Trick to get 5% off Caesars properties if paying for them

[slingshot]

It's fascinating to me how people can never win at negative expectation games, and how they always win at positive expectation games.

Fortunately I only lose so I don't have to explain any wins to the math experts or to the lawyers of the ex wives.

Alan, I've decided that everyone loses- the trick is having wins offset the losses.

[Bill Yung]

Win-goal and stop-loss are the same as lowering a bet after either a win, or a loss.

Are analogous to any of:

1. a) Raising a bet after a loss/lowering a bet after a win;

1. b) Lowering a bet after a loss/raising a bet after a win;

2. a) Raising a bet after a loss/repeating a bet after a win;

2. b) Lowering a bet after a loss/repeating a bet after a win;

3. a) Repeating a bet after a loss/raising a bet after a win; or

3. b) Repeating a bet after a loss/lowering a bet after a win.

In this context, when should one do this? How about loss-goal and start-loss?

[Bill Yung]

It's a probabilistic world. You either want numbers for you or against you. No guarantees. No illusions.

The guarantee is in seeing what numbers are.

Integers invert to fractions; both of which beget irrationals, which invert to transcendentals; to beget the reals and hyperreals, which invert to the complex numbers; and finally to beget the sorts of numerical relationships in which the complex and other numbers may overlap or return the same values.

[slingshot]

Win-goal and stop-loss are the same as lowering a bet after either a win, or a loss.

Are analogous to any of:

1. a) Raising a bet after a loss/lowering a bet after a win;

1. b) Lowering a bet after a loss/raising a bet after a win;

2. a) Raising a bet after a loss/repeating a bet after a win;

2. b) Lowering a bet after a loss/repeating a bet after a win;

3. a) Repeating a bet after a loss/raising a bet after a win; or

3. b) Repeating a bet after a loss/lowering a bet after a win.

In this context, when should one do this? How about loss-goal and start-loss?

The most creative way I've seen this done is in Rob's ARTT strategy. I know you think I'm nothing more than his misguided fan, but this strategy is for real and while every session isn't a big winner, the window of opportunity is wide open.

[Rob.Singer]

What "possible rate hike"?

I think you touched on it. Your next offer may indeed be higher, not lower. You never know.

[Rob.Singer]

It's a probabilistic world. You either want numbers for you or against you. No guarantees. No illusions. Win goals and stop losses on negative expectation games don't affect your bottom line unless they reduce your events played.

Spoken by someone who really does not understand the game of vp.

I've played many +EV machines early on in my career, and many more -EV machines when those "positive" games were gone. The rate I won on +EV games was nearly identical to my rate of winning during all the -EV games years. And guess what--I used the exact same money management procedures throughout. So you're right--there are no illusions. And there are also no theories.

[Dan Druff]

Here is the best way to explain why -EV machines will beat you in the long (an even medium) run, while +EV machines will win for you if you play them enough.

Say that we had a computer with a perfect random number generator, which would generate a random number from 1 to 100 every time we pressed a button.

I make an even money bet with Rob -- if it lands on numbers 1 to 49, he wins, and if it lands on 50 through 100, I win.

Despite having a 51-49 edge, if we only played once, it could go either way who would win. (Rob would have a 49% chance of this.)

If we played 100 times, he would still have a 38.2% chance of being ahead, and would laugh at all the "AP math fools" if this came through!

If we played 1000 times, he'd still have a 25.32% chance of being up. This is still pretty substantial, and explains why -EV gamblers still have nice runs sometimes.

However, if we played 50,000 times, Rob would have an almost-nonexistent 0.0004% chance of being ahead. That's a 1-in-250,000 chance, for those of you keeping score at home.

This is how unlikely it is to be ahead of a -EV game after playing for a long time. Absent of a fluke jackpot which puts you up enough to fade the inevitable losses from regular play, there is no way to beat -EV games long term, even if lucky.

[Dan Druff]

BTW to calculate the above, use this website: http://vassarstats.net/binomialX.html

Enter the number of games for n, the number of minimum wins for the side you're calculating for k, and the probability for p.

So to figure out the 50,000 game example, I entered:

n: 50000
k: 25001 (the number of games Rob would have to win to be ahead of me)
p: 0.49 (49% probability to win each time)

[Alan Mendelson]

Here is the best way to explain why -EV machines will beat you in the long...
If we played 1000 times... if we played 50,000 times...

I think most of us who use win goals and loss limits use them for a day of play. We have our win goals for the day and our loss limits for the day.

I haven't played 50,000 days in a casino. 50,000 days of play would mean 137 years of playing every day.

If I played three days a month, it would take about 333 months to have 1,000 play days. 333 months would be about 28 years of play.

I am now 64 years old. The first time I was in a casino I was 25 years old and I played $2 blackjack in St. Maarten on a vacation trip. My second time in a casino was in 1988.

I don't think I've had even 1,000 casino play days yet. How can I possibly even consider your long term math?

[Dan Druff]

I think most of us who use win goals and loss limits use them for a day of play. We have our win goals for the day and our loss limits for the day.

I haven't played 50,000 days in a casino. 50,000 days of play would mean 137 years of playing every day.

If I played three days a month, it would take about 333 months to have 1,000 play days. 333 months would be about 28 years of play.

I am now 64 years old. The first time I was in a casino I was 25 years old and I played $2 blackjack in St. Maarten on a vacation trip. My second time in a casino was in 1988.

I don't think I've had even 1,000 casino play days yet. How can I possibly even consider your long term math?

Because we aren't talking about days here.

We are talking about games. In the case of VP, we are talking about number of hands, and you've played FAR more than 50,000.

A "day" is meaningless when it comes to gambling metrics. If I play 5,000 hands of $2/credit video poker in a day, it's the EXACT SAME as someone else playing ten days of 500 hands on that same machine.

I am pointing out by the above posts that it's nearly impossible to beat -EV games long-term or medium-term. The math doesn't just say it's unlikely. It says you would have to be one of the luckiest people in the world to manage it. That's how casinos stay in business (even horribly managed ones like CET).

Now, it's true that VP isn't an "even money" game, meaning that there are large payouts for hitting royals. But even that will smooth out over time, to where you would need a flukishly high number of royals after hundreds of thousands of hands in order to come out ahead.

You can come out ahead after 50,000 hands of VP (I did it in 2015, thanks to 6 royals), but if you play substantially more than that, you will never be ahead, unless you happen to be fortunate enough to substantially increase limits and luck into a huge hit after a short time of play.

[Bill Yung]

The most creative way I've seen this done is in Rob's ARTT strategy.

Can you summarize the ARTT strategy? There is a so-called Gr8player who's been around as long as Singer, but every time asked to summarize will tell to go back through years of his online notes. Didn't do it for him either.

I know you think I'm nothing more than his misguided fan, but this strategy is for real and while every session isn't a big winner, the window of opportunity is wide open.

I try to not be overly judgmental with the overall strategies. In the Bet what? thread, I showed that progressions have a place in proper betting, if only with random and negative games.

Alan had the idea of using the negative strategies for the positive.

If all the math and physics were true, we would have come to the end of it a long time ago. Furthermore, the math is only as good as the math. There's more to the universe than math and physics. Let's not all hail the gods of those either. A strange sort of new religion brewing and afoot. There's always more to come. (But no more than this.)

[Alan Mendelson]

Your math is ridiculous Dan. 50,000 hands in video poker is barely more than one royal flush cycle.

Try again.

[slingshot]

Can you summarize the ARTT strategy? There is a so-called Gr8player who's been around as long as Singer, but every time asked to summarize will tell to go back through years of his online notes. Didn't do it for him either.


I try to not be overly judgmental with the overall strategies. In the Bet what? thread, I showed that progressions have a place in proper betting, if only with random and negative games.

Alan had the idea of using the negative strategies for the positive.

If all the math and physics were true, we would have come to the end of it a long time ago. Furthermore, the math is only as good as the math. There's more to the universe than math and physics. Let's not all hail the gods of those either. A strange sort of new religion brewing and afoot. There's always more to come. (But no more than this.)

Sure. On this site, type in artt strategy, go to page 3, select "A strategy question for Rob". Nothing like having the author himself explain!

[jbjb]

Sure. On this site, type in artt strategy, go to page 3, select "A strategy question for Rob". Nothing like having the author himself explain!

That's because this guy here doesn't know it either. They just keep making phoney scenarios up. "Oh I was down such and such amount and did this and got a $4 profit..."

[slingshot]

That's because this guy here doesn't know it either. They just keep making phoney scenarios up. "Oh I was down such and such amount and did this and got a $4 profit..."

Which is why I hate posting here. I should have known better. Hopefully, I've learned my lesson.

[Rob.Singer]

I wouldn't be concerned what the armchair theorists claim sling. Imagine a collection of anonymous hate-slinging BSers expecting to be taken seriously. No different than red, who will obviously never identify himself and may in fact be using a stolen identity to dole out his nonsense. And these others are nothing more than big jealous losers who want nothing to do with hearing about winners. Case in point: jbjb blathers on & on about how Alan is a "loser" and always accuses anyone who posts winners of losing overall. He just can't take any of it. Yet when faced with how often I win and how much I've said I win, he will not let it compute.

And then there's Dan and his "you gotta lose if you play -EV games, and you gotta win if you play +EV". It would help if he thought his theories thru a little more, as was shown by his "50,000 hand" miscue.

And here's more education Dan: I have been ahead and consistently climbing in profit since 1997, and over 90% of the games I've played have been below 100%. (Yes, people hate it and it's been like that for years). I've had no "game-changing jackpots" as there's been just two $100k and three $50k winners along the way...and without any of them I'd still be up over a million dollars.

The key? Use win & loss goals, have the proper bankroll, use a sensible strategy that NEVER goes up in denomination and always only goes down after winning, and treat every session like it's the only one you'll ever play.

I can't picture how much of a jolt it was to the theorists to have to look at my $28,000 in jackpots from the same machine in under 3 hours on wimpy 25c thru $2 denominations--and all because of an assist from my now good buddy spock. All negative EV wins, and all it did was ADD to my profiting since 1997.

Like Alan said Dan, try again.

[redietz]

It's tough to identify yourself when you use your name. I'll try to be more clear. I haven't yet been knighted, so "sirredietz" is a no go. Perhaps "thehonorableredietz" would help.

JB, James, RS, Dan, Alan, any suggestions? I'm trying to help Rob out with this identity issue. He seems to be obsessing a bit.

[slingshot]

I wouldn't be concerned what the armchair theorists claim sling. Imagine a collection of anonymous hate-slinging BSers expecting to be taken seriously. No different than red, who will obviously never identify himself and may in fact be using a stolen identity to dole out his nonsense. And these others are nothing more than big jealous losers who want nothing to do with hearing about winners. Case in point: jbjb blathers on & on about how Alan is a "loser" and always accuses anyone who posts winners of losing overall. He just can't take any of it. Yet when faced with how often I win and how much I've said I win, he will not let it compute.

And then there's Dan and his "you gotta lose if you play -EV games, and you gotta win if you play +EV". It would help if he thought his theories thru a little more, as was shown by his "50,000 hand" miscue.

And here's more education Dan: I have been ahead and consistently climbing in profit since 1997, and over 90% of the games I've played have been below 100%. (Yes, people hate it and it's been like that for years). I've had no "game-changing jackpots" as there's been just two $100k and three $50k winners along the way...and without any of them I'd still be up over a million dollars.

The key? Use win & loss goals, have the proper bankroll, use a sensible strategy that NEVER goes up in denomination and always only goes down after winning, and treat every session like it's the only one you'll ever play.

I can't picture how much of a jolt it was to the theorists to have to look at my $28,000 in jackpots from the same machine in under 3 hours on wimpy 25c thru $2 denominations--and all because of an assist from my now good buddy spock. All negative EV wins, and all it did was ADD to my profiting since 1997.

Like Alan said Dan, try again.

I just got suckered into posting and by now I should know better. Even my "friends" who sat with me and watched me play walk off- probably because I hit a "puny" $60 quad and not the royal or something earth shattering. Fine with me.

[Rob.Singer]

Those who have been ahead a "puny" amount and then lose it plus much more, will understand that winning four bucks is far better than losing $300.

And that's everybody.

[redietz]

Hey, Rob, I wanted to thank you for saying that I "may" be using a stolen identity. I appreciate your lack of certainty there.

When you consider all of what may happen tomorrow, it surely puts things in perspective.

Saying "may" keeps one out of legal trouble in a Trumpesque way (I'm a big Trump fan), but it doesn't ring true for you personally. You usually declare things with certainty and vigor. Is there anything we can do to help restore your mojo?