Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 304

Thread: Question for APs

  1. #1
    A question for the APs: at what point do you concede that you don't have the advantage that you thought you had?

    Do you make that concession after losing a fixed amount, or a percentage of your bankroll, or after a certain number of losing sessions?

    When do you concede that you were wrong?

    Before any of you jump all over me for being anti AP or whatever, let me remind you of one of the greatest about faces in the AP world: Wong on Craps and DI.

    He went from advocate of DI and even writing a book with lessons and tips about DI to saying DI was a wish in a matter of weeks.
    Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 11-01-2018 at 07:18 AM.

  2. #2
    Wong seems to have been victimized by the then-rampant dice setting hysteria, whereas an AP approaches things in a much more measured, well-thought out, math-influenced manner, essentially free of emotion (in theory).

    For that reason an AP may never concede he's wrong.

    KJ experienced very negative short term variance and he does not seem to doubt the underlying gambling theories which constitute his AP program; I guess an AP simply accepts and endures losses in the short term, confident that things will right themselves in the long run.
    What, Me Worry?

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    A question for the APs: at what point do you concede that you don't have the advantage that you thought you had?

    Do you make that concession after losing a fixed amount, or a percentage of your bankroll, or after a certain number of losing sessions?

    When do you concede that you were wrong?

    It's not about opinions. It's about math. There is, however, a way around the math (for the casino).


    I straddle a line between most APs here and Mr. Argentino when it comes to possible rigging. I do not concede that everything is on the up and up. A couple of temporarily rigged machines during a heavy-play big-player promo could, if you are unlucky enough to find them, do serious damage to an AP plan. And Native American casinos are really beholden to no one. They can do whatever they want. I posted on here a couple of years ago about the odd sticky buttons on vp machines at both Pechanga and Cherokee in North Carolina. I say "odd" because both of those casinos are very similar in that they are ultra clean with new machines. They look super spiffy. They are not the El Cortez, as I like to say. Yet they both have sticky video poker buttons. Evidently, I was not the only person to notice -- check out Jean Scott's blog from a few weeks back. She's usually super positive about everything video-poker related, but you can tell something about Cherokee really bothered her. Mr. Argentino would not be surprised. Monet would not be surprised. Neither am I.

    So the math may not hold up if you are dealing with those scenarios. In addition, if you are relying on drawings as a component of what you are doing, I can state matter of factly that drawings have been rigged in the past and been discovered. They have also been rigged and not discovered (obviously).

    But outside of rigging, it's not about opinions. It's about proper bankroll and the math.

    Mr. Mendelson, the identical questions could be directed at casinos themselves. They would not be concerned, unless they were being cheated somehow. So why should an AP be concerned, unless he/she is being cheated?

    Some APs, such as the world's biggest gambler in mickey's post, have bankrolls that exceed certain casinos. It's not about math magically changing because one entity is a "casino" and another is not.
    Last edited by redietz; 11-01-2018 at 07:50 AM.

  4. #4
    Wong wrote a book on DI complete with instruction on how to control dice. I doubt he got caught up on hysteria. He had plenty of time to observe and jump on the bandwagon. But what made him jump off it?

  5. #5
    I remember the first time this term started being used.
    I never considered myself an advantage player.
    APs or myself are Scamblers.
    APs will tell you they are only playing legal advantages and they have the right to do so and that it is an honest trade.
    It is a farce. The Casino is doing everything it can to get an edge in every way.
    Advantage Players are doing the same thing. Gaining an edge anyway possible and I mean anyway possible.
    I know I do it all the time.
    I still find machines with over 100 dollars of credits on them many times and I cash them out.
    I also cash out the 74 cent ones as well.

    Read this article and laugh about how they think Credit Hustlers are different compared to Vultures.
    They are not. Same thing with a different method.
    They also think that a Creator is different from a Vulture.
    No difference in reality but they have to tell themselves this so they can live with what they do and feel they are right and someone else is wrong.

    This reminds me of The Professional.
    No Women. No Children.
    These are the only rules.
    However, when you are a Hit Man, can you really justify rules?

    https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/t...ures-are-dead/
    Last edited by monet; 11-01-2018 at 07:57 AM.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Wong wrote a book on DI complete with instruction on how to control dice. I doubt he got caught up on hysteria. He had plenty of time to observe and jump on the bandwagon. But what made him jump off it?
    see: http://www.richardmunchkin.com/2011/...ntrol-not.html
    What, Me Worry?

  7. #7
    Question for Mr. Mendelson: How the hell do you gamble?

    I just do not understand your horror at losing particular amounts in particular time frames. You must bet way too much per session for your bankroll to result in you having these emotional reactions as part of your gambling DNA.


    On some monster high-volume wagering day for me, which occurs maybe once every two years, I might put 15% of total bankroll in play, not counting middle shots. So there's no ongoing tightrope-walking terror for me. I don't understand how or why you operate with such nervous Nellie concerns.

    Honestly, those kinds of emotional ties to day-to-day wagering are indicators of an unhealthy ratio of session exposure to overall bankroll.

  8. #8
    I can feel alan's pain.

    We recreational gamblers pretty much all lose in the long run, and in the short run as well.

    When we read tales of success penned by AP's who play the same casino games we do it is an instinctive reaction to think "Bullshit."

    We think we're pretty smart guys, yet we lose: so our brain wants to dismiss APs' claims as "they're not smarter than we are."

    Ah, but it is not intelligence at work so much as discipline, theory, and math.

    That's how I see it, anyway.
    What, Me Worry?

  9. #9
    The answer is math, Alan. AP's don't have and play with an advantage because we say so. We play in a manner that the mathematics involved give us a long-term advantage. In my case, I am not a "math guy" so the math that I rely on is not my own. It has been figured out by people much smarter than I and now a days backed up and confirmed by computer simulations. I rely heavily on computer simulations.

    So it is not a hope and prayer. We know what to expect going in. If the long-term results do not measure up to expectation (or the math), then a player needs to examine why. Likely holes in their game, chasing losses, in the case of card counting raising bets before you are at the advantage to do so. Perhaps you are not playing to the advantage that you believed. Or even possible but less likely cheating.

    Really, it all comes down to those two words I highlighted, long-term. It's all about longterm. In the short-term anything can and will happen, but in the longterm the math wins out. AP's always play and think longterm. You, Rob and others seem to only consider short-term.

    One other thing about the mathematics involved. It not only gives us a complete picture of expectation in terms of long-term advantage and wins, but it completely lays out the expectations as far as those short-term fluctuation (losses). This is standard deviation, which provides a range for short-term results that are completely normal. This is important, because it prepares the player for what to expect. So when we experience some short-term result like I did last week, we know that it is not some outrageously 'odd' occurrence. It falls within the mathematics.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    For that reason an AP may never concede he's wrong.
    KJ still can't explain even how a chart of a poker player's long-term variance is any different from a blackjack player's, as he just claimed w/o any evidence or explanation.

    The first of many things I was about to question him from only a couple of his recent posts here. That nutty assumption from nowhere about at least one poker player losing in a hand.

    Ha. As Moses would have wrote, KJ ducks at all the wrong times.
    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)].

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Wong wrote a book on DI complete with instruction on how to control dice. I doubt he got caught up on hysteria. He had plenty of time to observe and jump on the bandwagon. But what made him jump off it?
    see: http://www.richardmunchkin.com/2011/...ntrol-not.html
    I think that it has more to do with the table's structure defeating either of the rotation, or the non-rotation, of the dice.
    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)].

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Wong wrote a book on DI complete with instruction on how to control dice. I doubt he got caught up on hysteria. He had plenty of time to observe and jump on the bandwagon. But what made him jump off it?
    The slow motion videos.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    For that reason an AP may never concede he's wrong.
    KJ still can't explain even how a chart of a poker player's long-term variance is any different from a blackjack player's, as he just claimed w/o any evidence or explanation.

    The first of many things I was about to question him from only a couple of his recent posts here. That nutty assumption from nowhere about at least one poker player losing in a hand.

    Ha. As Moses would have wrote, KJ ducks at all the wrong times.
    I don't play poker. I don't know much about poker. So I am not going to comment on the mathematics involved that I am not familiar with. I leave that to some of the rest of you to express your opinion (in no uncertain terms) concerning subjects you have absolutely no clue about.

  14. #14
    The math, itself, is the same. No deflections, please.
    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)].

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    And Native American casinos are really beholden to no one.
    This is even stated explicitly in California gambling regulations:
    http://www.cgcc.ca.gov/?pageID=complaints
    Name:  proof_regulation_rng_CA_indian.jpg
Views: 1437
Size:  27.2 KB

    Based on massive UX vulture play (thousands of screens) at both Nevada (state-regulated) and California Indian casinos ("self-regulated" - lmao), I would not argue with someone who takes the position that you're on your own at Indian casinos.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    The math, itself, is the same. No deflections, please.
    WTF! You aren't going to "bully" me into commenting on a subject, I don't know about.

  17. #17
    I wasn't asking APs to defend themselves. I asked a specific question: at what point do you concede that you don't have the advantage that you thought you had?

    AxelWolf mentioned that Wong saw slow motion videos. I think that's a logical answer. I knew I wasn't a DI when I continued to lose and I saw my dice throws did not exhibit what a controlled or influenced roll should exhibit.

    It's not an emotional decision. It's a decision based on fact. So what is the fact?

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    The math, itself, is the same. No deflections, please.
    WTF! You aren't going to "bully" me into commenting on a subject, I don't know about.
    You have no trouble running your mouth when no one calls you on it.

    The problem with even the gambling math forums is that no one really knows what he is talking about. The others are afraid of saying something against someone. People get called bullies for simply pointing out the obvious baloney.

    You are a flake.
    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)].

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I wasn't asking APs to defend themselves. I asked a specific question: at what point do you concede that you don't have the advantage that you thought you had?
    At which point do people give up on the casinos? How far down the chute or up the maze?
    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)].

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I wasn't asking APs to defend themselves. I asked a specific question: at what point do you concede that you don't have the advantage that you thought you had?

    AxelWolf mentioned that Wong saw slow motion videos. I think that's a logical answer. I knew I wasn't a DI when I continued to lose and I saw my dice throws did not exhibit what a controlled or influenced roll should exhibit.

    It's not an emotional decision. It's a decision based on fact. So what is the fact?
    On what page number in this thread will Numbnuts Alan say one of the following?—

    A. Stop trolling me
    B. Leave me alone
    C. I should have closed this place down instead of giving it to Dan

    This guy (?) cries so much, yet continually starts threads asking ?’s to the people he cries about....what a walking clusterfuck

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •