Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 136

Thread: The Fruits Of -EV Video Poker

  1. #41
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    RS, jbjb, kewlJ, if you get a chance, read my post #30 and let me know what you think.
    I read it -- and it's perfect. Although, that's not going to change their minds


    It's kinda funny, they seem to think you need millions and millions of hands or years upon years of play to get to the "long run", even though neither have a clue on how to calculate the # of hands. Anyone who at least understands the basics of statistics can figure out you don't need such a massive sample size.
    #FreeTyde

  2. #42
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Redietz I didn't bother to read your post.

    RS thanks for asking about margin of error. I need not say another word except this:

    NEVER has any AP mentioned a margin of error with their math claims. And thats something I just realized when I was preparing a report for a client's Infomercial campaign.
    I've said several times when I'm calculating the value on a play, oftentimes I'll subtract a bit from the return because I expect to make some errors. If I play 9/6 JOB, I'm not going to calculate the value based on playing perfectly and having a 99.54% return, because I know I make errors. Generally, I'd treat it as something more like a 99.2% game (when doing the math to determine if the play is worthwhile), because I know I'll give up some amount back due to errors and I err on the side of caution. When I calculate expected travel costs, I'm going to overestimate. And TBH, if the difference between a game being 99.5% versus 99.0% is going to be the difference between a winning play and a losing play, I'm not that interested in it.
    Good. I sometimes use a margin of error of 3.5-percent. For argument's sake use that same margin of error when discussing 99% vs 101% video poker. Suddenly the difference is no difference at all.

    So, why couldn't Rob have a profit? THE MATH says he could.

    I play maybe 80 hours of video poker a year. If I had a three percent error rate, I would go in for an Alzheimer's checkup. I'm not joking. I've had loved ones with Alzheimer's. A three percent error rate would be a tipoff.

  3. #43
    It's only a zero. Right Alan? You are such a jokester. Oh, that's right, you're not joking. Simply a MendelFool. Although, you should use 3.5% based on watching your FP videos.

    I'd like to focus back on the title of this thread." The Fruits of -EV Video Poker". Besides reminding me of a yard sale the pics are very fitting. Robbochio has proved that you wind up with decade old electronics and ancient technologies. Also, it seems best to have a revolver at the ready when the inevitable results of you bad choices rears its ugly head.

    Title should be edited to reflect reality The Rotten Fruits of -EV VP.

  4. #44
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Good. I sometimes use a margin of error of 3.5-percent. For argument's sake use that same margin of error when discussing 99% vs 101% video poker. Suddenly the difference is no difference at all.

    So, why couldn't Rob have a profit? THE MATH says he could.
    You're going to use a different margin of error for different scenarios. Just because you use 3.5% for whatever you're doing, doesn't mean you can use it for video poker. IF you used 3.5% for VP, then it'd make the games between 95.5%-99% and 97.5%-101%. Note that the return calculated on video poker is an exact maximum figure (if played optimally, of course). There is no way to get the return on the game higher than the theoretical optimal amount, because doing anything to make it higher would be optimal, but since the strategy is already optimal.....logical contradiction.

    An example would be: Usain Bolt is the fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world. If we say some other person X is faster than Usain Bolt, then that is a logical contradiction, because both cannot be true.


    The math doesn't say anything about how he could have had a profit, since we don't even know how the hell he plays. All we know is he starts at $1, then $2, $5, $10, $25, then maybe $100. When does he go up in denom or go down? Sometimes he makes special plays and sometimes he doesn't -- but he's yet to describe how he chooses to make a special play (or not to make a special play). Don't you think someone who goes to the casinos and uses this strategy would be able to say concretely when he does or doesn't make special plays? It's not like he's going in there with a big ass binder of papers and has to look up each time a special play may be used. If he can do it in his head while playing, surely he can write it out, right?
    #FreeTyde

  5. #45
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    But it does. My claims are all backed up by mathematics. Everything I say is mathematically possible. You can choose not to believe. But I am not claiming something mathematically impossible.
    How do you manage to play 100,000 hands of blackjack a year by showing your spread once at each casino visit?
    First of all, this (2018) is the first year I have played 100,000 rounds in a number of years. I used to play upwards of 100,000 earlier in my career, but the last 5-7 years it has been more like 80,000 rounds and a couple years where I missed some time even less. But lets go with the 100,000 number.

    100,00 rounds a year, is 274 rounds a day. When playing a 6 decks game at very average penetration of 75%, there will be 234 cards dealt before the cut card comes out. With 2 players and the dealer that is approximately 29 rounds per shoe. So let's say the first shoe the count doesn't go all that much negative or positive, which happens most shoes. A max bet situation occurs less that 1 in 2 shoes (actually more like 1 in 3).

    So I play 2 shoes that is 58 rounds. During the second shoe the count grows to a max bet situation. I still finish out that shoe. I leave at the shuffle after showing max bet. So that is 58 rounds that session. I do that 5 times during the day and I am over 273 daily average needed to get to 100,000 for the year.
    Fine, you parsed out 100,000 hands. Including, what, 10% of which are ties? To leave you with 90,000 decisions.

    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Now some sessions will be shorter. Maybe max bet opportunity comes out first shoe. Or maybe one of my other triggers comes out. BUT some sessions will also be longer. When I get a heads up opportunity, I can blow through 150 rounds in 30 minutes.

    So, the answer to your question: It isn't that hard. Just takes a little effort. Because that's what this is for me. Work.
    Right, so, you are back to the story of being one of one or two players at the table, playing like a card-counting accomplished blackjack fiend, but now every single day of the year.

    How does a such a purple chipper not become instantly noticed, going from $25(?) to $300 to $800? Even someone like that fresh off the street would be instantly noticed and remembered by any casino. The very first time.

    Isn't it another red flag that you choose to play heads-up? Regular folk avoid that not to lose all of their money in a half hour, and to have a good time in the company of the others.

    How can you make any money by showing your spread only once if you wait so long to do so, ie, not in the usual increments up and down along with the count? You leave behind the remainder of a shoe's good count by not lowering your bet accordingly, and miss out on its initial good count. Furthermore, isn't it a little extreme to make the jump to the max bet, in terms of it being so obvious? Why wouldn't anyone at any of the casinos match your betting with the count, the first times around?

    Remember as well, that, apparently, you don't optimize your count. You miss out on a lot of the action from the juicier splits and doubles. So, you require everything else you can get to sustain that 1/2 percent edge, which seems now to be a very liberal estimate.

    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    But the bigger point here is you are trying to play your "gottch ya" game with all these questions. I know it. You know it. Everyone else knows it. But I have answers for all your stupid "gottch ya" questions, because I have mathematics on my side. What I do is proven by mathematics. It isn't anything I came up with. It is proven math. So just stop embarrassing yourself.
    You sound so paranoid too.

    Again, never buying in, or coloring up and cashing out, has to be another red flag.
    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)].

  6. #46
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    It's only a zero. Right Alan? You are such a jokester. Oh, that's right, you're not joking. Simply a MendelFool. Although, you should use 3.5% based on watching your FP videos.

    I'd like to focus back on the title of this thread." The Fruits of -EV Video Poker". Besides reminding me of a yard sale the pics are very fitting. Robbochio has proved that you wind up with decade old electronics and ancient technologies. Also, it seems best to have a revolver at the ready when the inevitable results of you bad choices rears its ugly head.

    Title should be edited to reflect reality The Rotten Fruits of -EV VP.
    Now what's your margin of error?

  7. #47
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Good. I sometimes use a margin of error of 3.5-percent. For argument's sake use that same margin of error when discussing 99% vs 101% video poker. Suddenly the difference is no difference at all.

    So, why couldn't Rob have a profit? THE MATH says he could.
    You're going to use a different margin of error for different scenarios. Just because you use 3.5% for whatever you're doing, doesn't mean you can use it for video poker. IF you used 3.5% for VP, then it'd make the games between 95.5%-99% and 97.5%-101%. Note that the return calculated on video poker is an exact maximum figure (if played optimally, of course). There is no way to get the return on the game higher than the theoretical optimal amount, because doing anything to make it higher would be optimal, but since the strategy is already optimal.....logical contradiction.

    An example would be: Usain Bolt is the fastest 100 meter sprinter in the world. If we say some other person X is faster than Usain Bolt, then that is a logical contradiction, because both cannot be true.


    The math doesn't say anything about how he could have had a profit, since we don't even know how the hell he plays. All we know is he starts at $1, then $2, $5, $10, $25, then maybe $100. When does he go up in denom or go down? Sometimes he makes special plays and sometimes he doesn't -- but he's yet to describe how he chooses to make a special play (or not to make a special play). Don't you think someone who goes to the casinos and uses this strategy would be able to say concretely when he does or doesn't make special plays? It's not like he's going in there with a big ass binder of papers and has to look up each time a special play may be used. If he can do it in his head while playing, surely he can write it out, right?
    Let me be clear. I don't know if Rob has a profit or not. He never showed his tax returns and he's even admitted to using some shenanigans to not pay any taxes.

    My point is simply this: he COULD be a winner playing 99% games and playing 99% doesn't automatically make him a loser.

    Any reasonable person would agree with that. But you self described APs just aren't reasonable. You live by your mantra even though your mantra is full of holes.

    What's your margin of error?

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    It's only a zero. Right Alan? You are such a jokester. Oh, that's right, you're not joking. Simply a MendelFool. Although, you should use 3.5% based on watching your FP videos.

    I'd like to focus back on the title of this thread." The Fruits of -EV Video Poker". Besides reminding me of a yard sale the pics are very fitting. Robbochio has proved that you wind up with decade old electronics and ancient technologies. Also, it seems best to have a revolver at the ready when the inevitable results of you bad choices rears its ugly head.

    Title should be edited to reflect reality The Rotten Fruits of -EV VP.
    Now what's your margin of error?
    Depends on the game. One you can relate to, Bonus Poker, somewhere around -.25%.

  9. #49
    MaxPen add .25 to 99.17 and you get 99.42 which is awfully close to 100-Percent. You see why you can't say Rob MUST lose?

    Now subtract .25 from a 100.17 game.

  10. #50
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    MaxPen add .25 to 99.17 and you get 99.42 which is awfully close to 100-Percent. You see why you can't say Rob MUST lose?

    Now subtract .25 from a 100.17 game.
    I specifically wrote -.25% and not +/-.25%. No way to get to 99.42%. Even with "special plays". Special Ed might think it is possible though.

  11. #51
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    MaxPen add .25 to 99.17 and you get 99.42 which is awfully close to 100-Percent. You see why you can't say Rob MUST lose?

    Now subtract .25 from a 100.17 game.
    I specifically wrote -.25% and not +/-.25%.
    That's your problem. Since when don't margin of error go both ways?

  12. #52
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    MaxPen add .25 to 99.17 and you get 99.42 which is awfully close to 100-Percent. You see why you can't say Rob MUST lose?

    Now subtract .25 from a 100.17 game.
    I specifically wrote -.25% and not +/-.25%.
    That's your problem. Since when don't margin of error go both ways?
    When you are not estimating return and it is known.

    There really is no hope in helping you understand anything. It is also easy to understand how you have destroyed your life in a casino and continue to do so.

  13. #53
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    MaxPen add .25 to 99.17 and you get 99.42 which is awfully close to 100-Percent. You see why you can't say Rob MUST lose?

    Now subtract .25 from a 100.17 game.
    I specifically wrote -.25% and not +/-.25%.
    That's your problem. Since when don't margin of error go both ways?
    Yowza. And to use another Happy Days line, Mr. Mendelson jumped the shark a long time ago. He's just funning with people. I hope.

  14. #54
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    There really is no hope in helping you understand anything. It is also easy to understand how you have destroyed your life in a casino and continue to do so.
    Do you understand how gambling is destroying also your life? After all, you are on an anonymous internet gambling forum telling others the same thing. How weird is that? I mean, it's not exactly your job description or training.
    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. #55
    A margin of error goes both ways. Deal with it.

  16. #56
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Redietz I didn't bother to read your post.

    RS thanks for asking about margin of error. I need not say another word except this:

    NEVER has any AP mentioned a margin of error with their math claims. And thats something I just realized when I was preparing a report for a client's Infomercial campaign.
    AP's talk about standard deviation all the time.
    "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

  17. #57
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    There really is no hope in helping you understand anything. It is also easy to understand how you have destroyed your life in a casino and continue to do so.
    Do you understand how gambling is destroying also your life?
    Now that’s some funny shit right there.
    #FreeTyde

  18. #58
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Redietz I didn't bother to read your post.
    You lie like a rug.
    "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

  19. #59
    I don't read most of those, either, especially not the longer ones. The strangest stuff.
    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. #60
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    There really is no hope in helping you understand anything. It is also easy to understand how you have destroyed your life in a casino and continue to do so.
    Do you understand how gambling is destroying also your life?
    Now that’s some funny shit right there.
    I'm not surprised. All these simple-minded talks about deception and "ploppies". Some real shits and giggles. Like you guys have really figured something out.
    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)].

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Big video poker mistake
    By lucky in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 07-08-2016, 07:28 AM
  2. How much can you win playing video poker?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 01-24-2016, 01:34 AM
  3. Video Poker: What are you playing for?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-30-2014, 04:11 PM
  4. Video Poker: RIP
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-11-2013, 04:44 PM
  5. Video poker machines in a casino poker room.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2011, 05:55 AM

Posting Permissions

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