Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[regnis]

Uh oh--Arci is down for the count. very weak response. Not even a mention of math. And you did say exactly what I said you did. Just see your own threads above.

[quahaug]

In this silly argument Arci is correct. I don't know about lying but there is a lot of obtuseness going on along with a good dose of willful ignorance.

[Alan Mendelson]

In this silly argument Arci is correct. I don't know about lying but there is a lot of obtuseness going on along with a good dose of willful ignorance.

Please elaborate.

[regnis]

Yes Qua--please elaborate. Arci is saying that I am special and can get meaningful wins whenever I want. That is pure nonsense. I have never claimed to be a winner at all in VP. He then said that if I have a winner I will give it all back next time. That is actually impossible for me.

I have made no claims of any kind and have in fact bemoaned my inability to get royals in VP. What I did say is that if I have a big win, why should I not take it.

I have also pointed out that Arci can't have it both ways. On the one hand he says keep playing. On the other hand, he says I will lose it all back if I keep playing. Well which is it??

And remember--the math is set in stone. So if I am ahead, then it is set in stone that I will lose it back. Huh???????

[Alan Mendelson]

What seems to be the problem here is the belief by the math guys that YOUR PERSONAL results must follow the expected results of the game -- that is, the expected return. They seem to argue that you can't cash out winners because you are destined to lose it back if you are playing a negative expectation game.

What Rob Singer reported to us, is that if you make it a habit of playing until you have a winner (and that is what he does with his "system" of increasing denominations) and cash out with those winners, you can actually build up a string of winning sessions. An integral part of Rob's system is his large bankroll -- but he has amended that to say if you have a lower win goal you can start at low denominations and do the same thing.

I happen to honestly believe that in most sessions of video poker, every player is ahead at some point -- and if you can identify that point when you have a profit you can also create a string of profitable sessions that will surpass the expected return of the game and the paytable. Yes, you can have long term profits even on a negative expectation game if you have the discipline to cash out when that profit point is reached.

I've challenged the naysayers to monitor their own sessions and report if at any time in any session they show a profit. I think they will see a profit of some amount in a majority of the sessions they play. Personally, I think I've had a profit in 9 out of ten sessions I've played.

Last night at Rincon I won a drawing for $1,000 of free play. My girlfriend and I split the ten $100 free play coupons and played 8/5 Bonus. We ran through the money once -- and cashed out a total of $1,065.

Then I had $55 of my weekly free play -- and I let my girlfriend run it through -- and she cashed out $60.

Then I converted Reward Credits to $325 of free play and I let her play it on the $1 8/5 Double Double Bonus progressives at Rincon. It was her first time playing DDB and I explained the strategy of the game. On one hand she was dealt AQ offsuit and I explained that proper strategy was to hold only the ace, while in Bonus the proper strategy was to hold both AQ. She held only the ace and drew three more aces for a progressive payoff of $826. Photos below. By the way, we immediately cashed out all the credits on the machine, leaving the quad aces showing. Why risk losing any money -- we took the money and ran. Hit and run.

[arcimede$]

And you did say exactly what I said you did. Just see your own threads above.

And yet you couldn't point to where I said what you claimed. I guess when caught in one lie you somehow feel it requires another lie. Beyond silly.

I given my opinion many times. You can cash out whenever you want. My point has always been that it makes no difference over time.

[Alan Mendelson]

You can cash out whenever you want. My point has always been that it makes no difference over time.

But I think it does make a difference over time. As I wrote above, if you cash out a string of winners -- those sessions when you have a profit, even a small profit -- the string of winners and the accumulated profits can beat the expected return.

Doesn't that make a difference over time?

[arcimede$]

What seems to be the problem here is the belief by the math guys that YOUR PERSONAL results must follow the expected results of the game -- that is, the expected return. They seem to argue that you can't cash out winners because you are destined to lose it back if you are playing a negative expectation game.

Yes, your results will fall into the range of expectation of the game. However, that is not a specific number. It is a probability distribution. Clearly, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I happen to honestly believe that in most sessions of video poker, every player is ahead at some point -- and if you can identify that point when you have a profit you can also create a string of profitable sessions that will surpass the expected return of the game and the paytable. Yes, you can have long term profits even on a negative expectation game if you have the discipline to cash out when that profit point is reached.

If a person was ahead a some point of every session then it would make sense for a player to continue to play for as long as possible. As soon as you get ahead simply declare the session is over. Cash out whatever you are ahead and start another session immediately. Since you claim you will again get ahead at some time just repeat and repeat for as long as you want. The money should start rolling in for all you "special" players.

I've challenged the naysayers to monitor their own sessions and report if at any time in any session they show a profit. I think they will see a profit of some amount in a majority of the sessions they play. Personally, I think I've had a profit in 9 out of ten sessions I've played.

But 9 out of 10 is not enough. I've explained that to you many time. If all you are doing is talking about a few credits ahead then you can easily lose it all on the one session you never get ahead.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I think all of your responses are weak. Now you are saying that results will fall into a range of expectation. Well, having a profit is in the range of expectation on a negative game. So why not help yourself to reach that profit within the range of expectation? That is what we are talking about here. If you have the discipline to cash out YOU can be the one within that "range of expectation" that includes a profit.

Do you see now, Arc? We agree with the math and we do not dispute the math. It is your own MONEY MANAGEMENT that allows you to be in the profit range of expectation that you talk about.

And yes, if you have the time and the bankroll you can do as you suggest -- keep playing for as long as possible until you have the win in the session as long as you have the discipline to know when that point is.

And regarding your comment about losing it all in one session -- well this is where you need to know when to quit. It's money management, again.

What you might be overlooking is those sessions when you have a big winner such as the quad aces or the royal when those big profit sessions can offset many sessions with small, limited losses.

It's money management, Arc.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I think all of your responses are weak.

Silly claim. I provide consistency and facts, you provide fantasy. It is clear who has weak replies.

Now you are saying that results will fall into a range of expectation. Well, having a profit is in the range of expectation on a negative game.

Yes, with a lower probability which goes down over time. Depending on the game the probability of having a profit after several hundred thousand hands is quite small.

So why not help yourself to reach that profit within the range of expectation? That is what we are talking about here. If you have the discipline to cash out YOU can be the one within that "range of expectation" that includes a profit.

Because, as anyone with half a brain should know, you cannot will the machines to give you winning combinations. And, you cannot "help yourself" by the timing of your 'cash out". That is the point I've been making for years.

Do you see now, Arc? We agree with the math and we do not dispute the math. It is your own MONEY MANAGEMENT that allows you to be in the profit range of expectation that you talk about.

No, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You ARE DISPUTING THE MATH when you claim that cashing out at any particular time will improve your results.

And yes, if you have the time and the bankroll you can do as you suggest -- keep playing for as long as possible until you have the win in the session as long as you have the discipline to know when that point is.

No you can't. I only created that scenario to point out how silly your claims really are. You keep spewing that silly nonsense that anyone who has played VP knows is never a sure thing.

And regarding your comment about losing it all in one session -- well this is where you need to know when to quit. It's money management, again.

What ever loss limit you create will reduce your chances getting ahead where you can cash out with a profit. It's not magic. It's simple math. You should learn to use it.

What you might be overlooking is those sessions when you have a big winner such as the quad aces or the royal when those big profit sessions can offset many sessions with small, limited losses.

It's money management, Arc.

If you always quit after only a few hands (win goal or loss limit) you could take literally dozens of sessions to play enough to hit a big hand. By then you could have lost more than you would win with the big hit. If you play lots of hands, then you could lose the same amount in fewer sessions. The frequency of wins is determined by the pay table. If you think you can always win on a negative game you are claiming you will do better than randomly dealt cards would provide. Why do you think you are "special", Alan?

[Dan Druff]

arci is right.

Alan, I know a version of this question has been asked before, but I am not seeing a clear answer to it.

Let's say we could clone you repeatedly and make every single CET customer a clone of you.

So basically every CET customer would be Alan Mendelson, each would play VP just like you, and each would use the same money management strategies you do.

Would CET go broke? Would the hundreds of thousands of Alan Mendelsons crush CET in video poker?

[Dan Druff]

Also, on a side note, either your girlfriend looks very good for her age, or you are dating a much younger woman.

I'm going to guess the latter. Good job on that one.

[arcimede$]

Also, on a side note, either your girlfriend looks very good for her age, or you are dating a much younger woman.

I'm going to guess the latter. Good job on that one.

Maybe living in a fantasy world has its advantages.

[Alan Mendelson]

With her permission: she is 55.

And she's better looking in person.

[quahaug]

Alan, out of the nine of ten sessions you are ahead, are you saying you didn't reach your stop loss on any of them? Because if you didn't then you are way on the right side of the luck bell curve and should play VP for a living. You will be very rich indeed.

[Dan Druff]

With her permission: she is 55.

And she's better looking in person.

Admittedly the pic is grainy, but I put her around 43-45, so she looks great for 55.

Now please answer the question I posed to you.

[Count Room]

arci is right.

Alan, I know a version of this question has been asked before, but I am not seeing a clear answer to it.

Let's say we could clone you repeatedly and make every single CET customer a clone of you.

So basically every CET customer would be Alan Mendelson, each would play VP just like you, and each would use the same money management strategies you do.

Would CET go broke? Would the hundreds of thousands of Alan Mendelsons crush CET in video poker?

Why aren't we expanding this question to:
--Every CET customer being a Rob Singer
--Every CET customer being a Dan Druff
????

Look at it from all sides?

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan if you want to keep playing without a win goal please be my guest. If you would rather keep playing and not take the profit home to enjoy please knock yourself out. I love going home with extra money because I have a better use for it than playing video poker or craps.

I find it very unusual that you are a scrooge with reward credits but not with dollars. A bit ironic don't you think?

And to answer your question the casinos would do what Rincon did: reduce paytables and denominations. Dan you weren't around when the teams played the Rincon progressives and $100/coin full pay games.

Even Rob Singer knows money management works best on full pay games.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, out of the nine of ten sessions you are ahead, are you saying you didn't reach your stop loss on any of them? Because if you didn't then you are way on the right side of the luck bell curve and should play VP for a living. You will be very rich indeed.

There were times in the past when I was thousands of dollars ahead and then lost it all. But now I play smarter. Dos that answer your question?

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, it's so easy to see what Arci is doing, and all Dan typically does, who appears to know virtually nothing about playing vp but enjoys complaining about those who win, is parrot him. They get irked by actual reports and pictures, and have no idea on how to process a different method of playing other than via the theory that constantly tortures their minds. It is always easier to come on and talk about theoretical situations that one has no ownership over, than to be able to post pictures of and discuss what has actually taken place. In your case, since you've won AGAIN on games that are "meaninglessly" less percentage-wise than machines that mostly don't exist, it means you MUST give it all back and more, the next time. But if you don't....well, now it's time to bring out that old standby theory of how it has got to be that the one losing session in 10 that comes along MUST be large enuf to wipe out all of those "little wins"....and more!

See their frustration & confusion yet? They use theory to override your reality. Dan's a self-admitting continuous loser, and arci can only read about it in books anymore.

Isn't "Bo Dietz" that chunky little former LA detective who contributes on FNC these days?