How do you "withdraw" or hold the "soft profits"? And what is a "soft profit"?
Am I constantly cashing out and then putting money back into the machine?
How do you "withdraw" or hold the "soft profits"? And what is a "soft profit"?
Am I constantly cashing out and then putting money back into the machine?
No you're not. You begin by your meter reading $200. Say you get two pair on your very first hand on quarters. Your meter briefly went down to $198.75, but after the win it reads $201.25. The $1.25 is soft profit. You don't cash out, just keep playing, collecting these little (or big in some cases) soft profits until the meter reads at least $250. THEN you cash out, put $200 in and start again if you like (unless your meter reads $400+, in which case you play another day--but you theoretically could start a new session all over again of course, which many do but not me).
That was a good question, Alan. I oft wondered the best way to do that. Thanks.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I am still not sure about this. Suppose after the first win of $1.25 I hit a ten-hand losing streak. Didn't I just lose my "soft profit" of $1.25 ?? If I started at $200 and at anytime I am below that haven't I already lost all soft profits?Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It would make more sense if I deposited $1.25 for each and every hand I played (with tickets only that would be a problem) and then kept the wins from each individual play. (I guess I could ask the cage to print up a hundred tickets for $1.25 each.)
Wrong and very wrong. If you lose 10 straight hands then you're losing from the $200, not from the $201.25, because you will never, ever risk that $1.25 soft profit. That $1.25 means you now only need $48.75 in other soft profits to meet your minimum win goal. I do it all in my head, most use pen and paper to keep track, and a few cash out every time they get a soft profit then stick in a couple hundies to start again.
Your second statement makes no sense to do if you understand the strategy.
Okay, I am starting to understand this better. But....
What good does it do to preserve a $1.25 soft profit when I lose the next ten hands which cost me $12.50 ??
Because it is very probable that you will still make another $1.25 minimum soft profit after losing $12.50 or even after losing $200 or more. That's the purpose of going up in both denomination as well as game volatility, and that's part of the purpose for those special plays.
Alan, I find it easiest to just remember your lowest level total. If your highest level gives you, say a full house on the first hand and you now get to return to start- just notice the new meter reading and keep that total in your head and know that you must at least surpass it by $1.25 as you restart. I just keep repeating this. After a while, the whole process goes fairly rapidly.
Okay, here's the problem as I see it. As soon as Rob commits one of his systems to a set of flow chart instructions, anyone could program a simulation running those instructions and demonstrate the non-value. So Rob is going to have to insert some human factor, some subjective judgement that prevents simulations from mimicking what he does. Or he's going to have to refuse to commit instructions to paper. I don't see any easy way around these issues.
Please explain that further. ARTT is very straightforward. No "human factors" involved, unless you aren't smart enuf to comprehend the special plays.Originally Posted by redietz
If you're confused as every critic turns out to be (just see arci's painful post in the other thread) and really want to go after SPS, I'd understand. But why try simulations when they make no sense and are inherently incomplete? I train for free, and just as with the wizard and poor Frank Kneeland, when the session of proof gets close (and it wasn't even a bet with Frank) the critics suddenly have some other emergency to "take care of".
To me the whole thing would be easier if I just did this:
1. Set a win goal for the session of XX-dollars. Once you reach the win goal you leave. Let's say it's $100.
2. Start with $100 at 25-cents. If you fail to reach win goal of $100 go to step 3.
3. Start with $200 at 50-cents. If you fail to have total win goal of $300 go to step 4.
And so forth...
This banking of soft profits even as you lose just doesn't make sense to me. Whether it's soft profits or new money coming out of my wallet, it's still my money.
You still don't understand. What you described is not a structured strategy--it's guesswork and it's lazy. And you especially don't understand the reason behind soft profit, only because you don't really want to. You keep insisting that I'm playing soft profits yet that is never the case. The reason they're called "soft" is because they are not true profit until when combined, then they are.
I don't expect you'll ever be able to wrap your mind around this and I do not believe you would ever do the work needed to play any of my strategies successfully. It's just not you. You're just after the action and my strategy will seriously slow you down. So let's just drop the discussion unless you really want to sit down at a machine and learn it sometime.
Rob, it's obvious I don't understand, so here's your chance to make me understand.
If I put in $100 and win $1.25 I now have $101.25 -- and that's a real profit. It's my money.
If I play the next ten hands and lose $12.50 I've lost $12.50 from $101.25. So what's the difference about the $1.25 "soft profit" and the $12.50 I just lost? I still am down $12.50.
This whole thing about soft profits is something you will have to explain a bit more carefully.
Now, I do understand the idea about moving up in denominations to hit a winner that will overcome previous losses.
I'm more interested in Rob's hot/cold streak machine theories. Those have got to be a real hoot!
You haven't lost the $12.50 from the $201.25; you've lost it from the $200. You COULD look at it your way, but then you would not be playing any strategy and instead be jumping around between denominations and different games with a lack of structure and functionality. Soft profits that you can only add to give you the opportunity to watch your profits grow and to control your play. People who just can't wait for the gratification of seeing their next winning hands could never play this way. It's relaxing, enjoyable, and it's satisfying because it's a successful way to play. Those who just want to pound buttons into eternity, well, they're the critics without a clue.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Rob I have to look at it my way.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan, its like a stop loss. If you are 1.25 up (201.25) and lose 160 hands in a row you end up cashing out the "soft profit" of 1.25 thereby reducing your total loss.
Really?
Consider playing single line, 25-cent video poker, with the scenario you just gave:Originally Posted by quahaug
I am going to keep $1.25 after losing 160 X $1.25 = $200. That's quite a "stop loss" you are talking about.
Sorry, this part of Rob's strategy makes no sense to me. Maybe it's some kind of "voodoo economics" ??
Again -- I understand the idea about increasing your betting and to switch to more aggressive games to hit a big winner, but this banking of soft profits just doesn't make sense.
I can imagine Rob Singer's point of view now: "I made $1.25 tonight at the casino. Success! The other $200 isn't actually a loss, it's just the cost of doing business. I go home with a $1.25 profit and you went home with a $200 loss."
Let me try a different approach and maybe it's what Rob is talking about:
You set a win goal of $100.
You run $100 thru 25-cent Bonus one time. If you win a hundred you quit. If not you keep what's left.
Next you go to 50-cent Bonus and run $200 thru once. If you're net profit is $100 you quit otherwise you keep what remains.
And you repeat as you move up keeping track of total coin in plus cash outs.
Is this what you're talking about?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote