VP Royal Flushes

[arcimede$]

As I've often noted the human mind tends to see patterns in all kinds of areas. There was a time when I was in Vegas that my morning practice on the computer tended to be a good predictor of my results that day. However, it was just the opposite. If I did well on the computer I did well gambling. Naturally, this only lasted for awhile (about 3 weeks I believe) before it went away (like all patterns based on randomness).

[slingshot]

Alan, where can I get some of that egg nog?

[regnis]

I tried rubbing the lady next to me-----we are now married 3 years

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, when the odds say you have a one in 40,000 chance of drawing a royal, you have that one in 40,000 chance on each and every hand you play. It does not mean that your chance of drawing the royal increases after 39,999 hands. If it did, I would not have gone through a 180-thousand hand drought without drawing a royal. And, if you had to go through 40-thou hands to hit a royal, I would not have hit five royals over the last six weeks or so.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, when the odds say you have a one in 40,000 chance of drawing a royal, you have that one in 40,000 chance on each and every hand you play. It does not mean that your chance of drawing the royal increases after 39,999 hands. If it did, I would not have gone through a 180-thousand hand drought without drawing a royal. And, if you had to go through 40-thou hands to hit a royal, I would not have hit five royals over the last six weeks or so.

I know that Alan, but by explaining it as you have you actually PROVED my point. Just think if a new player began by playing 500,000 hands that included a royal-starved time like yours. Then think about what it would be like if this new player, at some point late in your low royal flush streak, then chose to play his hands inside casinos rather than at home. How great would THAT be?

The point is, since you never know when you'll get hot or cold, IF you do well at home, just stay out of the casinos until it seems hopeless or it seems like it's starting to turn around. But if you do poorly at home, pick a day to start playing at the casinos. It's like an automatic advantage, simply because, as the AP's always say, EVENTUALLY THE MATH WILL CATCH UP. I wrote how I wish I understood this better prior to beginning my disastrous 6-1/2 year career as an AP. Any new player would benefit from understanding this. Current players typically would not, because current players for the most part, find themselves hooked on the action provided by the real machines when playing for real money, and at-home play is only limited to filling in slow days or getting a kick out of silly tournaments etc. like you see on videopoker.com.

[Vegas Vic]

I know that Alan, but by explaining it as you have you actually PROVED my point. Just think if a new player began by playing 500,000 hands that included a royal-starved time like yours. Then think about what it would be like if this new player, at some point late in your low royal flush streak, then chose to play his hands inside casinos rather than at home. How great would THAT be?

The point is, since you never know when you'll get hot or cold, IF you do well at home, just stay out of the casinos until it seems hopeless or it seems like it's starting to turn around. But if you do poorly at home, pick a day to start playing at the casinos. It's like an automatic advantage, simply because, as the AP's always say, EVENTUALLY THE MATH WILL CATCH UP. I wrote how I wish I understood this better prior to beginning my disastrous 6-1/2 year career as an AP. Any new player would benefit from understanding this. Current players typically would not, because current players for the most part, find themselves hooked on the action provided by the real machines when playing for real money, and at-home play is only limited to filling in slow days or getting a kick out of silly tournaments etc. like you see on videopoker.com.

The ups & downs in a casino have absolutely no correlation to playing VP at home and it's irresponsible of you to suggest this (among the many other things that you are irresponsible for saying).

[Alan Mendelson]

The ups & downs in a casino have absolutely no correlation to playing VP at home and it's irresponsible of you to suggest this (among the many other things that you are irresponsible for saying).

Every time Rob is about to present himself as someone reasonable with a valid approach to video poker, he decides to take another dip in a cesspool of ridiculousness just for old times' sake.

[slingshot]

Every time Rob is about to present himself as someone reasonable with a valid approach to video poker, he decides to take another dip in a cesspool of ridiculousness just for old times' sake.

And every time he presents his short-term, goal-oriented strategy he's mocked in another cesspool of ridiculousness.

[arcimede$]

I know that Alan, but by explaining it as you have you actually PROVED my point. Just think if a new player began by playing 500,000 hands that included a royal-starved time like yours. Then think about what it would be like if this new player, at some point late in your low royal flush streak, then chose to play his hands inside casinos rather than at home. How great would THAT be?

It would make absolutely no difference. The odds don't change based on past events. You don't really believe they do, do you? That is beyond stupid.

The point is, since you never know when you'll get hot or cold, IF you do well at home, just stay out of the casinos until it seems hopeless or it seems like it's starting to turn around. But if you do poorly at home, pick a day to start playing at the casinos. It's like an automatic advantage, simply because, as the AP's always say, EVENTUALLY THE MATH WILL CATCH UP.

No one says this who understand the math, especially APers. This is an example of a typical Singer lie. Make up some kind of nonsense and then make some idiotic claims that only the totally ignorant might believe.

I wrote how I wish I understood this better prior to beginning my disastrous 6-1/2 year career as an AP. Any new player would benefit from understanding this. Current players typically would not, because current players for the most part, find themselves hooked on the action provided by the real machines when playing for real money, and at-home play is only limited to filling in slow days or getting a kick out of silly tournaments etc. like you see on videopoker.com.

Your ignorance is massive.

[slingshot]

Ha!

1 just caught on-long term and ap players!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I know people who have never had a royal flush. When are they due?

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I know people who have never had a royal flush. When are they due?

Due? Why'd you ask that? First, if they're using my strategy, which does not require a royal to win any session or to be ahead overall, then a royal-less life is of no consequence. But chances are they're either strict AP's or normal Joe players like you. So too bad they spent their lives playing inside casinos. If they had read about and followed my play-at-home-first advice, imagine how much they'd have saved by now.

[Alan Mendelson]

We're not talking about your strategy, Rob. I think we are talking about the chances of getting a royal. Am I mistaken?

[Rob.Singer]

We're not talking about your strategy, Rob. I think we are talking about the chances of getting a royal. Am I mistaken?

In a way we are, because without them most everyone loses each year. I think if you step back and look at the overall concept it might help. You're starting out; you go to casinos like everyone else; you most probably lose (unless you have magic fingers like arci, magic machines, and casino execs who don't care and simply look the other way if you take them for tens of thousands every year on grandfathered-in machines that they otherwise keep a keen eye on because of their controversial paytables) and you just are beside yourself.

OR....you could do what I recommend, and learn the game at home while playing a whole lot of hands. If you do well or close to it, stay home and play, because the math is being kind to you. But if not--and here's where you're big advantage comes into play--you simply head out to the casino, which is exactly where you want to be as you witness first hand the math working it's "magic" as it corrects all that losing that's been going on. Just as the AP's say it will.

It's that simple.

[regnis]

Rob-1 of the flaws with this is that I believe it is the machine, not the player, who achieves the long term results. My play is just 1 little blip on that machine, regardless of my play at home.

If you believe it is the player, not the machine, there may be some small degree of merit as illustrated in my heads or tails example earlier in this thread. However, the odds on each spin, roll, throw, etc. never change. But again, if you believe the math will even out, it has some merit.

[Alan Mendelson]

you could do what I recommend, and learn the game at home while playing a whole lot of hands. If you do well or close to it, stay home and play, because the math is being kind to you. But if not--and here's where you're big advantage comes into play--you simply head out to the casino, which is exactly where you want to be as you witness first hand the math working it's "magic" as it corrects all that losing that's been going on. Just as the AP's say it will.

It's that simple.

Hold on a second Rob. On the one hand you disagree with the whole concept of advantage play and the "long term" but here you are saying to adapt the concept of the long term by losing at home in practice sessions so that you will win at the casinos with real money when the long term moves all of those averages into proper place. Is that right?

No Rob, you're just poking fun at the whole idea of the math by proposing something that is just a fantasy.

The danger, Rob, is that someone might take this talk of yours as being serious.

[arcimede$]

In a way we are, because without them most everyone loses each year. I think if you step back and look at the overall concept it might help. You're starting out; you go to casinos like everyone else; you most probably lose (unless you have magic fingers like arci, magic machines, and casino execs who don't care and simply look the other way if you take them for tens of thousands every year on grandfathered-in machines that they otherwise keep a keen eye on because of their controversial paytables) and you just are beside yourself.

OR....you could do what I recommend, and learn the game at home while playing a whole lot of hands. If you do well or close to it, stay home and play, because the math is being kind to you. But if not--and here's where you're big advantage comes into play--you simply head out to the casino, which is exactly where you want to be as you witness first hand the math working it's "magic" as it corrects all that losing that's been going on. Just as the AP's say it will.

It's that simple.

It doesn't get any more ridiculous than this. ROTFLMAO. How can anyone be this stupid?

[regnis]

I should add that I havent had a royal in years, and then only 2 in my lifetime. I played only for brief periods if craps was dead--until about 5 years ago when I began playing a lot of VP when I was barred from throwing the dice.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here are two inconsistencies I see in this theory of Rob's:

1. If true, why when I went through a 180,000 hand royal flush drought in casino play did I also fail to have a royal in "fun play" at home?
2. Rob wrote in one of his books how he got back-to-back royals, and the other day he posted about two royals in one day. How many hands did he lose at home playing "fun games" did he have to lose in order to score those casino wins?

The more I think about it, Rob isn't serious at all about this. He is just trying to mock the "math guys" with twisting around their own "math". Fess up Rob... it's all a joke, right? You really don't believe this, right?

[quahaug]

Rob, That tongue in cheek is pretty funny. You are absolutly right!