Progressive Road Map

[monet]

I seen mcap say something about meters and progressives won't pay the bills but I would beg to differ on that subject.

Seems I may not be the only one here that sometimes doesn't recognize sarcasm monet.

Mcaps comment was in reference to Rob Singer, who during various discussions about EV in blackjack, refers to EV as "phantom bucks" that can't pay the rent or buy groceries. In this case perhaps mcap should have called it "phantom credits".

Both are equally wrong. In this town, there are lots of rents, mortgages, groceries and other bills that get paid on the backs of meters, progressives (machines, not betting systems) and blackjack EV.

I slipped up a bit. I was going to put in that post that mcap might be being sarcastic here but I was cooking Swordfish in my Cast Iron Skillet with wilted Romaine Hearts and a Bean Salad Medley. I also try not to read any of Rob Singers posts so I may slip from time to time on that as well. Thank you though for pointing it out... I do appreciate it! Getting old is a bitch it seems.

[Alan Mendelson]

You have to be cautious playing progressives because you just might not win.

Years ago there was a Vegas team that went to Rincon to play the double double bonus progressive. Four players. But at the time there were five seats. The team lost to the fifth seat twice in rapid order and went away. They also lost out when Rincon shifted a progressive slot jackpot to that video poker progressive and that was more than $60 thousand.

[kewlJ]

You have to be cautious playing progressives because you just might not win.

Not to pick on you Alan, but this is typical 'Alan Mendelson' thinking and about as far away from AP mentality as you can get. There are no guarantees (in the short term). All you can do is play with an advantage and you will get your fair share.

I guess this mentality of yours explains (not really) why you made such a big deal out of me losing $8800, while playing with an advantage.

Jus like how regular gamblers, playing -EV don't always lose, players playing with an advantage don't always win. But I like our chances a lot better than yours.

[mickeycrimm]

0.25% so whatevs. But meter reats and payback % and that jargon don’t matter ain’t nobody ever paid the bills with meter rates and paytables.

Did you really just say that? I thought you were more capable than that.

Edit: Oh, okay. You were being sarcastic to Singer.

[MaxPen]

You have to be cautious playing progressives because you just might not win.

Years ago there was a Vegas team that went to Rincon to play the double double bonus progressive. Four players. But at the time there were five seats. The team lost to the fifth seat twice in rapid order and went away. They also lost out when Rincon shifted a progressive slot jackpot to that video poker progressive and that was more than $60 thousand.

Proof that nothing is idiot proof. There is always a new and improved idiot. Alan is the leader.

[mickeycrimm]

You have to be cautious playing progressives because you just might not win.

Years ago there was a Vegas team that went to Rincon to play the double double bonus progressive. Four players. But at the time there were five seats. The team lost to the fifth seat twice in rapid order and went away. They also lost out when Rincon shifted a progressive slot jackpot to that video poker progressive and that was more than $60 thousand.

I used to play the bartop progressives at the Cal Neva/Reno when the meters were up. Ten guys banging away. I didn't get the royal 90% of the time. But the 10% of the time I did get it got me a healthy profit on the bank.

[monet]

You have to be cautious playing progressives because you just might not win.

Years ago there was a Vegas team that went to Rincon to play the double double bonus progressive. Four players. But at the time there were five seats. The team lost to the fifth seat twice in rapid order and went away. They also lost out when Rincon shifted a progressive slot jackpot to that video poker progressive and that was more than $60 thousand.

Proof that nothing is idiot proof. There is always a new and improved idiot. Alan is the leader.

We all knew Alan would get to this eventually. Nobody is surprised.

[Rob.Singer]

I seen mcap say something about meters and progressives won't pay the bills but I would beg to differ on that subject.

Seems I may not be the only one here that sometimes doesn't recognize sarcasm monet.

Mcaps comment was in reference to Rob Singer, who during various discussions about EV in blackjack, refers to EV as "phantom bucks" that can't pay the rent or buy groceries. In this case perhaps mcap should have called it "phantom credits".

Both are equally wrong. In this town, there are lots of rents, mortgages, groceries and other bills that get paid on the backs of meters, progressives (machines, not betting systems) and blackjack EV.

It's the misleading way you guys word this stuff. Why not say it the way the theory is REALLY supposed to work? As such...."I only play machine progressives that, theoretically, are in a positive enuf range for me that it's worth trying for. However, I know nothing is guaranteed, and if I find myself going 200,000 hands between royals or in a dry streak on the slots etc.--or both--then unless I've saved enough cash in my accounts, have a generous rich uncle, or married into easy money, then all that wonderful beautiful EV ain't worth dick."

You people get in trouble when you try to make others believe it's inevitable that any and all losing days or streaks will naturally, eventually turn, because "the math doesn't lie." But it doesn't lie for the casinos either, who 100 per cent KNOW they're going to win over time. You don't. In other words, you guys try to convince others that when losing, you're due! when that couldn't be further from gambling truth.

So does this EV truly pay for mortgages, groceries, etc? Only if you actually win. And nothing guarantees that, regardless of how much "theoretical +EV" you've accumulated.

What you guys do in this regard really isn't all that different from what I do. When you're losing, you're expecting and hoping the long term math will be on your side sooner rather than later. In my case, I'm expecting and hoping the session ending winner that my structured strategy sets the table up for, appears sooner rather than later. In other words, I expect and hope because I am "due" just as you folks rely on that faulty term for. And neither of us can buy or pay for a thing without the actual win. Trying to wordsmith it around in any other way is deceiving.

[Alan Mendelson]

I know Rob will be criticized for his last post but it's true. Playing with an edge is the smart thing to do, but you're still dealing with a shuffle or an RNG so you're edge still has that hurdle to overcome. You can't always expect an edge to make you win. And that is what's missing in all the AP talk.

[monet]

I know Rob will be criticized for his last post but it's true. Playing with an edge is the smart thing to do, but you're still dealing with a shuffle or an RNG so you're edge still has that hurdle to overcome. You can't always expect an edge to make you win. And that is what's missing in all the AP talk.

You could be on to something but the problem is that You and Rob believe that you saw 18 Yos in a row at a Craps Table in Vegas and it was like any other day at the Crap Table. If I ever run a Dice Game I am going to put on the Felt an Alan Mendelson bet that you can only win if 18 Yos in a row come up. My Box man is going to have to use 18 of those lammers.

Also, Rob Singer believes that he can Martingale a Video Poker machine into winning millions of dollars.
This guy also believes he has found the glitch on certain VP machines but when put to the test he can't verify nor publish the results.
The last thing that I know about him is that he has changed proven mathematical Video Poker strategy into Rob Singer Strategy which never misses and uses a Hit and Run Martingale combination.

Motherfuckers pissing me off! Actually, making me type out that last paragraph. I could barely type it out, it was so absurd.

[mickeycrimm]

I seen mcap say something about meters and progressives won't pay the bills but I would beg to differ on that subject.

Seems I may not be the only one here that sometimes doesn't recognize sarcasm monet.

Mcaps comment was in reference to Rob Singer, who during various discussions about EV in blackjack, refers to EV as "phantom bucks" that can't pay the rent or buy groceries. In this case perhaps mcap should have called it "phantom credits".

Both are equally wrong. In this town, there are lots of rents, mortgages, groceries and other bills that get paid on the backs of meters, progressives (machines, not betting systems) and blackjack EV.

It's the misleading way you guys word this stuff. Why not say it the way the theory is REALLY supposed to work? As such...."I only play machine progressives that, theoretically, are in a positive enuf range for me that it's worth trying for. However, I know nothing is guaranteed, and if I find myself going 200,000 hands between royals or in a dry streak on the slots etc.--or both--then unless I've saved enough cash in my accounts, have a generous rich uncle, or married into easy money, then all that wonderful beautiful EV ain't worth dick."

You people get in trouble when you try to make others believe it's inevitable that any and all losing days or streaks will naturally, eventually turn, because "the math doesn't lie." But it doesn't lie for the casinos either, who 100 per cent KNOW they're going to win over time. You don't. In other words, you guys try to convince others that when losing, you're due! when that couldn't be further from gambling truth.

So does this EV truly pay for mortgages, groceries, etc? Only if you actually win. And nothing guarantees that, regardless of how much "theoretical +EV" you've accumulated.

What you guys do in this regard really isn't all that different from what I do. When you're losing, you're expecting and hoping the long term math will be on your side sooner rather than later. In my case, I'm expecting and hoping the session ending winner that my structured strategy sets the table up for, appears sooner rather than later. In other words, I expect and hope because I am "due" just as you folks rely on that faulty term for. And neither of us can buy or pay for a thing without the actual win. Trying to wordsmith it around in any other way is deceiving.

In his own mind Rob Singer is the only one guaranteed to win. Pure Hogwash. I've never had a losing year. I havent had a losing month in about 10 years. Who gives a rats ass whether Singer believes it or not. And he obviously knows nothing about risk of ruin calculations.

[mickeycrimm]

[QUOTE=mickeycrimm;71233]

Seems I may not be the only one here that sometimes doesn't recognize sarcasm monet.

Mcaps comment was in reference to Rob Singer, who during various discussions about EV in blackjack, refers to EV as "phantom bucks" that can't pay the rent or buy groceries. In this case perhaps mcap should have called it "phantom credits".

Both are equally wrong. In this town, there are lots of rents, mortgages, groceries and other bills that get paid on the backs of meters, progressives (machines, not betting systems) and blackjack EV.

It's the misleading way you guys word this stuff. Why not say it the way the theory is REALLY supposed to work? As such...."I only play machine progressives that, theoretically, are in a positive enuf range for me that it's worth trying for. However, I know nothing is guaranteed, and if I find myself going 200,000 hands between royals or in a dry streak on the slots etc.--or both--then unless I've saved enough cash in my accounts, have a generous rich uncle, or married into easy money, then all that wonderful beautiful EV ain't worth dick."

You people get in trouble when you try to make others believe it's inevitable that any and all losing days or streaks will naturally, eventually turn, because "the math doesn't lie." But it doesn't lie for the casinos either, who 100 per cent KNOW they're going to win over time. You don't. In other words, you guys try to convince others that when losing, you're due! when that couldn't be further from gambling truth.

So does this EV truly pay for mortgages, groceries, etc? Only if you actually win. And nothing guarantees that, regardless of how much "theoretical +EV" you've accumulated.

What you guys do in this regard really isn't all that different from what I do. When you're losing, you're expecting and hoping the long term math will be on your side sooner rather than later. In my case, I'm expecting and hoping the session ending winner that my structured strategy sets the table up for, appears sooner rather than later. In other words, I expect and hope because I am "due" just as you folks rely on that faulty term for. And neither of us can buy or pay for a thing without the actual win. Trying to wordsmith it around in any other way is deceiving.

In his own mind Rob Singer is the only one guaranteed to win. Pure Hogwash. I've never had a losing year. I havent had a losing month in about 10 years. Who gives a rats ass whether Singer believes it or not. And he obviously knows nothing about risk of ruin calculations.

PS: Going 200,000 hands without a royal doesn't bust someone that knows what they are doing.I once went 250,000 hands without a royal and still made a profit.

[tableplay]

But it doesn't lie for the casinos either, who 100 per cent KNOW they're going to win over time. You don't.

Ok, so a casino knows they're going to win because they offer up games where they have the edge in aggregate. But, if a player applies the same principle of only playing when they have an edge, they don't know they're going to win. In other words, applying the principle of playing with an edge has nothing to do with anything - it is who applies the principle that determines the long-term results.

[monet]

But it doesn't lie for the casinos either, who 100 per cent KNOW they're going to win over time. You don't.

Ok, so a casino knows they're going to win because they offer up games where they have the edge in aggregate. But, if a player applies the same principle of only playing when they have an edge, they don't know they're going to win. In other words, applying the principle of playing with an edge has nothing to do with anything - it is who applies the principle that determines the long-term results.

How can you talk to this guy? This guy thinks he can martingale VP and Hit and Run and win Millions.
I heard or read his strategy that says I walked into the Casino and won my daily win goal in 10 minutes and left.
He thinks that is all their is to it. Win Goal every session and you can't lose. If you have some crazy day where you lose
half your daily bankroll you go back to square 1 or some goofy shit like that. Maybe it was you have to go to the 25 dollar game if your down that much.
I can't remember but I'd rather talk to the guy who saw 18 Yos in a row. He makes some sense compared to this guy who makes no sense.
I am all for discussions but I find it hard to talk to this guy since I know you can not rationalize with him.

By the way I don't mind you talking to him I just get surprised when people try to rationalize with him.
You know he isn't ever going to change his mind on any topic or see things in a different light.
How hasn't anyone who was taught the millionaire strategy by Singer ever wrote their own book or
leaked out what it is all about. I mean you can't keep that under wraps in this modern society if it is a real thing that is.

Many of us on this site are in the Casinos every day. Surely someone would of ran into one of the Singer Students?
At the very least many of us would of heard the stories or legends.

[Alan Mendelson]

I know Rob will be criticized for his last post but it's true. Playing with an edge is the smart thing to do, but you're still dealing with a shuffle or an RNG so you're edge still has that hurdle to overcome. You can't always expect an edge to make you win. And that is what's missing in all the AP talk.

You could be on to something but the problem is that You and Rob believe that you saw 18 Yos in a row at a Craps Table in Vegas and it was like any other day at the Crap Table. If I ever run a Dice Game I am going to put on the Felt an Alan Mendelson bet that you can only win if 18 Yos in a row come up. My Box man is going to have to use 18 of those lammers.

Also, Rob Singer believes that he can Martingale a Video Poker machine into winning millions of dollars.
This guy also believes he has found the glitch on certain VP machines but when put to the test he can't verify nor publish the results.
The last thing that I know about him is that he has changed proven mathematical Video Poker strategy into Rob Singer Strategy which never misses and uses a Hit and Run Martingale combination.

Motherfuckers pissing me off! Actually, making me type out that last paragraph. I could barely type it out, it was so absurd.

Well you've done a good job repeating the falsehoods told about Rob. But I'll let Rob respond.

But I will say this: there's no difference between Rob playing at a higher denomination to make up for previous losses and what any other gambler does when they increase their bets in an attempt to make a comeback. And, it's not a Martingale.

[Mission146]

How can you talk to this guy?

Looks like old dogs are owed an apology, they can be taught new tricks.

I would sooner try to hold a meaningful gambling discussion with my fiancé’s guinea pigs.

[Mission146]

But I will say this: there's no difference between Rob playing at a higher denomination to make up for previous losses and what any other gambler does when they increase their bets in an attempt to make a comeback. And, it's not a Martingale.

That’s because there’s no difference between Rob and the average gambler, and the average gambler is not an AP or even close to being an AP, so there you go.

It’s not a classic Martingale, but it’s certainly a system, though it may not have a strict formula.

[Prozema]

If everyone just ignores the village idiot instead of arguing with them, whomever you believe that is, the content here will improve tenfold.

[mickeycrimm]

I know Rob will be criticized for his last post but it's true. Playing with an edge is the smart thing to do, but you're still dealing with a shuffle or an RNG so you're edge still has that hurdle to overcome. You can't always expect an edge to make you win. And that is what's missing in all the AP talk.

You could be on to something but the problem is that You and Rob believe that you saw 18 Yos in a row at a Craps Table in Vegas and it was like any other day at the Crap Table. If I ever run a Dice Game I am going to put on the Felt an Alan Mendelson bet that you can only win if 18 Yos in a row come up. My Box man is going to have to use 18 of those lammers.

Also, Rob Singer believes that he can Martingale a Video Poker machine into winning millions of dollars.
This guy also believes he has found the glitch on certain VP machines but when put to the test he can't verify nor publish the results.
The last thing that I know about him is that he has changed proven mathematical Video Poker strategy into Rob Singer Strategy which never misses and uses a Hit and Run Martingale combination.

Motherfuckers pissing me off! Actually, making me type out that last paragraph. I could barely type it out, it was so absurd.

Well you've done a good job repeating the falsehoods told about Rob. But I'll let Rob respond.

But I will say this: there's no difference between Rob playing at a higher denomination to make up for previous losses and what any other gambler does when they increase their bets in an attempt to make a comeback. And, it's not a Martingale.

Thinking that playing at a higher demon "will make up for losses" is the mistake. You cant have it both ways alan. One side of your mouth says there is no guarantee to hit, the other side says higher denom will make up for losses.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm if you don't increase your bets you'd need a very long string of winners to make up for losses and to cone out ahead.