Losing $1 billion playing VP?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, did anyone ever tell you that a discussion with you is like playing the game "20 Questions"?

[arcimede$]

Arc, did anyone ever tell you that a discussion with you is like playing the game "20 Questions"?

Maybe if you paid any attention to the answers you have already received it wouldn't seem that way.

[Alan Mendelson]

Maybe if you paid any attention to the answers you have already received it wouldn't seem that way.

Maybe you're not a good teacher?

[arcimede$]

Maybe you're not a good teacher?

Maybe you're not a good student. It's almost impossible to teach someone that which they don't WANT to believe. I think I've made some progress with you but it's been uphill all the way.

In this particular case we've discussed bell curves many, many times before. That's why I thought it was funny you had to ask what I thought.

[Alan Mendelson]

Wrong again, Arc. Why don't you go back and re-read what I originally wrote? Okay, I'll do it for you. First I wrote this:

For the sake of discussion, Arc, would you mind repeating what your position is? I think I know, but I think if it is stated again the conversations will flow better. Thanks.

When you didn't respond, I wrote this:

I was hoping Arc would respond by now, but to be fair, he has said that winning is possible on negative machines and at negative games. What I am not sure is if he also would say that it is possible to win over the long term playing negative games? I hope he will clarify.

All I asked you to do was to clarify your position for the purpose of discussion instead of going into one of your ding-a-ling bell curve scoldings. Hopeless. And I had such hope for you after I found out you were a 300 bowler.

[arcimede$]

Alan, if you took the time to understand what a bell curve represents you would be able to understand that answers your question precisely.

The original question was related to whether I believed a player could win on negative machines. Singer had lied about my position. The bell curve graphically shows a probability distribution that demonstrates that people can win on negative machines. However the probability is quite small and gets smaller the more negative the play becomes and the more one plays. It's the old picture worth a 1000 words.

So, one wonders why you consider a good, graphical answer to be a "scolding".

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if you took the time to understand what a bell curve represents you would be able to understand that answers your question precisely.

The original question was related to whether I believed a player could win on negative machines. Singer had lied about my position. The bell curve graphically shows a probability distribution that demonstrates that people can win on negative machines. However the probability is quite small and gets smaller the more negative the play becomes and the more one plays. It's the old picture worth a 1000 words.

So, one wonders why you consider a good, graphical answer to be a "scolding".

Arc, I'm not asking you to explain it to me. I asked you, for the purpose of the flow of the discussion, to explain your thoughts for everyone else.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I'm not asking you to explain it to me. I asked you, for the purpose of the flow of the discussion, to explain your thoughts for everyone else.

Feel free to use the search button. It's all there is gory detail.

[regnis]

Feel free to use the search button. It's all there is gory detail.

In the 4th frame his toe was over the line.

[Vegas Vic]

Feel free to use the search button. It's all there is gory detail.

If the discussion at hand is contained in one particular thread (like this one), and a question of clarity arises, why should the reader leave the thread and horse around with a search function? It behooves the person being asked for clarification to respond accordingly and to provide the appropriate answer, and not be a smart a$$ about it. Assuming that there might be new readers (or veteran readers trying to catch up) in the forum, the "flow of the discussion", as Alan points out, is an important consideration.

Maybe your proclivity to be argumentative with most nearly everyone here who stands up to you to any degree overrides such common courtesy, I don't know. At times I want to agree with your position on things, but it's becoming more and more difficult to accept them when they are wrapped in such condescending tones that it's difficult to separate you from your primary forum antagonist. (FWIW)

[regnis]

May I speak for Arci here----OH YEAH!!!

[regnis]

we have another Illinois politician just indicted for using his campaign funds to support his gambling habit. I am not surprised because I used to sit next to him playing the same game---a video poker game with a bonus wheel up above. If you got a quad you also got to spin the wheel. They no longer have them here.


But what I wanted to point out is how the press, AGAIN, is making a big deal outy of the fact he lost over $350,000, not taking into account the winnings that that came out of. They again make it sound like he LOST $350,000 which we know is not accurate.

UPDATE--he was convicted of tax evasion. He did claim that he actually broke even on the gambling during the 3 years at issue, not lose what they made it sound like.

They are talking about closing underused jails here---they ought to just put all of our politicians and public officials there.

[Alan Mendelson]

They are talking about closing underused jails here

Damn... here in California they are letting criminals out after 9 hours because the jails are too full.

[Rob.Singer]

VegasVic, it's not perplexing at all why arci always feels the need to be a smartass and condescending to not just me, but to everyone , and why he shuffles his feet--especially about the silly bell curve issue--rather than directly answering questions: he's always on edge....always asking himself why "this" had to happen to him? Actually, anyone would react the same if they got hit with that sledgehammer.

His first mistake was to lie about what I said he was saying about winning on negative machines. How many times here has he claimed I haven't won....haven't even played high limits or even my strategy....because he has very little insight into what goes into playing SPS? The guy's a lie factory with an oil can that he wants to think fixes all problems. Then he goes into rants about how NO ONE can win on -EV machines OVER TIME, and it has always been a gaping, contradicted hole in his rhetoric when he comes back with this stupid bell curve stuff just to make it sound like he's engaged.

All this, when it's such an easy answer. You don't need math books, formulas, classes, or any of the self-proclaimed "tested geniuses" of the world to get there. It's just simple common sense: If it's possible to win TODAY on a machine that's just slightly less than 100%, theoretically of course, and just slightly less than what a so-called +EV machine is, it is always just as possible and likely that you can win similarly on EVERY day you play them. Just because you play many sessions "over time" does not mean by any stretch that you must or even should give up your winnings simply because the math books say you will if you are a non-thinking robot. Human ingenuity has long trumped and been a thorn in the sides of the closed-minded for centuries. There are ways around the math. I've shown that it can be done, and others have done it as well. It's the weak and hopeless who timidly--and as we've seen, enviously--sit on the sidelines constantly, and angrily, trying to figure it all out while calling those who have, names.

[arcimede$]

VegasVic, it's not perplexing at all why arci always feels the need to be a smartass and condescending to not just me, but to everyone , and why he shuffles his feet--especially about the silly bell curve issue--rather than directly answering questions: he's always on edge....always asking himself why "this" had to happen to him? Actually, anyone would react the same if they got hit with that sledgehammer.

Back to the same old nonsense. Poor Robbie must be feeling a little down which causes him to project those feelings outward.

His first mistake was to lie about what I said he was saying about winning on negative machines. How many times here has he claimed I haven't won

Never, all I have done is point out there is no proof you have won and the odds are about .03% that your claims are true. In addition, I've pointed out many of the things you have lied about. Things like living or not living in Carefree, owning a big house, providing the supporting evidence for your system, and pretty much everything you say about me. Literally 100s of lies.

....haven't even played high limits or even my strategy....because he has very little insight into what goes into playing SPS? The guy's a lie factory with an oil can that he wants to think fixes all problems.

Another obvious projection.

Then he goes into rants about how NO ONE can win on -EV machines OVER TIME, and it has always been a gaping, contradicted hole in his rhetoric when he comes back with this stupid bell curve stuff just to make it sound like he's engaged.

No, I've never said "NO ONE can on -EV machines OVER TIME". I simply point out the probability is extremely low. As for the bell curve, that is mathematically proven fact. It's humorous that you think it is "stupid".

All this, when it's such an easy answer. You don't need math books, formulas, classes, or any of the self-proclaimed "tested geniuses" of the world to get there. It's just simple common sense: If it's possible to win TODAY on a machine that's just slightly less than 100%, theoretically of course, and just slightly less than what a so-called +EV machine is, it is always just as possible and likely that you can win similarly on EVERY day you play them.

Hilarious logical fallacy. That's like saying you can win at Russian roulette every day. Just put in one bullet, spin the cartridge and pull the trigger and if you don't die today then you will never die. Have you tried that one, Rob? Why not?

Just because you play many sessions "over time" does not mean by any stretch that you must or even should give up your winnings simply because the math books say you will if you are a non-thinking robot. Human ingenuity has long trumped and been a thorn in the sides of the closed-minded for centuries. There are ways around the math. I've shown that it can be done, and others have done it as well.

Yup, those math books were all made up by stupid people who had nothing better to do than create lies. It's also kind of funny how all of our modern conveniences are based on that same mathematics and the they work just fine. Cars, TVs, planes, even the computer in front of you wouldn't work if the math was a lie. The only thing I find absolutely hilarious is that anyone could believe the BS you spew when all the evidence they need is easily accessible at their fingertips on the computer right in front of them.

It's the weak and hopeless who timidly--and as we've seen, enviously--sit on the sidelines constantly, and angrily, trying to figure it all out while calling those who have, names.

Hmmmm. "smartass" ... "condescending" ... "lie factory" ... "stupid" ... "closed-minded" ... "weak" ... "hopeless" ... "timid" ... "angrily" ... just who is calling who names? Actually, this is a perfect example of Singer's projection. Calling me names while accusing me of doing it.

[Alan Mendelson]

all I have done is point out there is no proof you have won and the odds are about .03% that your claims are true.

When you come down to it, there is no "proof" any of us ever won anything.

I've never said "NO ONE can on -EV machines OVER TIME". I simply point out the probability is extremely low.

Thank you for writing that... it clears up a lot of things.

[Rob.Singer]

Yes Alan, that's what it takes in order for him to come up with answers. Of course, you have to watch him ramble thru all his denials, and his ranting about how "that's not ME--that's YOU!" face-saving, line item vetoes. But where else can one get such a belly laugh on time and on queue?!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob as I posted in another thread: we're still waiting for you to come up with your evidence that is locked up in a storage locker somewhere... before it turns up on Storage Wars.

These discussions not only get derailed, but too often turn into train wrecks.

[Vegas_lover]

These discussions not only get derailed, but too often turn into train wrecks.

And let's not forget about boring, same old same old, annoying, loss of bandwidth, childish, etc.

[Count Room]

Arcimede$:

This is ONLY a hypothetical question and is entirely up to you and Alan: Would you be willing to open up a mail envelope containing IRS copies of your old tax returns in front of a camera crew if Alan suggested that to you?