Sorry if I'm intruding here....

[slingshot]

I had heard that Rob was gonna put some new info on vp-have I missed it? Thanks.

[arcimede$]

Lol lol lol.

[Rob.Singer]

I had heard that Rob was gonna put some new info on vp-have I missed it? Thanks.

Well, sling, you see--it's like this: Rob's enjoying his retirement by doing a bunch of exploring on the Oregon Coast these days with his wife (who's not on organ machines or running back & forth to drug stores because her hubby didn't care enuf to keep her out of casinos when healthier options were definitely available) and we travel a lot. So please do what everyone else here does--savor the sacred moments when I DO offer up valuable info, and treat them as teachable moments.

[mickeycrimm]

I had heard that Rob was gonna put some new info on vp-have I missed it? Thanks.

Rob doesn't know anything about video poker.

[ThomasClines]

Progressions are good if tamed enough in various ways. You want to be able and allowed to progress in blackjack, but not in malignant ways when conditions aren't so great. (You want the casinos to see you as another slot machine.)

It still all comes down to playing for the averages while avoiding the extremes. And, progressions play a key role in this. (If you can't avoid the extremes, give it up.)

One way to spot the braggers from the real thing. People w/o real edges don't take the time and make the effort to devise and apply the correct relevant MM.

[Alan Mendelson]

ThomasClines, I am afraid that your post above is too cryptic for me. I wish you would take the time to spell out your thoughts with more info and detail so I can follow your thoughts. I am sure there are some who do, but I don't.

[quahaug]

ThomasClines, I am afraid that your post above is too cryptic for me. I wish you would take the time to spell out your thoughts with more info and detail so I can follow your thoughts. I am sure there are some who do, but I don't.

Exactly. What the ..... is this guy talking about?

[ThomasClines]

It still all comes down to playing for the averages while avoiding the extremes. And, progressions play a key role in this. (If you can't avoid the extremes, give it up.)

Alan, thanks for the questions. I will try to make some of these things clearer, as I have the time.

But, we'll have to put up with the naysayers and haters. It's not their fault, we live in a climate of "divide and conquer" of the poor. Where it's okay for the rich to cooperate. After all, when you have what you want, it's a good time to advocate for peace. By which the yes-men latch onto to vainly curry favor. That's the society in which we live.

I will explain this first part of the quote in the context the game of baccarat. There are two decided outcomes, player (P), and banker (B).

The games are dealt from a shoe of 8 standard decks, of 416 cards in total. There are on average about 72 decided games, and 8 ties, in each shoe. Banker has a tiny 1.36% edge over the player, but pays a commission of 5% to offset that edge, and to provide the house with an overall edge on both types of outcome.

Statistically, there are many more shoes of the average numbers of P's, and B's. Very few shoes are dominated by either P's, or B's; or long streaks of either.

You can sit there and play only the banker, and that will average out to winning half the time fairly quickly as most of the shoes are average shoes. Or, you can mix it up, and allow for the possibility of a lot of wins, or a lot of losses. (The P's, and B's, will almost always come PP B PPP B P BBBB PP B ... . So, you can see what will happen if you bet only P, or only B, or mix it up. Only by mixing it up are you more often likely to win a lot, or lose a lot.)

The importance of trying to set yourself to win a lot, or lose a lot, is that card counting in baccarat is only 1/9th as effective as in blackjack. Not normally enough to be a determining factor. But, what if you had to avoid only the worst shoes, given whichever system of selection of the P's, and B's? (Here, mixing up the P's and B's guesses to try to extend your variances.) The shoes which come along say only 1/10th of the time.

As it turns out, anyway, there are better ways of determining the really bad shoes than by card counting. But card counting is the way of the blackjack authors, most of whom never played a day in their lives, because it's sexier to sell the idea of "divide and conquer" (which actually amounts to grinding it out while living alone on beans in the back of your Ford truck), just like the casinos sell it.

Hence, the questionable feedback of the Vegas Vic's and quahaug's who would rather their safe and secure little worlds remain intact. It's a lot easier to sit at home alone, and wield extreme and empty criticisms, than to begin to admit to having become a "product of the system". And, a lot easier to wreck something to try to help build it up.

As for the extreme of cooperation of all the casino players, every single one of them would experience an improved EV. Guaranteed. You can go a step beyond that basic result. Eg, arrange for fair zero-commission baccarat games, etc, for which any sort of card counting works. You can even do it live online with enhanced screen-sharing technology.

Fighting each other isn't the answer. Sure, no amount of Game Theory or common sense will matter a "hoot" if the masses "do as they please". I'm not here to try to change that.

The above may be transcribed to slots. Mixing it up to mean different machines. There is an average amount that each player will put into a bank of machines. So, why put the money in simultaneously? The machines don't know which person plays before the other. Play for the average amounts to win sequentially using your best actual strategies to avoid the extremes.

Don't play lottery-type games in which there is only one prize regardless the number of winners, and it's so easy for the thing to get played over and over because the players can't coordinate their selections. There will tend to be a lot of numbers which are played many times, and a few numbers which are rarely played, even when the selections are randomized. The casino games are as well-engineered in the interest of their "bottom line". Sometimes to prevent the coordination of information; sometimes to prevent the randomization of, depending on the game.


P.S. Thanks. Feel free to ask further questions. That should be the reason that we're all here.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm sorry. I still don't know what you're talking about.

[ThomasClines]

No one can do the work for you.

Certainly, under 12 minutes isn't a sincere attempt.


BTW, you're welcome.

Carry on.

[Alan Mendelson]

No one can do the work for you.

Certainly, under 12 minutes isn't a sincere attempt.

Sorry, I don't have to decipher articles in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. I certainly shouldn't have to decipher posts in an online forum.

[coach belly]

Maybe you can give this flake his own personal thread too so he can stop clogging up every single other thread.

[quahaug]

Maybe you can give this flake his own personal thread too so he can stop clogging up every single other thread.

Agree. This guy is either an idiot or a genius. I'm to dumb to figure out which.

[ThomasClines]

This guy is either an idiot or a genius.

I'd be more concerned about the others.

Maybe you can give this flake his own personal thread too so he can stop clogging up every single other thread.

You're free to state your own beliefs. Nobody's stopped you.

Sorry, I don't have to decipher articles in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.

Good grief, Alan.

I take it that you're one of the prolific speed readers too? I'll let you in on another secret... that doesn't work either. Obviously.

Sorry, if I haven't properly deciphered your reply, but I tried.

[mickeycrimm]

I'm sorry. I still don't know what you're talking about.

He's a Bac player, Alan. That tells me everything I need to know. These Bac guys use convoluted logic to fool themselves into thinking they have some kind of edge in the game. He's trying to apply his Bac logic to machines.

[slingshot]

Well, sling, you see--it's like this: Rob's enjoying his retirement by doing a bunch of exploring on the Oregon Coast these days with his wife (who's not on organ machines or running back & forth to drug stores because her hubby didn't care enuf to keep her out of casinos when healthier options were definitely available) and we travel a lot. So please do what everyone else here does--savor the sacred moments when I DO offer up valuable info, and treat them as teachable moments.

That's OK
I still think the article ''What's wrong with a positive progression?" just about covers it all-especially if you followed all the others.

[Quad AAAA's]

Bac player or Smack player. This guy thinks he's Calvin Kline.

[arcimede$]

I'm sorry. I still don't know what you're talking about.

That's because it is all gibberish. There was a group of folks that created a computer program with all kinds of scientific phrases embedded. The program would combine them to produce scientific sounding papers which were submitted to journals. Many of those papers were accepted even though the papers were also pure gibberish. When this was revealed those journals were quite embarrassed.

And, what does "mixing it up" mean? It has no meaning as he never specifies a method. It is just more gibberish.

Look at the use of many words that are completely ambiguous. Words like "cooperation". He doesn't specify any actual set of events that are needed to "cooperate". That's a dead give way he is scamming you.

You recognize this at some level which is why you said what you did.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, remember Professor Irwin Corey?

[ThomasClines]

Why? We all lose. Don't we? I've never had a full year showing a profit.

Wow! Then what are we doing here? Trying to be

... Calvin Kline.

He's a Bac player, Alan. That tells me everything I need to know. These Bac guys use convoluted logic to fool themselves into thinking they have some kind of edge in the game. He's trying to apply his Bac logic to machines.

I seem to recall having mentioned a few other games as well. Certainly, I've played 'em all.


That's the thing about logic and/or gibberish, and analogies... you take out "more birds with one stone".

But, the problems of misconception, laziness, etc, tend usually to arise of "eating and drinking the same stuff" day after day.

(Like $10 Ripple for the fortified buzz.)


In case you aren't following me, I spoke figuratively.

Concepts are a good thing too, before you actually get down to the "nuts and bolts" of something.

Sure beats the popular video excerpts for a substitute for the inability to express yourselves.

Cummulative IQ is a number too. And, "you catch more flies with honey".

But, you're left with flies.