Question for APs

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

[MisterV]

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.

[Bill Yung]

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.

[kewlJ]

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.

[redietz]

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.

[tableplay]

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


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.

[redietz]

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


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.

Thanks, tableplay, for posting this.

I wanted to add that if you read any of the tribal magazines, you will get a feel for how independent they can be. If someone, for example, who worked in a tribal casino was aware of shenanigans and wanted to make it public, the tribal counsel could get together and come to the agreement that he should not report it. He would, by tribal law, have to abide by their decision.


Bottom line, and think about this as Native Americans are one step ahead of The Prez: There is no First Amendment on tribal land.

[Dan Druff]

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


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.

It's amazing that California allowed this.

They should have required an outside state-level regulator of these casinos in order for them to operate in the state.

This "sovereign nation" crap shouldn't apply when these casinos are aimed at gamblers outside of the reservation.

[Alan Mendelson]

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?

[MisterV]

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

[Bill Yung]

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.

[AxelWolf]

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.

[monet]

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/

[Mission146]

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/

What difference does the terminology make? I’m using a term that has come to have a generally accepted meaning in gambling circles in a writing piece. I could say, “Scambler,” but then nobody would have any idea what I was talking about.

As to your other points:

1.) I don’t know where I called AP a, “Trade.” It’s not pipe-fitting. It’s not being an electrician. They don’t have any AP Trade schools with recognized certificate that are a barrier to job entry and certified instructors that I’m aware of.

2.) I’m not saying I’ve never taken a slot ticket in my life. I’m saying that I don’t go around doing it and I’m not going to go around cashing out credits when I know who they belong to, especially not in a jurisdiction in which it is, in fact, illegal.

The thing that I wonder about you is why it’s so difficult to think that another person might have compunctions that you don’t have. I must have missed the part where I claimed to be a saint, but I will admit there are presently things that I won’t do. Were I in a desperate situation, that might change.

3.) In the article, I said that there’s crossover between credit hustlers and vultures. I even went as far as to say I was referring to credit hustlers who do that pretty exclusively.

4.) I don’t need to be able to, “Live with what I do,” because I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what I do. Creators encourage people to gamble badly so they can financially benefit. I don’t attempt to steer anyone in the casino to gamble one way or another.

Again, it’s fine if you don’t think there is a difference between a creator and a vulture. That doesn’t mean that nobody else is allowed to believe there is a difference.

[pepe]

I still find machines with over 100 dollars of credits on them many times and I cash them out.

This is a bad idea. Not because of any moralfag nonsense, but someone will come looking for it, and with all the cameras in the casino, you WILL get busted, and this isn't just an 86ing offense, this is a GO TO JAIL offense.

[redietz]

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.

[MisterV]

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.

[redietz]

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.

"Different goals require different roles."

Old Wise Jungle Saying

[The Boz]

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.

Only thing you have in common with Alan is you’re both Rec players. Somehow I doubt you are broke, screwed your kids over and play until you have nothing left until the next check comes in.

And Alan would never admit what you did above.

[Bill Yung]

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.

Only thing you have in common with Alan is you’re both Rec players. Somehow I doubt you are broke, screwed your kids over and play until you have nothing left until the next check comes in.

And Alan would never admit what you did above.

The reason that casinos have many different types and degrees of casino games. All those types of players each reinforce their "chosen" narrative in contrast to the others.

The casinos want gamblers to argue, wherever. Oh, it's recreation; oh, it's a quick road to riches; oh, the food and rooms are nice; oh, it's a good way to vacation and see the country; oh, I entertain out-of-town people from work there; oh, make a little money, everyday, and shout it from the mountaintop.

The problem with MrV's argument is that he contrasts the AP's to the "recreational" players. But he doesn't have to gamble at all. No one has to. If I had to gamble, only then would I be a so-called AP, or recreational gambler, or whatever.

As long as you walk around in a casino, they "own" you. It's a zero-sum, closed system. No player is any better than another. Just replace the word player with sucker.