore's prayer.
Rob, everyone knows how you are. If they were really holding 1.5% you would have been licking your chops to post it up in the forums, when it occurred ten years ago, to rub AP's noses in it. So could you point us to the forum or forums where you posted it up at the time so we can go through the archives and find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singermickey you're such an idiot when you're drinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmRob, I have a few problems with your assertions. First, what meter did you get to look at? Those were multi-game machines. There is a coin-in/coin-out for overall results of the machine that includes all games. If you want to see what each individual game held then you have to go to different coin-in/coin-out meters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Second, what issue of Gaming Today did you publish this in? Can you put up a copy of the article here? Or do you have some excuse like a phantom storage unit in New Mexico? If you published it then it would have been big news in the gambling forums, especially vpFREE. But I don't recall any such news. Or maybe this is just another fairy tale you concocted.
Third, that bank got a lot of action. Almost 24/7 for the short time it lasted. So they were making 1.5% on dollar games? And they pulled it? The first question is why? But you know what happened. When they pulled the game it turned that bank into a ghost town. Now, I understand, maybe when they pulled it they were thinking "we could make more money off these guys if we take that game off and let them play the sucker games." But like I said, the bank went from fulltime action to zero action. Now, after seeing that, don't you think those execs would have thought "Well, that didn't work. Let's put the game back on and just take the 1.5%."
What would you rather have, Rob, 3% of nothing or 1.5% of something?
First, who keeps copies of old papers unless they live slug lives like you. Maybe you can get the online version direct from GT, but you might have to pay ten bucks for it, which would be a deal killer to somebody like you.
Nobody looked at "meters" you moron. If you knew anything about analyzing a business or accounting methods you'd know the reports generated from the results are what gets analyzed--not a bunch of suits sitting around every machine wetting their pants waiting for some cigarette-smoking lowly paid tech to pull up the "meters". Those are what they showed me, and the reason they did was to let me know the very low house hold on most of the games on these machines compared to the avg. hold on the rest of the vp machines, did not meet Steve Wynn's required profit margin--which is what execs care about more than anything else. They may or may not have made more money for them than some other banks of machines--that info was not allowed to be shared with me for my article. This--and the fact that Wynn was appalled when he saw teams/families of Chinese people slurping noodles and eating fish sandwiches at his machines--were the reasons given to me and what I wrote about why the machines were taken out.
So wise up, and stop feeling bad about the phony fantasies of being an AP. Get your teeth cleaned instead. You'll feel better.
Rob you are making it up on the fly. Wynn couldn't have possibly been that stupid. That bank got tons of action then practically no action after the game was removed. Even Benny Binion with a third grade education knew that 1.5% of a $10,000,000 handle is five times more money than 3% of a $1,000,000 handle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
The game was removed because Wynn was getting beat.
LOL -- I think Rob's in trouble on this one. I never saw any Chinese families slurping noodles or eating fish sandwiches at the machines. Rob, did you see Chinese families slurping noodles at the machines? How did you know they were families? How did you know they were Chinese? Were they wearing "I'm Chinese" shirts or something?
I've gotta send Rob's post along to the Wynn, just for entertainment value. I'll provide Rob's real name and request a comment.
Steve Wynn hates the Chinese -- that'll play well in Macau.
Wynn's casinos including the Bellagio were all designed to appeal to Asian players,
As usual the facts get laid out but mickey can't handle the truth. Maybe we can get redietz to check with Steve Wynn himself (although red and his "40+ years gaming experience" petered out when he claimed to go into GT huffing & puffing) who made all the decisions exactly as described. Bottom line: AP's just don't like the way it went down, so they need to make up a different storyline to feel better about their flawed beliefs.
Yes red, I was there OBVIOUSLY. Why would the author of such a program be anywhere else? It was wildly popular and after I was allowed to publish the results and storyline, it shut the critical and blind AP's up for quite some time. Even mickey's idol, Dancer, never commented on any of it in his books or columns.
It was a sweet victory over the big mouth lying AP crowd and still is. Watching the reactions here more than ten years later once again proves that.
I have no idea what the above actually means. That was a lot of gobbledygook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I was there. I saw no Chinese slurping noodles at the machines, but maybe that's because I have no Chinese-identifying radar, as Rob seems to have. So let me try to pin Rob down. Rob are you actually claiming (1) that you saw Chinese families slurping noodles and eating fish sandwiches at the machines, and/or (2) that an actual, live Wynn casino exec(s) told you that the Wynn just couldn't tolerate Chinese eating noodles at the machines?
Or were you just spouting racist nonsense as you do on occasion? Inquiring minds want to know the undeniable truth. Inquiring minds would also like to know how you determined AP's had been shut up by your column. Did they write you a letter? Did they not write you a letter? Do you have their phones tapped? Or do you just know everything by the grace of God?
P.S. Rob, I've never made it into Gaming Today for my investigation into the firing of everyone's favorite unpaid stringer. I'm saving that for a rainy day. Don't worry -- I'll get around to it. I try to save fun for rainy days. What I've heard is that you went off the rails in a column regarding an AP who had recently died, and GT, which is kind of a fun, tourist tabloid, caught all kinds of heat for your caustic inappropriate remarks. But that's just rumor. I will try to get some kind of actual explanation.
That was Skip Hughes, a video poker writer, that died. And what Rob wrote about him shortly after he died was reprehensible. I didn't tie the two together at the time but it makes sense that Rob was fired for his remarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzI have no idea what the above actually means. That was a lot of gobbledygook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I was there. I saw no Chinese slurping noodles at the machines, but maybe that's because I have no Chinese-identifying radar, as Rob seems to have. So let me try to pin Rob down. Rob are you actually claiming (1) that you saw Chinese families slurping noodles and eating fish sandwiches at the machines, and/or (2) that an actual, live Wynn casino exec(s) told you that the Wynn just couldn't tolerate Chinese eating noodles at the machines?
Or were you just spouting racist nonsense as you do on occasion? Inquiring minds want to know the undeniable truth. Inquiring minds would also like to know how you determined AP's had been shut up by your column. Did they write you a letter? Did they not write you a letter? Do you have their phones tapped? Or do you just know everything by the grace of God?
P.S. Rob, I've never made it into Gaming Today for my investigation into the firing of everyone's favorite unpaid stringer. I'm saving that for a rainy day. Don't worry -- I'll get around to it. I try to save fun for rainy days. What I've heard is that you went off the rails in a column regarding an AP who had recently died, and GT, which is kind of a fun, tourist tabloid, caught all kinds of heat for your caustic inappropriate remarks. But that's just rumor. I will try to get some kind of actual explanation.
I'm just curious: if Rob's comments were so reprehensible how did they get published in the first place? I am sure that even at a small publication like GT someone reviewed articles as well as advertising before publication.
Like I said, for me it's just rumors, as I'm not an AP and I don't think I ever read the column in question. I was in LV 90 days or so each year, so I read just a subset of Rob's columns. I'm not familiar with all of the politics or debates between Rob and the higher profile APs. Mickey and the guys from WoV might be able to shed some light.
I do think Chuck DiRocco, the publisher of GT at the time, pretty much gave Rob carte blanche. So it may be as Rob says -- his column was in its own category. Rob was always a decent writer -- better than the people who were gamblers first, writers second, so it wouldn't surprise me if his stuff was rarely edited.
Alan, it was an obit piece. Just think of all the negative stuff Rob has said about arci and you will know what Rob wrote about Skip Hughes. Whether you believe it or not, Ron is sadistic. He had no concern at all for the widow and kids reading the article at a time when they were grieving for their lost loved one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Chuck DiRocco used Rob, the unpaid stringer, to create controversy in order to try to increase readership. It's just like CNN making a business decision to be the anti-Trump network. In that respect Rob got played like a fiddle. To this day Rob believes that DiRocco actually believed all Rob's bullshit. But DiRocco's wife didn't care for Rob's negative writing style. . When DiRocco died she got rid of Rob....and I'm sure that obit piece was in her mind when she did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The weird thing about Gaming Today back then -- Rob wasn't the only video poker columnist. The tabloid was bigger at that time, and there was usually one and sometimes two other video poker articles in GT. The other columns were by straight-shooting math guys.
To be honest, I read them all, but I read Rob's first. His column was more along the lines of the Enquirer's old "Bill Clinton Has Sex with Space Aliens" in tone, while the math guys in GT wrote columns that read like pinochle instructions. I'm reading the space aliens sex stuff first.
I'm hoping the "eat dirt" obit stories I've heard aren't actually true. They make me cringe because family and friends would have read them.
Funny reading all these "opinions". Best to re-read what Alan said. But I did have Chuck Di's approval to write whatever and however I chose to, within certain bounds of course. And as for mickey making his usual stuff up from the middle of nowhere--I never said a thing about Skip Hughes other than how the publisher was ecstatic to get rid if him & Dancer and replace them with me. How stupid of you to claim I railed against his death by esophageal cancer in a column. Typical lowlife hick talk. Arci got it and got it good here because that's what he deserved. Skip H. never said anything personal about me.
Red, if and when you finally venture into GT and Wynn you'll probably get watered down versions if anybody still cares. Steve Wynn is the only exec still there and if he remembers any of it is anyone's guess. But if there is memory, then you'll come out of this with the sane egg on the face as the envious, disbelieving critics did after Alan went into Wynn's hi-limit slots room and took a pic of the off-center $25 denom. identifier on the machine I hit the $100k winner on that few could handle believing.
Good luck.
That's right. And if you quit when ahead you can also beat the EV of any game.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
GT took a lot of complaints about Rob. Fake news gets a lot of complaints. So they started running Elliot Frome articles to placate people. Elliot was trying to take his father's (Lenny Frome) place. Lenny was the guy that exposed positive video poker and was a great writer who wrote for GT up until his death in 1998. Elliot was rather dull and not nearly as knowledgeable at video poker as his father.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Dancer was at GT for awhile after Lenny's death. I have no clue why he left. But Dancer has been a columnist for Las Vegas Adviser for many years now and is the most read writer/columist in the history of video poker.
Rob reads Bob's column religiously as he is a big fan.
Of course, then you can't play anymore, since quitting isn't pausing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThat's right. And if you quit when ahead you can also beat the EV of any game.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
So I guess the next step is to find multiple games to use for "quitting when ahead." Heck, maybe record the serial numbers of individual machines and count each of them as an opportunity to quit when ahead. There's gotta be 30,000 vp machines in Nevada (out of 160,000 slots overall), so you should be able to make a ton of money.
Flawed thinking again red. You tend to portray that when someone who wins and quits while ahead comes back to play anywhere in the future, they cannot and will not be able to do it again....and again, and again, and again. Then let me guess--you'd say that if this were the case, a devastating loss would someday come upon the player, thereby wiping out all those wins and more....completely ignoring the fact that any huge winners that appeared would far more than make up for even multiple devastating losses. And the EV of the machines has next to nothing to do with it.
It's exactly how I've played so successfully over my professional career, and why the LV AP's made such fools of themselves when confronting me. It doesn't always have to be the way the AP's want it, the math books say it should be, or your university professors expect it to be. You see, when you're capable of using that amazing computer attached to you neck in the most intelligent and creative of ways, new paths can be and are always being formed--even in the face of the so-called "experts" not understanding it or wanting it to be.
Yes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
For the purposes of discussing gambling "sessions", quitting and pausing mean the same thing.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that you've gotta then define "sessions." Is a "session" whatever anybody decides it is? And how long exactly is the "pause" that's actually a "quit?" Ten seconds? Five minutes? An hour?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
For the purposes of discussing gambling "sessions", quitting and pausing mean the same thing.
What's to stop me from winning a hand, "quitting when ahead" for five seconds, then starting another "session?"
Based on this line of reasoning, I should win like a bandit all day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
No math. Individual attributes overcome probability. Brilliant iconoclastic genius as one-of-a-kind who is beset by credentialed critics, including others in the field and professors. Attaches himself to the occasional media person unqualified or unwilling to evaluate. No hands per royal data. No hands per quad data. Isolated lone voice in the wilderness versus the evil APs, math books, and university professors.
Jesus, Rob, people are going to think I wrote this stuff to make a point regarding quackery. Are you writing a textbook on the subject?
As long as you always quit when ahead, you will...even if the sessions are all just one hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
But quitting when ahead doesn't mean you can't ever play again.
It seems like you're the only one who doesn't understand that.
Coach, let me try to pin you down on this. Other than helpfully reducing the number of hands played (always good at a negative EV game), do you really believe pausing when ahead makes you more likely to win at video poker?
Of course he'll say yes. So will Alan, Rob and a few others. Problem is, they always throw the qualifier "IF" in their answer. The real question is "CAN they do it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
And since NONE of these guys will try and do this full time with no other income involved tells me the answer is a big fat NO!!
JB--as someone who has gambled for a living and worked for a living, deciding to work rather than gamble is not an easy choice. For a period of 5-6 years I thought it was great not to work and have no responsibility to anyone, even though I could make a pretty comfortable living if I continued to work. I was happy for a few years but then the gambling, which I once loved, became less fun. Not because I wasn't winning, but my hobby became my job and I therefore wasn't enjoying it the way i hoped.
I went back to work and re-developed a pretty successful practice while still gambling very frequently. Now, as I am much older, and with on-line access, I can work (maybe 20 hours a week) and play horses full time so I am right where I want to be.
So there is more to "NONE of these guys will try and do this full time" than just doing it. I did, and wound up not liking it.
Beyond that there is health insurance, benefits, interacting with other humans, and a multitude of factors. But it is definitely not just a question of why don't they just do it if they are so sure it worked.
More likely than what?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I see a bunch of people who do not gamble for a living saying you can beat a negative game, then a bunch of people who actually do gamble for a living saying you can't. Hmm.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyMore likely than what?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
More likely than pausing every x number of hands or every y number of minutes?
Red you're trying your best to show you're dumber than a bag of rocks when it comes to gambling successfully. Would this be in that mysterious "PR Packet" of yours?
Perfectly said Coach. And EVERYONE understands that except for nitpicking APs and pseudo gambling experts who pretend to dwell on the Mt. Olympus of casino gaming Gods and think they're so smart. I'm sick of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
For the purposes of discussing gambling "sessions", quitting and pausing mean the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Rob, help me out here, buddy. Are you on record as saying quitting when one gets ahead will result in greater vp profits than quitting after x number of hands or y number of minutes?
Yes, I'm dumber than a bag of rocks when it comes to gambling successfully. Says so right on my resume.
And exactly where is the proof that a bunch of anonymous "AP's" are anything other than armchair gamblers?Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
I would have had a field day writing about clowns like you with silly claims like that in GT. And all the while, I actually made my living on a nearly 6-figure vp income yearly--albeit which was much less than my salary from working before turning pro--and I played negative vp almost exclusively after 2002 without adding in all the slot club fluff, tournaments, drawings, or any of that other meaningless, phantom-bucks-laced baloney you people have to do.
Wise up.
I'm getting tired of your "I'm so holy" self so let me make this clear to you since everyone on the planet understands it except all you experts:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzThe problem with that line of reasoning is that you've gotta then define "sessions." Is a "session" whatever anybody decides it is? And how long exactly is the "pause" that's actually a "quit?" Ten seconds? Five minutes? An hour?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYes it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
For the purposes of discussing gambling "sessions", quitting and pausing mean the same thing.
What's to stop me from winning a hand, "quitting when ahead" for five seconds, then starting another "session?"
Based on this line of reasoning, I should win like a bandit all day.
Each and every time you stop, pause or quit when ahead you've won.
No. Quitting when ahead does not make it more likely you will win. But you can't win unless you do quit, pause or stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbOf course he'll say yes. So will Alan, Rob and a few others. Problem is, they always throw the qualifier "IF" in their answer. The real question is "CAN they do it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
And since NONE of these guys will try and do this full time with no other income involved tells me the answer is a big fat NO!!
This AP mantra of continuous play at positive machines until you collapse or are weak with hunger or about to pee in your seat is ridiculous because these events could happen when you are showing a loss.
The only way to have a profit is to stop with a profit.
Only APs don't understand that.
You have it wrong. There is a difference between beating a negative game and stopping with a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__
In fact this was discussed on WOV. No one beats a negative expectation game but people do win money on them.
For anyone sadly reading most of this, I have a suggestion.
Consult your local math professional -- someone with a doctorate in math who teaches probability. No sense getting gambling advice from a forum.
In addition, I recommend "Probability Made Clear" from The Great Courses, taught by Michael Starbird. He uses many gambling examples.