John Grochowski writes about money management.

[Vegas_lover]

Here you go again. How do you prove mathematically that if I buy in with $100 and double my money and cash out that this is somehow "false"?

No Alan, here YOU go again. Please point out exactly who said that it is somehow "false" if you buy in with $100, double your money and cash out. Nobody ever said it was FALSE! What has been said CONSTANTLY (but which you fail to understand or are unwilling to acknowledge) is that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LONG RUN AND WON'T IMPROVE YOUR BOTTEM LINE IF YOU CONTINUE TO PLAY THE SAME NEGATIVE GAMES.

Oh and Alan, stop pretending you care a rat's behind about Singer's personal attacks. Because most of the time you don't.

[arcimede$]

This is where you contradict yourself every time. You don't know what the next hand would have been, or the next 10 hands, or the next whatever hands. But you do know that the ER is less than what your actual return was after you were up the $800. Therefore, your expected return on the next 1 hand 10 hands or 100 hands is going to cut into your profits. For someone who lives and dies by the ER, how come when Alan is up $800 all of a sudden the ER is out the window and anything can happen.

No, there is no contradiction at all. All I have stated is the win loss goals make no difference. That is, if you play your next hand in 5 seconds or 5 days your expectation is exactly the same.

The only reason I provided those examples is to demonstrate to Alan that his scenarios are not the only ones possible. For everyone where he claims X, I can show Y which is the exact opposite. Just trying to get Alan to quit focusing on silly scenarios and focus on the big picture.

[arcimede$]

Oh and Alan, stop pretending you care a rat's behind about Singer's personal attacks. Because most of the time you don't.

You can be entertained by Singer's attacks if you understand the motivation. Most of his attacks are projections of his own jealousy and self-hatred. Once you understand that fact it easy to get a good laugh. For example, in his last attack on me he mentioned living in a duplex. That would be a step up for him. He now lives in a trailer and before that in a small apartment in Carefree. He often fantasized about living in a big house until I checked with the AZ government data base and found that he had always been living in apartments.

Contrast that to me where I lived in a 3700 sqft home for 30 years before moving into a 3000 sqft "duplex" on a golf course. You can just feel the envy sliding off his back as he tries to attack me. While I wintered in Las Vegas I owned a 1200 sqft small town home which was perfect for our needs ... bought with cash and sold for cash when my wife could no longer handle the effort to maintain two homes. One can only imagine the difficulty Singer has in accepting that my 2nd home was bigger and better than anything he had ever lived in.

So, when you see his attacks just know that he is really giving away his own failures. That makes them hilarious.

[redietz]

I really hate the personal attacks on this forum. They have no place in civil discourse. I don't even like what I posted above about Rob -- it's true, but largely irrelevant. Rob's arguments, Arci's arguments, my points, a2's points -- everything should stand or fall on its own merits.

I'm the biggest free speech advocate I know, but even I wouldn't allow the stupid non relevant personal posturing and rants that get posted here. And yeah, I'm trying to be politically correct, but Rob's clearly the biggest offender.

I agree with Alan on one thing, and that's even though I'm a privacy advocate (Rob and I can both go after Obama on this one). I think one's actual bona fide name should be attached to whatever one posts, and I think you need to stick your name and address on there, too -- just to force people to behave with some decency. I don't know why Rob can display such discipline when sitting at a video poker machine and such lack of empathy and discipline when sitting at a computer. The rest of us are morons for allowing Rob's tone and content to affect a word that we say.

People in academia go fang-and-claw over ideas and theories and debates in journals and at conferences. Their names are attached to everything. Their futures are directly tied to who is right and who turns out to be wrong. But there is very little of this grade school hubris and venom. I'm personally embarrassed at my snarkiness here, but it's -- to a large degree -- merited.

Guys (and gals), have a good Sunday.

[slingshot]

I really hate the personal attacks on this forum. They have no place in civil discourse. I don't even like what I posted above about Rob -- it's true, but largely irrelevant. Rob's arguments, Arci's arguments, my points, a2's points -- everything should stand or fall on its own merits.

I'm the biggest free speech advocate I know, but even I wouldn't allow the stupid non relevant personal posturing and rants that get posted here. And yeah, I'm trying to politically correct, but Rob's clearly the biggest offender.

I agree with Alan on one thing, and that's even though I'm a privacy advocate also. I think one's actual bona fide name should be attached to whatever one posts, and I think you need to stick your name and address on there, too -- just to force people to behave with some decency. I don't know why Rob can display such discipline when sitting at a video poker machine and such lack of empathy and discipline when sitting at a computer. The rest of us are morons for allowing Rob's tone and content to affect a word that we say.

People in academia go fang-and-claw over ideas and theories and debates in journals. Their names are attached to everything. Their futures are directly tied to who is right and who turns out to be wrong. But there is very little of this nonsensical grade school hubris and venom. I'm personally embarrassed at my snarkiness here, but it's -- to a large degree -- merited.

Guys (and gals), have a good Sunday.

You mean people like Mark Twain, Roy Rogers, etc..........."? Oops. Pardon my snarkiness.

[slingshot]

Rob I am still waiting for their "math."

I don't care if they don't use win goals and loss limits. To each his own. But to say " you are making claims that have been mathematically proven false" is a load of BS.

Oh Rob, just to make Vegas_lover happy... stop your personal attacks on Arc.

Alan, they're wanting to play in "virtual" reality. You play in an actual casino.

[arcimede$]

Rob I am still waiting for their "math."

I don't care if they don't use win goals and loss limits. To each his own. But to say " you are making claims that have been mathematically proven false" is a load of BS.

I've provided the math proof several times already. What part of it did you not understand? Oh, you mean you didn't understand any of it, therefore it doesn't exist in your mind? Totally hilarious. I bet Santa is real good to you too.

OK, I'll admit the proof didn't use the words win/loss goals. It referred to a progression and uneven bets. However, all one has to do is substitute reaching a win/loss goal in place of increasing one's bet in a progression to see the proof applies equally to those goals. In essence, one can substitute ANY decision made between hands into the proof and it applies just as well. The proof follows and is just as relevant. That is why NO betting system (or decision) made between hands can have any affect on results over time. Essentially, the proof covers a super-set of any and all betting schemes.

But it's really just common sense. If your future results are the sum of the results of all your hands in the future (which I think is pretty obvious), then your future results will simply be your pER times the number of hands played. Given you continue to play the same games and your pER does not change then the only factor in future results is the number of hands played. That's it. Once you maximize your pER the only factor is the number of hands played.

This is basically what the proponents of win/loss goals are trying to get across. This is exactly what John stated at the beginning of this endless thread. If you can use win/loss goals to reduce the number of hands played when pER < 100% then that is good. But, the reason for the goodness is completely based on the number of hands played. Not the goals themselves. And, as Red, Eddie and I have been trying to get across, ANY method of reducing the number of hands played when pER < 100% is just as good if not better.

My own personal strategy for reducing these hands is to not play any where pER < 100%. My system completely beats a system based on win/loss goals because my losses are zero.

And, if we apply the same logic to positive pER situations, it is also easy to see that our future results are primarily based on the number of hands played. The more hands played, the more money made. But, no one can play indefinitely without getting tired and making mistakes. This reduces the pER. That is why smart APers do not play overly long sessions. It could lead to the pER < 100% situation.

Remember, applying win/loss goals could have the same hand reducing impact that is supposed to be their advantage on negative games. Hence, win/loss goals MUST have the opposite affect on positive games.

[arcimede$]

Alan, they're wanting to play in "virtual" reality. You play in an actual casino.

There's nothing "virtual" about mathematics. It was developed to describe the real world. It is used because it DOES describe the real world. I always find it amusing when someone uses a term that does not apply to the discussion and believes they made a point. All you did was make your ignorance obvious, something Singer does all the time. I can see why he is your hero.

[Alan Mendelson]

I am trying to catch up and sort out everything that has been posted here. It's complicated to say the least.

Vegas_lover wrote:

No Alan, here YOU go again. Please point out exactly who said that it is somehow "false" if you buy in with $100, double your money and cash out. Nobody ever said it was FALSE!

Well, Vegas_lover here is what I said:

Of course it improves my bottom line. If I have a budget of $100 and lose it, but don't keep to a loss limit and lose another $100 then my loss increases to $200. In this case, how does a loss limit not help to improve my bottom line?

If I hit quad aces and win $800 on a $2 Bonus machine and quit with a net gain of $700 how does that not improve my bottom line? I just improved my bottom line by the net value of the win.

And Arcimedes responded with:

Because you don't know if you would have lost more money. You might have won $100 or $1000 and now you are even or ahead. Your loss limit might have cost you money.

Because the next hand after you quit might have been a RF for $8000 (or any big winner) while the next time you play after quitting this time, you could lose that $800 in less than an hour. Hence, your bottom line is now less than it would have been. For every scenario you can imagine there is one with the opposite effect. That is why win/loss goals cannot improve your bottom line.

And Arcimedes also wrote:

That is because you are making claims that have been mathematically proven false. No one cares what you do personally, Alan. Just quit making invalid statements.

I still don't know what I am saying that has been mathematically proven false? I never disputed anything about paytables or positive and negative expectation games or what they are. My main point has only been this: When you quit with a profit -- you have a profit and when you quit determines what that profit can be. When you quit with a loss -- you quit with a loss, and the only thing you can manage is how much of a loss that will be.

Quitting with a profit is money in the bank. Sure, the next hand might have been a royal, as Arc suggested as a possibility, but the next hand also might have been a loss. I am not a fortune teller so I deal with the present situation. A bird in the hand is the same as credits on the meter.

Now let me discuss quitting with a loss: the loss represents the amount of money you are willing to lose. If you bet more than your loss limit hoping to find a winner on a subsequent hand you are doing nothing more than chasing losses and run the risk of not winning more and only increasing your losses. You might recall I was very critical of Rob for chasing his losses in a session (or trip) to the tune of $53,000 which to this day has me dumbfounded that "Mr Discipline" would have done this.

When I go to a casino I go with the idea of winning but when I lose I don't want to lose so much that I didn't enjoy the visit or regret going. So I have to ask this, Arc: Does the math say you should keep playing and lose more than you initially set out to do? Is that what the math says? By the way, Arc, does the math guarantee you will win at a positive expectation game? (You don't have to answer that... the answer is the math guarantees nothing, it is only "expected" and not actual.)

Let me again bring up the question of playing on positive expectation games again because no one responded to my original questions. How many of you have had losing sessions on positive expectation games? Arc certainly has had them and I think he says he wins about 30-40 percent of the sessions he plays. Redietz have you had losing sessions on your positive expectation quarter game? And for those of you who have had losses on a session may I ask you this: Were you ever ahead during the session? What if you had cashed out when you had a profit? Have you ever "given back" a huge win in the same session? I have. I know what it's like to feel like an idiot after hitting a royal early in a session and then putting it all back in -- and I've done it more than once.

And I have a question for Arc about his methodology of playing video poker for a certain number of hours: have you ever "played back" your profit in order to meet the time requirement of your methodology? What do you estimate was the biggest "give back" you ever made so that you fulfilled your time requirements?

And Arc I still don't recall any "math" presented here -- in any post -- which invalidates win goals and loss limits. I'm sorry but I am going to ask you to post it again because I missed it. It's not necessary to post anything about negative expectation games and positive expectation games. I understand that. What I want to know is what math says I am wrong to limit my losses and take my profits?

And a note about the sacred positive expectation games:

You know, I've played positive expectation video poker games on many occasions and I never had a positive result. Perhaps it's because I never hit a royal on a positive expectation game? And perhaps that's because I haven't played tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands hands on a positive expectation game?

And one comment to redietz about trying to keep the discussions here civil: First, thank you for showing some support of me here. Quite a while ago I asked both Rob and Arc to take the high road and stop their insults. (Yes, both are guilty.) Neither one would stop. I even pleaded directly to Arc and said if he would stop and take the high road, I would delete Rob's subsequent insults... but Arc couldn't stop. Well, I was not going to be the one to give either one of them the last word... so I let them continue. One day if one of them would stop I would stop the other.

As I have said numerous times, Rob is wrong to mention Arc's wife and medical condition (they are also personally offensive to me) and Rob is wrong to make allegations about VP losses and lost homes, and Arc is wrong about making allegations of Rob lying about where he has lived or what homes he owned and accusations about jealousy. Guys: no one cares. I think everyone here is only interested in information about gaming. As I mentioned I don't care where anyone lives now or lived before, or what their income is, or how they keep themselves healthy or where they take walks or go bowling. Although if you would like to discuss real estate and health and diets and bowling there are other discussion areas on this forum for those subjects.

I have also been asked many times if I believe Rob really had a net profit of nearly a million dollars playing video poker? Yes I do believe him. But even if he only had a net profit of one dollar I would still consider his strategies important and valuable (and I say this even if I don't follow all or even much of his strategies). The fact is I don't care how much money anyone won. I only care if they have advice that improves winning money. The amounts are meaningless. However, we all enjoy a good story and a good picture of a win... but why didn't anyone comment about my singing about my last royal at Caesars? Gosh... not only did no one comment here, but when I was singing at Caesars no one even looked up from their machines.

[Alan Mendelson]

Another interesting note from John Grochowski about royals and their contribution to the payback of the games: http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...machines-62181

So I guess that "advantage play" isn't sitting in your lap afterall.

[arcimede$]

Repeating the same nonsense that has been refuted many times will not help you, Alan. Sorry. As I said before, for every one of your "what if"s there are ones that are 180° the opposite. So, please quit boring us.

[arcimede$]

Another interesting note from John Grochowski about royals and their contribution to the payback of the games: http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...machines-62181

So I guess that "advantage play" isn't sitting in your lap afterall.

What in this column was new? This is all old news that every AP understands. Were you trying to make a point?

[redietz]

Alan, what point were you making with the Grochowski article? We all know what royals contribute to the bottom line. That's why, when calculating short term, I figure a 3% loss rate. It's also why (a point on which Rob and I agree) we conspiracy theorists will tell you it's a shorting of royals that would be the least detectable way of rigging a machine. Nobody plays enough on a given machine to determine if it's variance or a rigged machine. The player has no way of knowing. And, if I recall correctly, in a rare case of rigging being admitted, it was a royals shorting that was the methodology.

To the other questions-- I win between 36 and 38% of sessions. I lose, obviously, more than I win. Since I don't usually play all that long, I have never come close to giving back a royal in the same session. But I don't jump up in denomination, either, looking for some "big score." I have given back most of some four deuces hits, but that's pretty common, I would say. I have never stepped away from a video poker machine and thought, "My God, I was out of control. How did I lose so much?" It's never happened.

I don't get very happy when I'm winning, and I don't get unhappy when I'm losing, so winning and then losing in the same session doesn't really bother me.

Now back to the Grochowski articles, both the one that kicked off this thread and the latest -- you do realize you're really spinning them grotesquely to make some non-advantage play points of some kind? There was absolutely nothing in the article you just listed that was either a surprise or critical of advantage play. Why are you reading weird things into these articles?

[regnis]

Disagree with Grochowski on the button vs old fashioned pull the arm. The latter is about 34% slower (I forget the exact number but it is in that range). On a negative game, this could add up over time.

[Rob.Singer]

Such entertainment! What more can be said about arci and his neurosis about "virtual vp AP"? I nail him right between the eyes with the truth about his fantasy play & foreclosed little duplex in LV that I read about on the Nevada gov't. site 2 years ago....and he can't take it and can only respond with lies about me The best part is, my "trailer park" RV cost more than 2X what he paid for both little duplexes TOGETHER!! (PSST....even more important: my wife is healthy because I never dragged her to casinos when she should have eaten a strict healthy diet and went for walks instead ) nuff said my friend. Yes....1 mistake +1 more mistake absolutely does equal 2. Gotta love that REAL math!

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, there was no point specifically in Grochowski's article that I wanted to point out, but I find it interesting that your short term loss rate is 3% when royals contribute 2% to the return (or sometimes less). Are you sure you are playing positive expectation games?

Arc, if you can't show me the "math" I guess it means there is no math that proves it wrong for me to use win goals and loss limits. I don't expect to hear any more from you on this subject until you are going to show me that math.

Rob, you just can't quit with the personal attacks, can you? But let's see if Arc will take the high road now and not respond to you?

[arcimede$]

Arc, if you can't show me the "math" I guess it means there is no math that proves it wrong for me to use win goals and loss limits. I don't expect to hear any more from you on this subject until you are going to show me that math.

Alan, no one ever said it was "wrong" for you use win/loss goals. Just like it is not "wrong" to change machines, rub the screen, and pray before hitting draw. So, you are asking me to prove something I never claimed. This is typical of your dishonesty on this subject. All I have ever said is win/loss goals make no difference in your expectation .... and I provided a proof.

Rob, you just can't quit with the personal attacks, can you? But let's see if Arc will take the high road now and not respond to you?

Alan, it is up to you to stop Singer from posting his lies. His last one is easy to refute.

I give the doofus permission to provide a link to whatever source he claims to have used for a "foreclosed little duplex in LV". Let's see it, sparky ... or admit you are once again lying through your teeth. Are you man enough to provide a reference or will you slink back into obscurity like a teenage girl with her panties in a bunch knowing that your lie has been completely refuted?

It's going to be a little difficult for him (or should that be her?) since I paid cash for the place. Let's see, did I foreclose on myself? Bwah haha haha haha

PS. All deeds and changes in ownership are in fact recorded by the government.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, no one ever said it was "wrong" for you use win/loss goals. Just like it is not "wrong" to change machines, rub the screen, and pray before hitting draw. So, you are asking me to prove something I never claimed. This is typical of your dishonesty on this subject. All I have ever said is win/loss goals make no difference in your expectation .... and I provided a proof.

Well, then I don't understand what the heck we've been discussing then? I always said nothing changes the expectation. Expectation is expectation and nothing changes that math.

But then win goals and loss limits are not math driven. They are more psychological. They help you enjoy more.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, it is up to you to stop Singer from posting his lies. His last one is easy to refute.

I certainly want you to have every opportunity to refute all claims and to state your side to any disputes.

[redietz]

No, Alan, I have no idea if I'm playing positive expectation games. I put a sheet over the pay table and just sit down, you know, kind of like Las Vegas Caesars' customers.

I don't expect four deuces any given session, either.

Boy, that was tough to figure out.

If Rob isn't banned for this nonsense, I'm going to amp it up and dish it out in a similar fashion. I will post every day about some encounters Rob had with male hookers, and let him prove they didn't happen. If we're going to have freedom of speech regarding somebody's wife and property, we may as well extend it to their sex life.