Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz instead of challenging the comment "quit when ahead" and instead of challenging the comment "pause when ahead" how about addressing the real issue: those who continue to play positive expectation machines but lose and think that they are doing something good.

That is the issue to address.

[redietz]

Actually, Alan, I'd be more concerned for people who play negative expectation games, lose, and think it's a good thing.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, Alan, I'd be more concerned for people who play negative expectation games, lose, and think it's a good thing.

You can relax. No one I know thinks losing is a good thing.

Now, back to reality... or do you want to twist and turn this some more?

[redietz]

Actually, Alan, I'd be more concerned for people who play negative expectation games, lose, and think it's a good thing.

You can relax. No one I know thinks losing is a good thing.

Now, back to reality... or do you want to twist and turn this some more?

You seem to hold losing while playing a positive expectation game with some kind of aversion or horror different from losing while playing a negative expectation game and losing. Why is that? It's as if the expectation of winning makes losing worse somehow for you. So the answer is to what? Not expect to win via playing negative games? That's financially masochistic. But it is easier -- no work learning games, no discipline needed as to when/where to play, no saying "I'm not playing that game because" and so on.

If people lose after playing a couple million hands of a clearly positive expectation game, there are only a few reasonable explanations. Either (1) they don't really know how to play it, (2) they are unfortunate and are victims of longshot variance, or (3) the game is really -- for whatever reason -- not a positive expectation game because it is rigged, broken, flawed in some way. If you are getting murdered on what should be a positive expectation game and have played a couple hundred thousand hands, you can hire somebody to do the math and figure the odds against what has happened to you. You then have to make a judgement as to what's more likely -- you just happen to be damned unlucky or something ain't right regarding the game. I have a horror that people rarely if ever come to the second conclusion and continue to play. On this, Rob and I agree. If I were rigging a game, I'd ambush high rollers playing in short-term promo situations.

If people lose while playing a negative expectation game, there are many possible reasons. Some could be they (1) have bought into playing it as some form of recreation, (2) they're addicted, or (3) they enjoy the self-punishment of losing. There are other rationales, but there are literally thousands of academic articles addressing those available at your local university library.

[slingshot]

Actually, Alan, I'd be more concerned for people who play negative expectation games, lose, and think it's a good thing.

You can relax. No one I know thinks losing is a good thing.

Now, back to reality... or do you want to twist and turn this some more?

You seem to hold losing while playing a positive expectation game with some kind of aversion or horror different from losing while playing a negative expectation game and losing. Why is that? It's as if the expectation of winning makes losing worse somehow for you. So the answer is to what? Not expect to win via playing negative games? That's financially masochistic. But it is easier -- no work learning games, no discipline needed as to when/where to play, no saying "I'm not playing that game because" and so on.

If people lose after playing a couple million hands of a clearly positive expectation game, there are only a few reasonable explanations. Either (1) they don't really know how to play it, (2) they are unfortunate and are victims of longshot variance, or (3) the game is really -- for whatever reason -- not a positive expectation game because it is rigged, broken, flawed in some way. If you are getting murdered on what should be a positive expectation game and have played a couple hundred thousand hands, you can hire somebody to do the math and figure the odds against what has happened to you. You then have to make a judgement as to what's more likely -- you just happen to be damned unlucky or something ain't right regarding the game. I have a horror that people rarely if ever come to the second conclusion and continue to play. On this, Rob and I agree. If I were rigging a game, I'd ambush high rollers playing in short-term promo situations.

If people lose while playing a negative expectation game, there are many possible reasons. Some could be they (1) have bought into playing it as some form of recreation, (2) they're addicted, or (3) they enjoy the self-punishment of losing. There are other rationales, but there are literally thousands of academic articles addressing those available at your local university library.

I think you just made a great argument for short term strategy.

[jbjb]

Short term strategy is to never fucking play!

Why you people want to argue with us, who's sole living is making money off of casinos, while you guys lose is beyond me....

[Alan Mendelson]

Jbjb would you care to tell us exactly how well you are living off of the casinos? I know one "advantage player" who lives,with his mother, another who sleeps in his car between comped nights in the casino hotel, and most of the others would starve if not for the appetizers in Diamond Lounges. I am yet to meet an AP who lived well being an AP.

Those who did live well have real jobs.

The reality is just how much money can you pocket with a 2% edge? You must be betting huge to score anything worthwhile. For example 2% of $1,000,000 is $20,000. Are you betting $1-million? Are you living well off of your $20,000 a year?

Redietz and others it's good to have the math on your side of the gamble but if all you're gambling for is a 2% edge, why bother?

And about quitting when ahead? You can't pay bills with an edge, and you can't make the next bet with an edge. No one accepts an edge as currency.

[slingshot]

Alan, you can add me to the list. I fell for "if the strategy works, you can keep playing past hitting a good win". It's taken me four months to recoup. Kicking myself hasn't helped much.

[regnis]

Actually, Alan, I'd be more concerned for people who play negative expectation games, lose, and think it's a good thing.

You can relax. No one I know thinks losing is a good thing.

Now, back to reality... or do you want to twist and turn this some more?

You seem to hold losing while playing a positive expectation game with some kind of aversion or horror different from losing while playing a negative expectation game and losing. Why is that? It's as if the expectation of winning makes losing worse somehow for you. So the answer is to what? Not expect to win via playing negative games? That's financially masochistic. But it is easier -- no work learning games, no discipline needed as to when/where to play, no saying "I'm not playing that game because" and so on.

If people lose after playing a couple million hands of a clearly positive expectation game, there are only a few reasonable explanations. Either (1) they don't really know how to play it, (2) they are unfortunate and are victims of longshot variance, or (3) the game is really -- for whatever reason -- not a positive expectation game because it is rigged, broken, flawed in some way. If you are getting murdered on what should be a positive expectation game and have played a couple hundred thousand hands, you can hire somebody to do the math and figure the odds against what has happened to you. You then have to make a judgement as to what's more likely -- you just happen to be damned unlucky or something ain't right regarding the game. I have a horror that people rarely if ever come to the second conclusion and continue to play. On this, Rob and I agree. If I were rigging a game, I'd ambush high rollers playing in short-term promo situations.

If people lose while playing a negative expectation game, there are many possible reasons. Some could be they (1) have bought into playing it as some form of recreation, (2) they're addicted, or (3) they enjoy the self-punishment of losing. There are other rationales, but there are literally thousands of academic articles addressing those available at your local university library.

Redietz--I don't think it's "You seem to hold losing while playing a positive expectation game with some kind of aversion or horror different from losing while playing a negative expectation game " that is Alan's point. Rather, as Rob, Alan, and others have mentioned many times, the statements by certain pros that --it was ok that they lost because they had made a good bet because it was a positive expectation scenario --that angers or befuddles many of us. I have made many a good bet on the best horse at the best value, and lost due to interference, bad ride, or just getting beat. I actually don't ever feel good about that losing bet. I would rather make a bad bet (and I have made many) that win.

The point, I believe, that he is making is that while quitting while ahead is looked down upon by the pros, the same pros will keep pounding away on a game that is murdering them, if that game has a + EV. Is that any better?

[redietz]

Jbjb would you care to tell us exactly how well you are living off of the casinos? I know one "advantage player" who lives,with his mother, another who sleeps in his car between comped nights in the casino hotel, and most of the others would starve if not for the appetizers in Diamond Lounges. I am yet to meet an AP who lived well being an AP.

Those who did live well have real jobs.

The reality is just how much money can you pocket with a 2% edge? You must be betting huge to score anything worthwhile. For example 2% of $1,000,000 is $20,000. Are you betting $1-million? Are you living well off of your $20,000 a year?

Redietz and others it's good to have the math on your side of the gamble but if all you're gambling for is a 2% edge, why bother?

And about quitting when ahead? You can't pay bills with an edge, and you can't make the next bet with an edge. No one accepts an edge as currency.

If it's a 2% annual edge, that's not much (although it beats some rates at the moment), but that's not what a 2% edge is. It means every time you push through $100, you get $102. That's gigantinormous. If you're dismissing a 2% edge in favor of "do as thou wilt" operating at a deficit, well, you're either Bill Gates or Gomez Addams.

Pausing when ahead doesn't really pay bills, either, unless you've got things figured so that you pause when the bills are due. LOL.

[Alan Mendelson]

It means every time you push through $100, you get $102.

Are you having trouble with the math? You'd still have to push through one million dollars to make $20,000.

At $5 video poker, at $25 per hand, that's 40,000 hands. But are you really making that kind of money? Is there really a positive play $5 video poker game left?

I must say, a lot of the "advantage play" seems to be fictional.

And then we have jbjb who somehow knows where all the sloppy dealers are who flash cards when he and his team are there.

Rational minds want to know.

[redietz]

You can relax. No one I know thinks losing is a good thing.

Now, back to reality... or do you want to twist and turn this some more?

You seem to hold losing while playing a positive expectation game with some kind of aversion or horror different from losing while playing a negative expectation game and losing. Why is that? It's as if the expectation of winning makes losing worse somehow for you. So the answer is to what? Not expect to win via playing negative games? That's financially masochistic. But it is easier -- no work learning games, no discipline needed as to when/where to play, no saying "I'm not playing that game because" and so on.

If people lose after playing a couple million hands of a clearly positive expectation game, there are only a few reasonable explanations. Either (1) they don't really know how to play it, (2) they are unfortunate and are victims of longshot variance, or (3) the game is really -- for whatever reason -- not a positive expectation game because it is rigged, broken, flawed in some way. If you are getting murdered on what should be a positive expectation game and have played a couple hundred thousand hands, you can hire somebody to do the math and figure the odds against what has happened to you. You then have to make a judgement as to what's more likely -- you just happen to be damned unlucky or something ain't right regarding the game. I have a horror that people rarely if ever come to the second conclusion and continue to play. On this, Rob and I agree. If I were rigging a game, I'd ambush high rollers playing in short-term promo situations.

If people lose while playing a negative expectation game, there are many possible reasons. Some could be they (1) have bought into playing it as some form of recreation, (2) they're addicted, or (3) they enjoy the self-punishment of losing. There are other rationales, but there are literally thousands of academic articles addressing those available at your local university library.

Redietz--I don't think it's "You seem to hold losing while playing a positive expectation game with some kind of aversion or horror different from losing while playing a negative expectation game " that is Alan's point. Rather, as Rob, Alan, and others have mentioned many times, the statements by certain pros that --it was ok that they lost because they had made a good bet because it was a positive expectation scenario --that angers or befuddles many of us. I have made many a good bet on the best horse at the best value, and lost due to interference, bad ride, or just getting beat. I actually don't ever feel good about that losing bet. I would rather make a bad bet (and I have made many) that win.

The point, I believe, that he is making is that while quitting while ahead is looked down upon by the pros, the same pros will keep pounding away on a game that is murdering them, if that game has a + EV. Is that any better?

Regnis, you and I differ on that. If I lose ten straight games because the team I chose out-yardaged the other team by 200 yards each time and turned the ball over six times, I don't feel bad at all. I'd rather lose and know what I'm doing than win and not know what I'm doing -- at least until the last week or so of the season or the bowls. Then I'd just rather win. I do not want to win the horse race where a better horse got a horrible trip and another one was disqualified. That means I was wrong, regardless of the payout.

If a clearly positive game is murdering someone who has the bankroll to play it for hundreds of thousands of hands, then you have to make the decision as whether things are on the up-and-up. I don't blindly assume they are, which is one reason I play 25-cent and $1 video poker.

Alan does not quit when ahead. He pauses when ahead. If pausing when ahead soothes the soul and boosts testosterone for certain people, great. Let them keep pausing when ahead. In games of opinion, mental frame of mind means something -- poker, handicapping, and so on. Some people get over-aggressive or loosey goosey when they get ahead, so pausing may work for them. But video poker? Not unless there's a fatigue issue. Otherwise, pausing has no real effect on vp.

So let me reiterate that. In games of opinion, pausing when ahead can mean something. In games like video poker, if you take fatigue out of the equation, not really.

[redietz]

It means every time you push through $100, you get $102.

Are you having trouble with the math? You'd still have to push through one million dollars to make $20,000.

At $5 video poker, at $25 per hand, that's 40,000 hands. But are you really making that kind of money? Is there really a positive play $5 video poker game left?

I must say, a lot of the "advantage play" seems to be fictional.

And then we have jbjb who somehow knows where all the sloppy dealers are who flash cards when he and his team are there.

Rational minds want to know.

Rational minds want to know how making $102 for every $100 you push through is less rational than making $98 for every $100 you push through. If you're doing the same thing, why are you knocking the people making money from it?

I'm not an advocate for believing any story of any alleged AP on this forum. I'm just arguing that Alan's position makes zero sense unless one is a financial masochist or one likes to show off by "losing." I put "losing" in quotes because sometimes, as with most kinds of conspicuous consumption, losing material resources can result in other kinds of gains.

There's nothing wrong (in fact, it's smart) to blow material resources in conspicuous consumption negative expectation gambling to accrue non-material resources. You know, like blowing money gambling to impress -- business associates, dates, clients, readers. Nothing wrong with that, as not all bottom lines are cash.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz you're missing the point either because you are just talking theory or you really aren't a player.

the point is, you must quit with a profit or pause with a profit because you don't have the bankroll to keep playing a +EV game and lose. Don't tell me you do.

Of course, you've admitted to playing 25-cent video poker and only for a short time. In fact, YOU are a short term player. YOU quit when ahead (or pause when ahead). YOU criticize me for doing exactly what you are doing yourself. YOU also speak out of both sides of your mouth.

The reality is that everyone who makes money in a casino QUITS or PAUSES when ahead. Period.

[redietz]

redietz you're missing the point either because you are just talking theory or you really aren't a player.

the point is, you must quit with a profit or pause with a profit because you don't have the bankroll to keep playing a +EV game and lose. Don't tell me you do.

Of course, you've admitted to playing 25-cent video poker and only for a short time. In fact, YOU are a short term player. YOU quit when ahead (or pause when ahead). YOU criticize me for doing exactly what you are doing yourself. YOU also speak out of both sides of your mouth.

The reality is that everyone who makes money in a casino QUITS or PAUSES when ahead. Period.

"The reality is that everyone who makes money in a casino QUITS or PAUSES when ahead. Period."

Glad you figured that out, Alan. That phrase reminds me of my old high school cross-country coach, Duke Demko, who informed us that, "Boys, you have to be ahead at the finish line to win."

All the people who are ahead lifetime pause when ahead. Because they are ahead lifetime, they are always ahead when pausing. Yes, that would include me, with or without sports gambling. The lesson isn't to pause when ahead. The lesson is to play positive expectation games, or know what you're doing in games of opinion, so that you're always ahead (lifetime) when you pause.

[Alan Mendelson]

The reality is that everyone who makes money in a casino QUITS or PAUSES when ahead. Period.

Glad you figured that out, Alan. That phrase reminds me of my old high school cross-country coach, Duke Demko, who informed us that, "Boys, you have to be ahead at the finish line to win."

Yes, that's what it's all about. All this talk about +EV and making the best bet, or a good bet, means shit if you don't have a profit and take it out of the casino.

[Rob.Singer]

I see several important points that should school the "AP's" here in the art of gaming.

First, we have the usual jbjb "hit & run & hide" after making believe he's one of these anonymous gambling experts lurking on the streets of LV, who beats the casinos at their own game: the math. But when Alan asks the moron for some factual evidence to back up his claim, poof! What a surprise. He's probably conferring with Ace gambler RS__ right now on how to build their house of cards back up.

Then we have the ongoing redietz taking the concept of quitting when ahead, personally. Must be the chicken fried steak or that cheap, fake maple syrup in the collection of coffee shops he frequents, that's doing it to him again. He asks why a player who wins the first hand played doesn't just pack it in? Well, this proves he never listens and doesn't want to hear it. Any consistent winner knows you set WIN GOALS based on your strategy being played and your bankroll, and that's when the intelligent player quits.

The rest of the discussion wasn't the AP's' brightest moment. Sure, these idiots are going to say "they'd rather make a good bet (aka, +EV) and lose instead of making a bad bet (aka, -EV) and win". That makes them feel as if they've impressed the other flawed thinkers in their group and at the same time, they think this type of babble makes the masses believe they are winners, by casually mentioning/eluding to the "occasional loss". But while all that slight-of-hand is going on, the astute gambler readily recognizes the most confirmed and brutal "good bet vs. bad bet" glorious slice of evidence ever to come down the pike: just how thrilling was it for the mighty Wizard to have made all those wonderful "good" bets, when they failed him enough so as to embarrassingly have to beg a bunch of forum slugs for cash?

The smart player learns from other's mistakes.

[redietz]

I need some help here. That maple stuff in the little pitchers on the tables at IHOP and Blueberry Hill -- is that real or fake? I've never asked.

My second bazillion dollar question -- how exactly does setting win goals help you win? Is it like saying "abracadabra" or twitching one's nose like Elizabeth Montgomery? Is there some formula that'll help "the masses" understand the enormous influence of setting win goals? Like, if one dude does not set win goals and plays, and another dude sets win goals and plays, does Dude #1 win less money that Dude #2? Has that been mathematically established, or is this more of Rob's expert opining?

[slingshot]

I need some help here. That maple stuff in the little pitchers on the tables at IHOP and Blueberry Hill -- is that real or fake? I've never asked.

My second bazillion dollar question -- how exactly does setting win goals help you win? Is it like saying "abracadabra" or twitching one's nose like Elizabeth Montgomery? Is there some formula that'll help "the masses" understand the enormous influence of setting win goals? Like, if one dude does not set win goals and plays, and another dude sets win goals and plays, does Dude #1 win less money that Dude #2? Has that been mathematically established, or is this more of Rob's expert opining?

To answer your question, I would like to ask Rob a question. Aren't your two popular strategies based upon having 1200 credits leeway to obtain a win goal-which can come sooner-which credits also establish a loss limit- and aren't these 1200 credits based on a mathematically established study that shows a high rate of success?

[Alan Mendelson]

I can answer.

Win goals do not help you win. I think we all agree on that.
Loss limits do help you control your losses when you're just not having any luck.

I happen to utilize rising stop-losses when I am winning. This is why I won't hit a winner on the first hand and stop playing. If I do happen to hit a winner, I will adjust my "stop loss" to give myself a chance to keep playing and possibly win more.

But each player should have their own plan. My loss limit might be too much for others. My win goal might be too high for others. And some might be clueless about how a "rising stop loss" works because they never traded stocks or futures and are unfamiliar with how they work.

But there are two main points that everyone must follow:

1. If you don't take some profit out of the casino you will never have a profit. Duh.
2. A positive EV game is not an ATM that spits out winnings, and you have to have loss limits even on +EV games and machines.