Man vs. Wimp.
Everything in this cave was purchased with REAL casino winnings....and none of it with "accumulated EV phantom bucks" :) And I ain't no fairy sewing machine operator....
Printable View
Man vs. Wimp.
Everything in this cave was purchased with REAL casino winnings....and none of it with "accumulated EV phantom bucks" :) And I ain't no fairy sewing machine operator....
And oh yeah....I'm a ham radio, cb, and 10meter operator as well. No sissified cell phones take over my life, and there's no baby bro or mommy around to pay the expenses....Even making POPCORN has more dignity than creating a phony online character who "wins year after year at bj" (and by bj, I mean blackjack)
Ha! I still remember my cb call letters after 40+ years! KAAL 4062!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Boy, you are really desperate now aren't you Rob/Harry? Pulling out all the stops.
We are all SOOOO impressed. :rolleyes:
Better check the emergency break, so your mancave/house doesn't roll away. :D
Impressed? I know all most of you care about is gambling kew....and for a few of you, hairy asses.
Go back and find my RV. That should impress even the biggest braggers who think a hundred k a year in gambling winnings, welfare, medicaid, or "accumulated EV":) means anything at all to people who've worked for a living.
Haven't been to a yard sale lately. Thanks for reminding me of what I'm missing. Pretty much nothing. I've seen more interesting setups in pictures of homeless camps.
My favorite is what I say to all the truckers who are unlucky enough to be passing by on the 101 and I-17 while I'm on the air: "Hey all you hard working boys out there in them thar trucks and pickups doing our dirty work for us--pull over and let the GUYS with the TIES drive".Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshotHa! I still remember my cb call letters after 40+ years! KAAL 4062!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Hey kew---you just sitting there like a nervous wreck, waiting for the next zinger to come your way....? :)
Nope, sitting here enjoying a day of football and laughing at you and how screwed up and insecure you are for a 70 something year old man. Your parents really failed you and seriously messed you up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You gamblers are funny people. Oops, sorry for judging people.
I don't know....something tells me he's prepping another story about how much accumulated ev he accumulated today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
I used to have a CB in car for travelling. I wanted to go by the handle "Holy Fucker", but no one would play with me. Something about FCC rules or something.
Thanks for posting the pics.
Love the Cuisinart popcorn making machine.
Selling popcorn to kids at school carnivals is the road to riches, ubetcha.
Yes, they don't allow handles like that but rarely if ever file completely as its. What the FCC is serious about is using linear power amps to boost transmissions.
Rob, you realize that what you're claiming is virtually impossible, right?
If you play a certain number of -EV video poker hands, it is just about mathematically impossible, barring an absolute miracle of luck, to come out ahead.
The only way you can come out ahead in -EV video poker (ignoring club promotions) is to get some fluke big hit and then barely play again for life.
You're being ridiculous Dan. The only difference between 99% games and 101% games is luck. Anyone playing 99% games can come out ahead the same way anyone playing 101% games can lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
What every AP has NEVER posted is their "margin of error." What every AP overlooks is the economy of scale that casinos have that individual players don't have.
"Anyone playing 99% games can come out ahead the same way anyone playing 101% games can lose."
In a short period of time, sure. After many trials, no!
Define short term and long term. Another cloud of mystery, isn't it. But you are seeing my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
The margin between 99% and 101% is small.
Now, what is the margin of error you are playing with jbjb?
If there weren't a margin of error you'd never lose, would you? What is mickeycrimm's margin of error when he has a losing day? What is kewlj's margin of error when he loses $29,000 in a week?
Casinos have a margin of error also but it's spread over 2,000 games 24/7/365.
I seem to remember posts from 2013 to 2016 where somebody bragged about owning four cell phones. I guess that someone de-sissified since then. Good to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I guess with no cell phones, it therefore makes perfect sense why no jackpot photo of the sequential royal ever showed up. Or the 2017 G2E session. Or Sasquatch. Or, heavens, are there no more RV photos?
Looking forward to meeting you and the family in December in Las Vegas. I'll bring a cell camera for the selfies.
EXAAACCCTTLLY!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Short-term this is true Alan. Long-term it is NOT. Long-term you CANNOT win playing 99% return (-EV) games without something that turns the game positive. And this is what Rob is claiming....a longterm....10+ years of winning playing 99% (-EV) games. Can't be done! Like Dan says "mathematically impossible".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Is Rob claiming long term, kewlj?
Care to define long term?
Suppose he only wins in the short term? Short term session after short term session?
By the way, what's your margin of error?
10 years is longterm. Winning a million dollars over 10 years IS longterm results!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It does NOT work that way Alan. Many short-terms does not equal long-term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The best way to explain it is that it would not be unusual to hit 2 or 3 blacks on roulette (short-term). But you are not going to hit 2000 out of 3000. And you are NOT going to hit 2 of 3, 1000 times in a row. Can't be done. You guys are just going against the math. What you are claiming or want to believe is just not mathematically possible.
But that doesn't support any of your own ridiculous claims, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Ten years of limited play is NOT long term. Define long term. State your margin of error.
But it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungBut that doesn't support any of your own ridiculous claims, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Read and learn about N0 (That's N Zero).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
How do you manage to play 100,000 hands of blackjack a year by showing your spread once at each casino visit?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungBut that doesn't support any of your own ridiculous claims, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What's your margin of error?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungBut that doesn't support any of your own ridiculous claims, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Never has an AP mentioned a margin of error in their sacred math. Chew on that gang.
He doesn't know, Alan. He's not prepared to prove out anything in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhat's your margin of error?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
Never has an AP mentioned a margin of error in their sacred math. Chew on that gang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Good try, Mr. Mendelson. I'll spell it out for you.
Argentino claims two distinct things. His first claim is that he has won (note the personal pronoun "he" and past tense) using his systems. The second thing he claims is that his systems, if adopted, provide an avenue to winning for anyone. This second thing is quite different from the first. It is predictive ("people will win using his systems") and it is forward projecting (not past tense) and it has no aggregate limit.
You and he argue that what makes the casinos different is their "economy of scale."
That reasoning, however, comes into direct conflict with the second of Argentino's claims. If his systems can be employed by other people, then there is really no limit on the number of people who could be using them in this moment, or day, or year. If this is the case, then the volume of play that could theoretically be devoted to Rob's systems could be massive. Dozens of people, or hundreds, or tens of thousands.
Now pardon me if Rob has ever mentioned an aggregate limit on how many people could play his systems in a particular block of time. I have never read his saying that in Gaming Today or on any forum. If there is no such limit, and I cannot imagine why there would be one, we run into a logical problem.
All of the people who could potentially be playing his systems today or this week or this year, if they number in the hundreds or thousands, would certainly count in total as "the long term."
So somehow Argentino and you are arguing that casinos have a long term but that dozens or thousands of Argentino system devotees would somehow always evade the long term in terms of their aggregate results.
You and he are therefore making two opposing arguments. Casinos, in their role as APs, win because of the long term with aggregate machine results. But, you say, individuals never reach that long term. Yet you also argue that multiple people can employ the Singer systems, and win, even though they, like the machines, are actually an aggregate.
This is a clear contradiction in basic logic.
While most here do not believe Rob won (past tense, and as an individual) because the odds were against him enormously, that's just one claim that can be argued back and forth. The second claim, however, that people can win going forward employing his systems, has no way of sidestepping the long term. It would be like arguing that casinos cannot measure the results of machines as an aggregate because they are individual machines and therefore the long term should not apply to an individual machine.
Yet, Mr. Mendelson, your argument for why APing works for casinos is that it is an aggregate. If a hundred Singer devotees are turned loose on casinos, that is also an aggregate. They are both clearly "long term," no matter the specifics of your definition.
I have results recorded for $2,704,156 coin in on a 99.11% return game. Actual loss on game is $29,240 (not including freeplay, promo stuff, etc.). I’d consider that the “long term”. No way in hell is someone going to have a +29k run on 25c denom on that game to get to even or ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonDefine short term and long term. Another cloud of mystery, isn't it. But you are seeing my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
The margin between 99% and 101% is small.
Now, what is the margin of error you are playing with jbjb?
If there weren't a margin of error you'd never lose, would you? What is mickeycrimm's margin of error when he has a losing day? What is kewlj's margin of error when he loses $29,000 in a week?
Casinos have a margin of error also but it's spread over 2,000 games 24/7/365.
Don’t know how many royals were hit, but expected number is 54 royals. If the Royal was worth $2k instead of $1k, then that’d make it about a 101.11% game (without changing strategy). Adding $54k to -$29k is +$25k. At that point, it’d be pretty tough to ever end up in the negative.
But hey, that’s just simple math. Don’t let that get in your way, Alan.
What do you mean by margin of error? Do you mean variance? Or making strategy mistakes (like holding 3 cards to a royal instead of a high pair)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhat's your margin of error?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
Never has an AP mentioned a margin of error in their sacred math. Chew on that gang.
First of all, this (2018) is the first year I have played 100,000 rounds in a number of years. I used to play upwards of 100,000 earlier in my career, but the last 5-7 years it has been more like 80,000 rounds and a couple years where I missed some time even less. But lets go with the 100,000 number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungHow do you manage to play 100,000 hands of blackjack a year by showing your spread once at each casino visit?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
100,00 rounds a year, is 274 rounds a day. When playing a 6 decks game at very average penetration of 75%, there will be 234 cards dealt before the cut card comes out. With 2 players and the dealer that is approximately 29 rounds per shoe. So let's say the first shoe the count doesn't go all that much negative or positive, which happens most shoes. A max bet situation occurs less that 1 in 2 shoes (actually more like 1 in 3).
So I play 2 shoes that is 58 rounds. During the second shoe the count grows to a max bet situation. I still finish out that shoe. I leave at the shuffle after showing max bet. So that is 58 rounds that session. I do that 5 times during the day and I am over 273 daily average needed to get to 100,000 for the year.
Now some sessions will be shorter. Maybe max bet opportunity comes out first shoe. Or maybe one of my other triggers comes out. BUT some sessions will also be longer. When I get a heads up opportunity, I can blow through 150 rounds in 30 minutes.
So, the answer to your question: It isn't that hard. Just takes a little effort. Because that's what this is for me. Work.
But the bigger point here is you are trying to play your "gottch ya" game with all these questions. I know it. You know it. Everyone else knows it. But I have answers for all your stupid "gottch ya" questions, because I have mathematics on my side. What I do is proven by mathematics. It isn't anything I came up with. It is proven math. So just stop embarrassing yourself.
Redietz I didn't bother to read your post.
RS thanks for asking about margin of error. I need not say another word except this:
NEVER has any AP mentioned a margin of error with their math claims. And thats something I just realized when I was preparing a report for a client's Infomercial campaign.
Margin of error? These guys are unbelievable. :rolleyes:
RS, jbjb, kewlJ, if you get a chance, read my post #30 and let me know what you think.
I've said several times when I'm calculating the value on a play, oftentimes I'll subtract a bit from the return because I expect to make some errors. If I play 9/6 JOB, I'm not going to calculate the value based on playing perfectly and having a 99.54% return, because I know I make errors. Generally, I'd treat it as something more like a 99.2% game (when doing the math to determine if the play is worthwhile), because I know I'll give up some amount back due to errors and I err on the side of caution. When I calculate expected travel costs, I'm going to overestimate. And TBH, if the difference between a game being 99.5% versus 99.0% is going to be the difference between a winning play and a losing play, I'm not that interested in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yeah your post # 30 is good. But too long. Makes it more complicated than need be, which only allows these guys to use that to attempt to muddy the waters. Here is a post I like better....short and sweet and very precise. I plan on quoting this often. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Good. I sometimes use a margin of error of 3.5-percent. For argument's sake use that same margin of error when discussing 99% vs 101% video poker. Suddenly the difference is no difference at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__I've said several times when I'm calculating the value on a play, oftentimes I'll subtract a bit from the return because I expect to make some errors. If I play 9/6 JOB, I'm not going to calculate the value based on playing perfectly and having a 99.54% return, because I know I make errors. Generally, I'd treat it as something more like a 99.2% game (when doing the math to determine if the play is worthwhile), because I know I'll give up some amount back due to errors and I err on the side of caution. When I calculate expected travel costs, I'm going to overestimate. And TBH, if the difference between a game being 99.5% versus 99.0% is going to be the difference between a winning play and a losing play, I'm not that interested in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So, why couldn't Rob have a profit? THE MATH says he could.
O. M. G. !!! I think I just hurt myself laughing (and then crying).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No more comments from me. This post of Alan's says it all.
Gotta head out. Have a date. :)
I read it -- and it's perfect. Although, that's not going to change their mindsQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It's kinda funny, they seem to think you need millions and millions of hands or years upon years of play to get to the "long run", even though neither have a clue on how to calculate the # of hands. Anyone who at least understands the basics of statistics can figure out you don't need such a massive sample size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonGood. I sometimes use a margin of error of 3.5-percent. For argument's sake use that same margin of error when discussing 99% vs 101% video poker. Suddenly the difference is no difference at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__I've said several times when I'm calculating the value on a play, oftentimes I'll subtract a bit from the return because I expect to make some errors. If I play 9/6 JOB, I'm not going to calculate the value based on playing perfectly and having a 99.54% return, because I know I make errors. Generally, I'd treat it as something more like a 99.2% game (when doing the math to determine if the play is worthwhile), because I know I'll give up some amount back due to errors and I err on the side of caution. When I calculate expected travel costs, I'm going to overestimate. And TBH, if the difference between a game being 99.5% versus 99.0% is going to be the difference between a winning play and a losing play, I'm not that interested in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So, why couldn't Rob have a profit? THE MATH says he could.
I play maybe 80 hours of video poker a year. If I had a three percent error rate, I would go in for an Alzheimer's checkup. I'm not joking. I've had loved ones with Alzheimer's. A three percent error rate would be a tipoff.
It's only a zero. Right Alan? You are such a jokester. Oh, that's right, you're not joking. Simply a MendelFool. Although, you should use 3.5% based on watching your FP videos.
I'd like to focus back on the title of this thread." The Fruits of -EV Video Poker". Besides reminding me of a yard sale the pics are very fitting. Robbochio has proved that you wind up with decade old electronics and ancient technologies. Also, it seems best to have a revolver at the ready when the inevitable results of you bad choices rears its ugly head.
Title should be edited to reflect reality The Rotten Fruits of -EV VP.
You're going to use a different margin of error for different scenarios. Just because you use 3.5% for whatever you're doing, doesn't mean you can use it for video poker. IF you used 3.5% for VP, then it'd make the games between 95.5%-99% and 97.5%-101%. Note that the return calculated on video poker is an exact maximum figure (if played optimally, of course). There is no way to get the return on the game higher than the theoretical optimal amount, because doing anything to make it higher would be optimal, but since the strategy is already optimal.....logical contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
An example would be: Usain Bolt is the fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world. If we say some other person X is faster than Usain Bolt, then that is a logical contradiction, because both cannot be true.
The math doesn't say anything about how he could have had a profit, since we don't even know how the hell he plays. All we know is he starts at $1, then $2, $5, $10, $25, then maybe $100. When does he go up in denom or go down? Sometimes he makes special plays and sometimes he doesn't -- but he's yet to describe how he chooses to make a special play (or not to make a special play). Don't you think someone who goes to the casinos and uses this strategy would be able to say concretely when he does or doesn't make special plays? It's not like he's going in there with a big ass binder of papers and has to look up each time a special play may be used. If he can do it in his head while playing, surely he can write it out, right?
Fine, you parsed out 100,000 hands. Including, what, 10% of which are ties? To leave you with 90,000 decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJFirst of all, this (2018) is the first year I have played 100,000 rounds in a number of years. I used to play upwards of 100,000 earlier in my career, but the last 5-7 years it has been more like 80,000 rounds and a couple years where I missed some time even less. But lets go with the 100,000 number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungHow do you manage to play 100,000 hands of blackjack a year by showing your spread once at each casino visit?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
100,00 rounds a year, is 274 rounds a day. When playing a 6 decks game at very average penetration of 75%, there will be 234 cards dealt before the cut card comes out. With 2 players and the dealer that is approximately 29 rounds per shoe. So let's say the first shoe the count doesn't go all that much negative or positive, which happens most shoes. A max bet situation occurs less that 1 in 2 shoes (actually more like 1 in 3).
So I play 2 shoes that is 58 rounds. During the second shoe the count grows to a max bet situation. I still finish out that shoe. I leave at the shuffle after showing max bet. So that is 58 rounds that session. I do that 5 times during the day and I am over 273 daily average needed to get to 100,000 for the year.
Right, so, you are back to the story of being one of one or two players at the table, playing like a card-counting accomplished blackjack fiend, but now every single day of the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
How does a such a purple chipper not become instantly noticed, going from $25(?) to $300 to $800? Even someone like that fresh off the street would be instantly noticed and remembered by any casino. The very first time.
Isn't it another red flag that you choose to play heads-up? Regular folk avoid that not to lose all of their money in a half hour, and to have a good time in the company of the others.
How can you make any money by showing your spread only once if you wait so long to do so, ie, not in the usual increments up and down along with the count? You leave behind the remainder of a shoe's good count by not lowering your bet accordingly, and miss out on its initial good count. Furthermore, isn't it a little extreme to make the jump to the max bet, in terms of it being so obvious? Why wouldn't anyone at any of the casinos match your betting with the count, the first times around?
Remember as well, that, apparently, you don't optimize your count. You miss out on a lot of the action from the juicier splits and doubles. So, you require everything else you can get to sustain that 1/2 percent edge, which seems now to be a very liberal estimate.
You sound so paranoid too.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Again, never buying in, or coloring up and cashing out, has to be another red flag.
Now what's your margin of error?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Let me be clear. I don't know if Rob has a profit or not. He never showed his tax returns and he's even admitted to using some shenanigans to not pay any taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__You're going to use a different margin of error for different scenarios. Just because you use 3.5% for whatever you're doing, doesn't mean you can use it for video poker. IF you used 3.5% for VP, then it'd make the games between 95.5%-99% and 97.5%-101%. Note that the return calculated on video poker is an exact maximum figure (if played optimally, of course). There is no way to get the return on the game higher than the theoretical optimal amount, because doing anything to make it higher would be optimal, but since the strategy is already optimal.....logical contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
An example would be: Usain Bolt is the fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world. If we say some other person X is faster than Usain Bolt, then that is a logical contradiction, because both cannot be true.
The math doesn't say anything about how he could have had a profit, since we don't even know how the hell he plays. All we know is he starts at $1, then $2, $5, $10, $25, then maybe $100. When does he go up in denom or go down? Sometimes he makes special plays and sometimes he doesn't -- but he's yet to describe how he chooses to make a special play (or not to make a special play). Don't you think someone who goes to the casinos and uses this strategy would be able to say concretely when he does or doesn't make special plays? It's not like he's going in there with a big ass binder of papers and has to look up each time a special play may be used. If he can do it in his head while playing, surely he can write it out, right?
My point is simply this: he COULD be a winner playing 99% games and playing 99% doesn't automatically make him a loser.
Any reasonable person would agree with that. But you self described APs just aren't reasonable. You live by your mantra even though your mantra is full of holes.
What's your margin of error?
Depends on the game. One you can relate to, Bonus Poker, somewhere around -.25%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonNow what's your margin of error?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
MaxPen add .25 to 99.17 and you get 99.42 which is awfully close to 100-Percent. You see why you can't say Rob MUST lose?
Now subtract .25 from a 100.17 game.
I specifically wrote -.25% and not +/-.25%. No way to get to 99.42%. Even with "special plays". Special Ed might think it is possible though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That's your problem. Since when don't margin of error go both ways?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenI specifically wrote -.25% and not +/-.25%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
When you are not estimating return and it is known.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThat's your problem. Since when don't margin of error go both ways?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenI specifically wrote -.25% and not +/-.25%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
There really is no hope in helping you understand anything. It is also easy to understand how you have destroyed your life in a casino and continue to do so.
Yowza. And to use another Happy Days line, Mr. Mendelson jumped the shark a long time ago. He's just funning with people. I hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonThat's your problem. Since when don't margin of error go both ways?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenI specifically wrote -.25% and not +/-.25%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Do you understand how gambling is destroying also your life? After all, you are on an anonymous internet gambling forum telling others the same thing. How weird is that? I mean, it's not exactly your job description or training.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
A margin of error goes both ways. Deal with it.
AP's talk about standard deviation all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now that’s some funny shit right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungDo you understand how gambling is destroying also your life?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
You lie like a rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I don't read most of those, either, especially not the longer ones. The strangest stuff.
I'm not surprised. All these simple-minded talks about deception and "ploppies". Some real shits and giggles. Like you guys have really figured something out.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__Now that’s some funny shit right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungDo you understand how gambling is destroying also your life?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Mickeycrimm believe me about this: I've given up reading anything by redietz. Sorry redietz, but I'm not giving you the time it takes to read anything you write because I already know it's an attack on me and Singer. So why bother? Same thing with another poster here. Why bother?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou lie like a rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alans margin of error question. Why do I get the feeling he wants to know how confident you can be playing x amount of hands while playing 1% Advantage that you will be a winner. And the same thing for being a loser over x amount of hands on a 1% loser. Or how many hands before you can be 100% confident you will win or lose. Can you ever have a 100% guarantee a 1% winner or loser will win or lose? With perfect play Is it technically possable to beat a 1% loser over 5 million hands of VP? I know we are getting into some 18 yo's in a row number here.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou lie like a rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Actually Axel the margin of error becomes less significant with the increased number of trials, but the margin of error itself increases with a fewer number of trials.
Let me interpret what you really mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonMickeycrimm believe me about this: I've given up reading anything by redietz. Sorry redietz, but I'm not giving you the time it takes to read anything you write because I already know it's an attack on me and Singer. So why bother? Same thing with another poster here. Why bother?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou lie like a rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It was so good of an explanation and or beyond my comprehension, I will pretend to not have read it since I have nothing and might have to admit he is right.
No. I mean redietz lost all my respect with his shenanigans over that fucking package.
I should give Alan and Rob a lesson in math here.
The "long run" isn't as long as you think, when it comes to gambling.
I'll give you an example.
Take 1000 coin flips.
I take heads, you take tails, the coin is totally "fair" (even chance of landing on heads or tails), and we have a third party flipping it, so nobody can pull any shenanigans.
What do you think the chances are that you will get at least 575 tails out of the 1000 flips?
After all, the average would be 500 to 500, so it wouldn't be that hard to score 75 extra tails occasionally, right?
In reality, it's very hard. How hard?
Your chance of getting 575 tails or more is 0.00053%.
It would happen 1 out of 186,745 times.
This is why it would be wise to trust a sportsbettor who makes 57.5% correct "side" (point spread) after 1000 tries. There would only be a 1 in 186,745 chance that he managed that through luck, while it's almost 100% he did it through skill.
Getting back to Rob and video poker.
While numbers like "99% return" and "101% return" sound insignificant, they're actually not.
After a relatively small number of hands, the luck will flatten out. You can't play an extended period of time at 99% return and win, and you can't play an extended period of time at 101% (provided you're playing correctly) and lose.
Rob would be far better off stating that he took a few fluke shots at $50 and $100 machines, hit a few royals in a short time, and then returned to 25c VP using those immense winnings as a cushion. Then at least he could claim to be up money and be (kind of) believable.
But 10 years of regular or semi-regular play resulting in $1,000,000 profit?
That's as absurd as seeing 18 yos in a row. Except the difference is that I believe Alan believes he saw 18 yos in a row, but just saw something incorrectly. Rob knows he didn't win a million, but he uses it to troll APs here.
He is going to claim you can't hit a Royal Flush and Aces with a kicker flipping quarters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Dan think about Rob differently, if you can:
Playing $25 video poker he won about $100,000 a year.
Does that sound better?
How about this: playing 25 sessions of $5/coin video poker he averaged a win of just $4,000 per session. Is that better?
Well try this:
Rob Singer played 100 video poker sessions at $25 per play and managed an average win of just $1,000 per session. Is that better now?
Okay, one more try.
Rob Singer played 200 video poker sessions per year, averaging a win of only $500 per session. Is it sounding better now?
Why don't you ask kewlj how he's going to make up his $29,000 one week loss playing less than $500 per hand to stay under the radar?
Why don't you ask Mickeycrimm about his claim of NEVER having a losing month since 2007?
Frankly of all the claims made here (except for redietz who I never doubted) Rob Singer winning $100k per year at HIGH LIMITS video poker is one of the few (or only one) that makes sense.
Rob's claim certainly makes more sense than the claims of $800 an hour AP plays.
Question: When you ask if it’s believable to win $100k/year playing $25 denom....then $4k/session, then $1k, then $500....do you think the first is more believable or the last? As in, which do you think is more likely or easier to do — win $100k/yr on $25 or have 200 sessions averaging a $500 win each?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, try this on for size. A partner and I played a promo where we lost $52k within the first 24 hours. By the end of the trip, we not only got our money back, but ended up with a decent profit. We were actually slightly above EV by the end, and neither of us hit a royal the whole trip. And there’s no “shenanigans” when I say that, like I’m not counting food, comps, hotel, or anything like that — just cash. No funny-business accounting either (like only recording winning sessions and ignoring losing sessions or anything like that).
It’s called variance — it goes well sometimes and it goes bad sometimes. But when the average result is a positive number...we’ll, good things happen. It’s just math. Really, it is. It’s not that scary; it won’t bite.
Great Post!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Thank You.
Variance. Thank you. Rob won. He played high limit video poker. It was variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__Question: When you ask if it’s believable to win $100k/year playing $25 denom....then $4k/session, then $1k, then $500....do you think the first is more believable or the last? As in, which do you think is more likely or easier to do — win $100k/yr on $25 or have 200 sessions averaging a $500 win each?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, try this on for size. A partner and I played a promo where we lost $52k within the first 24 hours. By the end of the trip, we not only got our money back, but ended up with a decent profit. We were actually slightly above EV by the end, and neither of us hit a royal the whole trip. And there’s no “shenanigans” when I say that, like I’m not counting food, comps, hotel, or anything like that — just cash. No funny-business accounting either (like only recording winning sessions and ignoring losing sessions or anything like that).
It’s called variance — it goes well sometimes and it goes bad sometimes. But when the average result is a positive number...we’ll, good things happen. It’s just math. Really, it is. It’s not that scary; it won’t bite.
Would you guys find it easier if instead of winning $100k a year he won $5000 a year playing 25-cent video poker?
I've seen people people win $5,000 and even $10,000 on multi hand 25-cent games. You have too.
You realize that you're all saying Rob could not win because of less than one-tenth of one percent of EXPECTED return?
Really now, what's the margin of error as it compares to less than one-tenth of one percent?
It's not okay for Rob Singer to win $100k over the course of a year with payoffs of as much as 800X your bet, but it's okay to lose $29,000 in one week but still expect that $29k to be won back to maintain a yearly profit at a game when at best you can only win 150% of your bet?
I love how every other post you say you don't know if Rob won, but the other half of your posts you insist he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Of course there's variance, but it's very different when talking about a few hours of play versus several thousand hours. If you flip a coin 10 times, it's well within reason to get 6 (or more) heads and 4 (or fewer) tails. If you flip a coin 1,000 times, getting 600 (or more) heads and 400 (or fewer) tails is ABSOLUTELY NOT happening. Just because they're both 60% heads doesn't mean they're similar. This is something I don't think you understand at all.
Less than 1/10'th of 1%....what the hell kind of meth are you smoking?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Oops. My error. Less than one percent.
Okay less than one percent and that prevents Rob from winning?
Come on now RS, you just had a trip when you lost $52k and then won it back and finished with a profit? In one trip, making a $100k+ turnabout? Why? Because you had a 1% advantage?
But over the course of a year Rob can't win at a 1% disadvantage?
I'm not buying that bridge.
[QUOTE=Dan Druff;76720
Of course Rob can win over the course of a year with a 1% disadvantage. But there's a difference between one year and 10 years, just like there's a difference between 10 coin flips and 1,000 coin flips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The "turnabout" was partially due to good variance and also about $40k in free-play (which made it a hair over 1% advantage).
No, they don't. At least not any AP worth his salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackasshole
So RS just how much of an edge do APs have playing video poker? Please don't include things like comps and cashback because Rob Singer could also claim them.
What edge do you have that is more than the paytable? Is there any?
If you exclude comps and cashback then we are just talking about tenths of one percent, right?
My point is this:
It's just wrong to say Rob can't win playing games that are only tenths of a percent below 100% expected return. Variance alone could make up that tiny difference. And with Rob playing high denominations winning $100k a year is within his ballpark.
I doubt he could win that money at $1, $2 and even $5 VP consistently, but with $25 VP and any quad worth $3250 or more of course it's possible. Look at all the quads monet recently posted.
Also I need to say this again. I have no proof Rob won what he says he won. I'm only saying it's possible and it shouldn't be said it's impossible only because he's playing less than 100% games.
The edge can be tiny (like 0.1% or some dumb shit like that) that's not playable, something more normal/average like 2-5%, or even something huge that's like 20%+. Obviously there's discretion as far as whether it's worth it or not. I'm not too interested in something that's 10% if it's on the other side of town (or worse, out of town) if it's super limited and it's something dumb like "Get $15 in free-play after playing $100 coin in." Generally something in the 1-2% range isn't really worth it, unless you can play a bunch. And of course, things like variance have to be taken into account, how feasible it is to do, and expenses / time lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Of course you or Rob can "claim" stuff like cash-back, free-play, and other promotional / marketing stuff, but considering you're not making money gambling, I have a feeling you don't do it properly. Weren't you writing about how you had an offer at Caesars and MGM at the same time (that included freeplay), but instead of checking into both hotels to get both offers, you only checked in to MGM (or more specifically, Bellagio, IIRC) because you weren't planning on playing at Caesars at all, so you forego'd the offer? Generally, APs aren't beating the games outright, they're making their money from marketing and promotions and losing less on the actual machine than what they're getting back in promotional stuff. There are obviously cases where APs are beating the machines outright, like on full pay deuces wild, but you're not going to find it in a denomination high enough to make it worth it.
No actual AP claims to beat any -EV VP straight up, without promotions/marketing/etc.
Thanks RS but the more you talk about things like checking into two hotels the more I believe that tenths of a percent cant prevent Rob from winning big.
And again that's my only point. You can't automatically say it's impossible for him to win.