$25k challenge

[Dankyone]

Re 3.) Alan doesn’t understand what theoretical means.

Quite possible.

Quite true. After decades of losing (and somewhat heavy) play he doesn’t even know how to exploit a comp system.

[AxelWolf]

I can't think of anybody here who would rank above you as the "top math guy",
but feel free to nominate others if you are so inclined....WOV is undoubtedly as you say it is.



I understand the above to be Singer's contention all along.

It is highly doubtful that enough sessions even could be played to get into the, "Long run," when it comes to something like this.

You have to get into millions and millions of hands before someone is virtually guaranteed to lose, and that's if you're just playing one denomination. That's why I personally don't challenge Singer's claimed results, from what I can tell, they are mathematically possible.

Your explanation seems reasonable.

Singer has always claimed that the long term doesn't necessarily apply to the player,
the player can't play enough to reach or even approach the long term.

The long term is theoretical, and applies to the casino.

Who here is better than Mission at gambling math?

[mickeycrimm]

The long term is theoretical, and applies to the casino.

The above statement is one of the stupidist things ever said on VCT.

[mickeycrimm]

If we can get the sore losers to stop with the dodge and deflect nonsense about how dire they wish our personal finances were, I'll ask the tough question again.

Seems everyone agrees I wouldn't have much chance of losing a session TODAY. Yet the ap's claim that I'll lose in some type of "long-term". Exactly how is that done....exactly why do my chances of winning any individual session go way down? It makes no sense. Remember, this isn't coin flips or blackjack.

# of hands played is not an indicator of some type of long term with my strategy. In about 350 individual sessions I estimate I've played 350 X 4 hours X 400 hph (don't get nervous--this is a complex strategy that requires slower, more attentive play) or about 560,000 hands. Yet even if I played 100,000 sessions there is no difference. Each session still has the same high probability of being successful.

In no case am I turning -ev into positive ev. That's just an uninformed argument point. But what I AM doing is proving the -EV games in a unique game like video poker, can indeed very consistently turn a profit. If I had started with a $6500 bankroll to make $2500 minimum then likely not. But with the $57,200 bankroll I use, it almost assures success every time out.

Now somebody please tell me how I've done the impossible. Tell me something coherent without the continual dumb flame "you can only win like that if you play +ev games!"

One more point: 560,000 hands with a profit of $984,000. That's $1.75/hand played. Where else you people gonna find something so profitable for so little work? Is that why you don't want it to be??

There you have it, folks, starting at $1 denom and martying from there, Rob produced a $2500 or more win in just an average of 1600 hands per session. And in other news, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and the man behind the moon will be making posts here shortly. That's all you need to play to hit the big hands.LOLOLOL!

[Alan Mendelson]

The long term is theoretical, and applies to the casino.

The above statement is one of the stupidist things ever said on VCT.

Okay, so he didn't word it properly but we get the idea:

There is a theoretical return based on the paytable. You might do better or worse when you play.

The casino unlike individual players is more likely to actually see the long term because the casino plays 24/7.

Does it matter that the casino sees the long term? No. Because the same long term math applies even to short term play, i.e., when you have 4 to the royal you always have a 1/47 chance of drawing the royal in a 52 card game.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm would you accept Rob's win goal results of $2500 if he only played $25/coin video poker? How about if he only played $100/coin video poker?

If he hit 3oak just once, and two-pair once, and broke even on a few other hands he'd have a $2500 win.

Would you accept that? No so-called Martingale involved. Just straight play. No big wins rquired. But he gets up and leaves when he reaches his win goal.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickeycrimm would you accept Rob's win goal results of $2500 if he only played $25/coin video poker? How about if he only played $100/coin video poker?

If he hit 3oak just once, and two-pair once, and broke even on a few other hands he'd have a $2500 win.

Would you accept that? No so-called Martingale involved. Just straight play. No big wins rquired. But he gets up and leaves when he reaches his win goal.

Yo ritmatick be ways off! Bet five hunert dollahs and mek tree of a kand you win fiftin hunert dollahs minus the five hunert you bet fer a net gain of only one tousand dollahs. Nex han hit too pairs you win one tousand dollahs minus the five hunert dolluhs you's bet. So a net gain on da too hans of ony fiftin hunert dolluhs. Dats how us unedumacated hill billuhs got it figerd. You's be a edumacated idot.

[Rob.Singer]

Mickeycrimm would you accept Rob's win goal results of $2500 if he only played $25/coin video poker? How about if he only played $100/coin video poker?

If he hit 3oak just once, and two-pair once, and broke even on a few other hands he'd have a $2500 win.

Would you accept that? No so-called Martingale involved. Just straight play. No big wins rquired. But he gets up and leaves when he reaches his win goal.

He wouldn't. Because Mickey is the type of person who only wants to think about him as being a winner, and he gets angry at someone being a much better/more successful gambler than he is....esp. someone who doesn't let it consume his entire life.

$1500 or $2500, it wouldn't matter to a nobody like him. He's just an angry, lonely, old man with a vastly unfulfilled life....one who's spent years crawling around on gaming forums as a feckless human being.

Can you just IMAGINE what would happen to him if this forum shut down? I see it as an entertaining event: he sees it as horrifying. And I would love every minute that I contemplated his suffering over it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm would you accept Rob's win goal results of $2500 if he only played $25/coin video poker? How about if he only played $100/coin video poker?

If he hit 3oak just once, and two-pair once, and broke even on a few other hands he'd have a $2500 win.

Would you accept that? No so-called Martingale involved. Just straight play. No big wins rquired. But he gets up and leaves when he reaches his win goal.

Yo ritmatick be ways off! Bet five hunert dollahs and mek tree of a kand you win fiftin hunert dollahs minus the five hunert you bet fer a net gain of only one tousand dollahs. Nex han hit too pairs you win one tousand dollahs minus the five hunert dolluhs you's bet. So a net gain on da too hans of ony fiftin hunert dolluhs. Dats how us unedumacated hill billuhs got it figerd. You's be a edumacated idot.

Drunk? Can't find the right keys?

[Rob.Singer]

mickey's the epitome of a broke loner who needs to make up pathetic stories in order to cope with his wasted life.

So mickey....since you are so sure that my strategy is a guaranteed loser, why are you not absolutely JUMPING onto my challenge? After all, with that "6-figure income" rolling in every year and with the hobo-existence you lead, you've GOTTA have quite the stash. And, as an added bonus, I'll play the ten sessions as being nos. 351 thru 360--a simple continuation to what I've already done. That way, instead of identifying them as being nos. 1-10 and looking at them as "Singer can get lucky in the short term and definitely win at least 8 out of 10", I'll be far enough into your "long term" where you feel comfortable enuf that I'll lose!

Sound fair? Got that tingle going up your leg yet? Growing any balls over it?

[coach belly]

The long term is theoretical, and applies to the casino.

The above statement is one of the stupidist things ever said on VCT.

It's my interpretation of what Mission wrote below.

The long term involves millions and millions of hands, a player is highly unlikely to reach it.

It is highly doubtful that enough sessions even could be played to get into the, "Long run," when it comes to something like this.

You have to get into millions and millions of hands before someone is virtually guaranteed to lose, and that's if you're just playing one denomination. That's why I personally don't challenge Singer's claimed results, from what I can tell, they are mathematically possible.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickeycrimm would you accept Rob's win goal results of $2500 if he only played $25/coin video poker? How about if he only played $100/coin video poker?

If he hit 3oak just once, and two-pair once, and broke even on a few other hands he'd have a $2500 win.

Would you accept that? No so-called Martingale involved. Just straight play. No big wins rquired. But he gets up and leaves when he reaches his win goal.

He wouldn't. Because Mickey is the type of person who only wants to think about him as being a winner, and he gets angry at someone being a much better/more successful gambler than he is....esp. someone who doesn't let it consume his entire life.

$1500 or $2500, it wouldn't matter to a nobody like him. He's just an angry, lonely, old man with a vastly unfulfilled life....one who's spent years crawling around on gaming forums as a feckless human being.

Can you just IMAGINE what would happen to him if this forum shut down? I see it as an entertaining event: he sees it as horrifying. And I would love every minute that I contemplated his suffering over it.

You've stated how much you've made in your career, 1.4 million. A little bit of creative accounting on your part as you left off the $250,000 you say you lost when you were an "AP.' I've been at it 26 years. I know this tears your whole world apart but I've made more money in gambling than you claim you have made. Try not to cry to hard. Maybe you will get over it in time. Please don't shoot yourself, er, ah, no, go ahead and do that. The world will be a better place.

There are others in our little machine play world that have made much more than you claim to have made. Dancer has made ten times more than you claim you made. I know of a 4 year span where Tuna Lund made 4 Mil. His slot team was the first and last of the bigtime teams to be in existence. He died a multi-millionaire. And between 2000 and 2004 there were a few players on the Chicagoland boats that made 7 figures. Tom Robertson is a multi-millionaire from bankrolling slot teams. Mike S., I won't mention his last name, makes your bankroll look like pigeon shit.

So come on with your post slandering all of them. No truth in what you say about them though. Nothing but figments of your disillusional imagination. They way out classed your punk ass...and even I beat you for the amount of money you claim you made.

So go ahead and cry, bitch, moan and lie like the sniveler you are. It won't do your phony fake ass any good. Because no one gives a rats ass about you.

[Alan Mendelson]

Gosh I didn't know you gambling pros were playing "Can You Top This." Does it matter if one of you makes more money than the other guy? I guess it does.

Rob when you were a professional did you work full time or were you also employed?

Mickey what other job did you have during the years you outperformed Rob? And are you now enjoying the health and pension benefits in your later years?

I really admire you winning career gamblers and I hope your retirement and health coverage is well taken care of. Congratulations on your successes.

[kewlJ]

It's my interpretation of what Mission wrote below.

The long term involves millions and millions of hands, a player is highly unlikely to reach it.

It is highly doubtful that enough sessions even could be played to get into the, "Long run," when it comes to something like this.

You have to get into millions and millions of hands before someone is virtually guaranteed to lose, and that's if you're just playing one denomination. That's why I personally don't challenge Singer's claimed results, from what I can tell, they are mathematically possible.

I think both your interpretation and Mission's comments about the longterm are wrong.

In Blackjack we have something called N0 (that is N-zero), which is basically the number of hands you need to play for results to overcome variance and be close to expectation (70% of being within 1 SD, 85% chance of being within 2 SD's and 99.7% chance of being within 3 SD's). That is a fancy way of saying "longterm". And this N0, which varies according to rules and conditions is not as high as you would think. It is usually between 30,000 and 60,000 depending on exact conditions, NOT millions of trials as people often suggest.

Now, While I am not a math guy, nor a VP expert (my machine play is most elementary), I am sure there is something similar for VP and I am equally as sure that just like blackjack, the N0 would be much lower than you would think. Yes, I am well aware VP is higher variance than blackjack because of higher longshot type payouts, but I still think the N0 will be fairly low. I suspect a handful of royal cycles would cover it.

[mickeycrimm]

mickey's the epitome of a broke loner who needs to make up pathetic stories in order to cope with his wasted life.

So mickey....since you are so sure that my strategy is a guaranteed loser, why are you not absolutely JUMPING onto my challenge? After all, with that "6-figure income" rolling in every year and with the hobo-existence you lead, you've GOTTA have quite the stash. And, as an added bonus, I'll play the ten sessions as being nos. 351 thru 360--a simple continuation to what I've already done. That way, instead of identifying them as being nos. 1-10 and looking at them as "Singer can get lucky in the short term and definitely win at least 8 out of 10", I'll be far enough into your "long term" where you feel comfortable enuf that I'll lose!

Sound fair? Got that tingle going up your leg yet? Growing any balls over it?

I never said you can win 8 out of 10. I offered you a 10K challenge a couple of years ago that I could produce a $500 win any day of the week if I get to pick the casino(s) and machines I play. You avoided even answering. You must be chickenshit. I made the first challenge. You ran and hid in your basement.

Now, I have reasons I won't accept your phony challenge. I've seen the movie to many times over the years. I've seen how you operate. Your challenge is phony because if anyone bites you are going to go into your terms and stipulations routine and sooner or later you will come up with a stipulation that will make it impossible for anyone to take the bet. So its a waste of time anyway. Other reasons? I don't need the money. I don't need the disruption in my life. And I couldn't even stand 4 minutes in your presence, much less, 40 hours. Fuck that shit.

[Alan Mendelson]

I have a question about figuring the long term. In each video poker hand you start with five cards and draw from 47 or 48. In Blackjack you start with two cards and frankly I don't know how many cards you draw from because the number of decks can vary.

My question is this: is the theoretical long term different for each game based on the different number of cards in play for each hand?

Also, is the long term for single deck blackjack different from the long term for six deck blackjack?

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickey didn't you require that your challenge had to be played in Montana? Isn't that enough of a reason to ignore it? LOL

[mickeycrimm]

Drunk? Can't find the right keys?

I'm in my 18th month of sobriety. Thanks for your concern. Everybody says its hard to quit drinking. Its the easiest thing I've ever done in my life.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey didn't you require that your challenge had to be played in Montana? Isn't that enough of a reason to ignore it? LOL

Rob's challenge will be played in Nevada. Isn't that enough of a reason to ignore it? You guys seem to think Vegas is the center of the universe. It's not. And where do you guys get off on thinking I must come to you? Fuck that shit. You come to me.

PS: Rob drove though Montana not long after I made the challenge. Remember him posting about hitting a deer?

[mickeycrimm]

I have a question about figuring the long term. In each video poker hand you start with five cards and draw from 47 or 48. In Blackjack you start with two cards and frankly I don't know how many cards you draw from because the number of decks can vary.

My question is this: is the theoretical long term different for each game based on the different number of cards in play for each hand?

Also, is the long term for single deck blackjack different from the long term for six deck blackjack?

I think the long term is defined by how big an edge you have combined with the variance. If a natural 21 payed 4 to 1 the long term results, as far as winning or losing is concerned, could be defined as one day. That is, if you are doing 60 hands per hour.