The Mountains vs the Mole HillsQuote:
Originally Posted by monet
Printable View
The Mountains vs the Mole HillsQuote:
Originally Posted by monet
I can't believe this is still being debated here after more than ten years.
You can't beat mathematics in long term gambling. If you are -EV, you will lose money in the long run no matter what, barring a mega-jackpot situation.
The confusion comes from the fact that you may also lose long term if you're +EV, due to poor bankroll management, or by playing with such variance or small edges that you would need an insane number of sessions to guarantee long term success.
Anyone who has played -EV games long term and claims to be a winner is lying, unless they had a single monster hit which was large enough to make up for their other losses.
Now I bet someone is going to ask, "If you can lose long term as a +EV player, why can't you win long term as a -EV player?"
It's because of the difference in edges.
It is difficult for APs to find consistent plays which are as profitable as the games are for the casino versus normal players. Yes, sometimes huge edge plays exist for APs, but they are short term things. You're usually not going to be able to sit there for months and play with a 2% edge all day and all night, let alone a 10% edgel
There's also the human error factor. Theoretical edge is one thing, but when humans are the ones playing, they will never achieve the theoretical winrate, due to the inevitable mistakes people make all the time.
This is the reason some casinos are willing to offer VP machines with 100.17% payback. Most people can't play perfect enough to avoid giving back that 0.17%.
I have enough wars going on without starting another one. I get along with Boz just fine. Always have. We occasionally trade PM's. He's done well in life and is now enjoying the benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Joke Mickey... Joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI have enough wars going on without starting another one. I get along with Boz just fine. Always have. We occasionally trade PM's. He's done well in life and is now enjoying the benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Everyone knows that you and Rat Fink Boz are buddy, buddy.
You're just making yourself look dumber with every post. When are you going to cash in on that 10k reward for identifying this supposed slot team I work for?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYes, we understand you are an addicted losing gambling posing as a professional. No one is buying it, poser pro maxturd.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenDoes anyone still not understand now how people lose their whole life's accomplishments to the casino?......RIPQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Okay. I'd just like to win the next time I play. I have no interest to beat the long term mathematics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The reason this keeps coming up is because the point keeps getting misrepresented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
No one has said they "beat the math" in long-term gambling.Yet if someone comes on and says they've won over any amount of time by playing -EV games, we immediately have the conspiracy theorists jump up and down claiming "they're lying!"
In my case I net profitted in four years playing my strategy. That's hardly "long-term", in fact, it's but a relatively small slice in time. And if anybody doesn't think it's possible to win as much as I did in that amount of time at the limits I played, it is they who do not understand the math.
I took a chance when I chose to play it. I never experienced a complete loss ($57,200 in one session) and it was always possible for it to happen multiple times a year. But it didn't. I have no doubt that had I not come upon the DU bug play and continued to play my strategy instead, I would have experienced more than one of those losses. But would I have lost overall...given the continuing opportunities for huge hits along the way? No one knows--not even the math. Because the math doesn't really know if 10 years is long enough for that strategy to make it into the "long-term" or not. That can be argued on and on and on.
But the fact remains: If I have a pocket with $57,200 stuffed inside and I'm in dire need of an additional minimum $2500, it would be downright foolish if I didn't play my strategy to get the extra funds. Every. Single. Time.
Rob you don't begin to understand the math. Thats why you don't understand any of this. Yes, any loser can be a winner for any length of time but that doesn't mean they did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThe reason this keeps coming up is because the point keeps getting misrepresented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
No one has said they "beat the math" in long-term gambling.Yet if someone comes on and says they've won over any amount of time by playing -EV games, we immediately have the conspiracy theorists jump up and down claiming "they're lying!"
In my case I net profitted in four years playing my strategy. That's hardly "long-term", in fact, it's but a relatively small slice in time. And if anybody doesn't think it's possible to win as much as I did in that amount of time at the limits I played, it is they who do not understand the math.
I took a chance when I chose to play it. I never experienced a complete loss ($57,200 in one session) and it was always possible for it to happen multiple times a year. But it didn't. I have no doubt that had I not come upon the DU bug play and continued to play my strategy instead, I would have experienced more than one of those losses. But would I have lost overall...given the continuing opportunities for huge hits along the way? No one knows--not even the math. Because the math doesn't really know if 10 years is long enough for that strategy to make it into the "long-term" or not. That can be argued on and on and on.
But the fact remains: If I have a pocket with $57,200 stuffed inside and I'm in dire need of an additional minimum $2500, it would be downright foolish if I didn't play my strategy to get the extra funds. Every. Single. Time.
You can repeat that over and over but the active posters on here are far too smart for that.
You write well but you appear to be an imbecile with it comes to gambling math.
Most problem gamblers lie. Somtimes to everyone and sometimes that includes themselves.
I never met anyone that had a problem gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
A losing problem more like it.
Account, I think Rob.Singer is well aware of the problems with his presentations of his life history in video poker. He's not really fooling anyone, himself included, with the abstract arguments he posts. The tip-off? How do I know? Brace yourself, because it's really obvious, and once I spill the beans, we might -- LOL -- get some numbers going forward.
Rob.Singer has almost 10,000 posts here. Has he ever said he played x number of hands in a particular session on average? Has he said he's played y number of hands in his average month? Has he said he played z number of hands in his average year on such and such a game or z number of hands on another game? Has he ever given a ballpark for number of hands played in a year in total for a year or a decade or his lifetime at this game or that? Has he ever stated these kinds of numbers for even "a year in the life?"
From my lifetime of gambling, for example, I can tell you I bet about a hundred college football games a year. Spread over 45 years, that's 4500 games. Rob.Singer HAS NOT PROVIDED NUMBERS.
Now think about that. Every video poker player has a ballpark idea of his own speed on various games. Every video poker player has some ballpark idea how many hours they play a given week, month, and year. So how or why would anyone posting about video poker studiously, and I mean STUDIOUSLY, avoid any mention of numbers?
It's because once you establish numbers, you establish odds-against being ahead. Once you report what you play for how long in a given month or year, you can have probabilities assigned to what you claim to have done. You lose the cover of being able to argue abstract philosophies and concepts like having a miracle machine on your head and all that. You get pinned to reality by the numbers. Now sure, once you have those numbers assigned to you, it's possible you pulled off what you claim, but then you have bald numbers there that tell you what the odds were against it. You wind up arguing, basically, that you were really, really, really lucky or blessed by God.
Originally, Rob.Singer claimed, in articles (many front page read by thousands of people) that his systems were the key to winning. After all these decades and as people became more math savvy, it became more clear that what he was touting was hugely odds-against. Think about the sheer venality of what he proposed as a storyline afterwards. That he lied in dozens of columns read by thousands to protect his alleged double up. And now, by truncating his systems story, and making his "systems" a few years instead of decades, his winning systems storyline becomes less mathematically impossible and more believable. More believable, mind you, but nowhere near likely.
You cannot write 10,000 posts without numbers and be unaware that you have avoided all mention of personal numbers regarding your alleged expertise, video poker. Virtually every video poker player and certainly every video poker author, mentions hours played and hands per hour as the basic contexts in which to frame playing video poker. Except Rob.Singer. He's been avoiding math for 10,000 posts, and that's just on this forum.
HOT SUCKER LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
you want to win the next time you play_________?????_____________that's no problem at all
all you have to do is place bets on the 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 after the point is established
then when you hit on the first roll take all your bets down and go home a winner
you'll win 4 out of 5 times (in the long run)_________but the fifth time you'll lose more than you made in other 4 times - but that's no big deal - there's an excellent chance you'll win the next time you play which is what you stated you want
but that wouldn't be any fun would it
it wouldn't be really satisfying
.
So what you are now trying to say is you were just lucky. You played a progression system and the way progression systems work is they result in many small wins before that big loss comes along a wipes away all that winning plus some. So you are now saying, you were just lucky not to have had that big win in your 4 years (initially 10 years, but amended to 4 years). That you got "lucky" is quite a bit different than a winning system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You carried a brick of $57,200 on weekly trips for 4 years attempting to win $2500? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Some Tough Guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half SmokeQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
you want to win the next time you play_________?????_____________that's no problem at all
all you have to do is place bets on the 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 after the point is established
then when you hit on the first roll take all your bets down and go home a winner
you'll win 4 out of 5 times (in the long run)_________but the fifth time you'll lose more than you made in other 4 times - but that's no big deal - there's an excellent chance you'll win the next time you play which is what you stated you want
but that wouldn't be any fun would it
it wouldn't be really satisfying
.
You come over here all the way from WoV just to trash Alan.
If you were any kind of a Man you would do it over there.
Get the Fuck outta here!
Talk about problem gambling!
I found about 700 dollars more than I can remember.
Maybe I won more in that 1-2 NL game than I thought.
I thought seat 1 only had about 300 but he may have had more that I missed through all the confusion.
Not such a bad problem to have as it covered my sports action, massage and uhhh extra massage.
I guess I'll go to sleep till the games start.
We are going to pull far ahead today.
I can feel it.
Oh, and they upped the price at the Fremont for the Oxtail Soup to 18 dollars total.
That's almost double what it used to be.
Thanks Corona!
All comped anyway but damn it still tastes as good as it used to.
Two Bowls with Rice, Mushrooms, Ginger and Siracha for me.
Mmmm Mmmm Good.
And for all you Reel Progressive Nuts.
The Double Jackpot 1 dollar Blazing Sevens is up over 9 grand.
Not easy but 10 Grand is positive for sure.
I suspect 9 Grand is as well.
I've caught it a few times over 10 but I prefer the Red Hot Sevens.
Much easier to spin the Jackpot off by yourself as you need a crew for the Double Jackpot 7's if you're serious.
You are welcome to the Free Information to do as you see fit.
Rob says that no one really knows what is long-term? That simply is not true. There are mathematical formulas to determine this. And there are simulators. Mickey has talked about Video poker simulators in the past few days. I am not familiar with them because I did not play video poker for a living. But if they are anything like blackjack simulators they will tell you just what the "long-term" is for each set of rules and conditions as well as how unlikely any set of results are for that amount of play.....how many standard deviations from expectation any set of results are.
And nowadays he has to run to his doomsday safe at his daughter's house in Arizona if he spikes a winner.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJSo what you are now trying to say is you were just lucky. You played a progression system and the way progression systems work is they result in many small wins before that big loss comes along a wipes away all that winning plus some. So you are now saying, you were just lucky not to have had that big win in your 4 years (initially 10 years, but amended to 4 years). That you got "lucky" is quite a bit different than a winning system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You carried a brick of $57,200 on weekly trips for 4 years attempting to win $2500? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Get out there and stepandfetchit, poser pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenYou're just making yourself look dumber with every post. When are you going to cash in on that 10k reward for identifying this supposed slot team I work for?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYes, we understand you are an addicted losing gambling posing as a professional. No one is buying it, poser pro maxturd.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
In advantage play video poker the size of the advantage will play a big role in whether the variance can make you a loser in the short to medium term.
Take $1 10/7 Double Bonus with a .33% card. A half percent edge. The edge is thin enough that variance could make you a loser thru a substantial sample space. And just the opposite it could make you a bigger winner than you should be. There were a lot of plays like this back in the day.
I never cared for grind out plays like this and avoided them. The edge is just to thin.
In the late nineties my bread and butter video poker play was sweeping out Flush Attacks. I played quarters with an average 4% edge.
So what is so great about an edge like this? Well, pretty much no downside variance.
These were the three biggest cycles in the game:
The royal odds were 45,000
Straight Flush odds were 7700
Four Aces odds were 4400
The royal paid 800 for 1 so it represented 1.77% of the payback.
The straight flush paid 50 for 1 so it represented .65% of the payback.
Subtract those two pays off the 4% and you have 1.58%.
The next biggest cycle was the 4 Aces, at 4400.
I played 5000 hands a day in most spots. That meant I averaged hitting 4 Aces at least once a day.
There was just no downside variance to the game. I had an advantage without having to hit a royal flush. So when the royal came it was all gravy.
I played the game for 5 years. I'm sure I had a few losing weeks in there somewhere but I don't recall them. I remember an $1100 losing streak once but I quickly made it up. And there were some losing streaks in the $600 range.
But I pretty much made money every week that rolled. At the time I was making 5 to 7K a month depending on how hard I worked it.
The reason this play worked so well was because of the flush value I was getting. It was already sizeable with an average of 10 for 1. But my way of playing Flush Attack garnered a flush value of 11.66. That extra 1.66 is huge when the flush frequency is just 55. It's an extra 3%. The northern Nevada FA's were 100.73%. So throw in the same day cashback and it was a 4% edge.