John Grochowski writes about money management.

[arcimede$]

Alan, what part of "It's a matter of bankroll. A pro who is sufficiently bankrolled, with tens of thousands of dollars in reserve, probably is just going to play on when he draws a $1,000 royal flush. He has an edge, and continuing to play is pursuit of profit."

And, this caveat in your highlighted quote ... "unless players have very deep pockets". That's twice he states that sufficient bankroll is the key. Besides, he never says win goals will change your results. In fact, he says the exact opposite in his column.

One of the most important aspects of advantage play is having sufficient bankroll. If you don't have it for the level you are playing then you aren't really an APer.

Finally, there is nothing magical about the ER. The ER is based on the pay table which is why it provides constant pressure to approach the average. No one said you'd end up at exactly 99.2%. What I said is you are pulled in that direction over time. Your whole comment is just more nonsense. When are you going to quit claiming 2+2 = 5?

[Rob.Singer]

So much fun seeing arci spinning his wheels! The "math"....the "theory"....on and on with unsubstantive claims.

You know, arci's really out to pull everyone's leg on this stuff. For instance, if he truly believed in how it's math and theory and math and theory that dictates how just about everything in life is determined, then why is it that, when it's so well known that a person with diabetes' best "theoretical" odds are to eat within a very strict diet and to get lots and lots of exercise, he instead bucked those odds by taking his wife to LV casinos for 6...7...8+ hours of sitting and playing every day until the well went dry rather than take health-conscious two hour walks, then instead of making healthy meals at home, he made her take her chances with local casino diner food, of which NO ONE really knows what's it it.

This is why he's an angry man here and really, everywhere he posts, and why he made up so many stories of winning as an "AP" without ever posting pictures until humiliated beyond capacity, and finally ended that myth by saying "his" machines were "pulled for lack of parts" Now he's amusing his wounded ego by putting words never said into John Grochowski's mouth. So if you want to let him keep making a fool of himself while giving him oodles of things to do in order that he "virtually" live out the tail end of an unhappy and disappointing life, I'll be by now and then to laugh at him so more!

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, what part of "It's a matter of bankroll. A pro who is sufficiently bankrolled, with tens of thousands of dollars in reserve, probably is just going to play on when he draws a $1,000 royal flush. He has an edge, and continuing to play is pursuit of profit."

And, this caveat in your highlighted quote ... "unless players have very deep pockets". That's twice he states that sufficient bankroll is the key. Besides, he never says win goals will change your results. In fact, he says the exact opposite in his column.

One of the most important aspects of advantage play is having sufficient bankroll. If you don't have it for the level you are playing then you aren't really an APer.

Finally, there is nothing magical about the ER. The ER is based on the pay table which is why it provides constant pressure to approach the average. No one said you'd end up at exactly 99.2%. What I said is you are pulled in that direction over time. Your whole comment is just more nonsense. When are you going to quit claiming 2+2 = 5?

Arc, I really doubt that a professional vp player with a bankroll of tens of thousands of dollars -- sufficient to withstand the ups and downs of video poker -- is going to earn a living playing single line 25-cent poker. Can we get back to talking about reality, please?

[Alan Mendelson]

Oh Rob, stop it already about diabetics and casinos. It's old. It's not right. And it's factually wrong what you're saying.

There are diabetics who have sedentary jobs for 8 hours a day and then after work get appropriate exercise. And casino food if chosen wisely can be some of the best you'll find anywhere.

When I was at the Old Homestead at Caesars the other night I asked for my Prime Rib to be seasoned with less salt (precaution after my kidney transplant) and it was and still was as marvelous as could be. Plenty of fresh vegetables... and the most magnificent baked Alaska that I ever had (not on the regular memo, it was a "special test item" since I was having dinner with a casino exec and they wanted us to test it. Yummy-- but not for diabetics. LOL

[regnis]

INCONSISTENT ARCI---every time I state that you ER'ers are saying that you will regress to the mean you say no--there is no regression to the mean. Yet, you say, and I quote, "Over time the ER acts much like a magnet and pulls the player toward it. " So in english, you are saying if I'm ahead short term, I will eventually lose it back as the ER, like a magnet, pulls me to it. That, my friend, is a regression to the mean. But since you keep telling me there is no regression to the mean, the math is meaningless. Again, it is probability, nothing more, and results may vary.

You see, you use the ER argument for your beloved math, but you can't have it both ways. If I am ahead, the magnet will make me lose. But since each hand is independent, the magnet aint workin. Sheeeeesh.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I really doubt that a professional vp player with a bankroll of tens of thousands of dollars -- sufficient to withstand the ups and downs of video poker -- is going to earn a living playing single line 25-cent poker. Can we get back to talking about reality, please?

Since I didn't say anything about "25-cent poker" why are you asking me? You are the one who quoted John's statement initiially. As far as reality goes you continue to deny it. You want to live in a fantasy world where 2+2=5. I can almost picture you and Singer with your tin-foil hats on skipping around a casino.

[arcimede$]

Oh Rob, stop it already about diabetics and casinos. It's old. It's not right. And it's factually wrong what you're saying.

There are diabetics who have sedentary jobs for 8 hours a day and then after work get appropriate exercise. And casino food if chosen wisely can be some of the best you'll find anywhere.

It's even worse than this. When we were in Las Vegas my wife had already had her transplant. She was no longer diabetic. It's a complete Emily Latella moment for Singer. The guy is so stupid he can't even get his attempted slams right after I've mentioned this many times. What a doofus.

Alan, you are right about casino food. We used to go to buffets quite often and only have fresh fruit and salads. Since it was free we didn't feel the need to "get our money's worth".

[arcimede$]

INCONSISTENT ARCI---every time I state that you ER'ers are saying that you will regress to the mean you say no--there is no regression to the mean. Yet, you say, and I quote, "Over time the ER acts much like a magnet and pulls the player toward it. " So in english, you are saying if I'm ahead short term, I will eventually lose it back as the ER, like a magnet, pulls me to it. That, my friend, is a regression to the mean. But since you keep telling me there is no regression to the mean, the math is meaningless. Again, it is probability, nothing more, and results may vary.

You see, you use the ER argument for your beloved math, but you can't have it both ways. If I am ahead, the magnet will make me lose. But since each hand is independent, the magnet aint workin. Sheeeeesh.

I'm not responsible for your lack of understanding. I can only shake my head. Let's see if I can make this simple enough. Lets say the ER of a machine is 100%. You have a good day and your return is 200%. You now have 4 average days at 100%. Assuming a constant rate of play, what is your return for the full 5 days? Well, that would be 200+100*4 = 600/5 = 120%. Oh look, you are moving towards the ER of 100%. Where will you be after 100 days at 100%? 200+100*100 = 10,200/101 = 100.1%. The more you play the closer you get. And, you never lost a single dime of that initial winning session. Hence, there was no regression to the mean.

This is really simple math. Sheeeeeesh.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm not responsible for your lack on understanding. I can only shake my head. Let's see if I can make this simple enough. Lets say the ER of a machine is 100%. You have a good day and your return is 200%. You now have 4 average days at 100%. What is your return for the full 5 days. Well, that would be 200+100*4 = 600/5 = 120%. Oh look, you are moving towards the ER of 100%. Where will you be after 100 days at 100%? 200+100*100 = 10,200/101 = 100.1%. The more you play the closer you. And, you never lost a single dime of that initial winning session. Hence, there was no regression to the mean.

This is really simple math. Sheeeeeesh.

I have this question, Arc: why do you assume that after having a day with a 200% actual return, that the player must have successive days or sessions with 100% returns? Why not have successive days of 110% and 105% or even another 200% return day? And on the flip side, what if the player has a zero return day and then another zero return day?

My observation of players is that either they win big and go home with cash, or they lose everything they budgeted while trying to hit something big. A player who loses their session bankroll each session will never see the ER of any video poker game whether that ER is 99.54% or 98% or whatever.

[arcimede$]

I have this question, Arc: why do you assume that after having a day with a 200% actual return, that the player must have successive days or sessions with 100% returns? Why not have successive days of 110% and 105% or even another 200% return day? And on the flip side, what if the player has a zero return day and then another zero return day?

Just trying to keep the math simple. I could have used 90, 110, 95 and 105. The results would have been the same. The point was that getting an average return in future play moves the overall average result toward the ER of the game.

My observation of players is that either they win big and go home with cash, or they lose everything they budgeted while trying to hit something big. A player who loses their session bankroll each session will never see the ER of any video poker game whether that ER is 99.54% or 98% or whatever.

Even when a player loses his session bankroll they still had winning hands and their return might not be all that bad. For example, say their bankroll is $100 and they are fortunate enough to play 5 hours at 800 hands/hour on a quarter machine (4000 total hands or $5000 coin in). If they lose that $100 bankroll they will have lost a total of $5000 while winning $4900 for a return of 98%. Heck, they could have been playing a 97% game and did better than the ER but still lost their bankroll.

[Alan Mendelson]

For example, say their bankroll is $100 and they are fortunate enough to play 5 hours at 800 hands/hour on a quarter machine (4000 total hands or $5000 coin in). If they lose that $100 bankroll they will have lost a total of $5000 while winning $4900 for a return of 98%. Heck, they could have been playing a 97% game and did better than the ER but still lost their bankroll.

Ummm.... I have a problem with your math. If I have a $100 bankroll, and at the end of my session I have ZERO even after winning 25-thousand hands in between, I would say my return was 0%.

Let me just go over this one more time:

In the example you gave us above you said: "If they lose that $100 bankroll they will have lost a total of $5000 while winning $4900 for a return of 98%." Huh????

When I have a $100 bankroll, and at the end have zero -- it doesn't matter what I won in between -- at the end of the session I have zero and my return is zero.

[arcimede$]

Ummm.... I have a problem with your math. If I have a $100 bankroll, and at the end of my session I have ZERO even after winning 25-thousand hands in between, I would say my return was 0%.

Let me just go over this one more time:

In the example you gave us above you said: "If they lose that $100 bankroll they will have lost a total of $5000 while winning $4900 for a return of 98%." Huh????

When I have a $100 bankroll, and at the end have zero -- it doesn't matter what I won in between -- at the end of the session I have zero and my return is zero.

Sorry Alan, that is not what expected return means. Expected return is how much of your money is returned, on average, for each bet. A better way to think about it might be to consider you brought $5000 into the casino to make the bets. You bet $1.25 at a time for 4000 hands. After all was said and done you cash out for $4900. Your return was 98% of your total bets.

So, what is the difference between the two situations? Mathematically ... nothing. They are identical. For a return to be zero you have to lose every hand. I think you are confusing ER with things like interest rates or return on investment. They aren't the same.

[regnis]

I quote arci again:

And, you never lost a single dime of that initial winning session. Hence, there was no regression to the mean.

So you went from 200% down to 120% but there was no regression. White man speak with forked tongue kimosabi.

[regnis]

So there is no regression---but you are drawn by the magnet down to the ER. Hmmmmmm--And who says he couldn't win more and draw away from the ER. A progression if you will. But no, you say he will be drawn to the ER but that it is not a regression.

Mea culpa!!!!

[regnis]

And Alan lost his whole bank roll but went home with $$$. Wow---Alan is the best player I know.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry Alan, that is not what expected return means. Expected return is how much of your money is returned, on average, for each bet.

That's correct Arc. ER is the amount of money is returned on average for each bet. So you CANNOT report as "ER" the session you wrote about above:

"If they lose that $100 bankroll they will have lost a total of $5000 while winning $4900 for a return of 98%." What you have here is not an example or an illustration of "expected return."

Your argument is a mish mosh of information, mished and moshed to try to prove your point, and at this point it doesn't prove anything. I dare you to show me the math that says quitting when ahead and leaving with a profit is bad. Show it to me -- and show it to everyone. And stop your mishing and moshing.

(ooh, I like that... mishing and moshing. Very Yiddish-like.)

[arcimede$]

I really thought you guys could understand simple math. I guess I overestimated your abilities. I explained it all in easy to understand terms. Of course, it requires you actually want to understand. Everything I said would be supported by any mathematician you care to ask.

And to top off this silly nonsense Alan repeats "show me the math that says quitting when ahead and leaving with a profit is bad." when I just told him recently that no one ever said it was bad. It simply makes no difference. I wonder how many times it will take before he actually reads my comments. Oh well, what should expect from total math illiterates?

[arcimede$]

I quote arci again:

And, you never lost a single dime of that initial winning session. Hence, there was no regression to the mean.

So you went from 200% down to 120% but there was no regression. White man speak with forked tongue kimosabi.

I did the math for you. Are you telling me you don't know how to read simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, let me suggest something: communications is a two-way street. And so far the street you are on has a big sign at one end that says "Do Not Enter." You are not communicating. I don't understand your math, your examples or your analogies. You might be a brilliant mathematician, but you ain't communicating.

[regnis]

In fairness to Arci, and because it even gets tiresome screwing with him, his example Alan, with the $4,900 and $5,000 is showing you a return on the total amount wagered, not on your bankroll of $100. So if you are able to wager 5,000 total from your 100 buy in, and when you are done you have lost your 100 bankroll, you had returned 4,900 over the course of that play. You have lost 2% of the total wagered, not 2% of your bankroll. So even tho you lost your $100, and thus your actual loss is 100%, the return based on wagering 5,000 is -2%.

Of course, only a mathematician would say he only lost 2%. You and I would say we lost 100%. And this is why he looks at a lifetime of play and we look at each session. Only one thing counts to me---how much is in my pocket when I leave the casino. I don't give a crap what my return was or what the ER was, or what the ER says I should have won or lost. And I don't care if I use a Singer special play going for the big hit once or twice a night because it cost me 3 cents over my lifetime.