Doesn't this exercise prove money management and win goals/loss limits don't work?

Alan, here’s a simple mental exercise I dreamt up that will tell you all you need to know about whether or not “money management” or if having “win goals” or “loss limits” will work.

Imagine a video poker machine that randomly generates 1 million hands. Archimede$ or some other “computer perfect” advantage player plays these 1 million hands exactly “by the book”. Whatever profit or loss they end up with will be the maximum EV that machine could have generated over those 1 million hands.

Now imagine you or anyone else (Rob, jatki, regnis) sit at an identical machine and play those exact same 1 million hands with the exact same original 5 cards and the exact same 5 potential redraw cards. You can take as long as you want to play those 1 million hands. You can get up and leave when you get ahead or fall behind by whatever amount you choose. Just understand that when you come back to play you’ll pick up where you left off and continue with those same 1 million hands that the advantage player has already played. So, if you start playing and hit a royal flush on hand 4,000 and quit, when you return to play you’ll be playing hand 4,001 that the advantage player has already played.

Who will be further ahead? If you play exactly by the book, wouldn’t you be even with the AP? Nobody can play better than computer perfect. The only way to alter what the machine ultimately will pay out at the end of those 1 million hands is to deviate from computer perfect play. It’s already been discussed that Rob’s special plays could factor in and put you further ahead (possibly), or further behind (probably). But it should be obvious that if you continue to play those 1 million hands to completion, money management and win goals / loss limits would be meaningless.

One last question. You seem to have more disposable income than many of the posters here. Let’s say you have $1,000,000 that you have to invest in a video poker player. Would you rather give it to arcimede$ with his purported positive EV machine, or hand it over to jatki or Rob and have them play the negative EV 8/5 machines? You must choose someone. Assuming they are all trustworthy individuals whose system of play would you put your own faith and money in?

A good analysis A2A. Let me express a little of my thoughts on that. None of us that you named will play only 1 million hands. We all have played more and will continue to do so. But assuming we sit side by side playing perfect strategy (not even considering Rob's special plays), if Alan or I hit quad aces or a royal, we are going to quit or play back only a little. Arci will keep playing. Since we are presumably on a negative game, he will lose some back.

Now assume Alan and I are losing and Arci hits something. I (and I believe Alan) have a loss limit and will go home a moderate loser. Arci will keep playing and lose some back.

If Arci is losing, he nay keep losing because he has no loss limit.

So I believe that on a negative game, all else being equal in terms of perfect play, I prefer win goals and loss limits so that no one bad day will wipe me out, and I do not have to play longer than I desire to try to achieve the expected return. I also believe, as Alan has said, that it pretty much is based on luck--I don't believe that the RNG is a guaranty. All gambling (other than sports and horses) is an attempt to ride brief deviations from the expected results, and that is a short term proposition.

On Arci's positive return games, I don't totally disagree with him but I don't believe it can be done short term and I don't have the time necessary to play that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

A good analysis A2A. Let me express a little of my thoughts on that. None of us that you named will play only 1 million hands. We all have played more and will continue to do so. But assuming we sit side by side playing perfect strategy (not even considering Rob's special plays), if Alan or I hit quad aces or a royal, we are going to quit or play back only a little. Arci will keep playing. Since we are presumably on a negative game, he will lose some back.

Now assume Alan and I are losing and Arci hits something. I (and I believe Alan) have a loss limit and will go home a moderate loser. Arci will keep playing and lose some back.

If Arci is losing, he nay keep losing because he has no loss limit.

So I believe that on a negative game, all else being equal in terms of perfect play, I prefer win goals and loss limits so that no one bad day will wipe me out, and I do not have to play longer than I desire to try to achieve the expected return. I also believe, as Alan has said, that it pretty much is based on luck--I don't believe that the RNG is a guaranty. All gambling (other than sports and horses) is an attempt to ride brief deviations from the expected results, and that is a short term proposition.

On Arci's positive return games, I don't totally disagree with him but I don't believe it can be done short term and I don't have the time necessary to play that way.

---

regnis,

Thanks for your reply. Don't you see that given the parameters here, it does not matter when you start or stop since ultimately you will both play the exact same 1 million hands? All winning and losing streaks will be the same if you both play the exact same way. Let's say you hit a royal on hand 4000 then quit. Then for the next 10, 000 hands there is a losing streak. Both you and the AP player will play through that eventually. Why would it make a difference if the AP player played the 14, 000 hands through 1 session and you split it up?

A2A, if you have deep pockets and a seemingly never ending bankroll, loss limits are not necessary. So in theory, there is no need to have loss limits... or win goals... because in theory if you are playing a game with a 99.54% return, over time you will get back 99.54%.

So why loss limits? Well, loss limits keep you from getting caught up in a short term spiral of death. Your loss limit mandates that you stop playing and conserve the rest of your bankroll for another day when luck might be on your side. You loss limit becomes a circuit breaker to keep you from playing until its all gone.

Even on positive games you can run into long losing cycles. So even on positive games a loss limit can be helpful.

Now, not everyone needs a loss limit. Arc obviously doesn't. He might be "better bankrolled" than I am, and he might have more of a stomach for losing than I do. Remember, I play for recreation so if I am not winning or if I am losing too much, I am not having fun anymore. So, the loss limit allows me to keep having fun because as a recreational player I am willing to accept a limited amount of loss.

Now let's talk about the win goals. For someone who is not a recreational player -- someone who is a pro, or someone who is determined to get his long term mathematical advantage -- there probably is no need for a win goal. But since I am a recreational player (as I would think nearly all casino goers are) the win goal allows us to step away from the machine and enjoy our profits and proclaim to the world "I am a winner!"

Also, as a recreational player I don't know when I might return to the casino again. I don't know if I might find another way to spend those recreational dollars. And as a recreational player I would like to leave the casino with money so that I can return sooner to enjoy the games again.

It doesn't matter what your math says about who will come out ahead in the long term. Win goals and loss limits are not a matter of math-- they are a matter of what suits the personality of a player and the objectives of a player.

Of course the battle here is that the math guys say having a win goal will not let you beat the expected return of the game and indeed they are correct. The "expected return" is dictated by the paytable and nothing can alter the "expected return." But as a recreational player the expected return and the paytable help me to choose the game to play, but what really matters is the money in my pocket at the end of the visit. The "expected return" is a guide to help you play and what games to play, but how you play and how much you decide to win or lose ultimately determines how much money is in your pocket.

When you have a loss limit or a win goal, your main concern is your "actual return" and not the theoretical "expected return."

Now, I've had an incredible run of good luck lately, and it happened again overnight. (It's now about 4:40am) and a few minutes ago I got back from a quick trip to Rincon. I actually went there to redeem reward points for gifts from the Total Rewards catalogue for holiday gifts, and I had $210 of free play. I played it. And I lost it. So I took out $300 just to try that Super Aces Bonus game with the 99.9% payback and played at the $2 level. I was dealt quad 9s which paid $500. So I switched to $5. And a few hands later quad deuces for $2000. I played a while more switching back to $2 and came back with a profit of $1200. I could have kept playing but that was a nice win for a few hours at the casino.

Maybe if I kept playing, with the way my luck was going, I could have hit another royal? Or, maybe I would have given it all back? And maybe after giving it all back I would have gone to the ATM and taken out a couple of thousand to chase my losses and try to win it back? But instead I said to myself, "self, that's a nice night's work... twelve hundred bucks... and after paying the "wife tax" you'll have some money left to play again, self." And, self liked that idea very much.

Alan is obfuscating again. The point being made is that over time the win/loss goals make no difference in a person's results. That is the only point of the post. Most have no problem with a person using win/loss goals for other reasons.

Alan also shows he still doesn't believe in the math or that the machines are random. He states,

"Your loss limit mandates that you stop playing and conserve the rest of your bankroll for another day when luck might be on your side."

There is no difference in the next hand in Eddie's example. There is also no real difference in a casino. Since the machines are random your next hands may be better if keep playing vs. coming back. There is no way to know.

The point folks should understand is the benefit of win/loss goals on negative machines is they reduce one's overall play. This reduces expected losses. Since the real benefit is the reduction of play, there are many ways to do that. All of them have the same expected losses over time. It just spreads those losses out.

The idea of win/loss goals creating net winners on a negative machine is the big problem. Singer has claimed this is possible using his system many times and that is why I object to his claims. Alan has alluded to the same as well. Anyone who makes claims like this need to be made to look foolish (and that is quite easy since it's true).

Arc, you understand my point, but you just don't want to believe it. You wrote:

"Since the machines are random your next hands may be better if keep playing vs. coming back. There is no way to know."

This is absolutely true and I agree. But the key point is "there is no way to know." So if you are there to have fun (and winning is fun) you take the money and you run.

Remember: when you win money it is your money, and when you bet it again you are not betting the casino's money, but you are betting your money.

And can win goals help you beat a negative expectation game? Of course they can. Is it guaranteed? Of course not. But the bottom line is this: each and every time you leave with a profit, you have come out better than the expected return of the machine. Does that turn your world upside down, Arc? Why should it? Expected return does not have to equal actual return. Deal with it.

In fairness to A2a, I guess he is right that 1 million hands is 1 million hands and the results will be the same. But the parameters of the million hands is not what we have otherwise been arguing in the other threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

In fairness to A2a, I guess he is right that 1 million hands is 1 million hands and the results will be the same. But the parameters of the million hands is not what we have otherwise been arguing in the other threads.

---

In the theoretical world of video poker, every set of one million hands on a game returning 99.54% will return 99.54% because that's what the math says should happen theoretically with all other things being equal.

Now, let's talk about the first time visitor who walks into a casino, sees a bank of machines with a sign that says "these pay more than 100%" and sits down and puts $20 in a 25-cents machine and hits a thousand dollar royal on that positive expectation game. Would you suggest to them to keep playing? Or would you suggest to them to take the money and go to the pool/show/buffet/club? And why would you make that suggestion?

I'll start: I'd tell them that if they want to go home with all of that money to quit now and go home a winner and have a great time in Vegas doing other things. But if they want to play some more, play at your own risk. They just beat the odds "big time" by hitting the big one and they might lose it all if they keep playing even on those machines advertised to pay more than 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

In the theoretical world of video poker, every set of one million hands on a game returning 99.54% will return 99.54% because that's what the math says should happen theoretically with all other things being equal.

Now, let's talk about the first time visitor who walks into a casino, sees a bank of machines with a sign that says "these pay more than 100%" and sits down and puts $20 in a 25-cents machine and hits a thousand dollar royal on that positive expectation game. Would you suggest to them to keep playing? Or would you suggest to them to take the money and go to the pool/show/buffet/club? And why would you make that suggestion?

I'll start: I'd tell them that if they want to go home with all of that money to quit now and go home a winner and have a great time in Vegas doing other things. But if they want to play some more, play at your own risk. They just beat the odds "big time" by hitting the big one and they might lose it all if they keep playing even on those machines advertised to pay more than 100%.

---

Alan,

I don't know if you are trolling me and everyone else on the forum to increase traffic or not...

You seem like a highly intelligent guy, so I don't understand why you seem to be misinterpreting this example.

If you were to play the same hands as an AP player or any type of player for that matter in the same order, wouldn't you end up with the same results as that player unless you made different holds? When you start and stop playing would not matter because you will eventually play the same hands in the same order. When you think about it, that is exactly what the casinos are doing. They don't care if it's you or any one else playing their machines with a negative EV. The overall net result of all play on that machine will be in their favor.

Perhaps what you view as winning is the question here. In the example I started this thread with, let's say the AP player plays these 1 million hands perfectly and ends up with a loss of 0.46% of his total coin in. Let's assume it's $1 VP (99.54% as you've stated) so he has a total coin in of $5 million and loses 0.46% or $23,000.

Since you are playing those exact same 1 million hands in the same order wouldn't you too end up down $23,000? Sure, along the way you could stop when you won a certain amount or lost a certain amount, but the end result would be the same. With the win goals and loss limits you may be able to celebrate more often with "wins" and pat yourself on the back more often when you walk away without losing any more than a pre-determined amount, but in the end, all of your play added together would still result in a $23,000 loss.

So what do you view as winning? Being an overall net winner when all of your play is added together, or having several winning sessions or limited losses regardless of what the sum total of all your play has yielded?

By the way, I'm still curious to see whose system you would endorse with your own money if you had to choose.

Alan tends (no, religiously adheres to is better) to not address questions that cut to the heart of the matter, such as the question regarding which system he would endorse. He will go through back-bending mental double-jointedness that would make Cirque Du Soleil proud, but he's not going to actually answer the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

In fairness to A2a, I guess he is right that 1 million hands is 1 million hands and the results will be the same. But the parameters of the million hands is not what we have otherwise been arguing in the other threads.

---

regnis,

Thank you for your response. I think having win goals and loss limits help you gamble more responsibly, and are a great idea when you are on vacation, because no one likes to lose more than they budget for especially when they're supposed to be having a good time. They just don't make you an overall winner. Alan is right when he says if he plays a machine and hits a royal flush or any other high paying hand right away he has overcome the EV of the machine. Sure he has, for that 1 hand. And if you never played another hand that would be true. But like arcimede$ has said, the more hands you play, the closer the sum total of all your play will approach the machine's EV.

Voila... "But like arcimede$ has said, the more hands you play, the closer the sum total of all your play will approach the machine's EV." Exactly. And this (brace yourselves) is part of Singer's strategy: don't play more than you have to.

Because the more you play, as you point out a2a, the closer you will approach the machine's EV. So, who the heck wants to be sitting in a chair for hours and days only to make a return of 0.5% ?? As I said early on in this debate, the money that is cycled through video poker would gain a much better return selling covered calls on Wall Street. Of course Arc criticized me for that, but he never sold a covered call in his life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Alan,

I don't know if you are trolling me and everyone else on the forum to increase traffic or not...

---

Let me put it to you this way: it will take me more than five years to play a million hands of video poker if I keep playing at the pace I have for the last two years. I probably played more VP in the last two years than I did in the previous twenty years combined.

I don't know if I am going to be playing VP for another million hands or if I am going to make it back to a casino anytime in the next year, or two. I can't even consider what you guys are talking about when you discuss long term. Heck, I almost died five years ago from kidney failure. I look at every visit to a casino as a one time event and I want to maximize my win or minimize my loss each and every time I go.

So while I am not going to say your long term approach is wrong, I am simply going to say "I can't relate to it."

My whole life I have always had a loss limit, and I have always had a win goal system which uses a rising "stop loss" which is something I adapted from stock market investing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Voila... "But like arcimede$ has said, the more hands you play, the closer the sum total of all your play will approach the machine's EV." Exactly. And this (brace yourselves) is part of Singer's strategy: don't play more than you have to.

Because the more you play, as you point out a2a, the closer you will approach the machine's EV. So, who the heck wants to be sitting in a chair for hours and days only to make a return of 0.5% ?? As I said early on in this debate, the money that is cycled through video poker would gain a much better return selling covered calls on Wall Street. Of course Arc criticized me for that, but he never sold a covered call in his life.

---

So Alan, you don't or won't say which system you would endorse?

Even regnis has conceded that given the parameters of this thought exercise you would not be further ahead by using win goals or loss limits. I don't know why you can't see that.

My 70 year old mother enjoys playing slot machines. She is convinced that she can stop the reels when she wants to. She is so convinced that she will only play machines where pressing the spin button a second time will also stop the spinning reels. Despite what I have tried to tell her about the RNG and the disclaimer that appears on the machines that state the player cannot influence the outcome of each spin she believes what she believes.

I guess you''re the same way with your win goals, loss limits and other non-mathematical strategies.

Excuse me, a2a, but a win goal is a mathematical strategy. And the strategy goes like this: every win that goes into my pocket and goes home with me is my money.

Loss limits are also part of a mathematical strategy and the strategy goes like this: the less money I lose, the more money I keep.

You know, it's wonderful to talk about theoretical dollars. Unfortunately, I can't pay the bills with theoretical dollars. And the casino will not allow me to bet theoretical dollars either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Excuse me, a2a, but a win goal is a mathematical strategy. And the strategy goes like this: every win that goes into my pocket and goes home with me is my money.

Loss limits are also part of a mathematical strategy and the strategy goes like this: the less money I lose, the more money I keep.

You know, it's wonderful to talk about theoretical dollars. Unfortunately, I can't pay the bills with theoretical dollars. And the casino will not allow me to bet theoretical dollars either.

---

Alan, take a look at this sentence you wrote in comment #4:

"It doesn't matter what your math says about who will come out ahead in the long term. Win goals and loss limits are not a matter of math-- they are a matter of what suits the personality of a player and the objectives of a player."

You were right then. Why the about face?

Look, I am like you. I go to a casino with a set amount I am willing to lose. I have some vague win goals and can quit when I reach them if I am lucky enough to win. There are no positive EV video poker games at the casinos I play at, and even if there were, I wouldn't play them since I don't really enjoy video poker. I play on-line poker and live poker when I get the chance and I do make a little bit of money doing so.

You seem to think that you can string together enough wins on negative EV machines to end up with an overall net profit. As discussed ad nauseum, that is not possible. If it were wouldn't the casinos all be losing money? Doesn't every gambler who has ever lived tried to quit while they were ahead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Alan, take a look at this sentence you wrote in comment #4:

"It doesn't matter what your math says about who will come out ahead in the long term. Win goals and loss limits are not a matter of math-- they are a matter of what suits the personality of a player and the objectives of a player."

You were right then. Why the about face?

---

You are nitpicking. So to give you a nitpicking answer, it has to do with the math of my personal bank account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

You seem to think that you can string together enough wins on negative EV machines to end up with an overall net profit. As discussed ad nauseum, that is not possible. If it were wouldn't the casinos all be losing money? Doesn't every gambler who has ever lived tried to quit while they were ahead?

---

I don't think I can do anything when I am in a casino. I hope. I even pray. I pray really hard in casinos. I make no assumptions because I know it's all a gamble. I play correct strategy because I hope that it will pay off. Twice in my life I made a "Rob Singer special play" -- once on triple double bonus when I was dealt three aces with a kicker and I only held the three aces and the hand did not improve. And the second time on 8/5 Bonus when I was dealt a full house with three aces and I was losing big so I held only the three aces and I drew the fourth ace for $2,000. That's all. With more than 300-thousand hands of VP played since I met Rob I made only TWO of his special plays. And one worked.

You raised an interesting question: Doesn't every gambler who has ever lived tried to quit while they were ahead? I'm sure every gambler does. But according to gaming author Victor Royer 86% of casino gamblers are ahead at some point during their visit but less than 1% leave with a profit. Watch the interview here: http://alanbestbuys.com/id73.html It's pretty far down the page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

By the way, I'm still curious to see whose system you would endorse with your own money if you had to choose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Alan tends (no, religiously adheres to is better) to not address questions that cut to the heart of the matter, such as the question regarding which system he would endorse. He will go through back-bending mental double-jointedness that would make Cirque Du Soleil proud, but he's not going to actually answer the question.

---

I think I said it several times, so pay attention redietz I am going to spell it out for you:

I play MY way. I look at each session as the only session. I limit my losses and I maximize my wins. If that means a loss limit is triggered, then it's triggered. If I have profits (wins) I will raise my stop loss as I continue to win. There is no long term consideration for me when I play. I will not say "I lost today, but it will average out in the future."

Given a choice between Arc on a positive ev machine and Singer playing his neg ev machine, I would choose neither. I wouldn't trust either one of them with my money. However, if you asked me which game I would prefer to play, I would say the game with the positive EV. AND, if you also asked Rob Singer which game he would prefer to play he would ALSO say the game with the positive EV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

Alan, here’s a simple mental exercise I dreamt up that will tell you all you need to know about whether or not “money management” or if having “win goals” or “loss limits” will work.

Imagine a video poker machine that randomly generates 1 million hands. Archimede$ or some other “computer perfect” advantage player plays these 1 million hands exactly “by the book”. Whatever profit or loss they end up with will be the maximum EV that machine could have generated over those 1 million hands.

Now imagine you or anyone else (Rob, jatki, regnis) sit at an identical machine and play those exact same 1 million hands with the exact same original 5 cards and the exact same 5 potential redraw cards. You can take as long as you want to play those 1 million hands.

---

I didn't want to comment on this question originally, but I feel forced to. Your question is absurd.
First you say a video poker machine randomly generates one million hands and you have one "computer perfect" player at that machine, and then as a "test" you have an identical machine generating the same exact hands with the same potential draw cards being played by another player. Do you see the flaw from the outset?

No two players ever get the same combination of cards, in the same order, with the same bankroll, with the same emotions, playing video poker. This is truly a "dream problem" because there is no reality attached to it.

Of course, you can "dream up" whatever you want to, and you math guys in your theoretical world don't take into consideration human emotions when it comes to play such as the emotions that come into play with win goals and loss limits.

So let's test your emotions, if that is possible. What would you do if there was the "video poker" version of a person putting his entire life savings on the spin of a roulette wheel?

In our video poker life savings test all of your money is at stake and you are dealt four to the royal with a flush. If you hold the flush you break even. If you get the royal you win 47 times your current wealth. But if you don't get the royal (even if you draw another flush) you lose everything and live in poverty forever. What do you do?

Hey, the math says go for it, doesn't it? The math says yes, because you have a 1 out of 47 chance to get 47-times your wealth. There is no house edge and no house advantage on this bet. Would you take the gamble? If you say no to this bet, you are not doing the math -- and you are using your emotion.

In fact, I'm going to make the "math problem" even easier for you math advocates to answer. Instead of winning 47 times your wealth, you can win 48 times your wealth. You now have the edge!! What do you do? And if you say, again, no -- it's because you are using your emotion and not considering only the math.

Just for the record, I think it is inappropriate to quote Victor Royer as claiming 86 percent of gamblers are ahead at one point in their trips. There is no data attached to that claim, just the assuarnce that Royer is a "gaming author." Hell, I'm a "gaming author." Rob Singer is a "gaming author." The phrase "gaming author" means absolutely nothing in terms of providing an objective evaluation of expertise or accurate information.

That's pretty obvious, but it needed to be pointed out.

A2a--again, as your proposition is stated: on 1 million hands with all of us playing perfect strategy and no special plays on a 98.7% machine; the expected return is that we will lose 1.3%. However, as you also know, this is just the "Expected return" and all of our results will vary.

But now back to reality. That video poker machine, over the next 10 years, will be in operation 22hours per day (in Illinois--we have to be dark 2 hours). That machine will deal 10's of millions of hands (I'll let arci calculate the #--I'm not smart enough). I will play a few hours a couple days a week during that time, and I may go months without playing in the summer. So while that machine may approach the long term, I am just 1 little blip on that machine's results, and my results will fall anywhere along Arci's bell curve (and in my case it would be way down low as I have had a paucity of royals).

So since my play is such a small portion of the machine's play, I cannot be anywhere near enough to long term to consider that I will approach the long term expected return (and again--I haven't), so I now choose to play session by session, with win goals and loss limits. And by the way, for income tax purposes, the IRS considers each day a session, and you are supposed to report your income from gaming on that basis. Previously, each winning bet would have been considered to be taxable. Think of what that would mean in VP, horses, or most other forms of gambling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I think it is inappropriate to quote Victor Royer as claiming 86 percent of gamblers are ahead at one point in their trips. There is no data attached to that claim, just the assuarnce that Royer is a "gaming author."

---

I sent him an email requesting the source of the study that he quoted. And might I add, if that is the only criticism you have about what I wrote I am amazed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

However, if you asked me which game I would prefer to play, I would say the game with the positive EV. AND, if you also asked Rob Singer which game he would prefer to play he would ALSO say the game with the positive EV.

---

Singer has stated many times that the return of the game is immaterial to winning. Of course, this is strange for a person saying they would prefer to play on a positive machine. Don't you see the contradiction? I guess not, you don't want to see it and you will cover your eyes and go lalalalalala.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

So since my play is such a small portion of the machine's play, I cannot be anywhere near enough to long term to consider that I will approach the long term expected return (and again--I haven't), so I now choose to play session by session, with win goals and loss limits.

---

Yes you can approach the long term expected return. Just because a machine plays many more hands means nothing. Do you really believe flipping a coin a thousand times will NOT achieve very close to a 50-50 split? Do you think it takes millions of flips to achieve a 50-50 split?

It really doesn't take that many hands to get within 1-2% of the expected return. And, for regular players they can easily get wining 1% over just a couple of years. I guess ignorance is bliss. Just ignore the math and repeat what some moron like Singer has claimed. You really can fool some of the people all of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

And by the way, for income tax purposes, the IRS considers each day a session, and you are supposed to report your income from gaming on that basis. Previously, each winning bet would have been considered to be taxable. Think of what that would mean in VP, horses, or most other forms of gambling.

---

Yes, this is what the IRS says but it is not what they do.

I think the point about 86% of gamblers being ahead at some point is probably true. It just turns out the majority of them got ahead by just a few credits right when the started. No one spends 100s of dollars (or more) on a gambling trip and then cash out when they are ahead by $1.25 after their first hand.

Anyone using that claim as something meaningful is not too quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Singer has stated many times that the return of the game is immaterial to winning. Of course, this is strange for a person saying they would prefer to play on a positive machine. Don't you see the contradiction? I guess not, you don't want to see it and you will cover your eyes and go lalalalalala.

---

Well, I wouldn't say that the return of the game is "immaterial" because the pay table does make a difference when you play. But, even you say, Arc, that it is possible to win on negative games. So "immaterial" is the wrong word. Yet, Singer does say -- and he has said it publicly -- that he will always play on the best paytables available.

But is that the issue here?

Alan here's the truth about what I've written many times and said, and isn't it surprising that you are very close to it while others can't do it?

Any paytable can be beaten on any given day and I've proven that over and over again - as have many, many players. But when I choose a casino to play in, I will always play at the best paytables available in that casino for the games within my play strategy.

When I did a reading study I found Lenny Fromm say that that 86% number was ninety-something percent. But while compulsive, long-hour zombie-like "advantage players" will always readily agree that this stat is likely true, they will forever caveat it by claiming how unrealistic it might be for some of them to quit playing whenever they get up by five or ten credits. Of course this foolish scramble is beyond the true point, but what they clam up on after that is in how this concept is precisely how and why my goal-oriented strategy is so successful, and why the soft profit pool of cashouts plays such a big part in my overall yearly winnings totals....and game EV, ER, or paytables have very, very little to do with any of it.

These people get so hilariously tongue-tied at just the right moments.

Now onto Eddie's misconception about playing a million hands. First off, if I played a million hands during my +$984,000 profit run directly and only from the machines as a pro, I'd be surprised. But what the heck kind of geek would find such a stat about how many hands they've played interesting anyway? The only important statistic is HOW MUCH MONEY was won. Even if the exact same deals came up for the silly AP as well as for me, I would be far, far ahead of his results by the end. IF I played SPS.

Why? Because of goals, because of games, because of a 6-level progression where the first and foremost goal is to always go down in denomination after winning, because of the 40+credit cashout requirement, and because of a restart at the lowest denomination and less volatile game upon attaining a $2500 minimum win goal. Why do you think none of the "experts" have ever agreed to bet me in a live, witnessed play arena? Heck, they can't even get up the courage to live-debate me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Well, I wouldn't say that the return of the game is "immaterial" because the pay table does make a difference when you play. But, even you say, Arc, that it is possible to win on negative games. So "immaterial" is the wrong word. Yet, Singer does say -- and he has said it publicly -- that he will always play on the best paytables available.

But is that the issue here?

---

You missed it. Singer just did it again. He said the best pay tables within his system. That means he won't play 100.75% FPDW and would instead opt for 7/5 BP and 8/5 DDB.

And yes, anyone can win on a given day. If that's all you're interested in then you should quit even if you are only 5 credits ahead after the first hand. If, however, you are more concerned with your overall results then you need to quit making claims about a single day. You need to understand what your results will be for many days. Once you decide to worry about more than a single day then everything I've been telling you is most important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

You missed it. Singer just did it again. He said the best pay tables within his system. That means he won't play 100.75% FPDW and would instead opt for 7/5 BP and 8/5 DDB.

---

I think you're going off on a tangent here, Arc. I wouldnt play 100.75% FPDW either because I don't know enough about playing that game correctly. I think it's only fair that any player play the game that they know best. Sure, a paytable on 100.75% FPDW will help you, but if you don't know how to properly play the game, then the favorable pay table does you no good.

I could probably be a speech writer. But I would not be a good speech writer, so it makes more sense for me to do what I know how to do which is to make TV programs.

The same analogy applies to video poker: I probably could play FPDW, but I wouldn't play it well. So it makes more sense for me to stick with 8/5 Bonus which I feel I play perfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Now onto Eddie's misconception about playing a million hands. First off, if I played a million hands during my +$984,000 profit run directly and only from the machines as a pro, I'd be surprised. But what the heck kind of geek would find such a stat about how many hands they've played interesting anyway? The only important statistic is HOW MUCH MONEY was won. Even if the exact same deals came up for the silly AP as well as for me, I would be far, far ahead of his results by the end. IF I played SPS.

---

Nonsense. Somehow all those losing hands disappear because of a progression. Only a complete moron would believe this tripe.

I suspect his claimed 300+ sessions would lead to more than a million hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Why? Because of goals, because of games, because of a 6-level progression where the first and foremost goal is to always go down in denomination after winning, because of the 40+credit cashout requirement, and because of a restart at the lowest denomination and less volatile game upon attaining a $2500 minimum win goal. Why do you think none of the "experts" have ever agreed to bet me in a live, witnessed play arena? Heck, they can't even get up the courage to live-debate me!

---

Quite simple really. The experts already know you're lying ... just like your lies about your 4500 sqft residence. No intelligent person is going to waste their time with a moron claiming 2+2 = 5 (when mixed with a special magic elixir). Only fools fall for that kind of BS.

And, to make this even more hysterical Singer even admitted he played 6 levels only 3 times. Yet here he is claiming that his what he did. Lies, lies and more lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think you're going off on a tangent here, Arc. I wouldnt play 100.75% FPDW either because I don't know enough about playing that game correctly. I think it's only fair that any player play the game that they know best. Sure, a paytable on 100.75% FPDW will help you, but if you don't know how to properly play the game, then the favorable pay table does you no good.

I could probably be a speech writer. But I would not be a good speech writer, so it makes more sense for me to do what I know how to do which is to make TV programs.

The same analogy applies to video poker: I probably could play FPDW, but I wouldn't play it well. So it makes more sense for me to stick with 8/5 Bonus which I feel I play perfectly.

---

Alan you're arguing with someone just trying to fill in his lonely, sad down time up on the tundra. Anyone would have seen my ENTIRE statement that said "I play the best available paytables FOR THE GAMES WITHIN MY PLAY STRATEGY." FPDW or any other gimmicky wild card game cannot be beaten on a regular basis, 96%, 101% or 105%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I think you're going off on a tangent here, Arc. I wouldnt play 100.75% FPDW either because I don't know enough about playing that game correctly. I think it's only fair that any player play the game that they know best. Sure, a paytable on 100.75% FPDW will help you, but if you don't know how to properly play the game, then the favorable pay table does you no good.

I could probably be a speech writer. But I would not be a good speech writer, so it makes more sense for me to do what I know how to do which is to make TV programs.

The same analogy applies to video poker: I probably could play FPDW, but I wouldn't play it well. So it makes more sense for me to stick with 8/5 Bonus which I feel I play perfectly.

---

If that were your only options then that might make sense. However, you have other options. The main one is you could learn how to play FPDW and play perfectly at a better game. Another less intelligent option would be determine how much your lack of knowledge would cost you. If you play FPDW about 1% below optimal then you would still be better than BP.

I think you're smart enough to select one of these two options if you had high denom FPDW available.

Can't argue with you on that Arc. But FPDW ain't around where I play. The closest I got to anything good on DW was in the high limit room at Rio where they have a ten play Colorado Deuces game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan you're arguing with someone just trying to fill in his lonely, sad down time up on the tundra. Anyone would have seen my ENTIRE statement that said "I play the best available paytables FOR THE GAMES WITHIN MY PLAY STRATEGY." FPDW or any other gimmicky wild card game cannot be beaten on a regular basis, 96%, 101% or 105%.

---

Lies, lies and more lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Can't argue with you on that Arc. But FPDW ain't around where I play. The closest I got to anything good on DW was in the high limit room at Rio where they have a ten play Colorado Deuces game.

---

Back to the point. Singer claims he won't play high return games even if they were available. Think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Can't argue with you on that Arc. But FPDW ain't around where I play. The closest I got to anything good on DW was in the high limit room at Rio where they have a ten play Colorado Deuces game.

---

Gee, I seem to recall an AP who packed up and moved to LV just to be closer to the FPDW games, and the result was frightening, like losing the tiny duplex, packing on the pounds from all those "free" local casino diner meals, and scrambling back home for the healthcare that should have been considered prior to thinking a gambling habit could be curbed in LV :)

With just two hands of any significance that could end sessions, FPDW is a fool's game.

Rob, that is my problem with all DW games. The only real "pays" are on a royal, or the quad ducks. It's actually a boring game. But I can see the value in playing it if you just want to rack up "points."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Gee, I seem to recall an AP who packed up and moved to LV just to be closer to the FPDW games, and the result was frightening, like losing the tiny duplex, packing on the pounds from all those "free" local casino diner meals, and scrambling back home for the healthcare that should have been considered prior to thinking a gambling habit could be curbed in LV :)

With just two hands of any significance that could end sessions, FPDW is a fool's game.

---

Who would that be? Nothing there describes anything to do with me. Once again an example of Singer's lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I didn't want to comment on this question originally, but I feel forced to. Your question is absurd.
First you say a video poker machine randomly generates one million hands and you have one "computer perfect" player at that machine, and then as a "test" you have an identical machine generating the same exact hands with the same potential draw cards being played by another player. Do you see the flaw from the outset?

No two players ever get the same combination of cards, in the same order, with the same bankroll, with the same emotions, playing video poker. This is truly a "dream problem" because there is no reality attached to it.

Of course, you can "dream up" whatever you want to, and you math guys in your theoretical world don't take into consideration human emotions when it comes to play such as the emotions that come into play with win goals and loss limits.

So let's test your emotions, if that is possible. What would you do if there was the "video poker" version of a person putting his entire life savings on the spin of a roulette wheel?

In our video poker life savings test all of your money is at stake and you are dealt four to the royal with a flush. If you hold the flush you break even. If you get the royal you win 47 times your current wealth. But if you don't get the royal (even if you draw another flush) you lose everything and live in poverty forever. What do you do?

Hey, the math says go for it, doesn't it? The math says yes, because you have a 1 out of 47 chance to get 47-times your wealth. There is no house edge and no house advantage on this bet. Would you take the gamble? If you say no to this bet, you are not doing the math -- and you are using your emotion.

In fact, I'm going to make the "math problem" even easier for you math advocates to answer. Instead of winning 47 times your wealth, you can win 48 times your wealth. You now have the edge!! What do you do? And if you say, again, no -- it's because you are using your emotion and not considering only the math.

---

Alan, I was trying to introduce this simplified thought exercise to try and show you that having win goals and stop limits would not work. Look at it another way. Does the casino care who plays 1 million hands on their machine? No, they only care that millions of hands get played and that their built in edge earns them a profit.

You seem to think that by having win goals and loss limits will somehow help guarantee you a long term net profit. As regnis has also stated, he looks at each session individually with win goals and loss limits.

I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, AND USE THEM MYSELF SINCE I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER.

But I also realize that unless the sum total of all my "sessions" results in a positve number, then I have lost money overall. I do not even for a second think that only I will play the "profitable" sessions on any machine, leaving the losing sessions for all the other gamblers to endure. Maybe Rob who proclaims he can detect the hot and cold cycles of machines, determine which machines are not random, and know when to switch machines can do it, but I cannot.

As far as progression betting goes, in a game of chance since when does the size of your bet change the odds against you?

Eddie, inasmuch as you ignored all but one of the reasons presented as to why your misconceptions about this million hands are misguided, your comment about the randomness of machines had nothing to do with the success of my strategy. Detecting possible cold cycles did prompt me to change machines at times (although I have no idea if that helped or hurt) but if a hot cycle was detected then it had no influence on how long I stayed at that particular machine. Why? Because once a sesssion win goal was realized, I left.

Your remark about progressions had even less insight. When utilized within a non-structured continuum of vp play, of course that changes nothing. And there is no system that ever changes the mathematical odds. But what DOES improve, and rather drastically, is opportunity, and opportunity is the most important aspect when playing a goal-oriented strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

You seem to think that by having win goals and loss limits will somehow help guarantee you a long term net profit.

---

Nope, I never said that and I don't believe it. All the win goals/loss limits do is help me maximize my wins and minimize my losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie

As far as progression betting goes, in a game of chance since when does the size of your bet change the odds against you?

---

I am not a progression better and do not follow Rob's system. So you will have to discuss that with Rob. But I agree that progression bets does not change the odds. However, when you do increase your bet limits and hit a winner at a higher bet amount, you do have the opportunity to score a big win that will let you reach your win goal. I'm not endorsing the system, but I can understand how it can work.

It actually worked for me in a round about way many times. I played $1 vp and got no where, and then moved up to $2 and got no where, and then moved up to $5 and hit something big that put me ahead. But by the same token, I have also done that and just lost more money.

So the bottom line is that I usually play at one level based on my budget for that trip.

As I said above, a progression doesn't change odds, but when used with win goals it changes amount of opportunity to win your session. No one here or anywhere can truthfully say the big losses that come with this strategy will wipe out all the smaller winners along with the accompanying huge hits. That's the typical blinded math critique. Doesn't happen and in fact is exactly the opposite. If you know how to run the numbers properly on a session-by-session basis--which I did in detail before I began--then it is all very easy to see why I was so successful playing SPS. Arci's gonna say he wants to see the numbers because he's not modern or clever enough to figure short term play out. It's coming, in time, but in the meantime let's see how Royer reacts when asked to provide written proof of anything he claims :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Nope, I never said that and I don't believe it. All the win goals/loss limits do is help me maximize my wins and minimize my losses.

---

How can they do that if you end up playing all the same hands? You end up with the same ER no matter how long you wait between hands. There is no maximizing or minimizing. You are fooling yourself with nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I am not a progression better and do not follow Rob's system. So you will have to discuss that with Rob. But I agree that progression bets does not change the odds. However, when you do increase your bet limits and hit a winner at a higher bet amount, you do have the opportunity to score a big win that will let you reach your win goal. I'm not endorsing the system, but I can understand how it can work.

---

And you also will lose your money faster when you don't hit big negating any possible gain from the occasional big hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

It actually worked for me in a round about way many times. I played $1 vp and got no where, and then moved up to $2 and got no where, and then moved up to $5 and hit something big that put me ahead. But by the same token, I have also done that and just lost more money.

So the bottom line is that I usually play at one level based on my budget for that trip.

---

You just verified what redietz, Eddie and I have been saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

As I said above, a progression doesn't change odds, but when used with win goals it changes amount of opportunity to win your session. No one here or anywhere can truthfully say the big losses that come with this strategy will wipe out all the smaller winners along with the accompanying huge hits. That's the typical blinded math critique. Doesn't happen and in fact is exactly the opposite. If you know how to run the numbers properly on a session-by-session basis--which I did in detail before I began--then it is all very easy to see why I was so successful playing SPS.

---

I thought Robbie was going to produce all that data back in October. Oh how the time flies ....

Robbie, you really shouldn't keep telling the same lies after you promised to produce the evidence just a few months ago. Even some of your supporters are going to wonder ... why is he not providing the evidence he promised? Maybe it doesn't exist after all.

ROTLMAO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Arci's gonna say he wants to see the numbers because he's not modern or clever enough to figure short term play out. It's coming, in time, but in the meantime let's see how Royer reacts when asked to provide written proof of anything he claims :)

---

Bwah haha haha ... you've already been asked for the numbers, you promised to take yourself (jatki) and retrieve them well over a month ago. Now you are looking like a complete dufus making the same claims without having produced squat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Just for the record, I think it is inappropriate to quote Victor Royer as claiming 86 percent of gamblers are ahead at one point in their trips. There is no data attached to that claim, just the assuarnce that Royer is a "gaming author." Hell, I'm a "gaming author." Rob Singer is a "gaming author." The phrase "gaming author" means absolutely nothing in terms of providing an objective evaluation of expertise or accurate information.

That's pretty obvious, but it needed to be pointed out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Eddie, inasmuch as you ignored all but one of the reasons presented as to why your misconceptions about this million hands are misguided, your comment about the randomness of machines had nothing to do with the success of my strategy. Detecting possible cold cycles did prompt me to change machines at times (although I have no idea if that helped or hurt) but if a hot cycle was detected then it had no influence on how long I stayed at that particular machine. Why? Because once a sesssion win goal was realized, I left.

Your remark about progressions had even less insight. When utilized within a non-structured continuum of vp play, of course that changes nothing. And there is no system that ever changes the mathematical odds. But what DOES improve, and rather drastically, is opportunity, and opportunity is the most important aspect when playing a goal-oriented strategy.

---

Playing the SPS, one can actually watch the hot and cold cycles-a unique learning experience.

Since I have a chance to play SPS. I have a question. If the session ending win goal for $1-$25 is $2,500-or 100 X the top denom- is $200 the session ending goal for 5¢-$2? Thanks.

SPS's $2500 win goal is a function of playing 6 levels, $1 thru $100. But the win goal was figured as a % of the overall bankroll for the session, and 5% was used--another reason why the strategy is such a consistent winner.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

SPS's $2500 win goal is a function of playing 6 levels, $1 thru $100. But the win goal was figured as a % of the overall bankroll for the session, and 5% was used--another reason why the strategy is such a consistent winner.

---

Rob I thought you said this strategy could be adjusted to accommodate smaller bankrolls and smaller denominations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob I thought you said this strategy could be adjusted to accommodate smaller bankrolls and smaller denominations?

---

He did. I got it. I just take 5% of the almost $1,600 in bankroll -$80- as a session ending win goal- 5¢-$2- those 6 denoms.I was making it a function of the highest denom played. I started one session months ago and didn't allow for the time to finish it. I got to dimes and had +$30 w/$10 soft profit due to quad aces on ddbp at dimes. :eek: I have one casino in mind for this strategy-tough place. Artt works best elsewhere.