Is Rob claiming long term, kewlj?
Care to define long term?
Suppose he only wins in the short term? Short term session after short term session?
By the way, what's your margin of error?
Printable View
Is Rob claiming long term, kewlj?
Care to define long term?
Suppose he only wins in the short term? Short term session after short term session?
By the way, what's your margin of error?
10 years is longterm. Winning a million dollars over 10 years IS longterm results!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It does NOT work that way Alan. Many short-terms does not equal long-term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The best way to explain it is that it would not be unusual to hit 2 or 3 blacks on roulette (short-term). But you are not going to hit 2000 out of 3000. And you are NOT going to hit 2 of 3, 1000 times in a row. Can't be done. You guys are just going against the math. What you are claiming or want to believe is just not mathematically possible.
But that doesn't support any of your own ridiculous claims, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Ten years of limited play is NOT long term. Define long term. State your margin of error.
But it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungBut that doesn't support any of your own ridiculous claims, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Read and learn about N0 (That's N Zero).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
How do you manage to play 100,000 hands of blackjack a year by showing your spread once at each casino visit?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungBut that doesn't support any of your own ridiculous claims, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
What's your margin of error?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungBut that doesn't support any of your own ridiculous claims, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Never has an AP mentioned a margin of error in their sacred math. Chew on that gang.
He doesn't know, Alan. He's not prepared to prove out anything in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhat's your margin of error?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
Never has an AP mentioned a margin of error in their sacred math. Chew on that gang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Good try, Mr. Mendelson. I'll spell it out for you.
Argentino claims two distinct things. His first claim is that he has won (note the personal pronoun "he" and past tense) using his systems. The second thing he claims is that his systems, if adopted, provide an avenue to winning for anyone. This second thing is quite different from the first. It is predictive ("people will win using his systems") and it is forward projecting (not past tense) and it has no aggregate limit.
You and he argue that what makes the casinos different is their "economy of scale."
That reasoning, however, comes into direct conflict with the second of Argentino's claims. If his systems can be employed by other people, then there is really no limit on the number of people who could be using them in this moment, or day, or year. If this is the case, then the volume of play that could theoretically be devoted to Rob's systems could be massive. Dozens of people, or hundreds, or tens of thousands.
Now pardon me if Rob has ever mentioned an aggregate limit on how many people could play his systems in a particular block of time. I have never read his saying that in Gaming Today or on any forum. If there is no such limit, and I cannot imagine why there would be one, we run into a logical problem.
All of the people who could potentially be playing his systems today or this week or this year, if they number in the hundreds or thousands, would certainly count in total as "the long term."
So somehow Argentino and you are arguing that casinos have a long term but that dozens or thousands of Argentino system devotees would somehow always evade the long term in terms of their aggregate results.
You and he are therefore making two opposing arguments. Casinos, in their role as APs, win because of the long term with aggregate machine results. But, you say, individuals never reach that long term. Yet you also argue that multiple people can employ the Singer systems, and win, even though they, like the machines, are actually an aggregate.
This is a clear contradiction in basic logic.
While most here do not believe Rob won (past tense, and as an individual) because the odds were against him enormously, that's just one claim that can be argued back and forth. The second claim, however, that people can win going forward employing his systems, has no way of sidestepping the long term. It would be like arguing that casinos cannot measure the results of machines as an aggregate because they are individual machines and therefore the long term should not apply to an individual machine.
Yet, Mr. Mendelson, your argument for why APing works for casinos is that it is an aggregate. If a hundred Singer devotees are turned loose on casinos, that is also an aggregate. They are both clearly "long term," no matter the specifics of your definition.
I have results recorded for $2,704,156 coin in on a 99.11% return game. Actual loss on game is $29,240 (not including freeplay, promo stuff, etc.). I’d consider that the “long term”. No way in hell is someone going to have a +29k run on 25c denom on that game to get to even or ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonDefine short term and long term. Another cloud of mystery, isn't it. But you are seeing my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
The margin between 99% and 101% is small.
Now, what is the margin of error you are playing with jbjb?
If there weren't a margin of error you'd never lose, would you? What is mickeycrimm's margin of error when he has a losing day? What is kewlj's margin of error when he loses $29,000 in a week?
Casinos have a margin of error also but it's spread over 2,000 games 24/7/365.
Don’t know how many royals were hit, but expected number is 54 royals. If the Royal was worth $2k instead of $1k, then that’d make it about a 101.11% game (without changing strategy). Adding $54k to -$29k is +$25k. At that point, it’d be pretty tough to ever end up in the negative.
But hey, that’s just simple math. Don’t let that get in your way, Alan.
What do you mean by margin of error? Do you mean variance? Or making strategy mistakes (like holding 3 cards to a royal instead of a high pair)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan MendelsonWhat's your margin of error?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBut it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Yung
Never has an AP mentioned a margin of error in their sacred math. Chew on that gang.
First of all, this (2018) is the first year I have played 100,000 rounds in a number of years. I used to play upwards of 100,000 earlier in my career, but the last 5-7 years it has been more like 80,000 rounds and a couple years where I missed some time even less. But lets go with the 100,000 number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill YungHow do you manage to play 100,000 hands of blackjack a year by showing your spread once at each casino visit?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
100,00 rounds a year, is 274 rounds a day. When playing a 6 decks game at very average penetration of 75%, there will be 234 cards dealt before the cut card comes out. With 2 players and the dealer that is approximately 29 rounds per shoe. So let's say the first shoe the count doesn't go all that much negative or positive, which happens most shoes. A max bet situation occurs less that 1 in 2 shoes (actually more like 1 in 3).
So I play 2 shoes that is 58 rounds. During the second shoe the count grows to a max bet situation. I still finish out that shoe. I leave at the shuffle after showing max bet. So that is 58 rounds that session. I do that 5 times during the day and I am over 273 daily average needed to get to 100,000 for the year.
Now some sessions will be shorter. Maybe max bet opportunity comes out first shoe. Or maybe one of my other triggers comes out. BUT some sessions will also be longer. When I get a heads up opportunity, I can blow through 150 rounds in 30 minutes.
So, the answer to your question: It isn't that hard. Just takes a little effort. Because that's what this is for me. Work.
But the bigger point here is you are trying to play your "gottch ya" game with all these questions. I know it. You know it. Everyone else knows it. But I have answers for all your stupid "gottch ya" questions, because I have mathematics on my side. What I do is proven by mathematics. It isn't anything I came up with. It is proven math. So just stop embarrassing yourself.
Redietz I didn't bother to read your post.
RS thanks for asking about margin of error. I need not say another word except this:
NEVER has any AP mentioned a margin of error with their math claims. And thats something I just realized when I was preparing a report for a client's Infomercial campaign.
Margin of error? These guys are unbelievable. :rolleyes:
RS, jbjb, kewlJ, if you get a chance, read my post #30 and let me know what you think.
I've said several times when I'm calculating the value on a play, oftentimes I'll subtract a bit from the return because I expect to make some errors. If I play 9/6 JOB, I'm not going to calculate the value based on playing perfectly and having a 99.54% return, because I know I make errors. Generally, I'd treat it as something more like a 99.2% game (when doing the math to determine if the play is worthwhile), because I know I'll give up some amount back due to errors and I err on the side of caution. When I calculate expected travel costs, I'm going to overestimate. And TBH, if the difference between a game being 99.5% versus 99.0% is going to be the difference between a winning play and a losing play, I'm not that interested in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yeah your post # 30 is good. But too long. Makes it more complicated than need be, which only allows these guys to use that to attempt to muddy the waters. Here is a post I like better....short and sweet and very precise. I plan on quoting this often. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Good. I sometimes use a margin of error of 3.5-percent. For argument's sake use that same margin of error when discussing 99% vs 101% video poker. Suddenly the difference is no difference at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS__I've said several times when I'm calculating the value on a play, oftentimes I'll subtract a bit from the return because I expect to make some errors. If I play 9/6 JOB, I'm not going to calculate the value based on playing perfectly and having a 99.54% return, because I know I make errors. Generally, I'd treat it as something more like a 99.2% game (when doing the math to determine if the play is worthwhile), because I know I'll give up some amount back due to errors and I err on the side of caution. When I calculate expected travel costs, I'm going to overestimate. And TBH, if the difference between a game being 99.5% versus 99.0% is going to be the difference between a winning play and a losing play, I'm not that interested in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So, why couldn't Rob have a profit? THE MATH says he could.
O. M. G. !!! I think I just hurt myself laughing (and then crying).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
No more comments from me. This post of Alan's says it all.
Gotta head out. Have a date. :)