Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc why do you nitpick ridiculous points?

Question: why do you have to play a session of 1,000 hands? Why not cash out when you are ahead 25 credits?

Did you ever try that instead of your timed sessions?

[arcimede$]

Arc why do you nitpick ridiculous points?

Question: why do you have to play a session of 1,000 hands? Why not cash out when you are ahead 25 credits?

Did you ever try that instead of your timed sessions?

I simply tried to make the math simple. It really doesn't matter what you choose as number of hands the results will come out similar. Tell us Alan, how many times have you cashed out when only ahead by 25 credits?

[Alan Mendelson]

I have cashed out after losing a lot and coming back to just break even.

At a $5 game 25 credits is $125.

So Arc: in what percentage of sessions have you been ahead by at least one bet at some point in your play?

[arcimede$]

I have cashed out after losing a lot and coming back to just break even.

At a $5 game 25 credits is $125.

You didn't answer the question, Alan. Just as I expected. I suspect the answer is "no". Why do you obfuscate the discussion by bringing up imaginary situations?

So Arc: in what percentage of sessions have you been ahead by at least one bet at some point in your play?

What difference does it make if you aren't going to cash out? You just basically admitted you wouldn't cash out at 25 credits. The higher you make your win goal the less often you will reach it in any session. That's what the math tells you. Name a win goal and I can tell you how often you will reach that win goal over time.

PS. I had a spell where I never got ahead even 5 credits in 5 consecutive sessions. Lost a lot of money. I played this week and never got ahead. So, it happens quite often to me. I guess that's what happens when you're not "special".

However, when I'm playing freeplay I always get ahead. Last year when they took out my machines they still sent me freeplay and I collected it in 25 separate sessions and got ahead, cashed out and won every single one of those sessions. Of course, that is meaningless since the freeplay eventually goes to zero when you do this. Anyone confusing freeplay sessions with normal sessions is not playing with a full deck.

[Alan Mendelson]

I answered your question. But if my answer confused you try this answer: yes I have cashed out with a profit of 25 credits. I've also cashed out breaking even.

I always said you need luck to cash out a profit. But when you have luck why not keep it? That's all this is. It was never about math. Repeat: it was never about math.

[arcimede$]

I answered your question. But if my answer confused you try this answer: yes I have cashed out with a profit of 25 credits. I've also cashed out breaking even.

I always said you need luck to cash out a profit. But when you have luck why not keep it? That's all this is. It was never about math. Repeat: it was never about math.

No, it's never been about cashing out with a profit. It is whether the timing of when you cash out will improve your long term results. I can see why you continue to obfuscate. You know you are wrong.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, it's never been about cashing out with a profit. It is whether the timing of when you cash out will improve your long term results. I can see why you continue to obfuscate. You know you are wrong.

Yes Arc when I cash out determines my long term results. What I cash out is the only thing that matters. Have a nice day.

[Rob.Singer]

This is so funny, watching arci get caught repeating things he claims not to have said, then watching the bewildered "expert" Dan stammer his way thru trying to decipher what arci writes! The song "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" definitely does not fit this!

[Rob.Singer]

Yes Arc when I cash out determines my long term results. What I cash out is the only thing that matters. Have a nice day.

You're running into the same nonsense I ran into when I chronicled my weekly results in my Gaming Today articles for nearly 8 years. Over 85% of my sessions were winners. And the overall "long-term" results? It KILLED the critics no end. The only losses the envious haters wanted to believe we're the larger ones, and the only wins they wanted to believe we're the smaller ones. Why else do you think a dufus like Dan and envious haters like arci & Spock will do anything to pretend my larger jackpots just can't be real?

[arcimede$]

Yes Arc when I cash out determines my long term results. What I cash out is the only thing that matters. Have a nice day.

No Alan, the only thing that matters is whether the games are random. You cannot change the mathematics of random distributions by taking breaks. It's like trying to dodge raindrops. Over time your results will trend towards the games expected return. You may win some sessions but others you will lose. Sorry if you cannot accept reality.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc one last time. The ONLY thing that matters at the end of each trip or day or session is if I have more money than I started with. If I cash out with a profit the paytable doesn't mean shit.

[arcimede$]

Arc one last time. The ONLY thing that matters at the end of each trip or day or session is if I have more money than I started with. If I cash out with a profit the paytable doesn't mean shit.

And if you don't cash out with a profit? What does it mean then?

All you are doing when you cash out is taking a break from gambling. It is no different than going to the bathroom or having a meal while in the casino. You take a break and return. Hence, you NEVER really have a "profit" unless you decide to never play again. Your play is one continual session that any mathematician will tell you trends towards the expected return of the game.

You may believe you can avoid raindrops by zigging and zagging your way through a storm but somehow you always end up wet. Same holds true for VP. Random dealing of cards means the hands you are dealt will conform to the random probability distribution. You eventually get all the possible hands, not just the good ones.

[Alan Mendelson]

You're having trouble with this Arc. If I cash out with a loss it means I lost money and if I was on a game with a positive paytable it means that positive paytable also means shit.

[arcimede$]

You're having trouble with this Arc. If I cash out with a loss it means I lost money and if I was on a game with a positive paytable it means that positive paytable also means shit.

What does it mean if you were on a negative paytable? In neither case does "means shit" describe the situation. What it means is the subset of all possible hands that you were randomly dealt contained fewer high paying results. That is all. I've been making that point quite often. If you look at any subset of the possible hands you will see different results. I should think that is common sense. Some of those subsets produce better than average results and some of them produce below average results (the average being the expectation of the game).

The key to understanding a person's play over time is to realize they will receive these random subsets and there's nothing they can do about it except stop playing.

BTW, these subsets can be framed in any manner at all. They can be defined by a day's play, some fixed number of hands, monthly play, etc. All of these methods of subsetting follow the same rules, the primary rule being that over time, as you experience a larger number of these subsets, your play will approach the expectation of the game. In other words, it averages out. And, if you think about it, there's no way it cannot average out unless you control the RNG that provides you with the individual hands.

[dannyj]

You didn't answer the question, Alan. Just as I expected. I suspect the answer is "no". Why do you obfuscate the discussion by bringing up imaginary situations?



However, when I'm playing freeplay I always get ahead. Last year when they took out my machines they still sent me freeplay and I collected it in 25 separate sessions and got ahead, cashed out and won every single one of those sessions. Of course, that is meaningless since the freeplay eventually goes to zero when you do this. Anyone confusing freeplay sessions with normal sessions is not playing with a full deck.

Hi arci,
I know, generally speaking, that while using free play one will usually have some soft hits and upon expiration will have something to cash out and be "profitable". But, are you saying that your free play sessions have been less random than regular ones?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc there is no question that one should play the best paytables available. The only point that Rob made and I agree with is why risk losing after you've won a substantial profit? Simply take it home so you can play again another day. Must you keep playing that day? More winners will come another time.

If you truly think all play is one continuous session then there is no reason to dispute Rob's method.

[Dan Druff]

Arc there is no question that one should play the best paytables available. The only point that Rob made and I agree with is why risk losing after you've won a substantial profit? Simply take it home so you can play again another day. Must you keep playing that day? More winners will come another time.

If you truly think all play is one continuous session then there is no reason to dispute Rob's method.

What do you mean in the bolded statement above?

I would think it's just the opposite. If you believe play is a one continuous session (which it is, btw), then quitting at arbitrary times to "go home ahead" is meaningless.

[Dan Druff]

Let's look at this a different way.

Alan's assertion is that quitting ahead means you've beaten the odds, and thus will do better overall from that point forward.

He's saying that every time you start a session, your long term odds of winning are whatever the percentage payout of the machine is, but those odds are boosted by previous wins you had walked away with, since you're not starting from zero.

That almost makes sense. Indeed, if you win your very first VP session, your lifetime odds of return at that machine/game are slightly higher than the theoretical return.

But how much higher, and can this be used to manipulate your overall odds of winning?

The short answer is no, and I will explain.

Let's reduce this to coin flips.

Say we are betting on 20 coin flips with a fair coin. You take heads, I take tails.

Now let's say you miraculously hit heads the first 11 flips. At this point, you are guaranteed a win, even if I somehow luck into tails for the final 9 flips. While your theoretical odds at the start were 50%, now they're 100%. So if you run just those final 9 flips with me, and then quit the game forever, you have definitely beaten the odds. Your luck at the beginning indeed had a huge bearing on your overall odds of winning from that point forward (it was a sure thing).

But let's say you then decide to extend the bet to 100 coin flips instead of 20. Leading 11-0 with 89 flips to go, the odds are no longer in your favor, but they're also nowhere near a sure thing. While you're a clear favorite, it wouldn't be a fluke to lose at that point.

Now let's say that instead of extending the bet to 100, you extend it to 1000 flips. Now your odds have changed to just a slight favorite. That's because I have 989 flips to catch back up with you, so your 11-flip lead is fairly small.

Now let's say that instead of 1000 flips, we extend it to a million flips. Your 11-flip lead is negligible now, and almost doesn't matter. It's almost exactly 50-50 as to who will win, with a VERY slight edge to you.

What's my point?

"Quitting while ahead" does very little to help your theoretical odds of winning overall, unless you are either quitting for good or barely ever playing again.

And then there's the matter of "quitting while behind". If you quit when losing worse than the theoretical loss, now you've just DECREASED your lifetime expected return for the game. Unfortunately, you will have enough of these losers to where they will likely completely cancel out your "quitting ahead" sessions, and thus your odds of winning liftetime are again not positive.

Alan, people employ these same silly money management strategies at blackjack, and they are quietly derided behind their backs by hosts and pit bosses. In the blackjack world, these people are referred to as "basic strategy money managers", and while they don't tend to produce a huge profit for the casino (as compared to clueless blackjack fish who repeatedly make wrong strategy decisions), the casino staff snickers at them because these people wrongly believe that their "money management" games will somehow change their odds.

Incidentally, an insider at a casino where I used to card count looked up my account and it had a note of "basic strategy money manager". We had a good laugh about that. The pit boss rating me got confused about my up and down betting, believing I was trying to get myself even and book a small win.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan I am sorry you took so much time writing so much. All you needed to write was this:

Alan's assertion is that quitting ahead means you've beaten the odds, and thus will do better overall from that point forward.

That's all you had to write because that is what we need to discuss.

First of all when you quit when you are ahead you have beaten the expected return of the game -- and that's true. No one can dispute that. If the game has an expected return of 99.2% and you quit with an actual return of 110% you beat the expected return.

The second part is what I will disagree with "and thus will do better overall from that point forward": because you came out with a profit on day #1 does not mean you will come out with a profit on day #2. I never said that. Rob never said that. I don't think regnis would ever say that.

My point is take the profits when you can get them.

I also think you have a chance of making more money and hitting more winners later -- otherwise there would be no point in playing again later.

I'll tell you what I think is absolutely foolish: letting the clock or the number of tier points deciding how long you play.
If you let the clock decide how long you play you could be forced to stop playing when you are at a low point or showing a big loss.
If you let the number of tier points decide when to quit it's the same thing -- you might have scored your 5,000 tier points on the day but you could have lost a lot of money or given back a lot from previous winners to reach 5,000 tier points.

Doesn't it make more sense to quit when you are ahead and disregard the amount of time you played and disregard the number of tier points earned?

Arc tells us his sessions are based on time played. That to me is ridiculous.
Dan you told us that you play to reach certain tier point levels. So be honest: have you ever had big wins and then gave it back just to reach a set tier point level for a day's play? I think you have. But don't feel bad -- I used to do it also. But then I realized just how smart it is to take the money home and damn the tier points.

[arcimede$]

I know, generally speaking, that while using free play one will usually have some soft hits and upon expiration will have something to cash out and be "profitable". But, are you saying that your free play sessions have been less random than regular ones?

Nope, I'm saying you cannot compare them to sessions without freeplay because you start out with a profit. Hence, cashing out with a profit is guaranteed by setting a step-down goal after the free play terminates.