Putting your faith in "the math." Really???

I have to wonder how you could really put your faith into "the math" when playing video poker. There is nothing exact about the math. Sure, 2 + 2 exactly equals 4, and when dealt four to the royal you have exactly 1/47 chances of drawing the fifth royal card in a 52-card game.

But that's about where the "excactness" ends.

Consider John Grochowski's latest column from Aug 16, 2012: http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.com/

And this line in particular: "Given expert play in 9-6 Jacks or Better, royals occur an average of once per 40,391 hands. For your amount of play, the average expectation is two royals, but it’s within normal probability to draw one or none, just as it’s within normal probability to draw three, four or even more."

That's a darn big spread when you think about it. So maybe doing something besides what the "math" says to do isn't too bad?

Classic case: you are dealt a flush with four to the royal. I know, I know. We sacrifice the dealt flush to try for the royal. But maybe a flush in the hand is worth more than a royal in the bush?

This is precisely why my play strategy was developed. It, being only a short-term strategy, improves game er and thus, gives the player a far better opportunity to get ahead in a session by their pre determined goal. But it only means something if they're discipline also, and a good amount of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Classic case: you are dealt a flush with four to the royal. I know, I know. We sacrifice the dealt flush to try for the royal. But maybe a flush in the hand is worth more than a royal in the bush?

---

I was playing Mr Singer's RTT method and had progressed to .50 BP machine and was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k

The problem with your logic Alan is there is no method of play that will make a difference. The odds of hitting a RF is still 1/47 no matter what you do. The odds of hitting a flush is also the same. So, the big question is why would you want to use an approach that reduces your expected return when you can't count on that approach providing any advantage. That is the key and you, Singer and anyone else promoting alternate play strategies have no answer to it.

BTW Alan, you keep saying Singer does not claim he can overcome the math. Yet, this is about 3 times in the last few days he has done exactly that. What do you think he means when he says "improves game er"? He is clearly claiming he can beat the math with his system (which is what he has always said).

I have given you a mathematical proof that shows that is impossible. Now we really see what's happening. You don't care about facts or the truth. You clearly want to support this silly nonsense for some other reason.

Arc, what is your definition for "overcome the math"? Is it that he can do better than what the math says he will do playing a particular VP game? Yes, that's what he says and that's what we all want to do.

Does he say he can beat the math return on a game? Yes he says that, and we all want to do that.

Does he dispute the math? No he does not.

When I play 8/5 Bonus I am playing a game that says I should lose... by the math. So I want to play that game and leave it ahead, and overcome, beat, and do better than the math. Do you have a problem with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, what is your definition for "overcome the math"? Is it that he can do better than what the math says he will do playing a particular VP game? Yes, that's what he says and that's what we all want to do.

Does he say he can beat the math return on a game? Yes he says that, and we all want to do that.

Does he dispute the math? No he does not.

---

Of course it does. You can't beat the expected return of game. Period. On any given day your actual return may be better but that is not the issue.

Alan, if you were playing head to head video poker for 100K hands, comparing your wins or losses to one other person's, and you got first choice as to Arci's style or Rob's style, with your opponent taking whichever style you did not take, and 100K were to go to the person with the better result, which style would you choose?

Arc, how many times do we have to discuss "expected return" vs "actual return."

If you concede that someone can have one winning session on a negative expectation game, why can't they have more? Why can't their wins on a negative expectation game add up to more than their losses? Does the RNG have a memory that says... "oh, here's Rob Singer. We let him win twice before but we're going to zing him on his next ten sessions." Is that what's going on?

Why don't you just call it quits and say there is a difference between expected return and actual return, and some players might have an actual return that beats the expected return? That's all. Instead of going through life with your mathematical blinders on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

You can't beat the expected return of game. Period. On any given day your actual return may be better but that is not the issue.

---

Make up your mind Arc. If your actual return on any given day may be better why can't it be better overall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Alan, if you were playing head to head video poker for 100K hands, comparing your wins or losses to one other person's, and you got first choice as to Arci's style or Rob's style, with your opponent taking whichever style you did not take, and 100K were to go to the person with the better result, which style would you choose?

---

According to the math, the person playing the better paying game will win. So what if Rob or anyone else gets lucky? That doesn't mean the math is wrong. It only means that their actual return beat the expected return.

Is it so difficult to accept that some people can "get lucky" and beat the expected return? You guys amaze me.

Redietz, playing100,000 hands using my strategy would win more money with no doubt whatsoever, and it's because every time my win goal were hit I'd start over at dollars again. The other guy, if he played only AP, would be at a SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE compared to the guy playing SPS, given the SPS history of an 85% win rare along with a large overall actual dollar win rate to go along with that. Doesn't matter if the AP played only $100 games or not. There's a better chance the AP will lose than win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, how many times do we have to discuss "expected return" vs "actual return."

---

it appears it does not matter. You ignore the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

If you concede that someone can have one winning session on a negative expectation game, why can't they have more? Why can't their wins on a negative expectation game add up to more than their losses? Does the RNG have a memory that says... "oh, here's Rob Singer. We let him win twice before but we're going to zing him on his next ten sessions." Is that what's going on?

---

Why doesn't one place in the country get all the rain while other places are completely dry? That's what you want to happen Alan. You simply can't force good cards to be dealt. You are going to get a variety of cards and the betting system you use has nothing to do with it. Your results will be determined by the frequencies of the various cards. Just like the rain, you can't make the aces show up. You can't will a RF to happen. The only thing you control is the ability to select the cards that give you the best chance at success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Why don't you just call it quits and say there is a difference between expected return and actual return, and some players might have an actual return that beats the expected return? That's all. Instead of going through life with your mathematical blinders on.

---

I've already said exactly that many times. I call it a bell curve. However, you can't make yourself end up on the right side of the curve other than make the best holds possible. Try flipping a coin and see if you can force heads to show up more than tails. That is what you are claiming can be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Make up your mind Arc. If your actual return on any given day may be better why can't it be better overall?

---

The same reason you can't force more heads than tails. It's called randomness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antfanas

I was playing Mr Singer's RTT method and had progressed to .50 BP machine and was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k

---

It doesn't matter what kind of system you were playing when you were dealt the foyal and then hit the royal. The "system" did not give you the foyal and the "system" did not fill the hand for a royal. Suggesting that the "system" was responsible for your 2K is as silly as saying you got it because you were drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi when you hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Redietz, playing100,000 hands using my strategy would win more money with no doubt whatsoever, and it's because every time my win goal were hit I'd start over at dollars again. The other guy, if he played only AP, would be at a SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE compared to the guy playing SPS, given the SPS history of an 85% win rare along with a large overall actual dollar win rate to go along with that. Doesn't matter if the AP played only $100 games or not. There's a better chance the AP will lose than win.

---

Complete and total nonsense.

Arc you really can distort facts: it even rains in the desert. When will you acknowledge that it is possible to win on negative expectation games? Is that so impossible for you to admit? That's all I'm saying: it is possible to win one day, two days and overall. Just like it rains in the desert.

Alan, he's only acting like that because it provides amusement for someone with a plethora of time to kill...time that you or I would spend as quality time at home or by going out for entertainment. You're feeding the troll, and he comes back with the most foolish of unsubstantiated replies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc you really can distort facts: it even rains in the desert. When will you acknowledge that it is possible to win on negative expectation games? Is that so impossible for you to admit? That's all I'm saying: it is possible to win one day, two days and overall. Just like it rains in the desert.

---

Yes, just like I've stated a zillion times. My point once again is not that you can't win occasionally, it is simply that your chances of being ahead diminish over time if you play negative games. The more negative the faster those chances diminish. Over a couple of years of steady play those chances get really close to zero.

Now, when will you quit worrying about one days play and think about your results over multiple sessions? Is that so impossible for you?

Hehe! Arci stepped into his own trap again.
If someone acknowledges it's possible to win on today's visit on a "negative" game that's .5% less theoretically than some other, then that same person must be insane not to believe it can happen again tomorrow & the day after etc. And that's playing a single denomination. Use SPS as I developed and there's an 85% chance of winning along with an even larger chance you will be ahead more than the amount of your session win goal times the number of sessions you've played. People who take on the lazy theory that if it's a negative game you will win, and if it's a positive game you will lose, either don't play, are forced to lie,about their results, or do not know how math really works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Now, when will you quit worrying about one days play and think about your results over multiple sessions? Is that so impossible for you?

---

We're not talking about me. We're talking about the idea about winning playing negative expectation games using various tools such as "banking profits" and "quitting after reaching win goals." These are all useful tools when coupled with the fact that you can reach big winning combinations even playing negative expectation games.

After all, what makes a negative expectation game? It's not the royal flush -- nearly all royals pay 4000 coins. And various other "big payoffs" are darn close to other big payoffs. What typically is used to lower pay tables is an adjustment for two pair, three of a kind, full houses and flushes.

Hitting the big hands on an 6/5 Bonus game pay the same as a 8/5 bonus game which are the same as a 10/7 double bonus game.

So, when you hit the big combinations, that negative pay table you are so worried about no longer is an issue.

Now granted, no one sits down and immediately hits a royal. Well, practically no body... My last two royals on $1 8/5 Aces and Faces were hit just on the free play money which was less than $200 on both occasions. No Arc, pay tables do not mean as much as being in the right place at the right time. Video poker isn't just math, it's also a lot of variance... ummmm.... luck.

If you think the whole thing is predetermined by the math then you will have to stop playing the day you lose those One Eyed Jacks machines.

Edited to add: Again you concede that one can win at negative expectation games occasionally and you say that over time you can't. Really, Arc? Does the RNG have a secret code in it that says "we'll let this guy win once but not twice"? Or does the secret code say "this guy is now ahead for the past six months, so it's time to give him a losing streak"?

In craps we say that the dice have no memory. What makes you think that the video poker machines know what you won before and if you won before they won't let you win again to keep you "negative" over the long term?

Just admit it. The pay tables and the expected return have nothing to do with anyone's actual results. The pay tables and the expected return give you an indication of what might happen, but it is not set in stone. If it were, an RNG would not be truly random, would it? Are you suggesting RNGs are not truly random, Arc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

People who take on the lazy theory that if it's a negative game you will win, and if it's a positive game you will lose, either don't play, are forced to lie,about their results, or do not know how math really works.

---

did you reverse those in error?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

We're not talking about me. We're talking about the idea about winning playing negative expectation games using various tools such as "banking profits" and "quitting after reaching win goals." These are all useful tools when coupled with the fact that you can reach big winning combinations even playing negative expectation games.

---

Alan, they are illusions. You can't change your future expectation with a betting system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

After all, what makes a negative expectation game? It's not the royal flush -- nearly all royals pay 4000 coins. And various other "big payoffs" are darn close to other big payoffs. What typically is used to lower pay tables is an adjustment for two pair, three of a kind, full houses and flushes.

Hitting the big hands on an 6/5 Bonus game pay the same as a 8/5 bonus game which are the same as a 10/7 double bonus game.

So, when you hit the big combinations, that negative pay table you are so worried about no longer is an issue.

Now granted, no one sits down and immediately hits a royal. Well, practically no body... My last two royals on $1 8/5 Aces and Faces were hit just on the free play money which was less than $200 on both occasions. No Arc, pay tables do not mean as much as being in the right place at the right time. Video poker isn't just math, it's also a lot of variance... ummmm.... luck.

---

Well, if you can figure out how to be at the right place at the right time and hit the buttons at the right time then you are one heck of a psychic. I don't know why you'd waste your time playing VP when you could make a fortune on the stock market with ease. Not only that, you should win all future power ball drawings. You are da man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

If you think the whole thing is predetermined by the math then you will have to stop playing the day you lose those One Eyed Jacks machines.

---

I will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Edited to add: Again you concede that one can win at negative expectation games occasionally and you say that over time you can't. Really, Arc? Does the RNG have a secret code in it that says "we'll let this guy win once but not twice"? Or does the secret code say "this guy is now ahead for the past six months, so it's time to give him a losing streak"?

---

Have you tried flipping those coins and making them come out heads? No? Do you believe you can make a random event come out the way you want? IF not, then why do you believe you can make a VP random card selection come out like you want? It's exactly the same logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

In craps we say that the dice have no memory. What makes you think that the video poker machines know what you won before and if you won before they won't let you win again to keep you "negative" over the long term?

Just admit it. The pay tables and the expected return have nothing to do with anyone's actual results. The pay tables and the expected return give you an indication of what might happen, but it is not set in stone. If it were, an RNG would not be truly random, would it? Are you suggesting RNGs are not truly random, Arc?

---

No, that is what you are doing if you think you can force it to provide only the cards you want.

Arc, you are confusing a betting system with money management. You wrote: "You can't change your future expectation with a betting system."

Money management is not a betting system.... unless of course you want to define it as such.

I think of money management as a tool to limit your losses and to let your profits run, just like investment pros do in the world of stocks, and as businessmen do when they start businesses -- letting the strong ones continue and shutting the losers.

Your other comments just show you are at a loss for words and for reasoning. You are standing your ground, Arc, and your feet are firmly planted in quicksand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, you are confusing a betting system with money management. You wrote: "You can't change your future expectation with a betting system."

Money management is not a betting system.... unless of course you want to define it as such.

---

A betting system is anything that affects your next bet. Hence, win goals and loss limits are both part of a betting system. They may not as complex as some others but they still meet the definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think of money management as a tool to limit your losses and to let your profits run, just like investment pros do in the world of stocks, and as businessmen do when they start businesses -- letting the strong ones continue and shutting the losers.

---

Those are not defined by random events and hence are not applicable to VP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Your other comments just show you are at a loss for words and for reasoning. You are standing your ground, Arc, and your feet are firmly planted in quicksand.

---

Yes, that quicksand is known at simple math. Have you tried taking your ideas to any university and checking with the math dept.? No? What are you waiting for? Wouldn't a good reporter want to get this information?

Alan, I can only laugh at your denial of obvious facts. The math is the math. You can't make the RNG give you good hands. Over time you will see the same random distribution of cards as any other player. Hence, you will see the same results within well known margins of error. You are not just being stubborn you are being stupid by claiming that somehow you can force better hands to show up for you. Sorry if you don't like being called stupid. But stupid is as stupid does, and you are doing it in spades.

Ask yourself why you keep ignoring my questions? I know the reason, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

did you reverse those in error?

---

Yes, thanks for catching it.

Alan, he will always answer your questions about how easy it is to win today, by only talking how you will lose playing the game into infinity because the math books say so. That's why he doesn't want to hear of my winning--now, both past AND since I moved to Nv.--and why he reflects all your sensible points and questions into the same broken, insupportable record.

Ha! If those oej games are removed, he'll STILL play (Deleted). I can see it now and mark my words: he'll just come up with the same rationales Dancer did (which was no rationale) when he said he'd quit playing the day game EV + cash back did not equal 100% any longer--and in Dancer's own words, NO EXCEPTIONS. Remember, (Deleted).

Rob, what amazes me is he keeps saying "the math is the math." And yes, we both know "the math is the math." But all we are saying is how you play helps to determine if you win or not. The math will always be the math. If you know to quit when ahead, it doesn't matter if the math says you should lose. The fact is you quit when you're ahead.

He keeps telling us that the math will jump up and steal the money out of our pockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, what amazes me is he keeps saying "the math is the math." And yes, we both know "the math is the math." But all we are saying is how you play helps to determine if you win or not. The math will always be the math. If you know to quit when ahead, it doesn't matter if the math says you should lose. The fact is you quit when you're ahead.

He keeps telling us that the math will jump up and steal the money out of our pockets.

---

No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand?

I can see it now. The casinos will all go out of business. By using the brand new "take a leak" system you too can become rich.

All you have to do is set a win goal and loss limit. As soon as you reach one you get up from your machine and "take a leak". Then, simply walk up to another machine and start all over again. You can do this 10 or 20 times a day and reap the rewards faster than you ever thought possible. The RNG won't know who you are so you are assured of winning by none other than Alan Mendelson.

PS. Make sure to drink lots of your favorite beverage.

Arc, you wrote: No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand?

Arc, how can you make such a claim? Do you sit and watch every video poker player? Do you know if every video poker has a policy to quit when ahead? Do you deny the research that says most gamblers are ahead during their visit but nearly all will leave with a loss?

Your statement No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand? is based only on your devotion to something that tells you that playing a negative expectation games dooms you to losing over the long term, without considering other factors of play. You ignore what I described before as the "human element" of playing.

This is why you would fail as a live poker player. You cannot factor anything but "math" and cannot read, judge, bluff, prod, bargain, or use many of the other "non math" skills in the game.

Stick with video poker, you'd be outplayed every time at real poker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It doesn't matter what kind of system you were playing when you were dealt the foyal and then hit the royal. The "system" did not give you the foyal and the "system" did not fill the hand for a royal. Suggesting that the "system" was responsible for your 2K is as silly as saying you got it because you were drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi when you hit.

---

I did not say that I hit the RF because of the "system" I was responding to Allan's comment about holding the flush in the hand instead of the Rf in the bush.It appears that anytime a Singer System is even mentioned, even if it has nothing to do with the results, his detractors swarm in like vultures to tear it apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antfanas

it appears that anytime a singer system is even mentioned, even if it has nothing to do with the results, his detractors swarm in like vultures to tear it apart.

---

bonus award for expert commentary

I'm going to simply repeat what Arci asked: "Why hasn't Alan, in journalist mode, gone to a university and asked people with doctorates in math to settle the debate?"

This seems like a simple solution to the whole feud. If mathematicians agree with Alan, then Alan is correct. If they agree with Rob, Rob is correct. If they agree with Arci, Arci is correct.

Why wouldn't you ask math experts a math question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand?

---

It is when it's a totally false statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm going to simply repeat what Arci asked: "Why hasn't Alan, in journalist mode, gone to a university and asked people with doctorates in math to settle the debate?"

This seems like a simple solution to the whole feud. If mathematicians agree with Alan, then Alan is correct. If they agree with Rob, Rob is correct. If they agree with Arci, Arci is correct.

Why wouldn't you ask math experts a math question?

---

You would, but video poker is a game that only has a BASIS in math; it is not totally engulfed in it like 2+2 equals 4 is. It is a game that is surrounded by theory, and played by humans whose decision-making can render those theories useless. And only a fool would believe that is a one way street.

Like Alan said, it's as if arci's saying the math is gonna jump up and steal your money if you go against it. Classic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, you wrote: No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand?

Arc, how can you make such a claim?

---

Because it's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Do you sit and watch every video poker player? Do you know if every video poker has a policy to quit when ahead? Do you deny the research that says most gamblers are ahead during their visit but nearly all will leave with a loss?

---

All that means is they have have got ahead by a measly 5 credits. Is your win goal 5 credits? And, the higher your win goal the less likely it is you will get above that level. Even on positive return games there will be times that a player never gets ahead even 5 credits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Your statement No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand? is based only on your devotion to something that tells you that playing a negative expectation games dooms you to losing over the long term, without considering other factors of play. You ignore what I described before as the "human element" of playing.

---

The "human element" is an illusion. There is one human element for sure. That is a devotion to silly nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

This is why you would fail as a live poker player. You cannot factor anything but "math" and cannot read, judge, bluff, prod, bargain, or use many of the other "non math" skills in the game.

Stick with video poker, you'd be outplayed every time at real poker.

---

So, how does bluffing a VP machine work? How about prodding? Bargaining? Yeah, right ... what do you use for trade? All those "non math" things you mentioned are nothing but fairy tales in your mind. All the VP machine does is generate the next cards when you press a button. It's really quite simple. Over time the frequency of the various cards evens out just like coin flips even out. You've refused to answer my questions on coin flips because you know the answer, but you don't want to admit the same conditions apply to VP. You want to believe you can get more of the cards that give you winning results. Well, you can over the short periods of time, but over the long haul it evens out. When it does, your results will also even out. You can't make an RNG give you better cards than it gives other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

You would, but video poker is a game that only has a BASIS in math; it is not totally engulfed in it like 2+2 equals 4 is. It is a game that is surrounded by theory, and played by humans whose decision-making can render those theories useless. And only a fool would believe that is a one way street.

---

Total nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Like Alan said, it's as if arci's saying the math is gonna jump up and steal your money if you go against it. Classic.

---

Nope, it just eats away at it slowly over time if you play negative machines.

Alan, let's get back to your question about investing. Do you believe every stock always goes up when you buy it? Why would you believe every VP machine will always go up in credits?

A positive VP machine is like a stock that is undervalued. You buy the stock because you expect it to rise. If you've done good research the ER is over 100%. However, what about stocks that you research and think will go down? They are like a negative VP machine. The ER is under 100% and the expectation is you will lose money. So, would you buy one of those stocks? By your logic it would seem all you need to do is set a "goal" and sell when it reaches that goal or a loss limit. If it reaches the loss limit you sell, then you go back the next day and do it again. Is that how you invest your money?

Arc, I can't believe you and redietz don't understand what I am saying or what Rob is saying. But I will try to break it down based on what you both have said. You both have said it is possible to win a session playing negative expectation games. Yet, for some reason, you think that even if you happen to win one session, or two sessions, or ten sessions that it is impossible to be an overall winner.

You make that statement based on one thing and one thing only: the pay tables of a machine.

What Rob has pointed out, and what I agree with, is that the pay table of a game/machine is only part of what makes for a winning session or a winning career at video poker. Certainly someone making the wrong holds playing a positive expectation game could lose. You won't disagree with that, will you? And so if making the wrong holds on a positive expectation game won't make you a winner doesn't it make sense that there is more to winning than playing on a positive expectation game?

So now we know that the player is a critical factor for winning. We also know that the pay table is important. But how much difference is there between a negative expectation game and a positive game? Is it one-half of one percent? Is it seven tenths of one percent?

Since we know that the player is a critical factor for winning, couldn't the player's own decision making overcome that one-half of one percent or 7-tenths of one percent gap between a negative expectation game and a positive expectation game?

There are various factors that create a winning session in video poker including the amount of time spent playing, whether a player hits big hands, whether a player decides to move to a lower denomination to conserve his recent wins, whether a player stops playing the session because he doesn't want to risk giving back his wins or losing more, and so on.

Both Arc and redietz have maintained that it is the negative pay table that prohibits a player from winning but they fail to account for those who lose on a positive pay table because they ignore the human factor.

Rob knows this and I know this -- the human factor can overcome the tiny gap between positive and negative video poker games.

Now what about going to a math expert? What is the math expert going to say? Well, he's going to say that negative pay tables will return less money over the long run, while positive pay tables will return more money over the long run. But how will the math expert approach the issues of a poor player on a positive expectation machine, and a good player on a negative expectation machine?

Rob doesn't dispute the math, nor do I. But the human decisions can violate the expected return of the math to the good (positively) and to the bad (negatively).

And it is the human factor which can make someone win on a negative expectation machine. Now if you want to keep your blinders on and only consider the math, then yes, the math says you will lose on a negative expectation game. But the machine does not play us -- we play the machine. It is our decisions about the play that will affect the "expected return."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, I can't believe you and redietz don't understand what I am saying or what Rob is saying. But I will try to break it down based on what you both have said. You both have said it is possible to win a session playing negative expectation games. Yet, for some reason, you think that even if you happen to win one session, or two sessions, or ten sessions that it is impossible to be an overall winner.

---

No, not impossible ... just highly improbable on negative return games. And, the more negative the more improbable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You make that statement based on one thing and one thing only: the pay tables of a machine.

---

Yes, because that is what determines the return of a game. Let me ask you Alan. Do you think you could win on a game with an ER of .5?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

What Rob has pointed out, and what I agree with, is that the pay table of a game/machine is only part of what makes for a winning session or a winning career at video poker. Certainly someone making the wrong holds playing a positive expectation game could lose. You won't disagree with that, will you? And so if making the wrong holds on a positive expectation game won't make you a winner doesn't it make sense that there is more to winning than playing on a positive expectation game?

---

What making wrong holds does is change the return from positive to negative. The more negative a game the more you will lose over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

So now we know that the player is a critical factor for winning. We also know that the pay table is important. But how much difference is there between a negative expectation game and a positive game? Is it one-half of one percent? Is it seven tenths of one percent?

Since we know that the player is a critical factor for winning, couldn't the player's own decision making overcome that one-half of one percent or 7-tenths of one percent gap between a negative expectation game and a positive expectation game?

---

Remember that the ER of a game is the optimal return. Hence, the only thing a player's decisions can do is lower the return of a game. This is true on all games and why I've always emphasized the amount of edge as being extremely important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

There are various factors that create a winning session in video poker including the amount of time spent playing, whether a player hits big hands, whether a player decides to move to a lower denomination to conserve his recent wins, whether a player stops playing the session because he doesn't want to risk giving back his wins or losing more, and so on.

---

Those things affect the total money won or lost, not the return per bet. Obviously, if you bet less and have a 95% return you will lose less, but this does mean you've changed the return of a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Both Arc and redietz have maintained that it is the negative pay table that prohibits a player from winning but they fail to account for those who lose on a positive pay table because they ignore the human factor.

Rob knows this and I know this -- the human factor can overcome the tiny gap between positive and negative video poker games.

---

Alan, a VP session is comprised of a number of hands. Your result in any session is simply the sum of those individual hands. If you quit and come back another time you start another string of individual hands. The time you were gone is meaningless which is why I brought up the "take a leak" system. It is beyond silly to think some magic happens between the last hand of one session and the first hand of your next session. The bottom line is you still end up adding all your individual hand results to get your current overall won/lost position.

So, where does the "human element" come in? You could get up and twirl around between each hand as well. That would change your next hand because you would be hitting deal at a different time. And, it would also change all the hands that come after that since you are now on a different timing schedule. In other words, it does exactly the same thing as going home and returning at another time. The key thing to understand is that even though you are on a different timing, the hands you can expect in the future are no different. Every hand still has the exact same expected return and sum of the results of those hands will still converge on the expected return of the game+strategy you play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Now what about going to a math expert? What is the math expert going to say? Well, he's going to say that negative pay tables will return less money over the long run, while positive pay tables will return more money over the long run. But how will the math expert approach the issues of a poor player on a positive expectation machine, and a good player on a negative expectation machine?

---

By saying exactly what I have told you. The returns of the players will be a combination of the game+strategy. A poor strategy will lower the effective ER of a poor player on a positive machine. A player playing perfectly on a negative machine may do better than that player but cannot do any better than the optimal ER of his machine. That optimal ER is we refer to when we discuss the ER of a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob doesn't dispute the math, nor do I. But the human decisions can violate the expected return of the math to the good (positively) and to the bad (negatively).

---

Alan, only to a point as I just mentioned. You can't get blood out of a turnip if there is none there. You cannot increase the ER of a game beyond the optimal value. You are claiming the equivalent of flipping a coin 5 times and getting 6 heads. What part of maximum don't you understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

And it is the human factor which can make someone win on a negative expectation machine. Now if you want to keep your blinders on and only consider the math, then yes, the math says you will lose on a negative expectation game. But the machine does not play us -- we play the machine. It is our decisions about the play that will affect the "expected return."

---

Only up to the optimal return. To get above the optimal return you would have to be dealt cards that allow you to get better results. This does happen over short periods of time which is why you can win individual sessions. However, with randomness there is no way for you to MAKE the machine deal you more 3oaks, more 2 pairs, more 4rf, etc. So, you will have good streaks and bad streaks and slowly but surely converge on the average. Those breaks you take when you reach a win goal are no different than taking a leak or twirling around. It does not change the future frequency of cards and hence sets a personal ER that is equal to less than the optimal ER.

Arc, are you grasping at straws? There are no video poker games with an expected return of 0.5. Would I expect to win? You might also ask if you thought I might expect to live going over Niagara Falls wearing boxer shorts.

You also wrote: "What making wrong holds does is change the return from positive to negative." Gee Arc, what are you talking about? The expected return or the actual return? The expected return as you point out is based on optimal holds. So you must be talking about the actual return. Well, Arc, that's what I've been talking about -- the actual return. And the way you play can change the actual return. You might even be able to change a negative expected return to a positive actual return if you do something that "isn't optimal." That would mean "breaking the rules" of play. Doesn't Rob do this in some of his special plays?

I'm tired of discussing this with you. Do stand your ground, even if your feet are firmly planted in quicksand. There is more to playing video poker than just the pay table. Just as there is more to playing live poker than knowing that AA should beat 22. You see Arc, 22 can beat AA -- I saw it happen last night when a third deuce flopped.

Math cannot predict randomness, virtual or real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Arc, are you grasping at straws? There are no video poker games with an expected return of 0.5. Would I expect to win? You might also ask if you thought I might expect to live going over Niagara Falls wearing boxer shorts.

---

OK Alan, what about .7? Would you expect to win using win goals? If not, why not? At what level do you think you can overcome a negative expectation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You also wrote: "What making wrong holds does is change the return from positive to negative." Gee Arc, what are you talking about? The expected return or the actual return? The expected return as you point out is based on optimal holds. So you must be talking about the actual return. Well, Arc, that's what I've been talking about -- the actual return. And the way you play can change the actual return. You might even be able to change a negative expected return to a positive actual return if you do something that "isn't optimal." That would mean "breaking the rules" of play. Doesn't Rob do this in some of his special plays?

---

No, I'm talking about the future expected return of a strategy that is not optimal. What is advertised as "ER" is somewhat a misnomer. It is the expected return of optimal strategy. No one achieves that. We all have personal expected returns based on the strategy we use which is less than the optimal strategy. Do you not understand what optimal means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I'm tired of discussing this with you. Do stand your ground, even if your feet are firmly planted in quicksand. There is more to playing video poker than just the pay table. Just as there is more to playing live poker than knowing that AA should beat 22. You see Arc, 22 can beat AA -- I saw it happen last night when a third deuce flopped.

---

That has nothing to do with expectation. The expectation of AA is not to win 100% of the time. That is where you are failing to understand reality.

You're tired of discussing this because at some level you know I am right and you are wrong. You don't want to give up your fantasies. It's really quite simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

Math cannot predict randomness, virtual or real.

---

Math predicts randomness within well understood bounds. These bounds are based on probabilities.

The key thing to understand about randomness is that even though it is not exact, there is no way to control it. You can't make an RNG give you 4 aces more than another person. You can get up and leave, twirl around or take a leak all you want but you can't force random events to lean towards what you want. That's why it's called random. And, that's why Alan's "human element" is total nonsense. He is claiming he can make a RNG give him better cards than the average player. That is just plain stupid.

Albert Einstein: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm
not sure about the the universe."

Proven one more time.

Riddle me this, Alan.

What is the difference between BP and games like craps and blackjack? All are slightly negative games based on random events. Therefore, if win/loss goals work for BP then they should also work for craps and blackjack. Have you tried to use them for craps?

Why do you think the MIT blackjack team developed a counting scheme and worked so hard to hide that fact? Why didn't they just use win/loss goals. It would have been significantly easier. Are MIT professors stupid? Or, just maybe, do they understand the situation better than you do?

Yeah, this is getting to the point where I have to wonder if Alan is just tweaking you, Arci. I mean, he sidesteps the whole "ask a math professor" line of reasoning and inserts AA vs. 22 analogies (AA's a 4 to 1 fave, I believe -- good, but not a lock). So maybe he has another agenda -- promoting casinos, maybe? I mean, in terms of "getting a good gamble," Harrah's/Caesars is the bottom of the barrel in just about every category of gambling. They could use some promotion that emphasizes something other than math because, mathwise, they lose to other casinos.

If you've watched arci perform over the years, you'd see that when he gets frustrated he tries to put on the "cool & calm" act. Thus, the fun derived from my "chipping away" process--which can also be perceived as a mathematical process, for the simple fact that it is a structured approach in response to illogical input.

However....and this is where it REALLY gets to be a gas: when he gets SUPER IRRITATED that he can't convert someone to HIS way of thinking, he gets going on the long-winded line-item-veteoing of what THEIR positions are, regardless of how exposed he becomes at that point or how stupid it makes him look. And the funniest part is, look at the clock times he does these things. You can tell he tossed and turned all night because someone either said something he just couldnt't come up with the right words for at the time, or he had the feeling that the hammer would come down on him while he was trying to get some rest. (My guess is he's not allowed to go near the computer overnight :)).

So lo & behold, he jumps out of bed and before anything else, hits this site to see his nightmare come true! And in predictable fashion, even before the roosters awaken, he goes into these long, rambling tirades against the person who made him look like a confused soul the night before. These posts of his....it's as if he's substitute-teaching a class on "Why I'm Always Right and You're a Moron" in the ghetto, when he's really supposed to be responding to the middle class on why clothes dry fast on a windy day in the desert. In other words, he just can't get it right!

redietz, yeah that's possible but why wouldn't he just ban me if he didn't want the sound mathematical advice put forth?

I think he's just caught up in wanting something so bad he ignores the facts. This is how con men are able to fool people over and over again. It's a very simple word ... greed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

If you've watched arci perform over the years, you'd see that when he gets frustrated he tries to put on the "cool & calm" act. Thus, the fun derived from my "chipping away" process--which can also be perceived as a mathematical process, for the simple fact that it is a structured approach in response to illogical input.

However....and this is where it REALLY gets to be a gas: when he gets SUPER IRRITATED that he can't convert someone to HIS way of thinking, he gets going on the long-winded line-item-veteoing of what THEIR positions are, regardless of how exposed he becomes at that point or how stupid it makes him look. And the funniest part is, look at the clock times he does these things. You can tell he tossed and turned all night because someone either said something he just couldnt't come up with the right words for at the time, or he had the feeling that the hammer would come down on him while he was trying to get some rest. (My guess is he's not allowed to go near the computer overnight :)).

So lo & behold, he jumps out of bed and before anything else, hits this site to see his nightmare come true! And in predictable fashion, even before the roosters awaken, he goes into these long, rambling tirades against the person who made him look like a confused soul the night before.

---

Or, my wife woke me up in the middle of night.

Looks like Singer just did another of his Roseannadanna imitations. Always the fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Albert Einstein: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm
not sure about the the universe."

Proven one more time.

---

He also said "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antfanas

He also said "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

---

Which is exactly why the mathematical approach is so simple. VP is a completely solved game just like tic-tac-toe. We know precisely the optimal strategy. There's nothing simpler than knowing something precisely. That is as simple as it gets. It's similar to Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Or, my wife woke me up in the middle of night.

Looks like Singer just did another of his Roseannadanna imitations. Always the fool.

---

Seems to me you should be happy if your wife wakes up in the middle of the night....especially these days :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Or, my wife woke me up in the middle of night.

Looks like Singer just did another of his Roseannadanna imitations. Always the fool.

---

Arc, that's the type of response someone would get when they hit that nail on its head. He really did you know, and it's all a result of your constant crankiness at not being able to get Alan to believe like you believe.

You are a glutton for punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jatki

Arc, that's the type of response someone would get when they hit that nail on its head. He really did you know, and it's all a result of your constant crankiness at not being able to get Alan to believe like you believe.

You are a glutton for punishment.

---

It's also the response one gets when they missed by a country mile. But, as usual your hero worship won't allow you to perceive reality. That's why you are such an easy tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Seems to me you should be happy if your wife wakes up in the middle of the night....especially these days :)

---

If the old saying about surviving bad situations makes one stronger is true then she'll out live us all. Especially those who can't walk straight much of the time.

Arci, if you're really around someone who's "strong" during a bad situation, you're really not handling it very well....especially for someone who is responsible for what you made the two of you go thru.

Pull yourself together--we're here to help. Don't get so frustrated with Alan because you aren't sure whether he's more intelligent than you or not, and stop picking on jatki just because he's good at jabbing you when you ask for it. You'll like yourself just a little better in the "long run".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Riddle me this, Alan.

What is the difference between BP and games like craps and blackjack? All are slightly negative games based on random events. Therefore, if win/loss goals work for BP then they should also work for craps and blackjack. Have you tried to use them for craps?

Why do you think the MIT blackjack team developed a counting scheme and worked so hard to hide that fact? Why didn't they just use win/loss goals. It would have been significantly easier. Are MIT professors stupid? Or, just maybe, do they understand the situation better than you do?

---

Of course craps players use win goals. I explained this many times in the past and questioned why win goals were okay for craps and for live poker but only the video poker community challenged the idea of quitting when ahead.

I am not a blackjack player but based on my limited knowledge of the concept of card counting, when the shoe or deck turns positive you want to stay at the game betting big.

I did play blackjack once with a friend who is a card counter (we almost got thrown out of State Line Primm when he discovered the count went positive and he upped his bets from $10 to $100 -- the floorman came over and said to him "no more, sir.") So blackjack is a game where you can detect trends. Video poker is not as each hand is an independent event... as craps is also a game of independent events.

Getting back to craps-- of course we use win goals. And after a big run/win craps tables will clear out. Players instinctively know that it is very unlikely to have two big winning hands (shooters) back to back. In craps its OK to take the money and run with it.

Only in video poker -- with the AP crowd -- does this idea of win goals and taking the money and run does not make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

redietz, yeah that's possible but why wouldn't he just ban me if he didn't want the sound mathematical advice put forth?

I think he's just caught up in wanting something so bad he ignores the facts. This is how con men are able to fool people over and over again. It's a very simple word ... greed.

---

Why should I ban you or anyone, Arc? This is an open forum. You have your opinion and I welcome it. Unfortunately you and redietz continue to confuse "math" with the human factor of playing video poker.

For the one hundred and umpteenth time, no one disputes the math. All I am saying and I think what Rob is saying, is that if you tweak your play you can overcome the mathematical disadvantage that the pay table gives you.

As I said above -- you play the game, and you don't let the game play you.

Arc says he plays VP for a set amount of time each session so that he gets his various time requirements in for points and comps, etc. Isn't that dangerous? Suppose he won big early in his session and then continued to play for "points" only to give back his winnings? Or has he also timed when his machine gives winning hands?

One more time consider this: when you play video poker, YOU play the game and you don't let the game play you. Hence, win and loss goals. That doesn't mean you play for four hours because the comp policy says you need to play for four hours. See my other post about how craps and live poker players also quit when ahead. Only VP players -- and I mean ONLY VP players think it doesn't matter.

Even blackjack card counters know there is a time to bet big and a time not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Of course craps players use win goals. I explained this many times in the past and questioned why win goals were okay for craps and for live poker but only the video poker community challenged the idea of quitting when ahead.

---

No one in the VP community has a problem with quitting when you are ahead playing negative games. They may have a problem with playing negative games but that's a different issue. What they also will tell you is having win goals with a positive return game is unnecessary.

So, how much money have you won with win goals playing craps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I am not a blackjack player but based on my limited knowledge of the concept of card counting, when the shoe or deck turns positive you want to stay at the game betting big.

---

Yes, the game return actually changes as you play unlike either craps or VP. Since casinos can count as well and can see if you increase your bet, they have the ability to catch counters and ask them to leave. However, if win goals provide the advantage you keep claiming then why wouldn't smart players use them instead of counting? They'd never get kicked out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Video poker is not as each hand is an independent event... as craps is also a game of independent events.

---

Which is exactly why win goals provide no advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Getting back to craps-- of course we use win goals. And after a big run/win craps tables will clear out. Players instinctively know that it is very unlikely to have two big winning hands (shooters) back to back. In craps its OK to take the money and run with it.

---

So, how much have you won?

Arc asks: So, how much money have you won with win goals playing craps?

Since it is very hard to win big money at craps without betting big there were three times I walked away from the table after reaching a profit of $5,000 or more. (Starting bets were either less than $100 on a $10 table, or less than $300 on a $25 table.)

The most recent time I walked was when I rolled five of six points for the fire bet at Caesars a couple of weeks ago -- and the fire bet (a very very long shot) paid $2500.

http://alanbestbuys.com/sitebuilderc...20804-1854.jpg

You keep avoiding the question. We know you've had $20K RFs in VP and you claim to be a net loser. I believe you've also claimed to be a net loser at craps. It appears those win goals aren't working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

You keep avoiding the question. We know you've had $20K RFs in VP and you claim to be a net loser. I believe you've also claimed to be a net loser at craps. It appears those win goals aren't working.

---

Win goals work fine when you reach them. I have high win goals. Rob chastised me for not walking when I hit the $25 straight flush. Well, the payoff on the straight flush and the subsequent AAAA on the $5 bonus machine (about $8K total) had not yet reached my win goal.

When I took my $4K royals on recent visit and took them to play $5 Bonus Rob chastised me again. But $4K is not my win goal.

When I play VP my win goal is $20K or more. Winning $4k or $8k only gives me more bullets to keep me firing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Win goals work fine when you reach them. I have high win goals. Rob chastised me for not walking when I hit the $25 straight flush. Well, the payoff on the straight flush and the subsequent AAAA on the $5 bonus machine (about $8K total) had not yet reached my win goal.

When I took my $4K royals on recent visit and took them to play $5 Bonus Rob chastised me again. But $4K is not my win goal.

When I play VP my win goal is $20K or more. Winning $4k or $8k only gives me more bullets to keep me firing.

---

Which serves as a good example to what I've been telling you. If you set low win goals you will hit them more often and leave a winner more often. However, with higher win goals you'll win less but occasionally hit a big win. Overall the average return over many sessions converges on your ER. The amount you end up winning or losing is that ER times the total amount you have played.

This is really simple math. Most of it is grade school level. The only complicated math is determining the probabilities which is useful in computing bankroll requirements but has very little value otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Which serves as a good example to what I've been telling you. If you set low win goals you will hit them more often and leave a winner more often. However, with higher win goals you'll win less but occasionally hit a big win.

---

You are absolutely correct, but I don't recall you ever saying anything in support of win goals. LOL

By the way, I use different win goals in live poker. I know that doubling or tripling your money represents a very big win in live poker. That means buying into a $100 and leaving with $300 is a nice day's work. The player who left this morning with $600 had to buy in twice ($200) and had to make up for previous losses. So $600 represented a nice move back to the positive side of the ledger for him. He didn't want to risk losing it back-- because he has money to play again and probably tonight.

I told you this before but you pooh pooed it. I said if I set a win goal of $500 playing $5 Aces and Faces I could reach it almost every time I played. I've hit $500 profits many times in many sessions, but I am not travelling to a casino just to win $500 at VP and quit.

If I won $500 playing poker at the casino that's fifteen minutes from my house, I might go out and buy a new computer... which is what I did a week ago. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

You are absolutely correct, but I don't recall you ever saying anything in support of win goals. LOL

---

No, I've said quite often that win goals are a good thing if you must play negative games. The reason is because you end up playing less which means you end up losing less. That's all they do. They don't improve your ER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

No, I've said quite often that win goals are a good thing if you must play negative games. The reason is because you end up playing less which means you end up losing less. That's all they do. They don't improve your ER.

---

I think we have now come full circle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

You keep avoiding the question. We know you've had $20K RFs in VP and you claim to be a net loser. I believe you've also claimed to be a net loser at craps. It appears those win goals aren't working.

---

Another example of arci deflecting the issue--and he even thinks no one notices! Alan hasn't used win goals--he simply suggests how much sense it makes to use them, regardless of what game one plays. I use them arci. I win with them. What's the matter, you only want to believe someone who says they lose, AFTER you created a win-goal user out of them?

See how easy it is to watch arci get caught in his own traps? DELETED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think we have now come full circle.

---

Win goals alone do not improve ER. Congratulations on that simple-math brilliance. That's why special plays, a step up in game volatility, and denominational increase are all used together in SPS. That's where complex combinational math comes into play, and why/how it increases not long-term ER, but TODAY'S ER. IE, SHORT TERM play ER. But arci will need to come out of the punch card era to have any chance of understanding it.

Some say all things even out in a random video poker game like flipping a coin. If an AP player made some wrong holds, that also should equal out over the long run as well. There needs to be a variance that is consistent to adjust for that 'equalization' .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Win goals alone do not improve ER. Congratulations on that simple-math brilliance. That's why special plays, a step up in game volatility, and denominational increase are all used together in SPS. That's where complex combinational math comes into play, and why/how it increases not long-term ER, but TODAY'S ER. IE, SHORT TERM play ER. But arci will need to come out of the punch card era to have any chance of understanding it.

---

Total nonsense. Since VP results are the sum of independent hand results, there are no possible "complex combinational math" that comes into play. BTW, the word is combinatorial. You don't even know how to talk a good game.

Arci, if you really worked in a technology company before quitting to play video poker out of habit, you'd have known that the proper "combinatorial" term was replaced by the much more widely understood " combinational" term many years ago. I think even Frank uses it, and we discussed it several times in our meets. Are you going to say his "game" is off too?

Either way, you showed you don't understand the concept, which also means you had to Google combinational math to begin with. Thus, your illogical inclusion of incorporating "the sum of independent hands" into a discussion that has nothing to do with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Arci, if you really worked in a technology company before quitting to play video poker out of habit, you'd have known that the proper "combinatorial" term was replaced by the much more widely understood " combinational" term many years ago. I think even Frank uses it, and we discussed it several times in our meets. Are you going to say his "game" is off too?

---

Silly nonsense, even the spell checker marks it as a non-word. BTW, they don't change decades old terminology to use another word to mean the same thing. That is beyond silly and anyone claiming that is so obviously lying it isn't even funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Either way, you showed you don't understand the concept, which also means you had to Google combinational math to begin with. Thus, your illogical inclusion of incorporating "the sum of independent hands" into a discussion that has nothing to do with that.

---

You can't even spell it right. What a clown. I can't even give you credit for a good attempt to hide your ignorance. All you did was make it even more obvious. Better be careful, jatki may start to realize what a fool he's been for believing your BS.

I saw the Obama people respond to a Romney fact-supported claim tonight, with embarrassment, denial, and namecalling. In other words, what do you think the Obama camp looked like once everyone read it? Yup, just like you do here. Spell-checkers, googling, and even the frustration about JATKI! all pop up in the same face-saving ramble attempt. That's over 100% EV....ENTERTAINMENT VALUE!! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Math predicts randomness within well understood bounds. These bounds are based on probabilities.

The key thing to understand about randomness is that even though it is not exact, there is no way to control it. You can't make an RNG give you 4 aces more than another person. You can get up and leave, twirl around or take a leak all you want but you can't force random events to lean towards what you want. That's why it's called random. And, that's why Alan's "human element" is total nonsense. He is claiming he can make a RNG give him better cards than the average player. That is just plain stupid.

---

So, all we can do then is play within a time frame and take whatever luck comes our way with a structured progression to benefit from this luck whenever it comes whether it be $100 or $1000.

Sling, all he'll do is call you names. He doesn't believe there's anything called luck--he calls it "distribution" or something similarly silly to try to sound like an expert. He doesn't believe in a structured progression either. In his world, if you sit for 6 hours on a $1 10/7 DB machine and finally hit those four Aces at the end of boring hour no. 6 that makes you down "only" $100 for the trip, you've actually won because every hand was played with a "theoretical advantage" and your pockets become filled with phantom bucks, and the more hands you played the fatter your pockets become.

However, while the "structured progression" player finally hits those four Aces playing that stupid negative EV 7/5 SDBP game at the $10 level and walks out with thousands in REAL profit bucks, the AP claim is that the more hands you played, the more you lost. In other words, that cash isn't yours, because the math just jumped up and snatched it back simply because you were playing a negative EV game!

See why these guys can't stand simple common sense, and why arci every day asks God Why....WHY this guy named Singer was ever born?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

So, all we can do then is play within a time frame and take whatever luck comes our way with a structured progression to benefit from this luck whenever it comes whether it be $100 or $1000.

---

Or -$100 and -$1000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Sling, all he'll do is call you names. He doesn't believe there's anything called luck--he calls it "distribution" or something similarly silly to try to sound like an expert. He doesn't believe in a structured progression either. In his world, if you sit for 6 hours on a $1 10/7 DB machine and finally hit those four Aces at the end of boring hour no. 6 that makes you down "only" $100 for the trip, you've actually won because every hand was played with a "theoretical advantage" and your pockets become filled with phantom bucks, and the more hands you played the fatter your pockets become.

However, while the "structured progression" player finally hits those four Aces playing that stupid negative EV 7/5 SDBP game at the $10 level and walks out with thousands in REAL profit bucks, the AP claim is that the more hands you played, the more you lost. In other words, that cash isn't yours, because the math just jumped up and snatched it back simply because you were playing a negative EV game!

See why these guys can't stand simple common sense, and why arci every day asks God Why....WHY this guy named Singer was ever born?!

---

You forgot one little detail. If the APer doesn't hit the aces he'd down like $1000 while the progression dude is down over $30,000, probably closer to $50,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

You forgot one little detail. If the APer doesn't hit the aces he'd down like $1000 while the progression dude is down over $30,000, probably closer to $50,000.

---

At 5/10/25/50 cent progressions? I forgot to mention I cannot play as high as you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slingshot

At 5/10/25/50 cent progressions? I forgot to mention I cannot play as high as you guys.

---

Just divide by 20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

You forgot one little detail. If the APer doesn't hit the aces he'd down like $1000 while the progression dude is down over $30,000, probably closer to $50,000.

---

And you ignored one. Almost every session played (85% to be close to exact) includes one or two of those type of hits, and in over 300 of these sessions there was never a loss greater than 35k...and once only.

Go back to the theory board and try again. Reality: It's not what you think. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antfanas

I was playing Mr Singer's RTT method and had progressed to .50 BP machine and was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

It doesn't matter what kind of system you were playing when you were dealt the foyal and then hit the royal. The "system" did not give you the foyal and the "system" did not fill the hand for a royal. Suggesting that the "system" was responsible for your 2K is as silly as saying you got it because you were drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi when you hit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antfanas

I did not say that I hit the RF because of the "system" I was responding to Allan's comment about holding the flush in the hand instead of the Rf in the bush.It appears that anytime a Singer System is even mentioned, even if it has nothing to do with the results, his detractors swarm in like vultures to tear it apart.

---

If your intention was to merely respond to Alan's comment, you could have simply said "I was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k." You must have felt it was important and vital to include you were playing Singer's system and by doing so, you opened yourself up to scrutiny involving that system. Besides, my analogy was completely accurate when it comes to correlating end results to any "system". Sorry that I hurt your feelings. Singer disciples appear to be overly sensitive for some reason.