Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Rob.Singer]

What arci always tries to force others into believing is that it is not possible to win, over time, on -EV machines, and that he "wins" because he's smarter than everyone else by playing +EV machines. Your cashing out with a profit has become a new pet peeve of his....and he does care what you say you do because he can't let it go. Special emphasis on that he "wins"....which is an understandable claim about his life, given what a mess he's made of it's other end.

Take it with a grain of salt Alan, along with his name-calling and necessary word-twisting. Go to any hospice and you'll find old people lashing out at others out of boredom and regret. He's simply using your forum as his vehicle of escape.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob let's take a look at what Arc is saying. He actually is starting to catch on to what you've been saying and what I've been saying, but he just isn't ready to say there is a different way to win at video poker. He says, first of all:

If you believe you can improve your "actual return" over and above the expected return over time, then the only way to do that is to receive better than average hands.

This is true, and we've always said you had to get lucky. You have to get lucky and get winners in order to cash out those winners -- and there is no disputing that.

What he won't acknowledge is that you the player has the option to decide when to cash out and when you decide to cash out can impact the number of hands that you need to play. For example, Rob, you say you will cash out with a royal. That royal and the subsequent cash out will greatly shift the "actual return" in your favor. Sure you could hit a royal again in short order, but do you want to take that chance?

I know that you've hit back to back royals but how many people can ever claim to be that lucky?

But now we get to the essence of his argument -- that it makes no difference if you cash out and play on another day or if you keep playing that same day after a big win. He wrote:

After all, your final result is simply the sum of your individual hands.

Here again it is also a matter of luck. We never said it wasn't a matter of luck. What we have also been saying is why not accept the luck when it comes and why risk losing back what we have won? He can't accept that type of money management -- and that's all it is. Instead he makes a ridiculous comment such as this:

This then requires you to have some control over the RNG to provide you with those better hands. Most reasonable folks assume they will have a normal distribution of hands over time like the mathematicians state.

We don't control the RNG. What we control is our own ability to hit the cash out button to lock up profits when they come. And with some luck we can have a sum of individual hands that beats the expected return.

There is no voodoo required here. There is no fortune telling.

Experience tells us that big winners only happen every so often -- so when we get those big wins every so often we take the profits and we leave. If we did control the RNG or if we were fortune tellers we would know exactly when to play -- but we can't control the RNG and we aren't fortune tellers.

All I know is this: there were many times when I was a thousand dollars or more ahead playing video poker and then gave it all back trying to win more. That was greed. I've learned that you don't always hit big winners and to be happy with smaller, more reasonable profits.

I've asked the critics on this forum to keep track of what percentage of sessions (days or trips) that they play VP and at some point have a profit of even one bet (five credits in VP). I've suggested that if they do that they will find that they are ahead at some point a large percentage of the time. In my case, I think I am ahead at some point about 9 out of 10 sessions (days or trips). It's the ability to cash out when you are ahead that will provide you "the sum of your individual hands" that will beat the expected return.

Remember: you are not doomed to have the expected return as your actual return. It could be better or worse. And when it is better, take the money.

[Rob.Singer]

You're saying nothing but common sense. In arci's world, if you win consistently by cashing out while ahead on 99% games and get and stay ahead over time, you're claiming to diss the world's mathematicians while at the same time, you're somehow controlling the RNG. And YES, it is always about luck, and if you're willing and able to take maximum advantage of it when it appears. This is precisely why I developed the special plays--to give that session-ending luck that much more of an opportunity to appear.

The strangest part of the AP-belief system is why they will readily tell anyone that it is absolutely possible to win on the negative machines in any given session, yet when you say it has happened for the most part over 400 sessions and with an overall big profit, all of a sudden their original statement about that single successful session is rendered meaningless and incapable of being repeated unless there's an overall loss. That 1% must "theoretically" mean a great deal to them, selectively of course. Ask them how much it meant to them on their last session playing a 100.7% game, and all they'll be able to say is that it meant zero because it's what happens "over time" that matters. Well, I win over time, and I win A LOT. That will never compute to someone with their flawed and contradictory belief system.

Now I know why he's been so disbelieving about my results since the early 2000's when he began to be irritated by my existence. It has to be extremely disorienting for him to not only be facing this kind of logic, but to also have to process the highly increased possibility of cashing out with a profit on the negative games using a structured strategy such as mine that increases in the #of credits, volatility, and denominations. It has always bugged him no end, and now that you're also arguing a similar fact we see him coming apart at the seams over it. After all, these type of critics have always counted on no one ever having the audacity to face their rath if they had the stomach to either support what I say or post about positive results from playing any kind of variation of what I play.

You can see how unraveling that would be to these people.

[Alan Mendelson]

That 1% must "theoretically" mean a great deal to them, selectively of course. Ask them how much it meant to them on their last session playing a 100.7% game, and all they'll be able to say is that it meant zero because it's what happens "over time" that matters.

I think this is the highlight of your last post Rob. Really, what is the difference if you play a 99.2% game or a 100.17% game or even a 100.7% game? In all games a royal is worth about 2% and how many of us hit a royal in every session? I've hit 8 royals so far this year and I must have played at least 6 days a month and over 10 months that's 60 sessions. And I admit some of my day/sessions went for 8 hours or longer.

[arcimede$]

Rob let's take a look at what Arc is saying. He actually is starting to catch on to what you've been saying and what I've been saying, but he just isn't ready to say there is a different way to win at video poker.

That's because there isn't.

This is true, and we've always said you had to get lucky. You have to get lucky and get winners in order to cash out those winners -- and there is no disputing that.

Which is exactly what I said. In order to win you have to convince the RNG to give you better hands.

What he won't acknowledge is that you the player has the option to decide when to cash out and when you decide to cash out can impact the number of hands that you need to play. For example, Rob, you say you will cash out with a royal. That royal and the subsequent cash out will greatly shift the "actual return" in your favor. Sure you could hit a royal again in short order, but do you want to take that chance?

I've never said the player does not have an option of when to cash out. Do you feel it is necessary to lie?

If you got lucky once why won't you continue to get lucky? Or, if you are trying to avoid getting unlucky, what stops you from getting unlucky the next time you play?

But now we get to the essence of his argument -- that it makes no difference if you cash out and play on another day or if you keep playing that same day after a big win.

Why would it make a difference? Same machine, same game, same probability of hitting good hands.

Here again it is also a matter of luck. We never said it wasn't a matter of luck. What we have also been saying is why not accept the luck when it comes and why risk losing back what we have won? He can't accept that type of money management -- and that's all it is.

Because it is voodoo logic. What you never tell anyone is how to get lucky every time they play. You try and claim they do but you never explain why that should occur. Of course, that is the only way your silly ideas work. A person has to get lucky almost every time they play. Of course, that is complete nonsense. Why you are spewing this silly nonsense is beyond me.

We don't control the RNG. What we control is our own ability to hit the cash out button to lock up profits when they come. And with some luck we can have a sum of individual hands that beats the expected return.

Sure, but with some luck I can continue to play and continue increasing profits. The cashing out part is not necessary, what is required is luck. And, there is no way for you, me or anyone else to control that for a random game. Your comments are pure delusion.

There is no voodoo required here. There is no fortune telling.

Then how do you continue to be lucky almost every time you play? Are you special?

Experience tells us that big winners only happen every so often -- so when we get those big wins every so often we take the profits and we leave. If we did control the RNG or if we were fortune tellers we would know exactly when to play -- but we can't control the RNG and we aren't fortune tellers.

One big problem. On negative machines those big winners do not happen often enough to cover the losses from the poor hands.

All I know is this: there were many times when I was a thousand dollars or more ahead playing video poker and then gave it all back trying to win more. That was greed. I've learned that you don't always hit big winners and to be happy with smaller, more reasonable profits.

You still haven't explained how you avoid giving it all back the next time you play. Why will the RNG give you better cards then? Why won't it give you exactly the same types of hands you would get if you continued to play?

I've asked the critics on this forum to keep track of what percentage of sessions (days or trips) that they play VP and at some point have a profit of even one bet (five credits in VP). I've suggested that if they do that they will find that they are ahead at some point a large percentage of the time. In my case, I think I am ahead at some point about 9 out of 10 sessions (days or trips). It's the ability to cash out when you are ahead that will provide you "the sum of your individual hands" that will beat the expected return.

Remember: you are not doomed to have the expected return as your actual return. It could be better or worse. And when it is better, take the money.

Da plane, da plane ...

Alan, here's the bottom line. Most people realize you have to be lucky to win on a negative game. You're not telling anyone anything they don't already know. Trying to claim that cashing out at some mystical time will overcome the random distribution of cards and make you lucky is idiotic nonsense.

[Vegas Vic]

Most people realize you have to be lucky to win on a negative game.

No, you have to be lucky to win on ANY game...positive, negative, neutral ... slant top machine, upright machine, bar top....take your pick.

[arcimede$]

No, you have to be lucky to win on ANY game...positive, negative, neutral ... slant top machine, upright machine, bar top....take your pick.

By lucky I meant above the expected return of the game. On a positive game all you need to do is hit the expected return. Or, if the game is very strong like FPDW, you can win even hitting a little below the expected return.

[Alan Mendelson]

By lucky I meant above the expected return of the game. On a positive game all you need to do is hit the expected return. Or, if the game is very strong like FPDW, you can win even hitting a little below the expected return.

You still need a royal to reach that expected return.

[arcimede$]

You still need a royal to reach that expected return.

We've all had winning sessions without hitting a royal. Not sure what you are trying to say. If you mean over time, then yes, the royals are needed to reach the expected return because money won via royals are part of that expected return.

[Alan Mendelson]

That's right arc you do not need a royal to have a winning session. You can beat the expected return. Get it now?

[arcimede$]

That's right arc you do not need a royal to have a winning session. You can beat the expected return. Get it now?

Nothing to "get". Everyone already knows they can win individual sessions. I typically win 40-45% of my sessions playing OEJs (which is exactly what the math predicts). The issue is how will a person do over time. The only thing we can do to better our chances is play better games correctly. When you cash out on any given day is meaningless.

[Rob.Singer]

No, you have to be lucky to win on ANY game...positive, negative, neutral ... slant top machine, upright machine, bar top....take your pick.

This one made arci step back a bit. He tries hard to convince everyone that winning hands on -EV games are only a matter of luck, which they mostly are, but winning hands on the +EV games are not. Hmmm....get a royal on that +EV game and suddenly be ahead of expected return, and it was the result of WHAT?

Alan, he knows what's what, but the argument keeps what's left of his life going. What buries him (excuse the pun) is he can't disprove anything you say on an even keel basis, so he makes believe you're not really playing and instead you reside in the world of theory as he does. Virtual living is all he has left, so why not use it ad nauseam here?

This thing about getting lucky "every session"--actually, breaking it down into his wheelhouse, any time you get a paying hand it's a simple matter of luck. The math doesn't make it happen, predictions didn't make it happen, and there is likely no Divine Intervention involved. And a boatload of Einsteins couldn't have done any better on their finest day. You notice how he claims to win 40%-45% of his sessions. (That's far better than Wizard or Dancer because both have said they win about 30% of their sessions at best, so take some more of the arci claim machine with a grain of salt.) So if he really is "ahead" at the end of that many sessions, just how many of those sessions saw him ahead at least $5 at some point? I believe if you trace back to where he tried to counter your claim of being ahead some amount in at least 90% of your sessions (my rate is about 95%) you'll find more inconsistencies within his foolish statements. In short, the more you get him to talk, the bigger the hole he digs. My guess is he just doesn't care any more.

Imagine Spock's pain over this.

[arcimede$]

Once again Singer proves he is clueless. The session win rate is based on two factors. The number of hands and the variance of the game. The reason I win a high rate of sessions playing OEJs is because it is high variance. Those who play lower variance games will win fewer sessions at the same number of hands, however, they will lose less on the sessions that are losers.

Simple math that anyone with even the slightest understanding of poker math would know. Pretty much leaves out Singer.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc a question: have you ever been ahead at some point during a session but didn't finish that session with a profit? Had you quit when you had a profit -- even a small profit -- would the percentage of sessions when you finished a "winner" been higher?

[Rob.Singer]

Once again Singer proves he is clueless. The session win rate is based on two factors. The number of hands and the variance of the game. The reason I win a high rate of sessions playing OEJs is because it is high variance. Those who play lower variance games will win fewer sessions at the same number of hands, however, they will lose less on the sessions that are losers.

Simple math that anyone with even the slightest understanding of poker math would know. Pretty much leaves out Singer.

Bbbbbuutt but but....ahumma ahumma ahumma! How obvious can it get that arci, after being burned by several posters, proceeds to display even further hurt. And we're not even entering his realm of actual suffering on the home front! God bless him. There's nothing else to say.

[Vegas Vic]

By lucky I meant above the expected return of the game. On a positive game all you need to do is hit the expected return. Or, if the game is very strong like FPDW, you can win even hitting a little below the expected return.

I don't care what you "meant" when you used the word lucky in that post. What I would like to know is if you agree or disagree with what I said.

[arcimede$]

Arc a question: have you ever been ahead at some point during a session but didn't finish that session with a profit? Had you quit when you had a profit -- even a small profit -- would the percentage of sessions when you finished a "winner" been higher?

Yes Alan, I've been ahead and lost. I've also been behind and won. I've also been ahead and won more. Over time these all lead to the expectation of the game. As I told you long ago you can create more winning sessions with a small win goal. However, the win amounts are small and the sessions where you do lose bring you right back to the game's expectation.

[arcimede$]

I don't care what you "meant" when you used the word lucky in that post. What I would like to know is if you agree or disagree with what I said.

Without understanding the meaning you give to an ambiguous term like "lucky", there is no way of answering your question. That is why I gave you my use of the word and the answer based on that usage.

[Rob.Singer]

He's trying to answer a simple question the way Leon Panneta has been lately.

This is FUN!

[Rob.Singer]

Since Mickey is a "newcomer" here, let's get him acclimated to Dan's (& Spock's") lies and jealous hatred of RS properly. This ought to do just fine....I mean, what irks blind critics more than having to view a big win from someone they just can't stomach knowing they hit it!

Mickey, this may or may not have been shown or discussed on wizard's site, so you may have had to deal with it already. Over here, poor Dan was beside himself over it--and still is--based on his constantly bringing it up apparently in attempt to make it all just go away. At first, his battle cry was "the fake off-center $25 denomination sign" has to mean this jackpot was photoshopped in somehow! But after Alan paid a visit to the machine in Wynn's HL slot room and verified such a beast did indeed exist, it was onto phase 2.

Then it was "there's a name conveniently BLOCKED OUT" somewhere on the machine. I still don't know what he means. Oh yes, it must be that white out spot he's referring to. Oh dear me....check out the next post and photo. DAMN that Singer!!

And next, after all else failed, it was time to check the date stamps, because it just HAD to be that if it didn't match when I posted the win, it just couldn't be true! Hmmm....

Finally, we're into the "he doesn't remember what he held so this win just HAS to be fake!"

But alas--here it is again, and to the disdain of the critics it is as real as the headaches they get when they have to look at it. And I enjoy giving them headaches.