You have my vote.Originally Posted by LoneStarHorse
Let Alan handle it, I don't know that I'd pay $400 a year to put up with the little guy, but it's Alan's party.
You have my vote.Originally Posted by LoneStarHorse
Let Alan handle it, I don't know that I'd pay $400 a year to put up with the little guy, but it's Alan's party.
Someone please buy this forum. $2500 and it's yours.
Alan, you have said you think the little man is exaggerating certain things and misrepresenting others, yet you expect him to be truthful now? I don't get it.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Why is it that those that dislike Rob the most won't let it end? They keep giving new life to the saga.
Well, it's the dog days of Winter and really how many times can you bitch about lousy pay-tables, Caesars and TR, over-comps/under-comps and the wacky life of those 7 stars?Originally Posted by regnis
Plus at this point it's kind of interesting to see what lengths Alan will go to defend his friend.
james40
Not just defending his friend acting as if whatever he says or does is ok.... then carries on as if nothing happened
Originally Posted by james40
Alan, until you realize "quitting when ahead" holds no water, you won't understand that winning 100k/year for 10 years is extremely unbelievable.
Totally agree. But, i'm not going to pile on Rob. Some of the things he says I value and find interesting, some are over the line and make me wince. Do I want him banned? No.Originally Posted by regnis
So, you don't like the concept of quitting when ahead. Ok. Then how about this: At $125 per push of the button winning $100,000 a year seems very believable and possible to me.Originally Posted by RS__
I don't think I've ever defended him. I think I have questioned him. And I certainly never said that what he says or does is okay.Originally Posted by LoneStarHorse
You're new here.
Quitting when ahead holds no water? Oh really?Originally Posted by RS__
How is it ever possible to win without quitting when ahead?
With regards to the topic, my two cents is that there is at least a realistic possibility that a capable player can play video poker during the right situations and get hotel stays, comps, entertainment, gifts, and food at a theoretical loss value that is less than as if a person paid for all those directly at retail price "over the long run" (30+ trips).
I would consider this a moral win.
It seems believable and possible to you because you don't know any better. If I told someone I wrote a program to iterate through every possible 5-card deal and draw in VP to determine the optimal strategy, and it only took 10 seconds for the program to run (on my regular laptop), someone who doesn't have the knowledge about computers or how many combinations of draw+deal there is of 5 cards, wouldn't think anything of it, they'd probably think, "Okay, that makes sense to me, computers are really fast."Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You know what I mean -- playing until you're up or down some amount [win goal or stop loss] as a strategy holds no water.Originally Posted by coach belly
I know you believe in simulations and expectations but all it takes is a few big winners and you're ahead. Some people get lucky (variance) and they win. It doesn't mean they have a system that can be proven by simulations or by math -- but they still won. I think it's possible to win $100,000 a year when you play $25 video poker and I don't think it's such a surprise that anyone would win that much when they play at those levels.
If you tell me you win $100,000 a year playing for the most part $1 video poker I get very doubtful. If you tell me you win $100,000 a year playing $2 or $5 video poker, I am also very doubtful. But when you talk about $25 video poker a net win of $100,000 per year becomes possible -- very possible.
Yes, let's say he beat expectation. Fair enough. People beat expectation all the time. That doesn't mean they beat the math -- it means they beat expectation. I think you're trying to fight the idea that Rob Singer beat the math. He didn't beat the math. He won. And there's a big difference between winning and beating the math.
When you play $25/coin video poker and beat the expectation just by a tiny margin you can have a profit of $100,000 a year. That's the point. Just like when you play 25-cent video poker -- beat the expectation by a tiny margin and you can have a profit of $1,000 a year.
To make a blanket statement that you can't win ignores the basic math that you believe in. People can beat the expectation and beat the odds. If you want to point to a bell curve -- somebody is going to fall at the far right, and someone is going to fall at the far left.
Let's talk about a different game altogether -- craps. I was at Caesars Palace one night when a Hollywood movie executive (I won't mention his name) won a million dollars at the craps table. He didn't beat the math of the game of craps. But he did make BIG bets on certain numbers that hit. When he finished playing he was up one million dollars. There were two reasons why he won a million dollars:
1. His numbers were hitting.
2. He was betting a lot of money.
Now to return to $25 video poker: if the combinations hit and you're betting $125 on each push of the button then yes, you can win $100,000 a year.
Will it also happen to you and me? It can if we also are playing $25 video poker a lot and we are getting the right combinations of cards.
I think you and others want to deny Rob's claims of winning because you think it will also justify claims that the math can be beaten. And that's not the case at all. Even Rob will tell you what the math of the game says. He just happens to have won at negative expectation games. And because he was playing at high limits his wins just happened to have six-digits.
Had Arc been playing $25 video poker how much would he have won? Yeah, Arc had a little help because his paytable was a little bit better than 99% -- but if his wins were in the reasonable range for 50-cent and $1 video poker, then Rob's wins at $25 video poker were also in the reasonable range.
It would take extraordinary luck to win $1M (net) on a standard $25 ($125/push) VP...ie: not talking about some reversible RF that paid it all off. I don't doubt that you can beat the expectation in the short term, it happens all the time and I do it all the time...but I also lose more than expectation all the time, too.
Forget the $100K/year for 10 years thing, stopping and starting sessions or quitting when ahead, as that has no meaning whatsoever in any of this. Essentially what you're saying is Rob won $1M net playing $25 VP...that's the value of 10 RF's (or 20 AWAKs on DDB, or 5 RF's + 10 AWAKs, other combinations...etc.).
That's like a $5 player being ahead $100K or a $1 player being ahead $40K....or a $0.05 player ahead $2,000.
With 600 hands an hour and 6 hours a week for 50 weeks a year for 10 years, that's 1.8M hands at $125 each. Playing exclusively TDB, on a 9/7 paytable, he'd have to be about 1.5 standard deviations to the right -- believable no doubt. On a 9/6 paytable (most likely what he "played"), he'd have to be 3.1 standard deviations to the right...not very believable [coming from Singer]. On a 9/5 TDB paytable, he'd have to be about 4.45 standard deviations to the right. On 8/5 TDB, it'd be 6.1 SD's to the right.
Add on all those "special plays" he claims to have made, as well as the fact he would have most likely not been playing optimally on the other hands (like holding inside straights...which he claims he never does....or holding 3-card flushes or even 3-card SF's).
It'd no longer be a "beating the expectation" (throwing 5 heads in a row)...it'd now be a "beating the math" (throwing a yo 18 times in a row).
IDK about the craps guy, but with a $50K max bet [and possibly increased max if he wanted it or played to higher levels], a $1M win on craps isn't all that difficult. What, are you going to say he was betting black and purple or something now, too?
RS__ your point is you don't think he won the money over ten years. That's fine. I hit three $20,000 royals on three successive trips to Caesars, then hit a $100,000 royal with only $1,000 in the machine (and had some subsequent quads before hitting the royal), and then two weeks later hit a progressive royal at Bellagio for $31,005. Put that into your simulator and make fun of me the way you do at WOV.
What's your point, Alan? You hit a few RFs in close succession. I've hit plenty of RFs in a quick period of time, too. You're not alone.
But we do miss you Alan, we really do. When're you coming back?
I will never be back at WOV. Especially after the insults and false allegations that my mind was compromised by kidney disease and my kidney failure. For the record you can tell them that what I witnessed at the craps table came AFTER my transplants and I am deeply offended that in addition to being called a liar and a psychopath and all the other names they used that they had to drop to the low level of bringing up my health in an attempt to discredit me and what I saw.
And the point of this thread is people can win on negative expectation games. And winning $100,000 per year at $25 video poker is quite reasonable. And as much as you want to say that "quitting when ahead" doesn't work, all I can say is that quitting when ahead is the only way to win.
I let them know.
I still don't buy "quitting when ahead" as a valid strategy to actually net money. If it actually worked -- well, we're going back about 10 steps here, but, instead of quitting for the year, why not cash out and come back again tomorrow, a new day? Or rather, cash out, take a lap around the casino, and "reset" your day? Hell -- instead of cashing out and doing all that hoopla, just keep on playing, it's the same thing anyway. I'm sure you'll end up a big winner!
RS__ what you posted on the WOV was an attempt to change my status there to give you and the others an open door to further insult me. Don't be too impressed with yourself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote