What was the "big argument" all about?

[Alan Mendelson]

Now that things have settled down, I had some time to reflect on the "big argument." And I wonder this: Had he written a book that was titled "How I Beat The Casinos For $90,000 A Year By Playing My Way" and explained what he did and all along acknowledged that it is not the "accepted way of playing" would there have been such rancor?

[Vegas_lover]

Really Alan, things have settled down and there's nothing else Vegas related you can start a topic about? Need another storm?

But to answer your question: It wouldn't have changed a thing because the biggest problem is Mr. Singer's personallity. We have tried discussing his "system" with him and the only replies you get are insults and provocations. When the book as you mention it was discussed at several internet forums, people would have asked critical questions. They also would have questioned the truth of the story. Questioning anything Mr. Singer says will get you insults and provocations. The end result would be the same.

[arcimede$]

Putting lies in a book doesn't change anything. If he made the same statements he's made in the past then the results would be the same. Once again, no one cares about Singer's past results. True or false. It's his claims no one can win playing optimally on positive return games but you can win playing negative games with his system that get him in trouble.

[redietz]

I want to comment on what arcimedes just said. I'm not sure Singer has ever argued that nobody can win using advantage play. He just argues that almost nobody does, which is true enough, if by "almost nobody" one means the majority of self-defined advantage players or players who buy the advantage play software and books. Singer also argues that some of the big names in vp are not really winners, which is unlikely. However, it is true that the big names have access to perks and cashback rates that 99% of vp players do not, and those perks and cashback may be the difference between winning and losing.

It's also not the case that "noone cares" about Singer's results. The facts are that whatever his track record (or alleged track record) that gets advertised -- the general public cares. I suggest, if arcimedes wants to see truly outlandish nonsense that makes Singer pale in comparison, that he get his hands on the opening month of USA Today when it first appeared and examine the multiple full pages of outrageous and ridiculous sports service ads claiming 80% and better winners. People care about past performance -- real or otherwise. If somebody is simply on the wild outskirts of the bell curve due to "random walking," the public will buy their stuff and believe regardless of the math or the projections forward. So if Singer has won as he claims, people will try his method regardless of the math.

[redietz]

The idea of Singer's stuff in a book made me think for a moment. I'd love to read that baby. It would probably wind up on reading lists for college stat classes, as in "find the problems with this." Those special plays would make a fine set of exercises, as arcimedes has demonstrated. Anyway, that thought led me to realize why the title and sub-title of Dancer's book are so (editorially) precious. "Million Dollar Video Poker" doesn't say who won anything. The sub-heading about "How I turned 6K into...." also doesn't state that it was Dancer who won the one million. He "danced" around the fact that his partner, who he was not married to at the time, was the person who won the half-million on the big stab at high stakes. She did the actual big winning, but the tricky title and sub-heading language sort of, kind of suggest something else. Now arcimedes, if you were his editor, would you have signed off on that bit of advertising sleight-of-mind? Or would you have told him to man up and state the truth?

[arcimede$]

Singer has stated many times that NO ONE wins playing positive machines.

The chances that Singer has won what he claims is around .03%. I think I'd opt for a few nice bridges before I'd take Singer's word for anything.

As for Dancer's book ... not really relevant. The same argument could be made of any team play.

[Alan Mendelson]

arcimede$ wrote: "Singer has stated many times that NO ONE wins playing positive machines."

redietz wrote: "I'm not sure Singer has ever argued that nobody can win using advantage play. He just argues that almost nobody does, which is true enough, if by "almost nobody" one means the majority of self-defined advantage players or players who buy the advantage play software and books."

My thought: The way I understand it, Singer says no one is a long term player, which means you can't see the long term on the machines playing the long term strategy.

[arcimede$]

My thought: The way I understand it, Singer says no one is a long term player, which means you can't see the long term on the machines playing the long term strategy.

Except for the fact that optimal play isn't a long term strategy. That's another one of Singer's lies. It's just as much a short term strategy as any. The difference between results for various people is due to variance. One could take up Singer's progression and lose their first 5 sessions. They could quickly be $250K in the hole. At the same time another person could play by the math and hit 3 RFs their first time out. Both of these are possible results.

No approach guarantees wins. And, if you truly wanted increases in session wins then optimal play on positive games using a progression is the best bet.

In addition, I've shown you conclusively that's Singer's strategy doesn't even go for quick wins as a rule. It's just a mish-mash of plays with no real theme. What one might call pure nonsense.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've been thinking about this statement by arcimede$ -- "optimal play isn't a long term strategy."

This is a very interesting comment because it applies to things besides video poker. For example, it applies to the stock market.

Decades ago the basic advice for the stock market was to "buy and hold" but after the crash of 1987 the concept of long term investing in the stock market went out the window. In 1987 financial advisers woke up to realize that the baby can be thrown out with the bathwater and even good stocks can go down. "A rising tide lifts all boats" was a familiar phrase for stock market investors in the 1970s and early 80s, and now we know that a tidal wave can even sink the big boats.

So getting back to the phrase: "optimal play isn't a long term strategy." In the stock market it is best to use "optimal play" which can be defined as research, technical analysis, etc., but be ready to bolt from a stock.

As one of my favorite stock analysts said after the crash of 1987, "your stocks are not your children and they are not members of the family -- it is OK to sell them."

Well, I think the same approach can be made with video poker. When the game is going against you it's OK to stop playing and save your ammo for another day.

So a new question: does an "advantage player" recognize a losing streak and cuts his losses? Or do you keep playing knowing that the math says "your day will come" ??

Some stocks never recovered from the crash of '87, and some portfolios didn't either.

[arcimede$]

I've been thinking about this statement by arcimede$ -- "optimal play isn't a long term strategy."

This is a very interesting comment because it applies to things besides video poker. For example, it applies to the stock market.

Decades ago the basic advice for the stock market was to "buy and hold" but after the crash of 1987 the concept of long term investing in the stock market went out the window. In 1987 financial advisers woke up to realize that the baby can be thrown out with the bathwater and even good stocks can go down. "A rising tide lifts all boats" was a familiar phrase for stock market investors in the 1970s and early 80s, and now we know that a tidal wave can even sink the big boats.

So getting back to the phrase: "optimal play isn't a long term strategy." In the stock market it is best to use "optimal play" which can be defined as research, technical analysis, etc., but be ready to bolt from a stock.

As one of my favorite stock analysts said after the crash of 1987, "your stocks are not your children and they are not members of the family -- it is OK to sell them."

Well, I think the same approach can be made with video poker. When the game is going against you it's OK to stop playing and save your ammo for another day.

So a new question: does an "advantage player" recognize a losing streak and cuts his losses? Or do you keep playing knowing that the math says "your day will come" ??

Some stocks never recovered from the crash of '87, and some portfolios didn't either.

The stock market analogy is a poor one. VP odds don't change for any given paytable. There is no emotion, etc. changing your expectation. In addition, when dealing with randomness you NEVER know when a bad streak will end or a good one will start. By stopping play you are assuming you KNOW what is coming next. That is nonsense. If you want to base your gambling on nonsense then that is your choice. But, those who understand the game realize all you can do is place your next bet. Today, tomorrow or next year makes no difference in the expectation. The only things you control are the games you choose and the strategy you employ.

I keep thinking one day you'll figure that out, Alan ...

[Alan Mendelson]

...when dealing with randomness you NEVER know when a bad streak will end or a good one will start. By stopping play you are assuming you KNOW what is coming next. That is nonsense. If you want to base your gambling on nonsense then that is your choice. But, those who understand the game realize all you can do is place your next bet. Today, tomorrow or next year makes no difference in the expectation. The only things you control are the games you choose and the strategy you employ.

I keep thinking one day you'll figure that out, Alan ...

Let me play devil's advocate: So, you don't cut your losses or have a daily or session limit? Do you play to the point of bankruptcy because the "next bet" might start you winning?

How do you decide when to "call it quits" for the day or session or trip?

[redietz]

I think we have a disagreement in basic terminology here. I think Arc and I basically start with a bankroll that represents a huge number of (in his case) sessions or (in my case) wagers. If I lose 10 games in a row, oh well, that isn't going to gut my bankroll -- it'll do some damage, but I'm not broke. I think it's a question of scale. If what you're doing works, then win goals and loss goals and all that don't matter. All that matters is that what you're doing works.

Recreational gambling is completely different. People start each trip or session with a chunk of money, and the amount played that trip or session represents a big chunk of that bankroll. In fact, it represents, after total wagers are tallied, much more than the starting stake. Almost by definition, risk of ruin comes into play each time a recreational gambler applies his recreational bankroll to his session. Recreational players don't generally drag 40K into a casino to play 25-cent video poker, but that, in essence, is what professionals are doing, so the whole win goal/loss goal idea becomes irrelevant for pros.

[arcimede$]

Let me play devil's advocate: So, you don't cut your losses or have a daily or session limit? Do you play to the point of bankruptcy because the "next bet" might start you winning?

How do you decide when to "call it quits" for the day or session or trip?

I take enough money that will get me through about 95% of the sessions I play. If I lose that I leave. In a way it becomes a stop loss amount but that is not the real intent. I just don't like carrying any more money than I need to. If I gambled more I would probably start using an ATM.

[Alan Mendelson]

I take enough money that will get me through about 95% of the sessions I play.

You got me scratching my head on this-- what do you mean by "enough money" to get you through 95% of the sessions?

What do you mean by getting you through? What does the 95% accomplish? What is enough money to do that?

So that I may understand, let's say you're playing 8/5 Bonus at the $1 level. I use that as an example since it's a game I know and understand. I know you play one-eyed jacks but I know nothing about that game.

thanks.

[arcimede$]

You got me scratching my head on this-- what do you mean by "enough money" to get you through 95% of the sessions?

What do you mean by getting you through? What does the 95% accomplish? What is enough money to do that?

So that I may understand, let's say you're playing 8/5 Bonus at the $1 level. I use that as an example since it's a game I know and understand. I know you play one-eyed jacks but I know nothing about that game.

thanks.

Enough money means I will only lose it all about once in every 20 sessions. OEJs plays more like DDB, ie. it is quite volatile. If it were BP then I could take a lot less. Of course, I would never play 8/5 BP without significant CB, BB, etc.

Also, remember my session is only 6 hours in a single day. It is not a multi-day trip. If it were, then "enough money" would be higher.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks arcimede$. So do you stop playing at the six hour point win, lose or draw? Is this time limit how you determine your session vs. A win goal or stop loss? Last night I played for about six hours as well but my "stop point" was either hitting a royal (I didn't) or reaching my loss limit (I had a profitable session thankfully) or leaving with a certain amount of profit. I left after hitting quads that brought me up to that certain $ amount.

[arcimede$]

I start getting tired after 3-4 hours. So, my 6 hour session consists of two sub-sessions with a break between. After two of these I know my accuracy will start to fall off. So, I quit at that point. It has nothing to do with results. All hands have an equal expectation. It doesn't matter when I play. However, it takes about 50 minutes to go and another 50 to return so I like to get in enough play to make it worthwhile.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arcimede$ one more question:

Since you are playing as if every hand has the same "expected value" what happens when you change denominations of the game? Obviously your starting bankroll has to change with a different denomination. But how does the "new expected value" of the different denomination factor into your overall, long term game?

A simple example is that you play 25-cent video poker for four sessions but on the fifth session you switch to $1.

Or, do you not mix the two, and you keep separate records for each denomination played? As well as different records for each game and each pay table played?

[arcimede$]

I rarely mix denominations. The only times I have done lately it is when all the machines I play at the dollar level are busy. That happened once in the last 2+ years. In the past it was different. I would keep records of each denomination separately as well as different games. My spreadsheet is set up to handle all of that.