Important Point

[arcimede$]

We have gone over this a hundred times: expected return is different from actual return. I don't understand why you can't separate the two?

Well it appears it will take 101 before you understand. "Actual return" references past results. We are not talking about past results in this case. We are talking about future results. The game has a future ER and the player has his own personal future ER. They are different.

Let me give you another real world experience but this time from the TV news business: the expected tenure of a TV station news director (the boss of the TV news department) is a bit less than three years. This is based on statistics of all of the TV stations in the USA. Yet, Ralph Renick in Miami at WTVJ was news director there for something like 32 years. Andy Brigham was news director at WTVH in Syracuse for about 20 years. So their actual tenure was different from their expected tenure. It's the same playing video poker.

And not related at all to the current discussion.

Here's a gambling analogy: A shooter at craps is expected to roll the dice 7 times before he sevens-out. Some will have an actual "hand" that lasts two rolls, and some lucky players might roll the dice a hundred times.

Still not related. Alan, try the understand the difference between future and past and maybe you will catch on.

[Alan Mendelson]

That's right Arc, "actual return" refers to past results... and it has nothing to do with expected return which is expected or forecast or theoretical. Expected return is not necessarily your future results unless you have a crystal ball or a time machine.

Future expected return? Wow, you made that one up, didn't you? Yes, Arc, all expected return is a future forecast of the possibility of what will happen with expert play over time. But "future expected return" is the verbose way of saying "expected return" isn't it?

[Rob.Singer]

"The game has a future ER and the player has his own personal future ER. They are different."

This is one of the many curious statements made by arci about video poker that bears more scrutiny. So often he's stated that the more a person plays say a 102% play, the closer to that expectation he will come. So by strict definition, the MACHINE has a "future ER" of 102%, and the PLAYER has the very same ER since AP's only are able to see things in a long-term setting.

I'm confused by his statement.

[arcimede$]

That's right Arc, "actual return" refers to past results... and it has nothing to do with expected return which is expected or forecast or theoretical. Expected return is not necessarily your future results unless you have a crystal ball or a time machine.

Future expected return? Wow, you made that one up, didn't you? Yes, Arc, all expected return is a future forecast of the possibility of what will happen with expert play over time. But "future expected return" is the verbose way of saying "expected return" isn't it?

Yes it is, but since you seem to struggle with the idea I thought I would emphasize that point about the future. The important issue is the difference between the game's ER and the player's ER. This is why I stated Singer claimed his strategy turned a negative game into a positive situation. That is, while the game itself had a negative ER, by using Singer's strategy the player's ER would be positive. Of course, that is nonsense, but that is what Singer is claiming.

[arcimede$]

"The game has a future ER and the player has his own personal future ER. They are different."

This is one of the many curious statements made by arci about video poker that bears more scrutiny. So often he's stated that the more a person plays say a 102% play, the closer to that expectation he will come. So by strict definition, the MACHINE has a "future ER" of 102%, and the PLAYER has the very same ER since AP's only are able to see things in a long-term setting.

I'm confused by his statement.

Obviously, and no one is surprised. Maybe if you took the time to read what I wrote you could remove some of the fog.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes it is, but since you seem to struggle with the idea I thought I would emphasize that point about the future. The important issue is the difference between the game's ER and the player's ER. This is why I stated Singer claimed his strategy turned a negative game into a positive situation. That is, while the game itself had a negative ER, by using Singer's strategy the player's ER would be positive. Of course, that is nonsense, but that is what Singer is claiming.

I'm not struggling with the idea at all, Arc. I just think we should be clear about our definitions here. So allow me to repeat the definitions that I am working with:

Expected Return is theoretical and applies to each hand and to the future.
Actual Return is what happened in the past whether it be a particular hand or session or lifetime of play.

Now I have to question your use of "expected return" for the game and "expected return" for the player. I thought that the expected return is the expected return... period. Unless, of course, the player is not using "proper strategy" because I think all of the expressions of "expected return" are based on "proper strategy."

For the record, Rob has always said that the "expected return" on his strategy and holds and special plays has pretty much always been lower than the "expected return" of conventional play. But he says his strategy differences allow for the possibility of winning certain big hands. And this brings us back to the original starting point of this discussion: Rob never challenges the "expected return."

To be correct, I think the proper statement would be something like this:

Video poker games have an expected return. But Rob believes that by utilizing so-called special plays and utilizing a win goal strategy that his actual return can exceed the expected return.

Now will that work?

edited to add:

The reason why I want to point out what Rob has said before (you can see the videos, since the info is there) and what the "working definitions" of certain terms are, is because Rob is not as crazy as his critics make him out to be. In the first place he is no different from anyone else who walks into a casino: he tries to win and he is motivated to win. Secondly he will sometimes take chances or change his play to maximize his chances of winning.

For some reason only the so-called "advantage players" have a problem with the concept of quitting when ahead, whether that objection is based on the short term, the long term, or when the next session will be played. The rest of the world, I submit, does not have a problem with the concept of quitting when you have a lead.

[regnis]

Now you've ruined it for me Alan. It was more fun thinking Arci is chasing around a crazy lunatic all these years on all these forums. Now you tell us Rob isn't crazy. sheesh!!!!

[arcimede$]

To be correct, I think the proper statement would be something like this:

Video poker games have an expected return. But Rob believes that by utilizing so-called special plays and utilizing a win goal strategy that his actual return can exceed the expected return.

Now will that work?

You're playing games. When someone claims the future return will be greater than 100% by using a particular strategy, they are claiming the game is positive for that player. And, since we are talking about the future we are taking about the expected return of the player.

[redietz]

Arc, you're missing the point. Rob's special. The laws of probability don't apply to him. So get off your high horse.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you're missing the point. Rob's special. The laws of probability don't apply to him. So get off your high horse.

He's "special" alright ... if there was a Special Olympics in VP he would certainly qualify. It's kind of funny to watch the handstands his supporters will do to try and make it seem like Singer is reasonable.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm not struggling with the idea at all, Arc. I just think we should be clear about our definitions here. So allow me to repeat the definitions that I am working with:

Expected Return is theoretical and applies to each hand and to the future.
Actual Return is what happened in the past whether it be a particular hand or session or lifetime of play.

Now I have to question your use of "expected return" for the game and "expected return" for the player. I thought that the expected return is the expected return... period. Unless, of course, the player is not using "proper strategy" because I think all of the expressions of "expected return" are based on "proper strategy."

For the record, Rob has always said that the "expected return" on his strategy and holds and special plays has pretty much always been lower than the "expected return" of conventional play. But he says his strategy differences allow for the possibility of winning certain big hands. And this brings us back to the original starting point of this discussion: Rob never challenges the "expected return."

To be correct, I think the proper statement would be something like this:

Video poker games have an expected return. But Rob believes that by utilizing so-called special plays and utilizing a win goal strategy that his actual return can exceed the expected return.

Now will that work?

edited to add:

The reason why I want to point out what Rob has said before (you can see the videos, since the info is there) and what the "working definitions" of certain terms are, is because Rob is not as crazy as his critics make him out to be. In the first place he is no different from anyone else who walks into a casino: he tries to win and he is motivated to win. Secondly he will sometimes take chances or change his play to maximize his chances of winning.

For some reason only the so-called "advantage players" have a problem with the concept of quitting when ahead, whether that objection is based on the short term, the long term, or when the next session will be played. The rest of the world, I submit, does not have a problem with the concept of quitting when you have a lead.

You've only frustrated arci into more desperate namecalling Alan, so I'll offer the calm approach to that which he does not comprehend. (But I do understand WHY he so easily is on edge these days....)

I've said before, what the paytable's ER equates to over an unknown amount of time is irrelevant to me--as it should be to every player because it has no meaning--and I of course play the best paytable found in the casino I choose to play in for the game I choose to play. But because of my strategy used, the special plays that are at times game-changing, the amount of bankroll used vs. the comparitively small win goal, and now because of the best of all indicators: historical data, I can expect to finish with a highly positive ACTUAL RETURN at least 85% of the time on any -EV game TODAY. And since our play is simply a number of individual sessions played TODAY, it is intelligent to believe that those highly positive actual returns will happen again and again and again--to the tune of 85% of the time. No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience. It is warped thinking to believe that, because a game is -EV, the math will come by and just snatch all those wins away. By the same token that AP's have yet to figure out, the 15% losers are not all huge because of the soft profits banked along the way, and over 25% of the sessions will end with a huge profit well over the $2500 minimum required to quit.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've said before, what the paytable's ER equates to over an unknown amount of time is irrelevant to me--as it should be to every player because it has no meaning--and I of course play the best paytable found in the casino I choose to play in for the game I choose to play. But because of my strategy used, the special plays that are at times game-changing, the amount of bankroll used vs. the comparitively small win goal, and now because of the best of all indicators: historical data, I can expect to finish with a highly positive ACTUAL RETURN at least 85% of the time on any -EV game TODAY. And since our play is simply a number of individual sessions played TODAY, it is intelligent to believe that those highly positive actual returns will happen again and again and again--to the tune of 85% of the time. No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience. It is warped thinking to believe that, because a game is -EV, the math will come by and just snatch all those wins away. By the same token that AP's have yet to figure out, the 15% losers are not all huge because of the soft profits banked along the way, and over 25% of the sessions will end with a huge profit well over the $2500 minimum required to quit.

Rob, I can't endorse your figure of winning 85% of the time, because I have never kept personal records that would indicate if the figure is right or wrong for me. But I've agreed with one of your principles from the start: you can get ahead on a negative expectation game, and if you quit when ahead you will leave the casino a winner.

No one can argue that. But knowing when to quit is all art and zero science. And yes, quitting early may mean you are leaving future wins "on the table" so to speak.

Each player has to decide what is right for them. For some players a small win equal to 20% of their starting bankroll is wonderful. In your case, your $2,500 win goal represented only about 5% of your "professional bankroll."

And if the math shows that the longer we play at negative games the more likely we are going to lose, then by all means we should all quit when we have a profit -- no matter how small -- on a negative game. The only question is this: is that profit enough of a profit to make us satisfied with the trip to the casino? Can you, for example, take $100 to a casino and leave with a $5 profit or a $20 profit?

[arcimede$]

More obvious projections and screw-ups:

1) "I do understand WHY he so easily is on edge these days" ... This tells us Singer is in lots of stress due to being outed on the pictures and many other recent findings.
2) "I of course play the best pay table" .. Another sign of stress. Singer constant claims the pay table doesn't matter so this little slip up gives away that he really knows it makes a big difference. It completely contradicts the rest of his claims. Absolutely hilarious.
3) "No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience." ... which means absolutely nothing and changes nothing. It's the fact the machines are random that leads to predictable results over time and has nothing to do with what a person has been doing. One thing this means is that the machines aren't more likely to hit if one uses a progression. The exact opposite behavior that Singer has told us he believes.

[Alan Mendelson]

Can you two kids give this a rest? Even I can spot the inconsistencies of this back and forth.

1) "I do understand WHY he so easily is on edge these days" ... This tells us Singer is in lots of stress due to being outed on the pictures and many other recent findings.

I think the explanation by Rob of having multiple cameras has cleared up the allegations that he stole pictures from another source. Have you identified the photos as being posted elsewhere by someone else? If you have, please provide the links.

2) "I of course play the best pay table" .. Another sign of stress. Singer constant claims the pay table doesn't matter so this little slip up gives away that he really knows it makes a big difference. It completely contradicts the rest of his claims. Absolutely hilarious.

Rob has always said that he plays the best available pay table. And yes, he has also said that he can win on a negative pay table. I don't think Rob has contradicted himself at all.

3) "No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience." ... which means absolutely nothing and changes nothing. It's the fact the machines are random that leads to predictable results over time and has nothing to do with what a person has been doing. One thing this means is that the machines aren't more likely to hit if one uses a progression. The exact opposite behavior that Singer has told us he believes.

Actually, Arc, everything I've ever read says that each hand in video poker is independent of the previous hand, which is why it is OK to play on a machine that just hit a royal, and why the same machine can have two royals back to back. So I have to agree with Rob's statement ""No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience."

But you are also correct that the machines are random and that only reinforces Rob's statement "No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience."

I also agree with you, Arc, when you wrote "the machines aren't more likely to hit if one uses a progression." And indeed Rob has gone through a huge chunk of money trying to hit a big payoff with his strategy of changing denominations. I think he lost something like $50,000+ once. But by the same token, hasn't Dancer also lost a lot of money chasing promotions? I guess it all means that no matter what strategy you use, it's still a random game.

[Vegas Vic]

Rob has always said that he plays the best available pay table. And yes, he has also said that he can win on a negative pay table. I don't think Rob has contradicted himself at all.

When he says this: "I've said before, what the paytable's ER equates to over an unknown amount of time is irrelevant to me", he IS contradicting himself. If the ER doesn't matter to him, then the pay table he plays shouldn't matter. By selectively choosing to "play the best pay table", he is inherently demonstrating clear awareness and concern over the ER of the game. Otherwise, he'd be sitting down at 6/5 JOB, 7/5 Triple Double and 10/7 Shockwave games each and every time he's in a casino. He can continue to say it doesn't matter via the "short term vs long term" angle, but the proof (and truth) lies in the decision to search out and play the best pay tables. ER matters to Rob.

[arcimede$]

I think the explanation by Rob of having multiple cameras has cleared up the allegations that he stole pictures from another source. Have you identified the photos as being posted elsewhere by someone else? If you have, please provide the links.

Nonsense. Even if a person has multiple phones it's unlikely they would use them to take pictures. people are creatures of habit and once a particular camera was used it's highly likely it would continue to be used. Not only that, but it doesn't explain the huge gaps in the picture names. It appears Alan only believes what he wants to believe and ignores the reality.

Rob has always said that he plays the best available pay table. And yes, he has also said that he can win on a negative pay table. I don't think Rob has contradicted himself at all.

Of course it contradicts him ... in many ways. Just because you don't want to believe it's a contradiction doesn't make it so. I provided the rationale, use your brain.

Actually, Arc, everything I've ever read says that each hand in video poker is independent of the previous hand, which is why it is OK to play on a machine that just hit a royal, and why the same machine can have two royals back to back. So I have to agree with Rob's statement ""No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience."

I said it was correct. Do you even bother to read what you quote?

But you are also correct that the machines are random and that only reinforces Rob's statement "No machine knows what you've been doing and where, and every time one is played it is a new experience."

I also agree with you, Arc, when you wrote "the machines aren't more likely to hit if one uses a progression." And indeed Rob has gone through a huge chunk of money trying to hit a big payoff with his strategy of changing denominations. I think he lost something like $50,000+ once. But by the same token, hasn't Dancer also lost a lot of money chasing promotions? I guess it all means that no matter what strategy you use, it's still a random game.

Once again you entirely miss the point. Singer was trying to use these statements to support his illogical thinking when they support the exact opposite of what he claims.

[Alan Mendelson]

When he says this: "I've said before, what the paytable's ER equates to over an unknown amount of time is irrelevant to me", he IS contradicting himself. If the ER doesn't matter to him, then the pay table he plays shouldn't matter. By selectively choosing to "play the best pay table", he is inherently demonstrating clear awareness and concern over the ER of the game. Otherwise, he'd be sitting down at 6/5 JOB, 7/5 Triple Double and 10/7 Shockwave games each and every time he's in a casino. He can continue to say it doesn't matter via the "short term vs long term" angle, but the proof (and truth) lies in the decision to search out and play the best pay tables. ER matters to Rob.

I think it makes perfect sense for someone to choose between the "lesser of two evils" when playing video poker, and to play using the best machine/game with the best potential available. The bottom line is that the ER does matter. All Rob has claimed is that with his system he can win regardless of the ER, but that doesn't mean he rejects the ER.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc do me a favor: find the photos you believe he stole from someone else. If they exist elsewhere on the Internet, show us the links to them.

It makes perfect sense to me that he uses different phones/cameras to take pictures. I have four pens on my desk. I don't use the same pen every time I need to write something. (I would have used the phone/camera example, but I have only one phone. LOL My son, on the other hand, has at least three that I know about... heaven knows how many more he has??)

[arcimede$]

Arc do me a favor: find the photos you believe he stole from someone else. If they exist elsewhere on the Internet, show us the links to them.

Not my job. The evidence that was presented by Spock is quite damning. Of course, it does require good logical thinking to understand.

It makes perfect sense to me that he uses different phones/cameras to take pictures. I have four pens on my desk. I don't use the same pen every time I need to write something. (I would have used the phone/camera example, but I have only one phone. LOL My son, on the other hand, has at least three that I know about... heaven knows how many more he has??)

Alan, just keeping ignoring the facts. It's clear you'll ignore them and believe what you want. I suspect Rob gets a good laugh about your gullibility. BTW, how many cameras do you use to take pictures at casinos?

[Alan Mendelson]

Not my job. The evidence that was presented by Spock is quite damning. Of course, it does require good logical thinking to understand.

If you can't prove otherwise, then I believe Rob used different cameras.

BTW, how many cameras do you use to take pictures at casinos?

Our TV show is shot with one camera at a time, though the cameraman might switch to a smaller camera when he is in a confined space such as in a helicopter.