I came across this older article written by a respected gaming author and it contains a description (with commentary) of a gambler who is eerily just like of this forum's contributors:
FWIW
http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/...-gambler-60080
Printable View
I came across this older article written by a respected gaming author and it contains a description (with commentary) of a gambler who is eerily just like of this forum's contributors:
FWIW
http://scoblete.casinocitytimes.com/...-gambler-60080
Of course what Scoblete is selling is the belief in dice control. He actually uses the term "dice control" versus "dice influencing" which is more realistic. The entire "dice influencing" camp is well aware that craps is a negative expectation game and the only way to beat it is to influence the dice.
But we need more info from you Vegas Vic. Please make your point?
This has nothing to do with "dice control" or craps in particular, but the general topic of gamblers who have a system that is contrary to the mathematics of the gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Then I find it ironic that Scoblete would take this position. He has even written that craps is a negative expectation game and in all of the books and articles including Sharpshooter's famous book on dice setting and dice influencing it is stated that there is no way to beat the game of craps by math or by any betting system and only DI or DC can beat the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas Vic
I think if we had him here and I asked him what the point was in his article he would say that if there were a way to control the big rock, our mythical hero would beat the mythical Gods.
Of course, this raises the issue about dice influencing and dice control being mythical as well.
From the article: "These gamblers think they can change the nature of the gambling universe with their betting systems. Of course, they can't."
Pretty much says it all.
Arc hit the key line: dice influencing and dice control is not a gambling system. So as I suspected, this article by Scoblete is another attempt to sell the benefits of DI/DC.
Throughout Sharpshooter's book, the theme is that only dice influencing can beat the game of craps. No betting system and no betting scheme can beat the house. The only thing missing from Scoblete's article is the pitch line which would have been something like this: "... and now you know why you need to find out what The Captain did and why our craps classes can help you beat the house with Dice Control as taught by ...."
I have to agree -- only dice influencing can beat the casinos at craps, but it's a rare skill. And even if you do practice hard and master the technique on your home table, every casino table you play on will have a different bounce which will cancel out all of the hours of practice you put in at home.
The reality of all of these classes about how to set and throw the dice mean little because the perfect throw loses all of its control and influence as soon as the dice touch the table.
Alan, you really should read the article. It has nothing to do with craps.
Arc, I read the article. I also know what Scoblete is selling: Golden Touch Craps. Everything I read from him I put into context that he is trying to sell Golden Touch Craps. The very first words of the article are: "Unless a casino player is a Golden Touch controlled shooter at craps ... casino players enter the casino knowing the house has the edge...."
The article is all about this: be a Golden Touch Craps subscriber or you are doomed to lose. And this is somewhat true. Unless you can influence the dice you cannot beat the game.
Alan, that's the only time it is mentioned. And, it also mentions card counters and advantage slot players in the same sentence. The article is about people who play without an advantage while using wishful thinking to claim they do have an advantage. You know, exactly like Singer.
Alan, you know arci won't get involved in ANYTHING on gaming forums if his Achilles heel can't be mentioned :) While he tried and tried and tried to get you to tie my name into the article so he didn't have to, he as usual just couldn't help himself in the end. What I'd have wanted to see is how many tums he had to take throughout the process. I'm sure that household must be LOADED with them!!
The point of this article can only be properly ascertained by someone who has read Scoblete thru the years and who knows what he always tries to sell. Alan has done that. I've done that. Others have done that, but not arci. What he has always immersed himself into has been only reading me, then making up statistical stories about himself that mirror textbooks, then read that with a virtual smile on his face....that is, until he lifts up his head, gets smacked with a dose of reality, and has to look around at the true mess it's made him and the unnecessarily challenging life he's created for himself as well as others.
But I'm surprised arci doesn't read with understanding, given the vast amount of down time his declining years have presented him with. I don't go to the machines with any type of mythical mathematical advantage--that's something I did as an advantage player until it mercifully ended in late 1996. I go in EXPECTING to win every time, knowing that within any session that big hit will almost always come--and that so-called "big hit" is hardly what most players will actually call a big hit! The advantage I play with is knowing that the majority of each session will be laced with misery, but nearly always & eventually, luck will show, and how because I'm always doing exactly the opposite as the casinos want and expect me to do in every aspect of my visit, this unequivocal shift in polarity where a player IS NOT compelled to sit at machines to accumulate points or (ha ha!) get in a certain # of hands out of addiction to playing, nearly every visit is a profitable one to at least my minimum requirements.
Thanks Rob. I'm glad I'm not alone in understanding Scoblete's true motives in the article.
Arc: Scoblete is a salesman, and a good one. Of course he mentioned card counting and advantage slot play. Yes, he needs the credibility that card counting has but card counting has nothing to do with "golden touch craps." And "advantage slot play"?? Are you kidding?? Do you know what advantage slot play is??
I remember covering the shutdown of Michael Milken's empire, and the closing of his offices in Beverly Hills. I was interviewing some of his "traders" as they came out of the building with their things packed and I asked them, "what will you do now?" And all of them -- all of these stock market whizzes -- told me the same thing, which went something like this:
"I'm a salesman. I can sell anything. I'll get another sales job."
What you are reading is the work of a darn good salesman who wants you to buy into the systems that GTC is selling as well as the books on "advantage play slots" that he is selling. When selling, a good salesman always throws in a few facts to disguise to assuage the sales pitch.
Hell, Dancer throws in "facts" to push along his sales pitch too. And when you fail using what he sells he comes back and says it's because you didn't follow 100% of what he said to do.
If it weren't gambling the Federal Trade Commission would probably shut them all down. LOL
Alan, I'm not claiming he doesn't pitch GTC at times. All I'm telling you is this article is not pushing it.
Yes, I know all about advantage slots. In fact, I believe he is including advantage VP in his statement as well.
In this article is is stating that betting systems don't provide an advantage. Now, who around here pushes a betting system? Yup, Mr. dufus himself. That's the bottom line. Anything else you read into it is your own imagination at work.
Well, Arc, if you don't think that Scoblete is pushing GTC than you are being naive. GTC is not a betting system... but it is the belief that you can learn a skill to influence and control dice.
For the record I know some people do have the skill to influence dice -- some to a small degree and some to a great degree. I am not sure that it can be learned, but it might be with practice. I also believe that even if you do master the skill of a "perfect throw" then the unique bounce of each and every table can cancel out whatever skill you have in your throw.
So Arc, all Scoblete is trying to reinforce is that if you have a chance in a casino it is with one of the "skills" of gambling:
In blackjack, it's card counting. I don't disagree, do you?
In craps, it's precision throwing. I don't disagree, but I know it's not that simple to learn, master, or accomplish. Do you agree?
I don't know anything about advantage play with slots but if you know what it is and believe in it, please tell.
I agree that there is a skill element in video poker, but skill alone will not make you a winner.
And I also believe that some of Rob's strategies can contribute to winning.
Your turn, Arc.
He is pushing it because he is telling you that you cannot win without it. Just as he is saying you cannot win at blackjack without card counting. Just as he is saying you cannot win at slots without advantage slot play... whatever that is??Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
And yes, I will agree that advantage VP will help you win at video poker. I only wish it were that easy, however.
Alan, I'll explain "advantage slot play" since our resident know-it-all seems to be too busy reading gauges, applying salves, or doing the dishes to expand on his assertion.
Advantage slots are no different than advantage video poker when you sift thru all the BS. You see those struggling on vp go after the slots when they calculate how the progressive jackpots are in that same mythical "positive territory" as the vp jackpots supposedly are--only the people who play them are saddled with the same old curse: What happens if I'm not lucky enough to hit the big winner? There are also "casino rats"....sort of like that wannabee professional storyteller who likely idolizes Scotty from Scotty's Castle lore in Death Valley....who will tell themselves that if they hang around certain regular jackpot slots observing long enough, they can figure out when they're about to hit.
Obviously, it's just more advantage play nonsense, since no one wins unless they have good luck when they play any machine. All this baloney about theoretical probabilities etc. means nothing unless the machine cooperated when YOU are sitting there.
Now we're off to SF's Chinatown for the morning walking tour, then up to Mendicino County and the Parducci Winery for the day. Gee, I sure wish I had more of that 24/7 "down time" in my life.....
I believe you are correctly stating his opinion which applies to long term play. However, once again, that is not the point of this article. In this article he simply stating that you can't expect to win unless you have an advantage. Betting systems do not provide an advantage. It really is quite simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now, he clearly believes dice influencing is possible. I don't know if it is or not, and I don't really care. However, I do know that betting systems don't do squat to change the odds. That is all this article is telling you.
In the Sisyphus story, gravity substitutes for "the math." I think that's the gist of the article.
That is an excellent interpretation. Back in high school, there were other analogies: a good politician trying to get something done in a world of corruption; an entrepreneur unable to break the grip of the oligopoly; and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
The ancient myths were a way to teach lessons to the people of that day. Later, there were new interpretations and applications. They didn't have casino gambling back then, but they did cast lots and I think they rolled bones.
edit: I forgot: betting on the gladiators was a big thing. I have in my collection of old casino chips a 2-drachma ticket on Antonius Miraculous in the third. I also have a 2-drachma Trifecta on Armenius, Arcadacius and Antonius, but if I recall it was Antonius who lost by a nose, and then an arm.
what about on fpdw, will skill alone MOST LIKELY make you a winner over time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
In any video poker game, YOUR skill has no control over the Random Number Generator. No matter how smart you are, if the RNG doesn't give you the cards you need you can't win. There is no telekinetic powers available in the library of video poker skills. You are still gambling with the machine. The skill element will help you, but it's still a game that involves a lot of "luck" or whatever fancy name you want to attach to "luck."
'Fate," Alan, is a better term here since we're referencing Greek myths.
Of course you cannot control what cards you are dealt. Is this really all you were saying when you wrote, "I agree that there is a skill element in video poker, but skill alone will not make you a winner?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes. That sums it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfoot66
In my book I identified vp as being a game of 95% skill and 5% luck. This really rattled the gurus & other math people like arci, because to them the game has to be according to their 100% skill interpretation or they would find themselves being entwined in the biggest conflict of their lives every time they sit at the machines....and NOTHING will stop them from that ultimate compulsion of theirs.
If you understand the basics of poker you have as much chance as anyone at a vp machine. We've seen arci's pride take yet another hit in this area here, as he likes to pretend luck doesn't exist, and it's all about mathematical distribution or some other anal nonsense. And that's exactly why he's always so frustrated with me everywhere. I've won a lot and very consistently so, by accepting and advantageously utilizing the infrequent number of times that good luck shows up in any given session. It IS all about luck folks--that's why these are GAMBLING MACHINES! Advantage players, bless their hearts, would prefer to pretend they know how to conquer another mathematical puzzle presented in this world. Trouble is, in their denial, they turn into pathological liars on the Internet, ruin other people's lives, and will exit this world someday in utter conflict, misery, and disbelief that they were not smarter than everybody else.
Right & fitting!
Rob, I think you overstated the amount of skill in a video poker game. I think its about 70% skill and 30% luck in the end. I've seen too many bad players, making the wrong holds, walk away big winners. While "good players" making the "right holds" miss their draws.
The thing is that we cannot control what cards we are dealt. Instead, we can control which games we play, when we play them, and the strategy we use to play the game. We should play the best strategy on the most favorable machines during the most generous promotional periods. If we do this, we do all we can to maximize our chances of winning. The cards will fall where they may, but we did all we can to put ourselves in a position to win.
Once again I see a plethora of ignorance. It's clear to anyone with any math understanding at all that some people would rather believe in luck than accept well proven mathematical processes.
What's really sad is that people proudly declare their ignorance. Amazing.
Alan, I know it's arguable at 90%, 70%, or just about any percent above 60. But the most intelligent among us who also happen to not be in denial of the obvious facts just because those facts don't neurotically jive with their requirements that there is no such thing as luck, can all agree that skill is but a small part in playing video poker successfully.
arci, as you sit there alone and adrift, moaning over just about everything in your real life as well as in the virtual world you need on the Internet, at your age you ought to be able to realize that everyone else is younger than you and more in touch with the truth. As such, have you not yet had enough of your lunch handed to you over a simple, silly game? One might think you do have more pressing problems to attend to. :)
Arc does your "math" control what cards the RNG spits out? That is the issue here.
The math does not "control" any particular hand. What it tells you is the probable distribution of various hands. Over time that distribution will lead to predictable results. There is nothing more one can do. If you want to claim luck is the variability within that distribution then fine. The problem is there is no way to control it, so there is no approach you can employ to increase your luck. It's just as likely you will experience that "luck" after hitting other big wins as it is you will experience that "luck" on another trip.
That is why the dufus just lies and lies. Asserting one falsehood after another is all he can muster. You know he is sick that I win every year. He even tries to claim I don't win to bolster his fantasy world. Shows the depths he will go to in denying reality.
Arc, this is where we have our difference of opinion. You wrote:
"The math does not "control" any particular hand. What it tells you is the probable distribution of various hands. Over time that distribution will lead to predictable results."
Here's where I differ with you:
I think the math gives you the possible results, not the probable results. I think you could have four to the royal one million times and never get the royal card. What will you say? That it's possible or probable you will get it 1/47 times?
You say that over time there will be predictable results. I say nothing is predictable when you are dealing with a RANDOM number generator. Because with a RNG everything is random. You have no control over random.
I see this same kind of thinking at the craps table. Players bet the "odds" bets because this bet is supposed to have no house advantage, and no player advantage. In other words, over time it's a "no lose" bet. (It's also a "no win" bet but craps players seem to overlook this.) Yet, at the end of the day -- players still lose and the house still wins. Why? Because it is the flat bet that always has the house advantage. -- and the math guys go down in flames.
Alan, all I can tell you is the world's best mathematicians disagree with you. Don't let that stop you, though. I'm sure you're smarter than all of them.
Once again it's pretty obvious that Alan has no idea what random means, has no ideas about statistical laws, and has no clue how these apply to the real world.
Alan, it's possible all the atoms in your body will simultaneously disappear into virtual space. Are you going to worry about it. It's also possible you will eaten by a man eating tiger. Have you taken precautions? It's possible you could win the next 100 consecutive power ball lotteries. Have you invested? Just because something is "possible" should not get confused with reality.
"Because it is the flat bet that always has the house advantage. -- and the math guys go down in flames."
Do you understand just how wrong your above statement is?
Arc is the problem over the definition of probability vs possibility vs guaranteed?
All of your math gives us possibilities for things happening, and not even the probability of something happening. Yes, the stars have to align for the probablilities to come.
No where is there any guarantee. Your math can tell you that you will draw a royal 1/47 times when holding four to the royal and you might call that a probability of it happening, and to the rest of the word it is only a possibility and there is no guarantee it will ever happen.
I look at it this way: would a banker extend to you a loan so you could play video poker for a living? I don't think so. The casino might, and a loan shark might, but no bank will.
And I know enough about random to know this: random is random, and because the RNG is random it may NEVER give you the cards that you say are probable. Chew on that for a while.
Uh-oh! When you said "the math guys will go down in flames" it's a sure bet arci ignored the missus and dropped the syringe, cleared the fog from his reading glasses, gulped a mouthful of Maalox, and called his useless buddies over on videopoker.com for some encouragement....because you just don't say such blasphemy without him having some sort of recourse to feel better after the shock wears off!
Now THERE's an advantage play for ya! Great job!
I wish I went to high school with this guy--I'd have been on detention night after night!
Let's talk about the "no house advantage odds bet in craps" for a moment. The math guys love to say there is "no house advantage" while forgetting that "there is no player advantage." What the math guys also fail to recognize is that even though the bet has "no house advantage" the house is still more likely to win this bet each and every time.
I've been fighting the math guys on this for years, and finally one of them actually conceded that yes -- the house is more likely to win the bet. It's just that the math guys focus on "the math" without the application of what happens to the bet once it is made.
It's the same in video poker. The "math" says that over the long term (and that's a term they use) the game will return XXX% but they overlook the actual play of the game which might never return what they "expect" it to return.
Like in dice: the point of 4 is supposed to hit one out of three times. But you might never see the point of 4 hit. So the "no house advantage" on the odds for the point of 4 might never be paid.
It's time to separate theory from actual play. Why is it that we "non math guys" can do that -- but the math guys can't?
Four weeks ago one of my buddies went to the Riviera to play their 1,000-times odds craps game: $5 on the pass line, and come, $5,000 odds. Before the trip he told me his "cost" of each bet was pennies. After the trip he told me he lost something like $20-grand when he decided to quit early.
All VP discussions should begin and end with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If ignorance were bliss ...
alan, why do you always claim bad things will happen? Are you a life long pessimist? You need to understand that you can also do better than the odds state. Over one year my wife hit 4RF 5 out of 67 tries. In fact, it's pretty close to even that you will do better than the odds rather than worse. That's why it evens out over time. You do better than the odds for a period of time and do worse for another period of time. It's true there are no guarantees. There's only smart money and stupid money.
I'm amazed you ever leave your house. Just think of all the bad things that COULD happen.
This post of yours is out of your normal "character." For once you are saying there are no guarantees. In the past you have always seemed to say the math is guaranteed. So we are now in agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
So getting back to the math having no guarantees: every gambler should realize and understand that you can always be on the short end of the math. And every gambler should understand that the math does not reflect what actually can happen to them.
There is also a great misunderstanding and misapplication of math terms when it comes to gambling. For example, "expected return" does not mean guaranteed return, does it?
The misapplication I've been most vocal about is in craps where the math term of "no house advantage on the odds" is mis-interpreted by craps players to think that it gives them the best chance of winning -- and it does not. For example, there is no house advantage on the odds on the point of 4, but the house always has a 2-1 chance of winning that bet, and the gambler is always at a 2 to 1 disadvantage even if there is no house advantage on the odds. Confusing, isnt it?
And getting back to video poker-- that you might have a 1/47 chance of drawing a royal means nothing. You might get that 1/47 draw 40 out of the next 47 times or you might go hundreds of draws before it hits. You know that and I'm not telling you anything new.
I'm not a pessimist but I am a realist. I only put a limited amount of faith into what the math says MIGHT happen. I will never play 8/5 Bonus Poker saying to myself I have a 99.17% of getting back each dollar I bet. And when I bet full odds on the point of 4 I never say to myself that this is the best bet because I know I am still a 2-to-1 underdog but betting that same money on the place 6 or place 8 actually gives me a better chance of winning money than the odds on the 4 have.
Alan, I've always said there are no guarantees. There's no guarantee the Sun will rise tomorrow. Once again you confuse probabilities of normal events with those related to gambling. Just because something is a "probability" does not mean there's little chance it will occur. All the math I've provided has probabilities associated with it. If you have a 99% chance of winning do you really want to focus on the 1% chance of losing? That's what you are doing. You are claiming that because something is not certain that the stars could align just right and it won't happen, therefore you need to do something different.
Now that you know the Sun may not rise tomorrow morning what are you going to do today that is different? The same applies to VP. If you approach the game correctly you can achieve a very high probability that you will win. Hence, things like win goals (or should that be win limits) are unnecessary.
BTW, seen any man eating tigers recently?
Well, Arc, if drawing a card were a 99% probability things would be different. But in video poker there is no 99% probability of drawing any card. And this is the reason why I like win goals -- because there is no guarantee that when you do get lucky that you will keep getting lucky. So take the money and run.
Sure, you can keep playing -- only to find the cards (RNG) has turned against you. As they correctly note on Wall Street: Bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered. And this could well apply to video poker: Those who quit with a profit make money, those who quit when they reach their loss limit will have money for next time, and those who don't know when to quit risk losing it all.
Edited to add: And even if drawing a card were like your mythical 99% chance (as in drawing one card to a royal) you still have get the other four cards in the royal to have that 1/47 royal draw.
Arc: you don't have to be a genius to play video poker well, or even perfectly. If all you had to be was smart many more people would be winners.
After reading all this, I'm so glad video poker is programmed in hot and cold cycles to simulate randomness-that way I don't have to worry about all these figures.
Confusion is your middle name. No one claims there's a 99% chance of drawing any card. It's quite silly that you even bring it up. Where the probabilities become your good friend is when you are smart enough to find a big edge. That's the reason I have won so many years. When you have a big edge you can give yourself a great chance at winning. What do I do when I don't have a big edge? I don't play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I think the big edge you claim to have is a figment of your imagination. I think you got lucky, and you are mistaking your luck for your skill.
Your "edge" is what, one-half of one percent? Well, bad luck (variance if you want to call it that) can easily wipe out any "edge" you have.
Which is why any sane player will recognize that if they get lucky and beat the casino they will take the money and run, then fight their battle again another day.
Not everyone is a Super Player like Arcimedes... the Casino Super Hero!!!
If everything you post is to defend your continuous playing without seeing a reason to pocket wins and quit playing then perhaps you are addicted.
I think leaving with a win is an excellent reason to quit playing.
I've played with an edge over 1% most of the time and often 2.5% or more. With a 2% edge you will have a >90% chance of winning every year (if you get in a reasonable number of hands) even with high variance.
I explained this to you on LVA a long time ago.
Question for you Arc: Since you maintain you have a theoretical edge of as much as 2.5% how do you figure income taxes into your theoretical edge? Depending on your tax bracket, tax deductions, adjusted gross income after Schedule A, you might face a tax of 15% to 25% or more on your video poker profits. That would kill a 1% casino edge down to .75%.
My point is a 1% edge or a 2.5% edge isn't enough. But a player who cashes out when they have attained a 5% win goal or 10% win goal actually stands a chance. And so playing for the theoretical edge (your long term play) of 1% to 2.5% is merely running around the merry-go-round without ever climbing on it to enjoy the ride.
Rob Singer is making more and more sense to me with his win goal system.
And don't forget Alan, arci has been playing that "+EV" oej game "for a profit" at that 100% fair Indian casino up in that super-desireable year-round mecca--Minnesota--for over a dozen years now, while always religiously using his slot club card that allows the casino to track his every move. Yet just like Bob Dancer, he can not only beat the heck out of the machines--he rapes the slot club for all it's worth, and they continue to invite him in to get more freebies and money at his convenience! What's interesting is how these casinos can't figure out how to make a profit off of these super players, and their answer is to just "look the other way"!
Answer your question yet? :)
You know Rob, I don't doubt Arc makes money. I wonder if he'd make MORE MONEY if he knew the right time to cash out??
Believing a person, who lives a virtual life on the Internet, makes money like he claims to at an Indian casino that has only a few certain type machines he plays, and who has never adjusted away from using a slot club card, is the same thing as believing in someone who says they continuously file claims saying they don't receive UPS shipments left at their door--and the delivery service gleefully accepts how they can't figure out how to make a profit off of him while continuing to deliver packages that go missing without changing a thing.
These places are all businesses, only there to make money from their customers. When they know they aren't, the customer quickly becomes a former customer. I found this out when I investigated hyped but phony guru-claims of being banned and their even more favorite label--being "backed down from slot club benefits" during my time at Gaming Today....and then, personally when I myself was banned from two casinos, and an even more recent one just yesterday. If you use a slot club card and the casino doesn't make a profit off of you, you will not be allowed to play there again. It is a simple business concept that is well understood in the business world, and especially the casino business.
I've been to the Silverton about 7 times since we've been in Pahrump. It's the closest casino in LV to us--right down the road really about 55 miles. ALL of their restaurants are top notch, and our favorite is their Twin Creeks Steakhouse. I take my wife there almost every month. It's easy-in/easy-out, and we just drive home afterwards.
What's also nice about Silverton is they have LOTS of machines with 25c/50c/$1/$2 SDBP on them, and I always play a little before dinner if Cindy doesn't mind. And I've always won, usually getting one or more W2G's because of Aces or J's, Q's or K's. I've had a 50c royal too, but the other night I connected on a $2 royal, giving me over a $9700 profit for the evening.
Yesterday I received a call from them, telling me I was not allowed to play there any more. They didn't care one bit about the silly slot club stuff--they just can't have me at their machines anymore when they can't make money off of me. I asked if I can come in for the restaurants and was told yes, and that's all I really care about. I know how business goes, so if I want to play then I'll just go elsewhere. I don't rant and complain and make a big deal about it. I know it will happen to ANY player who regularly beats them. I read recently where Dancer goes in their monthly and runs a quarter million thru what he calls "their positive machines" (obviously, something he creates out of thin air just to get slot club status). Now you tell me: if a schmuk, now no-name gambler like myself gets stopped for winning maybe 16 or 17k in 7 or 8 months, what do you think is happening to Mr. Big?
These are the type of columns I used to write for the paper, and these are the type of common sense, real life reports that made me the most trusted and popular writer ever at Gaming Today. If I were to publish this today, I guarantee you that, once again, Dancer's boss Jeffrey Compton, would be waddling into the publisher's office ranting & raving about how much I'm hurting his business, and add in another threatened lawsuit. Of course the reason there were no lawsuits is because I always wrote the truth that was backed up by obtained written facts that I always gave to the editor, and the fact that I said I'd cover all the costs of a countersuit.
There's a lot of history I have that anyone can learn a lot from if they can ever shake the stigma as planted by those who've over-commercialized this business. I've accomplished basically everything I set out to. If the younger generation of players wants to succeed, they know where to go and what to read.
One little problem with your theory, dufus ... the casinos where I play are still using an old tracking system. Card pulling works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Why is it you are always wrong?
Of course I would. I'd also make more money if I knew what days to play. All it takes is that vision of the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
For those of us who live in this Universe we have to deal with objective reality. No one knows what is going to happen. All we can do is give ourselves the best chance at success. Only complete fools think the laws of mathematics are for other people.
Just like the nonsense you wrote above about a 2.5% edge not being "enough" ... you continue to spew more nonsense. I do wonder what it's like to live in such a world. A world where mathematics and physics are optional. I also wonder why you haven't adopted your supposedly better approach and made a fortune. What are you waiting for?
Thanks for posting Arc. Even though we disagree I appreciate your comments, so keep 'em coming.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I think that anyone who has played any game in a casino for any length of time recognizes that there are winning periods and losing periods. In craps, players know that after a good roll by one shooter, it may be a while before another good shooter comes along. Or, after a shooter has held the dice for 20 minutes, it's time to scale back the bets because the eventual 7-out is coming. Why is it that craps players can play that way -- and leave with a profit -- but video poker players can't? The math in craps is the same as it is in video poker!
I know the answer, of course. Craps players realize that there is more to gambling than just math. You Arc don't see it that way. I am just applying some of these good ideas that other gamblers use at craps at video poker. And the funny thing is Rob Singer who says he never played craps has the same ideas.
I can't see the future except that I know that at some point the good run will end. And I like the idea of ending the run on my terms and not on the casino's terms which is when I'm out of money. There is nothing wrong with saying "I won a hundred bucks tonight and I'm going home."
You look at it a different way. You say -- but if I kept playing I could hit a royal. True, but you could also lose that hundred dollars of profit, couldn't you.
And a 2.5% edge is not enough. If that's enough to make you happy after you pay your taxes, well good for you. But you could do better than 2.5% on any number of other speculations including selling covered call options on stock. Yes, we discussed that before on LVA too.
And surprise, I have started to adopt several of Rob's money management strategies and they are helping. I've learned that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush... or in casino terms... a $500 win is worth more than dreaming about a royal. In fact, I've just about given up my quest for royals. Now, quad jacks, queens or kings on Aces and Faces will do me just fine. I'll leave the royals to everyone else... like Jason who hit four in one weekend at Caesars (two weeks ago) and my wife who hit one two nights ago (her second this year with only two sessions in casinos).
Since my good buddy couldn't explain the facts, he came up with the old card-pulling trick. Well, too bad that one's out the door too!
I wrote an article for Gaming Today after the so-called AP's were trying so hard to answer this same phenomena I also exposed in an article about how they are always saying they are winning and not being stopped. Well, I interviewed the top two card reader manufacturers along with the casino managers at the Mirage, Ramada Express (now Tropicana Express), downtown's Golden Nugget, and Sahara. The manufacturers both said once a vp hand is played or a slot handle is pulled, the play is identified in the system thru its entirety--and that it has always been that way. The casino managers just luaghed at the thought of these self-proclaimed experts of video poker pretending to know all about a casino's system. And this was in 2001.
Now, I wonder what Dancer says these days....now that arci makes believe his Indian casino is the only one who uses the "old" readers while LV casinos are onto these "sharpshooters" :) !?
Try again.
Alan, as I explained to your before, the edge in VP is on every bet. If you put $20K through the machines in a day your average profit will be 2.5% of that $20K. That's $500 a day. Play 5 days a week and 50 weeks a years nets out to $125K/year. And, unlike your options it would likely only vary by no more than $25K/year.
Now, about the only ones who can find that kind of edge these days are pros like Frank with a network of connections. Also, to put through that $20K for someone like Frank would probably take only 2-3 hours a day on average. If they find enough opportunities they could triple that amount.
Yes, they have to pay taxes just like everyone else. So what, you also pay taxes on investments.
No need for me to try again. You once again make claims based on your abundant lack of knowledge ... which, of course, is why you are such a dufus. The machines I play are not IGT machines. They are 15 year old machines that cannot be upgraded to use the more recent tracking systems. In fact, I have to play all my freeplay on other machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself or does it just come so naturally you can't help it?
That's a good one, and is probably the reason we're able to enjoy ourselves in retirement whole you are stuck on a keyboard.
Here's the next part of your education: IGT doesn't write the software for the readers. Yes....those darn facts always seem to get in the way! The two companies that did in 2001 that I interviewed serviced every game manufacturer.
That punch card era....gee, what a letdown!
Now what's your next lie....or are you going to keep showing your frustration by more name-calling? May I suggest stepping outside for a great big breath of fresh air first, that is, if you're allowed to :)
There;s another hole in your argument Arc. I don't think you are part of Frank's team. I'm certainly not. I just play 8/5 Aces and Faces or 8/5 Bonus. That's the real world.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Now if you found one of these magic machines, well good for you.
And there are also a few magic dice shooters who can influence the dice. There is also a magic golfer like Tiger Woods who can influence the golf ball. There was a magic baseball pitcher named Sandy Koufax....
The rest of us have to manage reality. And as part of that management of reality, I like the idea that quitting while ahead guarantees a profit.
Edited to add: Oh, Frank told me something very interesting when I had lunch with him a couple months back. He told me that in about the last 15 years he never made a bet with his own money. He only bet other people's money, or managed teams. He also told me he would never bet with his own money. That tells me a lot. Is that something like the shoemaker's son who has no shoes? Or the shoemaker himself has no shoes? Either way, it makes me question all of his expert guidance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
LMAO, the dufus just can't let well enough alone. He has to prove his ignorance. Since I already know the card readers on this old technology do not support any of the new functions, this is going to be fun. Come on dufus, show us where all the readers support older machines. Let's see the specs.
Watch him scramble now.
I do play with my own money and get to keep all the winnings. The 2.5% edge I mentioned was my primary play while I wintered in Vegas. I played it for several years. However, it was only a quarter machine so the income wasn't all that great, but both my wife and I played it so we doubled up on the profits. I also found a couple of 2% dollar games to play and a quarter triple play progressive that was usually in the 1-2% range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Very good, Arc. I'm glad you are the exception and good for you! I am glad there are winners out there. The rest of us who can't find the positive machines need something else-- and that's where I like Rob's money management and his win-goal strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
If I were a super human video poker player, playing on the super machines, I might do things in your super way. But alas I'm not. So I have to find other ways to enjoy my visit and lock up profits when I can. And I think a lot of players are like me and a lot of players will also quit when ahead.
It just strikes me funny that you feel quitting when ahead will not make a difference in a player's bottom line?
I remember this advice from my father -- fifty years ago -- when talking about the stock market. He said to me: no one ever went broke selling at a profit. And you know what? No one ever went broke quitting when ahead at a casino game.
I had to come back to this quote. It is of course the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. You have no edge if you lose your bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Your reasoning is what leads people to go broke. You must separate theory from reality. You fail to overlook the consequences of not quitting when ahead.
You missed the funny part Alan, where arci & his wife used to "double up on the betting" to make more money. :) I wonder why, with all that free "2.5% edge money" available to him, that he didn't just grab a bunch of streeters like Frank from that pool of "winning AP's" that arci always claims "is lurking on the streets of LV" and REALLY make some money during his dream years in town? Must be he had a lapse in judgement....kinda like how he's currently trying to talk himself out of the lies he's telling about the card readers in his last embarrassing post.
The part about Frank not betting with his own money went over his head. He doesn't like that being brought up since it doesn't fit his story-telling of "pros with edges". Obviously, for the past 15 years, Frank has known there's no worthwhile "edge" out there so he chose to take advantage of the idiots who pay people to hopefully get lucky on the big progressives. But you know what? They're all dumb amateurs compared to the guy stuck in Minnesota who apparently still sneaks out to the casinos alone these days. Why, arci is the only one who the Indians cater to by allowing him to beat them up with that "edge" while tracking his every move, and they've even removed the cameras so he can make believe he's beating the slot card system without them knowing anything about it! Only problem is, card pulling slows these AP's down so, and those darn winners that come up on one or two card holds....Gee, an AP can't even count on lying about the card-pulling trick anymore without getting taken out to the woodshed from ALL angles!
Finally, his dumbest statement: "I have an edge on every hand bet". This is the typical AP (and my most favorite of theirs BTW) BS point that I enjoyed making fun of in my Gaming Today column over the years, and I still get fantastic mileage out of it even today. These people thrive on phantom bucks--where you're supposedly making money on every hand....thus the reason for sitting like zombies for four or more house pounding feverishly away at the buttons as fast as possible while claiming near flawless play to make it seem all worthwhile (except for that pesky art of card-pulling of course, which tends to contradict everything about these geniuses :) ). Problem here is, Walgreens, CVS, or anywhere else won't take phantom bucks for batteries, beanie babies, bed pans or anything else, so if that RNG isn't cooperating with AP-theory then it's back to going home with a pocket full of excuses nearly all the time.
There's nothing difficult about all this. I've been catching AP's like arci lying and manufacturing stories like his for years now, which is why he doesn't like me and why Bob Dancer always avoids debating me in a public setting. And I've even told him he could sell all his vp-trinkets at it!
Alan, while your quotes are true you ignore basic reality. Sometimes you never get ahead. That's the fact you keep ignoring and it destroys your entire argument. It must be nice to walk around with those rose-tinted glasses. It allows you to exist in a fantasy world that has no place in objective reality. When you decide to let logic and facts dictate your decision making process you will be able to move ahead. Until then you will be stuck in the rabbit hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Once again you demonstrate how little you understand the basics. No one is claiming you will win a certain percentage of every bet. It's very telling that you don't even understand the simple logic at work here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
An analogy may help. A baseball player may bat .300 but no expects him to get 3/10 of a hit on every trip to the plate. However, the ability (edge) to maintain a .300 average is with the player on every at bat. If you were given a 4 to 1 odds on every hit you'd be a fool not to take it. This is exactly how the edge works in VP. You have the edge on every bet. Although the VP results will vary just like a batter's result vary, at the end on the season the edge/ability will lead to predictable results.
Uh, how many pros do you think would play a quarter game? Your first claim is basic nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It's really easy to destroy the claims by the dufus. The problem, of course, is that VP strategy is not that easy. In this particular game (OEJs), the stategy is probably the most difficult game strategy in existence. Now, add to that there were only 3 machines available for most of the time I was there. By training someone non-pro off the street it wouldn't take long before they might decide to take the risk on themselves and keep the entire profit. That would mean competing for seats (which happened enough as it was). No, this was a play that needed as little advertisement as possible.
Poor dufus. Every time he comments he demonstrates just how deep his ignorance goes.
Now this has to about the most idiotic thing the dufus has claimed yet. Can anyone imagine paying someone for 15 years and losing money the whole time? Of course not, it's so silly as to raise the question of needing something even worse than dufus to describes Singer's competence. That he would believe anyone would accept this is even more ridiculous. Only a complete moron would read something like this and go ... "duh, yeah that makes sense".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
So, I think we need a contest to come up with this more descriptive term for Singer's competence. Dufus, moron and idiot are already too mild.
Arc... There has ALWAYS been a time, in every session, when I was AHEAD. Sometimes I was ahead 5 credits (one hand) or sometimes I was ahead $20,000. And there were times when I was ahead $5,000 or more and gave it all back trying to keep on winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
The point is that with tight loss limits and a strategy to quit with a win, you can put more money and keep more money in your pocket. You reject that because I don't think you have any concept of money management whether its in gambling or investing. If you do, please tell us what it is. It might help to clear this discussion and end this debate.
Arcimedes wrote: "A baseball player may bat .300 but no expects him to get 3/10 of a hit on every trip to the plate."
Exactly right. But that's baseball.
Now we're talking about the money that's coming out of my pocket. And if you tell me that a video poker game has a 100.17% payback and I'm losing hundreds or thousands of dollars playing it, your payback of 100.17% means zilch, zip, zero, nada, bubkas to me.
In other words -- your theory means nothing. And I can't bank on your theory.
Yes, I can gamble with your theory, and I do. I try to play best paytables available. But I cannot take your theory to the bank. I can, however, take an actual win to the bank. So, returning to our point here... cashing out wins when you reach win goals is real money that can be deposited. Theory is not coin of the realm or legal tender.
Again the difference between you and me, Arc... and I think between you and perhaps 99% of all other gamblers... is that our goal is winning hard cash. Take the money and run.
Well, let's take a neutral position on this one, guys. There are people with mad money who might pay others to gamble for them. We really don't know what was made, do we? I've never seen any tax returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I do know that "teams" do lose -- I saw a team wiped out at Rincon after it lost three of the big progressives to "Sadies from San Diego" who sat on the open machine that the team didn't fill. I beat the team on one of the progressives about two years ago.
There are money losing companies that pay employees for years and then go out of business. I can give you a long list of banks and Savings & Loans that paid employees for years only to go belly up despite all their good math.
And to be honest, I wonder how much money a "team manager" gets paid considering it's not a full time job? $10 an hour plus 1% of the jackpot? One-half percent of the jackpot? I'm sure the money man who is financing the team doesn't want to give away all of his profit-- I know that I wouldn't.
Frank gave me a copy of his book. I haven't read much past the first few pages (interesting, but I have other things that keep me from finishing). I'm curious did he ever spell out the dollars and cents of who pays, wins and earns what on a team?
And as we have discussed before, unless you are playing something like a $25 denomination game, an AP is probably earning less than a fast food restaurant manager, and the fast food restaurant manager has benefits.
This entire AP argument appears to be pointless.
Come on, a "team owner" pays his slugs minimum wage less benefits because he is addicted to the larger progressive jackpots, and he counts on one of his players getting lucky each time. Problem is, as Alan showed us with the team that was wiped out of extinction at Rincon, it doesn't always happen. Frank for some reason has chosen to be one of those slugs, and it is probably also the reason why he's got a roommate instead of a family. These AP's are almost all alike: they play long long hours, they cherish the points above all else, they all claim to be winners even if they never risk a dime of their own money, and they ALL seem to have created a conundrum of personal problems because of their addiction to the game.
I guess I need to add selective memory to your problems. If you've been ahead in every session you've ever played then you must be the luckiest player on the planet. For the rest of us my statement stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Looks like a nice self portrait. Once again the dufus makes claims he couldn't possibly know. Or, in other words, he is lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Yeah, 15 years of funding a losing proposition. What planet do you live on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You don't know how they did for the year. A small team does not expect to hit every progressive and does not need to hit all of them to win. All they need to do is always play with an advantage, have a sufficient bankroll and hit their share. I'm sorry Alan, but your claim here is pure nonsense. The fact you actually think like this is worrisome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
These comments are easily answered:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
1. On the surface we don't know that he had the same financier for all of the attempts by his teams. But in fact, he didnt. He has talked about different teams and different financial arrangements over the years that he has managed teams. And he had different team members-- they were not a fixed group. Sometimes he played on the "team" when a regular player was not available. Does the fact that he didnt have the same team members or the same financier bring you down to Earth?
2. The team that used to play at Rincon is gone. Period. When the progressive was up to $70,000 last year, they got hit very hard trying to win it. In fact they were there for three days losing heavily on a 9/5 DDB paytable. They were so frustrated at the end that they sat in their seats playing one hand per minute (repeat one hand per minute) hoping they would not have to give up their seats. It didn't matter. They didn't get the $70k jackpot.
That was the third big progressive they failed to hit and they haven't been seen since.
Really Arc, are you going to defend this team now? I'm sure they were smart, well bankrolled, and knew how to play the game with an edge. The point is none of that guarantees a winner.
And so it is with any individual player. Be smart, well bankrolled, and know how to play and you are not guaranteed to be a winner.
Yet, you still resist the idea that winning when ahead can help you be a winner? Why don't you simply say-- yes, if that works for you then good for you.
I say that if your system works for you, then good for you. But we "regular players" like the idea of cashing out as winners.
Alan, Frank was playing with a >2% edge consistently. The chances that he lost in a team environment where they play millions of hands every year is almost zero. Of course, you don't know anything about the math so you will accept silly assertions instead. The fact they had the team change over time is just normal. People change their priorities, or some team members may not have been reliable. Some members may decide to go on their own since some of the winnings would go to the team sponsor. This is normal in any business. Why you would claim this has some meaning is strange.
As for the Rincon team you are getting to be as bad as the dufus. You are claiming knowledge you don't have. It's possible they simply didn't bring enough of their bankroll with them. Of course, it's also possible they didn't have a sufficient bankroll for the play. That would not surprise me either. If they did not have a sufficient bankroll then they aren't really pros. They are wannabes and were probably destined to eventually lose.
If I found a 2% edge on $100 machines I would be very tempted to play. However, I don't have the bankroll and I could easily lose what I have. If I failed it would not mean the math doesn't work. It simply means I had an insufficient bankroll. Of course, I might win like Dancer did. Just because one person won would not make it a good idea to bet above your bankroll either. From a mathematics point of view his bet was still a poor one.
Quitting while ahead will not change the math. I've explained this to you before and yet you keep with this silly nonsense. I've also told you to go ahead and try it and report back your results after a year or two. It's likely the only thing that will convince you of the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now you are being absurd Arc. You wrote: As for the Rincon team you are getting to be as bad as the dufus. You are claiming knowledge you don't have.
Quite the contrary, my friend. That is the casino I play at. I knew the team members. Two couples from Reno. They're gone. I know what happened to them when they sat at the machines -- trying to block someone else from grabbing the $70,000 jackpot, and they failed at it. A guy from Vegas hit it.
They haven't been seen since.
And there you go again with your "2% edge." Yes, the marvelous 2% edge that does you no good unless YOU HAPPEN TO WIN.
You see Arc, all of your theoretical math can be filed under the title: "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" ... or.... "the math says I should win but why are my credit cards maxed out?"
And I love this one, Arc, because this really gets to the heart of the entire matter and why it pays to take your profits and run. You wrote: If I found a 2% edge on $100 machines I would be very tempted to play. However, I don't have the bankroll and I could easily lose what I have. If I failed it would not mean the math doesn't work. Yes, Arc, there is hope for you yet.
Arc, you also wrote in a different post: Quitting while ahead will not change the math. I've explained this to you before and yet you keep with this silly nonsense.
I do not disagree with you about the math. I am sure that the math will work over millions of hands, and to that I say:
A. I don't have a bankroll for millions of hands to see the "true math" play out
B. I don't want to be in a casino playing millions of hands to see the "true math" play out
C. After a while, video poker does get boring, and sitting too long hurts my back
And none of that is silly nonsense.
I like this! Alan's getting under arci's skin with more facts and common sense, he's showing arci how much all those "2% edge in of phantom bucks" are worth, and all poor arci can come up with is more theory to keep from going completely under.....
I 'd say another mind-clearing trip to Walgreen's might be the answer :)
If they are from Reno they probably play there most often. So, you are confirming my statement. You provided no evidence that they have quit playing, you provided no evidence that they are bankrupt, etc. You are simply making assumptions that fit what you want to believe. It's called confirmation bias. You believe what you want to believe. Now, if you don't respond to the issues I raised above then are admitting you don't really know the relevant facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
More of your silly nonsense. You might as being saying TVs can't work, cell phones can't work, etc. They are all based on the same mathematical principles. Once again you are using the logic that says you might get eaten by a man eating tiger so you should never leave your house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Unless you've changed your gambling routine you will play a million hands in 6-7 years. Your entire argument just bit the big one. But, even if you play less you are still affected by the expected return of the games you play. The only difference is that range of results is a little wider. Sorry, you can try and ignore the math but it still applies to you and every other gambler even if they are in denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So very funny....and entertaining! Alan gives arci known examples about the team at Rincon (or should I say--the FORMER team!), he articulately explains all the facts as given to him, and all arci can do is make up a defense built on theory and probability, and then name-calls.
Imagine how much you would have enjoyed facing arci in a college debate: You present all the known facts, and arci responds with "Whatever really happened doesn't matter because it's what's SUPPOSE to happen according to theory that does....so you're lying, dufus!"
Is it any wonder why the poor guy has the struggles with life that he has today, as he's housebound- with only an immoral sneak out the backdoor to the Indian casinos every week as entertainment? :) :) That deserves a double!
Arc wrote: You might as being saying TVs can't work, cell phones can't work, etc. They are all based on the same mathematical principles.
My dear friend Arc. While a TV, a cell phone and a video poker machine all operate using the same math and science, the TV is not going to deliver a clear signal only about one in 40,000 tries (about the chance of getting a royal with a video poker machine). The cell phone is not going to complete a call about 45% of the time (chance of getting a winning hand in most video poker games). The math and electronics of a TV are designed so that the damn TV will turn on and work when you want it to, and the math and electronics of the cell phone are designed so that the damn cell phone will turn on and work when you want it to. While the VIDEO POKER MACHINE has a RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR which says you will NOT get a royal flush, or a full house, or quads or even a pair when you want them but only sometimes if you are lucky.
I doubted whether you would understand the analogy. Electronics work because of the law of large numbers. VP results approach the ER because of the law of large numbers. That's the way the statistics of large numbers work. What you are doing is claiming that because a few electrons may not flow as expected that somehow that will cause your TV to fail. However, it doesn't take all the electrons to flow as expected. When you have enough electrons it overcomes the few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The same holds for VP. You keep going back to claiming that a miss here and there is important and I keep telling you that is expected. It's included in the math. Over time it all tends to average out, just like those good old electrons.