That was a great explanation tableplay.
But it doesn't explain how, with all those easy/hard ways to beat the casinos, there is little to no visible impact on the casinos, and no one ever hears of or sees these very strange characters who make $500 guaranteed a day in real life. The ones who write the books are weirdly numbery, but the ones who claim to actually do it are almost always very strange persons. Like Monet's claim that he lies about what he does, to dinner guests, and family. Voluntary outcasts.
78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].
This is simply because the the vast majority of players don't apply these techniques. So in aggregate the casinos make a lot of money since only a very small number of people apply these techniques. In any case, your beliefs for or against these techniques are not a requirement for them to work. All that is required is for the game to have a positive expectation, the player to bet a sufficiently small amount on each +EV trial so as to defeat variance, and the opportunity to play the +EV game multiple times (to also aid in defeating variance).
I think the primary explanations for what you've observed are pretty simple. Most people who have solved one game rarely possess the ability to fend off the overall addiction of the other various forms of gambling. So the savants who have conquered one gambling venue seek action gambling at other, negative EV games. That ruins most of the best and brightest. The people who actually win do so because they are somehow immune to the addictive nature of the gambling experience. That by definition suggests that they are outside the behavioral range of the "normal" folks who become addicted. One would naturally expect these immunes to be somehow different in fundamental ways or to not abide by the mores (consumerism, for example) of the culture at large.
"Voluntary outcasts" shouldn't have a pejorative tone, given this.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
Y(m-1)/m < Y
So if a loss occurs after X hands, then you would need to win at a rate greater than expectation
over the next (m-1)X hands to achieve results that are equal to expectation after mX hands...is that correct?
And if the expectation after X hands is positive, then why is a loss after X hands viewed as successful?
Is it because the math forecasts that you will win in the future, at a rate above expectation?
First, great explanations and posts, tableplay. Unfortunately they will and are falling on deaf ears. There is an old proverb that says "there are none so blind as those who will not see". We are dealing with a whole crew of doubters and hater's who simply refuse to see.
Next, I want to address Singer's accusation that my household has lost income in the form of lost welfare and food stamp benefits due to the death of my spouse. Of course no one in my household is or was on any kind of government assistance. In my lifetime, I received food stamps once, for a 3 month period in 2001, when I was 18, for a period of 3 months while I was homeless and still in High school. I didn't even apply. It was arranged by the social worker at the men's shelter. Because I left the shelter very early each morning catching 2 public transit buses to get to high school, I left before breakfast was served. After school I went directly to a part-time job, which meant I did not return to the shelter until 10pm or so, well after any evening meal. Those food stamps enabled me to get something to eat between school and my job. At the end of those 3 months, I graduated high school, moved to a different state, got a job and have never been on any kind of public assistance since. That is my total knowledge concerning public assistance. I am not embarrassed about those 3 months while I finished high school. My situation was the exact purpose of public assistance.
Now Rob Singer, or whatever name or sockpuppet this person is using at any given time, has made several comments about me and other members of this site being on welfare and public assistance. Each time those comments have fallen flat. I suspect no one on this site even knows anything about welfare or public assistance. As near as I can tell, the site is a handful of AP's, all who have some level of success and have no need for any kind of public assistance and the remaining members all have or had some kind of career, some pretty successful from what I can tell. So Singer's comments about welfare resonate with no one, and never get any kind of response, good, bad or ugly. No one knows anything about the subject or cares.
But it should make you wonder why this person, Singer, a titan of the business world, top level vice president making mega bucks, retiring early, and then following up with a million dollars in negative EV video poker wins, has any knowledge of welfare and or food stamps? Made me wonder....so I looked it up among other things. If you look up Singer's real name, there is a wealth of public information. Some already discussed, various judgements, evictions, restraining orders against, so on and so forth. Singer has an explanation for all. These guys always do. It's never them in the wrong, Never their fault. Always the other guy and always a bad rap.
So one of the items that is public information is that this Singer person, had been receiving welfare and snap benefits, which I guess is the new name of food stamps, in recent years. Big surprise there. Please note the past tense (had). Reason being, this person, same age and addresses, is now ineligible to receive benefits because he fraudulently accepted benefits he was not entitled to. I mean really....is anybody surprised at this. Oh, and you Singer supporters and enablers, don't take my word for this....look it up.
Forget the scam that has been perpetrated for I don't know how long, 10-15 years? Here are the facts:
I take it at his word (why since everything else he has said is a lie), that this person was a successful businessman, vice president of whatever company and retired early. From that point on his entire story is fabricated.
No million dollar winnings at negative EV video poker. No magical progression system. Progression systems can not turn a negative EV game into a positive EV game and NO ONE can win a million dollars playing negative EV video poker.
A million dollars or $900,000 or whatever he claims in handpay wins, is not winning if it costs you 1.5 or 2 million to get that $900,000. Just ridiculous.
So the real story is this guys retires early with whatever nest egg he has and proceeds to blow some portion of that retirement as a degenerate gambler playing losing video poker. Progressions of all things. LOL! I hope he didn't lose it all....I really do. But whether he lost it all or half or whatever significant portion, the end result is he lives in a RV in someone else's driveway mooching electricity and internet service. And according to public record, fraudulently receiving welfare and snap (food stamp) benefits.
So yeah, he is a little bitter. And lashes out at any of us disciplined enough to apply mathematically sound techniques and actually win a little money from the casinos.
He is a fraud, a liar and a dirt bag. In short he is a degenerative gambler. It almost seems unfair that one person is cursed with both extreme stupidity and ugliness. Maybe if I was dealt those cards (stupidity AND ugliness), I would be bitter too.
But really this charade has gone on long enough. Ask yourself this one question. If this person's story was anywhere close to true....why all the sock puppets? Because this Singer person is the King of sockpuppets on every site he is on! Answer: he need them to vouch for him....an attempt to bolster credibility. Sockpuppets! Come on...that should have been red flag #1. And again don't take my word for this... talk to the various site owners/administrators. Wizard identified and banned singer sock puppets in recent months. Dan Druff did likewise here. No doubt the same at the video poker site.
For those that have been supporting and enabling this fraud....just stop. It's well past time to move toward reality.
To Dan Druff: what gives Dan? 4-5 months ago, you publicly posted that you wanted the site to head in a more positive, legitimate direction. You banned Singer and that lead to many new members. Knowledgeable gambling people, some AP's some recreational, but almost all wanted to contribute positively. Then you reverse course and re-instate Singer, I guess at Alan's begging, and we are right back to square one. And some of the legit members, Axel, Monet, RS, Maxpen, Boz and I am sure a few others have left or rarely post now. The site is nothing but a troll site, because you allowed the world's biggest troll and a fraud with an agenda to mislead people back. Good job Dan.
Last edited by kewlJ; 05-15-2018 at 06:57 PM.
Wow. Well, it would explain the odd fixation. I never understood why government aid was such a big bugaboo with him. This would make sense. This would also put Mr. Mendelson's credibility in a different light. The whole presentation has been a fiction.
LOL -- perhaps coach will revisit his logic of thinking posting jackpot photos means something.
Was there really ever any doubt?
What credibility?
Poor Rob (pun intended), now he’s gonna write 10 pages of his normal bullshit trying to rebuke the truth here. Alan will probably make some threat about calling the FBI because someone said something negative about his boyfriend Rob Stringer, then he’ll cower away for a few weeks then randomly come back and pretend like he’s hot shit.
The expectation is constant and exerts itself after M grows sufficiently large. That is, when M is sufficiently large the actual results will converge to expectation. If the expectation is positive then profit will occur if M is big. M for the casino is extremely large and that is why a profit occurs for the casino. It is up to the player to bet sufficiently small and to play at a positive expectation in order to get in enough plays to make M sufficiently large to converge to positive expectation (i.e. to act as a mini-casino). A single loss is not viewed as successful or not successful (in reply to your 2nd question) - success (or failure) is an adjective that is attached to a series of plays in aggregate where the series is very, very large and the expectation is positive for the player. The answer to your first question is Yes - but M must be very large. How large is a function of the variance of the game and the magnitude of the positive expectation.
With regard to question #3, success is applied to the sum of all plays of a positive expectation game, not to an arbitrary dividing line of the first X plays and the ensuing X+1 plays up to when the player plays his or her last hand. The game must converge to its expectation for a large M. So play games with a positive expectation and play sufficiently small to make M large and profit (success) will be achieved. This is what KewlJ meant - if you and/or others wish to focus on the semantics of Kewlj's delivery of this important message, then you will miss this important point. My goal here was to say what I said in red and bold above, so I will not comment further on this topic - that is, I am satisfied with what I have stated there whether others here are or aren't and so will not comment further on it.
There are currently 436 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 436 guests)