Here's what you wrote:
Now, when did I indicate that I have an open mind to accept that 2+2=5?Originally Posted by arcimede$
Who here said 2+2=5?
Here's what you wrote:
Now, when did I indicate that I have an open mind to accept that 2+2=5?Originally Posted by arcimede$
Who here said 2+2=5?
You accepted that a money management system can beat VP. It cannot. Any MM system cannot beat a negative expectation game.
Add as many or as few negative numbers as you want, Alan, but the sum will never be a positive number.
Language may be part of the issue here. Plus one of my favorite topics, tenses.
People HAVE WON (past tense) using money management systems on negative expectation games. Variance says this will sometimes happen. Of course this has happened. It has happened with video poker and it has happened with many different forms of gambling, including the lottery.
The problem is that people who have won while using a money management system make the classic error of assigning the money management system as A REASON or THE REASON they won when the money management system was an irrelevant variable. They claim they WILL WIN in the future using a money management system
They use a past confluence of events (having won and having used a money management system) as a rationale for predicting further confluences of the same events. They incorrectly assign a cause and effect role to having used a money management system and having won.
In a sense, this is simply an incorrect assignation of cause that is the same as labeling a rabbit's foot as a cause -- although money management systems sound as though you have some expertise.
Last edited by redietz; 11-15-2015 at 08:13 PM.
I had a similar conversation discussing craps.Originally Posted by RS__
You can't beat a negative expectation game but you can win money at it.
In the meantime I will continue to chart and post my results instead of argue.
People win money at negative expectation games all of the time. Look at the lottery. The issue comes when the people who have won decide they know WHY they have won and start assigning causes. Money management would be one of those causes.
Redietz money management in gambling has two purposes: it limits losses and it tells you when to bank profits. It does nothing to help you win at games. Stop making comparisons to rabbit feet. Strategy and luck make you win -- money management keeps you in the game.
Banking profits means nothing if you are returning to the same game and playing actively within a relatively short period of time.
It only gives you an inaccurate psychological feeling of "winning".
Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com
The classic conversation of actual players with results that include pictures--vs. armchair theorists & those who are nothing more than misguided true believers.Originally Posted by Dan Druff
In the past you guys wanted Alan to chart his casino visits. Now that he keeps winning (and aside from a few of you showing irritation over having to stomach his frequent big wins which most of you couldn't hope for in your wildest wet dreams) you combat that feeling with irrational statements about "confluences" and "inaccurate psychological feelings".
I've always wondered how I paid for that beast of an RV I bought, and how I've been able to feed the thing all that 4.5mpg diesel fuel into it's gut. But now I know: it MUST be due to Divine Intervention--and not because I used a strategy bound by money mgmt. And I'm glad red is showing me that I should have never expected to consistently win at -EV games, and that Dan is telling me how artificial my winnings have been! Must be that since Frank Kneeland lost his mind and died from all that AP nonsense that was buzzing thru his head, these two have become the new VP Masters
Frank Kneeland died?
Banking profits means everything. If you are not banking your profits you'll never have money to get past the slumps.Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Once again I invite you all to track your own play and report back.
Rob, Alan's been having some extraordinary good luck. No doubt about it. It's not "his system" that's made him win the last several visits to the casino. Perhaps he's been winning due to the average of 1 RF per visit he's had (excluding the most recent Morongo visit) recently.
I have no "system." I've been playing conventional video poker strategy -- the strategy I learned from Bob Dancer and John Grochowski. I do not use Rob Singer's strategies (heck, I still don't understand them) and I didn't use any "special plays" which I am familiar with from doing the videos.Originally Posted by RS__
However, two things:
1. After winning I used rising stop losses to keep playing while locking up most of my wins, or
2. After winning I simply went home with the cash as I did Saturday night at Morongo (in part because Jason also had a big win and he didn't want to risk losing it).
There is no system.
There is a strategy and a promise to myself of keeping a good chunk of what I won each time I do win. Because many times I would keep playing and lose it all back. VP machines are not ATMs.
One point of note is that at Morongo when my "charting" showed that I was on a machine that was paying, I did move up from $2 to $5 VP. Rob will disagree with that. He will say never to move up but after winning move lower. After I got AAAA at $2 he would have wanted me to move down in denomination. Instead I moved up and also hit AAAA at $5.
That's my point. Rob is making it seem like your wins have come from some sort of system.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
the "wins" don't come from a "system" but keeping the wins -- or most of them -- come from one of Rob's principles which is keeping to win goals and loss limits. That's what he used.Originally Posted by RS__
Now, Rob's win goal system is more strict than mine because I use a rising stop loss. But basically we both have the same idea -- keep what you've won so you can play another day.
That is a much better "system" than playing for four hours every day, or playing to score 5,000 tier points every day, or whatever "system" others have discussed here.
Rob, if anything I say is inaccurate or illogical, I invite you to please refute it on a point by point basis, rather than dismissing it based on references to your unverifiable personal history.
I have mentioned this before, but there is always a reportage bias in science. The studies that have no significant results get underreported. They don't show up in the literature. My point is that we have no idea how many "Rob Singers" there are out there in reality. Or how many Alan Mendelsons. Rob Singer, provided he is reporting accurately, uses a certain set of strategies and claims these strategies are the cause of his success. Undoubtedly, many, many people have attempted and used variations of Rob's strategies. How many have succeeded? How many failed? We simply do not know. It's highly unlikely anyone using Rob's strategies who failed has undertaken a day-to-day forum campaign to explain how flawed they are, as Rob has regarding AP play.
Rob claims he has fine tuned, after years of trials, his strategies so that each and every detail he knows is necessary to achieve success. He publicizes his strategies, but never actually details them. Now Rob spent a good chunk of time working on these things. Was it two years? Five years? Twenty years? What makes Rob such a success story unachievable by others? He has spent time, but other people have spent as much or more time on the topic. He is a smart man, but smarter men (and women) have applied themselves. It must be his special personal characteristics and a unique kind of intelligence. This is possible. He may be the Da Vinci of video poker.
If you choose to believe this, that's good with me.
But I ask again, at what return do Rob's strategies fail? 95%? 93%? I ask Rob -- at what return are your strategies unable to overcome house edge?
See, I have an answer from my point of view. Most sports betting is 11-10. I routinely get -108, and often -105. If I had to lay -120 (as the poor schmucks dealing with local bookmakers in Hawaii do), well, that's about my limit. I might make the attempt at -120, but not much beyond. If all sports books go to -121, I retire. I have a good sense of what I can and cannot do.
Rob, at what return do your strategies fail? Easy question.
Can I make a stab at your question redietz? My guess is that Rob will say his strategies can't fail if you play them 100% accurately. And there is where his critics will hit a wall. They don't know - and I don't know - what 100% accurately is.
Redietz:
I also would like to take a stab at your question to Rob concerning "at what point your (Rob's) strategies fail".
Maybe it follows this paradigm?
If playing an exactly 100% return game your DEAL/DRAW button timing doesn't have to be any better or worse than the average VP player to break even.
At a 99% return game your DEAL/DRAW button pressing timings must be 1.0101% better than the average VP player to break even.
At a 98% return game your DEAL/DRAW button pressing timings must be 2.0408% better than the average VP player to break even.
At a 96% return game your DEAL/DRAW button pressing timings must be 4.166% better than the average VP player to break even.
It's simply a matter of where, the lower the paytable, the more accurately you must time the button presses to break even or be a consistent winner.
You can be a consistent winner at a 90% return slot machine as long as you are always timing the button presses at least 11.11111% better than the average player all the time.
There's really no point where Rob's strategies fail; you simply need to be better and better at timing the DEAL/DRAW button presses as the paytables become progressively inferior.
So how do you get "better" at timing the button press?Originally Posted by Count Room
You meet Rob Singer and he shows you how.Originally Posted by RS__
I don't think Rob Singer cares about the timing of the RNG and when you push the deal/draw button. I don't care either.
Getting back to THIS TOPIC have any of you players been charting your results?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote