Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Alan Mendelson]

No--he got lucky and took the $$$ before the math police caught up with him.

Correct. I got lucky and cashed out before the "math" caught up with me (not the math police). Over the last SEVEN (updated to include my quickie visit this week) visits to casinos I did this with free play. And even at Caesars Palace with $1,000 that I took out on a marker I cashed out with more than a $4,500 profit after I paid off the marker. All the while I was playing negative expectation games.

People win on negative expectation games. Deciding when to quit because either you've lost enough or won enough is what determines winners.

This reminds me of a great lesson I once learned at a poker table. An experienced player looked at me while I was wrestling with a call and said "winners fold too." It was good advice. I would have lost that hand.

[Alan Mendelson]

How ironic you wrote this, regnis:

Doesn't matter how many different ways you say it Alan. Arci is still going to be like Tatoo on Fantasy Island.

BOSS...DE MATH...DE MATH...

Arc used to use this Tatoo analogy to criticize Singer. LOL

[regnis]

Just a little payback in Rob's absence.

But seriously, all gambling, and particularly casino gambling, is an attempt to beat the math, because the odds are with the house. So all you are saying is that if you are lucky enough to be ahead of the math, you are going to take some profit. There are no claims that the math is wrong or that you have changed the rules of probability and chance. Just simply you got ahead of the math and aren't going to wait around for it to catch up.

[Rob.Singer]

We all use the words "math guys" somewhat loosely for people like arci, Dancer, even Wizard and other AP types etc. but it doesn't really fit the bill. What is a "math guy"? By education? Not really, because I'm not one of these "math guys" and I've taken as many or more math & statistics courses when getting an EE and an MBA as these folks, only I also learned that math applied with a certain amount of common sense yields a far greater amount of understanding and satisfaction , than being strictly bound by the math. In vp, those of us who comprehend this concept have very little trouble making a profit, because we know the casinos have the math on their side. Others? We can watch them go crazy and be entertained by it all.

[arcimede$]

I truly doubt you speak for the mathematicians of the world because you can't separate "expected return" from "actual return."

Silly lie. I am talking about the FUTURE. There is no such thing as "actual returns" for something that has not occurred..

The reality is that when you hit the cash out button is ALL that matters.

Not relevant to the FUTURE possibilities.

Playing a positive expectation machine does not guarantee a win while playing a negative expectation win does not guarantee a loss.

So?

If I sit down at a negative expectation game such as 9/6 Jacks or Better, and hit two pair on the first play and cash out I will have an actual return of 200% on a game with an expected return of 99.6%.

Yeah, and if you lose the first hand your return is 0%. Means nothing for FUTURE returns.

If video poker machines are truly random there is no reason not to think that you can have a winning session each and every time you play even if the pay table is negative.

Well, except for that little thing called reality. This is where mathematicians come into play. They can provide us a glimpse of reality.

The mathematicians will agree with me. You are a pompous ass and can't see the reality of what I am saying and what I think everyone else can see as well.

No mathematician will agree with you. You are simply spouting deluded nonsense. You've been asked to call up a PhD mathematician before. Why do you refuse to check with experts?

The theoretical math while correct is not a self fulfilling prophecy. You can win and walk away with a profit if you let yourself walk away with that profit.

The day you can guarantee that I will have a profit playing a positive expectation game is the day when I will abandon this idea.

Once again you are obfuscating the question with unrelated issues. It's beyond obvious that you have now become completely dishonest. Another aspect of delusion.

[arcimede$]

Just a little payback in Rob's absence.

But seriously, all gambling, and particularly casino gambling, is an attempt to beat the math, because the odds are with the house. So all you are saying is that if you are lucky enough to be ahead of the math, you are going to take some profit. There are no claims that the math is wrong or that you have changed the rules of probability and chance. Just simply you got ahead of the math and aren't going to wait around for it to catch up.

Except Alan goes beyond this simple truism. He claims he can do it every time.

[Alan Mendelson]

So Arc, now you are a fortune teller with an ability to see the future? And I never said I will win all time but I do have the ability to cash out winners all the time.

You need a rest. Maybe a long, long rest. You've lost it.

[quahaug]

Alan, you wrote:
If video poker machines are truly random there is no reason not to think that you can have a winning session each and every time you play even if the pay table is negative. I hate to say it, but that is a delusional statement.

[Dan Druff]

Alan, if quitting when you're ahead "beats the math", what happens if you quit while you're a good deal behind?

You realize that you're way BEHIND the math in that session, right? So that negates you being "ahead" of the math when you quit ahead in other sessions.

Alan is acting like quitting with a profit is somehow twisting the universe and beating the math. He's not. The "math" is a combination of sessions where you run above expectation and below expectation.

It's funny because Alan is otherwise an intelligent guy, understands the odds, understands proper strategy, and understands the value of playing good pay tables (though he doesn't always utilize that last one). Yet somehow he's deluded himself into believing he can beat standard mathematics. I don't get it. I blame Rob Singer and his bad influence.

Rob is like the kid in junior high that gets his otherwise straight-laced friend into drugs, except in this case, the junior high students are in their 60s, and the "drugs" are VP machines with bad paytables.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, you wrote:
If video poker machines are truly random there is no reason not to think that you can have a winning session each and every time you play even if the pay table is negative. I hate to say it, but that is a delusional statement.

Read again what I wrote.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan please stop before I lose respect for you. Earlier I wrote that you can stop playing with an actual return -- a loss -- that is worse than the expected return.

This is not now nor has it ever been a challenge of the math of video poker. Nor is it delusional except to those who think it is a challenge of math.

So far regnis has voiced his understanding so why don't you ask him? His answers are more eloquent than mine.

[regnis]

Making me blush Alan-lol

[arcimede$]

So Arc, now you are a fortune teller with an ability to see the future? And I never said I will win all time but I do have the ability to cash out winners all the time.

Nope, you are the one that claims you can always win. I point out that mathematics sees it a little differently. The odds are vanishing small.

You need a rest. Maybe a long, long rest. You've lost it.

No, I'm not the one claiming all the mathematicians in the world are wrong while I am right. That is your claim to fame. Yes, you are delusional. You really need to sit back and realize that you are spewing complete and utter nonsense and yet refuse to consult with experts on the subject. Does that sound like a smart person?

[Dan Druff]

Dan please stop before I lose respect for you. Earlier I wrote that you can stop playing with an actual return -- a loss -- that is worse than the expected return.

This is not now nor has it ever been a challenge of the math of video poker. Nor is it delusional except to those who think it is a challenge of math.

So far regnis has voiced his understanding so why don't you ask him? His answers are more eloquent than mine.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to claim, then.

Let's break this down to something very simple:

Do you feel that one can beat negative expectation VP machines long term by using money management strategies?

And when I say "long term", I am speaking of regular play over a long period of time, which means a lot more than 10 sessions and a lot less than a million hands.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan I am saying the following:

1. With a truly random game anything is possible including a big string of wins or losses
2. It is possible to cash out more wins than losses
3. When you win it's a good idea to take the wins before you lose them back
4. If you play the best available pay tables you have the best chance of being in the game when the wins come and this holds true when making the lowest house edge bets in craps
5. If you limit your losses you have a better chance of being in the game when the big wins come

That pretty much sums it up. So what's the problem?

[Dan Druff]

1. With a truly random game anything is possible including a big string of wins or losses
2. It is possible to cash out more wins than losses
3. When you win it's a good idea to take the wins before you lose them back
4. If you play the best available pay tables you have the best chance of being in the game when the wins come and this holds true when making the lowest house edge bets in craps
5. If you limit your losses you have a better chance of being in the game when the big wins come

That pretty much sums it up. So what's the problem?

#1, #2, and #4 are true.

#3 is true, but "lose them back" is just likely to happen in your next session as it is in the current session. So I don't see why you bother going home a "winner" but then walk back right in a few days later and play the same game. The machine sees it as the exact same session, as if you never quit.

#5 is not true. You will get the same percentage of "big wins" whether you play a long session or a succession of short ones. For example, you will average a royal once every 40,000 hands. Sometimes you will get a few royals in 40,000 hands, and other times you will go over 100,000 with no royal. But you aren't giving yourself a better shot to get a royal by splitting 40,000 hands among 100 sessions, rather than cramming them all into 10 sessions. It's all the same thing.

I think that's where you and the "math guys" have a disconnect.

You say "I want to go home a winner, what's wrong with that?", and the math guys are saying back, "You aren't really going home, though. If you're right back there a few days later at the same machine, it's as if you never left."

You are just getting the psychological satisfaction of having a break in between, to where you can declare yourself a winner for the prior session.

Now, I will say that the psychological element is actually real and worthwhile. Nobody enjoys losing, and if you have more fun gambling when you can go home ahead sometimes, then by all means, leaving while up is the right play. It won't affect your overall results, but it's the right play for your happiness and general mood.

I did this tonight with poker. I won a whole lot in several consecutive sessions about two weeks ago, but then hit a wall and basically played a ton of hours without winning. I wasn't losing, but I was logging a ton of hours and breaking event. In fact, I hit a slump at the end and was down 6k from my peak. Tonight I won the 6k back very quickly, so I quit. Perhaps I would have won more, but after the frustrating two weeks of spinning my wheels, I was glad to be back at my peak and felt it would do me some emotional good to quit for the night. So I did.

But at least with regular poker, your mood/demeanor is important to your ability to play well, so there's a strategic reason behind quitting when feeling emotionally good about things.

Video poker is different, as you are just going through motions that are determined to be optimal plays, and no good player deviates much from those.

[Count Room]

Sometimes you will get a few royals in 40,000 hands, and other times you will go over 100,000 with no royal.

I once went over 500,000 hands without a royal (not kidding). Not long after that horrendous dry spell ended I hit two royals only 20 minutes apart, which included a 10 minute break from play for the first royal's W2G paperwork!

EDIT: I think we once calculated the odds of missing a royal over 500K hands to be a 65,000-1 shot (Poisson formula used, I think).

[quahaug]

Read again what I wrote.

I copy and pasted what you wrote. Maybe you should read it again. Having a winning session every time would be evidence of a non random game.

[Alan Mendelson]

I copy and pasted what you wrote. Maybe you should read it again. Having a winning session every time would be evidence of a non random game.

If truly random anything can happen including a winning session. And winning session after winning session. Its random. Ask arc if you don't understand what random means.

[arcimede$]

If truly random anything can happen including a winning session. And winning session after winning session. Its random. Ask arc if you don't understand what random means.

Yes Alan, anything can happen ... but the vast majority of the time "winning session after winning session" doesn't. That is why you are being delusional. I've said it before. You are like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber. Just because there exists one chance in a million for something to happen doesn't mean you will ever see it. The majority of people won't. So why do you continually treat million to one odds as if they are reasonable? Why would anyone base their play on million to one odds? That is just plain silly. Look at the math.

In a typical BP session of at least 1000 hands you will win about 30% of the time. What are the odds of winning 10 straight sessions? (3/10)^10 = .000006. That's less than one chance in 100,000. Is that the kind of approach you want to promote?