Printable View
A Strip Casino offers me two free nights, $2500 in gift cards to a store where I shop all the time, with no strings attached as long as I check in.
I play video poker and lose $2,499, but my comps from my play also cover my modest meal charges.
Am I a video poker winner according to the AP definition of winning at video poker? or for that matter, any game?
I think I still lost $2499 playing video poker any way you look at it.
Alan, in my opinion, you should count gift cards, even at a store "where you shop all the time," at no better than 50%. That's simply because that's average retail markup. I am a cheap, sale-scouring, Kohl's cash hoarding person who can do without most things, so for me personally, I wouldn't count gift cards more than 30-33%. I'd make an exception for gasoline in small amounts, since that's not heavily discounted. So by my definition, what you're describing was not a winning trip.
But that's just me. I'm not much of a consumer.
This question has more to do with what kind of consuming you do than video poker. I don't really have a store where "I shop all the time."
As I said in the other thread I never count non-cash equivalent items in my numbers. Now, does that mean everyone should do that? No, it's just my preference. What you should do, Alan, is assign a value to the items that is meaningful to you. If you would have spent $2500 in the store independent of your VP play then I could see you treating it at 100%. If not, then you should do what redietz said and figure out what percentage you might have spent. Since this is subjective I avoid it, but that's just me.
As for gas cards, I would value them at 100%. I buy gas on a regular basis. It's not like I would buy extra gas because of the gas cards.
I wanted to make one thing clear regarding me personally -- I'm ahead lifetime playing video poker -- but not much. Enough for a used car but not a new one.
I guess I haven't lost enough to get offered gift cards and such for showing up, so this question is only hypothetical for me. I've gotten maybe $50 in gas cards in my lifetime, but not any other kind of gift cards. So my lifetime "I'm ahead" total doesn't have any gift cards in the tally other than $50 in gas or thereabouts.
I have no idea whether Dancer counts cruises as winnings -- if I won a cruise (which I did in a football contest), I'd consider it worth either what I sell it for (I'm not big on cruises) or what I'd pay if I paid for it at some rock bottom last minute discount, which would put it somewhere between 33% and 50% of listed casino price.
I'm not sure what your point here is, Alan -- the high profile advantage players maybe don't actually win? Maybe they don't, but that's no reason for you to play, and it's no reason for you to play using a different and inferior set of rules. I'm no Dancer fan -- mainly because he's luring people into playing, and only his unique personal history and cashback status allows him to win.
Actually redietz, I didn't bring up the issue concerning me, personally, but because of the claims of certain "advantage players" who do count virtually everything as part of their wins -- whether it be cash back, trips, show tickets, dinners, jackets, ashtrays, or whatever.
Personally, I think that's dishonest in the world of "video poker accounting."
If you are going to tell people that you won money playing video poker as an "advantage player" I think it should ONLY be from video poker play. Rebates, cashback, gas cards, trips, even winning a raffle for a new car doesn't cut it with me. Either you win at video poker or you don't. You can't -- or at least you shouldn't -- be allowed to offset your losses with a wardrobe of casino jackets, or cars won in a raffle, or gas cards.
Again I refer to that one time I was at a lecture of Dancer's and he said his video poker income was $250,000 for the year. Half coming from video poker, and half coming from cash back. OK, that was honest. He actually won $125,000 playing VP and good for him. The other $125-thou was a rebate or gift.
I'm like you redietz (I think) in that I really don't count "gifts" in my video poker balance sheet. Heck, I don't even count the gas cards -- and that's a 100% cash equivalent.
If you tell me that you won a certain amount of money from video poker, make sure it's really ALL from video poker and don't include anything else. Anything else is a twist of the truth.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Many of the casinos now run promotions for gift cards and gas cards that include a basic "show up amount" and then you get additional "cards" based on coin through. You don't have to lose to get them.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
A few of the recent gift card promotions I played at included $100 for showing up, and then additional gift cards for coin through. Playing a game like 9/6 jacks or 8/5 bonus at a high enough denomination -- and with a little luck -- you can easily walk away with more in gift cards than you actually lost. I've even had a few of these where I've had a winning session and had the gift cards as a bonus.
But I don't use those gift cards as proof that I am a winning video poker player -- and I never would.
I actually think cashback should count as "winnings." It is cash, after all, once you've played it through. Not counting cashback would be inaccurate. And I count all the stupid little promo things where you get $10 in vp play on this day or swipe your card if you're a guest and get $20 here or there. That's all "video poker playing," so I count it. If they want to give me Christmas vp play, I count that, too.
It's funny, though, in that I never got a gift card other than gas.
If you win stuff and sell it on ebay, that should count -- that's what I'd do with cruises and such. It is cash, after all, once the sale is complete. Now if you actually wind up taking cruises you otherwise would not have taken, I have no idea if that should count at all.
I have never counted meals, and it never occurred to me to count meals or rooms or stuff like that.
You know where I'm going next -- if your host gets you a hooker, should that count? Let's ask Dancer -- he seems like a smarmy 70's throwback kind of guy.
redietz here's my problem with counting cash back: it can hide just how well or how poorly you did playing the game. Cash back is not based on your winnings, but on your coin through. Put a million dollars through the machine and only break even on your "expert play" and you will get a ton of cash back -- BUT it doesn't show that you are a winner at video poker, does it? It doesn't mean that your "expert play" worked to beat the casino, does it?
I'm addressing the "advantage play authors" here: if the lessons and methodology of the strategy in playing video poker worked on its own, you should have a profit from video poker on its own -- not with the crutch of cash back, gifts, raffles, promotions.
Cash back, gifts, raffles, promotions are also given to losers aren't they? And one could argue that the bigger the loser, the more promotions they are given.
Besides, a lot of casinos have either eliminated cash back or cutting it down severely. It is hard to factor cash back into your video poker bottom line anymore.
I don't play enough at any given property to get cashback, so I have little first hand experience. I know cashback was cut at South Point pretty dramatically. For the last several years, I doubt I've topped 80 hours any given year, so I'm out of the cashback loop.
What you're saying is true, Alan, about the vp promoters not giving a line item accounting. If they did that nowadays, it'd make clear that without Dancer's mega-historical play levels, what he does simply doesn't work any more. That's my beef -- Dancer doesn't come out and say, "You can no longer do what I did." Now Frank, on the other hand, was straight up about how lousy things are in video poker these days.
I first started playing vp when sports comps began to be cut in the late 80's and early 90's. Prior to that, sports and race comps were equitable, and I had no interest in video poker. But then sports comps began to be slashed (now many places they're one-fifth race comps), and I took a look at vp as a way to invest a few hours and get meals and such. At that time, vp and slot comps were equitable. Well, eventually, the vp comps became a fraction of slot comps, similar to what happened to sports comps vis-a-vis race comps.
Had I seen this thread yesterday afternoon when we arrived in southern Oregon, I could have saved a little of the confusion and a lot of the arci-rambling that went into several posts here.
First off, not all AP's create a so-called positive play equally, as you probably already know and will further see. Start off by discounting whatever arci says. He moved to LV believing it was a haven of positive games and profits for advantage players, but quickly discovered all those lucrative-sounding promotions that tugged on AP's theory strings, meant he could rarely withdraw money from the casinos as he had heard. He soon left a failure, as numerous AP's have done before him. (Edited by moderator.) Filed under "Lessons Learned".
In 2004 or 2005 I was asked by the late, great publisher of Gaming Today, Chuck DiRocco, to research some of Bob Dancers articles on how he calculated these "advantage play situations" and compare them with what his latest one claimed. If I could quote actual columns and identify where they came from, he would publish my article. So I got to work. Chuck was a wealthy and successful businessman who could see right thru all the BS Dancer wrote about (which is why he fired him and went after me) so this was a fun assignment for me.
What I found was that Dancer started out his advantage play by only playing 100%+ machines--of which there were many back then just as redietz said--but the most interesting quote I copied was how the great Bob Dancer would never, ever play any vp game that on its own, wasn't over 100%.
But true to form, a year or so later after the demise of many higher limit 100%+ games, here comes hypocrite Bob again, now explaining that he gets to over 100% theoretical play by adding in cash back and,bounce back or coupon cash. He moaned how these "freebies" used to net him a 3% or 4% advantage, but no longer.
As fate would have it, Bob was once again asked to recreate himself. Machine paytables were further reduced, slot club cash was reduced, and he now had to add in tournament play, gifts, room comps, and shows to the theoretical +EV mix. Again, he was found contradicting himself, and I suspect today he now finds himself applying unreal values to his gifts and all that other "free" stuff he constantly brags about receiving. But he's still in the vp selling business, so he really has no choice.
Another example is from the time I bumped into Jean Scott and her boy toy Brad playing a 10/7 DBP game at the Hard Rock. The conversation went well, but when we were talking about how much of a theoretical "edge" she believed she had, she talked about the cash back, she talked about the coupon cash, she talked about the food and show comps, but she also looked at me and said "and truthfully, if I have to, I even add in something for the good treatment and smiles as provided for by my casino host".
Finally, Alan is pretty much on the right track here. A true vp pro or even a serious vp player would only include money won or lost directly from the vp machine as a measure of his or her success or failure. It's way too easy and indeed is a big part of every serious vp addict's game, to use those comps, gifts, giftcards, gas cards, etc. as a virtual bridge between winning and losing. And anyone who uses freeplay as part of their "theoretical" is only fooling themself.
The reason players use slot club fluff and mailed offers as part of their results is because it is way too easy to lie to onself in order to justify the losing and continued play. Who's gonna know about or complain if you 4X value anything? It is also a justification to claim problem gambling is not a part of what they are involved in.
Pure nonsense, Alan. You have to understand that the pros/APers look at CB/FP/etc. before they play. Here's an analogy. Does a top notch waiter only look at the base pay when they look for a job? There are restaurants where tips can be $50/hour or more. There are restaurants where it might be only $10/hour or less. In both these cases the base pay might be only $5-10/hour. If you were a waiter would you take a job at $5 base + $50 tips or $10 base + $10 tips?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is exactly what an APer does. They look at the combined amount and generally play the highest returning play. Now, this might be a case where the game only returns 99.5% like JOB but the CB/FP/etc. was 2%. Of course, if you only look at their VP play they are likely to show a loss. Who cares? Only those who are trying to sell a con. The APer only cares about the bottom line, just like the waiter.
Sorry, if you still believe this is true go back and read my analogy again. Cash is cash, Alan. There are not two shades of green. If a player is playing a negative game then they expect to lose at the game itself. If you don't understand that APers completely understand this fact then you are underestimating their intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Which means the APers don't play there anymore. They play where they have an advantage. Not where a certain game may be slightly positive or slightly negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Oh Arcimede$ your analogies are very creative, but not convincing.
The authors sell books, strategy cards, and hold seminars about how to win at video poker. They charge good money for their "lessons." It seems to me that if you are correct they should come out and say "you can't win at video poker, so look for cash back, free play, coffee mugs and tee shirts and other promos from the casino."
Here's an analogy for you Arc: A supermarket cashier takes a $9 an hour job but finds a way to become a millionaire because he knows how to steal out of the cash drawer, and then announces how being the best supermarket cashier can lead to a golden career.
I think you have to count cashback as part of the equation, but I also think Dancer and others are, as Rob said, being disengenuous when they tout the potential rewards of playing video poker these days. Frank's take on this stuff speaks volumes.
I wonder if Dancer and Scott were forced to post a factual disclaimer, "Despite my success, 90% of all self-described advantage players lose" or something like that, what effect that would have on their ability to promote themselves. Rob touched on this in earlier posts. Even the rare APers who have won (like Arci and me) can be vulnerable to everything else the casinos offer. So of the APers who actually pull off the enterprise of winning at video poker, how many maintain a positive bottom line vis a vis all casino games? It's the "Stu Unger Problem" -- namely whizzes in one category of gaming often blow their expertise-earned profits in other categories. The video poker, even though they win, creates an "perpetual action mode" that they may not experience if they weren't playing video poker.
I did really like Rob's "virtual bridge between losing and winning" line. I may borrow that (and give due credit) one of these days. That was an elegant line.
Silly analogy, Alan. I've only talked about legal options that are open to all players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What do you think Jean Scott's books are about? For the most part they are telling people how to garner extra money from casinos though many different means. So, she does exactly what you are saying VP writer's don't do. Come on, you are really digging deep here to try and come up something negative. Let me tell you, it only makes you look bad. The fact is, if you read her books, you'd already know this. She even discusses that her methods may simply cut losses rather than leading to any wins.
Oh, and show me where any VP writer says you can win playing a negative game ONLY. You've made a claim, now let's see you back it up.
Once again we see the only thing that comes out of Singer's mouth is lies. I won every year in Vegas. I won before Vegas and I continue to win. So, if he starts out with a lie you know the rest of his comment is not going to have much substance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I believe that may be true. However, the world changed and Bob changed with it. What's wrong with that? For example, Bob could still play FPDW in many places in Vegas. That would be a positive game and would have kept with his initial intentions. However, there's very little money to made. The casinos pulled out the high denomination positive plays and increased the money that went into promotions and player's club items. So, being of sound mind (unlike you know who), Bob altered his approach to take advantage of that change. Duh. It sounds like Singer would have take the lower paying waiter's job. How smart is that? Is this the type of individual anyone should listen to? Easy answer ... no. All you get from Singer is silly nonsense over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
There is some value in Bob maintaining an image. For example, his name is on VPfW. He also has makes money other ways. So, only a d***s would find fault with someone managing a career to make a living. He's doing exactly what Alan has done. This has nothing to do with his providing factual information about video poker. Not only that, but I suspect all of Bob's play's are cash positive. Let's see Singer demonstrate just one case where Bob played without an advantage. Notice, I didn't say Bob won every time. Only that the odds favored him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Typical nonsense strawman. No one is talking about comps. Only cash equivalent. Let me know when Singer says just one intelligent thing. It may take a while but I'm willing to wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Nope, not one single intelligent comment. No one uses "fluff" for anything. Now you know why I call him a dufus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Imagine how rattled arci was when he discovered he forgot to babble the same lies over and over again in his earlier reply? (Comment removed by moderator.)
BTW my friend, I am a writer who not only says, but has accomplished, winning on "negative machines" over time. :) And my wife didn't have to suffer one bit over it either!
Arc wrote: Oh, and show me where any VP writer says you can win playing a negative game ONLY. You've made a claim, now let's see you back it up.
Arc, get real. People win on negative games every day of the week. It's casino gambling. Playing a positive game does not give you a lock on winning.
I take issue withone thing Arci said -- namely that Dancer probably always plays a cash positive game. I sincerely doubt that, and we are not going to read a column from Dancer detailing it. Dancer does things in other lines of gambling that he thinks/describes as "having an edge" when his edge is a matter of semantics or perception, not reality, so my suspicion is that he does the same with video poker.
Let's make one thing clear here -- Dancer busted out early in his career at other forms of gambling. Did he think he had an edge? I doubt if he suddenly "got religion" with video poker.
I don't buy the whole "fashioning and adapting a career" bit as an excuse for never saying, "You can't do what I did, and you probably can't do what I now do." He's no different than other self-help gurus selling stuff that won't or cannot work for 99.99% of the population. Why do you do that? Why damage people for your own benefit? And that's what he does, because if the majority of people buying his stuff lose, which they do, he's damaging them.
And that's EXACTLY why he's still working as a consultant, selling whatever he can to the dreamers, requiring a fee to teach vp classes, not giving his advice via e-mail without a credit card number first, and charging $250 an hour for "private lessons" at the machines.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Now you've REALLY painted him into a corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Everyone knows people win on negative games all the time, so he'll now have to twist it to say he meant "over time", which of course is another denial and a lie because he knows I've done it as a professional player on a continuous basis. And then, after swallowing hard, he'll have no way out other than to pretend I am an "exception to the rule" here except that, I have continued to flourish playing negative games intelligently.
Keep workin' him....he has nothing better to do! :)
"Now you've REALLY painted him into a corner."
Yeah, I feel so much pressure .... cough, cough. I'm not surprised that you couldn't figure out that Alan was trying to cover up for his previous remarks. You never were very quick.
Sorry, you're the one that claimed VP writers were claiming you could win (long term) on negative machines. Not me. Let's see you back it up, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc, I have all of these books, DVDs, software from VP gurus. Not one of them tell me that I will LOSE following their advice playing, for example, 9/6 Jacks. They all tell me how to WIN using their advice.
Edited to add: Tell me one book or tutorial DVD about Video Poker that has a warning that says "if you play this negative expectation game you will lose" and I will go out and BUY IT.
And it seems to me, Arcimede$, that you should be contacting ALL of the publishers of the tutorials, the books, the tapes, the DVDs and the strategy cards and remind them that it is impossible to win over the long term. Do that. Let's see how far you get with "that business."
Well, I never did buy any books for myself. My wife has Frugal Gambler by Jean Scott but I never read it other than a couple of pages here and there. So, I don't know what they say, but you still haven't provided a single example where anyone claims you will win playing negative games. So, I can only conclude there is nothing despite your previous claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
In case you have forgotten how the concept of anonymous posters on the Internet works, people deduce how that person is affected by certain words, and then we're able to confirm the effect by how much and how often they deny, divert, and attempt to misdirected. In addition to your own self-imposed personal pressures at home, guess how much more mucous your "coughing" just released. :)
Ha-ha....now he's back in that corner that he denies exists again!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
LOL wheels, you can't even keep up with the topic at hand. Better get back on those wheels and cruise to your next location while I have a huge belly laugh. Bwah hahahahahahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
And I thought you couldn't make comments any less intelligent ... I guess I was wrong.
You just showed how much my comment bothered you.... or was it something else I said. :)
And thank you, my healthy wife and I very much appreciate your knowledge of what it's like being able to go places and do things. Sleep well, my friend.
Now I have a suggestion for you Mr. Arcimede$: go ahead and read their books and see that all they talk about is how to win-- even on negative expectation games. Yes, Arc, they talk about proper strategy on games like 9/6 jacks and 8/5 Bonus. Those strategies are the bread and butter of their business. And you know what? There is no warning about negative expectation games. What they say, is that over the long term, 9/6 jacks will return 99.5%. Very crafty those authors, always accenting the positive and never the negative. Because they should say -- as you point out Mr. Arcimede$ is that over the long term you will lose 0.5% playing 9/6 Jacks or Better. But if they said that no one would buy their books, would they?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
No Arc, none of them ever came right out and said you will win playing negative games -- at least if you define winning as a long term profit. But don't blame me for that. Blame Dancer, Scott, Grochowski and all the other peddlers and gurus and authors and publishers for only talking about winning at negative expectation games.
You shouldn't be attacking or criticizing me, Arc, YOU should be going after the guys writing the books, selling the books, etc.
It seems that Scott and Dancer and Grochowski and all the others are hiding that "long term reality" that you are devoted to.
And let's not forget Jean Scot's famous words of wisdom where she said her EV gets a boost by bringing a paper bag to the buffets and filling them up with rolls!
Such crafty people, these advantage play vp gurus!! :)
I'm not defending the video poker authors -- not at all. But if a person reading 99.5% return doesn't realize he/she is going to get his ass kicked, maybe the fault lies in the US educational system. How can you read 99.5% and think, "Whoa, that's dandy?"
Yeah, authors accentuate that, but I like when Penn and Teller, in their act, say straight out, "People don't understand basic math. They come here and think 99% return is a good thing!" And everybody laughs.
If a person is teaching you 99.5% video poker, then he's teaching you how to lose. There's no mystery. If somebody can't get the definition of 99.5% right, then....well, that explains banking crises, why all those mortgages are under water, and how the lottery makes money.
Welcome to dum-dum land.
Only in your fantasies. I do get a kick out of making you look foolish, but that's about as far as it goes. But hey, keep fantasizing, it's about the only thing you have left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You're a lot like the dudes claiming the end of the world was coming. I'll bet they constantly told other people how sorry they'd be when it happened. Just like you it was only a silly fantasy. How does it feel to be so lost in your own delusions you can't separate reality from fantasy? Must be a real bummer.
BTW, I shot 33 yesterday for the 9 holes I played. 6 pars and 3 birdies. Then I came home and enjoyed myself reading, surfing and watching a little TV. Have a nice green day.
No, it sounds like they clearly stated the expected return. Only in your world is that a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Keep in mind that many of these games can be part of an overall positive play. If you have 9/6 JOB combined with .9% CB and .6% freeplay that comes out to a 1% edge. In fact, that is exactly what one could play at SouthPoint on triple point days when I was in Vegas.
Sounds to me like the authors were providing valuable information to people who know how to comprehend English. However, I've noted several times that you have a problem in that area. Instead of attacking these people I think you should be taking a close look in the mirror. Sorry to be blunt, but that is reality.
So many words....so many self-confidence building explanations....so much frustration :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
I just hope you remembered to bring home the Burger King!!!!!!!!
Now we have something concrete to discuss. So, tell me where I can find this deal now: 9/6 Jacks plus 0.9% cash back plus 0.6% free play. If you can find it, and identify the casino, you win!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Unfortunately about two months ago, Harrah's Rincon removed all of their 9/6 Jacks machines and the best you'll find now is 8/5 Jacks (yes, you are better off playing 8/5 Bonus which continues). They also cut back on free play and cash back never came close to 0.9%. Caesars LV has no cash back, though you will find 9/6 Jacks at higher denominations (not at $1 by the way, Arc). There is no regular free play program at Caesars though they sometimes do give a free play promotion in lieu of gift cards.
I haven't been in Vegas for 3 years, so I can't help you out (and I wouldn't even if I knew). It's called "scouting" and it's something I did as an AP in Vegas. If you want to find good plays you have to get off your butt and do the work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now, this kind of effort is not something everyone likes to do. Most people don't care enough which is fine. However, if you are going to complain without doing the necessary work, then you're just a whiner. Either accept what you have and quit complaining or go out there and find the good plays. I just saw a comment on vpfree where Jean Scott mentioned a good promotion she got this month.
Translation: he REMEMBERED the BK, only she didn't want mayo on her whopper :):)
Ok, Arc, I called your bluff. It doesn't exist anymore. What's your next theoretical argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Is it a coin flip maybe? LOL
And there's that corner again that arci's so frightfully afraid of!
From what Frank was saying he's still playing on a regular basis. So, it does exist. What's your next excuse for whining?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Do you mean the Frank who doesn't play with his own money and hasn't for the past 14 years?
I couldn't resist the chance to reveal the truth. So I just got off the phone with South Point. Current free play offers are limited to $75 PER MAILER. That's it. $75. Cash back is 0.3%. I'm sorry to be blunt, Arc, but that is reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
As far as my own tax bracket is concerned (as someone who will not pump 200K on up per month at one property), it appears as if various Stations properties have 25 cent FPDW, and points are limited or none. The Palms, I heard recently, reinstated their 25 cent FPDW. Now you're only going to make, what, $6 to $8 an hour playing these, but it's better than losing.
So you can win, but unless you have one helluva bankroll and a history that puts you in the top 50 players in the city so as to get top cashback at Coast, for example, you're going to have to settle for doing it the old fashioned way -- $1.25 at a time on single play quarter machines.
Now if you're one of the top 50 and can generate mega-entries in various drawings, I suppose you can fill your days pounding six digits through the machines while keeping your fingers crossed that various and sundry on-the-ropes or bankruptcy-emerging companies don't rig their drawings for specific players.
This is why Frank isn't playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I am going to have to side with redietz on this one. When I had lunch with Frank several months ago he told me he hasn't played in a long, long time and when he did it was ONLY WOPM (with other people's money).Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Arc, care to comment? And don't forget to let me know if you have or have not read the books by the video poker authors?
Well now Alan, if you're gonna start cheating and quote actual points spoken by a real live Frank IN PERSON, then you'll have to give arci a little more time to collect himself and make up more nonsense on the go. You can bet he won't sleeping well, as he HAS TO put a different spin on it or an altogether different set of made up lies.
You caught him with his pants down. That was GREAT!! :)
Frank's been playing for more than 14 years. In addition, I assume his pay was likely close to the average expectation so what he did was smartly cut his variance which would eliminate big wins (and losses). He likely didn't make more money that he would have otherwise over the total time, but all I referring to was he probably had a few big years that were better than the one you quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Cashback was always .3%. I was referring to 3x point days. Did you ask about those? As for freeplay it used to be $100 at the level I played so that hasn't changed much. I would play at SP on their 3x days and collect the mailer. With that limited play it worked out to exactly what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
This is another reason why I played at multiple casinos. I only played at SP the amount of time to give me a 1% edge. That was it. If I had played more my edge would have dropped. This is the way you need to think if you want to be an AP. The lies wheels tells you about APers just jumping on a machine and playing forever are not true.
I've also mentioned my play at Tuscany before as well. Same approach. I played their on 5x and 10x days only. I collected freeplay and CB that gave me about a 1.5% edge. I also played at Palms, Fiestas, Sams Town, Stations, Circus Circus, Skyline and other places when promotions or games went in where I had an advantage. No one said it was easy to be a winner.
Frank mentioned he was playing quite regularly (more than he wanted) when he was commenting on LVA and VP.com (he'd even make comments about having to leave to go play). I have a feeling you're not being completely honest here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
BINGO! Right on queue!! Notice the multiple responses arci needed to come up with what he wants to believe are face-saving answers to Frank's actual statements? Lies never do make it past those pesky little facts though.:)
Arc let me set you straight. Frank managed teams. He sometimes would sit in on a team playing with someone else's money, when team was short. He hasn't put one quarter of his own into a machine in more than fourteen years, and he told me to my face while he chomped on a $38 steak at Central at Caesars that he wouldn't put even a quarter into a video poker machine today ANYWHERE.
If he wants to change that and post it here he's invited and he's a member of the Forum.
I addressed the multiplier days in another post. Yes there are multiplier days but for the real world recreational gambler who does not live in Vegas or live in a casino, whether or nut there is a multiplier day when we play is just a matter of luck. Many casinos do not have multiplier days -- it's really something in the "locals market."
And regarding his comments on the various message boards about "leaving" -- I think they referred to him going out on a date. LOL
Alan, you stated he wasn't playing any VP ("When I had lunch with Frank several months ago he told me he hasn't played in a long, long time"). So you need to make up your mind.
Alan, I've never said anything about Frank not playing with other people's money. He's stated that many times. However, as I said before Frank has played for over 20 years and he did play with his own money when he started. Why do you constantly fight what is extremely simple to understand.
In many ways it doesn't matter. If Frank was playing with someone elses money and he was losing don't you think they'd stop paying him? I mean, come on ... use your brain. So, I suspect Frank earned big dollars for the team for many, many years. Some years he did better by playing with on the team's money, some years he did worse. This is really just simple logic.
So, none of your silly claims means VP machines can't be beat or that Frank wasn't earning big money for the team when he played.
Arc, I concede that playing with other people's money is indeed playing. So let me just go back and say this: he hasn't played with his own money in 14 years.
And I also don't know what he was paid as a manager, how often he was paid, what his pay rate is, or how much money he has in the bank.
But it tells me reams when he says he hasn't played with his own money in 14 years and he wouldn't play with his own money today. And here's a guy in Vegas who is only a ten minute drive from any of the "advantage plays" in town that you covet so much.
Check with Frank arci if he'll talk to you (which is doubtful because he does not like conflict-driven people). He just told me he was LOSING this year, which he of course caveated with the usual AP feel-good line that he has always won for his teams in the past.
After watching arci tell so many bold faced lies, I have no idea why anyone would believe anything these people try to get others to believe. They all have their own agendas and needs they wish to portray to the public.
I thought wheels was off travelling and yet Frank "just" told him ....
I think we know who is telling "bold faced lies".
Why would that tell you anything? Didn't you ever listen to what Frank was saying. He told us all that he hates playing VP. Why would it surprise you that he doesn't play?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Gee Arc, I would expect that a professional video poker player would play video poker -- and he would use his own money too. But, what the heck do I know.
Yes, Frank said he hates to play, but he said that's his job and how he earns his living. What we know now -- or the last time I saw a post of his and the last time I spoke with him over the table at Caesars -- was that he hasn't used his own money in 14 years to play and he wouldn't use his own money today.
I'll add one more thing about Frank and VP. He hates VP so much he would love for others to learn about the grief it caused him so they would stop playing also. You know Arc, that doesn't sound like something that a big video poker winner would say. And Frank says that based on current conditions you can't win big anymore. Of course, Frank doesnt know about your magic One Eyed Jacks machine in Minnesota, does he?
I don't know if Frank knows anything about gambling in MN and I doubt he'd consider moving away from LV to play VP. Not exactly something a person does who hates to play VP and loves the nightlife in Vegas.
You keep rambling about Frank not using his own money even after I've explained the logic to you many times. But then, you don't want to understand so I'm not surprised. If I were in Frank's shoes and I was given a set income instead of dealing with the ups and downs of normal play I have to consider it seriously. It would all depend on how much I'd have to give up on average. If it was small, then it would be a no-brainer. Of course, Frank is good at math so he'd know ... Alan ... not so much.
Hey Arc, how's this for math:
When I go to work, I get 100% return on my effort. When I go into a casino, I stand a chance of losing it all. LOL
Always looking for more conflict arci, than you have to deal with there? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Ever heard of the new technology called "e-mail"? Or are you still dreaming in the punch card era!!
Just to keep this discussion educational, the correct term is bald faced lies, as if to say the lies are prominent as a man's face without hair to cover it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Alan, you'll never get arci to admit anything because you painted him into a corner when you brought up Frank. Now you see him going off in all directions....even saying how he "would have considered" playing with other people's money when he screwed up by moving to Vegas and ended up losing his home to the poker machines. :)
You also "stand a chance" of doubling or tripling the return on your effort. The math works both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Given the propensity for wheels to project his own problems, I'm getting a strong feeling that he lost his own home recently. You have to consider that he's said things like living in less than 4500 sqft would be terrible to understand how he thinks. The concept of living in a trailer would have been impossible for him ... unless forced to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I guess all that money he won playing VP somehow got lost.
One benefit of these threads is that somewhere in here is a screenplay featuring Rob and Arci. I see Jack Black as Rob, the guy from Person of Interest (Mr. Finch) as Arci, maybe Brent Spiner as Alan. The guy who plays Wolowitz on Big Bang can play me (resident smart ass). I'm working on Frank. Any suggestions?
P.S. We're gonna have to work some babes into the screen play, but I'm hoping Frank can give us some leverage there.
Didn't Rob give his house to his daughter and her family?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
About fifteen years ago, my cameraman and I needed a cold soda, so we parked at a McDonald's and I ran in to pick them up. (The newsvan is too big for a drive-thru.) It was mid afternoon and the McDonald's was empty. I walked up to the counter and the young girl was looking down at some paperwork. Then she looked up at me and her eyes opened wide. She turned and ran into the back of the restaurant screaming "he's here, he's here!"Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
A moment later three other young girls come out from the back armed with paper and pens, and the first employee says "can we have your autograph please?"
I said "sure, but let me give it to you on my business card." So I reached into my wallet and pulled out four business cards and put them on the counter. On the first one I wrote "Thanks for watching, Alan Mendelson." I handed it to the first girl.
I did this again and handed it to the second girl, and repeated the process for the third girl. But when I handed the signed business card to the fourth girl she said, "you're not Richard Gere."
So I paid for the two sodas. I'm not sure there is much of a resemblance anymore. But I often wondered if anyone said to Richard Gere, "ya know, you look like Alan Mendelson."
I am not introducing you to the woman I'm currently seeing, Alan, as any resemblance to Richard Gere trumps all other conceivable male qualities.
Arci's just frustrated into creating more lies, that's all. Here's the house facts, and you may compare them to arci's housing fate as desired. It should be quite a laugh though :) ....then you may compare our wives :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
We did give our home to our daughter & her family when we decided to be full-time RVers. We didn't need such a big house anyway and they did. It also lost half its value and was only worth $280,000 when we signed it over. This RV is an amazing place to live, as we can go where we want, stay where and for however long we want, and it has truly unreal amenities throughout--things we as first timers never had a clue about. Fireplace, washer/dryer, satellite radio and DTV hd theater surround sound on all three tv's, just on and on with luxury throughout. It was pricey...it cost more than our house did....and it is rather expensive to move around and will be to maintain, but it sure seems to be worth it. We'll probably do it until we feel too old or get too ill to continue someday, but we're thankful we have this opportunity.
What's this got to do with video poker? Well, that's where the cash came from to pay for it. Yes, NEGATIVE EV WINNING, year after year. Oh, plus we saved for retirement, and we held our health sacred. Gee, I just can't think of a famous name guru or optimal play expert who is enjoying what we are nowadays.
So arci, did you remember the BK today? :)
I gotta know more. What kind of fireplace??Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You're the first to ask that, just as I did when we heard about it. It's one of those realistic looking electric jobs with "flames", logs, crackling, and a good amount of heat. The flame's brightness can be adjusted, as can the fan speed that dispersed the heat. It has a real purpose other than for upscale looks: there's two furnaces (we opted for those over heat pump AC's because they deliver far more heat faster and work at lower temps) and the fireplace keeps the living area around the main tv comfortable without turning the heat on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Brings back funny memories. My Aunt's home had one of the fake ones and my grandmother backed up to it and remarked how warm it was!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer