Playing according to long term math

[Alan Mendelson]

why you can't stand to see pictures of my big winners that you'll obviously never be able to experience yourself.

Rob, I will never be able to match your pictures of big winners because I don't play at your high denominations. But I can probably match you -- picture for picture -- with "great wins" if you included my play at 25-cent and $1 games -- not to mention my dealt royal on a 50-play machine at 5-cents.

The point is -- you are not such a big winner. There are plenty of casino players at 25-cent games who have had more royals than you've had, and more big winning hands. Just on my last trip to Rincon I sat by a lady who hit two royals just ten minutes apart. I'm not sure what denomination she was playing but her machine started at 25-cents and went up to $1 and even the 25-cent royals need a hand pay.

[Alan Mendelson]

When my casino host came-(they now send them on the floor)- all she wanted to know was if I was getting my drinks served. She told me she wasn't there for my play results. Ha!

She wasn't there for your play results. She doesn't care if you win or lose. She is paid based on your coin-in and not if you win money or lose money. The casinos do not fear winning players because they know they will get the money back and if not from you than from another player. What is important to them is that you are having a "good time" and getting your drinks so you keep playing.

[Dan Druff]

My point is that there really is no "long term" because the long term is not "fixed" and the long term changes with each subsequent play.
The return that is posted on a machine is not a long term result, it is the expected return based on one play given the pay table that is available.

There is no "long term return." Every time you play one hand the long term return will change.

Alan, that is partially true, but the long term indicates what your odds are for winning for each hand played. And that's what's important. Sometimes you'll beat the odds, sometimes you will fall behind the odds, but as you play more, you will get closer and closer to the expected return.

You can't ignore the per-hand odds and say, "Well, I'll never reach the true long term, so who cares?"

That's like saying mountain climbing and spending the day at the library don't have a considerable difference in danger, as a few people have died in library fires over the years, and most people survive mountain climbing, so each instance of library visitation and mountain climbing each carry their own chance of death, and you shouldn't worry about the long-term odds of dying in either of them.

[Dan Druff]

She wasn't there for your play results. She doesn't care if you win or lose. She is paid based on your coin-in and not if you win money or lose money. The casinos do not fear winning players because they know they will get the money back and if not from you than from another player. What is important to them is that you are having a "good time" and getting your drinks so you keep playing.

Alan, maybe you can answer this one. I agree with the above assessment, but there's something I've always wondered regarding host compensation.

When they pay hosts a commission on your play, do they subtract the comps you're redeeming?

I ask this because I play irregularly, but still enough to hit Seven Stars (which, as you know, is a minimum of $500,000 VP coin-in). However, if I make a few trips without play, my hosts get very frustrated. In fact, I got "fired" from my host recently and transferred to another one (this host is still there, btw, so it's not a matter of her quitting). Also, hosts tend to want to do NOTHING for me, to the point where it is clear they would really prefer I don't come at all.

This leaves me perplexed, as I do put $500k of coin-in through by the end of the year, and others who play less get treated better.

I don't think I am being persecuted or singled out. I think that it has to do with the number of comps I'm redeeming, and that it absolutely destroys any commission the hosts can get from me.

Any insight on this?

[Alan Mendelson]

but the long term indicates what your odds are for winning for each hand played.

Read what you wrote because that is the essence of the confusion.

You wrote "the long term indicates what your odds are for winning for each hand played." That is not correct.
The long term has nothing to do with the odds for winning each hand played. The odds of winning each hand played is only the odds for that hand.

The "long term" payback is actually nothing more than an extrapolation of the overall payback on each hand based on the pays. And it is not correct to make that extrapolation. Let me explain:

Let's take a 9/6 Jacks game with a "theoretical return" of 99.6%. On each and every hand the theoretical return is 99.6% but that doesn't mean over the long term I will have a return of 99.6% does it?

In fact, if I had a million dollar bankroll and kept playing a 99.6% return game I would be left with ZERO money. This is because if you keep losing 0.4% hand after hand eventually your money will all be gone.

So, to say that the long term of a 9/6 Jacks game is 99.6% is absolutely wrong. In fact, the "long term" of playing a 9/6 Jacks Game is zero.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, maybe you can answer this one. I agree with the above assessment, but there's something I've always wondered regarding host compensation.

When they pay hosts a commission on your play, do they subtract the comps you're redeeming?

I ask this because I play irregularly, but still enough to hit Seven Stars (which, as you know, is a minimum of $500,000 VP coin-in). However, if I make a few trips without play, my hosts get very frustrated. In fact, I got "fired" from my host recently and transferred to another one (this host is still there, btw, so it's not a matter of her quitting). Also, hosts tend to want to do NOTHING for me, to the point where it is clear they would really prefer I don't come at all.

This leaves me perplexed, as I do put $500k of coin-in through by the end of the year, and others who play less get treated better.

I don't think I am being persecuted or singled out. I think that it has to do with the number of comps I'm redeeming, and that it absolutely destroys any commission the hosts can get from me.

Any insight on this?

I don't really know if "comps" are used to figure a host's bonuses or pay. My guess is that it's not. However, hosts also have to follow the guidelines of the company and if the company says you don't give "extra comps" to lower level players then it makes sense that the host doesn't offer extra comps.

Hosts want to keep their jobs more than make players happy. Many casinos have cut the number of hosts and assigned more players to each remaining host making the job of being a host even more difficult.

I once had a "problem" at Caesars and I wrote about it before:

My sister-in-law was at Caesars and told her host (not mine) that I was staying with her in her room and because she said that her host tapped my comp account to cover some of her room charges. When I discovered my comp credits were missing I started asking questions and discovered what happened.

I was presented with two options:
1. Say nothing and let it slide.
2. Complain and the host would have been fired, but I would have had my comps restored.

I decided to say nothing and let it slide. The comp dollars meant little to me. And I got a chance to "chew out" my sister-in-law.... and that was "priceless."

But there was another concern which I discussed with my host: by allowing my comps to be used, I was also charged with a visit which hurt my daily theoretical average. Because I had ZERO play (since I wasn't there). My host said to me that yes, it would affect my theo, but one time would not do any damage. My host said there were times when a player would show up, become ill, and never go down to the casino.

The question is how many times do you do this?

If you use a casino hotel as a place to sleep and a place to take advantage of comped meals but don't play -- and do it several times -- YES you will get a big red flag. If it happens once and otherwise you are a "good player" then it's not a problem.

About two months ago I started to cut down on my play at Rincon -- and now my weekly offers have been cut from my previous $150 down to $75. And I don't use any other comps at Rincon... never stayed in the hotel. These offers are generated by computer.

So the bottom line is that you get your offers by the computer, and a host is not going to risk his job for a player who doesn't play.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I will never be able to match your pictures of big winners because I don't play at your high denominations. But I can probably match you -- picture for picture -- with "great wins" if you included my play at 25-cent and $1 games -- not to mention my dealt royal on a 50-play machine at 5-cents.

The point is -- you are not such a big winner. There are plenty of casino players at 25-cent games who have had more royals than you've had, and more big winning hands. Just on my last trip to Rincon I sat by a lady who hit two royals just ten minutes apart. I'm not sure what denomination she was playing but her machine started at 25-cents and went up to $1 and even the 25-cent royals need a hand pay.

Oh Alan, when will you ever come to the realization that I train people to win at any combination of denominations, pennies on up.

I know there are many many more winners out there than me, but I won a net $200,000 in 2013, not counting any slot club fluff. The amount is what's important, not how many royals someone gets. And sure, there's players who've won more than me in 2013. The question then is, have they been consistent big winners for at least 10 straight years?

[quahaug]

Read what you wrote because that is the essence of the confusion.

You wrote "the long term indicates what your odds are for winning for each hand played." That is not correct.
The long term has nothing to do with the odds for winning each hand played. The odds of winning each hand played is only the odds for that hand.

The "long term" payback is actually nothing more than an extrapolation of the overall payback on each hand based on the pays. And it is not correct to make that extrapolation. Let me explain:

Let's take a 9/6 Jacks game with a "theoretical return" of 99.6%. On each and every hand the theoretical return is 99.6% but that doesn't mean over the long term I will have a return of 99.6% does it?

In fact, if I had a million dollar bankroll and kept playing a 99.6% return game I would be left with ZERO money. This is because if you keep losing 0.4% hand after hand eventually your money will all be gone.

So, to say that the long term of a 9/6 Jacks game is 99.6% is absolutely wrong. In fact, the "long term" of playing a 9/6 Jacks Game is zero.

The expectation isn't to win $0, it's to LOSE everything. Big difference.

[Count Room]

The expectation isn't to win $0, it's to LOSE everything. Big difference.

This is why Rob has said we should do the opposite of the casino's expectation so we can win!

[arcimede$]

My point is that there really is no "long term" because the long term is not "fixed" and the long term changes with each subsequent play.
The return that is posted on a machine is not a long term result, it is the expected return based on one play given the pay table that is available.

There is no "long term return." Every time you play one hand the long term return will change.

Not relevant. All that matters is your probable return. While the pay table provides information about the long term, it also provides information about your most probable future results no matter how much you play. If you don't like the words "long term" then don't use them. The fact remains the same. The pay table provides the best information to determine your future results.

[arcimede$]

The "long term" payback is actually nothing more than an extrapolation of the overall payback on each hand based on the pays. And it is not correct to make that extrapolation. Let me explain:

Let's take a 9/6 Jacks game with a "theoretical return" of 99.6%. On each and every hand the theoretical return is 99.6% but that doesn't mean over the long term I will have a return of 99.6% does it?

In fact, if I had a million dollar bankroll and kept playing a 99.6% return game I would be left with ZERO money. This is because if you keep losing 0.4% hand after hand eventually your money will all be gone.

So, to say that the long term of a 9/6 Jacks game is 99.6% is absolutely wrong. In fact, the "long term" of playing a 9/6 Jacks Game is zero.

You are misusing or confusing terms. A return of 99.6% means the game will return .996 dollars for every dollar bet. To lose a million dollars also means you would have winning hands totaling 249 million dollars. So, both claims are true. You will receive 99.6% of bets and you could lose a million dollars if you gamble a large amount of money. Once again you are confusing bankroll with amount gambled.

PS. In some venues that amount of play could produce more than a million dollars worth of comps/cashback/etc.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, if I lose .004 of every dollar bet, bet after bet after bet after bet... I'm eventually not going to have any dollars left to bet.

[quahaug]

Arc, if I lose .004 of every dollar bet, bet after bet after bet after bet... I'm eventually not going to have any dollars left to bet.

Of course, which is why without an infinite bankroll you will eventually lose everything.

[arcimede$]

Arc, if I lose .004 of every dollar bet, bet after bet after bet after bet... I'm eventually not going to have any dollars left to bet.

Only if you have a static bankroll. If you have a job then that .004 might be .001% of your income and simply part of your recreational expenses. Once again, bankroll and return are two different things. I've told you before that anything less than 100% is a losing proposition, so we in agreement on that issue. However, the less negative a game, the less money you will likely lose for the same amount of gambling.

[Rob.Singer]

Only if you have a static bankroll. If you have a job then that .004 might be .001% of your income and simply part of your recreational expenses. Once again, bankroll and return are two different things. I've told you before that anything less than 100% is a losing proposition, so we in agreement on that issue. However, the less negative a game, the less money you will likely lose for the same amount of gambling.

That's just funny. Tell that to the guy who just hit the 5c royal flush. Tell that to me every time I leave the casinos with tens of thousands of their former money after hitting large winners on "-EV" machines. I'd like to see a video of you saying all that nonsense while trying to keep a straight face. Oops! I guess that's why you're stuck in retirement nightmare. Everything's in a virtual reality loop from here on out. It's gotta be all theory, because you can't handle the taste of reality. Come to think of it, even theory hasn't been that kind to you

[HKMHORNS]

Rob, just curious if you ever use your methods on slot machines instead of video poker? It seems slots would work much better with many more denom options and obviously -EV doesn't matter so don't have to worry about that.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think Rob recognizes the reality of negative expectation machines, but Rob's strategy is that if you cash out after you win on a negative expectation machine that it is then possible to "go home" a winner. The basics of this strategy is that even on neg expectation machines you can having winning hands or winning plays.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, just curious if you ever use your methods on slot machines instead of video poker? It seems slots would work much better with many more denom options and obviously -EV doesn't matter so don't have to worry about that.

First, what Alan says is pretty much correct.

I have never played slots outside of the occasional couple hundred dollars when passing by a very high Megabucks progressive hoping for insane luck to strike. Slots don't come in any more denoms. than vp, except for the mostly for-show $500 & $1000 machines I've seen. Their frequency of hits aren't compatible with what I started out to do, and besides, I don't really know a lot about them.

[slingshot]

Rob, just curious if you ever use your methods on slot machines instead of video poker? It seems slots would work much better with many more denom options and obviously -EV doesn't matter so don't have to worry about that.

Since my wife loves the penny machines, we play if I have a big vp day-she loves the sounds and entertainment. I have hit some really nice ones using a simular strategy and the idea came to me as I was studying the machines and their seemingly apparent programs. The only problem I had was the casino action at the time and here we go back to cold and hot cycles. On some days it just doesn't happen. But as far as strategy, on days the action seems to be there I may progress from 50/$1/$2 AFTER every five spins. On so-called normal days, I just go 50/$1 and progress every 10 plays. Since I'm there for the short term,I've had the best luck leaving after 20 spins. Once we only had $20 free play so I came up with this: 5 spins and take whatever was won or lost. If enough won for 5 more spins then take them If bonus round hit, leave with whatever was won.We had played for 2 hours and We were down to $3 whenever we put the remainder in a 30 cent machine and her first spin blanked out the whole screen with wildies? and we left with over $100. As for the regular slots, I found them more akin to playing a megabucks machine-you just have to be there at the right time-and they're boring.

[arcimede$]

That's just funny. Tell that to the guy who just hit the 5c royal flush. Tell that to me every time I leave the casinos with tens of thousands of their former money after hitting large winners on "-EV" machines. I'd like to see a video of you saying all that nonsense while trying to keep a straight face. Oops! I guess that's why you're stuck in retirement nightmare. Everything's in a virtual reality loop from here on out. It's gotta be all theory, because you can't handle the taste of reality. Come to think of it, even theory hasn't been that kind to you

The vast majority of gamblers don't stop when they hit a big winner, eventually they will lose all that royal and more. Unlike you, they are more than willing to admit this reality. The fact you keep spewing your idiotic nonsense only makes you look foolish.