Math is for losers when playing casino VP.
Math is for losers when playing casino VP.
Is that why you're scared to relay on VP only for all of your income? We all know you pussies can't rely on VP to make money and make lousy excuses.Originally Posted by slingshot
All I know is I went last week, played my $30 freeplay thru once- ended up with $59.75. Had I stayed I woulda given it all back like all the other pussies.Originally Posted by jbjb
Last edited by slingshot; 10-30-2016 at 10:46 AM.
On & on. How many times has it been explained that math alone WILL NOT be the proof needed that any type of play strategy works? AP's like to claim they "win" because they supposedly only play in theoretically positive EV situations. And this is nothing but a weak cop-out, because not ONE of these theorists has ever provided any type of proof that they've actually won anything. Their constant "the math proves I win" is tiring, and I & GT enjoyed putting these fools to bed with many of my articles.
In my strategy's case, there is and has always been factoring required just to show how result-positive my strategy really is, and the strict math people have never and would never accept it. But for those who are able to use that supercomputer attached to their neck, they would be able to figure out that the only way to consistently win and win big on casino vp games, which are notoriously -EV already, is to develop a cunning method of injecting as much luck into the mix as well as seriously reducing the number of losing sessions played. I've succeeded on both counts.
Finally, while no one can ever prove any claims beyond posting actual big wins etc. or by saying "you have to believe I win actual money because the math says I should" (of course the math in this case means including a heavy dose of self-valuing slot club benefits) I am the only one as far as I know, who has ever offered a large public bet that included complete and detailed tracking along with accepting an official arbitrator's ruling if it came to that. And along with the fact that I've never charged a cent for training, advice, or took a penny to write any of my columns, what I have to offer as far as having actually won what I said I did far exceeds simply accepting any theoretical mumbo-jumbo.
Alan, here is a simple proof that Rob's system is not a winner.
X < 0
K > 0
X * K = P
Therefore
P < 0
X is player advantage
K is money in action
P is profit (resulting in a negative number)
Rob has shown 0 proof his system works. I wonder why. (Not really.)
Alan, what do you think is more likely -- Rob has a winning system or he used gambling/VP as a way to launder illegally obtained money?
That's about as stupid as it gets. How about you showing proof YOUR system works, if you even play at all, that is.
RS__ as I said many times. I fully believe Rob won a hundred thousand a year because he was playing $25 video poker. It is relatively easy to hit the required big wins to call it quits when a $100K win goal was reached.
What I doubt -- and I've also said this before -- are Rob's claims that he played so little and still managed to win $100K a year. It would make more sense to me that a "lucky" player who played a lot of $25 video poker could have enough quads to reach that $100K win goal. It becomes difficult for me to believe he won that much playing as little as he said he played in certain years.
I also question how he paid zero taxes because of claimed business deductions that included parties and entertaining and even groceries.
But as far as winning $100K a year playing $25 video poker? Of course it's not only possible but it's very possible when his "special games" include Triple Double Bonus and his "daily game" was 8/5 Bonus. Please note for all of you APs: 8/5 Bonus is a full pay game.
OK, I acted like a bonehead and posted again on this forum-senior moment. One last parting comment: NO one on this forum has tried to either play or understand even the best (IMHO) strategy- artt. No one on this forum has accepted a FREE offer to try it at WHATEVER denomination. Therefore, there is NO proof - mathematical or observational his strategies work. I can't believe that no one gets this. I especially can't fathom Alan, with all his opportunities and interviews at least observing just one session. Just very perplexing.
Sling... Rob watched me play for a short time. I played conventional video poker. In fact, Rob corrected me when I made an error in conventional video poker. There were no "special play" opportunities in the short time Rob watched me played.
For the record: Rob says he makes special plays 5% of the time, otherwise he is playing conventional strategy and he always plays the best pay tables available. His critics continually pick on him when he says you can still hit big winners on less than the best pay tables. And what Rob says is true. Royals and quads pay the same whether you are playing 8/5 Bonus or 7/5 Bonus, etc.
As far as his ARTT and other "systems" I still don't understand what they are, I don't know how to play them, and I've never sat with Rob at a machine long enough to learn or experience it.
Remember, I was interviewing Rob to get his "special plays" recorded in one place. At the time I did those interviews I had no idea there were even things such as his ARTT and other strategies. I learned about them later.
The problem with what Rob just said is that it's strictly, as Alan says, a "man in the street" paragraph.
Anyone who has won the lottery, or MegaBucks slots, or pushed the "random" button and won the weekly Boyd football contest, would be able to say the same things and be absolutely correct. They inserted luck (somehow), and were disciplined (so they might say) to not blow the wad on further lottery or MegaBucks slots. Proving they've won is easy. Telling other people to do as they do, well, that may not be the most ethical thing in the world.
About 30 years ago, a guy by the name of Edmund Slick won the World Cup of Handicapping, a one-weekend event at Caesars Palace with a 1K entry price tag. He wore a beautiful tux to all the functions, and he had glowing astrological symbols on the lapels and all over his tux. He did indeed win, and he claimed his astrological abilities enabled him to do so. Now should this dude have been taken seriously? Who am I to judge?
OK, Alan. Got it FWIW, much of his strategy play is conventional,also. And it's nowhere near a Martingale system.
Don't we all make "special plays" every so often?
Not with money on the line. Not even for a cup of coffee.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So... you've never played Bonus video poker and you were dealt AAAJJ and just held the aces? I admit I did it ONCE and I got lucky and got the ace.
Just think. You coulda had a cup of coffee!Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, I already showed that for someone to win $1M playing solely $25 TDB, that'd be in the 5+ standard deviation ball park. I think I'd be more likely to believe you saw 16 yo's in a row than Rob being up $1M.
And there you have it. The local AP genius believes I played only $25 and only TDB.
The level of make-believe deduction presented by an anonymous armchair gambler gets more entertaining all the time.
I saw 18 yo's in a row.
And what are the odds of hitting a $25 royal with $2000 in the machine the first time, and then hitting a $25 royal with $2500 the second time?
And I've had four dealt royals.
Shit happens.
Like 18 yo's in a row.
The math guys just can't accept it.
I was responding to what Alan said. I didn't say I think you solely played $25 TDB, just that I did the math for that.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I don't care to do the math for it, but I think $25 TDB would have the best shot at winning $1M (except for $50 or $100 denom games).
Playing $25/coin video poker to win one million dollars sounds like a wondrous thing to do. But Rob won $100,000 a year and did that each year for ten years. When you break it down year by year, winning $100K is not as wondrous and becomes more real and easier to accept. Don't you think?Originally Posted by RS__
He doesn't even need to hit a royal flush to win $100K playing $25/coin bonus or triple double bonus.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote