The WoV Thread

[kewlJ]

Now that twat Alan thinks there are no must hit standalone progressives. Then he changed it to none over $50. Then he changed it to none over $500. Then he changed it to none over $10,000.

This sounds a lot like a previous Alan, revision: "I only get to the office once a week". Then once every 2 weeks. Then once a month, then once every 3 months.

Good old Alan. Some things never change.

[jbjb]

Now that twat Alan thinks there are no must hit standalone progressives. Then he changed it to none over $50. Then he changed it to none over $500. Then he changed it to none over $10,000.

This sounds a lot like a previous Alan, revision: "I only get to the office once a week". Then once every 2 weeks. Then once a month, then once every 3 months.

Good old Alan. Some things never change.

Alan could be bluffing all of us and is really out there cleaning up on AP slots and VP.

[kewlJ]

Now it's "Casinos don't kick out APs because they don't win every single wager".

He's trolling at this point. Nobody is that retarded.

Alan is not retarded, although you wouldn't know it from some of the things he says and does which tend to be very bizarre.

What Alan is, is anti-AP. He is one of several people on these forums, Rob Singer is another, that just despised players that make money from the casinos. It isn't hard to figure out what fuels that hatred. They don't and haven't won (long-term). They are degenerate gamblers with neither the discipline, knowledge (despite participating on these forums for decades, where they should have been able to pick some of that up). These true degenerate gamblers will often say something like APing would take the enjoyment out of gambling. It is beyond me how it is enjoyable to lose month after month, year after year. I guess it is just a different mentality.

But over time, these long term, long time losing players just become really bitter with players that with a little knowledge, discipline and work, are able to win. And then you see then do and say anything and everything to try to discredit such players. THAT is Alan in a nut shell. Rob too. Rob (and others) takes it a step further with all his made up stories. To his credit Alan hasn't gone that route.

[kewlJ]

Alan could be bluffing all of us and is really out there cleaning up on AP slots and VP.

I would give you VERY good odds on that. Like 18 y.o's in a row type odds.

[jbjb]

Alan could be bluffing all of us and is really out there cleaning up on AP slots and VP.

I would give you VERY good odds on that. Like 18 y.o's in a row type odds.

I said "could be".

[kewlJ]

Alan could be bluffing all of us and is really out there cleaning up on AP slots and VP.

I would give you VERY good odds on that. Like 18 y.o's in a row type odds.

I said "could be". ��

Oh, you mean like the quote from Dumb and Dumber: 1 in a million change...."so you are telling me there is a chance".

[Don Perignom]

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-...14/#post868856



Is there a Chrome add-on to put "Okay, so" at the beginning of all my paragraphs? Or do I have to do it manually?

[Mission146]

Okay, so, kiss my sweet ass. JK

I don't know why, but I like a conversational writing approach for those sorts of things.

[Mission146]

Actually, let's break the whole thing down from the viewpoint of a third-rate writer (me):

That's how they can go on the big ones. Generally speaking, if they run higher than you are expecting them to hit, then you often will lose some large sum of money. The reason for that is because, let's make a really aggressive assumption and say that you're only expected to drop 15% on the reels, in terms of EV:

Notice that we immediately establish a direct relationship with the reader by using words such as, 'You.' Even though anyone can read the post, it's almost as if I meant the post specifically for that reader. Because I am explaining my position on must-hits whilst simultaneously trying to encourage people NOT to play them unless they are really good, it's important to establish this direct link. I'm not talking to everyone; I'm talking to YOU.

In the third sentence you'll notice I say, "...let's make a really aggressive assumption," you see, I'm not making an aggressive assumption by myself, nor is the reader; this is something that we are working through together.

You'll also notice the superlative, 'Really,' being used; that's going to be very important in that it indicates to the reader that this is not merely an aggressive assumption, oh no, this is a hyper aggressive assumption. In fact, if we were talking about penny denomination MH machines, this assumption would almost never be true to begin with.

Okay, so let's suppose you start playing one at $9880 and we will call it a $5 meter move just to keep things really simple. The machine looks like $9880.00, so suppose that it runs all the way to $9990.00 just for the heck of it. Okay, so we have done 11,000 meter moves ($55,000 coin in) before the machine actually managed to hit. If we had an expected loss on the reels of 15% of all coin-in, then we would expect to lose $8,250 on the reels, but the jackpot hit at $9,990, so we should still look $1,740 to the good, right?

We are still on this journey together, but now I am painting a picture. The reader is now in a casino and has spotted a MH machine at $9,880 and thinks, "This is awesome," but is it really the slam dunk can't lose play the reader might be thinking it is? You'll also notice that the meter, 'Looks like,' in the next sentence, and the reason it, 'Looks like,' that is because I know that there are many readers in the northeast/east part of the country that would prefer for things to look like things rather than just being what they are, for whatever reason. Although, saying it, 'Looks like,' also relates to vision, so helps us continue to paint the picture of the reader actually being in the casino.

After that, you will notice that WE have done 11,000 meter moves, which is my way of telling the reader that we are taking the wonderful journey to the destination of getting our teeth kicked in on a must-hit together. That's also why if WE had an expected loss, etc. This is our loss. Of course, they almost certainly had a bigger piece of the action than I did. lol

The first problem is that you're probably betting at least $5 per spin if you don't want to be there for 7,000 years, so that $1,740 to the good that you think is going to happen if you run that high (and is also based on a VERY aggressive assumption, imo) is really just the difference of running a few Free Games less than expected, the average return of free games being less than expected, or even just running a few decent line pays below expected.

He's betting at least $5 per spin because he doesn't want to be there for 7,000 years. I wanted to reduce variance and we could just work it in shifts, but he didn't like that idea. Notice that I also gave multiple examples of different ways that the reels could go awry rather than making a generic statement such as, "Not running as expected."

----

Anyway, I'm not going to break down the rest of it. I'm just bullshitting anyway. I wrote it the way I wrote it and am just justifying the way I wrote it after the fact.

However it was written, it kept you reading long enough to make it to at least 500+ words, which is more than a great many writers get out of people.

[mickeycrimm]

I took this picture of a linked bank of 10K Must Hits specifically because they were linked which is rare. Another thing Alan doesn't know is that team play on linked bank progressives goes back 40 years. A team would monopolize every machine in the bank. If 10K's were commonly linked today you would see teams on them when the number is ripe. According to Ray Zee, he and the late Tuna Lund had the first slot team back in the 80's.

Do you think this 10K bank is getting close to playable at 9733? (8 machines in the bank) Guess again. It's a $50 meter.

[mickeycrimm]

deleted. duplicate

[AxelWolf]

I didn't realize the promo came up at the last minute, nor that it was paid in bonus money. WU limits were pretty low regardless, weren't they?

This was before my time. I started in right when casinos were telling Norway to get fucked.

I can't remember what WU limits were.

It actually didn't come up last minute. I had a week or so advance notice, but once the promo started you couldn't deposit. I assumed I was all set. I don't know why or how I missed the fact that the bonus winnings were not given instantly, I am fairly certain it either wasn't in the rules or it was hidden...Who knows, perhaps I just missed it? Had they added the bonuses instantly like I and some others assumed, I would've made probably 10x-20x what I made. Hindsight is 20/20... Remember, there weren't any assurances people would actually get paid their bonus money. I was highly surprised they actually paid(Look how well that turned out for them, one of the biggest online casinos in the UK(other countries ?), and I think they do sports in the US(?). I'm confident they wouldn't have paid back losses to anyone that lost.
I was willing to take a chance and risk not getting paid since the upside was significant. But not knowing for sure they would pay, but knowing bonuses were not instant, I still probably would've only deposited 2x more than I did.

Obviously, some other people knew this information I assume someone had been playing there on some weekly bonuses and had some knowledge the casino was trustworthy, those were the guys that made hundreds of thousands each(they had to be sweating the payments).

The promo was only 2 or 3 hours long, but you could spin fairly fast and bet a healthy amount. I think the speed was comparable to IGT's stand-alone E-roullet

[mickeycrimm]

I have no idea where this progressive bank resets to when it hits. But my guess is 9700. The reason it because its a $50 meter. It takes $50 times 100 = $5000 to move the meter $1. The average hit would be 9850. It would take 750K (5000 X 150) to move the meter to 9850.

So 9850/750000 = 1.3%.

On regular 10K's the top progressive is worth 2.8% payback.

[Don Perignom]

Actually, let's break the whole thing down from the viewpoint of a third-rate writer (me):

That's how they can go on the big ones. Generally speaking, if they run higher than you are expecting them to hit, then you often will lose some large sum of money. The reason for that is because, let's make a really aggressive assumption and say that you're only expected to drop 15% on the reels, in terms of EV:

Notice that we immediately establish a direct relationship with the reader by using words such as, 'You.' Even though anyone can read the post, it's almost as if I meant the post specifically for that reader. Because I am explaining my position on must-hits whilst simultaneously trying to encourage people NOT to play them unless they are really good, it's important to establish this direct link. I'm not talking to everyone; I'm talking to YOU.

In the third sentence you'll notice I say, "...let's make a really aggressive assumption," you see, I'm not making an aggressive assumption by myself, nor is the reader; this is something that we are working through together.

You'll also notice the superlative, 'Really,' being used; that's going to be very important in that it indicates to the reader that this is not merely an aggressive assumption, oh no, this is a hyper aggressive assumption. In fact, if we were talking about penny denomination MH machines, this assumption would almost never be true to begin with.

Okay, so let's suppose you start playing one at $9880 and we will call it a $5 meter move just to keep things really simple. The machine looks like $9880.00, so suppose that it runs all the way to $9990.00 just for the heck of it. Okay, so we have done 11,000 meter moves ($55,000 coin in) before the machine actually managed to hit. If we had an expected loss on the reels of 15% of all coin-in, then we would expect to lose $8,250 on the reels, but the jackpot hit at $9,990, so we should still look $1,740 to the good, right?

We are still on this journey together, but now I am painting a picture. The reader is now in a casino and has spotted a MH machine at $9,880 and thinks, "This is awesome," but is it really the slam dunk can't lose play the reader might be thinking it is? You'll also notice that the meter, 'Looks like,' in the next sentence, and the reason it, 'Looks like,' that is because I know that there are many readers in the northeast/east part of the country that would prefer for things to look like things rather than just being what they are, for whatever reason. Although, saying it, 'Looks like,' also relates to vision, so helps us continue to paint the picture of the reader actually being in the casino.

After that, you will notice that WE have done 11,000 meter moves, which is my way of telling the reader that we are taking the wonderful journey to the destination of getting our teeth kicked in on a must-hit together. That's also why if WE had an expected loss, etc. This is our loss. Of course, they almost certainly had a bigger piece of the action than I did. lol

The first problem is that you're probably betting at least $5 per spin if you don't want to be there for 7,000 years, so that $1,740 to the good that you think is going to happen if you run that high (and is also based on a VERY aggressive assumption, imo) is really just the difference of running a few Free Games less than expected, the average return of free games being less than expected, or even just running a few decent line pays below expected.

He's betting at least $5 per spin because he doesn't want to be there for 7,000 years. I wanted to reduce variance and we could just work it in shifts, but he didn't like that idea. Notice that I also gave multiple examples of different ways that the reels could go awry rather than making a generic statement such as, "Not running as expected."

----

Anyway, I'm not going to break down the rest of it. I'm just bullshitting anyway. I wrote it the way I wrote it and am just justifying the way I wrote it after the fact.

However it was written, it kept you reading long enough to make it to at least 500+ words, which is more than a great many writers get out of people.

You make a lot of good points.

[PositiveVariance]

Surprise surprise, Alan finds the word "Ploppy" offensive lol

[mickeycrimm]

Surprise surprise, Alan finds the word "Ploppy" offensive lol

Yes, its much better to call them "suckers" or "marks."

BTW, Alan frequents casinos and has a camera phone. He should show everyone that 10K's are linked instead of demanding that others prove they are not linked.

[Ozzy]

As far as gambling goes, no one is a bigger rube then Mendelson. Tasha even beats him.

[jdaewoo]

As far as gambling goes, no one is a bigger rube then Mendelson. Tasha even beats him.

The obnoxious cunt Alan Mendelson didn't even have the dignity to acknowledge that his claim that stand alone must hits of $10k+ don't exist was completely absurd.

[PositiveVariance]

I swear it seems like Alan the “forum poster” and Alan the “person” in front of the camera, are to completely different people.

[jbjb]

I'm hoping to run into Alan when I'm in Vegas in a few weeks.