Alan, it wasn't all that long ago that you and Rob were putting down that "the player is ahead of the casino at some point in his session 75% of the time" theory. I personally don't think it is near that high but that's beside the point. Your stop win strategy is perfect for a loss rebate promo. If I could do a $1000 loss rebate promo everyday for a year I think I would make at least 100K. You yourself know you don't lose every session. I would simply quit play for the day and refuse the loss rebate every time I got a decent lead on them, say $400 or $500.
[QUOTE=Rob.Singer;49562][QUOTE=mickeycrimm;49528]NO, you need to get off the wacky tobacky. Don't you remember the Revel $100,000 loss rebate promo? Revel execs got tippped off by your hero, at least you talk about him all the time, Mr. Dancer, that they would be bombarded by AP's. He even told them the loss rebate strategy and the AP's would attack the high denom high variance games. By your logic, Rob, Revel execs would have been chomping at the bit to get at those AP's. But that didn't happen, did it? No, they disqualified all the high denom high variance games from the promo. And the promotion fizzled. There was only one reason Revel execs did what they did. They knew they were going to get crushed. AP's everywhere are stilled pissed at Dancer over it.
This might interest you and everyone else who ever criticized me and Rob about what we said about quitting when ahead. About five or six years ago I interviewed Victor Royer who is an author and casino consultant about the "real statistics" about Las Vegas gamblers. My 75% figure is actually low for the percentage of players who are ahead at some point. Watch the video here:
That's not what he's saying. I play these differently from mickey, in a conservative sub-optimal fashion similar to what FAB did. This is sub-optimal, as I said. What mickey suggests is optimal.
If these were bad plays, casinos would offer them all of the time instead of on initial sign-up.
redietz you've fallen for the casino trap too...
The loss rebates only kick in AFTER you lose your money. Do you understand that? At that point the casinos HAVE your money. Then they are giving you free play that still is more likely to lose AND keeps you in the casino so you can lose even more. It's a bad play just like every other bad play in a casino but this pig has a different shade of lipstick.
Let's get back to basics: you need to play to win. Thinking that the loss rebate is some kind of insurance policy is ridiculous.
Alan, let's get this straight. You advocate quitting when ahead but have never had a winning year gambling. Rob advocates quitting when ahead and requires lugging around a 57K bankroll to pull that off. In addition, neither of you can provide math professionals who agree with either of you regarding importance of win goals. In addition, Rob can't provide any casino professional (not just gamblers) or other video poker author who agrees with him regarding his "systems."
And we should listen to either of you why? Because you're both handsome and charming?
Nobody says you have to lose the first day of the promo. I think I've done three of these, and I quit after making about 50% of the amount of the loss rebate twice without ever using the loss rebate. I basically do what FAB did. You seem to be missing the point that if you're ahead, you can cease at any point and take the profits. In fact, this exercise has given me an understanding of the obsession with win goals. If you have a loss rebate, I can see the utility. Unfortunately, when gambling without a loss rebate, the comps and free rooms you accrue don't really count as actual loss rebates.
Let me comment on this, piece by piece:
Why would anyone want to post on a public forum that they have had a winning year gambling? Let's just say I've had my share of success hitting in two years two $100,000 royals with limited play at the $25 denomination, and hitting the ALL at craps at least a dozen times with $25 in each position. You want me to post my profits and for what reason? No... I've never had a profitable year gambling.
I've quit when ahead and never had a 57K bankroll. I don't think anyone needs a 57K bankroll to quit when ahead.
What's ironic here, redietz, is that you quit when ahead which is the only reason you have a profit at video poker. At least, you told us you had a profit at video poker. And the ONLY way to have a profit is to quit when you're ahead. (Why are you having trouble with this when you do it yourself?)
Win goals are personal. Win goals will not make you win. Win goals only give you an exit point. You will not find a math professional who says otherwise. You raise a non-issue.
I can't either, except it makes sense to limit your losses and to quit when ahead. I do not follow his special plays and frankly I don't even understand his various systems.
Thank you.
This is how you're supposed to play them.
https://www.888casino.com/blog/casin...dvantage-play/
More here, scroll down.
https://www.888casino.com/blog/apheat/all-apheat-posts/
This is how you're supposed to play them? From your article:
For example, a casino might offer a 5% loss rebate for a loss from $100,000 to $300,000, a 10% loss rebate for a loss from $300,000 to $500,000 and a 15% loss rebate for any losses over $500,000. This type of loss rebate program encourages hit-and-run play. Bet as big as possible on as high-variance/low-edge game as possible. If the player loses big, then he cashes out his rebate and heads to the next casino where he can get a similar deal.
Unfortunately, loss rebates of 5% to 15% do not make you whole.
Sorry, I'm not going to lose $100,000 to get a parting gift of $5,000 in the form of a loss rebate.
If this is the math of APs I'm going to stick with what I'm doing. You guys are crazy.
Alan, you're missing the point. Having a loss rebate completely changes the way you play a game. Having a loss rebate is the primary motivation for me to play a negative expectation game. It completely changes what you do and how you approach it.
That's why I said it's a rare opportunity for me to view the world from the perspective of people who play negative expectation games with the idea that win goals are meaningful. Without the loss rebates, however, it makes no sense to play them and no sense to configure win points.
What jb and mickey have said is correct. The way I play these (and FAB played it) is overly conservative and suboptimal. What jb quoted is optimal.
Optimal is losing $100,000 to collect $5,000? That's optimal? And then go on to the next casino to try again?
Stay at it, fellows. I'm done.
But you guys can try to take that to the bank. Sell shares in it too. Good luck.
Let me sum it up for you: loss rebates don't make you win. They reduce the sting of losing. To win you have to win.
First it was 18 yo's, next it was 1 in 6, and now its loss rebates. The dude is living proof that any math challenged person can make it in business in this country
He's more than just "math challenged". This is more like "the earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist, and vaccines cause autism...because when I look outside, the ground is flat not round...balloons rise away from earth, not fall to it, like gravity would suggest...and there are many people on buzzfeed and youtube saying vaccines cause autism".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)