The WoV Thread

[mickeycrimm]

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.

Let me remind you of the thesis:

"70 percent of people at a casino visit are ahead at one point"

Baccarat was mentioned. Assuming I bet banker or player, I'll win decision 1 about 45% of the time which puts me ahead for the visit. If I don't win decision 1, I'll have additional opportunities to pull ahead and increase the 45% cumulative total.

Where am I wrong so far?

Your chance to pull ahead diminishes with each trial/decision. Your best chance to be ahead is to make just 1 bet and then quit. You have a 45% chance. The reason is because winning two decisions, 45% X 45% is just 20.25%. You have to win both bets to be ahead. Win one and lose one....you are just even.

Your chance to be ahead after 2 decisions is much less than if you make just one decision.

Your chance to be ahead after 3 decisions is much less than if you made just two decisions.

More decisions does not give you a better chance to be ahead. It gives you less of a chance because of the compound effects of negative expectation gambling.

[kewlJ]

I asked before, what constitutes being ahead? If a player sits down at a VP machine and within a couple hands his say a straight or flush and is a couple bucks a head, is that being ahead? Technically of course it is, but is he going to get up and leave at that point? Probably cost 5 times that much in Gas just to get to the casinos.

I think this whole discussion comes from ploppies that at some points were ahead $100 bucks or $200 bucks or some somewhat significant amount and end the day down $200. They always say "I should have quit when I was up $180" or something like that.

And these numbers, 90%, even 70%, that is just selective memory, from the example I gave above.

[tableplay]

The post linked to below makes it quite clear to me what Monet's disposition is on this subject (YMMV):
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post141123

Here's the word salad:

The numbers are obviously reversed and anyone who believes that 70% or 97% of players are up from jump street don't understand what the drop is.

Which numbers are reversed?

Then comes the slang.

I think I understand from all comments that the discussion annoys him, but he's also (apparently) staking out the territory that 70% is an impossibly high number for the measurement of players ahead at any point in a session. I haven't been persuaded of that.

And you are certainly entitled not to be persuaded of that (and you are also certainly entitled not to be clear on what his phrase means), but as far as the meaning of Monet's phrase goes, for me it is clear. The reverse of 70% is 7% which of course is figurative but I get the gist. Again that's just my opinion which amounts to a hill of beans. There are things that are perfectly clear to you and others that I will not find clear obviously.

[Don Perignom]

Your chance to pull ahead diminishes with each trial/decision. Your best chance to be ahead is to make just 1 bet and then quit. You have a 45% chance.

Thanks for the response, but you're arguing the odds of finishing a session ahead. Yes?

This discussion is about being ahead at any fleeting moment within the entire course of a session, hence the cumulative probabilities. If you don't achieve success on trial 1, you get another chance on trial 2, trial 3, etc.

[Don Perignom]

I asked before, what constitutes being ahead?

"Ahead at one point."

I linked to the thread:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/ques...-john-patrick/

I think this whole discussion comes from ploppies that at some points were ahead $100 bucks or $200 bucks or some somewhat significant amount and end the day down $200. They always say "I should have quit when I was up $180" or something like that.

Yes, that's exactly where it comes from. It's why you only need to be ahead once anywhere along the way, because people assume if they were more disciplined they could have picked the magically correct moment to stop.

[mickeycrimm]

Your chance to pull ahead diminishes with each trial/decision. Your best chance to be ahead is to make just 1 bet and then quit. You have a 45% chance.

Thanks for the response, but you're arguing the odds of finishing a session ahead. Yes?

This discussion is about being ahead at any fleeting moment within the entire course of a session, hence the cumulative probabilities. If you don't achieve success on trial 1, you get another chance on trial 2, trial 3, etc.

No, I'm talking about being ahead at any point in a session. With even money bets in games like BJ, craps, baccarat, roulette your best chance to be ahead is if you win your first decision and quit. The compound effects of negative expectation gambling take over.

You can't take a sample space of negative expectation bets, no matter how large or small, and expect to have a 70% chance of being a winner sometime in the session. If it was possible the Wizard or many others would be able to write an equation to prove it. So far no one has been able to prove it and no one will ever be able to prove it.

Cumulative probabilities is just another way to say "compound effects of negative expectation gambling." The compound effects means its impossible for 70% of gamblers to be ahead at some point in their gambling sessions. Win the first bet and quit is the best chance you have of being ahead in a gambling session.

[soxfan]

Perhaps the m-dawg will chime in on this as he seem to have the success at the baccarats ----rv proposition, hey hey????

[Don Perignom]

No, I'm talking about being ahead at any point in a session.

I'm confused.

Does this forum have hazing rituals for new members?

I've found two threads at WOV, where 70%+ is not even mildly controversial. Here's a post from tringlomane claiming 96% (via sim results) at 99.5% vp (9/6 JoB):

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-.../2/#post247350

I figured out I can use Frugal VP software to simulate. Don't know how to auto-run multiple sims, but I can do them one at a time and they complete almost instantly. Then there's a VOLATILITY button that displays the high and low points. I'm replicating tringlomane's setup, 10k hands of 9/6 JoB.

I'm now up to 20 sims completed, and not one failure so far. Of course the graph usually slopes down, but there's always at least one squiggle above zero.

[tableplay]

No, I'm talking about being ahead at any point in a session.

I'm confused.

Does this forum have hazing rituals for new members?

I've found two threads at WOV, where 70%+ is not even mildly controversial. Here's a post from tringlomane claiming 96% (via sim results) at 99.5% vp (9/6 JoB):

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-.../2/#post247350

I figured out I can use Frugal VP software to simulate. Don't know how to auto-run multiple sims, but I can do them one at a time and they complete almost instantly. Then there's a VOLATILITY button that displays the high and low points. I'm replicating tringlomane's setup, 10k hands of 9/6 JoB.

I'm now up to 20 sims completed, and not one failure so far. Of course the graph usually slopes down, but there's always at least one squiggle above zero.

Do 70% of casino patrons play 9/6 JoB ?

[Don Perignom]

Do 70% of casino patrons play 9/6 JoB ?

You can't take a sample space of negative expectation bets, no matter how large or small, and expect to have a 70% chance of being a winner sometime in the session.

[tableplay]

Do 70% of casino patrons play 9/6 JoB ?

You can't take a sample space of negative expectation bets, no matter how large or small, and expect to have a 70% chance of being a winner sometime in the session.

I think mine was a yes or no question.

[kewlJ]

It is a really stupid discussion. What if it is true that 90% of sessions are slightly plus at some point? If a player stops playing at that point, which is the premise of the discussion, results are going to look exactly like progression wagering results. Many small winning sessions but a few big losing sessions that more than offset all those small wins.

You are guaranteeing those small wins because as soon as you get a head, you have st stop. So if you have to quit at +5, +10, +20, you never get to have any decent size wins except a rare big win of quads or bigger.

It's just a silly discussion. I mean in the thread linked above the example was a weekend of play, playing $1. Is that player really going to stop play on Friday when he gets up $10 and spend the next 3 days standing on Fremont Street watching the homeless and bizarre street performers?

[kewlJ]

The fact is that this entire discussion, started at WoV, and brought here was started by Alan. Alan continues to believe that voodoo things like stop limits can make a player into a winning player.

I don't want to pick on Alan, but yesterday while reading through the archives here (looking for something else), I must have seen 4 or 5 different threads started by Alan with words like quitting while ahead in the title. If you don't believe me, take a look.

I am sorry Alan, but that is voodoo nonsence.

[Alan Mendelson]

It is a really stupid discussion. What if it is true that 90% of sessions are slightly plus at some point? If a player stops playing at that point, which is the premise of the discussion, results are going to look exactly like progression wagering results. Many small winning sessions but a few big losing sessions that more than offset all those small wins.

You are guaranteeing those small wins because as soon as you get a head, you have st stop. So if you have to quit at +5, +10, +20, you never get to have any decent size wins except a rare big win of quads or bigger.

It's just a silly discussion. I mean in the thread linked above the example was a weekend of play, playing $1. Is that player really going to stop play on Friday when he gets up $10 and spend the next 3 days standing on Fremont Street watching the homeless and bizarre street performers?

It's not a silly discussion. The point in all the surveys whether they're from Vic Royer or UNLV is that Vegas gaming isnt a vacuum cleaner on your wallet. Players have a chance.

But what happens?

You mention that anyone has a chance even at -EV games and instantly the math guys say "bbbbbut it's a negative EV game, it's impossible."

No. It's not impossible to win.

Right Monet?

[MaxPen]

The fact is that this entire discussion, started at WoV, and brought here was started by Alan. Alan continues to believe that voodoo things like stop limits can make a player into a winning player.

I don't want to pick on Alan, but yesterday while reading through the archives here (looking for something else), I must have seen 4 or 5 different threads started by Alan with words like quitting while ahead in the title. If you don't believe me, take a look.

I am sorry Alan, but that is voodoo nonsence.

That's his signature, "it's all about quitting when ahead"....lol

[Alan Mendelson]

Kewlj, what's voodoo nonsense is you being unable to accept that players like Mdawg and Singer can be thousands of dollars ahead making big bets at -EV games.

Right Monet?

In fact, Monet, why dont you tell Kewlj how many $1200 bets you can make before you wipe out that parlay win? And, how many bets do you think you might win before you could lose ALL of that parlay win?

[soxfan]

Seem like this Alan cat subscribe to the even-bob/spike style of lookin to capture just a single units profits thus never encounter the losing session/day, sweet, hey hey!!!!

[kewlJ]

Kewlj, what's voodoo nonsense is you being unable to accept that players like Mdawg and Singer can be thousands of dollars ahead making big bets at -EV games.

Right Monet?

In fact, Monet, why dont you tell Kewlj how many $1200 bets you can make before you wipe out that parlay win? And, how many bets do you think you might win before you could lose ALL of that parlay win?

OMG Alan, why do we have to keep going through this. You are an intelligent man. Act like it.

Short term, yes, a player can win playing -EV. Long term he can not. Now we can argue just what constitutes long-term. There are formulas for that and it is going to be different for games that have the possibility of a big jackpot payoff. Long-term in those games will be more trials than say something like blackjack.

Let me use my own history. I play a game with about a 1% advantage. A little more some games, a little less others, depending on exact rules, decks and penetration. There are no big jackpot type payoffs in traditional blackjack (not counting side bets). So the long-term is less than other games like video poker.

So despite that I play with a 1% advantage, I have many short term periods, a session, a day, a week, sometimes weeks into months that I lose. And I have shared many. That is short-term. But long-term, over 18 years, I have played well over a million rounds and am well over a million dollars ahead. (about 1.3 million from blackjack). That is the way it works. When you get enough trial to qualify for long-term, the math kicks in and you can not defy the long-term math with these voodoo ideas like "quitting while ahead", or any other voodoo, long disproven nonsense.

And it works exactly the same with -EV. Short term, a session, a day, a week, or maybe weeks into months a player can win playing -EV. THAT is called variance. But as you get enough trials to get to the long-term, whatever number that may be for the game you are playing, you can no longer defy the math by winning -EV games. Ya just can't! Casinos are built on you people that think you can.

Now Alan, let me ask you and I am trusting you to be honest here, you have played craps and VP for many years. Enough that I suspect you are well into long-term. Are you ahead lifetime?

End of that discussion.


Now monet is not a good example. As redietz pointed out early today, who is to say that a sports handicapper (or horse handicapper) is -EV? There are some good handicappers that are +EV. I certainly am not one. Redietz says he is. I have no reason not to believe him. Monet? I don't know. I know for 4 or 5 months I have followed him, he is. If he wants to answer for longer than that, he can.

[Alan Mendelson]

Seem like this Alan cat subscribe to the even-bob/spike style of lookin to capture just a single units profits thus never encounter the losing session/day, sweet, hey hey!!!!

Monet tell this guy how many "units" you're ahead.

[kewlJ]

Seem like this Alan cat subscribe to the even-bob/spike style of lookin to capture just a single units profits thus never encounter the losing session/day, sweet, hey hey!!!!

Monet tell this guy how many "units" you're ahead.

No Alan, you are well into the long-term life time. You tell us how many units YOU are ahead lifetimes playing these voodoo concepts?